• Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    That would be irresponsible - this is intelligence, not evidence that would hold up in court.

    Trudeau himself says that some of the intel could be wrong.

    Of course, if they have irrefutable evidence regarding any individuals, I agree with you.

    • voluble
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      The issue is that foreign interference isn’t properly encompassed by the legal system in Canada. The party in charge doesn’t seem to be bothered by this fact, and has done nothing to actively remedy it. They could be setting definitions, and standards for what counts as interference, determining where the bar for intelligence credibility should be set, etc. Instead, they’ve left the door open to interference, and made it clear that when it happens, nothing will be done about it.

      • joshhsoj1902
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Do you think an acting government should be the one who sets the bar on what foreign interference is? That sounds like a huge conflict of interest. What’s wrong with leaving it to the courts to decide?

        • voluble
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 minutes ago

          I think a responsible government would be having an open conversation about it, getting consensus from the other parties, and doing something, rather than nothing. That conversation should have started 7 years ago, when the PM was first briefed on election interference. A responsible government wouldn’t have tried to minimize or bury the issue.

          We’ve had two federal elections since the PM was first briefed on interference, and are about to have another without a clear plan for how to deal with compromised parliamentarians. As a citizen, I don’t find that acceptable.

          The line that gets trotted out is that interference “didn’t change the outcome of the election” in 2019 and 2021. That is absolutely not a satisfactory threshold for action to be taken. Nobody is talking about how the threshold should be much, much lower. If the current government isn’t making an attempt at defining that threshold in an ethical and non-partisan way, that’s their failure.