Sikh & India (Alleged) Shenanigans in Canada (split fm Non-Muslim terr thread)

[Bruce Monkhouse]

ENOUGH!

If you are posting to just bash our politicians, there are several threads for that.
Check the the title of this one, and make sure your posts have some relevance to it please.

Thank you

 

[Remius]

ENOUGH!

If you are posting to just bash our politicians, there are several threads for that.
Check the the title of this one, and make sure your posts have some relevance to it please.

Thank you

Relevant…

 

[brihard]

Relevant…

Love the reference to his “butt caffeine” video from a couple days ago.

 

[dimsum]

Love the reference to his “butt caffeine” video from a couple days ago.

I find his voice annoying but it’s pretty funny.

He also looks like a former co-worker so it wigs me out a bit.

 

[CountDC]

Nope. The PM does not have that power. Depending on the nature of the information, sometimes disclosing it will disclose methods or sources which is part of the prohibition.

Pedantically, any member of parliament could rise in the house or senate and make declarations which would be protected by parliamentary privilege... but that's extremely unlikely.

I will agree he doesn't have the direct power but he does have the power to go through his minister in charge and request a waiver if actually needed to just provide a list of names. That is all everyone is asking for - list of names of those alleged to have. If the military can obtain waivers for various reasons why not the PM?

Some thoughts to consider on this:
- Would you accept a list of names maybe limited to ‘witting’ or ‘unwitting’ without the government ‘showing their work’ in order to protect sources, methods, or intelligence sharing partnerships

Yes - that is what most people are asking for, a list of names. Even PP has only asked for the names.

 

[quadrapiper]

Yes - that is what most people are asking for, a list of names. Even PP has only asked for the names.

Which, pessimistic option, will lead to a "and what am I supposed to do with these, I don't know what they've done/had done to them" round of politicking.

The weird bit with not getting cleared and taking the full briefing is the party leader would then be able to use their authority to clean house, whether that's a dozen new Independents or a few quiet chats about minding company kept, and then crow that they've done so.

 

[captloadie]

In no world can I see any Gov't regardless of stripes, release just a list of names. That would open them up to a myriad of law suits from those named, and then unless the information leading to having their name put on this list is released, the Gov't would be forced to settle.

If, as a concerned CAF mbr, I asked to have the list of all currently serving senior officers and NCM's that have been investigated for harassment and at least one accusation to be deemed to have met the definition, would everyone support that as well?

 

[CountDC]

IIf, as a concerned CAF mbr, I asked to have the list of all currently serving senior officers and NCM's that have been investigated for harassment and at least one accusation to be deemed to have met the definition, would everyone support that as well?

Haven't they already been making that public over the last several years???

Which, pessimistic option, will lead to a "and what am I supposed to do with these, I don't know what they've done/had done to them" round of politicking.

The weird bit with not getting cleared and taking the full briefing is the party leader would then be able to use their authority to clean house, whether that's a dozen new Independents or a few quiet chats about minding company kept, and then crow that they've done so.

While ensuring that you cannot publicly talk about it so those same people that are removed now come back next year when you get kicked out of the party. Until the list is made public these people can all operate freely with no repercussions.

Personally, I would like to see one member refuse to leave a party when asked to force the leader to remove them. Then publicly challenge them to explain why and provide the evidence of what they claim. Don't think it will actually accomplish anything but would be fun to watch.

For new this is all really smoke and mirrors. I want to see what happens with this when PP gets in. Will he release the names?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Ministers & RCMP bosses, come on down!

House committee to summon RCMP, ministers over allegations of Indian interference

OTTAWA - The head of the RCMP and Canada's ministers of foreign affairs and public safety will be summoned to testify at a House of Commons committee about the bombshell

www.thecanadianpressnews.ca

 

[Jarnhamar]

What's the chances camp Trudeau has been sitting on this a long long time and now when the enemy, wearing his own colors, are at the gates calling for him to step down r
the POOF the usual tight lipped RCMP all of a sudden starts dropping India bombshells.

Total coincidence.

 

[Brad Sallows]

even if the COS knew the names, he would be stuck in the unenviable position of doing absolutely nothing with the information he knows

There are always possibilities. There is no "never".

The one person with the power to stop potential traitors to Canada from running for the CPC wont do the right thing and get the SC he needs to do right by our country.

This is an illusion. Anyone capable of pursuing some kind of action can "stop potential traitors". There's no point trying to deny the agency of the multitude of people in and out of government who might take action. Besides, this is impossible to square with the people objecting that to act on the information without due process ranges from illegal to immoral.

Why potentially put operatives at risk so the leader of his majesties "loyal" opposition can continue to play politics with the issue?

It's improbable that nothing can be revealed without putting "operatives at risk". That is a "safety concerns" boogeyman.

The most straightforward way to clean house is for party leaders to ensure that no one suspected of working against our country or working for another, is running in the next election. That will ensure that every Canadians can be certain that they are not voting for a potential traitor. And there is one party and one leader that will not do this, that will not ensure that every Canadian can be sure they are not voting for a potential traitor, PP and the Conservative party of Canada.

If the aim is to ensure Canadians can be certain they are not voting for people beholden to foreign interests, another course of action is to air all the laundry (maximize release of information, particularly evidence). The cost of revealing what we know isn't an isolated factor; it has to be measured against the benefit of getting to a point where efforts to suborn Canadian politicians are approximately a waste of money because nothing can be kept secret and the public - peer pressure - response is brutal and catastrophic to the fortunes of anyone visibly connected.

A brief reminder for those who served with the maple leaf on their shoulder.

Stuff it up your pipe.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Some thoughts to consider on this:
- Would you accept a list of names maybe limited to ‘witting’ or ‘unwitting’ without the government ‘showing their work’ in order to protect sources, methods, or intelligence sharing partnerships?

- If not, how much releasable evidence would you feel is required to ‘name the names’?

- If some names could be released with at least partial evidence and others cannot, how would you want a partial list addressed?

Just some thoughts to consider. I’m not arguing it either way, I just realize saying names is relatively easy, but everything that goes around that might be harder.

I doubt everything is behind insurmountable barriers of secrecy. Anything that is reasonably public knowledge is releasable. Each small fact could be released and people left to speculate about their own conclusions. It would be helpful even if we just got to a point at which no politician dared risk having a connection to anything resembling a lobbying effort on behalf of a foreign interest.

Trivial example:
"So-and-so's campaign accepted donations from X".
"X is a lobbying agency for the government of Y".

 

[McG]

What's the chances camp Trudeau has been sitting on this a long long time and now when the enemy, wearing his own colors, are at the gates calling for him to step down the POOF the usual tight lipped RCMP all of a sudden starts dropping India bombshells.

Total coincidence.

Are you accusing the RCMP of corruption?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Are you accusing the RCMP of corruption?

Absolutely.

 

[Remius]

Absolutely.

Based on a theory of what you think they might say?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Based on a theory of what you think they might say?

Based on their behavior over the last 50 years.

 

[OldSolduer]

Based on their behavior over the last 50 years.

Norman Inkster politicized the RCMP or at least started it.

 

[lenaitch]

You're not a traitor until you are proven to be one. According to Trudeau the Younger's statement, the alleged 'list' apparently includes people who: "are engaged, or at high risk of, or for whom there is clear intelligence around foreign interference". What's the basis for the bolded part? If some campaign staffer bused a bunch of foreign nationals to a rally, maybe said staffer should be included on the list.

When the mob gets involved, there is a risk of it getting out of hand.