Dawn – Caitlan Coleman breaks silence on captivity, says ‘was in Pakistan for more than a year’

Toronto-Ontario-Canada, 24 October 2017. Disputing claims about her rescue, the recently recovered Caitlan Coleman has said that she was in Pakistan for at least a year before she was “rescued” by Pakistan Army in an operation near the Pakistan-Afghan border earlier this month.

While speaking to the Toronto Star in her first interview since her recovery, Coleman said: “Right now, everybody’s shunting blame and making claims. Pakistan says no, they were never in Pakistan until the end. The US says, no they were always in Pakistan; it was Pakistan’s responsibility. But neither of those are true”.

She also said that she is certain that they were held in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. “We were not crossing into Pakistan that day. We had been in Pakistan for more than a year at that point.”

Coleman, an American national, revealed in the interview, published on Monday, that the couple was moved to Pakistan immediately after being kidnapped in Afghanistan.

“They first took us out of Afghanistan; it was several days’ drive,” said Coleman, who still wears a hijab after being released. She refused to comment on whether the couple has converted to Islam.

She said that her kidnappers took them to Miramshah in North Waziristan where they were kept for almost a year, adding that they knew where they were because her husband, Joshua Boyle, could understand some Farsi.

“It was very bad. My husband and I were separated at that time. He wasn’t allowed to see Najaeshi or spend any time with us.”

Najaeshi Jonah is their oldest son.

“Then we were moved to the north of Miramshah, to the house of a man who said he was called Mahmoud. He was very nice to Najaeshi and would provide us with amenities [that] we wouldn’t have otherwise,” she told the Toronto Star. “He would take Najaeshi out to get him sunlight and nobody else did that at any other point.”

She does not exactly remember the events around her rescue but does recall a gun battle while she was in the trunk of a car.

“Our first fear, why we were not poking our heads up and yelling for help, was that it was another gang trying to kidnap us. Possibly just part of the Haqqani network fighting with another part. They’re all just bandits,” she said about her rescue.

“You’re a prisoner for so long, you’re so suspicious. I was still thinking we don’t know these people, we don’t know where they’re taking us.”

Of her reaction on realising it was the Pakistani forces and not another group of captors, she said: “I think I was mostly just in shock”.

While revealing details of the rescue, Pakistan Army had said that the family had been moved from Afghanistan into Pakistan the day the operation took place, not earlier.

‘Captors killed child because Joshua refused to join them’

Backing her husband’s earlier claims of Coleman being raped in captivity and the forced abortion of their child, she said that the assault on her happened because they wanted the couple to stop contacting people who were not their guards or captors.

The Taliban had refuted the claims, saying that the child had died naturally and that the woman had not been raped in captivity.

They named their unborn child “Martyr”, she said, who was killed because the captors were angry at Boyle for not joining them.

They killed the child using using high amounts of estrogen in their food and boasted of what they had done, she told the daily.

Her next two pregnancies were kept secret and the babies were delivered by Boyle using a flashlight.

“We had a pen they didn’t know about and we were taking little scraps of paper and trying to hand out notes to anyone and everyone that wasn’t one of the guards or commanders involved in killing Martyr,” she said regarding the alleged assault against her.

“But then they took us, separated us, and beat us and that was when the assault on me happened because they wanted us to stop.”

Naming houses in Afghanistan, Pakistan

The couple and children were frequently moved between Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Coleman. They were usually drugged and kept in the trunk whenever they were moved, she said.

From their house north of Miramshah, they were then taken to Spin Ghar in Afghanistan. Coleman also shared lighter moments they had in captivity, including naming the places they were kept in.

They called one “Cat Hotel” because it looked like a hotel to them. She claimed they could see the Pakistan-Afghan border from there. The kidnappers acquired a Pakistani-styled “jingle truck” from there, told Coleman, and moved them to an area between Kohat and Bannu.

Their last “home” was named “Dar Al Musa”, she said.

“Outside everyday they were doing some training or something was going on, and some guy was shouting and we laughed because whoever Musa was, he was not doing a good job,” she said.

“He was always yelling, ‘No, no, no, Musa Musa.'”

They were there since November 2016, she said, and were then transferred to the “Mud House” just two days before their recovery.

Decision to have children in captivity

Speaking on the couple’s decision to have two children in captivity, she said that, among other things, she wanted a large family and they did not know when they would be released.

“It was a decision we made. We did think about it […] it’s difficult to explain all the reasons, but, for me, a large part was the fact that it has always been important to me to have a large family,” she said.

“This took our life away from us, this captivity with no end in sight. And so I felt that it was our best choice at that time. We didn’t know if we would have that opportunity when we came back. We didn’t know how long it would be. It was already unprecedented, so we couldn’t say, ‘Oh, we’ll only be here a year or six months.'”



The Guardian – Canada’s Jagmeet Singh becomes first non-white politician to lead major party

Justin Trudeau congratulates 38-year-old Sikh lawyer on election to lead New Democratic party into 2019 federal election

Toronto-Ontario-Canada, 2 October 2017. Jagmeet Singh, a 38-year-old lawyer and practising Sikh, was elected on Sunday to lead Canada’s left-leaning New Democrats, becoming the first non-white politician to head a major political party there.

The Ontario provincial lawmaker, whose penchant for colorful turbans and tailor-made three-piece suits made him a social media star, was elected on the first ballot to lead the New Democratic party (NDP) into the 2019 federal election against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals.

“Thank you, New Democrats. The run for prime minister begins now,” Singh tweeted.

Singh secured 54% of the vote, defeating three rivals to become the new head of the NDP, succeeding Thomas Mulcair. The results of the vote, conducted online and by mail, were announced at a party meeting in Toronto.

Trudeau congratulated his new political rival on Twitter on Sunday, saying: “I look forward to speaking soon and working together for Canadians.”

The Toronto-area politician, who has led in fundraising since joining the race in May, had been touted by supporters as someone who could bring new life to the party, which has struggled since the death of charismatic former leader Jack Layton in 2011.

Singh’s profile was boosted early last month after a video went viral showing him calmly responding with words of love to a heckler who interrupted a campaign event to accuse him of wanting to impose Shariah law in Canada.

Christopher Cochrane, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, said: “His skill, in being able to defuse the situation, it understandably appealed to a lot of people who ended up supporting him.”

Cochrane added that Singh’s ability to connect both with young people and those in ethnic minorities would make him a “force to reckon with” when competing against Trudeau in 2019.

The NDP is the third largest party in the federal parliament, with 44 of 338 seats. The party lags well behind the centrist Liberals and right-leaning Conservatives in political fundraising this year, according to Elections Canada data.

Singh will now focus on rallying supporters and targeting center-left voters who helped propel Trudeau’s Liberals to a decisive victory in 2015.

There are hurdles ahead. Singh does not have a seat in the federal parliament and will have to win one in a special election. He also needs to persuade voters that his party can form a government, although it has never held power federally.

There are also questions over whether he will have success in Quebec, Canada’s mainly French-speaking province, where overt signs of faith are frowned upon.


Dawn – Meet the Sikh politician who might ‘out-Trudeau Justin Trudeau’

Alan Freeman

Ottawa-Canada, 25 August 2017. Canada’s latest political phenomenon is just 38. He’s a dapper lawyer who wears bespoke three-piece suits, rides his bike to work and has been featured in GQ. He also sports a long beard and wears pastel-coloured turbans and a kirpan, a ceremonial dagger, both integral elements of the Sikh religion.

Meet Jagmeet Singh, who is shaking up the lacklustre race to lead Canada’s left-leaning New Democratic Party, the country’s third-largest party. His backers say he could eventually pose a political threat to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the governing Liberal Party.

Singh, until now the deputy leader of the New Democrats in the provincial legislature in Ontario, is the latest in a line of Sikh Canadians who have made a big impact on the country’s political scene, a remarkable achievement for a minority that in the 2011 census accounted for less than 1.5 per cent of Canada’s population.

Four members of Trudeau’s cabinet are Sikh, including Harjit Singh Sajjan, who serves as Canada’s minister of national defence.

Trudeau quipped recently there were more Sikhs in his cabinet than in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s cabinet. (Sikhism is the fourth largest religion in India, but Sikhs make up just two per cent of India’s population.)

Canada’s Sikhs numbered 455,000 in the 2011 census, with the biggest concentrations in British Columbia and the Toronto area. But the political and economic success of the Sikh diaspora here makes Canada a major draw for Sikhs in India.

“For Sikhs across the world, Canada is seen as one of the best places to live,” says Balpreet Singh, legal counsel and spokesman for the World Sikh Organisation of Canada. “If you asked anyone in Punjab where they would like to live if they go abroad, the first choice is Canada.”

Balpreet Singh, a cousin of Jagmeet’s, said in an interview Sikhs have also succeeded in the United States but have faced more discrimination, including a series of hate crimes in which Sikhs have been mistaken for Muslims. “We don’t have anything here like you have in America”.

Shachi Kurl, executive director of the Angus Reid Institute, a polling firm based in Vancouver, said Jagmeet Singh appeals to many of the same voters who made Trudeau’s victory possible in 2015. “He appeals to a youth demographic, and he appeals to minority communities”, Kurl said. “Where Justin Trudeau talks about diversity being our strength, Jagmeet Singh is the embodiment of that. He can almost out-Trudeau Justin Trudeau”.

Sikhs in Canada

Sikhs first arrived in Canada at the end of the 19th century but soon found themselves unwelcome.

In a now-famous incident in 1914, when the Japanese ship Komagata Maru landed at Vancouver harbour with 376 mostly Sikh passengers, authorities refused to allow the would-be immigrants to disembark. After a court battle, the passengers were expelled from Canada.

In May 2016, Trudeau formally apologised for the incident.

The real growth in the number of Sikhs and other South Indians began in the 1970s when the government of Pierre Trudeau, Justin’s father, relaxed Canada’s immigration laws.

Other challenges soon arose. In the late 1980s, Baltej Singh Dhillon’s application to join the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was denied because the force’s dress code banned him from wearing a turban in place of the traditional Stetson hat.

After public pressure, the government relented and changed the policy, and Dhillon joined the force. His story has been marked by the Canadian Broadcasting Corperation in a documentary on the 150th anniversary of the Canadian Confederation.

Personal style as tool

Brought up in Newfoundland, where his father studied medicine, and later in Windsor, Ontario, Jagmeet Singh said the racism he faced as a child made him sensitive to victims of discrimination and motivated his career choice as a defence lawyer. He sees his personal style as a tool to talk about these issues.

“A beard and a turban sometimes conjure up negative associations, but if you see someone with a lime-coloured, bright orange or pink turban, it disarms people’s stereotyped notion of this image”, he told GQ.

At an all-candidates leadership debate held by the New Democrats in June, Singh said his identity would be a vote-getter. “I can connect with new Canadians in ways that others on this stage simply cannot”, he said.

As he mulled his leadership bid this spring, he was featured on a popular TV show hosted by comedian Rick Mercer. Singh taught the host how to tie a turban.

He was first elected in the 2011 Ontario provincial election; in his interview with GQ, he said he was inspired to run for office after doing human rights work as a lawyer for under-represented communities.

Singh’s policies include a vow to raise corporate taxes and oppose expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, which pleases environmentalists.


Although he has come out in favour of same-sex marriage and women’s abortion rights, Singh has been criticised for favouring an exemption from mandatory motorcycle helmet laws for Sikhs and for failing to actively support Ontario’s sex education curriculum, aligning himself with conservative immigrant communities.

Party members in Quebec have been critical of Singh for wearing a turban and kirpan and say he will hurt the party’s electoral chances in the largely French-speaking province. “To have a leader who wears ostentatious [religious] symbols, we aren’t ready,” Pierre Dionne LaBelle, a former New Democrat member of Parliament from Quebec told Le Devoir, a French-language newspaper.

The Quebec National Assembly already bans the wearing of the kirpan, the only provincial legislature to do so, and is mulling proposed legislation banning people from providing or receiving public services if they cover their faces.

A recent Angus Reid survey showed that while 56 per cent of all Canadians would vote for a party leader who wears a religious head covering, only 36 per cent of Quebecers would do so.

New Democratic Party members will begin casting ballots in the online election in mid-September in what could be several rounds of voting. A final result is expected by mid-October. Predicting the outcome is difficult because voting is limited to party members.

One indication of Singh’s organisational strength: His campaign raised more money by far than his three opponents in the period that ended June 30.

Observers warn that despite his youth and lack of national experience, it would be unwise to underestimate Singh’s chances at victory.

Suggestions that Singh is all style and no substance recall early criticisms of Trudeau before his election win in 2015, writes Tim Harper, a columnist with The Toronto Star. “Questions about Singh’s style, depth and debating skills sound surprisingly like the questions being asked about Trudeau four years ago”.

By arrangement with The Washington Post


The Globe and Mail – It’s not Jagmeet Singh’s turban that’s the NDP’s problem in Quebec

Adam Radwanski

Op/Ed, 21 July 2017. As Jagmeet Singh this week announced his first endorsement from a sitting Quebec MP, Hélène Laverdière, his campaign team spun that it would help put an end to the chatter about whether a turban-wearing Sikh could win votes in that province.

Fat chance, at this point.

Concerns among New Democrats about Mr Singh’s viability in the province that catapulted the NDP to its best-ever election result six years ago, which have generated voluminous punditry in both official languages since Le Devoir reported on them earlier this month, are unlikely to be abated by one of 16 Quebec caucus members coming aboard.

Nor is Ms Laverdière’s backing, helpful though it may be, likely to change the minds of those Quebeckers, a majority of the electorate there, a recent Angus Reid poll suggested, who would not vote for a Sikh, or anyone sporting religious headwear.

The danger to Mr Singh’s hopes of winning the NDP’s fall leadership vote is not so much that lots of Quebeckers could come out to cast ballots against him: Despite Quebec accounting for nearly half the New Democratic caucus, the party does not have enough members there to count for much in a one-member, one vote system.

Rather, it’s that New Democrats elsewhere in the country could be wary of selecting someone who would make it harder to get back toward the 59 seats they won in Quebec in 2011.

As understandable as that worry may be, this would be a good time for New Democrats to ask themselves: Is it actually in their interests to try to stay in the good graces of people who would never vote for a proud member of a religious minority, even if that includes a fair number of folks who voted for them at least once before?

To raise that question is not to dismiss as a bigot anyone who is uncomfortable with the overt religiosity of someone like Mr Singh.

No doubt, as media in the rest of the country often bend over backward to point out, some of the discomfort stems from a liberal secularism that only intimate familiarity with the Quiet Revolution can explain, even if the giant cross in the National Assembly, and that same poll showing higher comfort with evangelical Christians than with either Sikhs or Muslims, suggest other factors are also at play for some Quebeckers.

But setting aside the reasons for some Quebeckers’ sentiments, the issue for the NDP is compatibility between their potential supporters there and in the rest of the country.

If they are to challenge for government, New Democrats probably need to have a chance of winning at least double the number of ridings in the rest of Canada as in Quebec.

Yes, a smaller chunk of the electorate in other provinces shares the discomfort with practising Sikhs, Muslims or other members of prominent religious minorities in leadership positions. But those on the left side of the spectrum are more likely to decide not to vote NDP if they perceive the party as intolerant toward those minorities.

That is especially the case in the urban and suburban areas that increasingly dominate the electoral map, where the NDP would dearly love to challenge the Liberals’ current dominance.

And it obviously applies to growing minority-religion and visible-minority populations themselves, which are huge factors in suburban battlegrounds in particular, and which the NDP needs to figure out how to court if it is to avoid perennial third-party status.

In just the right circumstances, the NDP could simultaneously win over voters in Quebec and the rest of Canada who have divergent views on something so fundamental. That’s arguably what happened in 2011, although gains in places like the Greater Toronto Area and BC’s Lower Mainland were still short of what would be needed to win government.

But the history of parties that paper over major ideological fault lines to build coalitions of Quebeckers and non-Quebeckers suggests it is a recipe for long-term disaster even if it brings short-term success.

Brian Mulroney’s alliance of Quebec nationalists and Western populists (among others), culminating in the collapse of the Progressive Conservatives and the rise of both the Bloc Québécois and the Reform Party, being the most obvious example.

Those fault lines can change with time. It has been long enough since the height of the sovereignty debate that federalism may not be as divisive a topic as it once was.

Minority rights, in a country continuing to undergo profound demographic change, now look more like the sort of subject on which a party will suffer if it tries to have it both ways, as the NDP got a whiff of in the last campaign, when it managed to cede defence of niqab-wearing women to the Liberals outside Quebec and alienate Quebec supporters by belatedly taking that side.

Pessimistic New Democrats might see a Catch-22, since foregoing Quebec hardly seems like a viable path to government or even back to Official Opposition. But less than two years ago, the Liberals demonstrated it is possible to win a majority of seats in Quebec un-apologetically presenting as a party sympathetic to and aligned with minority populations.

Whether the Liberals’ supporters in 2015 were fully on board with religious accommodation, or just willing to overlook it, many of them are presumably accessible to a pluralistic NDP as well.

It need not necessarily be Mr Singh leading it. There are plenty of perfectly defensible reasons, from lack of federal experience to believing he lacks policy substance to being put off by the flashy manner in which he presents himself, that New Democrats could decide he’s not their guy.

But whoever winds up as their leader should be wary of trying too hard to keep inside the tent anyone who would reject Mr Singh because he wears a turban. It’s a good way to eventually have the tent collapse altogether.

Follow Adam Radwanski on Twitter:


Scroll.in – Canada: Palbinder Kaur Shergill is the first turbaned Sikh woman judge of provincial Supreme Court

She has represented the interests of the Canadian Sikh community in many cases, including on the right of Sikh students to wear the kirpan in schools.

Vancouver-British Columbia-Candada, 24 June 2017. Indian-origin Palbinder Kaur Shergill on Friday became the first turbaned Sikh woman judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada. Canada’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould announced the appointment on Friday under a new judicial application process that was introduced in October last year.

Shergill has been appointed with immediate effect, as sitting Justice EA Arnold-Bailey retired on May 31. She has represented the interests of the Canadian Sikh community in many cases, including one dealing with the right of Sikh students to wear the kirpan in schools.

Welcoming the decision, World Sikh Organisation President Mukhbir Singh said, “The appointment of Justice Shergill is another milestone for the Sikh community in Canada. It is a matter of great pride that today we have the first turbaned Sikh appointed to the judiciary in Canada.”

Shergill migrated to Canada with her parents from Rurka Kalan in Jalandhar at the age of four. She grew up in Williams Lake, British Columbia, and received her law degree from the University of Saskatchewan and now lives in Surrey.

A news release by the department of justice, Canada, said that before being appointed Supreme Court justice, Shergill practised as a lawyer and mediator with her law firm. She was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2012 and is a recipient of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal for Community Service.

Justice Shergill has been involved with many legal and non-legal organisations, including the Cabinet of Canadians, the Trial Lawyers Association of BC, and the Canadian Bar Association, said the news release.

We welcome your comments at


Sikh24.com – SFJ Issues Defamation Notice to Indian High Commission In Canada

Sikhs for Justice –

Toronto-Ontario-Canada, 10 June 2017. A Canadian Human rights group served a demand letter on India’s High Commission in Ottawa seeking retraction and apology for its defamatory statement against “Sikhs For Justice” (SFJ) published in various newspapers on June 07-08.

The letter addressed to High Commissioner, Vikas Swarup, was served on June 09 at the office of Indian High Commission in Ottawa.

On June 07-8, various newspapers including Toronto Star and Ontario Herald published a story about CRPF Officer Dhillon’s visit to Canada.

According to the published news reports, “the High Commission of India in Ottawa would not comment on Ottawa’s treatment of Dhillon, but told the Star that the court petition brought by the Sikhs for Justice was “frivolous, malicious and baseless”.

SFJ’s June 09 demand letter claims that “the High Commission of India’s statement regarding Sikhs For Justice dated June 07-08 is defamatory per se. The Defamatory Statements were stated to discredit Sikhs for Justice’s reputation and undermine its ability to do its work.

Sikhs for Justice hereby gives notice pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 that absent timely retraction and apology, Sikhs For Justice will be filing defamation lawsuit”.

“Indian High Commission has accused SFJ of filing a frivolous case in the Canadian court which is a very serious allegation” stated Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, legal advisor to SFJ.

“If Indian High Commission did not retract its statement and apologize within 10 days of being served with the Demand Letter, we will file a defamation lawsuit under the Canadian laws”, added Pannun.

“Nothing causes more damage to the reputation of a not-for-profit organization, whose purpose is the advancement of the human rights of minorities, including Sikhs, than defamatory statement like the one which you made and published.

You used your position of influence among the Indian diaspora as High Commission of India who controls Canadian Sikhs visas to India, to accuse, without any basis in fact, of SFJ of filing “frivolous, malicious and baseless” petition seeking arrest warrants of CRPF Officer TS Dhillon”, SFJ’s demand letter further states.


Scroll.In – Ontario passes motion describing 1984 anti-Sikh riots as ‘genocide’, India dismisses move

The central government has rejected the ‘misguided’ motion, said MEA Spokesperson Gopal Baglay.

Toronto, 7 April 2017. India on Friday rejected a motion passed by the Ontario Legislative Assembly describing the 1984 anti-Sikh riots as “genocide”, reported PTI. The motion, which was moved on Thursday, was passed with 34 Members of Provincial Parliament voting in favour and only five against it.

“We reject this misguided motion which is based on a limited understanding of India, its constitution, society, ethos, rule of law and the judicial process,” Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Gopal Baglay said. The Centre’s views on the motion have been conveyed to the Canadian leadership, he added.

The motion was passed by MPP Harinder Malhi belonging to the ruling Liberal Party of Ontario. The motion said the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should seek to condemn all forms of violence, hatred, prejudice, racism in India and other parts of the world, “including the 1984 Genocide perpetrated against the Sikhs throughout India”.

Several Sikhs, who had gathered in the gallery of the Legislative Assembly, cheered and shouted slogans as the motion was passed, ANI reported.

The riots had broken out on 1 November 1984, after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards. During the riots, as many as 2,433 people had died in Delhi alone.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.