The Keepers of the "Secrets of State"Subjecting political party leaders and "designated top officials" to a security assessment represents a dangerous direction for the polity. To qualify, the individual said to represent a political party must agree to keep what are called state secrets. This means they are beholden to the state, not their members. Should they reveal what are deemed to be secrets of state to their members or the polity, they will be deemed to have committed a treasonous act. Agreeing to compromise one's conscience in such a manner and calling it democratic is beyond the pale. The conception of loyalty clearances is rooted in a system of representation which was given the appearance of being of the people but is, in fact, of the state. In Canada, the person of state called "the Crown" is not synonymous with the public interest. The destruction of civil society organizations and arrangements includes the cartelization of political parties which no longer serve the function of being primary organizations which link the people to governance. Elected officials are no longer even perceived to represent the people. Furthermore, during the Cold War the Anglo-American imperialists created a category of individuals and organizations called "enemies of the state" and, since 9/11, executive rule by exception has become the new normal. In "intelligence" assessments by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) about the threat to the electoral and political process, the agency speaks of "state actors" along with "profiteers, status seekers, entertainers and true believers," as potential enemies. There is no such thing as citizens and residents of Canada exercising their right to freedom of speech, expression and thought. "Independent actors" and "true believers" are those who pose a danger to the state because they are allegedly prone to becoming dupes of the impugned "state actors." CSIS describes social-media and internet communications as a "complex system." It says that "the extent to which activities [...] are orchestrated, and by whom, remains unclear."[2] Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould echoes this view when she says foreign interference is difficult to detect, because "what looks like legitimate domestic actors are actually masquerading -- it's actually foreign actors masquerading as domestic actors."[3] To extend this to deciding which opinion is legitimate and which is not, during a political campaign, based on "state secrets," and which political parties are legitimate and which are not, brings to mind the Trudeau government's refusal to implement electoral reform on the basis of the Parliamentary Committee's recommendations for a system based on proportional representation. Trudeau said that doing so would amplify extremist voices.[4] And now this. The whole process is becoming more and more circumscribed by and subordinated to a dictate arising from NATO, and overseen by the state security agencies/political police in Canada. The justifications for why these latest measures are necessary, as expressed by Democratic Institutions Minister Katrina Gould, are self-serving. By no stretch of the imagination do they constitute serious democratic argument of any kind. None of it is decided by the people and it favours private interests and their striving for domination. The criteria is said to be devoid of ideology but this is, of course, not the case. It is the ideology of a ruling caste directed by NATO and the Anglo-American imperialists' intelligence agencies at the service of their inter-imperialist rivalry for world domination. Calling this democracy and rule of law is tantamount to criminal deception.[5] To accept a police state in the name of democracy is thus far the fraud of the 21st century. The ruling class manipulates and distorts the meaning of concepts such as consultation, respect, democracy, adherence to treaties, rule of law, peace, protection and many others with impunity. Using the pretext that because we do not have access to the secrets of state we have to trust those who do to protect us, is a rabbit hole the Liberals and others promoting such things want us to disappear down. This is the truth of the matter. It is a matter of serious concern for the polity.
Notes1. Section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act defines "threats to the security of Canada" as: "(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage, "(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person, "(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and "(d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada, but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d). " (TML emphasis.) 2. "Who Said What? The Security Challenges of Modern Disinformation," February 2018, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Expert Notes series publication No. 2018-02-01. 3. CPAC Interview, January 30, 2019. 4. On February 1, 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau, responding to Green Party Leader Elizabeth May in Question Period, justified the Trudeau Liberals' decision to renege on their election promise as follows, "I understand the passion and intensity with which the member opposite believes in this, and many Canadians mirror that passion and intensity, but there is no consensus. There is no sense of how best to do this and, quite frankly, a divisive referendum at this time, an augmentation of extremist voices in the House, is not what is in the best interests of Canada." (Hansard) 5. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act defines a "security assessment" as "an appraisal of the loyalty to Canada and, so far as it relates thereto, the reliability of an individual." There are various levels of security clearance;
four of
which
need a CSIS security assessment: "Loyalty to Canada (loyauté envers le Canada)" is defined as "A determination that an individual has not engaged, is not engaged, nor is likely to engage in activities that constitute a "threat to the security of Canada" as defined in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act." CSIS uses various mechanisms to assess an individual's loyalty. A "security interview," for instance, involves questions to "determine whether he or she may pose a security risk on the basis of ideology, conduct, associations, or features of character. " (TML emphasis.)
This article was published in Article Link:   Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca |
While it is not
surprising
that in a country like Canada the
state security intelligence agencies would want to clear any
party leader or designated top official before sharing secret
intelligence with them, it is problematic indeed. This new
process of sharing security intelligence with certain party
leaders during the election period represents an expansion of the
role of the secret intelligence agencies of the state in
determining how the election campaigns will be conducted and what
information will be available to citizens in the process of
choosing their representatives. It reeks of the creation of an
official police-sanctioned body of political opinion and
political parties upholding political opinions that comply with
the state's conception of national security.[
All of it seeks to
justify
subjecting political parties and political opinion to security
checks
and assessments. It is anathema to a society that upholds freedom
of
political belief and conscience. The experience of CSIS security
clearances since 9/11 exposed how unjust the secret evidence
regime is
in security certificate cases. The right to know of those charged
as
well as the public was violated with impunity with serious
consequences
for which those responsible have yet to he held to account.