Han Solo

 

Canadians will by now probably all know the name Han Dong. Foreigners may not care, or may need some background. I ask them to Google it. Or just think “Benedict Arnold,” or “Quisling”—accused, not proved.

Dong’s tearful speech in parliament yesterday has convinced some—notably Althea Raj—of his innocence. This is soft-headed, naive. He has reason to regret damage to his career and reputation, and to his family, whether he is guilty of the charges or not. Indeed, he has more reason if he is guilty.

One word he spoke makes me think he is guilty. He referred to these “absolutely untrue claims.” An innocent man doth not protest so much. I remember O.J. Simpson saying that he “absolutely” did not kill his wife.

Another reason to believe the charges true: if the charges are false, Global News and the Globe and Mail risk not only their credibility, but possible lawsuits. The whistleblower at CSIS risks his career and a prison term. 

What is the evidence that led them to make such a dangerous move? Given the nature of the claims, the evidence almost must be a wiretap. That would be compelling evidence; my guess is that they have this in hand.

And, if the matter was indeed brought up to the government long ago, they too could have heard this evidence. Yet they took no action. In other words, they were actively colluding with the Chinese government against Canadian interests. The government.

Whether Dong is innocent or guilty, it is now essential to hold a public inquiry. If he is innocent, this is necessary for him to clear his name: he has a right to his day in court. If he is guilty, the public must know the truth. There may be no specific criminal charge possible; the necessary punishment must be political, and for this the grand jury of the Canadian people must know the evidence. 

He and his cabinet are stalling in every way they can, but I cannot imagine Justin Trudeau still being Canadian prime minister a year from now.

The Manchurian Candidate

 

On the surface, the current scandal about Chinese government interference in Canadian elections does not look too serious. Intelligence officials have reassured the public that it did not affect the outcome of an election, including in individual ridings. A parliamentary committee is already looking into it. However, polls and pundits seem to be seeing it as a big deal. Why?

One reason is that whoever, in CSIS, leaked the documents alleging election interference was risking both their career and a prison sentence by doing so. They must have thought it was serious, that something gravely wrong was going on. It might be, of course, that they are just politically partisan, and want to see the overthrow of the Trudeau government for its policies. But if so, they must also believe that investigation will lead to something worse than we have seen. For what we have yet seen does not seem enough to be worth the risk.

The second reason is that it seems to fall in line with and affirm a growing public perception that Justin Trudeau is a communist and totalitarian at heart, and is not governing in the interests of Canadians. Famously, he declared publicly years ago that he admired China’s “basic dictatorship.” He does seem keen to impose autocratic measures. He does seem to easily express contempt for ordinary Canadians, like the Freedom truckers. He did squander Canada’s research on a COVID vaccine by collaborating with China, who then absconded with the data. Was this naivete? Unreasonable Sinophilia? Or intentional?

Being in Chinese pay seems like an explanation for it all.

On the other hand, Chinese leader Xi Jinping famously dressed him down as “naïve” in a recent encounter of world leaders. The Liberals played this up as Trudeau standing up to China.

But it looked at least as much like the reverse: a boss dressing down a subordinate. Perhaps Xi felt he had the right. He was not confronting Trudeau as a supposed adversary, but scolding him for a blunder.

It is also true that Canada has been unpopular in China in recent years, because of the detention of Huawei CFO Meng Huangzhou. But Canada was forced into that by treaty obligations to the US, once they had let her plane land. The Trump White House may have forced Trudeau into that; Canada cannot afford to violate treaties with the US. That the anger in Beijing was directed at Canada, rather than the US, who had called for her detention and extradition, might suggest they thought they had a right to expect otherwise from Canada. They could not pressure the US; they could pressure the Canadian government.

The third reason is that Trudeau seems to have a record of bending the rules on influence peddling and being bought: by the Aga Khan, by Lavalin, by We Charities. Would he resist being bought by Beijing?

The fourth reason is that Trudeau just looks like a front man. He is an actor. We have long felt that someone is controlling him. The question is, who?

The final reason, so far, that the matter may be more serious than at first glance, is that Trudeau is resisting an independent inquiry. Despite calls from his informal coalition partners, the NDP, on whom he depends to stay in power.

If there is nothing further to see here, if there is no substance to it all, Trudeau ought to be content to agree, to clear the air and reassure the public. Yet he is risking the fall of his government to prevent this.

This above all suggests there must be something very bad we do not yet know.