Judicial inquiry needed to clear taint of fraud
The Robocall scandal demands our attention – the integrity of the electoral process is at stake
WThis is no longer a simple partisan matter in the hurly- burly of partisan roughhousing. It’s now about the integrity of the electoral process itself.
hat do we know about the socalled “Robocall” scandal and what don’t we know? We know that computers placed automated calls to voters in the 2011 election.
We know that all the mainstream political parties appear to have used these automated calls for a variety of purposes from fundraising to encouraging voter turnout among supporters.
We know that thousands of voters have complained about these calls as being irritating, sometimes even when they came from the party they supported.
However, automated phone calls that irritate voters because of their prevalence and frequency are not the central issue here.
For example, I’m irritated by repeated marketing calls trying to persuade me to switch my Internet and television providers, to buy real estate, or insurance, or Caribbean cruises.
These calls all bug me, but bug me or not, they are what they are in the age of telemarketing.
So let’s not focus on automated phone calls, the “Robocalls” element of the scandal. Such calls may be irritating, even infuriatingly so, but they are not illegal and they don’t necessarily taint the electoral process.
We do know that some of these calls appear to have deliberately provided false information to obtain something that was not the intent of the victim. We don’t know who made these calls or whether they were acting officially — or unofficially — in the interests of any particular party or organization.
We know some calls that purported to come from Elections Canada were clearly intended to discourage people from voting by diverting them from existing polling stations to non- existent ones. We don’t yet know who made these calls.
We know that some of these calls came from sources that sought to establish false personas — the now infamous Pierre Poutine of the discarded “burner” cellphone — and we know that as far back as 2008 some of these calls sought to misdirect voters and displayed “spoofed” numbers that made it appear they originated with somebody who had no knowledge of them. We don’t know who did this.
We know that while impersonating any person, living or dead, for fraudulent purposes is a crime, the Criminal Code does not address the legality of pretending to be a fictitious person — Pierre Poutine, again — or pretending to represent an office — Elections Canada — instead of a person. However, it does guide us to the boundaries of moral conduct in this area.
For example, on the basis of the Criminal Code definitions, the University of Toronto specifically warns students that fraudulent use of its computers includes pretending to be another person; perpetrating any deceit, falsehood or fraudulent representation which causes disadvantage to someone; sending false messages under false pretences or participating in hoaxes with the intention of causing disadvantage or harm to someone else.
We do know that the electoral process is sacrosanct and that any deliberate attempts at deception and subversion of the electoral process are what citizens should focus upon as Election Canada’s investigations unfold.
Don’t be distracted by the noise generated by arguing pundits or by blamecasting among politicians of whatever stripe who seek partisan advantage.
Stay focused on that issue of fraud — of some person or persons impersonating somebody else to wrongfully obtain something, whether tangible or intangible. Stay focused on the use of fake authority to provide false information with fake legitimacy aimed at persuading somebody to do something they did not want or intend to do. Stay focused on the intent to harm or disadvantage somebody.
Any riding in which it can be shown that there was an attempt to suppress the vote by such fraudulent means, in particular by impersonating an Elections Canada official, must have its results invalidated. It may be, if impersonation was widespread, that the whole election is invalid.
Politics in Canada can be rough. Politics can be cruel. Politics can be vindictive. Politics can be uncivil. This rough- and- tumble is part of the character test for candidates.
But what little we already know about the extent and apparent intent of what occurred in the last election is unprecedented in Canadian electoral history. This is no longer a simple partisan matter in the hurly- burly of partisan roughhousing. It’s now about the integrity of the electoral process itself.
This is why we need a full judicial inquiry. And this is why citizens, not politicians, or Elections Canada, or the RCMP, have the primary responsibility in holding Parliament’s feet to the fire.
You have a public forum in your newspaper. Write letters. You have an MP. Tell her, or him, what you want done. But don’t be under the illusion that this isn’t about you. It is.