SAadmin

We will work on implementing this next week. We are still cleaning up host migration there are still some minor dns issues which needs to be addressed.

Now that I got everyone attention here...don't get me wrong i like the name khalistan over sikhistan as our sovereign sikh nation but the problem isn't just in label but the problem here is regarding violent narratives against innocent/blood of innocent civilians already been attached to khalistan (to the point its beyond repair) as its maliciously attached by GOI, violent narratives attached by extremist splinter khalistani groups post 1984 or whether its attached by penduness/tribalism/ignorance/fear in the panth by hot headed sikhs who cannot control their anger. I seriously hope people ponder upon new name of our sovereign sikh nation. I have no problem with original framework of sikh nation khalistan as purposed in anandpur sahib resolution come up with rough draft of constitution of our sovereign nation..cannot even believe its been 40 years our incompetent leaders cannot even come up with simple rough draft of constitution of khalistan...absolutely pathetic !! So what you guys think? New fresh renewed fight for SIkhistan or still khalistan?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/air-india-bombers-still-torment-their-victims-30-years-on-1.3123882 Air India bombers still torment their victims 30 years onPortrait of bomber a permanent fixture on the exterior of Surrey, B.C., templeBy Terry Milewski, CBC News Posted: Jun 23, 2015 7:42 AM ET Last Updated: Jun 23, 2015 7:42 AM ET "Today, we see such propaganda being passed around," Shipra Rana writes about the continuing aftermath of Air India Flight 182. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press) 1012 shares Facebook Twitter Reddit Google Share Email Related StoriesSIRC's mixed record in watching Canada's spies — remember Air India?Sikh politics in Canada: Symbols and suits (2007) June 23 never comes easily for the families. Thirty years on, they feel the same anguish they felt after Air India Flight 182 was blown apart. What remains, too, is the sense that they have been abandoned. Yes, they eventually got a judicial inquiry — but its recommendations now gather dust. And 30 years after the bombing? "Does anyone — does Canada herself — remember the faces of the murdered?" asks Shipra Rana, writing from Toronto to mark the day when she lost her sister in the bombing. Analysis: SIRC's mixed record in watching Canada's spiesCBC Digital Archives: The Air India investigationDo people realize even now, she wonders, that the 329 victims were mostly Canadian citizens? And yet, Rana writes, there are people in Canada who still openly revere the men who placed the bomb. "Today, we see such propaganda being passed around." Then, she resorts to all-caps to convey her feelings: "NO ONE HAS THE GUTS TO STOP THEM." Portrait of a martyred bomberHere's part of what she's talking about: the large poster placed outside a temple in Surrey, B.C., in honour of — yes, in honour of — Talwinder Singh Parmar. Talwinder Singh Parmar is portrayed as a martyr outside Dasmesh Darbar Temple in Surrey, B.C. The poster is a permanent fixture on the exterior of the Dasmesh Darbar Temple. The photograph of it was taken last Friday, June 19. To passers-by, it's just another portrait of some saintly stalwart of the Sikh religion. Actually, about the only thing the defence, the prosecution and the judge all agreed on at the Air India trial in Vancouver was that Parmar was the mastermind of the Air India bombing. That makes him the worst mass murderer in Canadian history, by far. And he is publicly celebrated to this day as a shaheed — a martyr — by his devotees. Parmar was never put on trial for the massacre he designed with great care and determination. Although India had previously tried to extradite him for the murder of two policemen, Canada had refused. He settled in Burnaby, B.C., where he assembled a team to place bombs on two planes connecting with Air India flights. In the woods near Duncan, on Vancouver Island, CSIS spies tailed Parmar and his chosen bomb maker, Inderjit Singh Reyat, to a test explosion using dynamite bought from a logging company. Different rulesThat was three weeks before the real thing. Neither CSIS nor the RCMP connected the dots in time to stop the plot. The Indian police played by different rules. Seven years later, in 1992, they caught and killed Parmar while he was on a mission to buy Stinger anti-aircraft missiles from the Pakistani Taliban. Today, Parmar's defenders still find ways to honour him and his cause — the dream of an independent Sikh state, carved out of India, to be called Khalistan. And, for one reason or another, back in Surrey, nothing prevents the temple management celebrating a man who slaughtered 331 innocents — the passengers and crew of Flight 182, along with two baggage handlers who picked up the other suitcase bomb at Narita Airport in Tokyo. That's a long explanation of Shipra Rana's anniversary letter. But the other families understand perfectly. The wounds are deep and, by now, they know very well what salt feels like.

Five veil of ignorance in this being and our being inherent capability to remove the five veil of ignorance. There are five birthiya (sense perceptions) faults in our mind which does not let us see absolute reality. Here sant gyani gurbachan singh bhindranwale talks about them in the teeka and updesh how to get rid of them: source: japji sahib teeka pdf page- 419

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/turbans-ok-at-security-checks-but-not-niqabs-at-citizenship-oath-tim-uppal-1.3121331?cmp=rss Minister of Multiculturalism Tim Uppal says Sikhs should not be asked to remove their turbans for airport security checks, but that Muslim women wearing the niqab — a veil over the face — must remove it for citizenship oaths. Uppal, an observant Sikh and Edmonton MP who wears the full beard and turban required by his religion, is often seen behind Prime Minister Stephen Harper in TV shots of question period. As Parliament rose Friday for the summer, he introduced a last-minute bill banning the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. The government previously tried to enforce the ban by regulation, only to be rebuffed by the Federal Court. The court said that regulation, ordered in 2011 by then immigration minister Jason Kenney, was "unlawful" because the law requires citizenship judges to allow the greatest possible freedom in "religious solemnization" of the oath. The new bill seeks to ban the niqab by legislation, rather than by ministerial order. Is niqab ban needed to prove citizenship applicant's ID?Harper, Trudeau wade into culture war over the veilNiqab-citizenship ceremony ruling will be appealed, PM saysSome observant Muslims see the public removal of the niqab as a violation of their religion. Uppal was asked on CBC's Power & Politics, "How would you feel, as an observant Sikh, if you were told, sorry, you can't do this unless you remove your turban?" In reply, Uppal said, "Well there's a difference between covering your head and, of course, in this way, there is no concern with that if you're wearing a turban, a hijab or some type of scarf that covers your head. This is really about not having your face covered at the very moment that you're making this very important commitment to the country." 'What this party's about'By contrast, Uppal said he agreed with a recent decision by Transport Minister Lisa Raitt to waive a requirement that turbans be inspected by airline security. But he insisted it was "different" if the government required that niqabs be removed in public. "In that case, everybody was going through the same security process and CATSA [the federal airline security service] was having anybody with any kind of head covering go through a secondary screening process, and she [Raitt] said that wasn't fair." Uppal argues that the niqab case is about equality before the law. Asked why the same principle should not apply at airline security checks, he said, "What we're saying here is that the importance of the citizenship oath itself requires that you not have your face covered." Asked why Muslim women could not swear the oath in front of female officials, where removing the niqab is no problem, Uppal said, "this is a commitment that should be made in community ... we really shouldn't be making all these exceptions to have men-only ceremonies or women-only ceremonies." "This bill ... will show Canadians what this party's about and what they will get come the fall after we are re-elected."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/jon-stewart-on-charleston-shooting-this-is-a-terrorist-attack-1.3119783 Jon Stewart on Charleston shooting: 'This is a terrorist attack' Comedian Jon Stewart was in no mood for jokes Thursday evening in the wake of the shooting in a Charleston, S.C., church that left nine people dead. The satirical news host opened The Daily Show with a solemn commentary, and condemnation, of the violence and the public response to it. "I honestly have nothing other than sadness ... of the depraved violence that we do to each other," he said in the opening segment. "I'm confident, though, that by acknowledging it, by staring into that and seeing it for what it is ... we still don't do jack shit," he continued. His comments elicited some muted, sardonic laughs from the audience. Charleston, S.C., church shooting victims include church leaders and state senatorDylann Roof: What we know about the Charleston, S.C., shooting suspectCharleston church shooting: Hate crime, gun crime? Does it matter?Stewart condemned politicians' responses to the tragedy that he said he doubted would lead to any substantive change, and lamented the Emanuel AME Church's history of being targeted by attacks fuelled by racism. "This is a terrorist attack," Stewart said. "This wasn't a tornado. This was a racist." Stewart had no comedic takes on the news for the rest of the episode, instead spending the remaining two segments for a feature interview with Nobel Peace Prize-winning teenage activist Malala Yousafzai. His Moment of Zen featured Pastor Clementa Pinckney, one of the shooting's victims, giving a sermon from October 2013.