Have reinstated the videos in your post, though neither of those directly related to Kaur's post, which was a criticism of alleged extra-judicial and extra-territorial assassinations and persecution, rather than expressly talking about the Khalistan cause, terrorism, etc.
The sad thing is that this entire thread has been a little disappointing from a legal perspective. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that he had been a convicted terrorist (which he wasn't), whom Canada had refused to extradite. Would India be justified in killing him extrajudicially, in that case? What if he had been an Indian citizen? Does it change anything that he was a Canadian citizen? And how is this different from the extra-judicial drone assassinations of alleged terrorists that the US does, or Russia's or Turkey's or Saudi's assassinations of dissidents abroad?
And does anyone actually consider Khalistani terrorism alive and credible enough, as a threat against India's national sovereignty, etc, to take such alleged measures?
If you are OP, doesn't sound like you are 'conflicted and confused' at all, as you professed, but have pretty strong and set opinions on the topic? As mentioned below, your original headline was also disingenuous (as potentially this entire thread was, as not appearing a call for a genuine and balanced and unheated discussion)?
The original headline was distorting the tenor of the post and seemed designed mostly to incite outrage: she did not directly espouse secession in her post, she just said (as quoted by OP) that all people have a right to self-determination (accurate and something no one would dispute), and that dreaming of secession does not a terrorist make (also correct, right?).
If you want to genuinely discuss the legal issues, rather than turning this into a WhatsApp family chat or Republic TV prime time, then the softer and less sensationalist headline should not stop you (or cause such outrage).
The sad thing is that this entire thread has been a little disappointing from a legal perspective. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that he had been a convicted terrorist (which he wasn't), whom Canada had refused to extradite. Would India be justified in killing him extrajudicially, in that case? What if he had been an Indian citizen? Does it change anything that he was a Canadian citizen? And how is this different from the extra-judicial drone assassinations of alleged terrorists that the US does, or Russia's or Turkey's or Saudi's assassinations of dissidents abroad?
And does anyone actually consider Khalistani terrorism alive and credible enough, as a threat against India's national sovereignty, etc, to take such alleged measures?
If you want to genuinely discuss the legal issues, rather than turning this into a WhatsApp family chat or Republic TV prime time, then the softer and less sensationalist headline should not stop you (or cause such outrage).
As you were, have fun :)