He probably burned some bridges with journalists due to this stunt, and that would also explain the complete lack of evidence.
I'm betting the evidence, if there is any, is just hearsay BS.
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.
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.
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.
NDP being 'far left' is quite funny, but I guess it is from an American perspective.
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.
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...
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.
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 deeply right wing (that would be the National Post), but it's essentially a centre-right classicly liberal establishment newspaper.
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.
Framing politics by American standards is rarely helpful.
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 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...
- 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
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.
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!
The point is that you haven’t heard of it because you don’t live in the area that it is distributed in.
It’s not gonna start in Regina!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601284
The guy recently murdered was associated with one of the alleged perpetuators according to Canadian court records.
Probably not true, if anything its centrist with occasional leanings both ways.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601284
The guy murdered was associated with one of the alleged perpetuators later on according to Canadian court records.
I don’t understand this line of thought.
If not to justify the murder then what are you trying to achieve?
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.
Is the destruction of critical evidence also part of a liberal democracy? Not to mention failure to prevent critical witnesses from getting killed before being able to give testimony.
> 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.
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...
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.
True, the Indian government fucked up.
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!
[1] https://espionage.substack.com/p/canadian-intelligences-dirt...
[2] https://espionage.substack.com/p/how-canadian-intelligence-a...
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.
In all likelyhood the evidence does not exist.
> 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...
>"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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.