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 hours 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
Energy / 26 mins ago

A balanced approach shows climate change has been good for us: Alex Epstein

International / 2 hours ago

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

Crime / 3 hours ago

Trudeau’s pro-transgender regime is a get-out-of-jail-free card for Canada’s most violent criminals

Business

EU Tightens Social Media Censorship Screw With Upcoming Mandatory “Disinformation” Rules

Published on November 4, 2024

By

From Reclaim The Net

By Didi Rankovic

This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.

What started out as the EU’s “voluntary code of practice” concerning “disinformation” – affecting tech/social media companies – is now set to turn into a mandatory code of conduct for the most influential and widely-used ones.

The news was revealed by the Irish media regulator, specifically an official of its digital services, Paul Gordon, who spoke to journalists in Brussels. The EU Commission has yet to confirm that January will be the date when the current code will be “formalized” in this way.

The legislation that would enable the “transition” is the controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), which critics often refer to as the “EU online censorship law,” the enforcement of which started in February of this year.

The “voluntary” code is at this time signed by 44 tech companies, and should it become mandatory in January 2025, it will apply to those the EU defines as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) (with at least 45 million monthly active users in the 27-nation bloc).

Currently, the number of such platforms is said to be 25.

In its present form, the DSA’s provisions obligate online platforms to carry out “disinformation”-related risk assessments and reveal what measures they are taking to mitigate any risks revealed by these assessments.

But when the code switches from “voluntary” to mandatory, these obligations will also include other requirements: demonetizing the dissemination of “disinformation”; platforms, civil society groups, and fact-checkers “effectively cooperating” during elections, once again to address “disinformation” – and, “empowering” fact-checkers.

This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.

The code was first introduced (in its “voluntary” form) in 2022, with Google, Meta, and TikTok among the prominent signatories – while these rules originate from a “strengthened” EU Code of Practice on Disinformation based on the Commission’s Guidance issued in May 2021.

“It is for the signatories to decide which commitments they sign up to and it is their responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of their commitments’ implementation,” the EU said at the time – that would have been the “voluntary” element, while the Commission said the time it had not “endorsed” the code.

It appears the EC is now about to “endorse” the code, and then some – there are active preparations to make it mandatory.

Continue Reading

Health

Dad says 5-year-old develops autism after being forced to get 18 vaccines in 1 day

Published on November 4, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D., The Defender

As part of a custody battle, a Tennessee judge ordered a family to vaccinate all three of their children, all of whom had never been vaccinated. Five-year-old Isaac immediately became ill and was eventually diagnosed with severe regressive autism.

In 2016, David Ihben moved his wife and three children from Chicago to Jamestown, in rural Tennessee, with high hopes for a new and calmer life.

But the dream turned into a nightmare for David and his children in December 2019, when divorce proceedings and a subsequent custody battle resulted in the forced vaccination of the children – and changed the family’s fortunes forever.

Ihben said his ex-wife decided “this wasn’t the life she wanted.” So they were attempting to develop a parenting plan in family court – when Tennessee judge Todd Burnett “pulled up the vaccine issue” after discovering the couple’s children were unvaccinated – and forced the parents to vaccinate their children.

Ihben’s two oldest children – daughter Hannah and son Joseph – were spared significant adverse events following their vaccination.

But his youngest son, Isaac, wasn’t so fortunate. After receiving 18 vaccines in one day, Isaac developed severe regressive autism. Today, he requires around-the-clock care.

The children’s mother soon abandoned the children, leaving Ihben to raise them as a single parent – even though he is still obliged to pay child support.

‘How can a judge force medical care without a doctor’s input?’

Ihben told The Defender his entire family was unvaccinated. “I’ve never had any. My dad was drafted by the Army in 1961, and he didn’t get any either. We’ve never vaccinated,” he said. “Our children had to sign religious exemptions for school.”

During divorce proceedings though, his wife’s attorney used the vaccination issue to drive a wedge between the parents.

“When we went to court, I guess her attorney knew that [Burnett] was a pro-vaccine judge and that’s something that they could get me on,” Ihben said.

According to Ihben, Burnett told the couple that it was his “personal opinion that not vaccinating your children is child abuse.” He then told the couple that whichever parent would be willing to vaccinate the children that same day would leave the courthouse with custody.

“I said, ‘Your Honor, we have rights. It’s between the mom and their father,’” Ihben recalled. “Her attorney whispered to her, and she goes, ‘I’ll take them down and vaccinate them today.’”

“I was so surprised, because me and my ex-wife didn’t agree on much, but we did agree on that,” Ihben said, referring to their views on vaccination.

After the hearing, Ihben and his wife were granted joint custody of the children, with their mother as their primary guardian. Later that day, the children received their childhood vaccines – and Isaac immediately became sick.

“My daughter had previous allergies … so the doctor refused to give her all in one day. They split those … She didn’t have any side effects from what I can see,” Ihben said. “[Joseph] was in the ICU for a couple of days but seems to be okay. But [Isaac] spent 12 days in the ICU, eight days with a 106-degree fever.”

Isaac, who was 5 years old at the time, was “just a normal happy kid,” Ihben said.

Today, Isaac has severe regressive autism. Ihben told The Defender:

“He doesn’t talk. He wears a diaper. He eats out of a baby bottle 20-30 times a day, he has speech therapy and will require 24-hour care and supervision for the rest of his life.

“I haven’t had a full night’s sleep in four years. He has to be changed every two hours, or he will have an accident. If you have a child with regressive autism or know someone, you will understand what our days are like.”

Ihben didn’t learn about Isaac’s injuries right away, because the court initially slapped him with a six-month restraining order. When the six months were up, he finally made plans to pick up his children for “two-hour supervised visitation” at a local McDonald’s.

“My youngest comes walking out and I’m like, ‘What’s going on?’” He said his oldest children then told him about what happened to Isaac. “My children told me everything that’s going on. Basically, nobody’s given me information. I had to go off what 10- and 11-year-olds were telling me,” Ihben said.

Ihben tried to find out what happened to Isaac – but encountered more obstacles at Cookeville Regional Medical Center, his local hospital. “The judge had sealed the hospital records. I still cannot get them,” he said.

It wasn’t until he enrolled his daughter in high school that, while obtaining her records from the local health department, he had a chance to view Isaac’s records. That’s when he saw that Isaac had received 18 vaccines in one day.

“How can a judge force medical care without a doctor’s input?” Ihben asked. “I don’t think judges should be dictating medical treatment from the bench.”

According to Ihben, doctors at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said Isaac’s injuries “are a direct result from forced vaccination,” with one doctor telling Ihben that “she’s seen only one other kid that acts like Isaac does.”

Required to continue paying child support, despite mother’s disappearance

Soon after seeing his children for the first time after the custody battle, another surprise was in store for Ihben and his family: Ihben’s ex-wife called to say she and the children had been evicted.

After he kept the children for a week, their mother “got a free house, everything furnished and paid,” and the children were returned to her.

“Then she got evicted from there” in May 2020, Ihben said. He again picked up the children – but that was the last they saw of their mother. According to Ihben, after her second eviction, she left town without a trace.

“We haven’t heard from her or seen her,” Ihben said. “It’ll be five years in May.”

Ihben still pays child support to the state, even though he alone takes care of the children. He said the child support money, which remains uncollected, goes to a state fund – and, if it remains unclaimed, will be confiscated by the state when the children reach adulthood.

Ihben said that though he has gone to court to request full custody of his children or a reduction of his child support payments, he has faced a catch-22 situation.

“The judge said, I can’t do anything unless you get her here in front of me,” Ihben said. “I was like, ‘I’ve served her. Nobody knows where she is.’”

Ihben said he believes the children’s mother didn’t realize Isaac was going to be hurt so badly, and “she just can’t face it.” He added, “I just don’t understand, if she’s been gone almost five years, why she still has full custody, why I still have to pay child support.”

Tennessee laws, local officials pose challenges for raising Isaac

Ihben described the day-to-day realities of caring for Isaac, who will turn 11 next month and just started the fifth grade in a special education program. He said:

“Our lives have changed forever. I can’t have a regular job. I pick up stuff here and there … I have an alarm that goes off every two hours to change Isaac. He eats in the middle of the night … We live out in the country. There’s no bus, so I take him to school back and forth.

“He doesn’t talk, so you don’t know if he’s sick, if he’s upset, if he’s hungry, if he’s cold, if he has a stomach ache … I’ve got a mental list, and I just check it off and hopefully I hit the one that calms him and provides what he needs.”

State rules also pose obstacles. “You’re not allowed to have home healthcare for a disabled child unless you have no other children in the home under 18,” Ihben said.

Ihben noted that Tennessee ranks among the states with the lowest level of funding for autistic children, adding that autistic children are frequently mistreated.

“Our local school district has restraint chairs for autistic children. They are allowed to put Isaac in a chair, to pepper spray him, to tase him. Police departments have no training for dealing with autistic children,” Ihben said.

Ihben said state, county and town officials have attempted to intimidate him and his family.

According to Ihben, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) showed up at his home on Dec. 5, 2023. “Somebody starts beating on the door … there’s a truck at the end of the road, a truck at the end of the other road and two trucks in the driveway. They had assault weapons.”

Ihben said the officers claimed that a social worker wanted to speak with him, but that he refused to open his door for them. He submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the state to find out why his home was raided, but was told there are “no records of anything.”

The TBI raid took a toll on him. “I had a heart attack that night,” he said. “I couldn’t breathe.” He said the incident still affects him today. “I’m sure I have PTSD from it. I’m still under treatment,” Ihben said.

In June 2023, Ihben said he went to his county commission meeting to tell them about what happened to his family. The county commissioner, Jimmy Johnson, left him a voicemail warning him not to hold any rally or protest.

“The commissioner called the sheriff,” Ihben said, but ultimately “they backed off.”

In another incident, Ihben said he was banned from his local Walmart store after a store manager called the police because Isaac “was causing a disturbance.” This obliged Ihben to shop at another Walmart, an hour away from his home.

Ihben said it’s also difficult to find a lawyer to represent him and his family. “No attorney is willing to take on the judge.”

Local officials ‘tried to scare us’ into not doing Vax-Unvax bus interview

Ihben credited CHD and its Tennessee Chapter for helping him and his family. “We wouldn’t be here without CHD helping us out,” Ihben said. “The Tennessee Chapter has helped us out a lot.”

Ihben said he recently saw “Vaxxed 3” with members of the state’s CHD chapter. “What we have to live through every day is horrible, but it could be worse,” Ihben said, citing stories in the film of children who died post-vaccination.

According to Ihben, his efforts to promote CHD initiatives in his community, such as the visit of the Vax-Unvax bus earlier this year, have also been met with intimidation.

“We put a little flyer together [for the Vax-Unvax bus] and we started passing it out,” Ihben said. But on Feb. 1, the day of his bus interview, Ihben said his wife’s attorney, her husband – who is the attorney for the local school board – and Burnett, who mobilized the TBI, “tried to scare us into not doing the bus interview.”

Getting the word out, spreading the message is ‘the only weapon we have’

Isaac has recently shown some improvement, according to Ihben. “He’s doing better slowly … He’s in a lot of therapy. He’s starting to write some numbers and letters on his own. Teachers think he’s reading, but he’s still never said a word.”

Ihben said this has been a learning experience for his oldest children, who will “have to take care of Isaac every day” after his death. “That’s a lifetime commitment.”

Another silver lining, according to Ihben, is that Isaac’s story has become a learning experience for his family and many members of his local community.

“This hasn’t just got me learning. My kids are learning. Hannah and Joseph are learning about their government and their food and their environment. They’re teaching their friends about this.”

For Ihben, getting the word out and spreading the message is “the only weapon we have.” He said, “It’s powerful that my kids’ friends come up and say ‘we’re sorry for what happened to you, we’ve seen the [Vax-Unvax] interview.’”

Ihben said he hopes the message will help other children avoid Isaac’s fate. “I hope Isaac will be the last,” he said.

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Continue Reading

Trending

X