We will soon know the identity of the Canadian national security whistleblower..Even as I write, the script of the individual who leaked the now-famous CSIS documents alleging significant Chinese interference in the last two federal elections, will be being fed into computers to analyse their writing style, comparing it to internal CSIS documents generated by multiple members of staff who could conceivably have had access to those documents. The programs will examine the verbal mannerisms we all have, the vocabulary… we will know. And the mea culpa this individual published in the Globe and Mail earlier today — “Who will take care of my family if I go to prison?” — indicates they know exactly what to expect..One hopes the Globe did what it could to disguise his style..But the question remains, once you’ve taken the oath, is it ever right to rat out the people who pay you?.It's a fair question. This individual says he took an oath to this country. (It was actually probably to Her late Majesty, the Queen.) There is a duty of confidentiality..But when they saw that senior officials were ignoring urgent warnings about foreign manipulation of Canadian politics, they felt they had no choice but to sound an alarm..Does this make this individual a hero or a criminal?.In their own defence they write, “I hoped that by providing the public with information I believe to be in the interest of all Canadians, we as a country would begin a much deeper conversation about what it is that we expect of our government. I hoped that we could launch a conversation about how to improve transparency, how to enhance accountability, how to protect all members of our society against external threats, and ultimately, about how we continue to pursue a system of governance that best serves all of its citizens.”.Some might say that the more honest thing to do, would have been to quit and then tell their story. In some situations, that would be correct..However, unlike a company employee for example who quits and goes to the newspapers about what he believes to be unethical corporate behaviour, the oath CSIS employees take extends beyond the day they quit — to the grave, in fact. The CSIS individual would still be bound. So, there’s no easy let-out there. Legally, the whistleblower will always be in the wrong, according to the statutes governing his employment..So the dilemma really, is could they be legally liable but still be morally right? In plain terms, what happens when there’s a hole in the boat and as the water flows in, the captain won’t take action and perhaps won’t even acknowledge there’s a hole? Is it wrong to say something?.I do not believe for one moment, by the way, that this person put their career in jeopardy or risked significant jail time to ‘start a national conversation.’.This individual had seen the hole..And, they were aghast to see the water rushing in. They write:.“When I first became aware of the significance of the threat posed by outside interference to our democratic institutions, I worked — as have many unnamed and tireless colleagues — to equip our leaders with the knowledge and the tools needed to take action against it. Months passed, and then years. The threat grew in urgency; serious action remained unforthcoming. I endeavored, alone and with others, to raise concerns about this threat directly to those in a position to hold our top officials to account. Regrettably, those individuals were unable to do so. In the time that passed, another federal election had come and gone, the threat of interference had grown, and it had become increasingly clear that no serious action was being considered. Worse still, evidence of senior public officials ignoring interference was beginning to mount.”.Bottom line, CSIS tried to warn the government. They were brushed off..And so, a Canadian security official becomes satisfied that the people to whom they ultimately report are so negligent, or even so compromised, that their actions threaten the significant wellbeing of the whole country. And he spills the beans to the Globe and Mail..Swearing an oath of loyalty is no light thing. However, when a government official does so, he or she is ultimately swearing to protect Canadians. It is not swearing to accept the burden of protecting officials, elected or unelected, from the embarrassing consequences of wrongdoing or arrant stupidity..In these circumstances then, there is only one thing you can call a person who’s willing to speak up and risk the rap, knowing as they do that they will eventually be discovered, tried perhaps for treason and may well serve significant time..You don't hear the word very often from the lips of members of this government..But the word is "patriot."
