Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37595906

Comments moved thither. Thanks!

This has some historical backdrop around anti-India terrorists/freedom fighters operating in Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182#Backgroun...

>Air India Flight 182 was an Air India flight operating on the Montreal–London–Delhi–Bombay route. On 23 June 1985, it was operated using Boeing 747-237B registered VT-EFO. The aircraft suffered a catastrophic decompression mid-air en route from Montreal to London, at an altitude of 31,000 feet (9,400 m) over the Atlantic Ocean as a result of an explosion from a bomb planted by terrorists.[1][2] The remnants of the aircraft fell into the sea approximately 190 kilometres (120 miles) off the coast of Ireland, killing all 329 people aboard, including 268 Canadian citizens, 27 British citizens, and 24 Indian citizens.[3] The bombing of Air India Flight 182 is the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history, the deadliest aviation incident in the history of Air India, and was the world's deadliest act of aviation terrorism until the September 11 attacks in 2001

There might be a link between the groups responsible in a 1985 terrorist attack, and 38y later someone related to the movement being (allegedly) assassinated by the Indian government on Canadian soil.

But regardless of the allegations against the assassination victim, India would have no right to kill someone on Canadian soil, no matter the justifications it might have.

Extraterritorial killings are not justifiable, and definitely not by events that occurred 38y ago.

Hopefully this is all false and India wasn't involved in the murder of this person. But if true, it's inexcusable and paints India in a very bad light in term of international reputation.

"The death of Ayman al-Zawahiri is a step toward a safer world. Canada will keep working with our global partners to counter terrorist threats, promote peace and security, and keep people here at home and around the world safe" -Justin Trudeau

So extraterrestrial killing are fine when certain countries do it?

Whataboutism.

Define Whataboutism?

It is my father having a love child with the neighbour's wife while I get a ass whopping for sleeping with the maid.

All jokes aside; I believe the western world set a dangerous precedent with the war on terror and the chickens are coming home to roost. Am fearful of what is to come in the future.

Russia's war on Ukraine may end up emboldening nations to act as they please with regards to dissidents wherever they might be and this is a scary world that we moving into.

Distraction from the relevant point by bringing up cases where the accusee might be construed as having performed the same act as the accused. It's a distraction because it detracts from whether the accused did or didn't do the act. And the matter here is whether India did it; distractions away from this question are either implying that they did it ("so what if I did, you did too"), or an attempt to throw off and confuse the conversations about it.

It is important here because it takes away the moral high ground. It is also important because those who did it previously have not faced any repercussions, so why would anybody hesitate to do this.

I think people who use the word whataboutism do not understand the more difficult concept of hypocrisy. It's more difficult because it requires contextual reasoning.

"Whataboutism" is easy because it's purely syntactic, every time someone says "What about ...", you are allowed to accuse them of it--instead of having to confront, in good faith, an implied accusation of hypocrisy.

It's like Orwellian newspeak, but the new word is less expressive and more likely to confuse the disagreement.

I think people who engage in whataboutism and defend it with cries of "hypocrisy" do not understand the even more difficult concept that, even if someone else is a hypocrite, it doesn't make you any less wrong.

Indeed, whataboutism itself is easy because it's purely distractional: "b-b-b-but Y is a hypocrite!" a defender of X may shout, when the topic is not Y, or their hypocrisy, but X.

If your argument is that it was okay for Y to do the thing, then you should be able to say outright "I think it was okay for Y to do the thing", and convincingly explain why, on a moral foundation, the behavior was okay, without bringing anyone else into it.

It's like a child whining "but Stevie got a candy bar!" – maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't mean it's okay for you to take one, even if you think that makes someone a hypocrite

Teaching the masses this word is really an amazing victory by American propagandists.

It can be used to instantly shut down any discussion and win any argument (if only in the eyes of the person using it).

it can only be used to shut down whataboutism

if literally all your arguments and all your discussions depend on your use of whataboutism, the problem and solution lie within yourself: conceive of affirmative arguments supporting your position which aren't logical fallacies, like whataboutism is

Consequentism. What goes around comes around yada yada

Explain this in more details. The outline I gather of your position is that "the US killed Ben Laden on Pakistani territory so India killed someone on Canadian territory, Canada had it coming for what they did to Ben Laden". Fill in the details.

> Fill in the details.

If you harbour terrorists who are wanted by your ostensible partners, don't be surprised if they lose patience and decide to take matters into their own hands.

Does that help?

what makes you think that's okay?

even children are taught that 2 wrongs don't make a right

I'm not saying you were raised wrong though

I don't care how you were raised but killing terrorists is 100% OK.

I don't care how you were raised, but two wrongs don't make a right, and unilateral, extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassinations of political opponents are wrong, even if you shout "terrorist!" while murdering

imagine if such shouting made murder okay, like a secret, magical incantation any arbitrary thug could recite to immunize oneself from guilt - it's a ridiculous concept when you think about it!

> unilateral, extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassinations

Is an assination ever bilateral or judicial?

This is basically the trolley problem: Do you pull the lever and kill terrorist, or do you let him keep bombing movie theatres and organising hits?

I'd say this is different from the trolley problem, because, again, unilateral, extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassinations of political opponents are wrong, even if you shout "terrorist!" while murdering

they are always wrong

it doesn't matter if you also did a good thing, it doesn't even matter if the good thing was related: you aren't allowed to do the wrong thing, period, even if you really, really, really want to, even if you think you have a good reason to break the rules and do wrong

and as to your first question, eh, could be for some examples, but it'd be a distraction, as the answer doesn't matter, because the case we're discussing definitely wasn't either one

> extraterrestrial

I knew it, aliens did 9/11!

He was implicated in this murder in 2022 - https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/conspiracy-to-kill-...

And a Congress Party MLA was murdered 2 days ago and the person who called the hit was in Canada as well - https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/congress...

So I would expect that warrants would be issued, India and Canada would cooperate in the investigation and sentences would be handed by cooperating judicial systems. There's precedent for cross country justice being served. If this isn't working between Canada and India, it should be fixed. If Canada isn't cooperating where it ought, Canada should improve. I don't know anything about that. But was there an interpol warrant on this person?

> But was there an interpol warrant on this person?

Yes [0]

> would cooperate in the investigation and sentences would be handed by cooperating judicial systems

They don't really cooperate.

A lot of this is due to mutual red tape, and also because of jurisdictional issues (eg. is transnational crime under the CSIS, the RCMP, the Vancouver PD? Which court does it go to?) because Canada is very similar to India structurally (weird hyper-federalism mixed with federal powers attempting to further gain control).

Also the Indian equivalent of law enforcement isn't the greatest either due to federal-state conflicts along with like 6-8 different competing federal law enforcement agencies, plus a couple national security ones.

[0] - https://torontosun.com/news/national/what-we-know-about-slai...

I didn't know this, and these types of details would definitely modulate my (and probably other's) perception of India's justification. Example: if there was credible imminent threat, and uncooperative foreign government giving no alternative but the emergency use of clandestine force.

> modulate my (and probably other's) perception of India's justification

This whole controversy was unplanned.

There have been ongoing discussions between the Five Eyes and India about this hit and the whole Khalistan issue for months now, but Trudeau's hand was forced after the Globe and Mail (a newspaper that imo leans Conservative) gave him a 24 hour heads up that an article about this was about to be published.

Someone leaked, and now it's a cluster f.

However, a senior officer said, “Canada, which is a member of Interpol and talks about the rule of law, has disregarded Interpol red notices. As a rule, once a red notice is issued, a member country is bound to take the suspect(s) into custody”

Canada yet to act on Interpol notices against Khalistani gangsters - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne...

Because India has ridiculous history of making up charges against people whom they don’t like politically. Search “Umar Khalid”.

This changes everything and makes India’s actions seem reasonable. It’s akin to the US taking out an Al-Queda member in Yemen or Pakistan.

I'd disagree, and plenty of Indian commentators disagreed at the time as well [0].

Paying hitmen to kill violent idiots is a bad look. There are multiple other levers that could be pushed.

All of this only really started after Lawrence Bishnoi started his gang war in Punjab/Haryana/Delhi/Rajasthan.

There's a lot of shifting alliances and blood being spilled now that politics in the state of Punjab are in a flux after the AAP won and destroyed the entire status quo.

[0] - https://theprint.in/opinion/security-code/in-hardeep-singh-n...

Lawrence Bishnoi did claim responsibility for the 2nd killing. But what makes you so sure that the Indian government is contracting the hit squad? The big problem that Canada has is they have not even identified the killer. Even if Bishnoi makes big claims, how are they going to prove them? And then they will have to estabilish the link between GoI and Bishnoi. All that if at all their 'conspiracy theory' that India has a hand in killings holds any water. Which I honestly doubt.

> what makes you so sure that the Indian government is contracting the hit squad

It was reported that Pavan Kumar Rai posted a hit on Nijjar on some deepweb website used to hire assassins.

If someone can find that for me I'd appreciate it because I really don't want to go on a hunt for that citation.

> It was reported that Pavan Kumar Rai posted a hit on Nijjar on some deepweb website used to hire assassins.

If that is the case, I'd have hoped it would be viral by now. But anyhow, they would have to establish the link between the Pavan Kumar Rai's activities and the killer. The killer who they have not identified.

It's similar to when Biden said Russia's Nord stream gas pipelines will be no more if Russia invades Ukraine. When the sabotage was done, no one could blame the US since there was no evidence linking it to them.

India and the US are not in remotely comparable positions geopolitically. Yemen or Pakistan asserting their right to self defense to the UN to justify declaring war on the US would simply be suicide for them, and just another middle eastern country to topple for the US. So the US just informs the UNSC that they are killing Bin Laden on Pakistani soil, and do so in such a way as to give Pakistan plausible justification for not declaring war, since they have no interest in doing so.

If Canada decided that they were going to declare war based on self-defense, before going to the UN, they'd be going to the US and NATO, the most powerful military organizations on Earth. Canada, even just as the US's hat, enjoys the kind of superpower status that India can only fantasize about.

> Hopefully this is all false

Not hopefully for Trudeau. If he has no incontrovertible proof that the international community would accept, then this move should be the end of his political career in Canada. It won't be, but it should be.

The allegations is tied to FVEY credibility at this point.

There's been seven or eight major scandals that should have been the end of his political career, but because of certain uncomfortable political realities he is immovable.

He would have to voluntarily retire from his party and politics altogether...and unfortunately it seems like he likes power.

his career should have ended before it started, he's that bad. the fact that he survived like a cockroach is truly miraculous, and only points to how bad Canadians are at smelling bs.

>and 38y later someone related to the movement being (allegedly) assassinated by the Indian government on Canadian soil.

There was another "suspicious" event this morning (quotes because I don't understand the politics enough to make a judgement):

https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/sukha-duneke-wh...

The source definitely has a view, but "one person's freedom fighter..." and all that.

It’s irrelevant if they’re a freedom fighter or a terrorist. Extra judicial killings are not justified.

I’m not sure if this particular killing was done by India, but either way it’s not great timing.

It is if the nation harboring the terrorist refuses to cooperate with an interpol order related to murder and the person is actively killing politicians in your country. What exactly was India supposed to do since Canada refused to work with them? Sit on their hands and watch their elected reps get assassinated?

The accepted response is escalating the situation on the diplomatical level. Imposing sanctions if necessary. Getting other countries impose them as well. And, in extreme cases, trying to get the UN Security Council authorize military action.

Well they killed him and haven’t had any real consequences so I would say killing him was also an accepted response. It was accepted by everyone realistically able to do anything about the situation.

Not facing real immediate consequences is not the same as acceptance. Especially when we are talking about acceptance in the moral/normative sense.

Besides, you should wait at least a decade or two before talking about consequences. Things don't change that quickly in international relations, because the stakes are so big. But they do change, as you can see from the relations between Russia and the West.

It's only ok if laden is killed. Everybody is a freedom fighter untill a westerner dies by their hand.

This is whataboutism, and you imply that extraterritorial killing by India on Canadian soil is ok, because Ben Laden.

And so what new status quo are you suggesting by this?

Ben Laden was a well known terrorist and the US never hid the fact that they went there and did that. If the same is happening here, why isn't India coming up clean and saying "yes we killed this guy because he was responsible in XYZ grave crime and sorry not sorry". That would at least be comparable to the "US/Ben Laden" parallel you're trying to make.

Perhaps, the poster is referring to assassinations by the West being overlooked and/or justified while those committed by other countries are vilified and even an excuse for the West starting another war, killing millions of people in the name of vengeance.

By the way, many “intrajudicial” killings are not justified either.

> Perhaps, the poster is referring to assassinations by the West being overlooked and/or justified while those committed by other countries are vilified and even an excuse for the West starting another war, killing millions of people in the name of vengeance.

The situations are different because in the case of Ben Laden, the intent of the US was well known and publicized, and there was an international warrant for his arrest, and the US never denied responsibility. As such I don't think it makes sense to compare the situations as if they were equal and that it represents an application of dual standards.

I'm not saying it was ok (or not ok) to go for Ben Laden. I'm saying it's not a comparable situation.

> By the way, many “intrajudicial” killings are not justified either.

That's a political position which is defensible and thoroughly debated.

So you do agree extraterrestrial killing are justified if the country says so in advance.

So only India needs to do say aloud we are going to kill xyz and that is ok. No reputation lost am I right.

> So you do agree extraterrestrial killing are justified if the country says so in advance.

Whether it's ok or not is a different matter. But it is definitely _different_ if you tell the whole world "if we find this person, and you don't hand them over and we have a warrant, we will kill them on your territory or not".

In this case, whoever is harboring the person of interest knows fully what's coming, and isn't going to be surprised by it. Citizens of the country might be unhappy about it, but they will understand that this was coming, and it was a risk and the government decided that they were going to run that risk.

Whereas killing someone of little significance and pretending like nothing. That's the stuff Russia does. So yes it's different, and the reputational impact is different.

> No reputation lost am I right.

No.

> Whether it's ok or not is a different matter. But it is definitely _different_ if you tell the whole world "if we find this person, and you don't hand them over and we have a warrant, we will kill them on your territory or not

I think you're simply not aware of the facts in this case. The Indian govt certainly appears to have done the first part of what you said, including putting out an Interpol notice.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/canada-allowed-hard...

Meanwhile the Canadian govt lied about when he got Canadian citizenship, first stating on Twitter it was 2015, and the next day that it was 2007.

If I'm unaware and about to be educated, I'm up for it.

Do you believe that US govt gives advance warning when it carries out assacinations. Western govt would have done thousands of these kind of operations.

Your orginal assessment is correct. Extraterrestrial are not justified and it applies to West as well and foremost USA. Whatever Russian have done I assume USA has done worse. That is its reputation!

Well I take offense if India killed someone in Canada. And if Canada killed someone in India, I would also take offense. I wish none of these parties had such disappointing relationships.

Completely agree with you.

Its not whataboutism. America did the same thing. And let me tell you clearly - someone killed some innocent people in India from canada, and then they were taken out because the country they are hiding in refused to take action against them. Why didn't Canada do anything about these Khalistan supporters when India has been clearly stating and giving evidence to Canada that they have all virtues of terrorists?

Also, am sure there are lot of people America killed or got killed cause it forwarded their cause or it removed a thorn. And if you don't believe that, you are clearly ill-informed.

Not to mention the travesty that followed in terms of bringing the perpetrators to justice. Most of them walked, owing to witnesses getting murdered in Canada under RCMP's watch.

Also apparently wiretaps by Canada’s intelligence agency had been erased before they could be used as evidence.

There is zero credible information that the person assassinated had anything to do with any armed militant groups. He was a political activist. RCMP and CSIS investigated him quite thoroughly.

The whole affair is somewhat fishy.

When the Canadian Immigration Minister cannot get basic facts right before posting on Twitter in 2015 about him, it gets strange.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/canada-allowed-hard...

At the very least he appears guilty of traveling on fake passport and committing immigration fraud to obtain Canadian citizenship, for which normal folks without special treatment would be punished for. But the Canadian govt seems so hell bent on harboring him that the Immigration Minister was willing to lie to the world on Twitter about him.

Feels more like incompetence and red tape. Canadian immigration authorities are not the greatest at background checks. I've had distant relatives buy fake credentials in PB and HP to emigrate to Canada and they're now PRs and Citizens

Another example of RCMP and CSISs glorious due diligence - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.H.M.B_Noor_Chowdhury

This guy killed the President of Bangladesh and most of his family (women and children included) and is now a guest of Canada and is refused extradition based on a technicality.

I don't condone extra-judiciary killings but Canada absolutely has and continue to harbor criminals.

Hard to find the info, but seems like the guy got sentenced to death in absentia.

From what I can tell, Canada can’t constitutionally extradite when a death sentence is on the table.

Not much of a technicality. Not a guest of Canada either, but nowhere to deport him to. Bangladeshi judges basically made this guy unreturnable to Bangladesh.

Probably also fair-trial concerns in any conviction in absentia. Kinda surprised another common-law country allows that as Canada doesn’t.

This isn't even particularly unusual. Most of Europe can't or won't extradite people when a death sentence is a possibility for basically the same reason, including to the US - the only way for the US to get an extradition is through a binding agreement that the person being extradited cannot be sentenced to death. Actually, the Canadian Supreme Court case which found this to be unconstitutional seems to have involved an extradition to the US from what I can tell...

Sure he was https://m.timesofindia.com/india/26-years-before-he-was-shot...

The sequence of events here was rather interesting. The Globe and Mail got the assassination story, and asked the government for comment. The government asked the Globe to hold the story for a week due to security concerns, and the Globe gave them 24 hours. Then Trudeau used that window to get ahead of the story by announcing it himself.

He probably burned some bridges with journalists due to this stunt, and that would also explain the complete lack of evidence.

From what I've read in multiple news agencies is: Canadian diplomates state they have been working behind the scenes with Brits and the Americans for weeks to try and avoid a full on conflict with India, they opted not to get involved, then Trudeau met with Modi at the G20 and he brushed it off, Globe and Mail just pressed the issue further. Seems like a bit of a cluster f.

This is done mainly for identity politics.

Trudeau leads a minority government and is in power with the support of Shikh-aligned NDP whose leader is a known pro-Khalistani.

what on earth?

your theory is that the only reason that the PM of Canada is annoyed about a notionally allied country murdering someone*, in Canada, is because of parliamentary politics?

No, the theory is that the PM of Canada recognises the electoral benefits of pandering to Khalistani extremists.

welcome to Canada. That's how it is here. Politics is corrupt in every country. The political class is not equal before the law regardless of their claims.

> No, the theory is that the PM of Canada recognises the electoral benefits of pandering to Khalistani extremists.

I've read that nonsense, along with more imaginative firehose of falsehood bulshit, on Reddit posts brigaded by accounts hellbent on attacking Canada in general and Trudeau in particular.

But it really doesn't hold any water, does it?

I mean, think about it for a second.

The entire Sikh population of Canada barely accounts for 2% of it's whole population. Let's assume each and every Sikh is of voting age, is a voter, and never voted for Trudeau in their entire life. Let's also entertain the thought that a Canadian government decrying political assassinations in their land by agents of a foreign country is something that would otherwise be unthinkable, and that the government of a western nation would need to want to go way out of their way to object to that.

Would a potential 2% bump in the polls justify all the noise?

Please think about this.

People of Jewish heritage constitute about ~2.4% of the US population. And as we know, they have zero influence on American foreign policy. /s

A non-flippant response: https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/sikhs-so-powerful-in-...

That's exactly how parliamentary politics work. NDP that has 25 seats in parliament can revoke their support and Trudeau stops being a prime minister.

Didn't the comment say "mainly" not "only"?

So far he seems to be annoyed based on suspicions, but without evidence. His actions seem a bit rash in that situation.

Trudeau derangement syndrome is real. If tomorrow, Trudeau came out in favor of breathing oxygen, conservatives in this country would choke themselves to own the libs.

the replies I got to this are the dumbest things I've ever seen on this website, including all the crypto- and NFT-idiots that have swarmed us over the last few years, jfc

Ironically this comment is actually an excellent example of "identity politics" (as the term was originally used at least). It ascribes identity-based motives on state actors when other possible explanations exist.

I don't see why UK and US should avoid confrontation with India, if there were solid evidence to back up these claims. After all the entire western world is up in arms over similar cavalier behaviour exhibited by Russia and China. There is literally no reason to pull back from China when India shows similar tendencies.

I'm betting the evidence, if there is any, is just hearsay BS.

The UK has been trying to be closer to India to have something to show for having exited Brexit - closer trade ties would be a victory. This is with elections for the Tories looming, and with an Indian-origin PM, uniquely positioned to strengthen ties.

The US is courting India as part of an anti-China bulwark, along with those in South East Asia (Vietnam w/ the elevation of the US to the highest bilateral status during a Biden visit; the Phillipines with close military co-operation, including Taiwan invasion drills.) Biden also met the C5+1 nations in Central Asia, and that's part of both pushing against Russia and China.

In this environment, these two countries don't want to needlessly antagonize India.

Lack of publicly revealed evidence does not mean a lack of evidence.

Sure, there might be evidence that they are refusing to release, but Trudeau made the accusation publicly. By turning this into a public diplomatic spat, he now needs to show the proof.

Maybe they already lost the evidence because of routine deletion like they did with the downning of Air India Flight 182 that killed 320 people and the alleged Canadian perpetuators were let go.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601284

So Modi can send his goons in foreign soil to bring justice.

I don’t understand this line of thought.

I never said that or think so. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't say or think.

You have several identical comments pointing to the same incident trying to build the case that implicates Canada in a terrorist attack.

If not to justify the murder then what are you trying to achieve?

> that implicates Canada in a terrorist attack

That is an extremely flawed reading of what I posted. Can you quote parts of where I implicated Canada?

The NYTimes wrote about the case of the flight in their article about the recent incident a few days ago. Are you going to accuse them too?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/18/world/canada/canada-india...

How many percentage of HN folks do you think know about Air India Flight 182? Do you think that the context of it has zero bearing on this story?

If I were to do the same as you, I would say that you seem oddly upset that people are bringing up the circumstances around the largest civil terrorism aviation incident before 911.

The fact that you're focusing on the commenter rather than the argument is strange, because it's well documented with trustworthy sources, so it's very easy to come up with counter arguments if there were any.

>trying to build the case that implicates Canada in a terrorist attack

Next you will accuse the RCMP and a retired Canadian Justice of the Supreme Court of doing the same

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37604552

> Maybe they already lost the evidence because of routine deletion like it happened with the downing of Air India Flight 182 that killed 320 people and the alleged Canadian perpetuators were let go.

The perpetrators weren't "let go"; they had a trial (the most expensive trial in Canadian history), and two of the three charged were found not guilty. Which is how things work in a liberal democracy.

> The guy murdered was associated with one of the alleged perpetuators later on according to Canadian court records.

Pretty sure that's not a crime in Canada. And if it is one, it doesn't meet the standard of "summary execution while sitting in ones car", which is definitely not a thing in Canada.

> The perpetrators weren't "let go"; they had a trial (the most expensive trial in Canadian history), and two of the three charged were found not guilty. Which is how things work in a liberal democracy.

Is the destruction of critical evidence also part of a liberal democracy?

> June 2, 2003:

> Opposition MPs call for an inquiry into accusations that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) blocked the RCMP investigation into the bombing.

> According to RCMP documents, CSIS ordered the destruction of hours of wiretaps to conceal the fact that one of its agents, Surjan Singh Gill, had penetrated a circle of Sikh extremists planning the attack. He was ordered to pull out three days before Air India Flight 182 blew up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/air-india-bo...

> June 17, 2010:

> Major releases his final report. Over more than 3,200 pages, he tears into the government and its "wholly deficient" agencies. He says failure to prevent the bombing was "inexcusable," the CSIS was "ineffective" and notes a "lax security culture" at airports. The RCMP "failed" to protect threatened witnesses, he adds.

> Major says he cannot understand why CSIS deleted its wiretap tapes: "Inconceivable, incomprehensible, indefensible, incompetence," he writes

> He also says successive governments had treated the victims' families "like adversaries, as if they had somehow brought this calamity on themselves." Politicians' failure to plug security holes was "inexcusable."

> The inquiry concludes Talwinder Singh Parmar was the mastermind behind the deadly bombing.

Maybe you know more than the retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice John C. Major.

What point are you trying to make?

Your earlier comment made it sound it like it was a fair trial for the 329 victims(including 82 children) on board the Air India flight and their families.

Did the presumably new information change your mind? Or do you still think it was a standard part of a liberal democracy?

Here's the then Canadian PM's apology after 25 years. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/stephen-harpers-apology...

It's not new information; I've lived in Vancouver my whole life, I know well the history of the Air India disaster and all the drama surrounding the investigation and the trial.

Fair trials are indeed a cornerstone of liberal democracy, with fairness being an attribute given to those accused of a crime, not necessarily the unfortunate victims. The accused tends to get the benefit of the doubt because of the cost of the loss of freedoms that hinge on a guilty verdict. CSIS fucked up. The RCMP fucked up. But there is a standard to which prosecutions are held and the government didn't meet it.

And none of this excuses _gunning down a person sitting in their car_ which, in case you forgot, was the original topic of this discussion. It doesn't matter who they associated with, what they were involved with, or what they did.

>And none of this excuses _gunning down a person sitting in their car_ which, in case you forgot, was the original topic of this discussion. It doesn't matter who they associated with, what they were involved with, or what they did

True, the Indian government fucked up.

You seem to be doing your best to dance around the point belltaco is making.

There is evidence that CSIS destroyed evidence that led to the acquital of the defendants. And your response is "CSIS fucked up. The RCMP fucked up." Nothing to see here!

I'm not dancing around it, I just don't think belltaco's point is relevant to the current situation.

CSIS actively sabotaged the investigation, it appears.

[1] https://espionage.substack.com/p/canadian-intelligences-dirt...

[2] https://espionage.substack.com/p/how-canadian-intelligence-a...

For better or worse, the victims of a crime are not parties to a criminal trial in common law. The idea of a "fair trial" is solely between the crown and the accused.

As for liberal democracies: you'll find many examples of the spies (i.e. counter-intelligence) working at cross purposes to the criminal justice system. Think MI5 vs the Met, or the NSA vs local law enforcement. The spooks are often much more interested in protecting sources and methods than they are in criminal prosecutions. That's partly why the USA has gotten so good at parallel construction.

I think the point they are trying to make is pretty clear - Canada, be it due to systemic incompetence or vested political interests, shares a lot of the blame.

Surjan Singh Gill was a CSIS Agent, and he was one of the co-conspirators of Air India and Narita bombings. That's why Canada can hide behind 'we fucked up our investigations'. Canada, RCMP, CSIS did not not screw up the Air India bombing investigation. Instead, they covered it up by destroying evidence.

So far this mysterious evidence is not shared with ANYONE. Whether it is leader of opposition, five eyes allies whom he seeked support from, with the government he is asking to cooperate.

In all likelyhood the evidence does not exist.

It's not shared with public, which these things rarely are due to usual sources/methods excuse. US formally supports Canadian allegations against India, which means intelligence at least been vetted by FVEYs. Which isn't to give credenance to FVEY credibility, only it suggest there isn't LACK of evidence that gives US an out.

No, the US has not formally supported Trudeau's allegations.

> Weeks before Trudeau's announcement, Canada had asked it's closest allies, including Washington, to publicly condemn the killing, according to a Western official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a diplomatically sensitive matter. But the requests were turned down, the official said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/19/india-expels...

https://archive.ph/iblcf

US admin disputes the WP piece.

>"Reports that Canada asked the U.S. to publicly condemn the murder and that we refused are false and we would strongly push back on the rumours that we were reluctant to speak publicly about this," the official said.

US formally support Canada investigation, urged India to cooperate. That doesn't happen behind the scenes if US can wiggle out of allegations. Canada wouldn't have gone to G20 with allegations on sidelines unless they have sufficient FVEY intelligence. That's read between the line of formally supporting Canadian allegations but trying to find a position not throw everything into the shitter. Which they could have during Indian G20 to make this the dominating narrative. The most charitable interpretation right now is FVEY/US supports CA allegations, but still hoping this somehow IN/CA can manage crisis in way it would blow over.

Spot the difference between these two statements:

> Canada had asked it's closest allies, including Washington, to publicly condemn the killing

> US formally support Canada investigation, urged India to cooperate.

They got a much, much weaker level of support than they wanted.

There is no difference. The point wasn't level of support/theatre/posturing but presence of support at all that tacitly indicates the level of intelligence behind Canada's accusation. It's credible enough that FVEY can't deny. Which is key. How they hedge / crisis manage,whether they hang Canada out dry during G20 etc, is secondary to the fact that they can't swept it under the rug. The narrative this isn't India said vs Canada said, it is India said vs FVEY said. With underlying assumption that FVEY can't deny credibility of Canadian allegations. Even if 4/5 of FVEY also say meh/whatever to the incident overall. And as I mention previous, entire layer also modulated by how much credence you place in FVEY, only that its extremely counter to their interest to not be able to deny.

Why the hell should the Indian government trust Canada's so-called evidence that they are not even willing to reveal? Anyone with two brain cells will call bs on something like this.

The Indian government wouldn't rely on Canada's evidence to determine whether they carried out an assassination, in any case.

Why not? If the evidence can be fact-checked on both sides, then its credibility can be established. All this depends on what kind of evidence Canada has (if at all they do).

Surely India already knows whether they themselves have carried out the assassination?

I have replied here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37607765

If India is guilty, it knows that it is guilty. If India is innocent, it knows that it is innocent.

In either case, India wouldn't need evidence from anybody else to determine its own innocence or guilt, because surely it knows whether it did what it is being accused of doing.

That's because India is not 1 person, if you haven't noticed.

Even if this murder thing is true, it could have been some rogue agent in the government. In that case the evidence would flush them out. India does have a lot to lose, reputationally, in this case. But not enough to lose that they would simply accept whatever Canada says.

From the Indian point of view Canada has also brushed off situations where India approached them with evidence against Canadian citizens. So if Canada now approaches with demands of their own, dismissing these is perfectly alright without precise evidence.

India has no obligation to preserve whatever sources some 5 eye(I) country has within their government, and just cooperate with Canada no questions asked.

I have indeed noticed that a government is not a single person, but I simply would not think of a rogue agent as representative of the said government, and what they did as what the government had done.

From my perspective, the crime would need to be officially sanctioned by the person or people in power, for it to be called "done by the government". Just like if a US government employee is turned rogue, deciding to act against the US government, I wouldn't say that the US government is now against the US government.

Yes, correct.

Because if they did carry out the assassination as state policy, they know that, and if they didn't, they know that, too.

Would you need to review someone else’s evidence to decide if you committed a murder?

Third party evidence is relevant only to the extent that they didn't do it as a matter of state policy but a rogue agent or group might have done it.

I don't get how you folks believe Canada's allegations right off the bat, when there is no factual proof or evidence provided by them.

As long as there is no evidence provided by Canada, India is the victim here, with Canada leveling baseless allegations on her.

That's why I said, India has to confirm Canada's factual evidence first, because it can be any politically motivated bullshit for all we know.

Or the attacks may have been carried out by a rogue agent, with no hand of the Indian government in it. But even then the Canada has jumped the gun and claimed that the killings were state sponsored. In that case too India is the victim with Canada making false accusations against her.

> I don't get how you folks believe Canada's allegations right off the bat, when there is no factual proof or evidence provided by them.

I don't get how you infer support of Canada's allegations from a statement that the Indian government doesn't need to rely on Canada's evidence to determine whether or not they carried out an assassination, since they either know that they did it or know that they didn't do it.

> Or the attacks may have been carried out by a rogue agent, with no hand of the Indian government in it.

What do you think I meant when I said, "Third party evidence is relevant only to the extent that they didn't do it as a matter of state policy but a rogue agent or group might have done it."

It would be nice if your responses to other people's posts showed some sign that you were actually reading those posts rather than going off on a canned tirade that isn't in any meaningful way relevant to what it is nominally a response to.

Ok, you are right, I will admit my mistake.

CSIS destroyed evidence in that Air India 182 bombing case. Of course, Canadians have the prerogative to preach the world about free speech, the rule of law, etc. Why did CSIS destroy the evidence in that bombing case? Surjan Singh Gill was a CSIS agent and one of the co-conspirators of Air India and Narita bombing cases.

The Globe and Mail leans Conservative. It's basically Canada's WSJ.

I'm kind of curious whether it was the Cons who leaked it or someone in the CSIS (some analyst did the same thing a couple months back about an ongoing investigation into Chinese interference)

It just doesn't seem like something Trudeau's Cabinet would want to leak, as you win 100% of the controversies you never participate in.

The same agency that deleted the wiretap evidence of Canadian based terrorists that killed 320 people aboard the Air India flight that was blown up over the Atlantic after taking off from Canada, resulting in no convictions?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601284

It leans left and elitist. An American running for president use to call it the Havana Times.

The American Overton window isn’t the only one.

And people call Cambridge MA the People's Republic of Cambridge despite hosting multiple DoD labs.

Moreover, Cambridge’s Harvard and MIT produced many scientists that worked on the Manhattan Project. There’s always been interesting military tech where research started in Cambridge.

As for People’s Republic, that was long immortalized in the bar, “People’s Republik” close to Harvard. Closed down I think around or just after the pandemic.

To be fair, there was overlap between "Communists" and "scientists that worked on the Manhattan project".

It leans conservative for Canadians - on the American political spectrum Danielle Smith might be considered more radically progressive than Bernie Sanders since she runs a government that provides provincial health insurance.

Framing politics by American standards is rarely helpful.

Just curious, which "American running for president"? I googled "Havana Times" and "Globe and Mail" and couldn't find anything about it. Is it an American who would know much about the Canadian news media? Because - as a Canadian who routinely reads newspapers - that's a position that's wildly difficult to square with my reality.

Various groups assessing the issue find it's a little to the right of centre. My personal take is that it's a little more right-leaning than this implies, but I'm just one guy.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-globe-and-mail/

> Overall, we rate The Globe and Mail slightly right-center biased due to editorial positions and High for factual reporting based on proper sourcing.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/globe-and-mail-media-bi...

> Though the Globe and Mail's political stance has shifted over the last several decades, today the paper routinely exhibits a center bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Globe_and_Mail

> A 2017 survey of Canadians found that the Globe and Mail was perceived to be the most biased national news media outlet [...] Respondents had mixed opinions as to whether its coverage favoured the Liberal Party or the Conservatives. A 2010 survey found that the Globe and Mail was perceived as slightly right of centre, in similar standing to the bulk of other Canadian news organizations.

The addition of 'elitist' is a key indicator here. It is a label used by the American far-right for anything even slightly left of their position which may correct or expose them. Whereas the right wing relies on the firehose of falsehood, the 'elitist' term is used to attack those that may speak truth against them, particularly media and education. They're portrayed as 'out of touch', and thus sought for destruction. They could correct the lies or shine light on their misdeeds, and so must be slandered and attacked maximally. The right wing views these elements as a threat to their goals to seize power, both in actual power and in control of the message.

The position you see doesn't even have to fully make sense to you, because 'slightly right of centre' on your scale would be nearly 'communist' on their scale.

Here's some articles from over 10 years ago, where this term got popularized by the 'tea party' movement, where they try to analyze this smear term. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/10/the-right-s-favo... https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/opinion/30jacoby.html https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/who-are-they-calli...

Elitist was my word based on a few things:

- highest reading level for daily paper - most expensive daily newspaper - readership in the highest income / education bracket - storied elite history - writing from an elitist point of view to an upper class reader

Pat Buchanan.

I see them more left centre because of their support for the liberals. I think they try to stay as centre as possible but move right on class issues.

I have the opposite impression of G&M's leanings, in fact I'm surprised to hear anyone say that.

Wikipedia seems to agree with the poster you replied to, that it leans moderately conservative.

Keep in mind that the "left" vs "right" determination is somewhat skewed within the Canadian political landscape.

Among the major federal parties in Canada, none of them offer or propose policies that could be considered "right wing" in any meaningful way.

Policy-wise, the Conservative Party should objectively be considered a "left-of-centre" party. They embrace socialism and big government, and they support high immigration rates, for example. Such stances are inherently antithetical to "right wing" ideologies.

The Conservative Party only appears to be "right wing" because they aren't as far "left" as the Bloc Québécois or Liberal Party are, which aren't as far "left" as the NDP or Green Party are.

The PPC is perhaps the most "right wing" of the mainstream parties, but platform-wise, it's still quite centrist in pretty much all respects.

Essentially all mainstream media in Canada should be considered "left wing", including those that tend to be somewhat supportive of the Conservative Party.

I mean, when American say they are 'leftists', 90% of the west hear 'right of center'.

NDP being 'far left' is quite funny, but I guess it is from an American perspective.

The NDP is a centre-right party. Don't apply the USA's very very right-shifted political spectrum to Canada. The American Democrats and Republicans both would be parts of the Conservative Party. The Democrats are closest to the Red Tory wing and Republicans to the Blue Tory wing of the Conservative Party. It's just there is very little difference between the USA's two conservative parties.

This is pretty accurate. American Democrats don't like hearing this though.

Well this is a first, I usually get told that Canadian politics is center (NDP), center-right (LPC), right (CPC) or far-right (PPC) because it’s compared to the politics of Europe.

Generally I don’t consider it useful to conceptualize a global “center” and say that a countries political parties are mostly to the left or right of it. I only ever hear this in the context of somebody painting an entire country as (unduly) off to one side or the other.

Compared to most comparable countries Canada is to the economic right and social left, and people tend to vastly overestimate how much social spending Canada does and vastly underestimate how much social spending the US does… when you crack open the books the amount spent on social services is shockingly similar.

You're following the American definition of "left" vs "right", and while America may dominate international culture, it is not the defacto standard for policy.

The conservative party would be considered "left-of-centre" only in the United States. Whereas the Democratic party would be considered "right-of-center" everywhere else in the developed world.

Unfortunately the Canadian conservative party imports a lot of unfortunate ideas from the American right including most recently a suspicion of vaccines and gender affirming care for youth. (inb4 "don't mutilate children" -> 'gender affirming care' is a broad spectrum of medical care including mental health, social changes, and hormonal care).

> The PPC is perhaps the most "right wing" of the mainstream parties, but platform-wise, it's still quite centrist in pretty much all respects.

I genuinely don't understand how you can write this in good faith unless you are actively trying to mislead those not following canadian politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Party_of_Canada#Pri...

While the placement of various political parties differs based on the nations involved, the "left" versus "right" political scale itself is uniform in all cases.

Collectivism (which implies more/larger government, e.g., socialism, fascism, and communism) increases toward the "left", while individualism (which implies less/smaller/no government, e.g., libertarianism and anarchism) increases toward the "right".

The "center" is a mix of the two, to varying degrees.

As mentioned earlier, almost all of the major Canadian federal parties fully support large and intrusive government, extensive socialism, high taxation, forced medical treatments, and so on. Some, like the NDP and Liberals, are also rather pro-union. This puts them to the "left".

The PPC are the only exception, with a platform that proposes a more balanced mix, putting them much closer to the "center". They support more individualism, but are still rather support of large government, too.

There are no major federal parties in Canada to the "right" of that. None offer a platform that would end immigration, deport most foreigners, significantly reduce the size of the federal government, and end taxation, for example.

I think if there were truly a "right" wing party in Canada, it'd be clear to you how different it would be than the existing parties, and it would instantly clear up your confusion.

> the "left" versus "right" political scale itself is uniform in all cases.

I agree. Except in every one of those definitions in impartial sources like Wikipedia, categorizes the Conservatives as "right", and PPC as "far right"

> There are no major federal parties in Canada to the "right" of that. None offer a platform that would end immigration, deport most foreigners,

So long as people who lived through World War 2 remained alive, we called people that advocated for this fascists, and they held no sway in most elections or political representation. Once the majority WW2 veterans started dying, suddenly these perspectives started rising again under a new coat of paint.

> significantly reduce the size of the federal government

It's cute that conservatives still pretend that this policy disagreement is still in any way of a signifier between left and right wing parties ANYWHERE in the world. US right wing parties, for instance, do not reduce the size of their governments. They just reassign their priorities to things like processing citizen reports of abortions, or banning books in school libraries.

> , and end taxation, for example.

Does anyone actually think this is a good idea? Are we intending to go back to the days of private firefighters not putting out on fire buildings that didn't pay them?

It's not as bad as the National Post, but the Opinions Pieces they host have a distinct PC (Progressive Conservative) tinge to it, and they have had a history of endorsing the Conservatives. This can be seen as well in their endorsements within Ontario (which is basically the only part of Anglophone Canada that matters tbh)

Good to know. I'm surprised. Thanks.

I'd classify it as neoliberal. They favor business interests but lean left on social issues. They are also big proponents of the Century Initiative, a plan to have Canada reach a population of 100 million by 2100 through massively increased immigration.

What you describe is called the third way, neoliberalism comes from friedman, and is a right wing economic framework also known as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

The G&M has regularly endorsed the Conservative party in election years.

It's not deeply right wing (that would be the National Post), but it's essentially a centre-right classicly liberal establishment newspaper.

It was the mouth piece of the Progressive Conservative Party before the merger. It's been a conservative newspaper since it's founding. Historically most of it's ownership has been directly involved, sometimes in a leadership capacity, of the current iteration of the conservatives. Yes, the National Post is now the mouth piece the current Conservatives, but it still has a very conservative byline by Canadian standard.

Canadian press is a farce, doesn't even qualify as "left" or "right". just government propaganda, totally controlled.

I'll let the Georgia Straight[1] know that they're totally controlled government propaganda... overly broad vague statements like this are rarely helpful. Though G&M, CBC and Nat Post are heavily biased news sources Canada does actually have a press that does good work.

1. https://www.straight.com/

never heard of it, and probably 99% of Canadians haven't either. Canada is pretty much an oligopoly in everything: media, communications, air transport ... not sure what is the surprise for you, do you live here ?

I live in Canada, and everyone I know is aware of the Georgia Straight. Maybe you haven't heard of it because it is local to... the Georgia Straight (Vancouver and Victoria), even though it does cover national interests too.

> I live in Canada, and everyone I know is aware of the Georgia Straight.

Then you live in a bubble. I spent most of my life in Canada (and I'm considered old) and have never heard of it. But it is interesting and I'm happy to have learned about it now, so thank you!

I do live in a “bubble”. In this case that “bubble” is the third largest metro area in Canada.

The point is that you haven’t heard of it because you don’t live in the area that it is distributed in.

I'm glad the people of the Straight are enlightened by their local newspaper. Maybe the Canadian revolution will start from downtown Vancouver ...

Haha.

It’s not gonna start in Regina!

I don't remember this and I lived on the Delta and Vancouver Island for several years as a kid. Vancouver Sun was always the go to newspaper I remember as a kid, plus that terrestrial Punjabi news channel that would report on Vancouver news in Punjabi around 5.30 or 6.30 pm every weekday. Also some 2 pager newsletter/newspaper that would also give fun facts and stuff.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/globe-and-mail-media-bi....

Probably not true, if anything its centrist with occasional leanings both ways.

he also showed again his true colours, and they are not looking good.

And the winners in this are China and Russia.

The winners of this news coming out are the victims and family members of the murder victim, as the norm until now was to hide information. As normal people, we all win when governments hold less secrets.

By sharing inconvenient information, I am more likely to trust the Trudeau Government, eventhough I don't agree with them on most things anymore.

The impact on the immediate victim and family members pales in comparison to the large scale impact this can have by driving a wedge between nations that ought to be friendly and allied.

I don't wish India and Canada (and the West) to be unfriendly for one bit, as the result of this misalignment could be a more severe return to bloody Cold War era and its related proxy wars. Many more victims will derive from democracies not being on good terms and showing a strong unity.

The only winner in this spat is whoever benefits from India and the West being driven apart.

If India didn't want this wedge they shouldn't have violated Canada's sovereignty over a local plumber that liked to volunteer at his place of worship

The local canadian plumber who like to volunteer at his place of worship was a known indian fugitive with an interpol request for extradition. He also ran a training camp in Mission,BC to build a militant army. Canada can keep these snakes in its back yard.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/conspiracy-to-kill-...

Sovereignty matters more. You can't just assassinate someone based on your own laws in someone else's jurisdiction. That's anarchy.

So default state of the world?

Are you saying India was protecting its sovereignty by eliminating threats to its sovereignty overseas?

Haven't seen any evidence for the militant training camp except for unrelated video that clearly showed a different person. Countries can put anyone on Interpol, including activists and that's a known problem https://www.voanews.com/a/as-interpol-turns-100-criticism-pe...

Well, you can deflect what I said all you want but the fact remains that he was a terrorist with credible links to crimes in India.

If a Country’s sitting prime minister and innocent citizens (mid-flight ref Kanishka bombing) are murdered by terrorists, would you find fault if that country goes to the end of the earth to eliminate them?

US was one such country. Canada sent its soldiers into Afghanistan and Iraq in the past while innocent civilians were being killed in the open.

If India did have a hand in Nijjar’s killing, it perhaps did it to either send a message to Khalistani’s that it’s not to be messed with. Canada is tolerant of intolerance. Again, it can keep its snakes in its backyard.

They probably didn't want this wedge, and the leak to the media that forced Canadian PM's hand was probably not motivated by neither India or Canada's interests. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would think that a third party with an interest in dividing these two countries would have leaked the information.

perhaps he can share evidence as well?

> The winners of this news coming out are the victims and family members of the murder victim

I wish the 320 Air India passenger victims got the same consideration from Canada even though the Canadian citizens were likely ethnically South Asian than Canadian. The alleged perpetuators were let go due to lack of evidence two decades later.

> Wiretaps by Canada’s intelligence agency had been erased before they could be used as evidence

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/18/world/canada/canada-india...

> Canada's security agency destroyed wiretapping evidence on suspects in the 1985 Air India bombing as part of a "default" policy

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/erasing-wiretap-evidence-was-...

You keep bringing this up, but I don't see how it's relevant considering Hardeep Singh Nijjar was 8 years old at the time of the bombing.

> Wiretaps by Canada’s intelligence agency had been erased before they could be used as evidence

Is there any evidence of a coverup? The trial was ~20 years after the wiretaps were collected which leaves plenty of time for incompetence/negligence to do the job.

> Is there any evidence of a coverup? The trial was ~20 years after the wiretaps were collected which leaves plenty of time for incompetence/negligence to do the job.

From https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/air-india-bo...

> June 2, 2003:

> Opposition MPs call for an inquiry into accusations that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) blocked the RCMP investigation into the bombing.

> According to RCMP documents, CSIS ordered the destruction of hours of wiretaps to conceal the fact that one of its agents, Surjan Singh Gill, had penetrated a circle of Sikh extremists planning the attack. He was ordered to pull out three days before Air India Flight 182 blew up.

> You keep bringing this up, but I don't see how it's relevant considering Hardeep Singh Nijjar was 8 years old at the time of the bombing

The NYTimes considers it relevant enough to mention it in the context https://archive.ph/9re2c

The accused in the bombing was heavily associated with Nijjar later on to the point of them having a dispute and a lawsuit about a commercial printing press used for the separatist movement.

What I'm curious about is who is the leaker.

The Five Eyes and India have been communicating about this for a couple months now, but Trudeau publicly announced this after The Globe and Mail said they would publish a story about Foreign Interference. To preempt that Trudeau announced this in Parliament 30 minutes before that article was released [0]

Generally, stuff at this level is highly sensitive and highly classified and becomes a headache for everyone [1]. It doesn't make sense for the Canadian PMO to leak this despite G20 crap because it has no actual benefit during a non-election year nor does it make sense for the Indian PMO to leak this as this impacts Indian foreign relations.

Was this a disgruntled CSIS analyst (like the China Election Interference leak), the Tories (they leaked the existence of a military base in Afghanistan used for anti-Taliban black ops), disgruntled NDP MPs (force an early election and win the Vancouver suburbs where they compete against the Liberals), or disgruntled Liberal MPs (force an early election and get a cabinet position or a more senior role)?

[0] - https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/harjit-sajjan-hardeep-s...

[1] - personal experience

Doesn't make much sense to me for anyone from the political side to leak this. No real upside. Especially not for the Conservatives.

The Liberals are doing terribly in the polls right now, and Canadians, due to inertia and history, are resultingly giving the Conservatives a big uptick in poll numbers.

This story does not help the Conservatives or any opposition parties in that it helps "change the channel" from the current issues that the government is doing poorly on.

Is it a leak driving this? Trudeau apparently brought it up in the G20 summit so it wasn’t a last minute call. I would expect internal pressure from his political partners.

Biden is said to have mentioned this to Modi during the G20 as well. This was before the Trudeau announcement.

The series of acrobatic leaps GP makes are something.

https://www.ft.com/content/54721d57-fe1b-4d28-ab9b-a664f1107...

They were talking about this over diplomatic channels. The news coverage about this happened after Fife gave the Trudeau admin a 24 hour heads up on publishing, which lead to this being publicized 30 minutes before publishing. The story was based on a credible source within the Govt. This has been stated in both Canadian and Indian media.

I think the sources of leak are plenty. Khalistani separatist movement of India (actually it is active only in Canada right no) is deeply embedded in Canadian politics and especially close to the current Canadian admin. (For example Trudeau once invited a convicted (by Canadian courts) terrorists and assassin from this movement of an official dinner).

This classified information is likely available to Khalistani separatists working at different levels of Canadian government and they would have leaked it to foment more anti-India sentiments.

Sorta on-topic, some credit cards do have insurance coverage that lets you get an airfare refund if you applied for a visa and it was rejected.

Not sure how this will go here for applications in progress.

And what the airlines will do if their traffic takes a dive.