India has told Canada that it must repatriate 41 diplomats by Oct. 10, the Financial Times reported. Ties between India and Canada have become strained over Canadian suspicion that Indian government agents had a role in the June murder in Canada of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

India has told Canada that it must repatriate 41 diplomats by Oct. 10, the Financial Times reported. Ties between India and Canada have become strained over Canadian suspicion that Indian government agents had a role in the June murder in Canada of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

    • @[email protected]
      -54•1 year ago

      If Pierre was briefed on Top Secret info he’d be forbidden from talking about the issue entirely.

      What is so hard to understand about this? Oh right, you’re just gaslighting us into muzzling the opposition. Yay democracy!

      • m-p{3}
        41•1 year ago

        So instead of having a responsible and comprehensive overview of the whole picture, he just keep to spew uncertainty and gaslight everyone instead. Great PM material /s

        • @[email protected]
          -46•1 year ago

          When the PM is directly implicated in some of the classified info, I don’t trust Trudeau not to use clearance as a way to muzzle (or jail) his critics.
          The man is a narcissistic tyrant.

          • m-p{3}English
            18•1 year ago

            So it’s not just Trudeau you don’t trust, but the whole justice system?

            And you think Pierre will be better as he publicly undermines and erode the trust of the justice system, the SOIA which is why security clearance exists and that he will need if he becomes PM, and democracy itself with his rhetoric on social media? I’ve got bad news for us all if that kind of thinking prevails.

            Pierre isn’t talking for the people, he’s talking for his own benefit. He just wants a throne like any other cronies.

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart
            9•1 year ago

            He’s the leader of a minority government which is far from being a tyrant.

      • @[email protected]
        23•1 year ago

        It’s like saying that you’re intentionally not going to get a first aid ticket, so that you don’t have to help someone when they get hurt. You can just throw your hands up and walk away while yelling at all the people who do have their first aid ticket that they’re doing it wrong.

        And then applying for a job as an EMT.

      • @[email protected]
        22•1 year ago

        So he can talk about it while being wrong because he doesn’t have the info? Not exactly a shining example of logic here.

        • @[email protected]
          -7•1 year ago

          The role of the opposition is to scrutinize the government, not to inform the public of what is going on. Only the latter would expect “being right”. In a perfect world the government will always be “right”, so the job fundamentally comes from a “wrong” angle, using “wrongness” as a tool to force the government to explain why it is the one that is “right”. If the opposition is ever “right” then you have some serious problems on your hands.

          But, let’s say you’re on the money that Old Pierre there is confused and thinks it’s his job to inform the public of what is going on, where “being right” would be an imperative. In that case he cannot talk about it either way. So, why would he bother to go through the effort of obtaining the clearance?

          • @[email protected]
            1•1 year ago

            Oh, I geuss I should have used incorrect. Because this isn’t a moral thing, and it might confuse people who lack context.

      • @Oderus
        18•1 year ago

        Angry Mulbear needs a new brain