I suppose it depends on why they don’t have security clearance. If it’s someone who could never qualify for it, that would need to be announced and explained.
If it’s simply a candidate who doesn’t yet have it, that’s something that should be known for the same reasons. They don’t have all the information other candidates do, but are operating with the information they do have.
You are absolutely correct, and my snarky reply leads toward this tendency to call an organization as a monolithic entity that has agendas when the actual issue could be any number of other things, probably all of them, in a quagmire together:
Resistance to change and outside pressure, factionialization within the group that leads to the request being impeded, corruption, organized crime, institutional failure, racism, nationalism, cronyism, outdated training, lack of training in general…
There could be a good number of people trying to comply with the policy and simply failing. We just don’t know the full truth.
But it’s probably all of the above.
Absolutely too easy on the RCMP as it mainly came down to “We don’t want to.”
One could also parse the longer answer as “We don’t do that at all. Well, not very much. And it’s better when we do. But we can’t prove that.”
In case the downvoters aren’t reading the article, it is also critical of the author’s claims.
All-time bestseller!
Won’t you think of the innocent commerce?
Thank you, I’m an outsider and didn’t know the who or why of the question.