Ottawa— Sept. 23, 2025

In a blunt and deeply troubling sequence of events that raises questions about Ottawa’s commitment to protecting politically threatened residents, Sikh activist Inderjeet (Inderjit) Singh Gosal — who says the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) warned him his life was in imminent danger and offered witness protection — has now been arrested on firearms-related charges. The contrast between an official warning that his life could be taken and a subsequent criminal charge for possessing a weapon for self-defence has prompted outrage from supporters and sharpened criticism of a government that appears to be sending a stark message: do your activism quietly, go into hiding, or face the consequences alone.

Gosal — a high-profile figure linked to the New York-based Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) and  a coordinator for the Khalistan referendum campaign — told Global News that national-security officers had formally warned him he could be killed within weeks and had offered him police protection, which he refused because “going into hiding is what India would want,” he said in interviews. Days later, Ontario provincial authorities arrested him on charges that include alleged careless use or illegal possession of a handgun.

That sequence — an official “duty to warn” about an assassination threat followed by a criminal charge for a weapon the man says he carried to protect himself and his family — has left activists and civil-liberties advocates asking sharp questions about priorities and protections in Canada’s national-security apparatus. If a state says your life is at risk and then criminalizes the one means you take to try to protect it, what practical options remain?

“This is not just about one man’s arrest,” a statement from advocacy posts and social channels argued after news of the arrest spread. Sikhs for Justice framed the charges as a test of Canada’s duty to protect citizens who are targeted by foreign transnational repression; supporters say the sequence risks chilling legitimate political dissent among minorities who already fear overseas reprisals.

Canada’s diplomatic relationship with India has been strained for two years following the high-profile killing in Canada of pro-Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar and Ottawa’s allegation of Indian government involvement — a claim New Delhi denies. That episode forced Ottawa into a grim calculus about how to protect politically exposed Canadians targeted by foreign agents. Now, critics say, the Gosal arrest exposes a second cruel choice: accept police protection and disappear from public life, or remain active and risk criminal penalties if you try to defend yourself.

Law-enforcement defenders note that Canadian police must enforce firearms laws and investigate alleged offenses regardless of an individual’s security status. But defenders of Gosal answer that point with a question of proportionality and timing: when the state’s own agents warn you you will likely be killed, is the immediate criminalization of a person’s guarded attempt at self-defence consistent with the state’s duty of care? Critics call it an abdication of moral responsibility.

The optics are stark. An individual told by national-security officers that “you could be killed” then faces court for carrying a firearm — an act he says was purely protective. For communities already anxious about overseas intimidation, this sends a demoralizing signal: to speak, to protest, to organize, is to risk life — and to take ordinary steps to protect that life invites criminal prosecution. That calculus risks chilling democratic participation among those who need protection the most.

What Ottawa should answer now is simple and urgent: did the RCMP offer protection only in theory, or was a practical, sustained protection plan ever put in place? If protection was refused by Gosal, why were options — safe relocation, continuous security detail, threat mitigation — not explained and pursued forcefully? And if law enforcement suspected an offense, could this have been managed in a way that did not appear to punish the threatened person for attempting to survive?

For many observers, the case underscores an uncomfortable truth: Canada’s institutions are wrestling in real time with the ugly business of foreign-linked transnational repression. Strengthening Canada’s response requires a coherent policy that marries criminal enforcement with protective care — ensuring that warnings do not become blindfolds. Otherwise the practical message trembles on the edge of despair: if a foreign power targets you, the state will warn you — then prosecute the protection you take into your own hands. That is not security; it is a hollow reassurance.