> The bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 civilians in 1985 was planned and executed from Canada (this is proven). Yet, the perpetrators walked free with practically no conviction or punishment that suits the crime.

The Air India trial was a travesty of a prosecution, but it was a fuck-up of royal proportions, not a top-down conspiracy theory from "Canada".

This is what people who don't live in a democracy don't understand. The trial embarrassed everyone in Canada, from the people involved, to the other Canadians who saw justice not being achieved. But "Canada" could not have guaranteed a conviction, nor could it have done anything to prevent one from happening.

> There was a recent event in Brampton where the Khalistanis put up a pageant reenacting their assassination of a previous Indian prime minister. Despite protests from India, it was downplayed as under 'right to free speech'

Again, sorry to disappoint people who don't live in a country with free expression, but that is exactly what that is.

> simply neglecting the fact that challenging the sovereignty of another nation is considered as a terrorist act and not as free speech in the modern world

I think we would have to first agree on what is the definition of "challenging the sovereignty of another nation", then whether allowing people to demonstrate for it is the same as challenging, then whether internal border/disputes qualify. And even if we agreed the most extreme version of each of these questions (which we wouldn't), I still would like to see a source for this claim. I don't think it's true?

> At the minimum, it's a challenge to human dignity.

Agreed. And again, permissible under free speech. You don't have to like it. You are free to counter-protest. You are free to react even stronger (Freedom of Speech vs Freedom From Consequences). But this is not something for the GOVERNMENT to get involved in.

> Canada has proven time and again that it has scant regards for sovereignty of India or even basic human dignity when it concerns Khalistanis.

> That applies only if Canada follows the minimum standard of justice. Do you honestly believe that Canada was going to arrest or prosecute an alleged cinema bomber when it tolerates all the activities I mentioned above?

Yes. If the case was solid. Or if India had a trial for him and convicted him. Which they didn't. According to https://globalnews.ca/news/9784316/hardeep-singh-nijjar-deat...

> A summary of the case said Nijjar’s name had surfaced following the 2007 bombing of the Shingar Cinema in Punjab.

> Suspects arrested for the blast confessed they were “acting under the instruction of Hardeep Singh Nijjar,” according to the summary.

> Pannun, a Canadian lawyer and activist, said Nijjar was accused of conspiracy in the cinema bombing but all the other suspects were acquitted.

> I'm against these sorts of extra-judicial killings. But let's not pretend that Canada is a saint of sorts in this case. Their argument about sovereignty is just plain hypocritical. All this could have been avoided if they had reigned in an activity that's considered evil anywhere in the world.

George W. Bush: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Even the most powerful military on the planet couldn't hold to this line else they would've invaded Saudi Arabia, or then invaded Canada for not helping them invade Iraq.

You cannot lobby accusations of terrorism at someone, offer weak evidence, carry out no judicial examination, then violate another country's territory to kill one of their citizens on their soil. For you to even begin to try to consider these analogous is ludicrous.

And let's be clear. It only even happened because India does not consider Canada strong. If he was in the US, India would've never had the gall.