In a forthcoming episode of “In Conversation with David Frum,” commentator David Frum and The Hub’s editor-at-large Sean Speer discuss the federal inquiry into foreign interference in Canada’s democracy, the Liberal government’s suspiciously differing reactions to interference depending on its origin, and why targeting Jordan Peterson and the Freedom Convoy lays bare the crass political calculus of the government’s overall response.
Three key passages from that conversation are set out below. The following has been edited and condensed for clarity.
On the Liberal government’s political response to the foreign interference inquiry
“Data point one is that Canadian intelligence agencies began sounding the alarm about Chinese state interference in Canadian federal and provincial politics as long ago as 2019. At every turn, the Justin Trudeau government has tried to suppress this information and protect the people at whom the intelligence community’s finger was pointed when the interference was from the Chinese state.
Data point two is the Indian state seems to have plotted assassinations on Canadian soil as their reaction to Canada’s long indulgence of Sikh terrorist fundraising on Canadian soil, and the Indian state seems to be deeply implicated in murders and attempted murders on Canadian soil. Now, suddenly, all the inhibitions against publicity that were there on the Chinese side have vanished, and the Trudeau government, we have just recently learned, gave an interview to the Washington Post where they disclosed classified information about the Indian interference. Again, after having tried to suppress classified information in the case of the Chinese state. So their policy on India is exactly the opposite.
Data point three is that we have Hezbollah and Hamas activity on the streets of Canadian cities in ways that are certainly suggestive of foreign connections, and this activity—much of it theoretically illegal as they’re declaring support for prohibited foreign terrorist organizations—has been met with something between government indulgence and a kind of government support; endorsing, at least, many of the claims at these protests…
…I want to put all of these things together to say it adds up to the picture of a government and a political system that just will not take this problem seriously in any terms other than crass, short-term political advantage.”
On the prime minister’s politically motivated claims against Peterson
“Just last week, Prime Minister Trudeau himself was testifying before the committee investigating foreign interference, and, with no evidence, named a Canadian citizen: Jordan Peterson, the eminent psychologist and public intellectual. He’s a very controversial figure about whom different people have different views. Like him, dislike him—that’s a free society. But to name him as the recipient of suspicious Russian financial backing, with no evidence?..
…Look, if Jordan Peterson is taking Russian money, that’s not illegal. It presents some kind of problem, that’s for sure—if it’s true. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it’s true. No evidence of any kind has been given in support of this highly defamatory and damaging claim. But there’s a difference between things that are illegal and things that are a problem, and there should be different responses. You cannot punish people for things that are not illegal, but you can also safeguard your political system against things that are not illegal but that are nonetheless dangerous. That’s why most societies have both police forces and intelligence services and counterintelligence services under three separate headings.
Canada just seems to have a bunch of politicians who say, “Is this foreign policy interference good for us?”—like the Chinese interference was—“Or is it bad? Can we use it? Can we weaponize it?”—which is what trying to mobilize Sikh votes against India is—”Are we trying to straddle the middle here?”—as they do with Hamas-Hezbollah activity on Canadian streets, where we’re trying to win votes from both the pro-massacring Jews community and the anti-massacring Jewish community. Finally, the government seems like it is just taking petty revenge against a critic of the government by using the security and impunity of national security allegations to throw out a damaging personal claim…
…We need a proper national security culture in Canada that takes things seriously but also says that if an individual citizen has done something that is improper but not illegal, that person does not forfeit privacy and legal rights.”
On the Freedom Convoy and dangerous double standards
“One last thing that needs to be said about the politics piece is in regard to the so-called Freedom Convoy, the truckers and the anti-vax people who shut down traffic in Ottawa. I believe in law enforcement. I don’t care what your cause is. I didn’t think much of the cause, but it didn’t matter what I thought of the cause. You can’t park a truck in the middle of the street, and you certainly can’t park it there for two weeks.
There does seem to have been a lot of evidence that at least the message was amplified by Russian state media. But how do you get people even to be ashamed of that when the government is so indulgent of other forms of foreign state interference? When it’s pick and choose? When it’s a form of foreign interference that’s congenial to the government of the day, then it’s a green light, and it’s only a red light if it’s not congenial to the government of the day.
A prominent Canadian receiving funds from a foreign government in a way that is not illegal, that’s a shameful fact, and shaming would be a response to it. But not if the shaming is obviously selective and obviously partisan. And that, I think, is what happened very much with the Freedom Convoy too: those who participated didn’t care that their messages were being amplified by the Russians because they knew that if their messages were being amplified by the Chinese, that would not be an issue. If they were parading with slogans important to the government, that wouldn’t be a problem. That’s what’s the problem. So, you need cultural codes and politics here that are standard.”
