Detention of Meng Wanzhou - CFO of Huawei

Washington Spy Agencies Plotted to 'Contain' Huawei

https://youtu.be/5p2Mg0eqJJo

"The arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Canada has drawn attention to a meeting that took place in Canada last July, when spy chiefs from the 'Five Eyes' intelligence network agreed to contain China's telecom giant Huawei which members regard as a 'security threat' to the west."

Not to mention market share...

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ms. Meng was arrested pursuant to a provisional arrest warrant issued by a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, a procedure which is contemplated in both the Extradition Act and the Treaty on Extradition between Canada and the United States in circumstances where urgency has been established. [emphasis added]

...You have jumped down the letter of the law rabbit hole....

Why do you write stuff like this? Are you trolling me?

After all you extract a quote from my post (you know quote as in I did not write it?) and then take issue with it and write stuff like this.

Noops wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

So, if Conrad Black had been apprhended at an airport in Canada, instead of at his mansion in Florida, when the feds charged him with embezzlement(or whatever it was), you'd have said Canada shouldn't send him to the USA for trial, because the Americans don't really care about us?

To be perfectly honest, I would recommend Canada decide on a case-by-case merit.
I think financially/politically there is a heck of a lot more at stake for Canada
to stir up a hornets nest with China over this than would be the case with Black.

The U.S. would get over our rebuke the next day, if not before.

I'm sure you could come up with a better analogy?

So, basically, you're saying we should do what China wants in this case, because they're the ones threatening to stir up the biggest hornet's nest?

IOW, back to my example, if for some reason the US government really had it in for Conrad Black, and were waving trade-agreements in our face, we should make THAT our basis on whether or not to deport Black?

Magoo wrote:

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?

It would depend why he did it. If it was because he wanted to pay Black back for years of pro-Harper editorials in the Hollinger press, I'd say that might be a betrayal of Canada's interests. If it was because the UK(of which Black was a citizen) didn't want him tried, and had some power to make things real shitty for Canada if we sent him stateside, I'd say that was a legit consideration.

Canada Gets Played by US With Arrest of Meng Wanzhou

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/12/canada-gets-played-us-arrest-meng-wa...

"...Few doubt the Trudeau government is playing the loyal ally because it places the longstanding Canada-US relationship [vassalage] ahead of an expanded, improved relationship with China. In addition to making nice with the US president, without seemingly realizing it,*the Trudeau government has volunteered to play a walk-on role to the US in the economic cold war Washington is waging against China.

Indeed, Trump made the Canadian claim that the arrest and jailing of Meng Wanzhou was not political seem ridiculous when he offered to rescind the extradition order as part of trade concessions he expects to extract in trade talks with China. 

In contrast to having the US set the agenda for the Canadian government, an 'internationalist' approach to world affairs would have Canada help design a cooperative international economic order, argue for a de-escalation of military spending and work to make climate justice the world priority."

*They realize it very well.

WWWTT wrote:

bekayne wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

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:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4758772/andrew-scheer-justin-trudeau-china/

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.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

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.

Agreed.  Trump's comments made it abundantly clear to all of us here that the U.S. is acting out of politics rather than justice, but I'm curious why some here seem to think that China is not also acting out of politics.  Personally, I think they made this into Canada's problem for no better reason than that they could.  I haven't heard of them arresting any U.S. "spies" so far, but the U.S. is their real enemy in this -- we're just smaller and stuck in the middle.

Quote:

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.

I, too, scratch my head over the "60 day" window, even moreso when we remember that it's 60 days to decide whether to even request extradition. 

Meaning that on day 59, the U.S. could say "you know what?  Never mind."  It's not really clear to me why, if they request that someone be detained, that person not simply be immediately transferred as well.

I think that the reason to punish Canada is politics as you say and partly to separate Canada from the US in this.

There is more to gain from doing so and that is not entirely illigitimate since as we are discussing the extradition process is wanting in many respects.

China also may actually be less understanding that the process is not political here where as the US knows it should be.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

There is more to gain from doing so and that is not entirely illigitimate since as we are discussing the extradition process is wanting in many respects.

I would be curious to know what other extradition treaties look like, either between Canada and another country, or two different countries.  As I said, I don't fully understand what the 60 day window was intended to address, but I also have a hard time imagining that years ago, before Trump or Trudeau, either Canada or the U.S. would try to sneak something like that into the treaty in order to someday be able to leverage it politically. 

Quote:

China also may actually be less understanding that the process is not political here where as the US knows it should be.

In one of the articles on this I saw it noted that because Trudeau knew about this, that proves it's political as far as China is concerned.  Not sure how that makes any sense at all. 

Perhaps China is more accustomed to having a leader who can make anything disappear with a wave of his hand or something.  Therefore, if Trudeau chose not to wave his hand, he must be in on it.

On your first statement -- I agree. I think this is being covered terribly in the media. We are given no reference or understanding about the process and nobody reporting if this is unusual or what.

On your second, this is what I was getting at. I think that the Chinese do not see or believe the kind of separation between judiciary and politics or why it is fundamental. In that sense the Chinese have a lot in common with Trump. Neither seens the point in a leader without complete power.

Quote:

This provides that Extradition will not be granted in cases of political character.

Well, IANAL, but I read that clause as saying that extradition will not be granted for political offenses, nor if it's clear that the extradition is solely to enable the requesting country to prosecute a political offense (in other words, the request is for something like theft, but in addition to being tried for theft, the accused will also be tried for a political offense).

I don't read it as speaking to the motivation for the request, and in this case that's what seems political.  But the offense (fraud) is not of a political character, and there's no evidence that's just a decoy offense so they can charge her with an offense of a political character once she's on their side of the border.

It's interesting to note that if Meng really did commit fraud in the U.S. then their motivation for prosecuting her would be kind of immaterial.

A cop can't arrest you just because he doesn't like you.  But if he arrests you while you're carrying stolen goods AND he doesn't like you, the part where he doesn't like you isn't really a factor.  You can believe it was his "real motivation", but cops are, in fact, supposed to arrest people carrying stolen goods.

Arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou May Kill Canada's Hopes For Free Trade Deal with China

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/2178611/arrest-huaweis-meng-wanzh...

"Amid an increasingly bitter diplomatic feud sparked by the detention of a senior Huawei executive in Vancouver, a highly coveted trade deal between Canada and China looks increasingly unlikely. The arrest of Sabrina Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of telecom giant Huawei - and China's subsequent detention of two Canadians - has halted negotiations between the two countries.

And as the US prepares to request Meng's extradition in the coming weeks, China has vowed to unleash punitive measures. 'The current problem with the extradition proceedings has caused a major disruption in the relationship, far beyond what might have been forseen,' said Lawrence Herman, an international trade lawyer based in Toronto. Canada now finds itself in uncharted territory: relations with its biggest trading partner have soured since US President Donald Trump took office. Herman described its perception of the US as 'horrible' and Meng's arrest has now angered its second largest partner. The result is potentially costly feuds with two of the world's largest markets. 

The minister for international trade and diversification, Jim Carr, called a free trade deal with China an 'essential component' in the search for new markets and trading partners. 'The Canadian government has been doing a lot of work in quantifying benefits of a Chinese trade deal and there's no doubt that it would be enormous,' said Herman..."

Canada's Media Foments Anti-China Campaign After Meng Arrest

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/12/19/huaw-d19.html

"Since Canada, acting at Washington's behest, arrested senior Huawei executive May Wanzhou, Canada's major media outlets have gone into high gear to justify her seizure as 'lawful' and to depict China as a menace to Canada and the world. This is part of a much broader US-led strategy of confrontation towards China, arising in response to the loss of American imperialism's global economic dominance..."

Mr. Magoo]</p> <p>[quote wrote:

  Quite the opposite.  Rule of law is why Canada respected the treaty we signed years ago.  To pretend there was no such treaty, and decline to apprehend Meng (in order to tweak Trump's nose?) would have been to ignore the rule of law.      

Actually the treaty is not mandatory or automatic.   In 1984 when we had a male Trudeau in office, Canada refused a more legally legitimate US extradiction request for Sydney Jaffe, an alleged Florida fraudster.  So the activation of the extradiction process has always been political.  In fact the treaty allows for a refusal if the alleged crime is not illegal in both countries (US anti-Iran sanctions are not Canadian law) and also for politically motivated requests (and Trump the Twit's latest tweet exposed Meng as a bargaining chip in the US-China trade dispute).  So if in fact we complied with the strict reading of the treaty, the US request should have been rightfully refused.  It was precisely a failure of our "rule of law" that allowed Trudeau with his usual political cowardice to follow the orders of that maniac Bolton.

Justin said:

"When I was in opposition ... I remember standing in the House and challenging (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper to pick up the phone and get this Canadian released. I now understand that it's always a lot more complicated than that," he said.

Also a lesson for Canadains who joined the Liberals back then in wailing about how "The Harper government does NOTHING for Canadians in trouble overseas!!"

(Gotta run; quote from CBC)

NDPP wrote:

P&P: Third Canadian Detained...

And China is the good guy?  Or just a bad guy we really need to fear?

Mr Magoo wrote

Both of these have been noted earlier in the thread, but:

a)  Meng is facing charges of fraud, not violating sanctions, and fraud is, of course, a crime in both countries.

But, the context of the alleged fraud was not illegal in Canada. 

China Says 3rd Canadian Sentenced to Administrative Punishment

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-sarah-mciver-detained-1.4953711

"A spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry says Sarah McIver was working illegally..."

Quote:

But, the context of the alleged fraud was not illegal in Canada.

Immaterial.  Fraud is just a deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.  No special contexts required.

If a man in Canada were wanted in Norway for impersonating the King, Canada would not refuse to extradite him because in Canada we don't have a King, or because we have no law against impersonating the King of Norway in our Criminal Code.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

But, the context of the alleged fraud was not illegal in Canada.

Immaterial.  Fraud is just a deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.  No special contexts required.

If a man in Canada were wanted in Norway for impersonating the King, Canada would not refuse to extradite him because in Canada we don't have a King, or because we have no law against impersonating the King of Norway in our Criminal Code.

Unless you have an actual case to support your claim, then you can not discredit my theory with another theory. This is where lawyers make their money.

NDPP wrote:

China Says 3rd Canadian Sentened to Administrative Punishment

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-sarah-mciver-detained-1.4953711

"A spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry says Sarah McIver was working illegally..."

Ya that's what I thought. You need a BA to get the proper working visa in China to teach English. I know because if/when I move to China, and if I want to teach English I need one (but maybe not?) This woman was also playing with fire. And she's not the only one!

https://www.internationalteflacademy.com/faq/teaching-in-china-without-a...

Noops wrote:

Canada gets played by U.S. with arrest of Meng Wanzhou
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/12/canada-gets-played-us-arrest-meng-wanzhou

"The Trudeau government is arguing that Canada is only applying the terms of the Canada-U.S. extradition treaty in arresting the Huawei executive, who was indicted in Brooklyn, N.Y. in August for bank fraud in connection with an alleged 2013 violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran. American experts agree that this is a normal application of the rule of law by Canada."

That should be:

American experts agree that this is a normal application of the rule of law by Canada in concert with a very abnormal application of the rule of law by the U.S..
The U.S. has cherry-picked a convenient time and place to arrest a Huawei executive, years after the alleged criminal offence took place, to coincide with a burgeoning trade war between the U.S. and China.

Despite Trudeau's claim, it is not the "normal application of Canadian law" because, normally, law is NOT impartially applied when it entails major state international political and economic implications. The cynicism is not mine; that is the way states operate "normally" despite the supposed "rule of law". As noted Former Liberal foreign minister Manley stated as much when he says the arrest could have been avoisded by "creative incompetence" and tip offs which happen "from time to time".

See also, from the Toronto Star:

Canada’s Huawei arrest lending support to rogue U.S. behaviour
By LINDA MCQUAIG Wed., Dec. 19, 2018

The phrase “rule of law” has a nice, lofty ring to it, so it’s not surprising that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is invoking it to defend Canada’s detention of a Chinese business executive.

But while one can imagine many reasons why Canada decided to co-operate with the U.S. request to extradite Meng Wanzhou, it’s doubtful that the desire to uphold the “rule of law” was one of them.
....
Robert J. Currie, a professor at Dalhousie University’s Schulich School of Law, writes that under Canada’s Extradition Act, the decision whether to extradite in a case like this “is made not by the courts, but by the federal Minister of Justice.” In other words, it’s not strictly a legal matter but ultimately a political decision to be made by the Trudeau government.

Currie also points out that Canada has a long history of co-operating with U.S. extradition requests “because such neighbourliness makes for smooth relations.”...

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/12/19/canadas-huawe...

In short, it makes no sense to claim Canada's hands were tied by "rule of law".

Here’s another case of spying 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/feds-endangering-rights-of-hamilton-man-accused-of-spying-for-china-lawyer-1.4950345

This  case has been going on for 5 years! From another link I read dating 5 years ago, the CBS so called experts commenting on this case were trying to make it sound like this Chinese Canadian guy was guilty and the case would be over in no time because he’s you know , guilty. Five years later and these same Jack ass shit for brain so called experts are no where to be found to explain how they fucked up so bad. To the rest of us it’s obvious, you guys and the cbc are idiots working for the liberals!

voice of the damned wrote:

Justin said:

"When I was in opposition ... I remember standing in the House and challenging (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper to pick up the phone and get this Canadian released. I now understand that it's always a lot more complicated than that," he said.

Also a lesson for Canadains who joined the Liberals back then in wailing about how "The Harper government does NOTHING for Canadians in trouble overseas!!"

(Gotta run; quote from CBC)

 

Thanks for pointing this out. I read this comment earlier and took it that Justin has realized that there’s no possible way that the liberals can deflect out of this position of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. So now he’s trying a dramatic moment of enlightenment approach to play to the Canadian public in an attempt to win sympathy.  

Actually could work. Lots of gullible Canadians out there. Fortunately the only thing that may save Canada is that these same voters are not known for having much of an attention span.