This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Trudeau accuses India in killing of Sikh leader on Canadian soil
First of all, I want to state that my epistemic status is huh, rather an informed opinion, but I struggle to think of anyone in a better position on The Motte to discuss this, so bear with me.
India has had its share of irredentists, separatists and good old fashioned terrorists over the years. You have the Maoists still lurking in the north east, playing hot and cold with the government via their jungle boogaloo. Islamic terrorism was a serious issue in 2010s, though it's died down. There were the Tamil Tigers down south, who proved a severe PITA for a decade or so, and then the Khalistanis, who have been largely neutered in-country but find refuge in the numerous, prosperous Sikh diaspora abroad.
The last two have had the dubious distinction of getting confirmed kills on two Indian Prime Ministers (relatives to boot).
Khalistan is the supposed homeland of the Sikh peoples, largely surrounding Punjab in the west. Unable to get it during the original Partition of India, they waged a brutal war against the Indian government for decades, peaking in the 70s and 80s. There were quite a few pogroms and riots, with Hindu on Sikh violence in the rest of India, and vice versa in their population centers.
These days, the movement is moribund within India itself, most young Sikhs don't really pay it any heed, and the older aren't the demographic to go planting bombs for the large part. Sikhs are well integrated into Indian society, and haven't had that consistent friction that the Muslims have had with their Hindu co-ethnics.
Not that you'd know this abroad. Much like IRA sympathizers hanging around in New Jersey bars, the exodus of Sikhs in the 70s and 80s ossified in amber a large migrant population with a grudge to bear against the Indian government.
I'd draw a distinction between these first-wave migrants, and a more recent influx of Sikhs who are drawn more by the prospects of making it big in Canada, or the West in general, rather than any real grievance.
While Khalistan is dead in the water, it's a popular rallying cry there, with Western governments treating it with a mixture of bemused tolerance and kid-gloves for fear of pissing off the strong Sikh voting bloc. Speaking ill of them is, from what I've heard, a surefire way of losing a narrow election, but they're otherwise model citizens and nobody wants to press the issue.
Now, Modi stands accused of the shooting of this dude sometime in June, when he was shot by unidentified gunmen in the parking lot of a gurdwara in Surrey. If there's more substance to the accusation, they haven't been made public, but the heads of state have met to hash it out.
From what I can tell, Modi's response was "we didn't do it, but if it happened, he had it coming", strongly protesting the accusations while demanding Canada be less lenient in harboring terrorists.
Modi also stands accused of the assassination in Lahore of another Khalistan leader, not that anyone particularly cared at the time, and that's just the usual India-Pakistan bhai-bhai at play.
That's the gist of it, on one hand, we have the fact that India has largely refrained from extraterritorial assassinations, certainly not to the degree that the US, Russia or Israel are fond of. I struggle to think of a single example, not that I'm an expert.
On the other, who the fuck else has a motive to whack the dude? I don't think relations between India and Canada are bad enough for the latter to make entirely unfounded accusations, and they've even roped in a few other countries like the UK and US to bring diplomatic pressure to bear. The Head of Foreign Intelligence for India was kicked out from Canada, and some bloke named Oliver Sylvester was the tit to that tat.
I'd wager 50% odds that India was responsible based on the balance of evidence, and I wonder if this will be a flash in the pan that peters out when the Sikhs are mollified, or if Canada really wants to pick a fight with an otherwise neutral/positively inclined major nation.
But if you're curious, this means zilch in terms of impact on Modi's popularity of home, you think supporters of a strongman are going to be mad when he strongmans? Even the libs over at /r/India who foam at the mouth at the sight of Modi are of the opinion he had it coming.
The big picture question is why wasn't he extradited already, considering that he's been wanted by India/Interpol since 2016 for involvement in what seems to be clearcut terrorism. (theatre bombing)
Given the history with Air India, he doesn't seem like somebody we would normally want to keep around, had India made a request to bring him back for trial -- I wonder whether it's wise for Trudeau to stir the pot too much on what did or didn't happen in between now and then?
Part of me wonders how much of this is Trudeau trying to save face. Did he try to call Modi's bluff in some backroom deal only to find out that "the bluff" wasn't a bluff? That would be pretty on-brand for him.
There's a theory that Treudeau was forced to point the finger at India because a news story was coming out that implicated them. He needed to
get ahead of the storyresponsibly provide accurate information to the Canadian people.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Interpol reference might not mean much. There has apparently been quite a bit of abuse of Interpol procedures on the part of authoritarian governments in recent years.
India is supposed to be more or less of an ally of Canada AFAIK; we're not talking about some banana republic here. Canadian officials would not arrest just on the basis of an Interpol warrant, but if India files an extradition request we should be doing it if it's in accord with our treaty. (Which I'm pretty sure bombing a theatre is)
I am sure that all of that is generally true (although there are certainly plenty of defenses to extradition in Canada. It is not enough to simply demonstrate that the person has been charged with a serious crime). My only point was that the fact that Interpol has issued an arrest warrant does not, in and of itself, necessarily mean anything.
The interpol warrant is not dispositive here -- the point is that if India wanted him back, it's odd that this hasn't been going through the normal channels for extradition -- yes that is rejected sometimes, but usually countries will at least go through the process unless Foreign Affairs has already told them 'nah, bro' through backchannels. We do have a treaty, you can read it if you want: https://treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=101286
"Bombing a movie theatre" is normally a thing that is not subject to the various loopholes in extradition treaties, and the Interpol warrant indicates that India has at least enough evidence to make a plausible case. I'm wondering why they didn't pursue it.
I didn't say it was.
How do you know it hasn't? This indicates that Indian authorities did not seek extradition until August of 2022. If that is correct, obviously proceeding would not have concluded by the time of his killing in June.
Says who? Do you think the rule is that in order for a foreign country to avoid the protections afforded to Canadian citizens, all it has to do is allege a serious crime? Are Canadians morons?
Are you? Interpol doesn't give out warrants on a bare allegation, and neither does Canada extradite on that basis -- sometimes we refuse to extradite for minor charges, or things that would not be crimes in Canada -- bombing a movie theatre is not those, that's the point. The recent extradition looks like it's related to more recent crimes -- but even so, it's been over a year with no action -- it all seems a bit strange.
What even is your point here?
No, the point is that there are other causes for denial of extradition, including, most importantly, the severity of the sentence faced by the person whose extradition is being sought. In particular, Canada will not extradite a person if that person faces the death penalty if convicted.
More specifically, the point is that your claim that Canada will ignore the protections provided its citizens if another country simply files super-serious charges, especially given the abuses I note above re abuse of Interpol red notices.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link