mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Canada denies visa to Indians on 'ridiculous' grounds.. Options
Tovarish
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 2:00:59 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Srirr, I assume the G20 Summit of National Leaders?.
Another costly 'talk fest'.
Our Primeminister was deposed just days before the summit, so our Federal Treasurer went in place.
Huge waste of money that realistically no country can afford.
srirr
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 2:06:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,288
You are correct Tovarish. I was just joking in light mood.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 5:30:47 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
G summit can be such an important forum for all the participating countries to come together and share their views and problems and then chalk out a sustainable plan keeping everyone's interests in mind.
However, I wonder why only the top 20 or 8 countries should represent this summit. Why not the whole world? Everyone has a claim, a right, no matter how well or ill developed the nation is.
I really think the whole point of the G summits should be humanitarian and that can only be possible if and when ALL nations are represented. Otherwise the tendency will be to act as if the resources of the world (directly or indirectly) are to be controlled by the top nations only and they will decide how much will be left for the other 'lagging' nations. Sounds bloody unfair to me.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 5:45:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,131
Neurons: 591,979
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
KM, we have UN for that.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 5:49:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:
KM, we have UN for that.


Even UN does not represent all nations. But more importantly, how many times do they actually sit down and discuss about socio-economic issues excepting wars and alliances and all that political mumbo jumbo? I don't understand what is the point of either of UN or G summits if their purpose is not humanitarian.
Besides, we all know UN is a puppet of a few nations, if not one.
maximus
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:35:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/22/2010
Posts: 58
Neurons: 177
Location: On a round platter inside Farlex Database
I guess the G- summits are then a meeting of the puppet masters.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 1:42:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
Lol, you can say that. But then not all nations puppet the UN on strings. Only a couple do, and you would know which.
But as you can see, I never implied the G summits are useful. They are most certainly not. But where the UN has failed to prevail as a whistle blower and a humanitarian governing body and has ended being a puppet in the hands of a few, the G summit can be so much successful. That is because it is not an organization at all...it is just a meet, a conference. What should be done is (IMO) that every nation should have some liability towards the rest of the world and the purpose of this meet should be overview the efforts of every nation for the time from the last meet towards that end. This could be about anything, starting from natural resources to trying to further relationships with unfriendly nations. Only then can the world become truly globalized. And hence the need for representation of every single nation. Easier said that done, I know.
Right now, it is the authority of only a few in this world economy the exercising of which ill-affects the poorer nations.
nooblet
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 2:34:32 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/15/2009
Posts: 1,570
Neurons: 4,778
Location: United States
So I read all of the articles on the first page of this thread. Nowhere, in any of those articles, was the word terrorist ever mentioned. Why is everyone claiming Canada is calling Indian military forces terrorists?

EDIT: And as for the military members who operated in "sensitive areas..." Let me just ask you this. I'm sure you remember the video titled "collateral murder." Would you want those soldiers, or anyone who was involved in that going into your country under a visa?

Also, I might add that most spies that are in other countries are there illegally, spying. Most countries spy on even their closest allies. Knowingly allowing a spy into your country is clearly naive and stupid, especially one who is no longer being employed by a government and could be doing freelance work for anyone.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 4:16:11 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
They said the army engages in regular and 'systematic torture' and 'engages in violence' in the 'sensitive zone of Kashmir'. I wonder how many soldiers of the world from other countries follow a Gandhian style of Ahimsa during war. That would be something, wouldn't it?. Perhaps they throw kisses at the enemy instead of grenades?
The Canadian govt's description of a national army (a govt. organization) was tantamount to calling BSF a terrorist organization.

As for the spy, you will see from my posts at least that I do not have much objections with that. You will also see that none of us who were protesting against Canada's comments were arguing that Canada was wrong to deny the visas. I kept maintaining they could have simply denied it on grounds that they don't trust India. At least, that would have been honest. But they resorted to blatant lying since they had no proof to back up their comments.
rahul
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 4:39:40 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/1/2010
Posts: 35
Neurons: 105
Location: India
I don't understand why the Canadians have become so worried all of a sudden.they did'nt seem to mind the Khalistani group and in fact gave asylum to its leaders even though they were bombing planes.(Remember Kanishka?).
Hogwash
nooblet
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 4:46:01 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/15/2009
Posts: 1,570
Neurons: 4,778
Location: United States
kisholoy mukherjee wrote:
They said the army engages in regular and 'systematic torture' and 'engages in violence' in the 'sensitive zone of Kashmir'. I wonder how many soldiers of the world from other countries follow a Gandhian style of Ahimsa during war. That would be something, wouldn't it?. Perhaps they throw kisses at the enemy instead of grenades?
The Canadian govt's description of a national army (a govt. organization) was tantamount to calling BSF a terrorist organization.

I doubt the military operatives involved in the Abu Ghraib incidents from the US would be welcome in most countries in the world.

Can you please show me the direct quotes of the Canadian government's reasons behind rejecting the visas? All I found were summaries which were blowing what I read out of proportion.
peterhewett
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 11:59:01 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,452
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head
What a storm in a teacup. All this fuss about a few people refused visa's while this below exists in India.


What about the 250 million of India's forgotton women the Dalit's

http://www.islingtontribune.com/reviews/cinema/2010/jun/cinema-review-indias-forgotten-women-shocking-documentary-about-treatment-lo

There are 250, million of these women. Surely that is a more worthy cause for which to get hot under the collar.

quote
­ranging from the practices of sex-selective abortion and ­infanticide, terrible domestic ­violence and murder. It is uneasy watching, but vitally important this story is told. unquote
srirr
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 12:33:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,288
peterhewett wrote:
What a storm in a teacup. All this fuss about a few people refused visa's while this below exists in India.

What about the 250 million of India's forgotton women the Dalit's

http://www.islingtontribune.com/reviews/cinema/2010/jun/cinema-review-indias-forgotten-women-shocking-documentary-about-treatment-lo

There are 250, million of these women. Surely that is a more worthy cause for which to get hot under the collar.

quote
­ranging from the practices of sex-selective abortion and ­infanticide, terrible domestic ­violence and murder. It is uneasy watching, but vitally important this story is told. unquote


What a clever threadjacking! Why cant you accept that the thread was relevant? Now that you feel defeated and have no words, you are trying to mold it with not-at-all-connected issues. In the same thread, you said that if one does not know, one should stay away (or something like that). Apply it onto you.

Oh Peter! you miss your homeland and your family terribly. A 3-weeks visit was not sufficient. I have sympathy with you personally. Take care man.

@nooblet: There had been links provided to different web articles in the earlier posts. You can go through those. First, a repetition of those will be redundancy. Second, that may once again create an unnecessary debate with some stupid remarks.
peterhewett
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 12:46:53 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,452
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head
Srirr you did not address the plight of these women did you. Shall we start a thread on it... as an Indian what do you think? Does it concern you at all? Do you think this is a real issue... one that should make Indians and others sit up and think?

My point was on thread since it addressed the imbalance of getting all hot under the collar over a few refused visa's, while there are some REAL issues that should make us angry.

What do you think. Would you like to start a thread on it? It would be interesting to see the amount of reaction to such a thread would it not. Do you think we would reach 187 posts?

Every country has REAL issues that need to be addressed, the pity is we tend to make a fuss over what amount to non-issues while sweeping under the carpet human suffering and cruelty... what do you think?

What is the remark 'you feel defeated' about... sorry I cannot see the relevance.


srirr
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 2:43:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,288
Peter, you are free to initiate a new thread on any issue. Do you need permission? And what concerns me can be found in the respective threads. Go ahead.

Now, listen and try to understand and learn.

1. the imbalance of getting all hot under the collar over a few refused visa's
My dear! Do you want to hear this again and again that this was not the issue? Or is your understanding blinded?
The topic was the REASON AND ALLEGATION by Canada officiala, NOT THE DENIAL.

2. Do you think we would reach 187 posts?
To your satisfaction, it can reach even more heights, provided some respectable contributors donot understand the issue, some donot know the issue and put their stupid remarks. I once again quote you: If someone does not know, better stay away. <only if someone understands this>

3. Every country has REAL issues that need to be addressed, the pity is we tend to make a fuss over what amount to non-issues while sweeping under the carpet human suffering and cruelty... what do you think?
Agreed. Can you suggest the Admins to shut down this forum? BTW, why are you making fuss over this inspite of addressing REAL BIG ISSUES. This is exactly what I think.

4. What is the remark 'you feel defeated' about... sorry I cannot see the relevance.
Only if you can find any of your posts in this thread relevant.

EDIT: To quote you again: I donot care.
peterhewett
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 5:04:48 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,452
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head
Now now srirr, you are getting hot under the collar again over unreal issues. What about the real issue I asked you about? You say you don't care? Ok nuff said.
srirr
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 5:17:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,288

Ha ha ha ha !
Peter, The second thing I like about you is that you make me laugh a lot. I know I will never have any ailment if I have people like you around me, for laughter is the best medicine, they say.

peterhewett
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 5:33:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,452
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head
Good srirr that is better than causing you to cry. Now.. the Dalit women....
srirr
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 5:35:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,288

I donot cry as you do my friend.

What Dalit women?
abcxyz
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 8:49:25 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/13/2009
Posts: 1,056
Neurons: 3,200
Location: India
This thread is dead. So give it a proper burial, shall we?

PH, start a thread on Dalit women and we'll all participate. You know, I'm very anti-threadjacking unless I smell toasters.
peterhewett
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 10:58:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,452
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head
My dear abcxyz. It is the bread that smells... although looking at the state of some toasters I have seen you maybe correct. Perhaps you are right a new thread then.
Adriaticus
Posted: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 3:28:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/25/2010
Posts: 240
Neurons: 726
Location: Atlantis
I cannot imagine Canada a country violating the rights of indians asking for a Visa.
Maybe I missed some part but I believe you are referring to a specific case not a ban for ALL the indians. If that is the case, I don't see the problem and I would like to read the canadian official version of the story.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 3:33:29 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
Adriaticus wrote:
I cannot imagine Canada a country violating the rights of indians asking for a Visa.
Maybe I missed some part but I believe you are referring to a specific case not a ban for ALL the indians. If that is the case, I don't see the problem and I would like to read the canadian official version of the story.


The problem wasn't with the fact that they refused visa to some Indians. They obviously can do that.
But the problem was with the fact that the Canadian govt. had referred to the Indian army as an organization that 'notoriously violent unit' that engages in 'systematic torture'.
The Indian govt had asked the Canadian govt. to apologize and that they did. The matter was resolved after that.
A govt. does not apologize to another govt. over false accusations does it?
This was the link given in this thread only after Canada officially apologized.
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article440300.ece
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.