Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

OP-ED Trudeau’s Dangerous Pandering to Extremists Has Turned Canada Into a Safe Haven for Hate and Terror

Published

2 weeks ago

16 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight
Dan Knight

 If these weren’t Khalistani activists but a group of white nationalists descending on a mosque or synagogue, Trudeau would be sprinting to the nearest camera to condemn it. Hate crimes would be filed faster than you could say “virtue signal.”

This past weekend in Brampton, Ontario, we saw a truly disturbing and shameful scene unfold. Khalistani extremists—yes, extremists—stormed a Hindu temple and reportedly assaulted its worshippers. For Hindus in Canada, who had come to this country seeking safety and freedom, this attack was a horrifying reminder that their places of worship, their cultural sanctuaries, are no longer safe. Such an assault on religious freedom should be universally condemned. Yet, the Canadian political establishment, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and supported by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, has done almost nothing but offer empty words and platitudes. It is increasingly clear that these incidents are not isolated—rather, they are a symptom of Trudeau’s reckless pandering to extremist factions within Canada’s diaspora communities.

As journalist Rupa Subramanya pointed out in her recent tweet, scenes like this should not be happening in a supposedly free and developed country like Canada. They’re scenes reminiscent of conflicts and vendettas one might see in parts of South Asia, not on the peaceful streets of Brampton. But thanks to Trudeau’s irresponsible courting of Khalistani separatist votes, this violence has been given fertile ground to grow right here in Canada.

Khalistani supporters argue they have a grievance with the Indian government. For years, they claim, India has targeted their community, cracking down on separatist leaders and activists with alleged ties to Khalistan here on Canadian soil. In the high-profile case of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Khalistani figure in Surrey, the Trudeau government alleged that India was involved in his assassination. The RCMP, on Thanksgiving no less, all but confirmed that they believe Indian operatives were conducting activities on Canadian soil to target specific individuals. That’s a serious allegation—and it’s no surprise that it’s fueling the anger in certain parts of the Sikh community. I don’t dispute that these people have grievances, but grievances don’t justify terrorizing worshippers at a temple. There’s a clear line that’s been crossed.

Now, if this group wants to take a stand, they have every right to do so. Take your protest to the Indian consulate, gather on the steps of Vancouver’s art gallery, or march through the streets of Ottawa. That’s freedom of speech, and I’d defend their right to do it. But targeting a Hindu temple? That’s a desecration of a sacred space. What happened in Brampton wasn’t just a protest; it was an act of intimidation, even terror. And if we’re going to call a spade a spade, let’s use Canada’s own hate speech laws, which are weaponized regularly to police “wrongthink” in other cases. When violence and harassment are unleashed at a place of worship, it becomes a tool of terror—plain and simple. Even though I’m a staunch defender of free speech, we live under Canada’s hate speech regime, and it’s high time we see it applied evenly.

Here’s the kicker: if these weren’t Khalistani activists but a group of white nationalists descending on a mosque or synagogue, Trudeau would be sprinting to the nearest camera to condemn it. Hate crimes would be filed faster than you could say “virtue signal.” But in this case, we see silence and selective outrage from Canada’s so-called “defenders of diversity.” Why? Because Trudeau and Singh know they need the support of certain diasporas to maintain their coalition. They’re so tangled up in their own identity-politics web that they’ve rendered themselves incapable of taking a stand on principle.

The roots of this problem are Trudeau’s obsession with identity politics and his willingness to appease extremist voices within diaspora communities in exchange for votes. He’s aligned himself with Jagmeet Singh, whose support base includes those who sympathize with the Khalistani movement, and who has a long record of soft-pedaling the issue of Khalistani violence. For years, Trudeau and Singh have played a dangerous game, tacitly encouraging these factions to push the boundaries of what’s acceptable. Now, that same extremism has spilled into the open, right here in Canada.
Click to link to the National Post

In a National Post Article dated Nov 3 2024, Former Canadian cabinet minister Ujjal Dosanjh, a Sikh himself and a Canadian patriot who’s stood up to the radical fringes of his own community, is now sounding the alarm louder than ever about Justin Trudeau’s reckless pandering to Sikh extremism. Dosanjh is no fringe figure—he’s a former Liberal premier and a lifelong advocate for Canadian unity, even at great personal risk. He knows firsthand the damage that unchecked extremism can do to communities and to national stability. And now he’s pointing the finger directly at Trudeau.

According to Dosanjh, Trudeau’s obsession with catering to every vocal faction, no matter how extreme, has opened the floodgates for Khalistani separatists to operate openly within Canada. The same radicals who were emboldened by Canada’s political elites to support separatism are now terrorizing Hindu Canadians in their places of worship. For Dosanjh, the warning signs have been flashing red since the 1985 Air India bombing, which took the lives of 329 innocent people. But Trudeau, blinded by the need to appease every identity group, has allowed history to repeat itself.

Dosanjh argues that this “diversity at all costs” approach has led to the rise of an insidious form of intimidation that’s left peaceful Sikh Canadians too afraid to speak out against Khalistani extremism. Trudeau’s selective approach to multiculturalism—where every faction is catered to except the mainstream—has backfired spectacularly, leaving Canada vulnerable to the loudest, most radical voices. Most Sikhs in Canada don’t support the Khalistan movement, but Trudeau’s inaction has allowed this tiny, vocal minority to dominate the conversation and overshadow those who simply want to live in peace.

And Trudeau’s handling of the Hardeep Singh Nijjar affair? Dosanjh couldn’t be clearer: Trudeau’s approach was reckless and self-serving. Rather than addressing India’s concerns quietly, behind closed doors, Trudeau chose to escalate the issue on the global stage, causing a diplomatic disaster with one of Canada’s most important allies. In doing so, he’s not only jeopardized Canada-India relations but has risked the security of Canada’s Hindu, Sikh, and Indian diaspora communities. Why? Because Trudeau wanted to look “strong” to his own politically convenient voter base, using Canada’s House of Commons as his stage to grandstand.

And here’s the kicker. Dosanjh draws a stark comparison with the U.S., which recently dealt with a similar incident—an alleged plot against a Sikh separatist in American territory—through quiet diplomacy, respecting its allies without letting domestic politics interfere. Trudeau, on the other hand, saw an opportunity for grandstanding. Why? Because he knows identity politics is his only real play, and he’s willing to sacrifice both Canada’s unity and its global standing to keep his coalition intact.

Dosanjh doesn’t mince words: he sees Trudeau’s vision of Canada—a “post-national state” with no shared culture or common values—as an existential threat to the country’s future. Canada, Dosanjh argues, is not just a collection of identities; it’s a nation built on shared values, lawfulness, and mutual respect. But Trudeau, consumed by his obsession with catering to radical identity groups, is tearing the fabric of that unity apart. Instead of fostering a cohesive nation, Trudeau has allowed Canada to become a fragmented society, a breeding ground for extremism, and a place where national pride is quietly pushed aside for the benefit of loud, divisive voices.

So let’s stop pretending this is a question of free speech. What happened in Brampton was not about peaceful protest or political dissent; it was an act of hate and terrorism, plain and simple. Canada’s laws are clear, and so are the RCMP’s powers to act. Hate speech in Canada is legally defined as public incitement of hatred against any identifiable group—be it race, religion, or ethnicity—that can stir others to violence. What happened at the temple in Brampton goes beyond protest; it was targeted intimidation aimed at a religious community, nothing less than an assault on our nation’s values of tolerance and respect.

As for terrorism, Canada’s Criminal Code lays it out in black and white: any act that is politically or ideologically motivated and aimed at intimidating a public or religious group fits the bill. That’s exactly what these Khalistani extremists achieved by invading a temple, turning a space of worship into a site of fear. So let’s use the words Canada’s laws were built to define. This isn’t just disturbing the peace; it’s hate-fueled terror.

Here’s the blunt reality: the RCMP has the tools to stop this, to prosecute this violence, and to send a message that Canada will not stand by while extremists terrorize communities. And let’s not forget another essential tool—deportation. For any foreign nationals caught inciting or committing acts of violence, deportation is not only a right but a responsibility of any government worth its salt. Canada doesn’t need to tolerate foreign extremists on our soil; if they’ve come here to sow division, they need to be booted out and sent back. And if these radicals hold Canadian citizenship? Then we have prison cells ready for them. It doesn’t matter if they’re white, black, have blue hair, or green skin. If you break the law, if you cross that line from protest to violence, you belong behind bars, not on our streets.

Yet here we are with Trudeau at the helm, watching him bend over backward to avoid calling this violence out for what it is. He’s the same leader who preaches tolerance yet seems oddly selective about who deserves protection. If these were white nationalists outside a mosque or synagogue, Trudeau would be grandstanding in front of the nearest camera, denouncing it as terrorism—and he’d be right. So why the silence now? Is it because he’s too entangled in diaspora politics, relying on certain vote banks to keep his coalition intact? Or is it because he’s lost his nerve, fearful of offending the so-called “cultural sensitivities” of groups who’ve crossed the line?

The hypocrisy is staggering. Trudeau’s Canada is becoming a place where foreign grievances dictate the public peace and where divisive ideologies are allowed to take root. Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives have a monumental task ahead. Trudeau’s game plan appears to be to break the system so badly that he can later point fingers and accuse the Conservatives of heartlessness when they try to fix it. But this is not heartlessness—it’s sanity. It’s common sense. It’s what any reasonable country would do to protect its people.

So let’s be absolutely clear: Canada is not short on people wanting to enter this country, to work hard, to respect its laws, and to build a future here. We don’t need to accommodate extremists or radicals. The way forward is simple: apply the laws we already have. Enforce our hate crime and anti-terrorism laws equally and unapologetically. If Trudeau won’t do it, then Canadians need a leader who will.

Canada needs to stand firm, prioritize its own values, and protect its citizens—not bow to the pressures of radicals who see our openness as weakness. If we want Canada to remain a place of peace, tolerance, and respect, we must enforce our laws without exception.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 3 hours ago

Alberta government announces review of Trudeau’s euthanasia regime

Censorship Industrial Complex / 3 hours ago

Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies

Bruce Dowbiggin / 6 hours ago

The Pathetic, Predictable Demise of Echo Journalism

Censorship Industrial Complex

Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Dr. Michael Nevradakis of The Defender

The Center for Countering Digital Hate, authors of ‘The Disinformation Dozen,’ faces a Nov. 21 deadline to provide Congress with documents related to its alleged collusion with the Biden administration and social media platforms to censor online users.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), authors of the “Disinformation Dozen,” faces a Nov. 21 deadline to provide Congress with documents related to its alleged collusion with the Biden administration and social media platforms to censor online users.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on Nov. 7 subpoenaed CCDH  as part of an ongoing congressional investigation, launched in August 2023, into the nonprofit’s censorship-related activities.

The subpoena requests all communications and documents “between or among CCDH, the Executive Branch, or third parties, including social media companies, relating to the identification of groups, accounts, channels, or posts for moderation, deletion, suppression, restriction, or reduced circulation.”

The subpoena also requests all records, notes, and other “documents of interactions between or among CCDH and the Executive Branch referring or relating to ‘killing’ or taking adverse action against Elon Musk’s X social media platform (formerly Twitter).”

 

CCDH previously included Kennedy on its “Disinformation Dozen” list, published in March 2021, of the 12 “leading online anti-vaxxers.”

Leaked CCDH documents released last month by investigative journalists Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi revealed that CCDH sought to “kill” Twitter and launch “black ops” against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee for secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“Black ops” are defined as a “secret mission or campaign carried out by a military, governmental or other organization, typically one in which the organization conceals or denies its involvement.”

A subsequent report by Taibbi and Thacker showed that CCDH employed tactics it initially developed to help U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the U.S. Democratic Party, to target Musk, Kennedy and others.

CCDH used ‘explicit military terminology’ to target speech

Thacker told The Defender the leaked documents “definitely spurred” Jordan’s subpoena.

Sayer Ji, the founder of GreenMedInfo, was also listed among “The Disinformation Dozen.” He said the leaked documents were “chilling” and that CCDH’s efforts were part of “the largest coordinated foreign influence operation targeting American speech since 1776.”

Ji told The Defender:

The leaked documents confirm what we experienced firsthand: CCDH wasn’t just targeting 12 individuals – we were test cases for deploying military-grade psychological operations against civilians at scale.

Just as the British Crown once used seditious libel laws to silence colonial dissent, CCDH’s operation expanded to silence hundreds of millions globally, from doctors sharing clinical observations to parents discussing vaccine injuries.

Ohio physician Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, also on “The Disinformation Dozen” list, told The Defender, “The exposure of the manipulation that went on behind the scenes to silence us is what we suspected, and now we know … We have the sad last laugh against their attacks. They are the ones with blood on their hands.”

Ji said CCDH’s internal communications reveal not just bias, “but explicit military terminology – ‘black ops,’ ‘target acquisition,’ ‘strategic deployment’ – coordinated between Five Eyes networks and dark money interests to target constitutionally protected speech.”

Writing on GreenMedInfo, Ji said, “CCDH’s ‘black ops’ approach includes coordinated media smears, economic isolation, and digital censorship.” Ji said CCDH’s activities represent “a new level of institutionalized power directed at civilian targets, often bypassing constitutional safeguards.”

Thacker said Jordan’s investigation should expand to include CCDH’s “black ops.”

“I don’t want to speculate on what CCDH was doing with ‘black ops’ against Kennedy,” Thacker said. “I think that should be explored by a congressional committee, with CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed put under oath,” Thacker said.

CCDH facing multiple lawsuits, possible Trump administration investigation

Jordan’s subpoena is the latest in a series of legal challenges for CCDH. According to GreenMedInfo, the organization faces several lawsuits and government investigations.

Following last month’s CCDH document leak, the Trump campaign said an investigation into CCDH “will be at the top of the list.”

The campaign also filed a complaint against the Harris campaign with the Federal Election Commission, “for making and accepting illegal foreign national contributions” – namely, from the U.K. Labour Party.

This followed the release of evidence indicating that the Biden administration coordinated with the U.K. Foreign Office as part of what GreenMedInfo described “as a systematic censorship regime involving CCDH and affiliated organizations.”

A lawsuit Musk filed against CCDH in July 2023 for allegedly illegally obtaining data and using it in a “scare campaign” to deter advertisers from X will likely proceed on appeal. A federal court initially dismissed the lawsuit in March.

Discovery in the Missouri v. Biden free speech lawsuit may also “shed further light and legal scrutiny on the critical role that CCDH played in allegedly suppressing and violating the civil liberties of U.S. citizens,” according to GreenMedInfo.

CCDH, others flee X in protest

Earlier this week, CCDH deleted its account on X, the platform it wanted to “kill.”

Writing on Substack, Ji said CCDH’s departure from X, during the same week Trump nominated Kennedy to lead HHS, represents a “seismic shift” and marks “a watershed moment, signaling the unraveling of entrenched systems of control and the rise of a new era for health freedom and open discourse.”

Several other left-leaning organizations and individuals, including The Guardian and journalist Don Lemon, also said they will stop using X, after Trump tapped Musk to lead a federal agency tasked with increasing government efficiency.

According to NBC News, many ordinary users are also fleeing X, citing “bots, partisan advertisements and harassment, which they all felt reached a tipping point when Donald Trump was elected president last week with Musk’s support.”

But according to Adweek, X’s former top advertisers, including Comcast, IBM, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Lionsgate Entertainment, resumed ad spending on the platform this year, but at “much lower rates” than before.

“Elon Musk’s ties with Donald Trump might spur some advertisers to think spending on X is good for business,” Adweek reported.

Thacker said CCDH’s deletion of its X account was “aligned” with the departure of “other organizations and ‘journalists’ aligned with the Democratic Party.” He said it appears to have been a “coordinated protest.”

Ji said organizations like CCDH view X “as an existential threat.” He added:

Having experienced both Twitter 1.0’s AI-driven censorship system and X’s more open environment, I understand exactly why CCDH sees X as an existential threat. X represents what Twitter 1.0’s embedded censorship infrastructure was designed to prevent: a truly free digital public square.

Under Musk’s commitment to free speech, their tactical advantage disappeared. They’re not leaving because X is toxic. They’re leaving because they can’t control it.

Online censorship ‘may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny’

According to GreenMedInfo, CCDH’s departure from X “appears to reflect an internal recognition that their operational model – characterized by critics as a US-U.K. intelligence ‘cut-out’ facilitating  unconstitutional suppression of civil liberties – may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny.”

In recent months, several mainstream media outlets have corrected stories that relied upon CCDH reports claiming “The Disinformation Dozen” was responsible for up to two-thirds of vaccine-related “misinformation” online.

According to Thacker, this reflects an increasing awareness by such outlets that readers are turning their backs on such reporting.

“The outlets that promoted CCDH propaganda are being investigated by their own readers, who are fleeing in droves. Readers are voting against this type of propaganda by refusing to subscribe to these media outlets,” Thacker said.

Yet, “many outlets continue to host these demonstrably false narratives without correction,” Ji said.

According to Ji, these false narratives resulted in medical professionals fearing the loss of their licenses for expressing non-establishment views, self-censorship among scientists “to avoid career destruction,” suppression of “critical public health discussions” and the labeling of millions of posts as “misinformation.”

“This isn’t just about suppressing speech. It’s about establishing a new form of digital control that echoes the colonial-era suppression our founders fought against,” Ji said.

“CCDH has polluted political discourse by pretending there is some absolute definition of the term ‘misinformation’ and that they hold the dictionary,” Thacker said. “That’s nonsense. They spread hate and misinformation to attack perceived political enemies of the Democratic Party.”

Ji called upon Congress to investigate “The full scope of those silenced beyond the ‘Disinformation Dozen,’” the “systematic suppression of scientific debate,” “media organizations’ role in amplifying foreign influence operations” and “dark money funding networks” supporting such organizations.

Thacker said Congress should examine possible CCDH violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. “We need to also look at how much foreign money they took in and whether we as a nation are comfortable with foreign influence trying to alter the law and political discussions.”

“The fight isn’t just about correcting past wrongs or personal vindication. It’s about preserving fundamental rights to free speech and scientific inquiry in the digital age,” Ji said. “If we don’t address this systematic abuse of power, we risk surrendering the very freedoms our founders fought to establish.”

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Continue Reading

International

Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Outline Sweeping Plan to Cut Federal Regulations And Staffing

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Mariane Angela

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy published an op-ed Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal that revealed their huge plans for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Civil service protections won’t shield federal workers from mass layoffs, according to the op-ed. Musk and Ramaswamy outlined a sweeping plan to cut federal regulations and staffing, marking the most detailed glimpse yet into Trump’s downsizing strategy.

The pair, acting as “outside volunteers,” pledged to collaborate with Trump’s transition team to assemble a “lean team of small-government crusaders.” This team, they said, would work closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget to implement their vision.

The initiative focuses on three core objectives: cutting regulations, reducing administrative overhead, and achieving cost savings. Legal experts and advanced technology will help identify regulations that overstep congressional authority. These rules would be presented to Trump, who could halt enforcement and begin the repeal process through executive action.

“A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy. DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions,” the op-ed revealed.

Musk and Ramaswamy acknowledged the impact of their plan and said displaced workers should be treated with dignity, proposing incentives like early retirement packages and severance pay to ease their transition into private-sector roles. Despite common assumptions, civil service protections won’t prevent these layoffs, they contended, as long as the terminations are framed as reductions in force rather than targeting specific employees.

Musk and Ramaswamy also advocated for relocating federal agencies out of Washington, D.C., and encouraging voluntary resignations from remote workers unwilling to return to the office full-time. “If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home,” they said.

Ramaswamy said Tuesday that federal employees must return to the office full-time. He noted on X, previously known as Twitter, that unions are hastily revising agreements to prevent job losses, claiming the prospect of a five-day office schedule has left some “in tears.”

Trump announced that Musk and Ramaswamy will co-lead a newly created DOGE during his second term. The duo will work with the White House Office of Management and Budget to streamline federal agencies, reduce wasteful spending, and eliminate excessive regulations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X