Investigators concluded Beijing’s influence attempt didn’t break elections law
Sounds like we need a new law then.
A law against what, exactly?
Having foreign countries or foreign people pressure Canadian citizens in any way to vote a particular way.
The “pressure” in question is social media content - how do you propose legislating that?
Uncover accounts doing it and trace their funding…
This ain’t rocket science. I am sure Canada has these laws just like any other regime around the world.
Foreign agents don’t get a blank check to operate within a country.
That assumes they’re operating within the country.
True but based on recent history in US, the effective ops we need to worry about theu use “domestic” useful idiots and domsetics companies to funnel the money. Even usefull idiots know not to take foreign money.
Think Tim pool and Lauren southern types.
But yeah random tankie posting from NK office is not reachable but their clout is also limited.
We regulate social media content all the time. Why would this be any different?
So…if I were to say online that Donald Trump is an absolute disgrace, and people in the US should vote for his opponent, should I be facing charges in the US? Or maybe my comment should just be nuked?
By no means am I arguing that foreign influence is a good thing, but it’s awfully hard to regulate effectively.
In this case, the context was that there was a threat being made, that voters could be materially harmed by the Chinese government if they did not vote a particular way. This is something that China has a history of actually following through on, so it’s obvious that people took it seriously. I don’t really have a problem with someone voicing their own individual opinion.
To keep things simple though, probably all social media comments made by someone who is not in Canada related to Canadian politics should not be visible while in Canada. Canadians should be allowed to talk to each other freely. If Canadians want to see how Americans are feeling about our election, they should have to seek that information out from News Outlets, Pollsters, or even just directly talking to someone rather than it just showing up in some random feed on Facebook.
This article does not say threats were made - it says, “according to Chinese Canadian interview subjects, this invoked a widespread fear amongst electors, described as a fear of retributive measures from Chinese authorities should a CPC government be elected.”
That’s bad, to be sure, but if there was no direct threat, you’re going to have a pretty hard time prosecuting the issue.
Probably because it seems to mostly be targeted at Chinese-Canadians on Chinese language platforms that are often hosted in China. Like good luck regulating what happens on Weixin/WeChat.
For stuff like radio and print based in Greater Vancouver, yeah maybe there are some levers to pull, if we could ever decide what exactly is not allowed.
We regulate social media content all the time
Maybe, but how effective is that in the real world?
It’s hard to tell exactly what to think about this… Like the story doesn’t mention anything about uncovering a CCP-sponsored media agency, or radio ads paid for by the CCP or any kind of credible threats against voters who vote “wrong…” It just says “These messages were amplified through repetition in social media, chat groups, posts and in Chinese language online, print and radio media throughout the [Greater Vancouver Area].”
Okay? Amplified by whom? Amplified how? It sounds like just normal run-of-the-mill political propaganda, and it isn’t even clear (from the article) that the CCP is even involved.
But then:
“According to Chinese Canadian interview subjects, this invoked a widespread fear amongst electors, described as a fear of retributive measures from Chinese authorities should a CPC government be elected,” the report says.
“This included the possibility that travel to and from China could be interfered with by Chinese authorities, as well as measures being taken against family members or business interests in China.”
So still, it’s kinda like… Well were threats actually made? But that’s the thing with authoritarianism-- People don’t need an explicit threat. They just need to know that somebody has tools of oppression and an opinion about how you should behave, and they might be paying attention to you.
Like how a mobster can get away with “that’s a nice family you’ve got there.” That’s not a threat, merely a friendly observation.
So it seems like the conclusion of the article just amounts to “well whatever it was, it doesn’t seem to be illegal,” which feels a little… Unresolved.
