The Globe and Mail produces a doozy

Or, the Globe's editors go to bat for? Not the rule of law

The Globe and Mail produced a real doozy of an editorial in the paper on Friday, September 20.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-mr-trudeau-were-still-waiting-for-the-names-of-those-who-collude/

The essence of the piece was that the Prime Minister should stand up in the House and name names of those understood to be “witting accomplices” in foreign interference schemes, as discussed in the June 2024 National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians report. According to the blithe suggestion by the Globe, those named in public would have ample opportunity to defend themselves in the public square. All very daft.

I know I shouldn’t waste my time, but I have written a letter to the editor about it. They won’t publish it, too far from the party line (the party sounding very much like Andrew Coyne), so I will reproduce it below, with the added luxury of a little expansion beyond their required 150 word limit.

Re: Globe Editorial

“Still Waiting for Mr. Trudeau to name names”

Friday, September 20, 2024

“Your editorial is seriously wrong. To describe the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) as a “creature of the Prime Minister’s office” is a caricature that ignores its nature, mandate and the work that it has done since its first report in 2018, including its recent report on foreign interference. Strange “creature” to have exposed significant threats of foreign interference.  Your reference to “pieties” about the need to protect secrets is similarly way off the mark. It is well understood that intelligence is not evidence and that intelligence sources and methods must be protected. The suggestion that the Prime Minister bent rules in telling the House of Commons about allegations of Indian government involvement in the assassination of Mr. Nijjar is, frankly, a nonsense.

If there is evidence against any Parliamentarian involved as an “witting” accomplice in foreign interference, that evidence should be tried in a court of law, not in the pages of your newspaper. How undemocratic of you.”

I would note a few alarming things here.

One is that Globe reporters and writers (no need to name names) have long made a practice of denigrating the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Whether they have also long made a practice of actually reading its reports, or contemplating its origins, rationale, and its statute, is less clear.

Another is the editorial’s claim that the Prime Minister ‘bent rules’ around protecting classified information when he told the House of Commons about information that gave rise to a credible belief that the Indian government was involved in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. This actually mimics Conservative party talking points at the Public Safety committee in a meeting held on September 19 to discuss security screening issues. I hope that was unintentional. If it was intentional, say so.

A third is that the Globe claims to be a mind-reader in believing that Mr. Trudeau did not seem “overly concerned” about making the allegation about Indian government involvement in an assassination on Canadian soil. Really? Mind-reader; body language reader? I don’t think so. The Globe seems to have forgotten that the information provided to the House by the PM was in essence the same information that the newspaper planned to leak itself. It may have been scooped but c’est la vie. To state that Trudeau “made his accusation and then left it hanging, without providing evidence,” sounds like something that could easily have been taken from Indian government official statements. Jeez, folks, have a thought.

The Globe may relish trying to convict people before the court of public opinion. Its notion that those accused would have every opportunity to defend themselves is a nonsense, as they would not have access, any more than the public would (or in this case the Globe and Mail, sans leakers), to the intelligence records.

Message to the Globe and all others tempted to adopt this outlook. It’s just deeply undemocratic and contrary to our rule of law society. Something a little more level-headed is needed, not just in this case but in all matters of responding to national security threats.

Surely we have learned something from the excesses of the Cold War (the Red Scare, agents of influence etc) and of the post 9/11 counter-terrorism environment (driving while being Muslim)? Stay true to democratic principles, stay true to the rule of law, stay true to the proportionality of response.