It's not clear to me what the Globe and Mail editorial board imagined the Hogue inquiry could or should have done. www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/edit... - ThreadSky

aaronwherry.bsky.social • 38 days ago

It's not clear to me what the Globe and Mail editorial board imagined the Hogue inquiry could or should have done.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-a-foreign-interference-report-that-keeps-canadians-in-the-dark/

Comments

trudl.bsky.social•38 days ago

The world according to the G & M🤦‍♀️

aaronwherry.bsky.social•38 days ago

Do we think federal commissions should have the power to fire people?

aaronwherry.bsky.social•38 days ago

The editorial board really wants names and I guess that's understandable....

aaronwherry.bsky.social•38 days ago

But it's probably worth going back to Hogue's explanation in September for why she wouldn't be naming names.

aaronwherry.bsky.social•38 days ago

In short: the commission wasn't in a position to fairly adjudicate claims made against individuals.

And we might all try to agree that naming names without a fair process to adjudicate those claims would be bad.

aaronwherry.bsky.social•38 days ago

Of course, there is an institution that could have tried to figure out how to review the conduct of parliamentarians — Parliament.

But MPs collectively decided that they weren't serious enough individuals to do that.

icyvr.bsky.social•38 days ago

Sad but very true.

catelli.bsky.social•38 days ago

I remain disturbed that's it's considered not to be in the public interest to know of concerning conduct by elected politicians.

We're not allowed to know everything about the people we are voting for, especially their conduct as elected politicians?

aaronwherry.bsky.social•38 days ago

Yeah, I think that's a reasonable concern.

It's just how to air those concerns -- keeping in mind that all we really know of right now are *allegations* of concerning conduct.

catelli.bsky.social•38 days ago

Wrly notes that in the past "Allegations" were all that was needed for "concerning conduct" to be reported to the public. It's a standard that is only being applied now, in a very specific instance.

aaronwherry.bsky.social•38 days ago

Fair.

To be clear: I don't entirely disagree. But I'm also sympathetic to Hogue's reluctance.

(I also kind of wonder what NSICOP thought everyone could/would/should do with the information it put out.)

kristinajensen.bsky.social•38 days ago

Her report fails to dovetail into their pathetic narrative that somehow the election would have turned out differently, if only...

So, they called in the heavy equipment team to help with fact excavation and internment.

alexboutilier.bsky.social•38 days ago

I'll go a step further: it's not clear to me that they actually read the report, rather than the Twitter reaction from people who also didn't read the report.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply