Detention of Meng Wanzhou - CFO of Huawei

830 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

US-China Sanctions Endanger Global Economy

https://blackagendareport.com/index.php/us-china-sanctions-endanger-glob...

"The ultimate suicide bomber is in Washington DC."

With his little Canadian doggy obediently in tow.

NDPP

Death Sentence For Canadian in China 'Of Extreme Concern': PM (and vid)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/death-sentence-for-canadian-in-china-of-ex...

"...Robert Lloyd Schellenberg was first arrested in China in 2014. He was tried in 2016, and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Prosecutors appealed that verdict last month, arguing that the sentence was too lenient. A new trial was ordered and took place Monday..."

Unfortunately,  Trudeau et al probably won't be working particularly hard to spare him as anti-China sentiment is now encouraged in service to the US agenda. Schellenberg's death sentence should  be considered collateral damage to Canada's collaboration in this new Sinophobic geopolitics.

voice of the damned

Schellenberg's death sentence should  be considered collateral damage to Canada's collaboration in this new Sinophobic geopolitics.

So, you're saying that China is, in fact, executing this man in order to score political points against Canada? I'm not really sure if that's an argument that helps your side of the debate. (Sorta like defending the police by saying that if you criticize them, they might beat the crap out of you.)

Speaking as someone who tries to obey the law when overseas, I don't give a flying fuck what the Chinese do to this guy, even if the sentence was influenced by geopolitical considerations; he should have considered that possibility before he decided to become the crystal-meth king of Dalian. Still, kind of odd to see people who argue for the Chinese cause admit that this sentence is basically political.  

voice of the damned

And as for JT deliberately doing nothing in order to allow anti-China sentiment to fester, I'm not sure if that would help his position. From what I've seen, most people who hate China are ANTI-Liberal, as seen by comments in the Globe And Mail like "Yeah, this is the 'basic dictatorship' that Justine admires so much". There aren't many people who are gonna say "God, I hate those bloody Chinese, better rally around the party of diversity and multiculturalism to fight them."

The view of the Liberal Party as right-wing, while possibly accurate, is not one that is shared by anywhere near a majority of Canadians, and assuming it is can lead to confused analysis of voter behaviour.

NDPP

Judging is always political. Here and there. And unlike you, I do 'give a flying fuck' and don't support capital punishment. Or kidnapping.

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:

Judging is always political. Here and there. And unlike you, I do 'give a flying fuck' and don't support capital punishment. Or kidnapping.

I don't support capital punishment either. That doesn't mean I think the Canadian government is obligated to protect their citizens from it when they commit capital offenses in countries where it's on the books.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

 Still, kind of odd to see people who argue for the Chinese cause admit that this sentence is basically political.  

Gee I only noticed one post. Maybe people should stop claiming that one poster is somehow representative of all posters who share a similar view on a related issue.

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

 Still, kind of odd to see people who argue for the Chinese cause admit that this sentence is basically political.  

Gee I only noticed one post. Maybe people should stop claiming that one poster is somehow representative of all posters who share a similar view on a related issue.

Okay.

"Kind of odd to see someone who argues for the Chinese cause admit that this sentence is basically political."

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thank you VOD

NDPP

China's view:

Schellenberg Trial Shows Canada's Arbitrary View of Rule of Law

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1135762.shtml

"Schellenberg's trial is not a 'political verdict.'

voice of the damned

So, if the trial isn't political, but rather just a regular application of Chinese law, I guess it really doesn't have much to do with "Canada's collaboration in this new Sinophobic geopolitics" after all.  

Sean in Ottawa

I think that people looking at this case might want to think about a bit of history here.

China's humiliation of the 19th century centred around the European and American countries trying to push drugs into their country in order to create a product the Chinese would want so they could trade for profit (they wanted goods from china and China needed nothing from the West) -- and then when the Chinese resisted they were treated mercilessly. For the Crime of standing up to drug pushers from the West China lost its port cities which were colonized by invaders. Bringing illegal drugs for distribution into China from a "Western" country is going to hit a nerve.

It is possible that this death penalty has little to do with the Meng arrest -- or that goodwill that might have helped the Canadian drug dealer was lost. It is not shocking to me that the Chinese would demand a steep penalty for the large amount of drugs this man was caught with.

I am against the death penalty but this crime is not some arbitrary capital crime -- this is a crime that is at the heart of western imperialism with respect to China.

I do not want to see the person die, but this is not some arbitrary victim either and the crime he committed is not trivial in China and it is hugely symbolic when it comes to relations between China and a number of other countries.

 

NDPP

Schellenberg is sentenced to 15 years. Meng Wanzhou is snatched by Canada. Schellenberg's case is then appealed and he's given death instead. Had Canada-China relations been warm instead of cold I strongly suspect it wouldn't have gone this way.

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:

Schellenberg is sentenced to 15 years. Meng Wanzhou is snatched by Canada. Schellenberg's case is then appealed and he's given death instead. Had Canada-China relations been warm instead of cold I strongly suspect it wouldn't have gone this way.

So, in other words, the guy you quoted in # 361 is wrong? Because there's not much difference between saying that the trial is political, and saying that Schellenberg's case was appealed and he got a death-sentence because we have bad relations with China.

 

NDPP

He has his view, I have mine.

WWWTT

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think that people looking at this case might want to think about a bit of history here.

China's humiliation of the 19th century centred around the European and American countries trying to push drugs into their country in order to create a product the Chinese would want so they could trade for profit (they wanted goods from china and China needed nothing from the West) -- and then when the Chinese resisted they were treated mercilessly. For the Crime of standing up to drug pushers from the West China lost its port cities which were colonized by invaders. Bringing illegal drugs for distribution into China from a "Western" country is going to hit a nerve.

It is possible that this death penalty has little to do with the Meng arrest -- or that goodwill that might have helped the Canadian drug dealer was lost. It is not shocking to me that the Chinese would demand a steep penalty for the large amount of drugs this man was caught with.

I am against the death penalty but this crime is not some arbitrary capital crime -- this is a crime that is at the heart of western imperialism with respect to China.

I do not want to see the person die, but this is not some arbitrary victim either and the crime he committed is not trivial in China and it is hugely symbolic when it comes to relations between China and a number of other countries.

 

Have to agree with this comment here!

WWWTT

NDPP wrote:

Schellenberg is sentenced to 15 years. Meng Wanzhou is snatched by Canada. Schellenberg's case is then appealed and he's given death instead. Had Canada-China relations been warm instead of cold I strongly suspect it wouldn't have gone this way.

Also have to agree with NDPP here! From my understanding, Chinese government is fully aware that corporal punishment is an area their justice system needs reforming. But many in China do not want to change this. Here's an older link I found with some possible insight

https://duihua.org/dialogue-issue-41-reducing-death-penalty-crimes-in-ch...

I believe that the detention of Ms Meng did put pressure on this decission. But this can never be proved because this Canadian isn't the first and probably won't be the last.

Sean in Ottawa

It is not a contradiction to say that something may not be the cause but that it could undermine a protection.

My guess here is that there was pressure agaisnt the sentence for the drug dealer, however, goodwill with Canada may have held it back. Without the goodwill, due to the recent spat, then there was nothing holding it back. This is quite different than saying that China went out and sought to punish some random Canadian.

I think that people might want to consider that where goodwill protects them, that shield can be lifted any moment that there is a bump in the relationship. To suggest otherwise is to dismiss the value of good relations. It is also true that if this sentence is not carried out quickly, the Canadian may once again benefit from goodwill and be protected once again. The reality is that bringing large numbers of drugs into most Asian countries including China is risking your life if you get caught. Hard to imagine that he did not know that going in.

I admit that I have a hard time mustering sympathy for a person who attempts to bring a large amount of drugs into China given the history. Sorry to be blunt. That does not mean I am in favour of the death penalty but it is a context.

A drug dealer in China from "the west" will be seen as an imperialist and white supremacist. That is the tradition they are following. Maybe reading history is not the worst thing you can do with some of your hours.

Sean in Ottawa

In further reading it seems I was incorrect in that Schellenberg was trying to export 222 kilos of meth from China to Australia rather than import it. I am not sure how much of the story this changes since it is therefore a question of him supporting a domestic illegal drug industry which is in many ways just as bad. It also is serious in that it affects China-Australia relations by bringing drugs made in China to Australia.

Regardless the case is extremely serious and the issue of drug trade still a nerve.

My guess is that friendly relations with Australia probably are the reason Australia is quiet. If Canada had deteriorating relations with Australia, they might also indicate a profound lack of sympathy, although not support for the death penalty.

It is hard not to imagine 222 pounds of meth causing some deaths as well.

voice of the damned

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

In further reading it seems I was incorrect in that Schellenberg was trying to export 222 kilos of meth from China to Australia rather than import it. I am not sure how much of the story this changes since it is therefore a question of him supporting a domestic illegal drug industry which is in many ways just as bad. It also is serious in that it affects China-Australia relations by bringing drugs made in China to Australia.

Regardless the case is extremely serious and the issue of drug trade still a nerve.

My guess is that friendly relations with Australia probably are the reason Australia is quiet. If Canada had deteriorating relations with Australia, they might also indicate a profound lack of sympathy, although not support for the death penalty.

It is hard not to imagine 222 pounds of meth causing some deaths as well.

Another thing that kinda complicates this is that, if I'm reading the reports correctly, the only reason a new sentence was deemed neccessary was because Schellenger himself appealed his orignal sentence as being too long, and wanted it shortened. But instead of either upholding or shortening the sentence, the court used that as an opportunity to make it into a death sentence.

So that kinda complicates the idea that this was all about China's historically rooted grievances about the foreign drug-trade, because if that were the case, why did they only wait until the appeal to make it a death-sentence? Presumbaly, they were just as ticked off about drugs as at the time of the first trial, as they are now. One can speculate that something happened between now and then to incline them toward the ultimate penalty.

(CAVEAT: I'm not 100% sure I have the history of his trials and appeals down pat, specifically if the reason for the appeal was his own request.)

 

NDPP

"In theory it should be up to China's Supreme People's Court to decide whether Robert Schellenburg should be sentenced to death. But it's the political realm where his ultimate fate may be determined."

https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/1085227777228505089

As with Meng Wanzhou.

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

"In theory it should be up to China's Supreme People's Court to decide whether Robert Schellenburg should be sentenced to death. But it's the political realm where his ultimate fate may be determined."

https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/1085227777228505089

As with Meng Wanzhou.

This quote is from the CBC and not China. I have not heard anyone from China suggesting in any way that politics may may a difference in this case.

Considering that he asked for an appeal he generated a new look at his case.

The court could have been angry with the appeal that it felt was not merited -- especially if the court thought he got a good deal. Unfortunately the timing meant that no political pressure could come on his behalf. (Perhaps it did previously and reduced the sentence to 15 years.). This time there was nothing to help him, the court was angry that he appealed agood deal in their view and hit him with what a drug dealer in China would normally get.

This is possible.

All that said -- it is still possible that with better relations in the future, political pressure may improve things for him if the sentence is not carried out during a period where relations between China and Canada are still poor.

I remain unconvinced of any proof that this is some kind of revenge hostage type case that soem people in the media here are suggesting.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Bringing illegal drugs for distribution into China from a "Western" country is going to hit a nerve.

Except he was actually trying to take drugs OUT of China.

China hates drugs, evidently, but somehow they're also apparently the source of most of our imported fentanyl.  Huh.

I don't think this is really about some century-old "humiliation".

WWWTT

You could be right Mr Magoo. Ingredients for meth and synthetic opiats are legal I believe so I think this is why China is a source. I’ve heard that China is or may be intentionally flooding western countries with these drugs.  All hard to say and this topic is worth its own thread because there’s so much more involved than Ms Meng. 

Either way, like it or not, China is becoming a bigger and bigger part of international and domestic developments. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The US started this descent into international chaos by demanding that Canada arrest a top Chinese business leader on charges of conspiring to break trade sanctions that were not authorized by the UN. There is little that could be more political than that act especially since the President himself has specifically stated she is leverage in a trade war.

Whether our PM wants to admit it or not the Chinese have a functioning judicial system. This scum drug dealer was only given a 15 years and his Chinese co-conspirator was given a deferred death sentence. The appeal of that sentence was already underway when the US triggered this international shit storm. I do not believe that political operatives are telling those court officials what to do. No matter what I or other Canadians think about the Chinese government we should all understand that it is supported by the majority and the majority seems to think that the price of submitting to the collective rules is a fair price to pay for peace, order and good government. To claim they have no rule of law, as all parties in the H of C seem to be implying, is unbelievably Eurocentric given the political games played with the judicial system that initiated this problem.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The US started this descent into international chaos by demanding that Canada arrest a top Chinese business leader on charges of conspiring to break trade sanctions that were not authorized by the UN. There is little that could be more political than that act especially since the President himself has specifically stated she is leverage in a trade war.

Whether our PM wants to admit it or not the Chinese have a functioning judicial system. This scum drug dealer was only given a 15 years and his Chinese co-conspirator was given a deferred death sentence. The appeal of that sentence was already underway when the US triggered this international shit storm. I do not believe that political operatives are telling those court officials what to do. No matter what I or other Canadians think about the Chinese government we should all understand that it is supported by the majority and the majority seems to think that the price of submitting to the collective rules is a fair price to pay for peace, order and good government. To claim they have no rule of law, as all parties in the H of C seem to be implying, is unbelievably Eurocentric given the political games played with the judicial system that initiated this problem.

I think this is all true.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Bringing illegal drugs for distribution into China from a "Western" country is going to hit a nerve.

Except he was actually trying to take drugs OUT of China.

China hates drugs, evidently, but somehow they're also apparently the source of most of our imported fentanyl.  Huh.

I don't think this is really about some century-old "humiliation".

By taking illegal drugs out he was funding illegal drugs to be produced inside. Is that not correct?

In any case -- drug crimes are not based on the direction. A western person involved with moving drugs in or out of China is going to be a problem. Expecting that the Canadian government can demand a concession on this or criticize this is going to be taken as imperialism. How could it not be?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
By taking illegal drugs out he was funding illegal drugs to be produced inside. Is that not correct?

Yes.  To be taken out.

Quote:
In any case -- drug crimes are not based on the direction. A western person involved with moving drugs in or out of China is going to be a problem.

I get that it's a crime regardless of direction.  I'm just suggesting this really isn't similar to "Westerners" bringing drugs INTO China decades ago.

Quote:
Expecting that the Canadian government can demand a concession on this or criticize this is going to be taken as imperialism. How could it not be?

I don't think the Canadian government is or was worried about him being punished -- were they trying to intervene when he was sentenced to jail? -- except when that punishment is death. 

If a Canadian were sentenced to die for being an accomplice to drug smuggling in any other country, wouldn't we expect the government to intervene?  Would that really be "imperialism", and should we therefore denounce it?

WWWTT

Canada should speak up about the penalty of death. And there are many in China that would agree death penalties too extreme a punishment I’m sure. This still may be delayed and may not happen. 

NDPP

WWWTT wrote:

Canada should speak up about the penalty of death. And there are many in China that would agree death penalties too extreme a punishment I’m sure. This still may be delayed and may not happen. 

NDPP wrote:

If I was the condemned man, based on how this government has thus far handled relations with China, I wouldn't be very hopeful that their intercession would be at all helpful. On the contrary...

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
By taking illegal drugs out he was funding illegal drugs to be produced inside. Is that not correct?

Yes.  To be taken out.

Quote:
In any case -- drug crimes are not based on the direction. A western person involved with moving drugs in or out of China is going to be a problem.

I get that it's a crime regardless of direction.  I'm just suggesting this really isn't similar to "Westerners" bringing drugs INTO China decades ago.

Quote:
Expecting that the Canadian government can demand a concession on this or criticize this is going to be taken as imperialism. How could it not be?

I don't think the Canadian government is or was worried about him being punished -- were they trying to intervene when he was sentenced to jail? -- except when that punishment is death. 

If a Canadian were sentenced to die for being an accomplice to drug smuggling in any other country, wouldn't we expect the government to intervene?  Would that really be "imperialism", and should we therefore denounce it?

1) There is no scenario where you support production of illegal drugs only to take out of a country especially one that happens to have the biggest domestic market in the world. The question I asked, that I was unsure of, is whether the drugs he was seeking to export were from legal sources within China or an illegal production. If the second then it makes no difference if he was taking these drugs out -- he was supporting a drug threat to China. If so, you are trying to make a distinction without a difference. So my question remains to those that may be able to answer: was this large movement of drugs a purchase that supported an illegal drug trade in China or not? If it was movement of a legal drug produced by legal sources then the difference is everything. Otherwise, supporting an illegal drug trade domestically is not better than importing and it might be worse.

2) I do not think China was concerned by Canada objecting to a Canadian being put to death. Indeed, it looks like they were trying to get Canada's attention. However, the comment from Canada that this was arbitrary was an insult to their legal system suggesting that China rounded up some random Canadian to kill. The Chinese are quite correct that the tone from Trudeau is misplaced. There is nothing random about this. They were in the process of a retrial of a Canadian found guilty of an extremely serious crime that the Canadian had asked to be reviewed. The Chinese have faced that Canadian with the normal penalty that you get for what he is accused of. Nothing arbitrary. Canada expected that it was immune from the harshest of NORMAL penalties. China's message to Canada is not that this is arbitrary but that good relations with China do in fact immunize Canadian citizens from the harshest of penalties there, and that this is one of the reasons good relations are good to have. There is a huge difference in a timely reminder, due to a process already underway, that good relations have benefits, and the suggestion made by Trudeau that the Chinese system is arbitrary. It is from this that we get the suggestion of white imperialism -- in the claim that Canada ought to be above a system that it apparently refuses to recognize.

There is a great deal wrong, many can argue with some evidence, with the Chinese justice system. However, the suggestion that it is arbitrary is an accusation that has little merit. You may not like the penalties of the Chinese system and you may not like some of the values and laws that it represents (the crime of making the country look bad for example is something many do not understand and the Chinese system is based on a strong bias towards the group over the individual ), however, it is not arbitrary. (The Chinese in the majority appear to believe that a legal preference for the group over the individual is essential to the survival of the country itself.) At issue here is one country not just arguing with another based on different values (the group vs the individual is a longtime philosophical question in Europe), but saying that the other's values are non-existent and arbitrary rather than just different. It is worse to declare these values arbitrary and non-existent than if Trudeau claimed that they were objectionable.

Trudeau's comments reflect an imperialist western superiority argument over China. Perhaps it was not meant to be "white" superiority but it certainly was dismissive of a different, very old, well-established value system that has come into an advanced legal system of rule of law. I will add that even when you explore the ancient religions of Asia, you will see foundations for this. It is not a new and communist way of thinking.

I do personally prefer the individual over the group value as we have in law here. In this I reflect the comfort of my background. This does not mean I have to disrespect the choice of another culture and country. It does not mean that I have the right to certainty that my preference is correct or universal: arguably this preference could make addressing climate change, for example, more difficult than a system that would place absolute priority over group survival. Trudeau, has complicated the situation with China by the fact that on this issue, due to his words rather than his intent, he now owes China an apology.

Let me digress a little over the philosophy of the individual over the group. Group priority is the older philosophy. Individual rights as priority seem to have come about as humans got to the point where the species and later groups were not threatened existentially; when people could afford individual priority in rights without threatening the species or group. This allows growth in personal well-being as the group has to allow for standard of the individual to take priority even against itself. It could be argued that humans as a species have lost this luxury. It could be argued that most developing countries never had this luxury; that it was (some may say) a western phenomenon, based on our comfort and wealth, expanded by hypocrisy and imperialism so that we relied for our individual rights on the individual rights of others being supressed. It can be argued also that as other countries become more secure that they develop their own views on the rights of the individual (not as an import) and that these won't look identical to western ones as they develop at different times and circumstances. It can be argued that this preference, in the way that it is expressed in western countries and I admit to having, is rooted in the very imperialism we all oppose (although from time to time accuse each other of supporting as an insult). This argument is made when we assert that western wealth has for a millenia been based on individual rights (to some degree) of mostly white men founded on exploitation of everyone else.

The reason I say all this, is so that people can understand how Trudeau's words may have been heard. The key word to the insult is the dismissive word "arbitrary." This word has a special meaning in law that Trudeau was trying to invoke when in fact he did invoke the special meaning that relates to the dismissiveness found in imperialism.

Sorry for the length but I felt this needed to be spelled out for people to realize all the implications of these comments.

WWWTT

I don’t think meth is legal in China! The ingredients used to manufacture probably are. And probably could be more easily acquired. Hence the huge amount being manufactured in China to export. 

Also don’t think that if this guys death sentence gets lifted or delayed, it would have anything to do with Canadian diplomacy. 

Noops

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If a Canadian were sentenced to die for being an accomplice to drug smuggling in any other country, wouldn't we expect the government to intervene?  Would that really be "imperialism", and should we therefore denounce it?

Good point.

Canada is simply following the *protocol that any country in the world would
if one of their citizens were given the death penalty while abroad.

*by protocol, I mean the request for clemency with his sentence.  I don't mean being critical of the Chinese judicial system.

 

WWWTT

Here’s some points I meant to discuss earlier but never had the chance and no one else has brought up. 

The extradition laws that Justin keeps repeating that Canada courts are only abiding by. 

Now from my understanding, these laws were made by politicians in Canada in tangent with similar laws being made by the Canadian counterparts in other countries. But why were these extradition laws made? Where they made so that people in the US, whom break the law and flee to Canada, these people accused of crimes can be sent back to face justice? To me, this sounds logical and is an enhancement to our own justice system since criminals in Canada would have a harder time fleeing. 

But that’s not really the case of Ms Meng now is it? Does Canada impose criminal penalties on people who break sanctions that Canada has imposed upon. And aggressively pursue charges?  And even if Canada did, is it a policy that Canada should be involved with? Considering the obvious fact that Canada has nothing to gain from picking fights with potential lucrative new trading partners 

It appears that the US will never return the favour for Canada considering the fact that Canada will probably never charge someone with a crime under such shady circumstances such as the US has done to Ms Meng  

I’m implying that these xtradition laws are being abused by the US for selfish interests that they were never intended for!

Justin looks like the imperialists servant for failing to suggest that these laws can be changed if they no longer serve the interests on Canada!

 

NDPP

Saving Robert Schellenberg Will Be A Daunting Task For Trudeau Government

https://buff.ly/2DdcX4z

"...It appears, at this stage, that the most effective way for the Trudeau government to save this Canadian's life would be to somehow, find a way to end the extradition proceedings against Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou."

I agree, but pleasing Washington and furthering animus against China is clearly of far greater importance to our current slaphead and servile foreign policy team, so count on little effective help from this quarter methinks. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Why would that help, what with his new sentence being a perfectly ordinary part of Chinese law, (I'm told)?

voice of the damned

Noops wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If a Canadian were sentenced to die for being an accomplice to drug smuggling in any other country, wouldn't we expect the government to intervene?  Would that really be "imperialism", and should we therefore denounce it?

Good point.

Canada is simply following the *protocol that any country in the world would
if one of their citizens were given the death penalty while abroad.

*by protocol, I mean the request for clemency with his sentence.  I don't mean being critical of the Chinese judicial system.

Though the line between "requesting clemency with his sentence" and "being critical of China's judicial system" might not be so apparent to the Chinese.

If we say to the Chinese "Please commute his sentence", is there not a tacit implication that the Canadian government disapproves of the death-penalty? Or is the Canadian government really expressing no position on the death-penalty at all, but rather just thinks that Canadian citizens should have special exemption from it when traveling in countries that practice it?

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Here’s some points I meant to discuss earlier but never had the chance and no one else has brought up. 

The extradition laws that Justin keeps repeating that Canada courts are only abiding by. 

Now from my understanding, these laws were made by politicians in Canada in tangent with similar laws being made by the Canadian counterparts in other countries. But why were these extradition laws made? Where they made so that people in the US, whom break the law and flee to Canada, these people accused of crimes can be sent back to face justice? To me, this sounds logical and is an enhancement to our own justice system since criminals in Canada would have a harder time fleeing. 

But that’s not really the case of Ms Meng now is it? Does Canada impose criminal penalties on people who break sanctions that Canada has imposed upon. And aggressively pursue charges?  And even if Canada did, is it a policy that Canada should be involved with? Considering the obvious fact that Canada has nothing to gain from picking fights with potential lucrative new trading partners 

It appears that the US will never return the favour for Canada considering the fact that Canada will probably never charge someone with a crime under such shady circumstances such as the US has done to Ms Meng  

I’m implying that these xtradition laws are being abused by the US for selfish interests that they were never intended for!

Justin looks like the imperialists servant for failing to suggest that these laws can be changed if they no longer serve the interests on Canada!

 

Extradition isn’t a law. We have an extradition treaty with the US. We only extradite if the charge in the US is also a crime in Canada. 

The US is saying that Meng committed fraud. It is not up to the Canadian courts to determine if she is guilty, only that there is enough evidence that the charge is being reasonably laid. 

AFAIK, the current process is to determine whether Meng will be extradited. The US could still withdraw their request, but Canada can’t just not go through the process of determining if the extradition will go through without violating the treaty. 

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Why would that help, what with his new sentence being a perfectly ordinary part of Chinese law, (I'm told)?

Well, NDPP says he believes that the sentence was, in fact, politically motivated.

Though we may still wonder why someone who believes that would make a post such as NDPP made in #361.

https://tinyurl.com/y7my9klh

NDPP later suggested that he disagrees with that analysis. However, posting the link with that particular quote copy/pasted, minus any disclaimer on NDPP's part, is a little bit confusing, especially given that the writer is on the same broad side of the issue as him.

It would be like if someone who consistently posted pro-pipleline arguments posted something by another pipeline proponent saying that bitumen is totally harmless, with no counterpoint included, and then, when asked to defend the position, said "Well, he has his opinion, I have mine".

NDPP

I stated my own opinion. Then I posted a contrasting Chinese one. The attempt is to alleviate some of the ignorance of those obviously unfamiliar with anything other than the standard western dogsvomit msm view.  Not that you're really interested in anything more than a little cavilry methinks.

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:

I stated my own opinion. Then I posted a contrasting Chinese one. The attempt is to alleviate some of the ignorance of those obviously unfamiliar with anything other than the standard western dogsvomit msm view.  Not that you're really interested in anything more than a little cavilry methinks.

Well, helpful hint: when posting another writer's opinion that you disagree with, especially if you're otherwise in support of his overall viewpoint, it's always a good idea to include something like "Here's what the Chinese media is saying, though I don't think I'm entirely in agreement with it." Because without the caveat, you're pretty much begging to be misunderstood.

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

Noops wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If a Canadian were sentenced to die for being an accomplice to drug smuggling in any other country, wouldn't we expect the government to intervene?  Would that really be "imperialism", and should we therefore denounce it?

Good point.

Canada is simply following the *protocol that any country in the world would
if one of their citizens were given the death penalty while abroad.

*by protocol, I mean the request for clemency with his sentence.  I don't mean being critical of the Chinese judicial system.

Though the line between "requesting clemency with his sentence" and "being critical of China's judicial system" might not be so apparent to the Chinese.

If we say to the Chinese "Please commute his sentence", is there not a tacit implication that the Canadian government disapproves of the death-penalty? Or is the Canadian government really expressing no position on the death-penalty at all, but rather just thinks that Canadian citizens should have special exemption from it when traveling in countries that practice it?

 

No effort was made by Caanda to distinguish between the two.

I doubt they would have a problem by Canada saying it disagrees witht he death penalty or askes for clemancy.

The comment that this was about soemthing arbitrary suggesting that the Chinese judicial system did not exist is another matter. Even disagreeing with it is not as big a deal as suggesting that it was nonexistent.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I doubt they would have a problem by Canada saying it disagrees witht he death penalty or askes for clemancy.

The comment that this was about soemthing arbitrary suggesting that the Chinese judicial system did not exist is another matter. Even disagreeing with it is not as big a deal as suggesting that it was nonexistent.

Exactly. 

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:

Extradition isn’t a law. We have an extradition treaty with the US. We only extradite if the charge in the US is also a crime in Canada. 

The US is saying that Meng committed fraud. It is not up to the Canadian courts to determine if she is guilty, only that there is enough evidence that the charge is being reasonably laid. 

AFAIK, the current process is to determine whether Meng will be extradited. The US could still withdraw their request, but Canada can’t just not go through the process of determining if the extradition will go through without violating the treaty. 

Thanks for the reality check, TB. And that's also pretty much how I read the terms of the treaty. Though I must say that arresting Meng while changing flights in Vancouver, because of a powerpoint presentation she made to some U.S. bankers in January 2013, in which she allegedly indicated that Huawei had divested its interests in Skycom... seems a bit harsh to me. Do we arrest and detain business people in Canada who lie to or mislead each other? Of course, being at an airport, I guess she was a "flight risk"...

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I doubt they would have a problem by Canada saying it disagrees witht he death penalty or askes for clemancy.

The comment that this was about soemthing arbitrary suggesting that the Chinese judicial system did not exist is another matter. Even disagreeing with it is not as big a deal as suggesting that it was nonexistent.

Exactly. 

So, the argument presented to the Chinese should be to grant clemency because Canada disagrees with the death-penalty? IOW, Chinese courts should follow Canadian values when sentencing Canadians who commit crimes in China?

If the Chinese didn't find that insulting, I think they would, at the very least, find it absurd.  

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Unionist - Maybe? I think the US is abusing the treaty by making the request. That doesn’t mean we can just selectively ignore the treaty and not go through the process, though. 

I think there’s some recognition that the US are abusing the system in that rather than keeping the accused in detention, they’re letting her stay in her own house. Most extradition detainees aren’t given that option, so far as I know. Happy to stand corrected if someone knows differently. 

Canada’s been handed a shit sandwich on this one. 

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:

So, the argument presented to the Chinese should be to grant clemency because Canada disagrees with the death-penalty?

No, with respect, that's just a plain misreading of what Sean said. Did you notice the word "or" in his sentence?

I'm no diplomat, but I see no problem with approaching China and saying: "He's our citizen, he committed a serious offence that would attract serious penalties in both our countries, we fully respect your right to try and sentence him according to your laws - could you please consider clemency? Your laws provide for sentences less than capital punishment, as evidenced by the original sentence. If you have the power to commute his sentence, please do so!"

Quote:
IOW, Chinese courts should follow Canadian values when sentencing Canadians who commit crimes in China?

If the Chinese didn't find that insulting, I think they would, at the very least, find it absurd.  

The only absurdity is your erecting a straw man and then bravely beating him down to the ground.

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:

Unionist - Maybe? I think the US is abusing the treaty by making the request.

Not sure what "Maybe?" means, but I am absolutely sure the U.S. is abusing the treaty by making the request.

Quote:
That doesn’t mean we can just selectively ignore the treaty and not go through the process, though.

Agreed. It does, however, mean that we should perhaps review the terms and application and intent of the treaty. 

Quote:
I think there’s some recognition that the US are abusing the system in that rather than keeping the accused in detention, they’re letting her stay in her own house. Most extradition detainees aren’t given that option, so far as I know. Happy to stand corrected if someone knows differently.

I'd be surprised if some B.C. judge made a bail decision based on "some recognition that the U.S. are abusing the system". I think the legal bases for granting bail in criminal matters (which this allegedly is) are what they are, irrespective of whether it's a domestic charge or an extradition matter. Seriousness of the offence and likelihood of flight are the key considerations, no? Anyway, Section 11(e) of the Charter gives everyone (even Chinese business magnates) the right "not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause" - so the presumption is in favour of bail in all cases, with the burden of proof lying with those opposing bail.

Quote:

Canada’s been handed a shit sandwich on this one. 

Yeah, that's for sure. And if someone could fire the ass of the "U.S. right or wrong" shiteater (Freeland), we might be able to tackle diplomatic matters a tad more professionally.

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

I'm no diplomat, but I see no problem with approaching China and saying: "He's our citizen, he committed a serious offence that would attract serious penalties in both our countries, we fully respect your right to try and sentence him according to your laws - could you please consider clemency? Your laws provide for sentences less than capital punishment, as evidenced by the original sentence. If you have the power to commute his sentence, please do so!"

There is no argument in here as to WHY the Chinese should do that. Yeah, we can make the request, but it's beyond me what guiding moral principle you're expecting them to see in it. Yes, they have lesser punishments on the books, but if their courts have decided that death is the suitable one for Mr. Schellenger, why would they care what Canada thinks?

And, for the record, the reason I conflated Sean's choices is because, divided by the "or", neither of them really seems very effective at all, ie. say we don't like the death-penalty(why would the Chinese care about that?) OR say that we'd like clemency(without providing any reason why, apparently). But "Say we disagree with the death penalty and ask for clemency" at least joins the request with a reason.   

 

 

 

 

Unionist

Oh all right. When you ask someone for a favour, you don't need to give a reason. But if you want to give a reason, try this:

"We're trying to get past the bad feelings that have unfortunately been created by the detention of Meng. There are those who want to use any pretext to poison the good relations between our two countries. That is happening now with the increase of Schellenberg's sentence from imprisonment to death, which is hard for our people to understand - and it is being attributed to retaliation, which our government does not for one moment believe. If it is possible within your judicial processes, we believe it would serve to protect our good relations from those who wish us both ill if that sentence could be commuted."

Better? I'm no diplomat.

Pages