Jump to content

Justin Trudeau


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Regardless of what Trudeau tries to tell you….it’s coming…brace for impact


Pause all hiring': Elon Musk has 'super bad feeling' about economy, plans to cut 10% of Tesla jobs 

Adds to a growing chorus of warnings from business leaders about the risks of recession



Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


“ Canada not hopeless but desperate for leadership “


This column is being composed as I return to Toronto on an Air Canada flight from Vancouver after a very convivial celebration by the Fraser Institute, Canada’s leading public policy think tank. The occasion was the retirement after 15 years as Fraser‘s chairman of Peter Brown, an outstanding and very public- minded financier, a delightful friend, and one of Canada‘s great men. There appeared to be at least 500 people packing out a large hotel ballroom and the featured attraction was a joint discussion chaired by the Fraser Institute’s President, Niels Veldhuis, in which I was privileged to join former prime minister Brian Mulroney and former B.C. premier Gordon Campbell. The ostensible subject of discussion was how we all thought Canada was doing. Readers will recognize the strong electoral credentials of my colleagues: Gordon Campbell won four consecutive municipal elections, three as mayor of Vancouver, and five provincial elections, one as leader of the opposition and the last three emerging as premier. Brian Mulroney won all three elections he contested,  twice being elected prime minister, the first person to win two consecutive majority election victories to that office since Louis St. Laurent in 1953. I was victorious in my one election, to the British House of Lords, but only because of the miniature though distinguished electorate: then leader of the opposition (William Hague), then Prime Minister (Tony Blair), and on their advice, her Majesty the Queen.


The principal points we were asked to address were the state of Canadian federalism, Canada‘s economic condition, and Canada’s standing in the world. The Fraser Institute is non-partisan; Brian Mulroney was a Progressive Conservative and Gordon Campbell’s B.C. liberals were effectively a Liberal- Conservative coalition. I have supported both major parties at different times. Justin Trudeau was only mentioned once or twice in passing.


The consensus that seemed to emerge and to be supported by the distinguished audience was that Canada had squandered its former status built up by the Chretien and Harper governments as a fiscally strong, budget-balancing, hard currency country; that public and private debt levels were now dangerously high, that federalism is in potentially serious crisis because of the present federal government’s hostility to the oil and gas industry, which constitutes an unjustified economic war on Alberta and Saskatchewan, and because of the government of Quebec‘s repression of the language and education rights of English-speaking Quebeckers. I offered the view, as I have in these pages and elsewhere, that the antics of the present Quebec government look like incremental separatism, the pursuit of sovereign independence on the installment plan. The implications of eliminating any official status for the language of more than 70 per cent of Canadians and constricting its education rights in the country’s second largest province, are very serious.


No one dissented when I said that the current prime minister‘s father, Pierre Trudeau would have taken draconian measures to challenge the imposition of the current Bill 96, the repression of the country’s principal official language in the workplaces of the federal government and federally chartered corporations of a province of nearly 8.5 million people. All were agreed that this is a magnificent country with immense resources, a skilled and well-motivated population, a history that is the proud development of half a continent over four centuries, with no serious historical reason for shame — we only participated in just wars, victoriously, seeking nothing for ourselves and motivated only by a desire to support the cause of freedom throughout the world. A number of those attending professed to me privately to be outraged by how little is known or taught of Canadian history.

I am not adequately familiar with the federal budget to be able to propose detailed expense reductions to tackle our imposing federal deficit, but my colleagues, intimately familiar with the challenges of public finance, made a number of knowledgeable suggestions. All agreed that if all the pipelines that have been proposed south, east, and west, were built, personal and corporate income taxes were reduced to more competitive levels, and the regulatory climate were made less forbidding, the $180 billion deficit in capital flows of the last eight years, (the amount by which foreign investment in Canada was exceeded by Canadian investment outside Canada), would be reversed and Canada’s steady loss of comparative net worth per capita would also be reversed. I inflicted on the group night my wistful recollection that when I was young, Canada was always referred to, and was, the second-wealthiest country per capita in the world after the United States. We are now barely in the top 20. The United States with all its problems is 30 to 40 per cent more prosperous per capita than Canada.


Brian Mulroney lamented that Canada has lost its place in the world; despite fervent campaigning, it had been defeated in its recent bids for a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council by Portugal and Ireland, that it was not included nor in the alliance between the US, Australia, and the UK.


Gordon Campbell struck a note that clearly brought widespread agreement when he called for “big and ambitious projects.“ Of course he is correct: this is precisely what instills pride and captures the public’s imagination. He referred, very appositely, to the Canadian Pacific Railway, one of the engineering and financial marvels of the world when it was built 140 years ago. It had to go largely over the Canadian shield, unlike the American railways which passed through grasslands all the way to the Rocky Mountains, and the CPR had to be largely financed in London and New York, where there was much competitive hostility to it. No one wanted Canada to succeed except Canadians, and to some extent and for their own reasons, the British.

There have been such projects in living memory including the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Montreal World’s Fair of 1967 when the eyes of the world were on Canada and the world was impressed. The following 25 years were dominated by the Quebec question and we managed that well, especially Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney. There appeared to be a general consensus that the current regime has gone a bit cock-a-hoop on climate. All the speakers and especially the two who have led large jurisdictions, spoke of the need for leadership to take hard decisions to reduce deficits, and incentivize more swiftly rising prosperity, before we are surpassed by emerging countries such as South Korea and Israel. It was generally agreed that central bankers should stay out of climate questions and other controversial crises far removed from monetary policies.


The current federal conservative leadership race was mentioned but the panelists were guarded. The only person apart from the participants, and just from the mention of his name who drew substantial applause, was Pierre Poilievre.


This was a knowledgeable and worldly audience convened by an outstanding centre for public policy analysis; everyone recognized that Canada is a great but under-performing country. There was agreement that immigration was unambiguously desirable and was part of the solution of the problem. There wasn’t time to get too far into national morale, but in some of the sidebar conversations I found some support for my hopeful suspicion that with all of the problems that have been beleaguering America for some years, Canada’ ancient and often self-conscious preoccupation with the contiguity of that country may be subsiding.


It was said for a century or more that the condition of the late Habsburg Empire in Vienna was “hopeless but not desperate,” Canada is full of justified hope but in desperate need of inspired action. We are waiting for leadership.



Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 5:04 PM, mo32a said:

The reason nothing has been dug up is that if they do dig, and the findings are not as implied, the money truck drives away.

The government money truck?  Haha, good one.  They could dig up half of BC and, if nothing was found, the story will morph into, "Late at night a secret train would stop at the station and take the bodies to Alberta."  "We must spend money looking there."

Link to comment
Share on other sites




First Reading is a daily newsletter keeping you posted on the travails of Canadian politicos, all curated by the National Post's own Tristin Hopper. Published Monday to Thursday at 6 p.m. Eastern Time (and 9 a.m. on Saturdays). Sign up your friends here. 





Can we just take a moment to acknowledge that Doug Ford won re-election on Thursday night after spending the entire campaign standing behind a sign reading "Get Doug Ford It Done"? (The Canadian Press/Chris Young)





The Wall Street Journal editorial board recently took note that Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, seems to keep doing and saying things for the sole purpose of impressing Americans. “One of the oddities of Canadian politics is that its Liberal Party politicians so often sound like they’re running for office in the U.S.,” it reads.


Canadian politics is never too far removed from its U.S. equivalent, but there have indeed been an awful lot of Liberal actions in recent months that don’t really make any sense unless you consider the Liberals' desire to score points with a U.S. audience (or a Canadian audience who watches too much CNN). For example …




It’s hard to think of a Western country that has more thoroughly cowed its anti-abortion movement than Canada. There are no laws whatsoever governing abortion in Canada; a fact that makes us an outlier even among the abortion libertine nations of Europe. Despite this, the consistent public position of the Conservative Party of Canada ever since its 2004 founding has been that whatever their personal thoughts on the matter, they will never introduce legislation to disrupt the status quo.


Of the six people running for Conservative leader right now, five of them (including the two front-runners) have publicly promised not to touch abortion with a 10-metre pole. The Conservative leader in the last federal election said he was “pro-choice.” Even Canada’s leading far-right option, the People’s Party of Canada, has promised not to legislate abortion.


In the face of all this, Trudeau has consistently campaigned on the notion that Canadian abortion access is somehow at risk like it is in select U.S. states. The Liberals’ 2021 platform said that “Conservatives want to roll back abortion access.” And when news leaked that the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision barring state-level bans on abortion, it only took a few hours for Trudeau to respond with a tweet that “every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion.”




Trudeau made direct reference to a recent mass-shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, in his decision this week to “freeze” the sale or transfer of handguns. Not mentioned was that the shooting was actually committed with a long gun. Or that Uvalde is in the United States, and thus not subject to Canadian law. Or that the shooting would almost certainly have been prevented in Canada due to our existing latticework of laws, which are actually pretty good at screening out mentally ill gun owners. Or that handgun shootings in Canada are almost entirely committed with smuggled U.S. firearms that are already illegal.


A high-profile drive by U.S. progressives to counter mass shooting by banning the AR-15 rifle has also had a clear influence on Trudeau policy. The Liberals can’t ban the AR-15, because it’s already prohibited in Canada, but they did issue a 2020 Order-in-Council banning 1,500 long guns that look like the AR-15, even if they might happen to differ dramatically in capability and rate of fire. Notably, that particular order was issued in response to a Nova Scotia mass shooting that was committed with smuggled U.S. firearms.




By virtually every metric, the principal Canadian racial divide is the one between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Indigenous Canadians earn significantly less, their average life expectancy is 15 years earlier and they’re disproportionately the victims of unambiguously racist attacks such as a Thunder Bay woman who was fatally struck with a trailer hitch thrown from a moving car.


But particularly since Black Lives Matter protests and riots roiled the United States in the summer of 2020, the Trudeau government has often framed Canadian race relations as being inflected by the legacies of slavery and segregation. Although African slavery in Canada ended 40 years earlier than in the U.S. — and numbered in the hundreds, rather than the millions — the Liberals have introduced anti-racism training into the civil service that mentions slavery more often than Indian Residential Schools.


Trudeau also has a penchant to issue a public response to every major U.S. racial incident, while overlooking any number of Canadian equivalents. When white supremacists marched through Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, Trudeau issued a statement saying “we know Canada isn’t immune to racist violence & hate.” When protesters convened in Ottawa in June 2020 against the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Trudeau ventured into the crowd and took a knee.




Sentencing reform is a big issue in the United States for the singular reason that they have more prisoners than anyone else. Even after some light moves towards sentencing reform, the U.S still has a higher proportion of their citizens in jail than any other nation on earth and it’s not even close.


This is … not the case in Canada. According to the World Prison Brief, we’re actually on the bottom end of countries when it comes to incarceration rates. As per their last count, Canada ranks 143rd in terms of its per capita rate of people in jail.


It’s why, when activists bring up the issue of sentencing in Canada, it’s usually to demand more of it. This came up a few times during the national inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, when commissioners hinted that chronically light sentencing of violent offenders was “resulting in violence against Indigenous women.”


Nevertheless, the Trudeau government has jumped on the U.S. sentencing reform bandwagon with Bill C-5. The proposed legislation would drop mandatory minimum sentences for a host of violent crimes, including “robbery with a firearm,” “discharging a firearm with intent” and “extortion with a firearm.” Most notably — given Canada’s gun smuggling crisis — it would also reduce sentencing for six charges related to weapons trafficking.




Canada has never really faced a major migrant crises along its southern border. We’ve had the occasional rusty ship showing up on the West Coast filled with South Asian migrants, but the Canadian border has never really seen statistically significant numbers of people illegally darting across with luggage in tow.


That changed in 2017, when thousands of migrants began coursing through what Ottawa would come to call “irregular” border crossings. These were unguarded sections of the U.S./Canadian border, such as Roxham Road in Quebec, where migrants would cross illegally into Canadian territory before claiming refugee status. The crossings emerged entirely to bypass the Safe Third Country Agreement, under which refugee claimants at the U.S.-Canadian border are turned away on the grounds that they’re already in a safe country.


The influx neatly coincided with a 2017 tweet from Trudeau declaring “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith.” It’s easily the most-shared thing that Trudeau has ever posted to the internet, and it was a direct response to a controversial executive order by U.S. president Donald Trump that barred U.S. entry to nationals from seven predominantly Muslim nations, including Middle Eastern refugees.


The tweet got Trudeau a whole bunch of praise in U.S. media, but helped to open up a back door into Canada that hasn’t really closed. Despite clear evidence that the likes of Roxham Road are being heavily used by foreigners who came to the U.S. on tourist visas for the express purpose of illegally entering Canada, the Trudeau government has continued to oversee a heavy influx of border crossers even after the election of a new president (except for that 16-month period when they turned them away to enforce COVID quarantines, of course).





To be fair, though, Trudeau's actual constituents never put him on the cover of Rolling Stone. (Handout)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jaydee said:

Lies, Lies and more Lies 

The Emergencies Act inquiry isn't looking good for Trudeau


The fact that JT either did or would do all of things alleged is bad enough, but what really worries me is the willing cooperation of the media and the support of what I see as too large a contingent of voters.

Media integrity, even at the lowest level of what reasonable people would deem acceptable, was largely absent from most outlets and completely AWOL from the CBC. The deliberate sabotage (excavator scandal) undertaken by the RCMP has now entered the twilight dimension of POOF and currently resides with factual reporting surrounding the NS and Danforth shooting events... SNC security operator activities in Libya during OUP come instantly to mind as well. 

The unholy trinity of government, media, and security forces is on full display here and the implications of that should garner far more concern than what I perceive there to be.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve commented before on having lost confidence and pride in this country and didn’t think much of sockboys off the cuff remark about Canada being a “post national state”.

After watching the Platinum Jubilee celebrations, I was appalled at the lack of this country’s presence….a 12 member marching group that encompassed all of our Armed Forces??? 
Other countries a fraction of our size and importance had a better display. 
Even one commentator was shocked by Canadas lack of effort.

Our Governor General, in attendance to represent our country, looked as if she wished she was someplace else.

But here is Trudeau, marching in London, trying to score points with the Muslims, instead of honouring the Queen on her 70 years of service, and a way of life which thousands of men and women have died for to preserve.

More than disgusted!!


  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote of the day:

If the House of Commons passes the budget implementation bill as expected this month, the Canadian government could have new powers to seize and sell sanctioned Russian assets to fund the reconstruction of Ukraine, setting up a potential violation of international law.

JT seems to have forgotten that he's freely admitted (on behalf of all of us BTW) that Canada is guilty of ongoing genocide. Since genocide is universally recognized as "the crime of crimes," Canadians currently cheering him on may find their own yachts being seized in foreign ports. 

And, since it's good for the environment, and since I'm a one issue voter, I heartily approve of the concept.

Go JT....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For years now, I've been shouting "GO LOOK YOUNGER" at this girl every time I hear about one of her absurdities. Coincidentally, I usually shout the same thing at JT if I hear him mumbling on CBC.

Maybe she could take him out for lunch some time:

Kim Kardashian says she might eat poop 'every single day' to look younger

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, st27 said:

I’ve commented before on having lost confidence and pride in this country and didn’t think much of sockboys off the cuff remark about Canada being a “post national state”



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carson Jerema: Justin Trudeau, the troll farm prime minister

From gun control to abortion and vaccine mandates, the point is to demonize critics

Author of the article:
Carson Jerema
Publishing date:
Jun 06, 2022  •  2 hours ago  •  4 minute read  •   604 Comments

Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives ahead of an extraordinary NATO summit at NATO Headquarters in Brussels on March 24, 2022. (Photo by Kenzo TRIBOUILLARD / AFP) Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives ahead of an extraordinary NATO summit at NATO Headquarters in Brussels on March 24, 2022. (Photo by Kenzo TRIBOUILLARD / AFP)

The Liberal party has been replaced by a troll farm. All governments to some extent curate their policies based on what would be politically beneficial and what would score points off the opposition. For Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, however, this has become pretty much all they are doing.concentrates in U.S.


From gun control to abortion rights to vaccine mandates, no underlying purpose is being served, no policy goals are being truly met. The only aims are to rile up an increasingly hard-left base and to provoke the Conservatives into opposing these policies so that the Liberals can paint them as ogres.


It would be one thing if the government’s progressive agenda was designed to produce the results it promised, but often the only result being produced is outrage.


Consider gun control. While the Liberal party’s election platform merely promised to fund provinces that wanted to bring in their own handgun bans, last week, the government announced a country-wide “freeze” on the sale or purchase of handguns.


Trudeau made a show of linking his more ambitious policy to the murder of 19 children in Uvalde, Texas. “We need only look south of the border to know that if we do not take action, firmly and rapidly, it gets worse and worse and more difficult to counter,” he said.


The prime minister was clearly trying to capitalize on the horror Canadians feel over mass shootings, particularly one that involves so many children.


A reminder that Canadian gun law is already way stricter than the U.S.

Jesse Kline: Liberals defend abortion rights against threats that don't exist

The new Liberal legislation also contains so-called red flag and yellow flag rules, despite the fact that they will be redundant. Canada already has a restrictive regime around background checks, wait times and the circumstances under which police can confiscate firearms.

Preventing the purchase of legal handguns by those subject to these rules will have an at best minimal impact on gun crime. It certainly won’t prevent the kind of horrific shooting that has become far too common in the United States.

What the policy will accomplish, however, is to provide a means for the Liberals to attack critics of the legislation as heartlessly privileging gun owners’ rights over the lives of children.

The gun control scenario was a repeat of how the Liberals responded to the leaked draft of a United States Supreme Court ruling that would strike down constitutional protections on abortion. The government responded as if, much like with gun policy, Canada is not an independent country.


“We’ll never back down from protecting and promoting women’s rights,” said Justice Minister David Lametti. This might be a fine sentiment on its own, but in response to a court ruling in another country, it is pure posturing.


Unlike in the U.S., whether or not abortion is criminalized is a federal responsibility and there are currently no laws restricting abortion in Canada. The constitutional framework that would limit restrictions on any possible future abortion law is on sounder legal grounds than in the United States.


Yet the government wants to enshrine abortion rights in legislation, anyway. It won’t make a difference, and changes that would improve access to already legal abortions, such as new regulations to the Canada Health Act that don’t need Parliament’s approval, have not been implemented during Trudeau’s 6½ years in office. The point is not to actually do anything about women’s rights, it is to bait political opponents into opposing abortion, even if no changes are being made to the status quo.


This scenario is repeated again and again, such as with the ban on conversion therapy, or the lowering of the Canadian flag for half a year, policies where whatever practical value they may have, it is secondary to the goal of demonizing their critics. The most notable has been the government’s vaccine mandate on the civil service and transportation industry.


Trudeau was against mandatory vaccination until he saw an opportunity for political gain ahead of the last election. Vaccine refusers, in the eyes of the Liberals, were suddenly not simply misguided or poorly informed, but, rather, misogynists and racists. But, thanks to a mutating virus and waning effectiveness of vaccines, by the time the mandates were in place, their usefulness had already been spent, except as a way to generate outrage against those who oppose them. So they remain.


That division is embedded in politics is hardly a novel observation. Nor are such cleavages necessarily unhealthy. Building coalitions around sets of principles and ideas necessitates division for the simple fact that people disagree on what’s best for the country. But this endless effort to skewer and bait political opponents and critics, this finger-in-the-eye politics, has become the Liberals main guiding purpose.


National Post  Carson Jerema: Justin Trudeau, the troll farm prime minister | National Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just when you thought he was finished

LILLEY: Trudeau reducing sentencing requirements for serious gun crimes

Brian Lilley - 2h ago
React78 Comments|
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responds to a question during Question Period, Wednesday, June 1, 2022 in Ottawa.
© Provided by Toronto SunPrime Minister Justin Trudeau responds to a question during Question Period, Wednesday, June 1, 2022 in Ottawa.

Justin Trudeau is showing once again that woke politics matter more to him than keeping our streets safe.

The prime minister is defending a bill his government has before Parliament to reduce sentencing requirements for gun crimes, saying it’s about racial equity.

“What our communities need is a justice system that punishes criminals. What we do not need is a system that targets racialized people because of systemic discrimination,” Trudeau said in the Commons last week.

He was answering a question from Conservative Leader Candice Bergen on why “he refuses to have jail time for violent criminals who ignore his useless gun bans.” Except he’s not looking to punish criminals, he’s reducing the time they must spend in jail for gun crimes.

Last week, Trudeau said his government was getting serious about gun crime when they introduced Bill C-21 .

His new plan is to put a “freeze” on licensed gun owners being able to buy handguns, a plan that won’t stop criminals shooting up our streets. In fact, Trudeau’s new legislation spends more time dealing with which classifications of people qualify as the right kind of security guard under the law than it does with dealing with gun crime.

Bill C-21 only deals with actual gun crime in one instance — it raises the maximum sentence a judge can hand out for certain gun crimes from 10 years to 14 years.

At the same time, his government is pushing through Bill C-5 , a law that scraps mandatory minimum sentence for several serious gun crimes. Despite popular Liberal mythology, the Supreme Court did not declare all mandatory minimums unconstitutional — they struck down some, but these punishments have been on the books for decades, including some brought in by Pierre Trudeau’s government.

His son simply doesn’t like harsh sentences for gun crimes and is using race as one of the reasons for dropping them.

“Bill C-5 would not stop police from charging people with gun offences or prosecutors from pursuing convictions,” Justin Trudeau said. “What it would do is make sure that criminals face serious penalties, while addressing the overrepresentation of Black Canadians and Indigenous people in the criminal justice system.”

Perhaps that’s a fair assessment of the bill in the sections that deal with changes to sentences for drug crimes, but when it comes to gun crimes – like robbery or extortion with a firearm – his arguments fall apart. If most of the people being charged with these crimes are Black or Indigenous, then so too are their victims.

Do those Black or Indigenous victims deserve less justice?

The mandatory minimums being done away with in Bill C-5 are hardly the kinds of cruel and unusual punishment courts strike down. For knowingly possessing an illegal firearm, there’s no mandatory minimum on someone’s first offence and a minimum of one year on a second offence.

The mandatory minimum for both gun smuggling and selling illegal guns is three years but Trudeau thinks there should be none and this is the most telling part of the bill. If he cared about gun crime and protecting communities, then he would be pushing stiffer sentences for people smuggling and selling the guns that plague our streets but instead he’s doing the opposite.

The people living in vulnerable communities across Canada need real action on gun crime. They need a government that will be serious about issues like bail reform, stopping smuggling from happening, and punishing those who break the law by taking them off the street.

Instead, we have a virtue signaller in chief who talks about making streets safer while going soft on criminals.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course there is 

1 hour ago, Kargokings said:

Another committee (cost free of course  🙃  ) to combat:


I wonder if there will also be a call for the same to study other phobia>

India facing accusations of blasphemy after top officials make insulting remarks about Islam, Prophet Muhammad

At least 5 Arab nations have lodged official protests against India

The Associated Press · Posted: Jun 06, 2022 2:35 PM ET | Last Updated: 2 hours ago
Supporters of a Pakistani religious group chant anti-Indian slogans during a demonstration to condemn the derogatory references to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad made by Nupur Sharma, a spokesperson of the governing Hindu nationalist party, in Karachi on Monday. (Fareed Khan/The Associated Press)

India is facing major diplomatic outrage from Muslim-majority countries after top officials in the governing Hindu nationalist party made derogatory references to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, drawing accusations of blasphemy across some Arab nations that have left New Delhi struggling to contain the damaging fallout.

At least five Arab nations have lodged official protests against India, and Pakistan and Afghanistan also reacted strongly Monday to the comments made by two prominent spokespeople from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Anger has poured out on social media, and calls for a boycott of Indian goods have surfaced in some Arab nations. At home, it has led to protests against Modi's party in some parts of the country.

The controversial remarks follow increasing violence targeting India's Muslim minority carried out by Hindu nationalists who have been emboldened by Modi's regular silence about such attacks since he was first elected in 2014.

Over the years, Indian Muslims have often been targeted for everything from their food and clothing style to inter-religious marriages. Rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have warned that attacks could escalate.

They have also accused Modi's governing party of looking the other way and sometimes enabling hate speech against Muslims, who comprise 14 per cent of India's 1.4 billion people but are still numerous enough to be the second-largest Muslim population of any nation.

Remarks seen as insult to Prophet Muhammad

Modi's party denies the accusations, but India's Muslims say attacks against them and their faith have increased sharply.

The anger has been growing since last week after the two spokespeople, Nupur Sharma and Naveen Jindal, made speculative remarks that were seen as insulting Islam's Prophet Muhammad and his wife Aisha.

Modi's party took no action against them until Sunday, when a sudden chorus of diplomatic outrage began with Qatar and Kuwait summoning their Indian ambassadors to protest. The BJP suspended Sharma and expelled Jindal and issued a rare statement saying it "strongly denounces insult of any religious personalities," a move that was welcomed by Qatar and Kuwait.

Later, Saudi Arabia and Iran also lodged complaints with India, and the Jeddah-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) said the remarks came in a "context of intensifying hatred and abuse toward Islam in India and systematic practices against Muslims."

India is facing major diplomatic outrage from Muslim-majority countries after top officials in the governing party made derogatory references to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, drawing accusations of blasphemy across some Arab nations that have left New Delhi struggling to contain the damaging fallout. Banners read in part, 'Death is also acceptable in slavery of Prophet' and 'Ready to die in respect of the messenger.' (Fareed Khan/The Associated Press)

India's Foreign Ministry on Monday rejected the comments by the OIC as "unwarranted" and "narrow-minded."

On Sunday, India's embassies in Qatar and Kuwait released a statement saying the views expressed about the Prophet Muhammad and Islam were not those of the Indian government and were made by "fringe elements." The statement said that strong action had already been taken against those who made the derogatory remarks.

The criticism from Muslim countries, however, was severe, indicating that insulting Prophet Muhammad was a red line.

Qatar's Foreign Ministry said it expected a public apology from the Indian government, and Kuwait warned that if the comments go unpunished, India would see "an increase of extremism and hatred."

The Grand Mufti of Oman described the "obscene rudeness" of Modi's party toward Islam as a form of "war." Riyadh said the comments were insulting and called for "respect for beliefs and religions."

Egypt's Al-Azhar Mosque, the Sunni world's foremost institution of religious learning, described the remarks as "real terrorism [that] can plunge the entire world into severe crises and deadly wars."

The remarks, made by Sharma during a TV program in India and Jindal in a tweet, risk damaging India's ties with Arab nations.

India maintains strong relations with Gulf countries, which rely on millions of migrant workers from India and elsewhere in South Asia to serve their tiny local populations and drive the machinery of daily life.

India also depends on oil-rich Gulf Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, to power its energy-thirsty economy.

Anger in Pakistan and Afghanistan

The remarks also led to anger from India's archrival and neighbour, Pakistan, and from Afghanistan.

On Monday, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry summoned an Indian diplomat and conveyed Islamabad's "strong condemnation," a day after Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif said the comments were "hurtful" and "India under Modi is trampling religious freedoms & persecuting Muslims."

India's Foreign Ministry responded by calling Pakistan "a serial violator of minority rights" and said it should not engage "in alarmist propaganda and attempting to foment communal disharmony in India."

"India accords the highest respect to all religions," ministry spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said.

At least five Arab nations have lodged official protests against India, and Pakistan and Afghanistan also reacted strongly Monday. (Fareed Khan/The Associated Press)

Criticism also came from Kabul. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan said the Indian government should not allow "such fanatics to insult … Islam and provoke the feelings of Muslims."

Modi's party also faced anger from some of its own supporters, but it was for a different reason. Many Hindu nationalists posted comments on social media saying the government was buckling under international pressure.

Anti-Muslim sentiments and attacks have risen across India under Modi.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said India was seeing "rising attacks on people and places of worship," eliciting a response from New Delhi, which called the comments "ill-informed."

More recently, religious tensions have escalated after some Hindu groups went to a local court in northern Varanasi city to seek permission to pray at a 17th century mosque, claiming that it was built by demolishing a temple.

Critics say these tensions have been further exacerbated by Indian television anchors during raucous debates.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...