Detention of Meng Wanzhou - CFO of Huawei

823 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Caution tongue in check. The Chinese will forgive Trudeau anything because he bought a pipeline to deliver them the tar sands gunk they need so desperately.

cco

Unionist wrote:

If a Spanish company sells an American-made product in India (only) with "Made in Canada" on it - and an executive of that Spanish company is visiting Canada - do you think Canadian courts have jurisdiction to try her for fraud? Serious question, cco. I'm trying to understand your post.


To try, no, but to extradite (to India), yes. There's a distinction between "this wasn't a Canadian crime because it happened elsewhere" and "even if it had happened in Canada, it wouldn't have been a crime in Canada". Doing business with Iran isn't a crime in Canada. Lying about not doing business with Iran to get a contract is.

If it seems like I'm all over the place with my comments on this story, it's because in the contest between Donald Trump and a billionaire corporate heiress, I'm not really rooting for either. I simultaneously think that:

1. U.S. sanctions on Iran are bullshit.

2. Meng quite likely committed fraud by pretending she was complying with them.

3. The extradition is heavily political (but all extraditions, as I outlined when citing the Extradition Act, ultimately have a political element).

4. The extradition is legally proper.

5. Political influence is used on behalf of powerful corporations, especially Canadian ones.

6. That doesn't mean the right thing to do is exempt all corporations from the law in the name of fairness.

As far as whether Meng, specifically, is being treated fairly by the courts, I'd say that being Chinese when Trump's picking a fight with China weighs against her, but being astonishingly rich and an oligarch from a country Canada does a ton of business with weighs in her favour, so it's pretty much a wash. Watching the retaliatory detentions and death sentence hasn't particularly endeared me toward the Chinese government either, even though I'm completely aware that if it were within Trump's legal power, he'd undoubtedly execute some visiting Chinese businessmen to get the trade deal he wants.

NDPP

The Canadian justice system has been revealed as compromised and publicly seen to be so. As such it lacks the necessary credibility to conduct a proceeding in which 'independence' and 'impartiality' are necessary pre-conditions.  Interference occurred the moment a Chinese national was arrested by Canada for no crime committed here on the basis of a blatantly political agenda by an openly hostile Five Eyes alliance and an ill intentioned American campaign to destroy a Chinese competitor. If Meng's defence fails in Vancouver the only just and right decision would be for the AG Canada, whose ultimate decision it is, to set her free.

But since he's compromised and there to be of service to the PMO and it's obviously very much a political decision she will almost certainly be handed over to the Americans. Anyway the silver lining to it all is that we can rid ourselves of the quaint notion meant for schoolchildren  and naifs about Canada being a 'rule of law' nation. It is no such thing. It is a Dominion, of the weak by the strong where might makes right, money talks and bullshit walks.

WWWTT

@Unionist

Quote:

Her detention even in itself goes against the Charter of rights and freedoms

 

 

 

Oh, no kidding. Which section of the Charter would that be?

Easy easy question!

The Charter does not in any way aknowledge the existence of any extradition treaty. 

The problem is that there is no provision in the charter to amend. So any one seeking refuge in the charter for any glimer of salvation must spend all their money in legal fees to only be disappointed

Here's an example

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

See anything about sexual orientation? How about class or how wealthy/poor you are? I guess the government was so fucking wise in 1982, they figured these normal people would never come knocking

In order for gay marriage to happen in Canada, brave Canadians had to spend millions in legal fees to get the interpretation changed to be included. Was the wording ever changed? Oh no no no, there isn't one politician in Canada willing to stick their neck out for any lesbian/gay/poverty striken human in Canada!

If you want to argue whats skribbled on a piece of toilet paper, knock yourself out :)

WWWTT
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But since he's compromised and there to be of service to the PMO and it's obviously very much a political decision she will almost certainly be handed over to the Americans.

Wouldn't it be even MORE in the service of the PMO to release her?  Get back in China's good books, get us some sweet trade deals and suchlike?

Thing is, you can't really say "the system is corrupt", but if it gives you what you want then "OK, clearly it wasn't corrupt, but only this one time". 

NDPP

You'll never hear me say the system isn't corrupt. Until and unless it becomes so. I see no signs.

Noops

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
"...Asked by a state media journalist if it was contradictory for Mr Trudeau to say he couldn't interfere in Ms Meng's case and yet his government stands accused of trying to intervene in the SNC-Lavalin case, [China] Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said he 'really liked the question.'

If the answer to that question is "yes, it's contradictory" then the followup question would surely be "so if he inappropriately interfered in the SNC-Lavalin case, can we expect him to also inappropriately interfere in the Meng case?"

I think a much more appropriate followup question would be something along these lines ...

"Wouldn't you say Mr. Trudeau was being a hypocrite when he said he couldn't interfere in Ms Meng's case, now that his government is currently standing accused of trying to intervene in the SNC-Lavalin case?"

Noops

NDPP wrote:

But since he's compromised and there to be of service to the PMO and it's obviously very much a political decision she will almost certainly be handed over to the Americans. Anyway the silver lining to it all is that we can rid ourselves of the quaint notion meant for schoolchildren  and naifs about Canada being a 'rule of law' nation. It is no such thing. It is a Dominion, of the weak by the strong where might makes right, money talks and bullshit walks.

I couldn't have said it any better myself!

 

Noops

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But since he's compromised and there to be of service to the PMO and it's obviously very much a political decision she will almost certainly be handed over to the Americans.

Wouldn't it be even MORE in the service of the PMO to release her?  Get back in China's good books, get us some sweet trade deals and suchlike?

No, it would have been "even MORE in the service of the PMO" had he shut his big trap from the very beginning of the Huawei affair and not say the Canadian government would not intervene in judicial matters. And had he furthermore not tried to interfere politically in the SNC-Lavalin affair.

NDPP

Canada Gives Go-Ahead For Huawei Executive's Extradition

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/02/huaw-m02.html

"...The decision to give the go ahead for the extradition case comes as the US is waging a global campaign to have the Chinese telecommunications giant excluded from the establishment of 5G mobile phone networks and other forms of communications on security grounds.

'Clearly, the more Huawei gear is installed in the world's telecommunications networks, the harder it is for the NSA to 'collect it all'. Huawei, in other words, hampers US efforts to spy on whomever it wants, ' [Huawei executive, Guo] Ping wrote. Guo concluded that the US global campaign had little to do with national security and 'everything to do with America's desire to suppress a rising technological competitor.'

The seizure of Meng Wanshou and the attempts to extradite her to face criminal charges are only a foretaste of the methods to be employed in the future."

NDPP

Canada Starts Process to Extradite Huawei CFO to US

https://youtu.be/SKd8EUBbh28

"This is an act of political violence. I'm sorry that Canada's going along with this. It's a last ditch effort by American imperialism. Really quite appalling and deeply embarrassing  to use human beings in a trade war in such an aggressive and pointless attack upon China." 

NDPP

Huawei Executive Meng Wanzhou Files Lawsuit Alleging Breach of Constitutional Rights

https://t.co/bC2za0kMYi

"Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou has filed a civil claim that alleges members of the RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency breached her constitutional rights when she was arrested  in Vancouver on Dec 1. The allegations in Ms Meng's lawsuite describe events that have so far been largely unknown, including how officers approached and immediately questioned her after she exited from the plane.

The 13 page civil claim, filed Friday in the Supreme Court of BC on Ms May's behalf by Vancouver law firm Gudmundseth Mickelson, lists 3 unnamed CBSA officers, RCMP constable Winston Yep and the attorney general of Canada as defendants..."

Huawei CFO Sues Canada As She Faces Extradition To US

https://youtu.be/q9ugUHEaFo8

NDPP

China Accuses Detained Canadians of Stealing Secrets

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kovrig-spavor-state-secrets-1.5041436

China has accused detained Canadian citizen Michael Kovrig of stealing state secrets passed on to him from another detained Canadian, Michael Spavor, in what is likely to further ramp up tensions between Ottawa and Beijing. 

'Spavor was Kovrig's main contact and provided him with intelligence, stealing and spying on sensitive Chinese information and intelligence via a contact in China. China is a country with rule of law and will firmly crack down on criminal acts that severely undermine national security..."

 

NDPP

Meng Sues Canada's Govt For Arrest

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1140922.shtml

"...Gary Botting, a Vancouver extradition lawyer who is not representing Meng, told Time magazine that Canada's Border Security Agency tends to overstep. 'They took her under custody without telling her why,' Botting said in the interview. 'They disguised the real reasons why they detained her. Her rights were violated.' Li Haidong, a professor at the Chinese Foreign Affairs University's Institute of International Relations, stressed that Meng's case shows 'political interference'..."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..more

Meng Wanzhou alleges her constitutional rights were breached by RCMP, CBSA

The defence team for Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou has filed a notice of civil claim alleging "serious violations" of her constitutional rights, accusing officers of detaining and questioning her for three hours before notifying her of her arrest.

The suit filed with the B.C. Supreme Court on Friday is against members of the Canadian Border Services Agency, the RCMP and the federal government.

It seeks damages for false imprisonment based on multiple alleged failures of government officials to comply with the rule of law upon her detention, search and interrogation at the Vancouver airport on Dec. 1.

The allegations have not been proven in court and the RCMP and the attorney general's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for the CBSA said the agency does not comment on matters before the courts.

"This case concerns a deliberate and pre-meditated effort on the part of the defendant officers to obtain evidence and information from the plaintiff in a manner which they knew constituted serious violations of the plaintiff's rights," the claim says.

It alleges that RCMP officers and/or representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice arranged for Canadian border officials to delay the immediate execution of the arrest warrant "under the guise of a routine border check."

quote:

Meng's extradition case is scheduled to resume in the B.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Noops

Suing the Canadian government by alleging her constitutional rights were breached by RCMP, CBSA is a smart move on behalf of Meng.
However she should have done this a few months ago to gain maximum effect.

Whether or not this will impact the charges against her remains to be seen; it likely will be a side-show.
A potentially profitable side-show though.

From CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Arrest or detention

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

 

WWWTT

Surprise surprise 

WWWTT

What did I say about our charter, fighting for your rights and money up thread?

More money=more rights. It’s actually in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms! If you don’t see it, then you probably think Canada is the best country in the world and wouldn’t even be a babble poster. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

NDPP wrote:

China Accuses Detained Canadians of Stealing Secrets

My hunch is that the Chinese (like all goverments) has a number of suspects that they are buiding evidence about their activities. They may or may not be guilty law enforcement is over zealous all over the world.

Then the arrest in Canada happens, and the government goes to their list and chooses some likely suspects to do a tit for tat.

Noops

Pogo wrote:

NDPP wrote:

China Accuses Detained Canadians of Stealing Secrets

My hunch is that the Chinese (like all goverments) has a number of suspects that they are buiding evidence about their activities. They may or may not be guilty law enforcement is over zealous all over the world.

Then the arrest in Canada happens, and the government goes to their list and chooses some likely suspects to do a tit for tat.

Yes I agree with your position. Most would likely also agree.
However, the most effective way to deal with the crisis would be to find someone (Canadian) who was really rich/powerful and detain them.

The Canadian government is paying lip service to the detention of the Canadians, but little more.
Bring in somebody really wealthy and you would see an entirely different response.
 

NDPP

China Halts Canola Shipments From Major Canadian Supplier

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-china-export-1.5043182

"Richardson International's licence to ship canola revoked, escalating Huawei dispute..."

Thanks Justin...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It seems our population is so brain washed by our propaganda mills like the CBC that it thinks we can fight a trade war with China over electronics with one hand and with the other we can ink sales deals for tar sands gunk that the Chinese will be willing to pay a premium for. The disconnect to any real world reality is quite astounding.

voice of the damned

So, when the Americans announce trade sanctions against a country over some issue or other, should that be taken as proof that the country should have done or not done what the Americans wanted in the first place?

NDPP

Meng Wanzhou Appears in Vancouver Court to Set Extradition Hearing Date

https://vancouversun.com/local-news/meng-wanzhou-appears-in-vancouver-co...

"A lawyer for Meng Wanzhou has raised concerns about what he calls the 'political' nature of the Chinese executive's extradition case. Richard Peck told a BC Supreme Court judge Wednesday that it was a rare and possibly unique extradition case and that he had 'serious concerns' that were not common to most such cases.

'There are issues about the political character, political motivations, comments by the US President Donald Trump's declaration in December that he might interfere in the case if he could get a better trade deal with China.' There are issues arising out of the treatment of Ms Meng on her arrival at the Vancouver International Airport and her detention and subsequent arrest. It's a complex case. I don't say that lightly.'

Peck told BC Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes that there would be a number of defence applications that need to be heard before the hearing could get under way. He said there may well be disclosure applications, abuse of process  motions and applications to introduce defence evidence..."

 

Huawei Exec in Court: Day 1

https://youtu.be/uQ2-SVC-rsE

"Extradition hearing scheduled for May 8. She is also suing the Canadian government for their handling of the case..."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This will be a long case. The top Howe Street law firms are billing in 6 minute intervals with an unlimited budget.

Noops

kropotkin1951 wrote:

This will be a long case. The top Howe Street law firms are billing in 6 minute intervals with an unlimited budget.

Yes it will undoubtedly draw on for years.
Who will benefit? Who will be hurt?
Lawyers will benefit.
Free publicity for Huawei.
Trade between China and Canada will be greatly hurt (businesses will hurt).
Liberals will be greatly hurt.
Perhaps Trump will 'pardon' Meng when he leaves office (drop the case)?

 

WWWTT

Not sure if it’s anyway possible to foresee how this will go????

Liberals getting hurt and the lawyers making money are easy to predict. 

This case going a long time beyond a year, not so sure bout that one? I believe it’ll go beyond the October election and some time after that the feds may want to rid of it? On second thought that could be a long shot. Ms Meng may want to humiliate the Canadian government? Probably will be some kind of side deal made somewhere in all of this? 

As far as trade goes, China does enjoy a surplus with Canada, and Canada may very well start taking steps to reduce that and playing hard ball. Not sure what Canada may do as far as balancing trade effectively?

NDPP

Huawei Dials Up: US Attack on Huawei Fails, Sales Way Up!

https://youtu.be/enyPAxyd4vQ

"Chinese telecom giant is suing Canada over the arrest of CFO Meng Wanzhou alleging that they violated her constitutional rights. Huawei's founder says he was hurt when he learned of his daughter's arrest, but also said the US attack on Huawei has been good for business..."

 

Huawei v Washington: Chinese Tech Giant Sues US Govt

https://youtu.be/2co5ecahdAM

"Chinese tech giant sues US govt."

 

Huawei Sues the US Govt for Unconstitutional Sales Restrictions Imposed by Congress

https://www.huawei.com/en/press-events/news/2019/3/huawei-sues-the-us-go...

NDPP

The Point: Huawei CFO Sues Canada Over Violated Constitutional Rights

https://youtu.be/4h7YlxlkUFU

Canada accused of knowingly breaching Meng's constitutional rights.

NDPP

China Has Stopped Buying Canadian Canola Seed

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canola-canada-china-1.5067307

"About 40 percent of Canadian canola seed exports normally go to China, but the country has stopped buying..."

Because 'Canada stands for the rule of law' (and does whatever Washington wants).

NDPP

Justice Canada Studied Trump's Comments On Huawei Extradition, Documents Show

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-huawei-comments-justice-canada-1....

"If President Trump thought it important enough to raise the Canadian extradition case in the context of America-China trade negotiations, saying he may intervene if it assists China, that's telling. And its been accepted now in writing in a high-level government document.

'The defence counsel may well have the improper purpose - abusive process defence to strike down, shut down, this Huawei extradition case..."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I found the stats on how many times Canada has refused to extradite to the US interesting. Many here made the argument that the government's hand were tied but apparently not in all cases.

The document also confirms Canadian ministers have stepped in to stop the extradition of individuals in the past.

"Since 1993 (the earliest date for which we have statistics), the Minister of Justice has discharged persons sought for extradition in 13 cases," the document says.

Although the document does not provide case specifics, it says that "of those 13 cases, 10 were extradition requests from the United States.

"This is the only power under the Act which is expressly exercisable only by the minister."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-huawei-comments-justice-canada-1....

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

I think the death penalty has perhaps played a role in that number.

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

I think the death penalty has perhaps played a role in that number.

I was thinking the same.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Stop agreeing with me.  It is damaging my outsider creds.

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

Stop agreeing with me.  It is damaging my outsider creds.

Likewise. I agree.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes it would have to but I doubt its the only grounds. It seems that all along JWR had the authority to say that Canada would not play in a trade war initiated extradition.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Yes it would have to but I doubt its the only grounds. It seems that all along JWR had the authority to say that Canada would not play in a trade war initiated extradition.

I think you are correct. From the treaty:

Quote:

Article 4

  1. Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

    1. When the person whose surrender is sought is being proceeded against, or has been tried and discharged or punished in the territory of the requested State for the offense for which his extradition is requested.
    2. When the prosecution for the offense has become barred by lapse of time according to the laws of the requesting State.
    3. When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the person whose extradition is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing him for an offense of the above-mentioned character. If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this subparagraph, the authorities of the Government on which the requisition is made shall decide.

[emphasis added]

It's not too late for the A-G to invoke this clause, especially given the evidence from Trump's own mouth that this is "of a political character".

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It seems that all along JWR had the authority to say that Canada would not play in a trade war initiated extradition.

Yes, evidently she could have refused the U.S. request, but that request was made two weeks after JWR was bumped to a new portfolio.

WWWTT

NDPP wrote:

Justice Canada Studied Trump's Comments On Huawei Extradition, Documents Show

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-huawei-comments-justice-canada-1....

"If President Trump thought it important enough to raise the Canadian extradition case in the context of America-China trade negotiations, saying he may intervene if it assists China, that's telling. And its been accepted now in writing in a high-level government document.

'The defence counsel may well have the improper purpose - abusive process defence to strike down, shut down, this Huawei extradition case..."

Ya I predicted this possible scenario. That the liberals are desperately looking for a fast easy out. 

With snc-lavelin already knocking the liberals into opposition polling numbers and getting worse with each passing week, a long court battle with international media coverage, Chinese protesters outside the courts when the cameras rolling, this has the potential to discredit Justin more than SNC-Lavalin. 

Sean in Ottawa

It is difficult to say what all the motivations are for the government and for an individual minister.

Despite knowledge that in the past for some reasons these can get turned down by ministerial fiat, it is not unreasonable for a minister to prefer that a court settle it. I am not sure that I see the value in a minister making the decision. If anything it is like as some describe negotiating with terrorists -- it might give you an advantage in the short run but it opens you to political pressure rahter than merits of the case in the long run. Where there is a treaty I think there ought to be a very fast (much faster than present) mechanism for a judge to make the decision. Politicians should not be deciding this as it is an invitation to the brawl we are currently in -- and losing.

The minister ought to comment on the length of the procedure and bring to the House, in the national interest, a mechanism to make this happen quickly. As well, the law the judge can depend on could be clarified so that the judge has much closer guidance from parliament in deciding. But this should be for all cases not in isolation. Otherwise these decisions become based on relationship and power status with Canada and not merits.

Obvioulsy the SNC Lavalin story has blown the credibility of the federal government in this and Canada will be hurt by either China or the US -- or both  -- in retaliation no matter what we do. The answer now is to change the system so this never happens again, removing from the political sphere firmly this choice. No longer is the US so powerful that following its interests cannot harm Canada diplomatically (if ever that was the case). Canada must move to prevent punishment auctions in the future by taking this out of cabinet.

Pondering

I think what the world needs to be learning from this is that when China believes themselves to be wronged they will hit back 100-fold and keep hitting until their opponent folds. 

Taking a step back, China's G5 network will not be permitted in any of the five eyes countries.  They can pretend they are making their decisions independently but none of them will be willing to be ousted from the Five Eyes and they will be if they use China's system. There is no way China can prove it has no influence over Huwai and doesn't have a backdoor. Can't prove a negative. The pundits don't seem to be picking up on that. 

After Snowden I don't see how anyone can believe the US won't have a backdoor somewhere in their system. 

The five eyes, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, USA.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

I think what the world needs to be learning from this is that when China believes themselves to be wronged they will hit back 100-fold and keep hitting until their opponent folds. 

Taking a step back, China's G5 network will not be permitted in any of the five eyes countries.  They can pretend they are making their decisions independently but none of them will be willing to be ousted from the Five Eyes and they will be if they use China's system. There is no way China can prove it has no influence over Huwai and doesn't have a backdoor. Can't prove a negative. The pundits don't seem to be picking up on that. 

After Snowden I don't see how anyone can believe the US won't have a backdoor somewhere in their system. 

The five eyes, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, USA.

China is a country that really studies other countries carefully. They seem more in touch at times than others. I think the problem Canada has is that the mechanism for intervention is there. You can be sure that China is considering the SNCL story very closely and it is damaging Canada severely. Should Canada completely remove the mechanism for the future, China would not like it but not be so incensed. The reason China is taking such angry action is becuase they have a point and the SNCL proves it. Yes, they would notice if that point were taken away by reform. It is true they could retaliate in the future but probably on a more measured basis. The US as well would be just the same.

The only reason why the government of Canada is being hammered by China is probably that they know if they did anything else they would be hammered worse by the US. Canada has probably been warned in secret by the US to this effect.

The only solution to not being caught between two larger countries like this is to take this process firmly, irrevocably, from the PM, Minister and Cabinet. I realize there may be times when Canada might wish to have this power and there may be a price to pay but having this power in the world as it is will be more costly. The govvernment can change the law as appropriate and trust the courts. If it does not then it should expect power plays.

To sum it up Canada's governing power must admit that it does not have independence on these matters. Either it is a power play with other governments or something we give the courts. Do you want our courts to have this power or whichever other country has the most power over us -- with the weaker one still hurting us?

NDPP

This whole matter and its accompanying self sabotage of the Canada-China trading relationship on behalf of the wishes of the American imperium raises once again the increasingly obvious reality of a vassal status on whose behalf our elected representatives act to further not oppose. And yet on this board the pretense of a sovereign, self-determining country continues against all evidence to the contrary. It seems for many, 'let's pretend' is preferable to a reality that calls out for urgent action and change.  

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

This whole matter and its accompanying self sabotage of the Canada-China trading relationship on behalf of the wishes of the American imperium raises once again the increasingly obvious reality of a vassal status on whose behalf our elected representatives act to further not oppose. And yet on this board the pretense of a sovereign, self-determining country continues against all evidence to the contrary. It seems for many, 'let's pretend' is preferable to a reality that calls out for urgent action and change.  

I am not sure which argument you are addressing. Canada cannot assert independence on these matters at a political level. It can make changes to remove issues from the political sphere that will be used as a hammer to hit this country with. This is a realistic move that will not make us independent but it will reduce the power that others have over us.

Any power held by th legislative and executive branch here is prone to be abused through international power. We cannot minimize or balance this. However, any that is put solely in the judicial branch, that puts it beyond the reach of politics, also takes it away from any who claim mastery over our politics.

Despite the lame attempt by this government on the Meng case, this cannot be done with an individual case and it will be shown up by others. It can only be done without a specific case on the table.

Canada will be pressured, that there is no doubt, but there will no longer be a reward for that pressure or a point to be made and so it would be reasonable to expect that the pressure would be less determined and damaging than it is in this case.

Since the Canadian government does not have the independence (or size) be an arbiter between two larger powers (the more powerful will win) then it must retreat to allow the judiciary to decide these cases.

NorthReport

What can Canada do, apart from negotiating with China, to save our Canola industry? We have to think outside the box.

China’s Canola Ban Adds to Trudeau’s Woes in Bitter Huawei Feud

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-28/china-s-canola-ban-adds-to-trudeau-s-woes-in-bitter-huawei-feud?srnd=premium-canada

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

What can Canada do, apart from negotiating with China, to save our Canola industry? We have to think outside the box.

China’s Canola Ban Adds to Trudeau’s Woes in Bitter Huawei Feud

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-28/china-s-canola-ban-adds-to-trudeau-s-woes-in-bitter-huawei-feud?srnd=premium-canada

There is no outside the box here. So long as China thinks the government of Canada could relent this matters more than the relationship with Canada. the only out-of-box item is to firmly place this beyond the control of the political arm of government.

Even doing so this will take considerable time to repair.

The other option is to sell canola elsewhere -- and that is no realistic.

The Trudeau government screwed the canola industry over SNCL. This is the dirty thing they will not recognize. By making it clear they had an option they laid bare the powerplay between the US and China. One of the two will win but Canada will certainly lose. Long term Canada has to work on a very public prevention to make sure that every government in the world understands that politics cannot intrude on these cases. Sure this gives up some power but this is power we never really had in the first place. Time to admit it or we keep paying.

Pondering

SNC has nothing to do with the Canola move. China would have done it regardless. They are just using it to try to pretend that Canada is no different from China. 

If Canada were not a country of the rule of law they could have just shipped her off to the US right away leaving China with no excuse to continue trying to pressure Canada. No matter what damage China inflicts on Canada The US would have inflicted much worse if Canada had refused the request. 

China is inflicting much more damage on itself. The rest of the world is now aware that China will arrest their citizens in China and hold industries hostage if anyone crosses them. Makes trade deals with China worth less. This will do the opposite of helping China to get their 5G network accepted by the western world. Although maybe they already gave up on that. 

You can be sure that other countries are leary of getting caught between the US and China but not because they are afraid of China. China may be set to become the largest consumer market in the world, displacing the US, but the US is still the largest importer of goods. Everyone still buys US dollars. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

SNC has nothing to do with the Canola move. China would have done it regardless. They are just using it to try to pretend that Canada is no different from China. 

If Canada were not a country of the rule of law they could have just shipped her off to the US right away leaving China with no excuse to continue trying to pressure Canada. No matter what damage China inflicts on Canada The US would have inflicted much worse if Canada had refused the request. 

China is inflicting much more damage on itself. The rest of the world is now aware that China will arrest their citizens in China and hold industries hostage if anyone crosses them. Makes trade deals with China worth less. This will do the opposite of helping China to get their 5G network accepted by the western world. Although maybe they already gave up on that. 

You can be sure that other countries are leary of getting caught between the US and China but not because they are afraid of China. China may be set to become the largest consumer market in the world, displacing the US, but the US is still the largest importer of goods. Everyone still buys US dollars. 

SNCL is related because the Chinese now have public proof that the cabinet intervenes in legal disputes when they want to -- that they can. This is devastating for Canada's position in the Meng case.

The bottom line is that our division between the judiciary and the executive has been proven to be fake.

The Canola decision came later.

The Chinese have connected the two -- I am not making this up.

I cannot see how you can fault the connection.

The other point is that if there is this power in the executive then there is a purpose in China's punishment of Canada as we do have a choice.

Yes I know US pain would be worse as they have more power over us and their leader is unhinged.

Pages