Your Singhs today (Vancouver edition)

Meet Opinder Singh Sian, soon to appear in the United States District Court in California  to face charges that he was the North American leader of an international drug smuggling organization, moving huge amounts of methamphetamine and fentanyl precursors around the globe.

Mr Sian hails from the majority-Sikh city of Surrey BC. He is no stranger to the courts, with a record going back to 2007 when he was convicted of careless use of a firearm and obstruction of a peace officer. Between then and 2010, he was regularly stopped by police, often in vehicles with other gangsters.

Evidently he didn't learn that if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas, for in August of 2008 he was seriously injured in a shootout in Surrey that left one Gurpreet Singh Sidhu dead. Mr Sian's injuries were so serious that he received support from the Crime Victim Assistance Program. Who said crime doesn't pay?

In March 2009, police executed a search warrant at the family home in Surrey and found cash and drugs. No charges resulted. However, Mr Sian was well on his way to becoming a major player in the Lower Mainland underworld. He survived targeted shootings and reportedly leads the Brothers Keepers gang — a key proxy for the Sinaloa cartel in Canada, interoperable with other Latin American cartels, Chinese Communist Party chemical suppliers, and working alongside the Kinahans, a notorious Irish crime family now based in Dubai and closely linked to Hezbollah finance networks. 

British Columbia's anti-gang Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit wouldn't comment on Sian’s involvement with the Brothers Keepers gang. Spokesthingy Cpl. Sarbjit Singh Sangha (no relation, shurely) said in an e-mail to the Vancouver Sun, "We do not have any active investigation on this person."

No indeed! Mr Sian was arrested in sunny Arizona ("Sunnier than California, you bet!") and indicted in a sweeping US case that underscores British Columbia’s critical role as a global trafficking hub, bringing together Mexican cartels and Chinese precursor suppliers that operate with near impunity in Vancouver, but, since President Trump called attention to cross-border crime, have become the focus of elite American law enforcement. 

At one point during the three-year-long investigation by the DEA, Mr Sian allegedly told a confidential source that he worked with "Irish organized crime, specifically, the Kinahan family, Italian organized crime and other Canadian organized cime families." He also boasted about his contacts in drug cartels in Mexico and South America. Hey, isn't that what free trade is all about?!

Sidelight: According to the report in the Vancouver Sun, the international drug kingpin also ran into a spot of trouble a decade ago, when he tried to get his purported bride into the Great No-longer-white North. Canada's Immigration Appeal Board ruled his marriage to Sikhjeet Kaur Gill a sham. 

The biggest red flag to adjudicator Tim Crowhurst was that Ms Gill didn't even know Mr Sian had been seriously injured in the 2008 gangland shooting mentioned above, or that he had a criminal record. Wrote the judge, "This background is particularly relevant to this appeal because the applicant was not aware of the appellant’s criminal history, nor the shooting, nor his work experience at the time of marriage. The panel finds that this is very important information that would be expected to be shared by two persons entering into a genuine relationship." Well, duh!

Your Singhs today (British Columbia edition)

"Diversity is our strength" is the mantra (read: steaming load of crap) which the former Prime Minister of Canada kept repeating so often and for so long that even the slowest Canuck saw it for the Big Lie that it is.

Mark Carnage, the latest incarnation of the god of woke, won't be using that line in the election campaign which kicked off today. Perhaps it's because examples the unwillingness of diverse peoples to accommodate themselves to the norms and laws of Canadian society are featured on the news every day. 

One of those peoples who've been getting a lot of ink/airtime lately are the members of the Sikh "faith community". For examples, put "Sikhs" or "Singh" in our search window and see what pops up. Here is another one, for which we thank the good folks at Blazing Cat Fur, who got us past the Epoch Times paywall.

BC Court Voids 'Cult' Marriage,

Finding Woman Didn't 'Truly Consent'

A British Columbia judge has annulled the marriage of a woman to a fellow member of an India-based “cult group,” saying she didn’t “truly consent” to the 2023 wedding. The B.C. Supreme Court ruling issued this week says Arshnoor Kaur Jaura claimed she was manipulated and overwhelmed by a “barrage” of overtures from Napinder Singh Jaura and his family that began in October 2022. 

The ruling by Justice Ian Caldwell says the woman was an 18-year-old permanent resident in Canada when she was first contacted by the man, who lived in New Zealand and was around 32. The ruling says she did not wish to marry but the man and his family “persisted,” bringing a “sacred food gift” to her workplace and claiming the union was “blessed” by a priest of the Dera Sacha Sauda religious group. 

The man’s sister warned that refusing the marriage would invite “the wrath” of the religious community. Caldwell’s ruling found the marriage “voidable,” saying the man “pursued, harassed, and perhaps even stalked” the teenager who was under duress when the wedding occurred in Abbotsford, B.C.

The ruling says the woman had finally agreed to marry on April 25, 2023, and was picked up from work the next day by Singh Jaura’s relative. She was driven to a home where a Punjabi wedding suit was waiting for her, and the ceremony happened that day without her family present. 

Kaur Jaura, the judge found, “had clearly told the respondent that she did not wish to get married, and certainly not to him. She expressed this on several occasions. He refused to accept ‘no’ for an answer.”

The woman returned the wedding ring soon after the ceremony, the marriage was never consummated and she didn’t go to New Zealand to live with Singh Jaura, who left Canada the next month. The judge noted that Kaur Jaura claimed she was “overwhelmed, in a state of shock, and unable to fully comprehend what was going on” when the whirlwind wedding occurred. 

“One does not have to look far to be confronted with the realities of other young people, also in their teens, who have taken drastic actions, including suicide, in the face of such challenges and threats to social standing and reputation,” Judge Caldwell ruled. 

The Dera Sacha Sauda group is led by a guru who calls himself Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insaan, who has been convicted of raping two followers and murdering a journalist. He is serving a life sentence in India.

"Muslim-American" teen burned with hot oil for dishonouring family

This is Maarib Al-Hishmawi, a 16-year-old "Muslim-American" girl who ran away from her San Antonio TX home at the end of January, because she refused to take part in a marriage arranged for her by her parents.

And these are her "Muslim-American" parents, Abdulah Fahmi Al-Hishmawi, 34, and Hamdiyah Saha Al-Hishmawi, 33.

Ma and Pa Al-Hishmawi were arrested last Friday on charges of "coninuous family violence", including physically and mentally abusing their daughter. Among other things, they allegedly threw hot cooking oil on her. Why? Because by refusing the marriage, she dishonoured the family. After all, they gave the putative groom's family their word!

Bexar County police say that in 2017, the couple told their daughter that a man in another city had offered them $20,000 for her hand in marriage, which she was to accept. When Maarib refused, police said, her parents beat her with broomsticks, choked her, and poured hot cooking oil on her. Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar told the meeja on Friday, "The only way that this young lady could bring an end to this abuse was to verbally agree to become a party to this marriage."

Instead, the girl went missing on January 30th, after leaving her high school campus. The FBI launched an investigation and found her in mid-March, though they have not disclosed where she was located. She and her five siblings have all been placed with Child Protective Services. No information has been made available as to the family's immigration status or what will happen to the parents if they are convicted of this "crime of honour".

Canadian Sikhs face extradition to India for honour killings

Not all honour killings -- in which young women (usually) are murdered by family members for bringing dishonour on the family -- are committed by Muslims from the Middle East and South Asia. Such despicable acts are all too common in south Asian Hindu and (especially) Sikh communities, not just at home in India, but wherever they may be found.

Thanks to decades of open-door immigration policies, the Great No-Longer-White North is now "home" to hundreds of thousands of Sikhs, who bring the religions and customs of the old country with them and refuse to adopt or even adapt to Canadian ways. One such area is Peel Region, west of Toronto. The other is British Columbia's Lower Mainland, surrounding Vancouver.

Two residents of the latter are Malkit Kaur Sidhu and Surjit Badesha, of Maple Ridge BC. They have fighting since 2012 to avoid extradition to India, where they are wanted for arranging the honour killing of Jaswinder (Jassi) Kaur Sidhu, right, and her husband, Sukhwinder (Mithu) Singh. Surjit Singh Badesha is Jassi's uncle; Malkit Kaur Sidhu is her mother. All of them are (or were) Sikhs.

Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu's body was found in a canal in India in 2000. Her throat had been slit. Her husband was badly beaten and left for dead at the scene. Jassi's crime, for which her mother and uncle are allegedly responsible, was secretly marrying Mithu, a humble rickshaw driver, a man of much lower social status, instead of the older man her family had arranged for her to wed in Canada.

Malkit Kaur Sidhu (Jassi's mother) and Surjit Singh Badesha (her uncle) were arrested in Canada in 2012, on charges of orchestrating the honour killing. Indian courts asked to have the pair extradited to face trial, but a surrender order signed by former Justice Minister Peter MacKay was challenged and ultimately struck down by a British Columbia appeals court last year. See "No Justice In Jassi Sidhu Murder Case: Court Rejects India’s Extradition Order For Victim’s Mother & Uncle", The Aerogram, 10/3/16. The appeal court found the pair could be subject to violence, torture or neglect ["neglect"? Seriously? Ed.] based on India's human rights record.

Mr Badesha's lawyer (((Michael Klein))) told CBC News the pair could be in danger if sent to India, and Canada is obliged to protect them. "Both of these people are elderly and both have health issues and that makes them more vulnerable in an Indian prison system, especially one which has been characterized as quite brutal."

The Attorney-General of Canada begs to differ. In a 46-page submission to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Crown says the BC appeal court erred, calling its decision an "unwarranted interference" with the minister's order to return alleged perpetrators in the "brutal and notorious 'honour' killing of a Canadian citizen." It said the ruling jeopardized Canada's ability to live up to its obligations to extradition treaty partners. "The need to fulfil Canada's obligations in relation to extradition is always a crucial factor," the brief says, "precisely because of the objectives of the extradition regime including the importance of seeing justice done in the jurisdiction in which crimes are committed and the need to prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for criminals."

A number of SJWs and members of the human rights industry have intervened in the case. (((Juda Strawczynski))), president of Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights, said alternatives to extradition are available in cases when a recipient country's human rights record is spotty. In a remarkable twist of logic, he told CBC News Canada cannot forego human rights in the pursuit of justice! "We have to look at what we can fully consider as justice, and here we have to be mindful of Canada's reputation and trying to avoid injustices as much as possible," he said.

Seven men were convicted of the crimes in India, but (Indian courts being what they are) several of those convictions have been overturned on appeal. Now apologists for Ms Sidhu and Mr Badesha say that justice for those who (allegedly) arranged the crimes trumps justice for Jassi and Mithu. Remarkable, isn't it?

Further reading - Latest on the Shafia honour killings: Do you remember Hamed Shafia? He was the young Afghan-Canadian who was found guilty in 2012, along with his father and his father's second wife, of the murder on his father's first wife and his (Hamed's) three sisters. Hamed was tried and sentenced as an adult, as all concerned admitted he was 18 at the time of the honour killings. After the conviction and sentence, Hamed suddenly discovered he was only 17, therefore should have been tried and sentenced as a juvenile. Oopsy!

The Supreme Court of Canada is now considering whether to hear his appeal on those grounds. See "Portrait of a young 'honour killer': How an old family photo could derail Hamed Shafia’s last-ditch appeal", Maclean's, 16/3/17. And click here for the complete play-by-play account of the Shafia case as posted on WWW, 8/12/11 to 4/3/16.

Pakistani immigrant withdraws sponsorship of pregnant wife, tries to send her home without their son

From north of the 49th Parallel, our resident legal beagle sends along a case report -- H.S. v R.S., 2015 BCSC 1856 -- interesting for being an unusual example of the application of common sense to the ultra-liberal Canadian immigration "system". (Agent 3 asks, "Is dis a system?")

Mrs. R.S. and the Claimant, Dr. H.S., are both from Pakistan. (Their identities have been suppressed for reasons of privacy and political correctness. Walt wouldn't be surprised if their surname is "Singh".) Dr. H.S., a veterinary surgeon aged 53, came to Canada about 35 years ago and became a Canadian citizen. Mrs. R.S. is 40 years old, and a citizen of Pakistan, where she had what the judge called an "impressive résumé" of education and employment.

In his judgment, Mr. Justice Macintosh of the Supreme Court of British Columbia wrote that the parties were introduced through a mutual friend when Mrs. R.S. was living in Pakistan and Dr. H.S. was living and working in Victoria. Mrs. R.S. came to Canada on a visitor's visa. [Walt's emphasis] The couple married in Ontario on October 25, 2012, and married again in a religious ceremony in Pakistan.

In 2013, Mrs. R.S. moved to Canada, again on a visitor's visa, where the newlyweds lived in a house in Victoria which Dr. H.S. shared with his mother. Soon after Mrs. R.S. arrived the second time, her husband agreed to sponsor her as a permanent resident under Canada's "family reunification" programme.

Sadly (but predictably?) the marriage soon disintegrated amid allegations that the husband had been physically and emotionally abusive. And of course there was the mother-in-law problem. The S's supposedly separated in March 2014, by which time Mrs. R.S. was four months pregnant. However, it wasn't until May 2014 that her husband threw her out of the house.

"Dr. H.S. withdrew his (sponsorship) support almost the same day the couple separated," said the judge, noting that it isn’t clear if that was necessary. "He was duty bound to do so in the case of divorce, and he says in an affidavit that he was advised by a lawyer to do so in the case of separation."

However, the good doctor didn't bother to inform his wife about the change in her prospects for remaining in Canada. One can imagine her surprise on receiving a departure order from Canuck immigration officials in April 2014. She then tried the old dodge of making a refugee claim to stay in Canada, alleging that she was in danger from a former fiancé back in Pakistan, but, incredibly, her claim was rejected.

Mrs. R.S. was supposed to be leave "voluntarily" or be deported in September. In anticipation of having to leave Canada, she applied to the court for an order allowing her to take with her the couple's son, 13 months old at the time of the application. The boy has spent most of his short life in the care of his mother, although a court order allows the father visitation rights of up to 20 hours a week.

Mrs. S's application was resisted by Dr. H.S., but Mr. Justice Macintosh found that it would be in the child's best interests to be with his mother. "Mrs. R.S. is clearly A [the child]'s primary parent and primary caregiver, and always has been. She still nurses him five or six times a day. The geographic location for a 13‑month‑old infant is less important than which parent the infant is with."

Counsel for Dr. H.S. argued in court that Mrs. R.S. should have done more to try to remain in Canada, an argument which earned a sharp rebuke from the judge. "Perhaps instead of contacting Canadian Immigration to revoke the sponsorship application, virtually the same day he separated from his pregnant wife, Dr. H.S. should have worked with her and with Canadian Immigration toward keeping her in the country in order to keep his son here. He perhaps regrets now the chain of events his revocation caused."

So... Mrs. R.S. et fils are (or will be) off to Pakistan. Walt's agent would suggest to Dr. H.S. [if asked, which he hasn't been! Ed.] that he get a divorce right sharpish, so that he will be free to import another bride.

How Canuck immigration cops spot fake marriage fraud

There are a lot of pink faces -- white faces blushing -- in Ottawa and Vegreville AB [Where dat?! Ed.] as the Toronto Red Star reveals the contents of a manual issued to Canadian immigration officials to help them recognize fraudulent "marriages of conveniences", entered into for the purpose of getting one of the partners into Canada.

(Vegreville AB is the village in the hinterland where immigration applications are processed. It also happens to be the home of the world's biggest pysanka -- Ukrainian Easter egg -- but I digress...)

The three-page training guide, titled "Evidence of Relationship", lists clues officers should look for in assessing a spousal sponsorship application. Here's the list.

• University-educated Chinese nationals marrying non-Chinese
• Photos without parents or any family members, just a small group of friends
• Private marriage ceremony performed by either a minister or justice of the peace
• Informal reception in a restaurant
• Sponsor is uneducated, with a low-paying job or on welfare
• The couple do not kiss on the lips in photos
• Couples who do not have a honeymoon, not even a couple of days away, usually because of university and/or no money
• There are no “diamond” rings
• Wedding photos done professionally but pictures are very limited
• Some submit photos dressed in pajamas or cooking, to show they are living together
• Photos have them wearing the same clothes in various locations
• Are they touching each other in the photos, or trying not to touch?
• Photos of activities taken in the Niagara Falls area, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Toronto.

Very interesting. Walt wonders if the couple pictured below had their application approved.

Looks pretty contrived to me. On the other hand, they're both white (or pinkish), so they probably passed. If one of them had been, ohhhh, let's say Chinese, what would the result have been.

The training material, obtained under an access to information request and posted online by immigration lawyer Steven Meurrens, has created an uproar on social media among some Canadians and their foreign-born spouses. Mr. Murrens told the Star, "I am surprised that a Chinese marrying a non-Chinese, or a Canadian who is poor trying to sponsor a spouse, is an indicator of marriage fraud. That they actually put that in writing is surprising. I’d like to think that most immigration officers would realize how ridiculous that part of training was and would just ignore it."

At least one of Walt's agents would certainly agree.

Murdering my mom doesn't mean my father's a bad man, Muslim girl tells Toronto trial

Agent 3 updates us on the murder trial of Afghan Muslim immigrant Peer Khairi, first reported on WWW in "The terrible trials of Muslims facing Western justice". The Crown's case, in an Islamic nutshell, is that Khairi murdered his wife in a fit of rage because she wasn't raising their daughters to be good Muslim girls. In particular the Crown alleges, he was angry that the wife supported the decision of their daughter, Giti, to marry a man of whom the father disapproved, thus bringing dishonour on the family.

Unfortunately for Her Majesty's counsel, Giti's verion of the events in their Toronto home four years ago didn't exactly follow the prosecution's outline. In her testimony yesterday, she told the court it was her mother, not her father, who wore the pants in the family. [Figuratively speaking, of course. Ed.]

Sure, her parents fought a lot, and no longer slept together, but it was all about money, or lack thereof, not about keeping their Muslim faith and old-country customs... and honour, of course. It was really all the fault of the Canadian government. The couple were on disability, you see -- both of them -- and those cheap Canucks weren't giving them enough "social assistance" to take care of the household expenses.

Walt wonders how, if both of them were disabled, they managed to immigrate. Aren't prospective immigrants supposed to pass some kind of medical examination? Or is that requirement waived for "refugees"?

Asked about her impending marriage, Giti told the crown attorney, “I talked to [my father] and everything was OK." But, she admitted, at first "he was a little bit concerned. Usually in our culture we get married to our cousins. He wanted me to get married to my cousin because if it’s a cousin, he’s trusted more."

So, if you were wondering what's wrong with Afghans, maybe that's the explanation, right there. Inbreeding. Kind of a Middle Eastern version of those weird folks in Deliverance.

The fighting got more intense, it seems, when Giti started spending weekends at her fiancé's home. "[My father] was a little bit concerned in the beginning," she testified. "He said, ‘I want to make sure he will not use you and leave you on the side of the road." But eventually he came around, she told the jury.

When Giti took the stand, she was wearing the hijab, the head-covering worn by all good Muslim girls. Did her father force her to wear that, she was asked. No, she said. Although she had refused to wear it while she lived with her parents, it was a decision she made on her own after her marriage to the guy who wasn't her cousin. "I never wore hijab," she said. "My parents never forced us to follow the religion. My parents never forced us to wear hijab. After I got married I started praying and God worked in my heart."

The Crown then asked if she discussed these religious issues with her father. Giti said she shared everything with her father, just as she did with her mother before she "passed away". The relationship was more or less the same. That's what widower's daughter said. Then she buried her face in her hands and began to sob.

Update: Court was adjourned on Thursday following Giti's breakdown. The jury was sent home and told they'd hear more from Giti the next day. Wrong! When court reconvened this morning, the daughter failed to appear. To spare her "further emotional upset", the crown and defence attornies agreed to read into the record her statement given at the preliminary hearing.

Then -- roughly a year after her mother was killed -- Giti painted a much different picture of an immigrant family of eight crammed into a cockroach-infested apartment in Toronto's west end. Read the gory details as recounted by the Toronto Star's Rosie DiManno in "Crown’s portrait of Khairi clan unraveled by slain woman’s daughter".