• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sikh & India (Alleged) Shenanigans in Canada (split fm Non-Muslim terr thread)

So, if India knew that they were criminals then why did they let them leave the country?

Generally, unless the "criminals" were under travel restrictions by the Indian government or the subject of active arrest warrants, they would be free to leave and re-enter India.

How they were able to enter Canada if they were, in fact, "criminals" is a better question to ask.
 
Generally, unless the "criminals" were under travel restrictions by the Indian government or the subject of active arrest warrants, they would be free to leave and re-enter India.

How they were able to enter Canada if they were, in fact, "criminals" is a better question to ask.
A quick way to deal with criminals is to let them emigrate and now they are someone else’s problem.

Vince Li. China

Now these three.
 
Generally, unless the "criminals" were under travel restrictions by the Indian government or the subject of active arrest warrants, they would be free to leave and re-enter India.

How they were able to enter Canada if they were, in fact, "criminals" is a better question to ask.
Disappointing. I missed out on a Grande Mothers show because Napoleon Murphy Brock couldn't cross the border due to an old drug-related thing.
 
I worry less about India's meddling than China. india does not want Canada as a vassal state, but China sure does. India just wants us to control the nutbars on our soil more.
Same here - but we (Canada) should do the utmost to prevent this crap. Is that not why we have diplomats?

"Mr Ambassador our nation is troubled by some of the cranks you've let emigrate here. How can we work together to solve this?"

"I know a guy, who knows a guy or two...."
 
How they were able to enter Canada if they were, in fact, "criminals" is a better question to ask.
I think this is key. Calling somebody a "criminal" and actually being one are two different things, and sometimes the scope of "criminal" is a tad elastic.

This is a country that, every time they have a train wreck, the first thing they do is arrest the crew.
 
What is the difference between Free Khalistan and Free Palestine?

Or for that matter Free Scotland?

Free Quebec?
 
Scots don’t invade England and murder English people, not in this century nor the last.
The FLQ - they tried and failed miserably,

You want to try Erin Go Bragh then?

Or how about Khomeini being granted refuge in France prior to overthrowing the Shah?

France[edit]​

On September 24, 1978, according to a meeting held in New York City between Iraqi and Iranian foreign minister,[38] Khomeini was forced by Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein to leave Najaf, although the Shah and Hussein had begun plans to expel Khomeini as early as 1975.[39] Khomeini preferred to go to another Muslim country, and obtained a visa for Kuwait,[40] but was turned back at the border because he had obtained the visa under the name “Ruhollah Mustafavi”.[41] Khomeini's next preference was to go to Syria – where some sources say he had intended to permanently reside even when he attempted to enter Kuwait[42] – but the lingering influence of Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr in Iraqi and Syrian politics meant that Syrian government would not accept him.[43] Khomeini then considered going to Bahrain, India, Pakistan or Algeria,[40] but his US-educated nationalist aide, Ebrahim Yazdi, argued that Khomeini should move to the West because of the greater communication opportunities offered there, with Paris offering the best option for communication with the world of his revolutionary message.[44]

On October 11, 1978, after Khomeini was moved to Neauphle-le-Château outside Paris, France. From the advantages this decision was to keep faraway clerics and Ulama.[45] Citiation in France such as some communication facilities and political atmosphere make more efficient relation with people in Iran. In France, because of journalists and the press, and support and approval of the UK and the US foreign policies and their lack of trust in Shah to support their long-term interest, Khomeini's speeches were published rapidly in global media.[28] Khomeini wanted to people that continued protests against the government.[46] Between August and December 1978, strikes and demonstrations paralyzed Iran, so that the Shah left the country for exile on 16 January 1979, as the last Persian monarch, leaving his duties to a regency council and an opposition-based prime minister, Shapour Bakhtiar.


Our freedoms of speech and association are exploitable.

They were designed to permit us to criticize our governments.

Not to create safe havens from which malcontents can disrupt other nations. That power of disruption exists solely as a governmental power.
 
I think this is key. Calling somebody a "criminal" and actually being one are two different things, and sometimes the scope of "criminal" is a tad elastic.
When assessing admissibility of a foreign national who was convicted of a "crime" in their home country, a comparison is made against our laws. A person seeking entry who was convicted of the crime of "homosexuality" in their home country of "Westovia" could be admissible as homosexuality is not a crime in Canada. Conversely, a convicted murderer from "Figuroia" would be inadmissible as murder is a crime here as well.
 
Back
Top