Sikhs across the world have reacted with shock and criticism to the news of a Canadian government report alleging ‘Sikh extremism’ without evidence.

The 2018 Public Report on the Terrorism Threat to Canada was published yesterday by Public Safety Canada, a federal government department. The report included a small section on ‘Sikh extremism’ but failed to provide any evidence for this contributing to Canada’s terror threat.

The report says: ‘Some individuals in Canada continue to support Sikh (Khalistani) extremist ideologies and movements. This political movement aims to create an independent homeland for Sikhs called Khalistan, in India.’ It did not specify how support for self-determination, a principle enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, contributed to Canada’s terror threat.

President of the World Sikh Organisation Mukhbir Singh condemned the report, saying: ‘It is deeply disappointing to see the addition of imagined “Sikh extremism” to the 2018 Public Report on the Terrorism Threat to Canada.’

He added: ‘There is no explanation for this addition other than Public Safety Canada having tacitly accepted the false Indian rhetoric around rising extremism in the Sikh community.’

In a letter to Ralph Goodale, the Minister of Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness, the WSO clearly indicated a link between the inclusion of Sikhs in the report and Canada’s diplomatic relations with India. It said: ‘Given the lack of any current incidents associated with extremism in the Sikh community, it appears that the addition of the section on ‘Sikh extremism’ is linked to the fact that, despite any evidence, India has repeatedly raised this issue with Canada at every bilateral meeting between the two countries.’

Jagmeet Singh, leader of the New Democratic Party responded by tweeting: ‘We must call out terrorism wherever it occurs, including recent attacks from the far right targeting women in Toronto & Muslims in QC. The Liberal’s public safety report fails to do this – but does stoke fear w/o any evidence about the Sikh community, which is dangerous & wrong.’

A statement from the British Columbia Sikh Gurudwaras Council and Ontario Gurdwaras Committee – a coalition of around 30 gurdwaras across Canada – called the inclusion ‘not only surprising, but disturbing.’

They warned: ‘Maligning the entire Sikh community in this report in such a generalised statement is irresponsible and could have wide standing effects on Sikhs throughout Canada.  

‘What has happened since December 21 2017 (release of the 2017 version of this report) that would move the Liberal government in Canada to take such a step and include the Sikh community now?’

Echoing the concerns of the WSO, the statement said: ‘The direct link between the content of this report regarding the Sikh community and the ongoing interference of the Government of India in Sikh affairs within Canada is blatantly obvious.’

Canadian Sikh educator Harman Singh of world-renowned educational outlet Basics of Sikhi said: ‘It is shocking that such damaging claims have been made on the basis of no evidence. Such unsubstantiated rhetoric from the government endangers the lives of Canadian Sikhs.’

Regarding support for Khalistan, he added: ‘How does the Canadian government not understand that many Sikhs fear for their security, and that of their people and heritage, in a country whose government has committed genocide against them? Across the world the principle of self-determination is seen as fundamental to democracy. Why is the Canadian government scaremongering by portraying Sikhs as a threat for voicing that fundamental right?’

The reaction from Sikhs was strong enough to prompt a response from Garnett Genius, the Deputy Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. He tweeted: ‘References to “Sikh extremism” or other “extremisms” without context or evidence is an irresponsible way for the government to communicate about a sensitive issue. We would like more information about what led to that reference.’

The report comes just days after a parliamentary report investigating Justin Trudeau’s trip to India in February said concern from the National Security and Intelligence Advisor that ‘foreign actors were undermining the reputation of “respected public institutions”’ in Canada was ‘understandable’.

The report is also at odds with findings from respected academic Dr Jasjit Singh, whose investigations of the British Sikh community – where there is significant Khalistan support – found no evidence to suggest a terror threat from Sikhs. He said his report ‘concludes that Sikhs in Britain do not pose a security threat as there is no conflict with “the West”’.  In June, British Sikhs marched in front of Buckingham Palace and down the Mall in London behind a ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ banner without any expression of concern from the British authorities.

On Saturday 8th December, an incident at Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha in Hounslow saw police officers called to the Gurdwara regarding a protest against an individual.

Here we share two statements from parties involved:

Statement from Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Hounslow

Statement from Amarjeet Singh 

Foreign Office minister Mark Field has said he will make representations to the Foreign Secretary, to suggest that he meets with Jagtar Singh’s MP and family.

The remarks came in a House of Commons debate brought by Jagtar Singh’s constituency MP Martin Docherty-Hughes yesterday, in which there was widespread concern that the Foreign Secretary had not yet met with either Jagtar Singh’s family or MP.

Asking for a meeting was at the heart of Docherty-Hughes’ speech, in which he spoke of several actions, and instances of inaction from the British government, which formed a ‘consistent narrative over the last year’ of ‘superficiality underpinned by an incoherent approach to consular support.’ Britain’s first turbaned Sikh MP, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, said that such a meeting was ‘the very least that the family deserves’, as the Commons heard that the Foreign Secretary had in fact already met with another MP (Eddie Hughes) regarding the case. Meanwhile, the Foreign Office minister maintained that Jagtar Singh’s case ‘has been a priority for the government at the highest levels.’

Jagtar Singh, described by his MP as ‘a true son of the rock [of Dumbarton]’ has been detained for over a year in India. In that time, he has risked severe consequences by telling British officials of his torture at the hands of the Indian authorities. Shortly after his arrest, the Chief Minister of Punjab boasted that the authorities had all the evidence against Jagtar Singh; over one year later not a single piece of evidence against him has been presented. Martin Docherty-Hughes called for Jagtar Singh to receive a fair, transparent trial based on due process or ‘if there are no witnesses, if there is no evidence, to be released.’

Despite starting much earlier than planned, the debate was well attended, with even the minister expressing the sentiment that it was far from ‘a standard half-an-hour, two-member adjournment debate.’ Taking advantage of the earlier start time, Martin Docherty-Hughes carefully presented  a thorough timeline of Jagtar Singh’s abduction by plain-clothes police in Punjab to the House and read out his report of the subsequent torture which included electrocution of his private areas. He took numerous interventions, mainly from SNP colleagues who all raised concerns regarding not just Jagtar Singh’s torture but the government inaction thereafter.

Martin Docherty-Hughes was also scathing of the fact that the British Deputy High Commissioner in Chandigarh discussed Jagtar Singh’s case at public meetings in the UK before meeting his MP or his family. Docherty-Hughes asked: ‘How did it come about that I and my constituent’s family got the discuss the issue with the Deputy High Commissioner, who has visited my constituent (I have not had that luxury)? It was through the office of my honourable friend [Preet Kaur Gill].’ Using self-admittedly diplomatic language, Docherty-Hughes described that meeting as ‘fraught or even frosty,’ following from the intervention of Preet Kaur Gill, Chair of the APPG for British Sikhs, who said that it was unclear what representations the British High Commissioner in Chandigarh had made to Punjab’s Chief Minister when the two met.

Alison Thewliss, whose constituency of Glasgow Central contains the city’s three Gurdwaras said: ‘Jagtar’s case raises wider concerns for each of the members of those congregations [of Glasgow’s three Gurdwaras] when they go to travel to India, they may face similar threats and that there are real and genuine worries there for their own safety’ Martin Docherty-Hughes agreed, saying that he thought gurdwaras not just in Scotland but across the UK shared that concern. The minister acknowledged the interest of not just Jagtar Singh’s family, but the wider Sikh community, in his case.

Referencing the ‘extreme action’ remarks made by the then-Foreign minister Rory Stewart, Docherty-Hughes asked ‘that the minister today enlightens us as to what “extreme action” was and what their own investigations concluded.’ Mark Field replied: ‘While in all fairness, I probably would not have used the phrase “extreme action” – I don’t think “extreme” is something that many people would associate with me and my brand of politics – nonetheless allegations like this are taken extremely seriously.’ Regarding the allegations of torture, the minister said that ‘at this stage they [the Indian authorities]are refuting that they have happened,’ but said he would write to the MP for West Dunbartonshire with a response that he could guarantee would be accurate.

Jagtar Singh’s MP methodically raised specific points of concern about his constituent’s detention, not least the discouraging remarks from state authorities in Punjab, which he explicitly called out. He said: ‘Since nearly day one in this case, state authorities specifically in the Punjab have been quite open that they believe my constituent to be guilty. They have conducted a trial by media and they have made it quite clear that they expect him to be found guilty if a trial should ever take place. That clearly undermines the very principle of due process in the Republic of India and that really should concern us all.’

He also addressed concerning reports in the Indian media, notably a ‘set pattern of a series of seemingly well-informed leaks and briefings to Indian media regarding the case’ that had an ‘often sinister, if not sectarian, air.’ The minister said that while he was not alleging such activities had taken place, any such activities would not be an acceptable state of affairs.

Several MPs raised the recent case of Matthew Hedges, who has been pardoned by the government of the United Arab Emirates following swift and decisive intervention from the Foreign Secretary. When asked why it had taken so long in Jagtar’s case compared to Matthew Hedges’, Martin Docherty-Hughes replied: ‘If I had the answer to that we wouldn’t need to have this debate on the floor of this House today.’ The Foreign Office minister however was adamant that it would be ‘unfair to draw or make any implications about comparisons in particular cases,’ adding: ‘There is no suggestion that there is a preferential treatment because of any cultural or other difficulties that may apply.’ This did not address the specific point raised by Martin Docherty-Hughes who highlighted ‘the inconsistency of the narrative of other cases where the Foreign Secretary – both the present one and their predecessor – have unequivocally opened their doors to meet certain families of specific cases.’ The minister was keen to adopt a cautious tone, explaining: ‘For every win, as it were – of that description – there are many other cases where perhaps, as I say, under the radar we are working extremely hard for many, many months without quick and positive results.’

Furthermore, the debate explored the role of Martin Docherty-Hughes as a constituency MP. Members across the House were united in the belief that British politicians could not dictate to the Indian legal and judicial systems. Jagtar’s MP said: ‘My duty to my constituent is to highlight that serious charges have been laid and I must only hope they are tested in a manner consistent with the laws and practices of the Republic of India.’ He added that the pillars of the rule of law and of due process ‘are being sorely tested in Jagtar’s case.’ While the minister agreed that the laws and systems of other countries needed to be respected, he said: ‘We can intervene on behalf of British nationals where they are not treated in line with international accepted standards or if there are unreasonable delays or procedures.’ The minister did not respond to a question from Docherty-Hughes which cited the diplomatic implications of Brexit: ‘What type of trade will we have where we might sacrifice our own ability to defend democracy and its pillars for free trade?’

The Foreign Office minister also issued a formal apology to Jagtar Singh’s brother Gurpreet, saying he was ‘deeply apologetic’ for not responding to his Freedom of Information request in a timely manner. He closed the debate by saying: ‘The fact that we have this debate here today, I think, will make it very clear to the Indian authorities, to the new Indian High Commissioner here in London, that we are ready to continue to raise our concerns about his case at the highest levels and will continue to do so until there is a resolution of these matters.’ It remains to be seen whether that will include a meeting between Jagtar Singh’s brother, his MP, and the Foreign Secretary.

Tiger, a biopic based on former amateur boxing champion Pardeep Singh Nagra’s battle to fight boxing’s beard ban, is set for release across North America on November 30th. Starring Mickey Rourke and Prem Singh, the film is seen as a historic breakthrough for Sikh art, with its retelling of a modern day tale of Sikh principal being put before individual ambition in the face of Western discrimination.

The film is to be premiered in California, New York, Ontario and British Columbia on November 30th and shown throughout the week. Details;

New York, all day screenings at Regal E-Walk Stadium 13 & RPX from November 30th onwards. Tickets available here.

Los Angeles, all day screenings at Cinemark 18 from November 30th onwards. Tickets available here.

Toronto, all day screenings at Cineplex Courtney Park from November 30th onwards. Tickets available here.

Vancouver, all day screenings at International Village from November 30th onwards. Tickets available here.

Note, the websites are being continually updated. If there is no link for Tiger, please check later.

In 1999 Pardeep Singh Nagra, became the Ontario amateur boxing flyweight champion. His achievement of winning the prestigious title presented him with an opportunity to possibly compete in the Olympics.

However, an obstacle was placed before his efforts in taking his boxing career further, one that would challenge his commitment to his faith.

As a practicing Sikh, Pardeep Singh wore a turban and kept his kes (unshorn hair), something mandated as part of Sikh practice. Amateur boxing across the world has had a beard ban in place since its inception, something upheld still to this day by AIBA (Amateur International Boxing Association). Despite the huge opportunity placed before him, Pardeep Singh recognised the long history of Sikh fortitude and sacrifice that came with the keeping of the distinct physical Sikh identity.

For this reason, Pardeep Singh decided to take on another fight, this time, outside of the ring. What came next was a courtroom battle between Canada’s boxing association and Pardeep Singh, one of the very few (and possibly at the time only) Sikh boxers competing at an elite amateur level, which is usually a precursor for a successful professional career.

This courtroom battle was fought simultaneously with his in-ring battles, both of which were inspired by his Sikh faith. Pardeep Singh Nagra changed boxing forever, and Tiger is the tale of how he did it.

Trailer

Website: Thetigermovie.com

Twitter: @TigerMovie2018

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tigermovie2018/

Instagram: @tigerthemovie