I know the Canadian government has an on-again, off-again relationship with intelligence. But can it not at least take what its protectors give it at face value and use it to craft policies that make sense?
We must hold our leaders to a higher standard. Speech like this is not just intolerant, it is intolerable. We cannot and must not tolerate it and we must call out those who engage in it, letting them know that we will no
We can learn about terrorism and its motivations by sharing more information, not less. We can be both true to our need to acquire details and our need to be sensitive to others. It is something that has to be done carefully, but it can be done.
CSIS must work within the law and must have oversight (as it does in spades), but it must also be allowed to do what we ask it to do. If the government continues to ignore the security advice CSIS gives, it calls into question why we have such an organization working for Canadians.
We fool only ourselves when we try to say that terrorism is defeated. Yes, groups may surrender or be effectively downgraded to the extent where they are no longer very effective in what they are trying to do.
We need all the candidates to address national security issues, like terrorism, in the campaign, but to do so in a sensible way. Canadians deserve a mature conversation on what is a real, albeit relatively small, threat.
CSIS would not interfere in foreign elections or create fake online personas to spread disinformation. I worked there for a decade-and-a-half and, I am pretty sure those are not activities CSIS has engaged in.
To say that campuses should act as sanctuaries for those who threaten public safety is a daft idea and one that I doubt will gain any traction in Canada. This mode of thinking has no place in our national security realm.
A member has acted egregiously and put both the reputation and mandate of the body at risk. Spies and cops are already loath to talk about their work to outsiders and Tony Clement’s escapades could make them more loath.
One of the drivers of terrorism is to terrorize. Our obsession with a truly fringe element of our society tells me that the terrorists are succeeding in their goals. Do we really want to cede victory to a tiny bunch of m
At the same time, by labelling every Uyghur a potential terrorist Xinjiang merely creates the conditions under which more terrorists are created. This does sound like a poor counterterrorism strategy, does it not?
The Islamist threat has far outweighed that of the right-wing threat by a long shot; at least in terms of public perception and impact. We are living, after all, in a world defined, in many ways, by 9/11.
Our society has to decide what the balance is between giving our security intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools they need and safeguard the privacy and the immunity from eavesdropping we crave.
The Communications Security Establishment is already working to prevent Russia and other states from interfering with the next election, but the CSIS Act gives the spy agency plenty of room to lend a hand.
Politics This Morning
Your email has been added. An email has been sent to your address, please click the link inside of it to confirm your subscription.
Your group subscription includes premium access to Politics This Morning briefing.