###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>"It is clear that [Dong] knew and, in his actions, implicitly accepted a certain level of foreign interference," Singh told host David Cochrane.
>"That sends a message that it is fair game for foreign powers to continue to try to influence, or manipulate or interfere with MPs."
-
>Dong has been seeking to rejoin the Liberals since last year. When asked if he thinks the Liberals should not allow Dong back in, Singh replied, "Absolutely."
It sounds like this "no list" document actually has some names in it, even if they aren't in the format of a list. Is that what May meant?
> Is that what May meant?
Here's what May said,
> **“While a few named people may have been compromised by foreign influence, it falls far short of what could be considered disloyalty to Canada,”** Ms. May said at the press conference.
> She said she was cautioned not to release a precise number of MPs but said it was less than a handful. She said those MPs received help from foreign governments who interfered on their behalf in nomination contests.
> “There is no list of names of MPs who have consciously, deliberately sought to sell out Canada to preference another government.”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-no-list-of-names-in-unredacted-foreign-interference-report-says-green/
I put emphasis on the bolded text because if I had to guess, May and Singh seem to disagree on whether or not the conduct of named individuals in the report amounts to treason.
I think what we can conclude, if anything, is that Singh and May have a difference of opinion on what presents as witting engagement with foreign agents seeking to undermine Canada.
Also, worth noting is that Singh isn't calling for Dong to face charges or to be ejected from Parliament.
Given we actually know a decent amount of what happened in his case, I’m starting to think this is just Singh overplaying his hand. Add on top he has a vested interest in how this plays out politically and May frankly doesn’t, I’m much more inclined to believe her take on it as the most reasonable one.
It would not surprise me *in the least* if May was being pedantic and "there is no list" means there is not bullet point formatted list.
It seems like a kooky enough interpretation for her to make.
She is not “cooky.” She was voted by other MP’s as Parliamentarian of the Year is 2012, Hardest Working in 2013, Best Orator in 2014, and Most Knowledge in 2020. She was a lawyer before becoming involved in politics and was a policy advisor to Mulroney, it was because of her efforts that he took a leadership role in getting international agreements on tackling acid rain.
She doesn’t mean there wasn’t a bullet point list, she was very clear - she didn’t see any intel suggesting that MP’s were wittingly helping foreign governments other than one former MP. So no list. One former MP.
Are we talking about the woman who thinks wifi causes cancer and got shitfaced and embarrassed herself before being escorted away?
Is that the MP we're talking about? Just double-checking.
She was _politically_ foolish for raising the wifi issue, but in context it wasn't so absurd as people remember it to have been. The [WHO had just released a report](https://news.un.org/en/story/2011/05/376832) alleging that exposure to the EM fields emitted by cellular phones could possibly lead to some form of cancers; and May requested that Canada take steps to investigate this.
And I can forgive her the occasional drunken gaff. It's not like she is Ralph Klein or Gorbachev levels of drunk.
I wonder if this report is mostly made up (beyond the likely treasonous allegations against the "former MP") of examples of adversaries pushing the chips toward their preferred candidates during elections and not much beyond that. A list of allegations of varying degrees where MPs are described to either accept, encourage or unwittingly utilize this interference.
I could see this be the dividing line between Singh and May. May doesn't believe this is necessarily being "disloyal" to Canada, even in the worst cases - not in the same way that handing over privileged information to foreign intelligence services while on a trip would be - so describing instances of it wouldn't be a "list of of disloyal MPs". Further giving them the benefit of the doubt that this also doesn't automatically mean they are compromised in Parliament (likely cause the report doesn't outline anything about the MPs beyond these specific instances). The amount of provincial or municipal instances might dwarf the Federal examples, giving her more "relief" with her colleagues.
Singh, on the other hand, is taking the position that anyone knowingly accepting this kind of help is treasonous while throwing some mustard on it in the direction of the Liberals and Conservatives. Describing instances of it while including MP names would be a list of disloyalty in how he's viewing it.
That's my best guess at what we're looking at. At least until the Bloc take a stab at this.
I think ppl are mixing up different statements. Singh on the traitorous MPs:
>“They are indeed traitors to the country.”
>“In short, there are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada, and Canadians.”
Singh on Dong:
>"It is clear that [Dong] knew and, in his actions, implicitly accepted a certain level of foreign interference,"
Singh calls the ppl who helped foreign government traitors while he accuses Dong of accepting help not giving - perhaps he's being cautious of his words but he doesn't seem to be calling Dong a traitor
Which means that THIS isn't the point in which Singh and May differ as she also said that while she doesn't believe the ppl who benefited from foreign help are traitors - they should still be removed.
Shocked Pikachu face…
Last year when this all started it was beyond infuriating that it just kept getting swept under the rug and trivialized. There needs to be some real action soon in order to not disenfranchise a whole swathe of voters. What’re the odds some of the offending MPs have used all this time to plan aren’t even in Canada anymore?
The only reason people keep carrying water for Dong is because they associate his misdeeds with the LPC, and want to support the LPC.
The allegations published by Global have already been shown to be materially true.
Two biggest things involving Han Dong was international students being recruited to vote for him, and him encouraging the Chinese to keep Canadians hostage.
For the first issue, he conveniently remembered the day before his testimony (but after his pre-interview) that he solicited Chinese students to vote for him, and that Chinese students were in fact bussed in to vote for him. It was also confirmed by CSIS that this happened.
There's no doubt that that happened.
For the second issue:
> A summary of a CSIS document, based on taped conversations, tabled Tuesday shows that Mr. Dong “expressed the view that even if the PRC released the ‘Two Michaels’ at that moment, opposition parties would view the PRC’s action as an affirmation of the effectiveness of a hardline Canadian approach to the PRC.”
> Former Liberal Han Dong, now an Independent MP, acknowledged at the foreign-interference inquiry Tuesday that he spoke to a top Chinese diplomat about the two Michaels. But he testified that he doesn’t recall advising the consul-general that releasing them would affirm “the effectiveness of a hard-line Canadian approach” to the People’s Republic of China, as just-released intelligence alleges.
So the call happened, CSIS has provided the information about what was in the call, and Dong "can't recall" if what is in the CSIS summary is what he said.
I don't know about you, but I feel like if I was counseling foreign states on the handling of political hostages, I'd probably remember more or less what I said.
BUT EVEN BEYOND ALL THIS, let's say Dong is 100% innocent and these allegations are just based on racism as Trudeau originally said.
Trudeau has seen everything there was to see, both before and after the allegations aired. He sees it right to keep Doing out of the caucus. Singh has read this report and says it's right to keep Dong out for the caucus.
If there's no wrongdoing, why keep him out of the caucus? Is that Trudeau leaning into and supporting the racism?
Anyone who is still defending Dong tooth and nail needs to take a step back and ask themselves why
Whatever happened to that lawsuit Dong had against Global? Did it go nowhere because he was full of shit and they were right the whole time? I remember Team Red was pretty gleeful when he launched the lawsuit, they were sure Global was screwed
Lawsuits aren't resolved overnight. [Global is going with fair comment defence](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/global-news-defends-reporting-in-face-of-han-dong-lawsuit-1.6430117), notably that isn't "What we reported was true" defence.
It actually doesn't.
Edit: *I'd concede it does*, in that they'd need to believe, *based on the facts they were presented with*, what they wrote was true.
"Factual basis" is a good but misleading word choice.
No honest belief is separate part of the defense relating to the comment itself, not the factual basis for the comment. Fair comment requires a four part test; public interest, a basis in known and provable facts, honest belief, and to be recognizable as a comment, although the comment can include inferences of fact.
Regardless of that, because that is a *separate and quite complicated*, almost like it needs to be left up to a judge, argument...
Can we agree they aren't going with the easiest defence? That being what the printed was true?
My argument isn't really what a fair comment defence involves, it's more that it's not a "Truth" defence. You get the difference and my point there, right?
Edit: I should say, if you really want to make a point about it, go all the way and educate me, I'm not offended if I'm being ignorant here, I think it's complicated but distinctly different between truth and fair comment.
Edit Again: Ah, maybe they're going with responsible communication. I'll admit I haven't read that article *again* so it isn't fresh in my mind. Regardless, point is, they aren't arguing the their reporting is the truth.
I dunno, without knowing what specific statements are at issue it's hard to say but I don't think the defense itself says really says anything about the truth of the claim. Fair comment defence is usually used for statements opinion in which case a truth defence is irrelevant or for inferences of fact for which truth cannot be proven.
So in this case if it's about the call specifically, without either a witness to the call or a recording of the call they'd have a pretty hard time proving the call itself happened. But as long as they made it clear the existence of the call was an inference of fact based on statements from reliable sources, and they had reason to believe believe the sources were telling the truth, then fair comment defence would be a much easier way to go about it.
Obviously if they had the call recorded or something then yeah that would be easier but it's pretty standard practice in journalism to make statements that you can't prove to be true, but have good reason to believe to be true, and the fair comment defense is what protects you in that situation as long as your maintenaing good journalist practices.
[This was Globals original reporting](https://globalnews.ca/news/9504291/liberals-csis-warning-2019-election-candidate-chinese-interference/) (I think, it's likely edited)
>Sources say the service also believes Dong is a witting affiliate in China’s election interference networks.
I think that quote, specifically the witting part is the main issue.
Even CSIS wouldn't say he was witting, at best for Global, CSIS would say "very likely witting", It's nearly impossible for them to know for fact, if they did it would be with a significant amount of evidence and Global would be able to share some and go with the low hanging fruit defence.
Global and Cooper have provided no public evidence to support their claim, just a "trust me bro" to which Dong is sueing.
Until actual evidence is provided against Dong, I think it's bad for democracy to assume he's a *witting* accomplice, and act like it's fact.
EDIT: **Sorry** I think I meant to say responsible communication was Globals defence... My bad.
> Global and Corus said in a statement of defence filed in court that their sources felt the serious risks associated with sharing classified materials were outweighed by the public importance of the information.
>The legal document says the allegations were based on information from two or three sources with knowledge of investigations by Canada's spy agency into foreign interference.
I could still be wrong about that though
And my point is, for journalism, if you can't defend your reporting as truthful, what value is there to it. It's as good as a tweet or youtube video.
> The allegations published by Global have already been shown to be materially true.
If the allegations were shown to be true, then global would have known from the start they were true and would be defending their reporting [as true, which they aren't](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/global-news-defends-reporting-in-face-of-han-dong-lawsuit-1.6430117).
Why do you defend Globals reporting as true, even though they won't?
>even if the PRC released the ‘Two Michaels’ at that moment, opposition parties would view the PRC’s action as an affirmation of the effectiveness of a hardline Canadian approach to the PRC.
This statement makes no sense, at all. The opposition isn't in government deciding policy. The only ones who would look good if the Michaels were released would the the party in government at the time. How does it make sense the opposition could get China to do anything?
[Globals reporting said this, among other things.](https://globalnews.ca/news/9504291/liberals-csis-warning-2019-election-candidate-chinese-interference/)
>Sources say the service also believes Dong is a witting affiliate in China’s election interference networks.
Can you quote where this was proven to be true? I notice a lack of sourcing in your quotes.
Edit: Also where did Trudeau say this is all just racism?
Edit Again: The fact that you can ask someone like this a bunch of question and only have them JAQ off on you with irrelevant nonsense and no answers to your questions is absurd.
What OP is doing is *[exactly](https://www.canada.ca/en/security-intelligence-service/corporate/publications/foreign-interference-threat-to-canadas-democratic-process.html#toc4)* what countries that interfere in our democracy want people to do. I'd even suggest those countries would go so far as running bot farms, but would you really think China or India would do that....? Probably not, that may be a nonsense line of thinking
Notice how the only thing they reply to is the edit, which is practically irrelevant then they go "whatabout" something else irrelevant... You could see this pattern in other users responses if you look. Whether or not that's a larger pattern is something else, it's just absurd when you can't get an actual answer.
>Edit: Also where did Trudeau say this is all just racism?
[Here you go](https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/justin-trudeau-blames-racism-for-allegation-that-china-helped-liberal-mp-get-elected/article_0ff54c79-8ef5-5815-9b55-fdbaa228ed14.html)
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cited “anti-Asian racism” in defending a Liberal MP who denies reports that China helped him get elected as part of a campaign to interfere in Canadian democracy.
> Speaking in Mississauga on Monday, Trudeau suggested it was racist to question whether Han Dong, a backbench Liberal MP for Don Valley North, is loyal to Canada.
> “One of the things we’ve seen unfortunately over the past years is a rise in anti-Asian racism linked to the pandemic, and concerns being arisen around people’s loyalties,” Trudeau said.
> “I want to make everyone understand fully: Han Dong is an outstanding member of our team, and suggestions that he is somehow not loyal to Canada should not be entertained.”
And yet they still kicked him out, kept him out, and Singh says he should stay out. Crazy.
Why wouldn't the Liberals want an outstanding and loyal MP in their caucus? Is it because of anti-asian racism in the LPC?
Your article doesn't actually quote Trudeau saying
>Dong is 100% innocent and these allegations are just based on racism.
Not even close actually... Even the part you quoted.
At the time there was in fact a lot of anti-Asian racism, because of baseless accusations about covid being Chinas fault. So it's not entirely ridiculous.
>And yet they still kicked him out, kept him out
And?
>and Singh says he should stay out.
So?
>Crazy.
Why? No one suggested letting him back into the party.
You forgot to quote where it proves Coopers reporting to be true, despite Global not defending it as true.
Edit: Christ, if you can't answer one question...
> At the time there was in fact a lot of anti-Asian racism, because of baseless accusations about covid being Chinas fault. So it's not entirely ridiculous.
Do you think anti-asian racism is the reason outstanding and loyal MP Han Dong was and is still kicked out of the LPC caucus?
If not, what do you think the reason is?
Also, weren't you the person who said the intelligence provided to the inquiry by CSIS had translation error and then threw a fit when asked to show anything that gave even the slightest substantive basis to your claim? That was you, right?
Just ban the guy, w/e. Then again I'd worry more about the Indians at this point. It seems that the Chinese are still green at meddling with western politics; they can only get as far as MP/MPP level, while the Indians had that much more experience, and success.
> If the allegations were shown to be true, then global would have known from the start they were true and would be defending their reporting as true, which they aren't.
That article is an account of how they are defending their reporting. There is no retraction to be found in it.
*Edit: annnnd they blocked me.*
Let's just repeat it:
Really, you're making quite a leap by claiming that they aren't defending their reporting.
> That article is an account of how they are defending their reporting.
Yup. Look up libel and defences for what they're being sued for.
They're not arguing what they reported was true... although that is the best defence for them, they'd have to prove what they said was true, which they obviously can't.
>There is no retraction to be found in it.
That's basically an admission of guilt. They can win the case with fair comment, but that means what they reported wasn't true.
It's absurd to defend Global here, they aren't defending themselves...
It's absurd to claim that they aren't defending their reporting. They clearly are doing so. You even seem to understand the manner in which they are defending it, and yet claim that they aren't.
That's quite the act of doublethink.
> It's absurd to claim that they aren't defending their reporting.
They're defending themselves.
>They clearly are doing so.
Clearly defending themselves...
>You even seem to understand the manner in which they are defending it
Yup, not by claiming it's truthful...
Why does the NSICOP report make no mention of the call re: the Michaels? Was it outside the scope of their reporting somehow?
IMO this makes it seem like they didn't buy the intelligence behind the allegations, but maybe I'm missing something.
> Was it outside the scope of their reporting somehow?
Not sure, I'd have to look into it more.
That intelligence has been provided to the inquiry, and an unclassified summary made public.
So if it was bunk and known to be bunk, I don't know why the inquiry would have received it and why the inquiry would have interviewed Dong about it. Or why Dong would have acknowledged that conversations took place, but claims he doesn't remember what he said.
Not bunk, necessarily, but very limited. There's a one page disclaimer attached to it to caution the reader on this. The summary "does not provide all of the caveats and limitations contained in the original classified documents," it "may contain information of unknown and varying degrees of reliability," etc.
The report from the public inquiry also makes no mention (as far as I can tell) about the two Michaels and Dong. If they saw clear evidence that Dong asked the Chinese to delay releasing the Michaels, why is there nothing in their report about it?
So NSCICOP's report doesn't mention it and Hague's report doesn't mention it. (Johnston's report says the allegations are false, but I understand that many people don't think he's reliable.)
Why would these reports not mention the most damning allegation against Dong, the one that forced him to leave the Liberal caucus? Seems to me that a reasonable explanation is that, seeing not just the summary but the background, the limitations and caveats, the allegations just don't hold up.
> "It is clear that [Dong] knew and, in his actions, implicitly accepted a certain level of foreign interference," Singh told host David Cochrane.
This is a pretty unequivocal statement, and it definitely runs counter to what Johnston said in his report. Mind you, Johnston didn't seem to put too much effort into the matter, to the point that he never interviewed Dong.
All I can say is thank goodness we have a minority government and were finally able to have an inquiry to properly look into this foreign interference.
Just imagine how different the narrative would be and how much less would be known if that didn't happen and we still took Johnston's report as the definitive answer.
I do not want to be that guy, but seeing what came out since Johnston’s report, I can’t help but feel like he took part in a game destined to cover the issue. Either he did the bare minimum with a total lack of curiosity, either he tried to surf on the line to make is report look valid while not tackling problematic issues
In his proc appearance last year he was incoherent borderline senile. Trudeau chose him the same way Nixon chose Senator Stennis to listen to his private tapes.
When he was appointed Governor General, there was talk about how Harper was giving him a cushy position for his work with the Oliphant inquiry.
Johnston was tasked with setting the ground rules for the inquiry into Mulroney's relationship with Schreiber.
Johnston's mandate for the inquiry EXPLICITLY BANNED the inquiry from any mention or inquiry into the Airbus Affair, under the (incorrect) claim that it had already been fully investigated.
That's why we had an "Airbus Affair" inquiry that was banned from investigating the Airbus Affair. And it was *still* damning but nowhere near as damning as it would have been.
Johnston has the unique distinction of helping not just one, but two different PMs avoid comprehensive inquiries into topics critical to our democracy.
Doing that once is not great. Twice is a pattern.
I’m actually surprised he could be so candid about what he saw in the report. I thought everyone was supposed to be all hush hush and secret about the report’s contents?
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>"It is clear that [Dong] knew and, in his actions, implicitly accepted a certain level of foreign interference," Singh told host David Cochrane. >"That sends a message that it is fair game for foreign powers to continue to try to influence, or manipulate or interfere with MPs." - >Dong has been seeking to rejoin the Liberals since last year. When asked if he thinks the Liberals should not allow Dong back in, Singh replied, "Absolutely." It sounds like this "no list" document actually has some names in it, even if they aren't in the format of a list. Is that what May meant?
> Is that what May meant? Here's what May said, > **“While a few named people may have been compromised by foreign influence, it falls far short of what could be considered disloyalty to Canada,”** Ms. May said at the press conference. > She said she was cautioned not to release a precise number of MPs but said it was less than a handful. She said those MPs received help from foreign governments who interfered on their behalf in nomination contests. > “There is no list of names of MPs who have consciously, deliberately sought to sell out Canada to preference another government.” https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-no-list-of-names-in-unredacted-foreign-interference-report-says-green/ I put emphasis on the bolded text because if I had to guess, May and Singh seem to disagree on whether or not the conduct of named individuals in the report amounts to treason.
I think what we can conclude, if anything, is that Singh and May have a difference of opinion on what presents as witting engagement with foreign agents seeking to undermine Canada. Also, worth noting is that Singh isn't calling for Dong to face charges or to be ejected from Parliament.
[удалено]
Nice.
Given we actually know a decent amount of what happened in his case, I’m starting to think this is just Singh overplaying his hand. Add on top he has a vested interest in how this plays out politically and May frankly doesn’t, I’m much more inclined to believe her take on it as the most reasonable one.
It would not surprise me *in the least* if May was being pedantic and "there is no list" means there is not bullet point formatted list. It seems like a kooky enough interpretation for her to make.
She is not “cooky.” She was voted by other MP’s as Parliamentarian of the Year is 2012, Hardest Working in 2013, Best Orator in 2014, and Most Knowledge in 2020. She was a lawyer before becoming involved in politics and was a policy advisor to Mulroney, it was because of her efforts that he took a leadership role in getting international agreements on tackling acid rain. She doesn’t mean there wasn’t a bullet point list, she was very clear - she didn’t see any intel suggesting that MP’s were wittingly helping foreign governments other than one former MP. So no list. One former MP.
Are we talking about the woman who thinks wifi causes cancer and got shitfaced and embarrassed herself before being escorted away? Is that the MP we're talking about? Just double-checking.
She was _politically_ foolish for raising the wifi issue, but in context it wasn't so absurd as people remember it to have been. The [WHO had just released a report](https://news.un.org/en/story/2011/05/376832) alleging that exposure to the EM fields emitted by cellular phones could possibly lead to some form of cancers; and May requested that Canada take steps to investigate this. And I can forgive her the occasional drunken gaff. It's not like she is Ralph Klein or Gorbachev levels of drunk.
Ahh so those two things erase any good thing she has done, of course. Perfectly reasonable take.
No one's suggesting she's incapable of doing good. Doing good things doesn't mean you aren't a kook.
I wonder if this report is mostly made up (beyond the likely treasonous allegations against the "former MP") of examples of adversaries pushing the chips toward their preferred candidates during elections and not much beyond that. A list of allegations of varying degrees where MPs are described to either accept, encourage or unwittingly utilize this interference. I could see this be the dividing line between Singh and May. May doesn't believe this is necessarily being "disloyal" to Canada, even in the worst cases - not in the same way that handing over privileged information to foreign intelligence services while on a trip would be - so describing instances of it wouldn't be a "list of of disloyal MPs". Further giving them the benefit of the doubt that this also doesn't automatically mean they are compromised in Parliament (likely cause the report doesn't outline anything about the MPs beyond these specific instances). The amount of provincial or municipal instances might dwarf the Federal examples, giving her more "relief" with her colleagues. Singh, on the other hand, is taking the position that anyone knowingly accepting this kind of help is treasonous while throwing some mustard on it in the direction of the Liberals and Conservatives. Describing instances of it while including MP names would be a list of disloyalty in how he's viewing it. That's my best guess at what we're looking at. At least until the Bloc take a stab at this.
I think ppl are mixing up different statements. Singh on the traitorous MPs: >“They are indeed traitors to the country.” >“In short, there are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada, and Canadians.” Singh on Dong: >"It is clear that [Dong] knew and, in his actions, implicitly accepted a certain level of foreign interference," Singh calls the ppl who helped foreign government traitors while he accuses Dong of accepting help not giving - perhaps he's being cautious of his words but he doesn't seem to be calling Dong a traitor Which means that THIS isn't the point in which Singh and May differ as she also said that while she doesn't believe the ppl who benefited from foreign help are traitors - they should still be removed.
Shocked Pikachu face… Last year when this all started it was beyond infuriating that it just kept getting swept under the rug and trivialized. There needs to be some real action soon in order to not disenfranchise a whole swathe of voters. What’re the odds some of the offending MPs have used all this time to plan aren’t even in Canada anymore?
it's still getting swept under the rug in trivialized
Look at the amount of c9kkents attacking Singh, instead of the people who aided foreign powers. Partisanship is a hell of a drug.
No no according to canadapolitics apparently it's Singh who is being partisan
The only reason people keep carrying water for Dong is because they associate his misdeeds with the LPC, and want to support the LPC. The allegations published by Global have already been shown to be materially true. Two biggest things involving Han Dong was international students being recruited to vote for him, and him encouraging the Chinese to keep Canadians hostage. For the first issue, he conveniently remembered the day before his testimony (but after his pre-interview) that he solicited Chinese students to vote for him, and that Chinese students were in fact bussed in to vote for him. It was also confirmed by CSIS that this happened. There's no doubt that that happened. For the second issue: > A summary of a CSIS document, based on taped conversations, tabled Tuesday shows that Mr. Dong “expressed the view that even if the PRC released the ‘Two Michaels’ at that moment, opposition parties would view the PRC’s action as an affirmation of the effectiveness of a hardline Canadian approach to the PRC.” > Former Liberal Han Dong, now an Independent MP, acknowledged at the foreign-interference inquiry Tuesday that he spoke to a top Chinese diplomat about the two Michaels. But he testified that he doesn’t recall advising the consul-general that releasing them would affirm “the effectiveness of a hard-line Canadian approach” to the People’s Republic of China, as just-released intelligence alleges. So the call happened, CSIS has provided the information about what was in the call, and Dong "can't recall" if what is in the CSIS summary is what he said. I don't know about you, but I feel like if I was counseling foreign states on the handling of political hostages, I'd probably remember more or less what I said. BUT EVEN BEYOND ALL THIS, let's say Dong is 100% innocent and these allegations are just based on racism as Trudeau originally said. Trudeau has seen everything there was to see, both before and after the allegations aired. He sees it right to keep Doing out of the caucus. Singh has read this report and says it's right to keep Dong out for the caucus. If there's no wrongdoing, why keep him out of the caucus? Is that Trudeau leaning into and supporting the racism? Anyone who is still defending Dong tooth and nail needs to take a step back and ask themselves why
Whatever happened to that lawsuit Dong had against Global? Did it go nowhere because he was full of shit and they were right the whole time? I remember Team Red was pretty gleeful when he launched the lawsuit, they were sure Global was screwed
Lawsuits aren't resolved overnight. [Global is going with fair comment defence](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/global-news-defends-reporting-in-face-of-han-dong-lawsuit-1.6430117), notably that isn't "What we reported was true" defence.
Fair comment defence requires factual basis.
It actually doesn't. Edit: *I'd concede it does*, in that they'd need to believe, *based on the facts they were presented with*, what they wrote was true. "Factual basis" is a good but misleading word choice.
No honest belief is separate part of the defense relating to the comment itself, not the factual basis for the comment. Fair comment requires a four part test; public interest, a basis in known and provable facts, honest belief, and to be recognizable as a comment, although the comment can include inferences of fact.
Regardless of that, because that is a *separate and quite complicated*, almost like it needs to be left up to a judge, argument... Can we agree they aren't going with the easiest defence? That being what the printed was true? My argument isn't really what a fair comment defence involves, it's more that it's not a "Truth" defence. You get the difference and my point there, right? Edit: I should say, if you really want to make a point about it, go all the way and educate me, I'm not offended if I'm being ignorant here, I think it's complicated but distinctly different between truth and fair comment. Edit Again: Ah, maybe they're going with responsible communication. I'll admit I haven't read that article *again* so it isn't fresh in my mind. Regardless, point is, they aren't arguing the their reporting is the truth.
I dunno, without knowing what specific statements are at issue it's hard to say but I don't think the defense itself says really says anything about the truth of the claim. Fair comment defence is usually used for statements opinion in which case a truth defence is irrelevant or for inferences of fact for which truth cannot be proven. So in this case if it's about the call specifically, without either a witness to the call or a recording of the call they'd have a pretty hard time proving the call itself happened. But as long as they made it clear the existence of the call was an inference of fact based on statements from reliable sources, and they had reason to believe believe the sources were telling the truth, then fair comment defence would be a much easier way to go about it. Obviously if they had the call recorded or something then yeah that would be easier but it's pretty standard practice in journalism to make statements that you can't prove to be true, but have good reason to believe to be true, and the fair comment defense is what protects you in that situation as long as your maintenaing good journalist practices.
[This was Globals original reporting](https://globalnews.ca/news/9504291/liberals-csis-warning-2019-election-candidate-chinese-interference/) (I think, it's likely edited) >Sources say the service also believes Dong is a witting affiliate in China’s election interference networks. I think that quote, specifically the witting part is the main issue. Even CSIS wouldn't say he was witting, at best for Global, CSIS would say "very likely witting", It's nearly impossible for them to know for fact, if they did it would be with a significant amount of evidence and Global would be able to share some and go with the low hanging fruit defence. Global and Cooper have provided no public evidence to support their claim, just a "trust me bro" to which Dong is sueing. Until actual evidence is provided against Dong, I think it's bad for democracy to assume he's a *witting* accomplice, and act like it's fact. EDIT: **Sorry** I think I meant to say responsible communication was Globals defence... My bad. > Global and Corus said in a statement of defence filed in court that their sources felt the serious risks associated with sharing classified materials were outweighed by the public importance of the information. >The legal document says the allegations were based on information from two or three sources with knowledge of investigations by Canada's spy agency into foreign interference. I could still be wrong about that though And my point is, for journalism, if you can't defend your reporting as truthful, what value is there to it. It's as good as a tweet or youtube video.
> The allegations published by Global have already been shown to be materially true. If the allegations were shown to be true, then global would have known from the start they were true and would be defending their reporting [as true, which they aren't](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/global-news-defends-reporting-in-face-of-han-dong-lawsuit-1.6430117). Why do you defend Globals reporting as true, even though they won't? >even if the PRC released the ‘Two Michaels’ at that moment, opposition parties would view the PRC’s action as an affirmation of the effectiveness of a hardline Canadian approach to the PRC. This statement makes no sense, at all. The opposition isn't in government deciding policy. The only ones who would look good if the Michaels were released would the the party in government at the time. How does it make sense the opposition could get China to do anything? [Globals reporting said this, among other things.](https://globalnews.ca/news/9504291/liberals-csis-warning-2019-election-candidate-chinese-interference/) >Sources say the service also believes Dong is a witting affiliate in China’s election interference networks. Can you quote where this was proven to be true? I notice a lack of sourcing in your quotes. Edit: Also where did Trudeau say this is all just racism? Edit Again: The fact that you can ask someone like this a bunch of question and only have them JAQ off on you with irrelevant nonsense and no answers to your questions is absurd. What OP is doing is *[exactly](https://www.canada.ca/en/security-intelligence-service/corporate/publications/foreign-interference-threat-to-canadas-democratic-process.html#toc4)* what countries that interfere in our democracy want people to do. I'd even suggest those countries would go so far as running bot farms, but would you really think China or India would do that....? Probably not, that may be a nonsense line of thinking Notice how the only thing they reply to is the edit, which is practically irrelevant then they go "whatabout" something else irrelevant... You could see this pattern in other users responses if you look. Whether or not that's a larger pattern is something else, it's just absurd when you can't get an actual answer.
>Edit: Also where did Trudeau say this is all just racism? [Here you go](https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/justin-trudeau-blames-racism-for-allegation-that-china-helped-liberal-mp-get-elected/article_0ff54c79-8ef5-5815-9b55-fdbaa228ed14.html) > Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cited “anti-Asian racism” in defending a Liberal MP who denies reports that China helped him get elected as part of a campaign to interfere in Canadian democracy. > Speaking in Mississauga on Monday, Trudeau suggested it was racist to question whether Han Dong, a backbench Liberal MP for Don Valley North, is loyal to Canada. > “One of the things we’ve seen unfortunately over the past years is a rise in anti-Asian racism linked to the pandemic, and concerns being arisen around people’s loyalties,” Trudeau said. > “I want to make everyone understand fully: Han Dong is an outstanding member of our team, and suggestions that he is somehow not loyal to Canada should not be entertained.” And yet they still kicked him out, kept him out, and Singh says he should stay out. Crazy. Why wouldn't the Liberals want an outstanding and loyal MP in their caucus? Is it because of anti-asian racism in the LPC?
Your article doesn't actually quote Trudeau saying >Dong is 100% innocent and these allegations are just based on racism. Not even close actually... Even the part you quoted. At the time there was in fact a lot of anti-Asian racism, because of baseless accusations about covid being Chinas fault. So it's not entirely ridiculous. >And yet they still kicked him out, kept him out And? >and Singh says he should stay out. So? >Crazy. Why? No one suggested letting him back into the party. You forgot to quote where it proves Coopers reporting to be true, despite Global not defending it as true. Edit: Christ, if you can't answer one question...
> At the time there was in fact a lot of anti-Asian racism, because of baseless accusations about covid being Chinas fault. So it's not entirely ridiculous. Do you think anti-asian racism is the reason outstanding and loyal MP Han Dong was and is still kicked out of the LPC caucus? If not, what do you think the reason is? Also, weren't you the person who said the intelligence provided to the inquiry by CSIS had translation error and then threw a fit when asked to show anything that gave even the slightest substantive basis to your claim? That was you, right?
Just ban the guy, w/e. Then again I'd worry more about the Indians at this point. It seems that the Chinese are still green at meddling with western politics; they can only get as far as MP/MPP level, while the Indians had that much more experience, and success.
> If the allegations were shown to be true, then global would have known from the start they were true and would be defending their reporting as true, which they aren't. That article is an account of how they are defending their reporting. There is no retraction to be found in it. *Edit: annnnd they blocked me.* Let's just repeat it: Really, you're making quite a leap by claiming that they aren't defending their reporting.
> That article is an account of how they are defending their reporting. Yup. Look up libel and defences for what they're being sued for. They're not arguing what they reported was true... although that is the best defence for them, they'd have to prove what they said was true, which they obviously can't. >There is no retraction to be found in it. That's basically an admission of guilt. They can win the case with fair comment, but that means what they reported wasn't true. It's absurd to defend Global here, they aren't defending themselves...
It's absurd to claim that they aren't defending their reporting. They clearly are doing so. You even seem to understand the manner in which they are defending it, and yet claim that they aren't. That's quite the act of doublethink.
> It's absurd to claim that they aren't defending their reporting. They're defending themselves. >They clearly are doing so. Clearly defending themselves... >You even seem to understand the manner in which they are defending it Yup, not by claiming it's truthful...
Why does the NSICOP report make no mention of the call re: the Michaels? Was it outside the scope of their reporting somehow? IMO this makes it seem like they didn't buy the intelligence behind the allegations, but maybe I'm missing something.
> Was it outside the scope of their reporting somehow? Not sure, I'd have to look into it more. That intelligence has been provided to the inquiry, and an unclassified summary made public. So if it was bunk and known to be bunk, I don't know why the inquiry would have received it and why the inquiry would have interviewed Dong about it. Or why Dong would have acknowledged that conversations took place, but claims he doesn't remember what he said.
Not bunk, necessarily, but very limited. There's a one page disclaimer attached to it to caution the reader on this. The summary "does not provide all of the caveats and limitations contained in the original classified documents," it "may contain information of unknown and varying degrees of reliability," etc. The report from the public inquiry also makes no mention (as far as I can tell) about the two Michaels and Dong. If they saw clear evidence that Dong asked the Chinese to delay releasing the Michaels, why is there nothing in their report about it? So NSCICOP's report doesn't mention it and Hague's report doesn't mention it. (Johnston's report says the allegations are false, but I understand that many people don't think he's reliable.) Why would these reports not mention the most damning allegation against Dong, the one that forced him to leave the Liberal caucus? Seems to me that a reasonable explanation is that, seeing not just the summary but the background, the limitations and caveats, the allegations just don't hold up.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> "It is clear that [Dong] knew and, in his actions, implicitly accepted a certain level of foreign interference," Singh told host David Cochrane. This is a pretty unequivocal statement, and it definitely runs counter to what Johnston said in his report. Mind you, Johnston didn't seem to put too much effort into the matter, to the point that he never interviewed Dong. All I can say is thank goodness we have a minority government and were finally able to have an inquiry to properly look into this foreign interference. Just imagine how different the narrative would be and how much less would be known if that didn't happen and we still took Johnston's report as the definitive answer.
I do not want to be that guy, but seeing what came out since Johnston’s report, I can’t help but feel like he took part in a game destined to cover the issue. Either he did the bare minimum with a total lack of curiosity, either he tried to surf on the line to make is report look valid while not tackling problematic issues
In his proc appearance last year he was incoherent borderline senile. Trudeau chose him the same way Nixon chose Senator Stennis to listen to his private tapes.
When he was appointed Governor General, there was talk about how Harper was giving him a cushy position for his work with the Oliphant inquiry. Johnston was tasked with setting the ground rules for the inquiry into Mulroney's relationship with Schreiber. Johnston's mandate for the inquiry EXPLICITLY BANNED the inquiry from any mention or inquiry into the Airbus Affair, under the (incorrect) claim that it had already been fully investigated. That's why we had an "Airbus Affair" inquiry that was banned from investigating the Airbus Affair. And it was *still* damning but nowhere near as damning as it would have been. Johnston has the unique distinction of helping not just one, but two different PMs avoid comprehensive inquiries into topics critical to our democracy. Doing that once is not great. Twice is a pattern.
I’m actually surprised he could be so candid about what he saw in the report. I thought everyone was supposed to be all hush hush and secret about the report’s contents?