Amazing the difference a totally clickbait headline makes. :/ This kind of thing is why I hate Politico. And while I normally also hate the heavily Conservative biased National Post, their article on this scandal actually does a good job of explaining why this Politico title is clickbait, and the name-calling in Parliament is mostly posturing/theatrics:
Amid revelations that the House of Commons contains MPs who have “wittingly” collaborated with foreign governments, Parliamentarians have begun openly referring to these unnamed colleagues as “traitors.”
“Name The Traitors” wrote Independent MP Kevin Vuong in a Wednesday social media post.
It’s a word with legal implications: Treason remains on the books as one of Canada’s most serious criminal offences. Treason carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, with “high treason” being treated the same as first-degree murder (parole eligibility after 25 years).
But it’s also one of the most rarely enforced sections of the Criminal Code, and has generally been reserved for acts of betrayal so severe that they ended up getting people killed.
Canada’s most recent treason conviction was in 1947 — back when the crime still warranted the death penalty.
The traitor was Kamloops-born Kanao Inouye, and his crimes against Canada were far more bone-chilling than political corruption.
A student in Japan at the outbreak of the Second World War, Inouye became a prison guard tasked with overseeing prisoners of war captured after the fall of Hong Kong. There, he became notorious for his brutality against captive Canadians, shattering bones or inflicting elaborate tortures for even the most minor of perceived infractions. He was tried for high treason after the war ended, and executed in Hong Kong.
Contemporary Canadian criminal law divides treason into two categories. “High treason” applies exclusively to betraying Canada at a time of war, or attempting to assassinate the monarch. But even regular treason generally requires that the accused have used “force or violence” in an attempt to overthrow a Canadian government.
Canada’s most well-known convicted traitor is Louis Riel, who is also Canada’s only traitor to have been an MP.
But Riel’s treason conviction came only after he actively led an armed rebellion against the Dominion of Canada — and even then, he was the only rebellion leader to be hit the charge of high treason.
Treason charges were publicly discussed in the wake of the 1970 October Crisis, in which the Front de libération du Quebec (FLQ) murdered Quebec politician Pierre Laporte. Quebec justice minister Jérôme Choquette — who had himself been on the FLQ’s hit list — said at the time that treason charges were in the offing for FLQ members.
Ultimately, however, prosecutors pursued charges of seditious conspiracy — which carries the same punishment as treason, and is arguably easier to prove.
But even if the “wittingly” collaborationist parliamentarians were actively collaborating with the likes of Iran or China, the only likely way they could be hit with a treason charge is if they had handed over “military or scientific information” that compromised Canadian security.
Canadian treason has no clause for merely working with a foreign government in peacetime, even if that government is hostile to Canada.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t potential sanctions for parliamentarians who have knowingly collaborated with a foreign government.
p.s. I changed this Politico topic title to the much more sensible article lede, since there is absolutely no mention of "treason" anywhere in the article except in the clickbait headline.
A bombshell report by Canadian lawmakers has unnerved Parliament Hill, alleging that unnamed politicians have been covertly working with foreign governments.
The revelation in heavily redacted findings released this week by an all-party national security committee adds intrigue to a separate and ongoing inquiry into foreign interference in Canada’s 2019 and 2021 elections.
The new report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is the first to suggest that lawmakers in Canada’s parliament may have helped foreign actors meddle in political campaigns and leadership races. Heightened anxiety in Ottawa about foreign interference comes in the middle of historic global elections where factors such as artificial intelligence and emboldened foreign powers are testing the resilience of democratic systems.
...
One of the most damaging lines in Monday’s report points out Canada’s failure to address long-standing challenges in how national security information can be used in criminal proceedings. The report says this is one reason why criminal charges for the potentially illegal activities are unlikely.
...
The Trudeau government called an inquiry into foreign interference in September in the wake of claims that the Chinese government helped mobilize voters against a Conservative candidate in western Canada and helped elect another as a Liberal in the Toronto area.
...
LeBlanc remained resolute Thursday against calls to release any names based on preliminary information.
“It’s important for Canadians to understand that these names are contained in intelligence reports, in some cases, it’s uncorroborated or unverified intelligence information,” he told a parliamentary committee studying foreign interference. “The idea that there’s a perfect list of names that is entirely reliable that should be released to the public is simply irresponsible.”
I'm not sure I'm really who you're looking for on this, but the current state of the Liberal Party makes me sad. My beliefs are to the left of the Liberals, but I sometimes begrudgingly support...
I'm not sure I'm really who you're looking for on this, but the current state of the Liberal Party makes me sad.
My beliefs are to the left of the Liberals, but I sometimes begrudgingly support them because of the state of my riding and the badness of first-past-the-post democracy.
I've largely been unhappy with most of what they've done. Trudeau has been a very middling PM with more words than actions. There have been some good initiatives they've done (and most were forced by the NDP), but most haven't gone far enough in my opinion. The most important election promise they made was abandoned very early on.
The problem is, what's the alternative? The NDP doesn't have enough support to win my district, and would be throwing my vote away. The Conservatives are way too far right and would attempt to undo the few good things the Liberals have done and do more damage to our society and working class with their power then Trudeau ever did.
Trudeau should step down and let someone else run as leader, but he won't want to and few will even want to take the position since they're likely to lose anyway and then face immediate replacement after the election.
The NDP is stagnating under Singh, he doesn't have the draw and charisma to pull in new support from the working class into giving them a chance.
The root of the problem is first-past-the-post democracy doesn't have a good mechanism to allow voters to vote against a mediocre-bad party without giving the win to an even-worse party.
I honestly think this is a global phenomenon that's inherent to any democracy that uses first-past-the-post for it's elections. FPTP is fundamentally flawed in this way, and it's incredibly hard...
I honestly think this is a global phenomenon that's inherent to any democracy that uses first-past-the-post for it's elections. FPTP is fundamentally flawed in this way, and it's incredibly hard to overcome without changing the system.
Making those systemic changes is nearly impossible because it's against the interests of the inevitable two most incumbent parties to do so, and they're the ones who would need to implement it.
In Ontario there was a referendum about it for provincial elections a while back, and the propaganda and fear mongering against it by the biggest parties was disheartening.
Would the NDP constantly be the 3rd party though in another system? A ranked vote for example would let people choose them first without risking anything because they could still list their second...
Would the NDP constantly be the 3rd party though in another system? A ranked vote for example would let people choose them first without risking anything because they could still list their second choice.
I also think that even if they didn't take the #1 spot in a proportional system it would still be an improvement. A plurality or coalition government represents the people best and the parties need to actually come together to legislate rather than to basically issue decrees as a majority until the parties switch and reverse the changes with their own decrees.
This also solves the second problem you describe. It becomes easier for newer smaller parties, split parties, or independents to pop up to replace corrupt parties without a 180 degree turn in ideology.
The other part of the second problem is that I don't believe the Conservatives are any better when it comes to corruption, kickbacks, treason, or any other kind of bad behaviour. So voting for them based on that doesn't solve the problem, since they'll be doing it too. The only real differentiation is what they plan to do.
I'd rather see corrupt Liberals fail to deliver on their goals than see corrupt Conservatives succeed in delivering theirs.
I'd even more rather see another party in power, but FPTP makes that much more unlikely, so here we are, stuck voting between two bad parties. I don't like it either.
Edit: Strategic Voting is definitely organic and not a Liberal conspiracy. The proof is that Strategic Voting is a thing in other countries across the world where FPTP exists. It's an unavoidable consequence of the facts that (1) you can only vote for one single choice and (2) that the choice with the most votes takes all.
My best defence would be is that back-bench and opposition MPs have such little power in Canada that it won’t result in anything for adversaries beyond lowering faith in our own institutions. It...
My best defence would be is that back-bench and opposition MPs have such little power in Canada that it won’t result in anything for adversaries beyond lowering faith in our own institutions. It all seems so ethereal, if some more concrete consequences show up or if a cabinet minister is compromised, I will take things more seriously.
They are now passing the names along to the public inquiry, so I don’t think this is being buried the same way it was previously.
The best way to improve things would be for each party to clean up their nomination races, but that’s not going to happen.
"Canada’s Parliament rocked by allegations of treason" Politico, 3 hours ago, 21 votes.
"Canadian MPs 'wittingly' aid foreign meddling - report" BBC, 4 days ago, 10 votes
Amazing the difference a totally clickbait headline makes. :/ This kind of thing is why I hate Politico. And while I normally also hate the heavily Conservative biased National Post, their article on this scandal actually does a good job of explaining why this Politico title is clickbait, and the name-calling in Parliament is mostly posturing/theatrics:
p.s. I changed this Politico topic title to the much more sensible article lede, since there is absolutely no mention of "treason" anywhere in the article except in the clickbait headline.
Thanks, I wasn't thinking about the headline much when I copied it.
No prob, and no worries, that's what title editing is for. ;)
From the article:
...
...
...
I'm not sure I'm really who you're looking for on this, but the current state of the Liberal Party makes me sad.
My beliefs are to the left of the Liberals, but I sometimes begrudgingly support them because of the state of my riding and the badness of first-past-the-post democracy.
I've largely been unhappy with most of what they've done. Trudeau has been a very middling PM with more words than actions. There have been some good initiatives they've done (and most were forced by the NDP), but most haven't gone far enough in my opinion. The most important election promise they made was abandoned very early on.
The problem is, what's the alternative? The NDP doesn't have enough support to win my district, and would be throwing my vote away. The Conservatives are way too far right and would attempt to undo the few good things the Liberals have done and do more damage to our society and working class with their power then Trudeau ever did.
Trudeau should step down and let someone else run as leader, but he won't want to and few will even want to take the position since they're likely to lose anyway and then face immediate replacement after the election.
The NDP is stagnating under Singh, he doesn't have the draw and charisma to pull in new support from the working class into giving them a chance.
The root of the problem is first-past-the-post democracy doesn't have a good mechanism to allow voters to vote against a mediocre-bad party without giving the win to an even-worse party.
It's amazing how much of this reflects in my opinion of American democracy...
I honestly think this is a global phenomenon that's inherent to any democracy that uses first-past-the-post for it's elections. FPTP is fundamentally flawed in this way, and it's incredibly hard to overcome without changing the system.
Making those systemic changes is nearly impossible because it's against the interests of the inevitable two most incumbent parties to do so, and they're the ones who would need to implement it.
In Ontario there was a referendum about it for provincial elections a while back, and the propaganda and fear mongering against it by the biggest parties was disheartening.
Would the NDP constantly be the 3rd party though in another system? A ranked vote for example would let people choose them first without risking anything because they could still list their second choice.
I also think that even if they didn't take the #1 spot in a proportional system it would still be an improvement. A plurality or coalition government represents the people best and the parties need to actually come together to legislate rather than to basically issue decrees as a majority until the parties switch and reverse the changes with their own decrees.
This also solves the second problem you describe. It becomes easier for newer smaller parties, split parties, or independents to pop up to replace corrupt parties without a 180 degree turn in ideology.
The other part of the second problem is that I don't believe the Conservatives are any better when it comes to corruption, kickbacks, treason, or any other kind of bad behaviour. So voting for them based on that doesn't solve the problem, since they'll be doing it too. The only real differentiation is what they plan to do.
I'd rather see corrupt Liberals fail to deliver on their goals than see corrupt Conservatives succeed in delivering theirs.
I'd even more rather see another party in power, but FPTP makes that much more unlikely, so here we are, stuck voting between two bad parties. I don't like it either.
Edit: Strategic Voting is definitely organic and not a Liberal conspiracy. The proof is that Strategic Voting is a thing in other countries across the world where FPTP exists. It's an unavoidable consequence of the facts that (1) you can only vote for one single choice and (2) that the choice with the most votes takes all.
My best defence would be is that back-bench and opposition MPs have such little power in Canada that it won’t result in anything for adversaries beyond lowering faith in our own institutions. It all seems so ethereal, if some more concrete consequences show up or if a cabinet minister is compromised, I will take things more seriously.
They are now passing the names along to the public inquiry, so I don’t think this is being buried the same way it was previously.
The best way to improve things would be for each party to clean up their nomination races, but that’s not going to happen.
I'd say that like all people attached to political stripes, you'd rather just not know what your guy is doing because you dislike the other guy more.