Mr. Magoo wrote:
Yeah, it's a bit sneaky, but it's still within the realm of the law, and if we don't want to be in a position of having to take sides in the case, I think it's one of the realpolitik options available to us(though we'd probably have to keep it on the hush-hush). I'm sure governments do stuff like that all the time to avoid embarrassing squeezes.
I wouldn't doubt that they do, but if we don't generally say "good, good" when we find out then it doesn't seem like a great idea, even though it certainly qualifies as another idea.
Borrowing your Conrad Black example, if we all found out that Stephen Harper called Conrad on the QT to say "don't come back to Canada for a while, we've been asked to arrest you if you do" would we say that was a good idea? If not, why would it be a good idea now?
As far as not taking sides, as I see it, we haven't. We didn't arrest Meng out of our own animus or trade plans, we did it because years ago we agreed to, and we've been on both ends of many extraditions since.
The idea that Trudeau knew this was going to happen, chose not to do something illegal or dishonest, so therefore it "proves" that he wanted this and is probably "in on the plan" is absurd.
It's like saying "you knew your team was behind, and you could have cheated but you chose not to so clearly you wanted the other team to win". A ten year-old would see through that "logic".
Ok fair enough Mr Magoo. That sounds logical. But here’s the thing, I suspect many Canadians are not going to be as forgiving as you. I speculate many Canadian voters come election time are going to say to themselves “you know what? Maybe Justin and team liberals are really a sack of hammers and don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground? Why should I give you idiots another chance?”
And honestly from my perspective, since this isn’t the first or second time that Justin has displayed very poor judgement, the liberals really need to be shown the door in 2019!
And put Andy Pandy in:
Thanks for the link bekayne. This proves my hunch that this issue will not go away and is a huge failure for Justin and the liberals.
Now as far as whom you vote for and who Canadians vote for, that's none of my business. If Canadians feel the conservatives could have handled this better who knows?
What is interesting here is that the criticisms of the Liberals are mostly coming from Conservatives who are extremely harsh but empty -- they do not say what they would do differently.
What is lacking here is any realistic alternative information or suggestions about what the government is doing or could do.
For example, we know that there was a request from the US for this person's arrest. We know that this is the first step, then the arrest and then the formal extradition request. There is no public discusion about how this could be handled differently. I have spent time looking for infomration on this but so far I cannot find it. I suspect that there are some choices here but the information in the public discussions and the media does not include any of that. As a result the debate is between those who think the government position should be just accepted and those suggesting measures that appear to be completely unrealistic or claiming the the government had chocies that clearly they did not have. I do nto see anyone laying out clearly what the government's choices were. I would like to know what real chocies the government had.
I know that the extradition treaty between Canada and the US is probably a practical necessity. With the border we have, without such a legal instrument, each country would become a haven for every level of criminal. I do not believe that Canada's interest lie in ebing welcoming to all criminals from the US. So not having the treaty does not seem to be an option. a process where each case appears before a judge here, without political direction and the legal arguments are made about the validity seems right. But this is a longer process that is problematic in a high profile urgent case such as this. In my view there ought to be some kind of preliminary motion process (like a motion to dismiss in other coutr processes) so that a poisoned case such as this can be kicked without Canada having to abrogate the treaty for one case.
I recognize that the public interest and the interest of Canada has no place in the discussion becuase the judicial process must be based on the law applied consistently and the individual case. However, once Trump made it clear that this person was to be held effectively as ransom for his political demands, there ought to have been a process that the defence could have asked for an immediate termination of the case.
It is wrong that this is a fight that the Chinese are making political and the US is declaring to be political and Canada is the only one, a third party, that is held to the standard of non-political interference.
Why Can't Canada demand of the US that the treaty be amended to allow for motion to dismiss when the requesting country (in this case the US) makes the case political, thus letting Canada out of a political spat we have no place being in or power to resolve. This was not the intent of the treaty. The treaty only exists based on confidence that the parties would apply rule of law and not make them political. Perhaps Canada can simply apply that standard unilaterally, allow for a quick emergency hearing to determine this, even one prior to arrest generated by Canadian authorities where evidence that the case is being used improperly.
It may be that there is nothing wrong with the treaty or the law in Canada on this on most issues and that the only problem is the delay in the hearing to determine validity and extradition request from the US. If Ms Meng's arrest had been followed within a day of a requirement for a formal extradition request and then a day for a hearing to argue validity, Canada might not be in this position. With Trump's comments, this might have ended without any precident set regarding extradition of common criminals (say bank robbers etc.) and with China not feeling that Canada is holding this person. Why indeed woudl Canada hold at another country's request soemone for such a long term without them having to defend the arrest, answer to allegations of improper process and intent amd formerly ask for extradition? Why would Canada allow itself to be hung out to dry for 2-3 months for such a process, having to take formal responsibility for the arrest over such a long time. Does not seem like a reasonable treaty. If a Search warrant process can be expedited before a judge then this detention process is ridiculous.
I do not accept the garbage criticism from the Conservative leader as it is empty of suggestion. However, it seems that the government of Canada does have options about what it can say and do right now and we do not have to take them at their word. A real discussion about shortening the process and requirements for the US to put more on the table imediately could be part of the discussion. Instead we get empty cirticisms like those from the Conservatives, false allegations from others claiming a political involvement that has not happened, and no discussion about what kind of political involvement is possible (such as what I am raising as an option).
Do we have any substantive criticism from anyone else like the NDP or Greens? I have not even heard anything from the media -- not even a full description of the process and requirements of the treaty. Lots of talk, no information.