"While the world was deeply affected by the events of 9/11, the worst terror attack before that, the bombing of two passenger planes on June 23, 1985, which resulted in 331 deaths, was orchestrated by Canadians." [Air India flight blown up by Khalistani Canadian terrorists. What would America have done?]
“Why has Canada become a hub for international terrorist organizations, and what factors contribute to its appeal for these groups? How can Canada strengthen its internal security measures to prevent the growth and activities of terrorist networks? What collaborative efforts can be made between Canada and its allies, especially the U.S., to combat the global threat of terrorism?”
“Bell, an award-winning investigative journalist, raises concerns about why terrorist networks have been able to thrive in Canada and how they pose threats to Canada's allies, especially the United States. He questions the policies and actions of Canada's policymakers and their security and intelligence forces in addressing and disrupting terrorist operations.”
So states the book by award winning Canadian journalist who wrote “Cold Terror: How Canada Nurtures and Exports Terrorism Around the World”.
Worse still they admit to surveilling Indian diplomats in Canada. the principle of not spying on diplomats is rooted in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. This international treaty outlines the framework for diplomatic relations between states and establishes the rules for how diplomats should be treated. Key provisions relevant to spying include:
Inviolability of the diplomatic mission: Article 22 states that the premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable. This means the host country cannot enter the premises without the consent of the mission head. This inviolability is meant to protect the mission from any intrusion or interference.
Inviolability of the diplomatic bag: Article 27 affirms the inviolability of the diplomatic bag. This means the host country cannot open or detain the official correspondence or other official communications of a diplomatic mission.
Inviolability of the person: Article 29 states that the person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. They cannot be detained or arrested, ensuring their safety and freedom from interference by the host country.
While the Vienna Convention does not specifically mention "spying" or "espionage," the inviolability provisions make it clear that interference, intrusion, or unauthorized surveillance of diplomatic missions and their personnel is prohibited.
Being British, I turn to Yes Prime Minister on what must have happened in Trudeau’s office:
Setting: An opulent office in Ottawa with a backdrop of a scenic Canadian vista. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is pacing, while Sir Humphrey Appleby, a seasoned civil servant, lounges in an armchair. Bernard Woolley, the young private secretary, stands near the door.
Trudeau: Humphrey, Bernard, we've got a situation. It appears there are Khalistani extremists in Canada. And... one of them seems to have been "neutralized" under mysterious circumstances.
Sir Humphrey: Ah, Prime Minister, when you say "neutralized," do you mean in the metaphorical or the, shall we say, more permanent sense?
Bernard: He means they think he's dead, Sir Humphrey.
Sir Humphrey: Ah, I see. Very inconvenient, that.
Trudeau: That's not all. The Khalistanis are pointing fingers at India, hinting that someone named "Bond" is involved.
Bernard: James Bond, Prime Minister?
Trudeau: That’s what I thought, but they insist it's some Indian fellow.
Sir Humphrey: Perhaps an undercover Bollywood actor turned spy? (smirking) Maybe it's his distant Indian cousin, Raj Bond.
Trudeau: (exasperated) Humphrey, this is serious!
Bernard: But... isn't James Bond British, and also, fictional?
Sir Humphrey: Precisely, Bernard. This could be a classic case of misdirection or, more likely, a monumental misunderstanding.
Trudeau: We're in a tight spot. We can't afford to lose the Khalistani votes. But the UK and US aren't pleased. They believe a Khalistani extremist being gone is good for global security.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, while it's essential to consider the global perspective, we must remember that every cloud has a silver lining. Or in this case, perhaps a golden gun.
Bernard: (confused) So... we're happy he's gone?
Trudeau: No, Bernard! We can't be seen as being indifferent. Canada is all about inclusion and understanding. I need to confront the Indians about this alleged spy without actually letting them know we've been spying on them. And the Brits and US are not happy with me, let alone Xi. And I just got a message from my now ex-Wife. It’s like the Khalistanis are the only friends I have. And god help me if Trump gets back in- he called me two faced!
Sir Humphrey: Indeed, Prime Minister. Perhaps we could diplomatically suggest to the UK and US that while we don’t condone extremism, we also cannot rejoice at anyone's demise. In the meantime, maybe a quiet inquiry into this "Indian Bond" could be beneficial. If this Raj Bond exists, maybe he could solve the problem of your upcoming divorce?
Trudeau: Humphrey, can you handle it discreetly? Just... try not to stir up any more trouble.
Sir Humphrey: Of course, Prime Minister. We shall proceed with shaken, not stirred, caution.
The scene fades with Trudeau looking bemused and Sir Humphrey giving Bernard a stern look.
