Detention of Meng Wanzhou - CFO of Huawei

799 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

China Hits Back At Freeland's Criticism of Detention of Canadians

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/china-hits-back-at-freeland-s-criticism-of...

"...What threat has China posed to Canada?' [foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua] Chunying said when asked by journalists about the duelling allegations. 'I think your foreign minister may be in a hurry and can't help speaking without thinking.' The remark was triggered by Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland's remark that 'the arbitrary detentions of Canadians...represents a way of behaving which is a threat to all countries..."

Dig a deeper hole Chrystia. I hope Warshington is pleased as this foul business proceeds and a critical international relationship falls apart for nothing for Canada.

voice of the damned

Unionist @401

No, you don't always need a reason for a favour. But if, for example, your asshole kid comes into my house and microwaves my hamster, and you want me to just charge you for the cost of the hamster instead of pressing charges and suing for emotional damages, I'd better hear a damned good reason coming out of your mouth.

Onto your letter...

Unionist wrote:

"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.

No, that's not bad at all. The thing is, though, once you start using language like "good relations between our two countries", you're appealing to national self-interest: governments don't care about good relations with other countries unless they're getting something out of it.

And let's face it, an appeal to someone else's self-interest is, in the final analysis, an implied threat. You're essentially saying to the other guy "If you wanna continue receiving all of the benefits that have resulted from our good relations over the years, you might wanna consider doing what we want in this case".

And while a threat does not, in and of itself, put you into the realm of imperialism, in cases where there is a drastic power and/or economic imbalance, it does kind of inch in that direction. If the UK says to Kenya, for example, "In light of our good realtionships, we ask that you do what we want", the Kenyans are almost certainly going to read "good relations" as including "They provide 80% of our operating budget through foreign-aid."

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Unionist wrote:

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.

I was actually referring to your "flight risk" comment. I don't think there's doubt that the US is abusing the treaty. We're just in the extremely awkward position of either sinking to the US's level and abusing the treaty ourselves and staying friendly with China - also signalling to other nations that we're prone to not honouring our agreements - or pissing China off by following the processes we've agreed to.

There is no decision Canada can make without repercussions.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The best outcome will be when this gets to the extradition hearing and Meng's lawyers shred the US case showing it does not meet the threshold.  This woman is being arbitrarily denied her Charter rights because the US is engaging in trade bullying on a global scale. Most Charter rights apply to non-citizens so she was covered the minute she hit the ground in Canada. 

So does anybody know how many business people are the subject of the kinds of trade war/star chamber tribunals that she was called before.  Are there potentially hundreds of business people or thousands who the US thinks may have told less than the truth to a regulatory body.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Agree with you on the best outcome, k - or if the US would withdraw their extradition request.

NDPP

Here's where we're headed...

'China is THE #`1 Global Threat!'

https://twitter.com/adasomg/status/1085544146826334208

WWWTT

@ Unionist and Time Bandit

Actually here's a little more clarity

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-23.01/page-1.html

For something that you both claim isn't a law, I found at the Justice Laws Website. Perhaps we're going into some minor trivials here.

Noops

voice of the damned wrote:

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?

No.
As I said above ANY country in the world would try to seek clemency in cases where their citizens were faced with a death sentence.
This goes for countries that have and do not have death sentences.

Quote:
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 again.
You need to broaden your "OR" statements.
The Canadian government is expressing no position on the death-penalty AND
just thinks that Canadian citizens should be granted clemency consideration in
cases that involve death sentences (whether that country is China, the U.S. , Iran etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
For something that you both claim isn't a law, I found at the Justice Laws Website.

That's the Extradition Act.  It's not the same as the individual extradition treaties between Canada and other states.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Right, there's an Extradition Act that lays out the conditions that the Canadian government must follow in their various extradition treaties with other nations. "Extradition" itself isn't a "law" in quite the context or way you were using the term. It's something that can be done under certain conditions.

If we don't have an extradition treaty with another country, we don't extradite to that country, even though the rest of the conditions may be in line with our Extradition Act.

Nuance is a bitch, isn't it?

NDPP

Germany's BDI on Huawei: No Vendor Should Be Excluded From 5G Without Evidence

https://t.co/nSFCiJIy2i

"No vendors should be excluded from Germany's fifth generation mobile networks if there is no evidence against them, the BDI industry association said, responding to calls to bar China's Huawei Technologies on national security grounds. US officials warned that Huawei's network equipment may contain 'back doors' that could open them up to cyber espionage..."

 

Huawei Or the West's Way: Which Kind of Spying Comes With Your Phone?

https://on.rt.com/9mhj

"You'll have already realized there's a lot of money to be made with 5G, although I don't want to suggest that could be part of the reason Huawei is being targeted. I'm sure it has nothing to do with that. Ahem. 

Huawei has strongly denied the accusations which appear to be based, not on publicly available evidence, but that secret kind of evidence spy chiefs tend to keep to themselves. It's frankly too much to bear for the likes of the US, Britain and Canada, who have zero desire to lose their infallible position in the technology and espionage markets at the same time. Keeping in mind that there is actually no definitive proof against Huawei at this point, phone owners are  left to ponder whether they want a cheaper Chinese phone which could possibly be used to spy on them, or a more expensive Western one which definitely will be.

In some ways it's impressive that the US managed to throw a few things it doesn't like all into the same geopolitical pot, and then get Canada to sort it out for them..."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture
NDPP

"He urged Ottawa to make a 'wise decision but did not provide details about what the 'repercussions' would be...'Freeland on building a coalition against China.'

Sean in Ottawa

This is silly. The point of these requests is that they are based on good will and presumed value of the relationship. It is a lot less of a problem to say we disagree with a decision made and ask that it not apply to a Canadian -- Please. Than to say that this was arbitrary and we do not recognize that the Chinese had any system at all but just acted as revenge.

If it is too hard to see that not acknowleding a system exists is a bigger deal than saying that we ask that this not apply to a Canadian -- or even that we do not agree with the choice a system made, then really there is no point continuing the conversation.

It is extremely imperialistic to presume that what others do is random and senseless and less serious to simply say we disagree with it even as we recognize it as a legitimate system.

NDPP

 Like the snatch of Meng Wanzhou by its Canadian proxy, US banditti tactics against official enemies are not uncommon:

American Law Expert: Hashemi's Detention 'Unconstitutional' (and vid)

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/01/17/586064/Press-TV-Marzieh-Hashem...

No doubt Canadians are quite prepared to hate Iran, just as they have responded so effusively to the msm agit-prop animus against Russia and China. Get my drift?

WWWTT

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
For something that you both claim isn't a law, I found at the Justice Laws Website.

That's the Extradition Act.  It's not the same as the individual extradition treaties between Canada and other states.

Ya I don’t know what the three of you are talking about? Last link and I now ignore because I’ve got better things to do!

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2018/12/extradition-in-canada.html

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
For something that you both claim isn't a law, I found at the Justice Laws Website.

That's the Extradition Act.  It's not the same as the individual extradition treaties between Canada and other states.

Ya I don’t know what the three of you are talking about? Last link and I now ignore because I’ve got better things to do!

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2018/12/extradition-in-canada.html

Sorry but you are using a single link to make a simplistic argument. Read carefully: nothing Timebandit said is contradicted by the link you provide. Canada has an Extradition Act to back up treaties and it is not applicable to all countries especially considering that these treaties are reciprocal. The Act is also informed by court decisions.

Canada's arrangements with the US involve a great deal of practical considerations and cannot be ignored by Canada. Consider this: Canada has a long barely defended border with the US. It has an extradition treaty with the US. Imagine if Canada did not have that treaty. We would have every person sought out by the courts in the US arriing in Canada. Consider the size difference and the nature of US society. We would be swamped. As well we would have criminals from here being able to escape across the border easily as well.

Canada is not presenting its case well to China. It could state that the extradition treaty with the US is a geographic necessity and that China should be complaining to the US but there is nothing reasonable Canada could do other than what it has done.

Another issue is the stark warning today from China that Canada should not be seeking allies in this. Sorry but to put it bluntly China is bullying Canada now. You can see the reality easily: the US and the UK have actually together appeared so weak and incompetent that they are not being  respected. Canada no longer has significant allies that are respected internationally. This is a bad time for Canada to try to exercise "soft power" and global "leadership." At present the world has deteriorated into one of muscle only and no respect for others. Canada does not have the muscle to bark as loudly as it is. It has to learn to behave like a small country in difficult times and not a mini-me to strong allies that are no longer reliable. It may not enjoy the relationship with China that has now been firmly rebalanced by the loss of key reliable allies Canada can look to for help -- but it has to work with that country. The PM has to rethink his tone as we are in a different era and there is no indication that the old one will return.

voice of the damned

Sean wrote:

It is extremely imperialistic to presume that what others do is random and senseless and less serious to simply say we disagree with it even as we recognize it as a legitimate system.

But would you agree that the Chinese are unlikely to care about our "disagreement" with their decision, unless we have some sort of practical leverage to use against them to get what we want?

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

Sean wrote:

It is extremely imperialistic to presume that what others do is random and senseless and less serious to simply say we disagree with it even as we recognize it as a legitimate system.

But would you agree that the Chinese are unlikely to care about our "disagreement" with their decision, unless we have some sort of practical leverage to use against them to get what we want?

 

 

Depends on what you mean by practical: The Chinese value relationships. If one looks good then it makes a difference and this is one of the points they are making. So we don't need coercion but we do need a decent relationship in their view. Attempts at the former obstruct the latter.

Put another way the Chinese are not transactional in relationships by culture. Their busienss cultrue for example warns people not to get down to business before honouring the relationship.

voice of the damned

Depends on what you mean by practical

I mean they would have to think that, in some way, they will reap tanglible benefits, or at least enjoy the continuation of existing tanglible benefits, if they do what Canada asks.

And yes, sometimes they might play it as a long game, though not always...

SHANGHAI/SEOUL, March 2 (Yonhap) -- China has instructed travel agencies in the country to stop selling trips to South Korea, sources said Thursday, in what is seen as another retaliatory move against Seoul's decision to deploy an advanced U.S. anti-missile defense system.

I think the actions of the Chinese government in this particular case would seem to indicate that, like most other governments, they do somettimes apply a reward/punishment paradigm in their dealings with other nations.

https://tinyurl.com/ybhaaho8

 

  

 

 

NDPP

Huawei: Phone of Contention

https://youtu.be/8zEroivo9vU

"Huawei, No Way!"

NDPP

Trudeau Does Trump's Dirty Work

https://on.rt.com/9mk2

"Bites off more China dragon than he can chew..."

NDPP

US Tells Canada to Prepare for Extradition of Huawei CFO 

https://on.rt.com/9mqx

"The US has informed Canada that it will start formal extradition proceedings for Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou. [Canada's Ambassador to the US David MacNaughton] has also expressed concern that Meng is being used as a bargaining chip in US President Donald Trump's ongoing trade war with China..."

 

Canada Must Not Extradite Meng Wanzhou

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1136680.shtml

"...Canada, being a henchman of the US, persecutes senior executives of Chinese companies regardless of international law and friendly ties with China. It is expected that if Meng Wanzhou is extradited to the US, Canada will face a severe backlash from China..."

Big stupid foreign policy mistake of historical proportions. 

montgomery

If Huawei didn't make such great phones we wouldn't be having to deal with this problem. 

NDPP

Huawei CFO Has 'Strong Case' that Donald Trump Politicized Her Arrest: McCallum

https://globalnews.ca/news/4877971/john-mccallum-meng-wanzhou-china-huawei/

"Canadian ambassdor to China John McCallum said on Tuesday that in his opinion, Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou has a strong case for fighting extradition to the US..."

montgomery

NDPP wrote:

Huawei CFO Has 'Strong Case' that Donald Trump Politicized Her Arrest: McCallum

https://globalnews.ca/news/4877971/john-mccallum-meng-wanzhou-china-huawei/

"Canadian ambassdor to China John McCallum said on Tuesday that in his opinion, Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou has a strong case for fighting extradition to the US..."

That's great! Now it's just a simple matter to tell the court to decide for her and against the US. 

What a great issue for the NDP to support! 

And the outcome is going to be huge. It could set the bar for international politics in Canada for a long time to come! 

What will the Conservatives have to say about it now? 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You don't tell the courts how to decide. I would sincerely hope the Judge does not take any politicians words into account except in determining whether or not the request from the US is a political or a criminal matter. The Ambassador laid out the obvious ways of attacking this request and I suspect he is right that the legal arguments favour Meng. 

I guess the US must be sub-contracting this case out for later payment because there are no in-house staff available given the shut down of the government. It highlights how some things can function even if Trump is withholding funds to run the government.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You don't tell the courts how to decide.

Wrong Kropotkin! How surprisingly establishment of you to say such a thing! LOL

I have no doubts at all that this issue wouldn't have even be explored in that way by a Conservative ambassador. And that would negate the need for the political establishment to fix the court. 

Gee Kropotkin, isn't it a little late in life for you to start learning about how politics trumps justice? You think our justice system is much better than the Scotus or somethin? 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes as a retired member of the Law Society of BC I actually think we have a justice system. I do not think that is the case for the US given that the latest Supreme Court sideshow highlighted how their judges are all chosen for their political affiliations not their legal minds.

Rikardo

Globe and Mail editor :  With Meng Affair China shows its true face.

Actually its Canada that shows its true face: an adolescent that does what the big USA/Bolton neighbour tells it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
an adolescent that does what the big USA/Bolton neighbour tells it.

Canada signed the extradition treaty with the U.S. years ago, actually.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Abiding by treaties you've signed with your largest international trading partner isn't something you can do without consequence. Can we please just stop with that line of natter?

It's not the business of the government to decide, it's the justice system's call. Any interference by the government or by political parties is completely inappropriate.

NDPP

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
an adolescent that does what the big USA/Bolton neighbour tells it.

Canada signed the extradition treaty with the U.S. years ago, actually.

As I said before, at one tenth the size of the US and with an undefended board, Canada never had much choice. Without an extradition treaty Canada would be a magnet for anyone in the US who has broken any of their laws. As well Canada necessarily has to maintain reasonable relations with the US generally even if it has difficulty with some presidents. To not have a treaty in this circumstance would be impossible.

That said the government of Canada can allow a good appeals process and courts here could find against the US on this -- and hopefully will. However, the government cannot just step in and decide.

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
an adolescent that does what the big USA/Bolton neighbour tells it.

Canada signed the extradition treaty with the U.S. years ago, actually.

Ya, so fuckin what? Canada did lots of stupid racist imperialist sexist homophobic shit years ago! And guess what? It was all perfectly fucking legal in Canada!

Does that mean it’s right and moral?

Bacchus

So Canada shouldnt sign that extradition treaty with China?

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
an adolescent that does what the big USA/Bolton neighbour tells it.

Canada signed the extradition treaty with the U.S. years ago, actually.

Ya, so fuckin what? Canada did lots of stupid racist imperialist sexist homophobic shit years ago! And guess what? It was all perfectly fucking legal in Canada!

Does that mean it’s right and moral?

Explain how not have a traty would work with the US?

WWWTT

No what I’m saying is that the world in 2019 isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago.

The US is intentionally destroying Canada’s independence in establishing stronger economic ties with other countries.  

Justin and his liberal weaklings who are ecstatic to have governor status lack intellectual stamina to nurture some creativity that can resolve this country from getting pummeled by the US. 

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Yes as a retired member of the Law Society of BC I actually think we have a justice system. I do not think that is the case for the US given that the latest Supreme Court sideshow highlighted how their judges are all chosen for their political affiliations not their legal minds.

Yeah, you did sound like you still have faith in the establishment! And it's a great official public position to take too! But it now sounds like the law is on Canada's side and it's just going to take a bit of political pressure to make it work. No difference really on how the Cons would put a bit of pressure on to make it not work. You see kropotkin, it would be bad for business and US/Canada trade relations. 

So the question is, will Justin have the balls to allow it to happen? Did I suggest yet that he's lefter then his party? Like a fool he took our bombers out of Syria and then ate crow when he had to put something back in their place.

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

No what I’m saying is that the world in 2019 isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago.

The US is intentionally destroying Canada’s independence in establishing stronger economic ties with other countries.  

Justin and his liberal weaklings who are ecstatic to have governor status lack intellectual stamina to nurture some creativity that can resolve this country from getting pummeled by the US. 

That is a lot of words not to answer a question. What is the alternative you propose to having an extradition treaty with the US?

WWWTT

S in O wrote 

Explain how not have a traty would work with the US?

Obviously the treaty has to be revised to reflect the US abuse of the treaty in destroying Canadian independence 

Any progressive in Canada can see that

WWWTT

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

No what I’m saying is that the world in 2019 isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago.

The US is intentionally destroying Canada’s independence in establishing stronger economic ties with other countries.  

Justin and his liberal weaklings who are ecstatic to have governor status lack intellectual stamina to nurture some creativity that can resolve this country from getting pummeled by the US. 

That is a lot of words not to answer a question. What is the alternative you propose to having an extradition treaty with the US?

Why? Just alter the treaty. Word it better. What’s so f’n hard about that? Or are yo dead set on the “take it or leave” approach? 

montgomery

Timebandit wrote:

Abiding by treaties you've signed with your largest international trading partner isn't something you can do without consequence. Can we please just stop with that line of natter?

It's not the business of the government to decide, it's the justice system's call. Any interference by the government or by political parties is completely inappropriate.

I second you for getting the talking points right at least. 

But if Canada's justice system was completely above board, then how come it's allowed our country to take part in all those US led wars? All the way back to Nuremburg but I don't know about before cause I wasn't born. And then there's the 99 Kosovo war, and so on and so on.....................

It ain't. And this should be no different. At least unless you're a Conservative.

montgomery

WWWTT wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

No what I’m saying is that the world in 2019 isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago.

The US is intentionally destroying Canada’s independence in establishing stronger economic ties with other countries.  

Justin and his liberal weaklings who are ecstatic to have governor status lack intellectual stamina to nurture some creativity that can resolve this country from getting pummeled by the US. 

That is a lot of words not to answer a question. What is the alternative you propose to having an extradition treaty with the US?

Why? Just alter the treaty. Word it better. What’s so f’n hard about that? Or are yo dead set on the “take it or leave” approach? 

We have to have an extradition treaty with them and we should have one with all countries written to complly with our terms of justice. Then we need a justice system that can work with those treaties. And a government that won't sell us out. 

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

No what I’m saying is that the world in 2019 isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago.

The US is intentionally destroying Canada’s independence in establishing stronger economic ties with other countries.  

Justin and his liberal weaklings who are ecstatic to have governor status lack intellectual stamina to nurture some creativity that can resolve this country from getting pummeled by the US. 

That is a lot of words not to answer a question. What is the alternative you propose to having an extradition treaty with the US?

Why? Just alter the treaty. Word it better. What’s so f’n hard about that? Or are yo dead set on the “take it or leave” approach? 

Alter it how?

Like a mechanism to see if the request is justified or abusive -- decided in a Canadian court?

We have that already.

So how do you want that changed?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Treaties are negotiated, you doofus. You can just alter an existing treaty without the agreement of the other party. 

Montgomery - I get that you don’t accept the reality of how treaties and legal systems work. (Please note I’m attempting to give benefit of doubt that it’s something you can grasp.) That means you’re not much worth engaging. 

NDPP - whatever. If kropotkin’s take on the situation is too mainstream for you, I certainly have nothing to add. You do you. 

WWWTT

Lol that’s bullshit. That extradition treaty is vague. That’s how the US is able to abuse it. 

Either way, I’m not going to entertain your direction anymore Sean.  

WWWTT

Ya no shit Timebandit, or should I say captain obvious?

By the way, if you think Canada needs the states so much, why don’t u just move there and pledge allegiance to uncle sams ass?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

You linked to the extradition act, not the treaty itself. That’s just the rules that govern the general mandates of an extradition treaty - a guideline for negotiating. 

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT lost the argument -- knows it and is now just being rude. Oh well.

Pages