A comment on a post by The Line about alleged political interference by the Liberal government in an RCMP investigation, in order to publicly help sell their planned regulation to restrict gun ownership. Here’s a link to the original post at The Line.
Regarding the Lucki affair. There seems to be two issues here. First, that Lucki was inappropriately rude in an emotional teleconference meeting around the traumatic tragedy in Nova Scotia. Second, there is a charge of improper political inference in a police investigation.
There seems to be no one, including Lucki, who disputes the first charge. It's not clear this warrants a public inquiry beyond the gossipy tweets that spin breathless and ephemeral before the prevailing winds of public attention. (No Trekky innuendo intended.)
Yes, but maybe we can establish a profitable narrative pattern in the public mind, said the communications guru to no one in particular.
Regarding political interference, one apparent topic of discussion in the meeting was information regarding the type of firearms used in the Nova Scotia shooting. The motive for gathering this information was apparently that the government would incorporate it in publicly addressing regulations regarding restrictions on gun ownership in Canada.
Now asking for such information does not, of itself, appear to imply improper political interference. The government is seeking to develop regulations and is seeking relevant info from law enforcement about types of weapons used in criminal activities.
[Note: As The Line author Matt Gurney noted in reply, this is not a correct characterization of the alleged impropriety. It is not a matter of the government pressuring the RCMP to get the information, but of the government pressuring the RCMP to publicize that information.]
Apparently, in this meeting, the issue is raised of needing to keep the particular Nova Scotia shooting incident info from the public to protect certain aspects of the investigation. If this is in fact the crux of the issue then unless it can be demonstrated that there was sustained efforts on the part of the government to demand such info despite the government knowing (the crucial point here) that the Nova Scotia RCMP wanted to keep it secret for operational reasons, then it's unclear that this meeting qualifies as creating a case of political interference, as opposed to just a meeting with competing agenda items. (And not to be confused with fistfuls of stinky salami flung, eyes closed, in a feisty partisan food fight.)
The government is not directly party to this meeting. Lucki is not the government. This appears as possibly just an awkward meeting moment set against the backdrop of internal RCMP squabbling hitting the juiced up headlines of Canuck politics.
Of course, the various partisans, inside and outside the RCMP, will use their own calculi to evaluate the headline worthiness of the effort to plant patterns in the public mind, said the communication guru to no one in particular.
Many Canucks, of course, are thankfully off to camp. The public mind on vacation from the predatory mischief of communication gurus.
---------
[Response to author Matt Gurney rightly noting my previous post erred in failing to note the government knew the details about the guns used in the Nova Scotia shooting on April 24th, whereas the meeting in question took place April 28th. So the April 28 meeting was not about the government pressuring the RCMP to get the information, it was allegedly about pressuring the RCMP to publicize that information, ahead of the planned government announcement of new regulations restricting gun ownership.]
Thanks for the reply, sorry, if I misled (as per your advice, went back and re-read the piece), however, in effect my questions remain.
I assume the charge of improper 'political' interference turns on whether the government pressured the RCMP to publicly participate in the government's communications strategy? Or was Lucki just mishandling her role in a meeting, as you also consider? I assume if it's the latter then it's not 'political' interference, it's simply an internal RCMP mishap. Again, Lucki not being the government.
The allegation of improper 'political' interference appears to be built from a few tidbits, primarily, notes taken at a very tense meeting where apparently conflicting agendas were hotly in play. (Note: I'm in no way a government apologist, simply trying to see through the fog of this little war : )
On the assumption of plausibly constructing the government's public communications strategy (there being no direct evidence at this point, I gather), why could the government not simply have said, in public, that the new regs cover the weapons used in Nova Scotia without saying specifically which guns on the list of 1500 guns they were? After all how many folks in the general public (generally supportive of gun regs) would recognize the detailed identity of the weapons in any meaningful way? Other than gun enthusiasts, law enforcement and a few criminals, who would be the public target for such detailed info?
Blair presumably understands the protocols here, why risk improper conduct for i) info you already have, (so your planned public claim to have regs that cover them is safe) ii) a communication strategy (an RCMP announcement) you don't really need? Surely the public's emotional commitment to the new regs, based on the tragedy in Nova Scotia, did not need a public RCMP technical announcement, re specific guns, to be effective.
The allegation seems tantamount to saying the government presssured the RCMP to stand up in public and say the RCMP politically supports the new regs the government is announcing. The problem at this point, it's not clear we have agenda-free sources of evidence for a claim of that level of 'political' interference.
The sole basis for this allegation of 'political' interference are notes taken by an RCMP participant within that heated meeting. Followed up, almost a year later, by a letter from a Nova Scotia RCMP communications officer appearing to corroborate that view.
If we strip away the agendas (inside and outside that meeting), what is the most plausible reconstruction of the meeting? A botched internal RCMP communications event or a planned 'political' interference campaign that was essentially unnecessary?
----------------
[A response to my comment claiming the government wanted the RCMP announcement to provide "cover" for the planned government announcement of a regulation to restrict gun ownership.]
But there were 1500 guns on that list. How would this RCMP announcement concerning one event have provided cover for 1500 guns against the riled up wrath of their heavily armed owners? My point being, what are the facts here and what are the narratives being constructed around them? The facts seem pretty slim, whereas the partisan narratives? Hot and spicy plots of endless intrigue. Fair enough, and hey, fun summer reading.
CBC story: government announces ban on 1500 assault-style weapons
[ Responding to a reply that my 'heavily armed' remark indicated bias. And to a comment that the government was trying to drive a wedge targeting "urban" Canucks who are against all guns.]
Sorry my reference to 'heavily armed' was meant as humour, clearly tossed too nonchalantly into a grim partisan gun fight at the not-so-OK Corral.
However, your point actually bolsters my line of argument.
You note that the announcement was targeted at "urban Canadians who just want all guns banned" not at more knowledgeable gun owners. So if that's true, why did the government need specific details about specific guns, if the target audience would not know or care about such details. In other words, claiming the political interference in a police investigation was necessary as part of a government public comms strategy makes no real sense. They could have accomplished all they needed without the RCMP publicizing details of the guns used in Nova Scotia. All they had to do was put those guns on the list and say the list covers the guns used in Nova Scotia. Their target audience successfully reached, no political interference needed. The only folks who would recognize the guns would be knowledgeable gun owners. As you note, not their target audience, unless the goal was to rile them up with a little political bait.
However, the knowledgeable crowd (gun owners) could just read the list, no need to run the risk of pressuring the RCMP to publicly name a couple of guns on the list. Bait set, if intended. The non-gun owners would not read the list. In other words, this looks like an inside baseball argument about political interference tossed around with bravado at the local gun club not the chatty gossip at the local ladies' knitting club.
Finally, "never miss a crisis to drive a wedge" sounds like a lazy partisan trope to drive a lazy narrative for those uncurious about the logic of the evidence.
(Warning! May contain attempts at humour : )