Canada arrests Huawei’s global chief financial officer in Vancouver

We live in a big global World and it is not logical to regard Europe separately moreover in the thread devoted to the Chinese businesswoman detained in Canada to be extradited to the USA.
And anyway number of prisoners per capita in Turkey (NATO member and European country) is quite close to the respective number for Russia. Btw, Lithuania has very high number of prisoners and what?
Nooooo, we don’t do we? I’m shocked and surprised. Turkey is not a EUropean country btw. It being in NATO does not make it so. It’s not having an Atlantic coastline doesn’t.
When will you get it into your head that the details of extradition treaties vary. All it is, is a request by one Government to another to supply someone who has been deemed to have broken the law in one of the countries.

Since Russia is a country that sponsors state terrorism As a political tool, along with China amongst others, you couldn’t be expected to understand that concept. That extradition can be manipulated is not in question and to a certain extent, I’m surprised that subtleties have escaped you. You continued justifying the unjustifiable because that is your purpose.
 
Nooooo, we don’t do we? I’m shocked and surprised. Turkey is not a EUropean country btw.
Being a big geographer (weight more than 115 kg) I would like to correct you
Turkey is regarded as an European country along with Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
It being in NATO does not make it so. It’s not having an Atlantic coastline doesn’t.
Really? So Greece, Italy don't have Atlantic coastline as well, do they?
And of course Hungary, Slovakia, Czech republic no doubt don't have Atlantic coastline.
When will you get it into your head that the details of extradition treaties vary. All it is, is a request by one Government to another to supply someone who has been deemed to have broken the law in one of the countries.
Be sure, I understand it pretty well.
Since Russia is a country that sponsors state terrorism
What country or/and international organisation does share this point of view or is it just your private opinion?
As a political tool, along with China amongst others, you couldn’t be expected to understand that concept.
Explain it me please. I will try to understand.
That extradition can be manipulated is not in question and to a certain extent, I’m surprised that subtleties have escaped you. You continued justifying the unjustifiable because that is your purpose.
I don't try to justify anything. I only try to understand how (underwater, under carpet) political forces act. And it seems to me that I understand it. Rule of law is on the surface and we see priority of political considerations in real life.
 
Being a big geographer (weight more than 115 kg) I would like to correct you
Turkey is regarded as an European country along with Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan

I don't try to justify anything. I only try to understand how (underwater, under carpet) political forces act. And it seems to me that I understand it. Rule of law is on the surface and we see priority of political considerations in real life.
of course you do. Just because the above listed countries don’t was to be considered Russian Slavic, does not mean they are not. Moreover Russia has repeatedly reminded them where their bread is buttered. You seem to forget that the reason the counties mentioned joined NATO was because they left the Warsaw pact and the EU didn’t have a bespoke defence commitment. The EEC was covered by NATO. So no you don’t correct me, I’ll refresh your memory.
Lastly hide what you like but Russia was Pro Slav, that was their ploy to start the First lot. Now I really must go and wash the car. If I see any snapbrims, I’ll know who sent them
 
Meng's lawyers have filed a request for proceedings to be stayed on the grounds that the US authorities have made "deliberate and/or reckless misstatements of fact and material omissions". Or in more common phrasing, the US lied to the Canadian court.
Meng Wanzhou's lawyers accuse U.S. of misleading court in extradition case

Meng's defence team says the allegations of "deliberate and/or reckless misstatements of fact and material omissions" in the official record of the case are so serious that the extradition proceedings should be tossed for an alleged violation of the 48-year-old's charter rights.

The new allegations were raised at a B.C. Supreme Court hearing held Monday to chart the course of the high-profile case over the coming year.

In a 10-page case management memo, Meng's lawyers claim the records — filed to justify the U.S. request to extradite the Huawei chief financial officer on charges of fraud — are "so replete with intentional or reckless error" that the only way to deal with them is a stay of proceedings.
This seems to be part of the next phase of the hearings, this one revolving around abuse of process. A summary of the various grounds can be seen below in the following quote.
The new accusations are the latest part of a defence strategy to argue that Meng is the victim of an abuse of the legal process which violated her rights.

Her defence plans to claim that she was a victim of political interference by U.S. President Donald Trump, who indicated shortly after Meng's arrest that he would intervene in the case if it might result in a better trade deal with China.

And it also plans to claim that the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service conspired with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation to mount a covert investigation against Meng when she got off the plane.

They have accused authorities of using the extraordinary powers of border agents to detain Meng before she was officially arrested, seizing her electronic goods, compelling her to give over the passwords and questioning her without a lawyer about Huawei's activities in Iran.
The latest abuse of process claims are in addition to the ones listed above, and revolve around the US extradition request apparently leaving out evidence which contradicts the claims they make in support of the request. I won't try to list all of it here, but it can be found in the news story under the "Misstatements and omissions" heading.

There may be a complication involved in this as the judge has now said that this may have brought up issues which were going to be reviewed in a later phase but which may have to be considered now.

The defence team say they would like to stick to the original schedule, which they say they have been preparing for at a "blistering" pace. This is a rather interesting perspective to be considered by those who wonder why the process takes this long when it turns out that Meng's own lawyers say it has been proceeding very quickly.

The defence are apparently concerned that if certain matters are brought forward from a later phase of the case but this does not lead to a stay, then they may not be able to be used in the later part of the case they were intended to be used in, which may affect the result.

There is to be a meeting with the judge in a week's time to discuss further plans.
 
A group of prominent Canadians have asked the government to end extradition proceedings for Meng and to use this to secure the release of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. Basically, they're saying to cut a deal with China.

Former parliamentarians, diplomats pen letter calling on Canada to release Meng

You can read the letter below to get the details of their argument. I have included that information at the bottom of this post.

I will instead concentrate on who these people are. This is a long list of very prominent people in Canada. They're former senior cabinet ministers and party leaders from all three major political parties. They're former senior diplomats. They're former senior civil servants (equivalent to UK permanent secretary). Etc. Any Canadian who has not been in a coma for the past few decades will recognise a good many of these people as very serious and influential persons.

Some of them such as Louise Arbour are indeed understating their background, as for example she sat on the Supreme Court of Canada, and before that was in charge of prosecuting war criminals such as Slobodan Milošević at the Hague, and has received numerous awards and honours (Order of Canada, French Legion of Honour, and many, many, others).
  1. Louise Arbour, Former President and CEO of International Crisis Group
  2. Lloyd Axworthy, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs
  3. Ed Broadbent, Former Leader of the New Democratic Party
  4. Derek Burney, Former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, former Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney,
  5. Lawrence Cannon, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Canadian Ambassador to France
  6. Wendy Dobson, Professor Emerita, University of Toronto, Former Associate Deputy Minister of Finance
  7. Leonard J. Edwards, Former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and former Canadian Ambassador to Japan and Korea
  8. Yves Fortier, Former Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations and Canadian Representative on the Security Council
  9. Robert Fowler, Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, and Brian Mulroney
  10. Louise Frechette, Former Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations
  11. Fen Osler Hampson, Chancellor's Professor, Carleton University Executive Director, World Refugee & Migration Council
  12. Paul Heinbecker, Former Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations and Canadian Representative on the Security Council; former Canadian Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany
  13. Michael Kergin, Former Canadian Ambassador to the United States
  14. Claude Laverdure, Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien
  15. Don Newman, Journalist, Broadcaster, Author
  16. Maureen O’Neil, Former President, International Development Research Centre
  17. André Ouellet, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development
  18. Allan Rock, Former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
  19. Hugh Segal, Former Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
They reference a legal opinion written by Brian Greenspan, another name which most Canadians will recognise as one of the most prominent practising lawyers in Canada.

Trudeau has responded to this with a firm 'no'. It's hard to say however if he can maintain that position if some face saving way can be found for him to back down however.
Trudeau rejects calls to release Meng Wanzhou

I will highlight one point that they raise, which is that Canadians are aware the US president Trump has approached this issue in a "highly cynical way" by suggesting that he would drop charges against Meng if he got a good trade deal from China. That's quite a strong statement coming from people such as these.
We believe that Canadians will strongly support a decision to end the extradition proceeding. Canadians are well aware of President Trump’s earlier suggestion that he might drop the charges against Madam Meng if he secured a favorable trade deal with China. Those remarks underscore the highly cynical way President Trump has approached this case.
Here's an article on some of the pros and cons.
Those arguing for Meng's release still have to acknowledge what it might cost

In this article, one of the signatories of the letter (a former ambassador to the US) makes the point that the Americans have a track record of exchanging hostages, so Canada shouldn't be so naive in standing on principle in this matter.
Michael Kovrig's wife says she backs letter by former MPs, diplomats calling for Meng Wanzhou's release
"The Americans have a splendid track record of exchanging hostages with countries like Iran and Russia, so what makes us 'Simon pure' on this matter?" he asked.
Here's a link to a PDF of the full letter.
Here's the same letter as plain text.
A LETTER TO THE
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
JUNE 23, 2020
THE RT. HON. JUSTIN TRUDEAU
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
80 WELLINGTON STREET
OTTAWA, ON K1P 5K9

Dear Prime Minister:
We write you as Canadians who are deeply concerned about the prolonged and
unlawful detention by China of the Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig
(“the Two Michaels”).


We are worried about the impact of their detention on their physical, mental
and emotional health.



Quite apart from our concern about the Two Michaels, it seems to us that
the Meng Wanzhou extradition proceeding is making it impossible for your
Government to define and pursue an effective foreign policy towards China.



We take note of the legal opinion expressed by Brian Greenspan (“the
Greenspan Opinion”), counsel of national reputation, that the Minister of
Justice (“the Minister”) has the legal authority to act now in the extradition
process, and that it would be entirely in accordance with the Rule of Law
for the Minister to do so.



We contend that the time is past due for the Minister to do just that: to end
the Meng extradition proceeding and to bring the Two Michaels home.

The Two Michaels in Detention
It has now been more than 550 days since the Two Michaels were locked into a
Chinese prison. Their detention was completely unlawful and unjustified. Reliable
accounts describe their conditions of confinement as tantamount to torture. The
Two Michaels were taken in direct retaliation for the arrest in Canada of Meng
Wanzhou. We believe that the Two Michaels will remain in their Chinese prison
cells until Meng is free to return to China.

That means that unless the Minister acts now, the Two Michaels face indefinite
confinement:


Given the pace at which the judicial phase of the extradition proceeding is
advancing before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and having
regard to the various rights of appeal and judicial review at each stage, it
may well be 2024 before the question of extradition is finally determined.



If Meng is extradited to the United States, it can reasonably be assumed
that she will be before their courts for an extended period.



Meanwhile, the Chinese have now laid criminal charges against the Two
Michaels. That will add immeasurably to the stress that they are under.
They will be tried in a court that has a 99% conviction rate, leaving no doubt
about the jeopardy they face if they remain there.



The Government’s rationale for allowing the extradition to proceed has been
linked from the outset to its professed respect for the independence of our
courts, and its unwavering commitment to the Rule of Law. But it now
appears from the Greenspan Opinion that the Minister has full
responsibility for the control of extradition proceedings and every right to
end the proceeding, including during the judicial phase. The Greenspan
Opinion also makes it clear that his doing so would not endanger judicial
independence and would be entirely consistent with the Rule of law.



Recent news reports indicate that there is a resurgence of the COVID-19
virus in Beijing. We cannot know the extent to which this will put the Two
Michaels at increased risk. We are prepared to assume that their ability to
resist and survive infection has been compromised by almost two years of
difficult confinement. And we do know that detention centers/prisons
worldwide have seen troubling rates of infection. It is not an exaggeration
to say that their lives are at grave risk. In these circumstances, it is
incumbent on the Government to take action that will likely lead to their
release while it has every legal right to do so.

Canada’s Policy Towards China
Quite apart from our grave concern for the health and indeed the survival of the
Two Michaels, we believe that the Meng extradition and the issues it has spawned
are undermining the Government’s efforts to defend and promote our country’s
national interests, including vis à vis China. In short, Canada’s foreign policy is
also being held hostage.
Ending the Meng extradition process now and securing the release of the Two
Michaels would untie Canada’s hands at a time when the Canadian government
2

must be fully free to re-define its strategic approach to China, and take the tough
steps needed to protect and advance our own interests.
We offer the following observations:

3



For example, Canada must declare its position on Huawei’s involvement in
the deployment of 5G technology in Canada. That decision has been
postponed time and again. Our allies and friends have made their policy on
Huawei clear. As a further example, when Canada speaks out on Chinese
policy towards Hong Kong, or its human rights abuses domestically, we do
so in measured tones, so as not to make the situation worse for the
Canadian prisoners. Removing the pressures of the extradition proceeding
and the related imprisonment of the Two Michaels will clear the way for
Canada to freely decide and declare its position on all aspects of the
Canada-China relationship.



There is no question that the US extradition request has put Canada in a
difficult position. As Prime Minister, you face a difficult decision. Complying
with the US request has greatly antagonized China. Putting an end to the
extradition proceeding may irritate the US. In normal circumstances, the
safer choice would be to stay close to our ally, our friend, and our principal
trading partner. But these are not normal times, and this is not a normal
case. Although the U.S. government may voice its strong objections to the
Minister’s decision to end the extradition, it would not be the first time that
Canada has parted ways with the US, including on much more momentous
issues, such as refusing to join in their invasion of Iraq. Our strong bilateral
relationship survived all of those controversies, each of them expressions
by Canada of its sovereignty and national interest.



We believe that Canadians will strongly support a decision to end the
extradition proceeding. Canadians are well aware of President Trump’s
earlier suggestion that he might drop the charges against Madam Meng if
he secured a favorable trade deal with China. Those remarks underscore
the highly cynical way President Trump has approached this case.



Of course, it does not sit well with anyone to yield to bullying or blackmail.
The means chosen by China in this instance to advance its interests are
indeed repugnant. However, resisting China’s pressure is no guarantee that
it will never be applied again in the future. Indeed, if Canada resists the
pressure arising from the detention of the Two Michaels, China might well
decide that next time it will need to escalate by detaining more than two
Canadians.

We conclude, Prime Minister, by stressing that a fundamental foreign policy
obligation of the Canadian Government is to protect our citizens abroad. Two of
them are at grave risk, which heightens by the day. It is within the Minister’s
lawful power to put to an end the very proceeding that led to their confinement.
Apart from the safety and liberty of our citizens, that same proceeding is hobbling
Canada’s foreign policy at a time when it crucial to define it with clarity and
boldness. And although the American President will no doubt object if we act in
our interest instead of his, fear of his retribution cannot be a sound reason for
continuing the present, unwise course. And Canadians will support your
Government if it acts.
The Minister of Justice, acting in that capacity, should immediately accept his
responsibility under the Extradition Act and exercise the authority he has under
that statute to end the Meng extradition proceeding.

Yours respectfully,
Louise Arbour
Former President and CEO of International Crisis Group
Lloyd Axworthy
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs
Ed Broadbent
Former Leader of the New Democratic Party
Derek Burney
Former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, former
Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney
Lawrence Cannon
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Canadian
Ambassador to France
Wendy Dobson
Professor Emerita, University of Toronto
Former Associate Deputy Minister of Finance
Leonard J. Edwards
Former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade and former Canadian Ambassador to Japan and
Korea
Yves Fortier
Former Permanent Representative of Canada to the United
Nations and Canadian Representative on the Security
Council
Robert Fowler
Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Ministers Pierre
Trudeau, John Turner, and Brian Mulroney
Louise Frechette
Former Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations

4

Fen Osler Hampson
Chancellor's Professor, Carleton University
Executive Director, World Refugee & Migration Council
Paul Heinbecker
Former Permanent Representative of Canada to the United
Nations and Canadian Representative on the Security
Council; former Canadian Ambassador to the Federal
Republic of Germany
Michael Kergin
Former Canadian Ambassador to the United States
Claude Laverdure
Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien
Don Newman
Journalist, Broadcaster, Author
Maureen O’Neil
Former President, International Development Research
Centre
André Ouellet
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and International
Development
Allan Rock
Former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Hugh Segal
Former Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade
 
What do you think the chances of Canada dealing bilaterally with the PRC on this would be?
 
What do you think the chances of Canada dealing bilaterally with the PRC on this would be?
I had to think about this one for a while before giving it an answer. This one is hard to read, so I can really only give a few scenarios.

If there was hope that the judge would simply toss the case out and solve the problem that way, then the opportunity for that to happen on the "double criminality" issue went by with the recent ruling. This case could drag on for years if allowed to play out to the end. If there is a solution to be found there, it's unlikely to happen quickly unless something unexpected happens.

So for a solution to appear before next spring, either the Americans need to drop the case or Ottawa needs to step in and find an excuse to terminate the extradition without losing too much face.

Trudeau's own instincts when faced with a difficult problem have been to cut a deal quietly behind the scenes and then put it behind him without his ego getting in the way or being obsessed with being seen to "win". He's done that with a number of long running issues. Doing that indeed is a large part of what led him into the difficulty he got into last year with respect to a court case involving a Canadian company accused of bribery in Libya, and cost his government their majority when the deal-making leaked out.

However, COVID-19 seems to have wiped the slate clean on that, with the government back into majority territory and the Conservatives plumbing the depths, ably assisted by the abysmal leadership of Andrew Scheer who probably single handedly cost his party the election last autumn.

The Conservatives are in the midst of a leadership race, with the two leading contenders tearing chunks out of each other in the obscurity of COVID-19 "social distancing". The leading contender, MacKay, seems to treat the issue as radioactive. He's had a look at the polls and is not interested in an election any time soon. He's also had a look at the Meng issue and doesn't seem to think there's any good solution to it.

Here's a video of MacKay from about a year ago, back when he was still out of politics and working in the private sector. His view of the situation doesn't seem to differ much from Trudeau's. I would suggest watching this interview, it's about 8 minutes long.
'There would be a lot of fallout' if the feds dropped Meng Wanzhou's extradition proceedings | Peter MacKay

So, it looks like Trudeau is going to be left holding the bag on this one for now, and the opposition are not going to help him out by giving him political cover. However, they don't have an alternative answer to the issue either.

If Trudeau wants a quick solution, he needs to look abroad to either give him an answer or to give him an excuse.

There are three events coming up which could influence the general background under which all this takes place. One is there is an upcoming G7 meeting in September or sometime around there. If the other G7 countries line up solidly behind Canada and give their support in very tangible ways (as opposed to vague statements of sympathy), then Canada may continue on with the current extradition process.

If however there is a general disinterest among the other G7 countries in helping Canada with this situation, then we might ask ourselves why we are bothering to stand on principle if no one else will help us in tangible ways.

Another event is the US are, according to news reports, about to slap big tariffs and quotas on Canadian aluminium and steel again. As a big FU to Canada, this could generate enough public support within Canada to "send a message to Washington" by terminating the extradition process against Meng. I wouldn't rate this as likely though, since as a pressure tactic it can't be retracted once used.

A third event is the upcoming US election. If Trump loses or looks weak going into the election, then it might be a good time to send Meng back to China. The best time to do that would be before Biden takes power so that he can blame it all on Trump and wash his hands of the issue. The risk of course is that Trump recovers and wins after all and we've got 4 more years of dealing with him, but that's a judgement call. Or of course we could wait until after the election, but before Biden is actually in office.


So let's look at the following scenario. Trudeau goes, physically or virtually, to the G7 meeting, and gets at best lukewarm support from the other countries. Trump slaps massive tariffs on imports from Canada, angering the Canadian public. Trump meanwhile is doing poorly in the election either due to his handling of the COVID-19 crisis, or for other reasons.

The Minister of Justice in Ottawa (or whoever's desk this ends up on) has a look at the case and says that he has serious concerns about it due to the US having said they were willing to use Meng as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations, and so is terminating the extradition proceedings. When asked by the press Trudeau says that he supports the minister's completely independent and impartial decision on this matter and would not dream of personally intervening in this case himself. Meng is rapidly tossed on a private jet and sent back to China before anyone has a chance to react to it.

Following this, the long delayed decision on whether to ban Huawei from Canada's 5G networks is released, providing little room for Huawei in the Canadian market, tossing the Americans a bone. Canada also issues strong statements on the situation in Hong Kong, showing that we are willing to push back against Chinese pressure. China drops the cases against "the two Michaels" (as they are referred to), and deports them. The two sides begin a long, slow, repair of diplomatic and trade relations.

The above is a complex scenario, and I'm not by any means claiming that this is the way things will play out. However, it does give an idea of how many factors are at play here. It's a multidimensional problem that encompasses many things outside of the merits of the Meng extradition case itself and it shows why it's hard to simply give a yes or no answer.

This whole situation, and the lack of tangible support that we have received from our allies, has been causing Canada to question our place in the world order and whether we should be focusing more in our own interests independently rather than acting through institutions. NATO, the G7, the UN, and others have been the bedrock of Canada's foreign policy as they have allowed us to leverage those institutions to give us more influence than we could exercise on our own.

However, with the Americans going off on their own tangent, and I don't think that Trump is a one time anomaly in this regards, we've begun to think that either we need to find some other more like minded partners in the world, or else to find a way to navigate it on our own. Historically we were part of the British Empire, and slid comfortably from there into NATO and the G7, but have no experience of acting on our own and purely in our own interests. The Meng affair has started people thinking about things they've never really had to think about before, and it's hard to say where that is going to lead.
 
Thank you for such a considered response.
 
I had to think about this one for a while before giving it an answer. This one is hard to read, so I can really only give a few scenarios.

If there was hope that the judge would simply toss the case out and solve the problem that way, then the opportunity for that to happen on the "double criminality" issue went by with the recent ruling. This case could drag on for years if allowed to play out to the end. If there is a solution to be found there, it's unlikely to happen quickly unless something unexpected happens.

So for a solution to appear before next spring, either the Americans need to drop the case or Ottawa needs to step in and find an excuse to terminate the extradition without losing too much face.

Trudeau's own instincts when faced with a difficult problem have been to cut a deal quietly behind the scenes and then put it behind him without his ego getting in the way or being obsessed with being seen to "win". He's done that with a number of long running issues. Doing that indeed is a large part of what led him into the difficulty he got into last year with respect to a court case involving a Canadian company accused of bribery in Libya, and cost his government their majority when the deal-making leaked out.

However, COVID-19 seems to have wiped the slate clean on that, with the government back into majority territory and the Conservatives plumbing the depths, ably assisted by the abysmal leadership of Andrew Scheer who probably single handedly cost his party the election last autumn.

The Conservatives are in the midst of a leadership race, with the two leading contenders tearing chunks out of each other in the obscurity of COVID-19 "social distancing". The leading contender, MacKay, seems to treat the issue as radioactive. He's had a look at the polls and is not interested in an election any time soon. He's also had a look at the Meng issue and doesn't seem to think there's any good solution to it.

Here's a video of MacKay from about a year ago, back when he was still out of politics and working in the private sector. His view of the situation doesn't seem to differ much from Trudeau's. I would suggest watching this interview, it's about 8 minutes long.
'There would be a lot of fallout' if the feds dropped Meng Wanzhou's extradition proceedings | Peter MacKay

So, it looks like Trudeau is going to be left holding the bag on this one for now, and the opposition are not going to help him out by giving him political cover. However, they don't have an alternative answer to the issue either.

If Trudeau wants a quick solution, he needs to look abroad to either give him an answer or to give him an excuse.

There are three events coming up which could influence the general background under which all this takes place. One is there is an upcoming G7 meeting in September or sometime around there. If the other G7 countries line up solidly behind Canada and give their support in very tangible ways (as opposed to vague statements of sympathy), then Canada may continue on with the current extradition process.

If however there is a general disinterest among the other G7 countries in helping Canada with this situation, then we might ask ourselves why we are bothering to stand on principle if no one else will help us in tangible ways.

Another event is the US are, according to news reports, about to slap big tariffs and quotas on Canadian aluminium and steel again. As a big FU to Canada, this could generate enough public support within Canada to "send a message to Washington" by terminating the extradition process against Meng. I wouldn't rate this as likely though, since as a pressure tactic it can't be retracted once used.

A third event is the upcoming US election. If Trump loses or looks weak going into the election, then it might be a good time to send Meng back to China. The best time to do that would be before Biden takes power so that he can blame it all on Trump and wash his hands of the issue. The risk of course is that Trump recovers and wins after all and we've got 4 more years of dealing with him, but that's a judgement call. Or of course we could wait until after the election, but before Biden is actually in office.


So let's look at the following scenario. Trudeau goes, physically or virtually, to the G7 meeting, and gets at best lukewarm support from the other countries. Trump slaps massive tariffs on imports from Canada, angering the Canadian public. Trump meanwhile is doing poorly in the election either due to his handling of the COVID-19 crisis, or for other reasons.

The Minister of Justice in Ottawa (or whoever's desk this ends up on) has a look at the case and says that he has serious concerns about it due to the US having said they were willing to use Meng as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations, and so is terminating the extradition proceedings. When asked by the press Trudeau says that he supports the minister's completely independent and impartial decision on this matter and would not dream of personally intervening in this case himself. Meng is rapidly tossed on a private jet and sent back to China before anyone has a chance to react to it.

Following this, the long delayed decision on whether to ban Huawei from Canada's 5G networks is released, providing little room for Huawei in the Canadian market, tossing the Americans a bone. Canada also issues strong statements on the situation in Hong Kong, showing that we are willing to push back against Chinese pressure. China drops the cases against "the two Michaels" (as they are referred to), and deports them. The two sides begin a long, slow, repair of diplomatic and trade relations.

The above is a complex scenario, and I'm not by any means claiming that this is the way things will play out. However, it does give an idea of how many factors are at play here. It's a multidimensional problem that encompasses many things outside of the merits of the Meng extradition case itself and it shows why it's hard to simply give a yes or no answer.

This whole situation, and the lack of tangible support that we have received from our allies, has been causing Canada to question our place in the world order and whether we should be focusing more in our own interests independently rather than acting through institutions. NATO, the G7, the UN, and others have been the bedrock of Canada's foreign policy as they have allowed us to leverage those institutions to give us more influence than we could exercise on our own.

However, with the Americans going off on their own tangent, and I don't think that Trump is a one time anomaly in this regards, we've begun to think that either we need to find some other more like minded partners in the world, or else to find a way to navigate it on our own. Historically we were part of the British Empire, and slid comfortably from there into NATO and the G7, but have no experience of acting on our own and purely in our own interests. The Meng affair has started people thinking about things they've never really had to think about before, and it's hard to say where that is going to lead.
Thanks for a lot of facts, considerations, suggestions and for interesting outlook inside Canadian (and not only Canadian) political kitchen.
However, what about justice and its independence from politics?
In fact, according to you the future decision will depend on political considerations and the criminal side of the story is almost irrelevant.

1593233729014.png


Is Canadian Femida really blindfolded?
 
Thanks for a lot of facts, considerations, suggestions and for interesting outlook inside Canadian (and not only Canadian) political kitchen.
However, what about justice and its independence from politics?
He covered that at the start :
If there was hope that the judge would simply toss the case out and solve the problem that way, then the opportunity for that to happen on the "double criminality" issue went by with the recent ruling. This case could drag on for years if allowed to play out to the end. If there is a solution to be found there, it's unlikely to happen quickly unless something unexpected happens.
In fact, according to you the future decision will depend on political considerations and the criminal side of the story is almost irrelevant.
No. According to Terminal justice would follow its course over time. It could be sped up if Meng decided to go to America.
However, she is in across the border in Canada, so had the right to have her extradition considered in court .... which will take time to run the full course


View attachment 485253

Is Canadian Femida really blindfolded?
That would be lady justice .... a sword representing the ultimate authority the courts, scales to weigh the evidence and blindfold that she is impartial and blind to the influence of power and riches.
So yes, lady justice is blindfolded in Canada signifying that justice will follow its course considering the case and without external influence - just as it is doing with Mengs case
 
Thanks for a lot of facts, considerations, suggestions and for interesting outlook inside Canadian (and not only Canadian) political kitchen.
However, what about justice and its independence from politics?
In fact, according to you the future decision will depend on political considerations and the criminal side of the story is almost irrelevant.

View attachment 485253

Is Canadian Femida really blindfolded?
The issue was political before Canada ever got involved. It was political when the US pulled out of the Iran treaty they signed with Europe and Canada and decided to try to impose their will on the remaining co-signatories by any means possible. It was political when the US decided to make Huawei the symbol of their struggle to prevent China from becoming an independent pole of economic influence. It was political when the head of the US said he was willing to trade Meng for a better trade deal.

For Canada to pretend that there is no politics involved is to stick our heads in the sand on this. If there were no politics involved nobody would have heard of the Meng affair. The system of justice in Canada was not designed to be capable of standing up to global power struggles.

The issue for Canada is how to get out of this situation without getting crushed between the US and China.
 
The issue was political before Canada ever got involved. It was political when the US pulled out of the Iran treaty they signed with Europe and Canada and decided to try to impose their will on the remaining co-signatories by any means possible. It was political when the US decided to make Huawei the symbol of their struggle to prevent China from becoming an independent pole of economic influence. It was political when the head of the US said he was willing to trade Meng for a better trade deal.

For Canada to pretend that there is no politics involved is to stick our heads in the sand on this. If there were no politics involved nobody would have heard of the Meng affair. The system of justice in Canada was not designed to be capable of standing up to global power struggles.

The issue for Canada is how to get out of this situation without getting crushed between the US and China.
The US extradition request apparently was filled according to the requirements of the treaty.
The double criminality issue is resolved (and could be resolved long ago).
I believe that there is an obvious solution - just follow the Law and signed international agreements.
So Canadian government should make a decision about extradition and after expected appeal extradite ms.Meng.
As a result the Chinese would capture 2-3 Americans as hostages and the Canadians would be released.
What Canadian government does try to achieve by playing time?
 
The US extradition request apparently was filled according to the requirements of the treaty.
The double criminality issue is resolved (and could be resolved long ago).
I believe that there is an obvious solution - just follow the Law and signed international agreements.
So Canadian government should make a decision about extradition and after expected appeal extradite ms.Meng.
As a result the Chinese would capture 2-3 Americans as hostages and the Canadians would be released.
What Canadian government does try to achieve by playing time?
Meng's lawyers are happy to spin the case out, as it allows time for something to turn up which will render the whole case moot.
 
Meng's lawyers are happy to spin the case out, as it allows time for something to turn up which will render the whole case moot.
The sides of this story have different interests.
Ms.Meng and Chinese authorities wish that she returns home as soon as possible
Meng's lawyers are interesting in money
Washington (at least formally) is interesting in extradition
And what about Canadian government? All requirements for extradition are satisfied. I repeat my question - what exactly the Canadian government is trying to achieve by playing time in the case?
There is one version of events that now doesn't look as absolutely impossible. Washington could secretly ask Canada to make the extradition process as long as possible, preferably for years.
Indeed what Washington would do with ms.Meng if she was extradited?
First of all - where the Americans would keep her? Just in the jail? It would mean that 2-3 US businessmen would appear in Chinese jails immediately. The acquittal is impossible for political reasons. Years long legal process and moreover real term would unleash as minimum a cold war between the USA and China. Washington would soon discover that China has resources to harm US interests around the World in sometimes very painful way.
 
The sides of this story have different interests.
Ms.Meng and Chinese authorities wish that she returns home as soon as possible
Meng's lawyers are interesting in money
Washington (at least formally) is interesting in extradition
And what about Canadian government? All requirements for extradition are satisfied. I repeat my question - what exactly the Canadian government is trying to achieve by playing time in the case?
There is one version of events that now doesn't look as absolutely impossible. Washington could secretly ask Canada to make the extradition process as long as possible, preferably for years.
Indeed what Washington would do with ms.Meng if she was extradited?
First of all - where the Americans would keep her? Just in the jail? It would mean that 2-3 US businessmen would appear in Chinese jails immediately. The acquittal is impossible for political reasons. Years long legal process and moreover real term would unleash as minimum a cold war between the USA and China. Washington would soon discover that China has resources to harm US interests around the World in sometimes very painful way.
Show us your proof

Your’e making very serious allegations that China are holding Canadians as hostages in response to Meng. You have no proof of your claims that these different cases are highly likely to be related.
Now you’re making even more unfounded claims that China will take Americans hostages if/when Meng gets extradited.

You have no evidence to back up these allegations other than the circumstantial evidence of their timing and the historic pattern of China’s actions
 
Show us your proof
Opinion doesn't need a proof.
Your’e making very serious allegations that China are holding Canadians as hostages in response to Meng. You have no proof of your claims that these different cases are highly likely to be related.
Let's recall how it happened
Meng Wanzhou - the chief financial officer of Huawei, and daughter of the company's founder - was arrested on 1 December 2018 in Vancouver.
Her arrest was requested by the US, who accuse her of breaking Iranian sanctions. She is still fighting extradition to the US.
The Chinese authorities understood that she will not be released soon.
On 10 December, the Canadians were detained in China. They were formally arrested in May 2019, after which they had 13-and-a-half months to be charged.
Only relatively recently they were formally charged in espionage. It looks as the 'investigation' will se extremely slow and last years.
In September, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused China of "using arbitrary detention as a tool to achieve political goals".
In fact mr.Trudeau shares my point of view.
Now you’re making even more unfounded claims that China will take Americans hostages if/when Meng gets extradited.
It is just a prediction. It is possible to prove that something happened but it impossible to prove that something will happen in the future.
You have no evidence to back up these allegations other than the circumstantial evidence of their timing and the historic pattern of China’s actions
It is just a common sense based on knowledge about oriental habits and customs.
 
....It is just a common sense based on knowledge about oriental habits and customs.
Do you agree with such actions?

It does appear what was widely reported is true:China suggests it will free Kovrig and Spavor if Canada allows Huawei executive Meng to return home. Zhao Lijian deputy director of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Information Department:
“Such options are within the rule of law and could open up space for resolution to the situation of the two Canadians,” Mr. Zhao said, according to the official English translation of his remarks published by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
 
Can you provide any evidence for this claim by you? I'm looking for quotes by reputable news sources in direct support of your claim.
In my opinion all requirements (written in the Canadian law for extradition) in the case with ms.Meng are satisfied.
You may disagree with this opinion. So you may point to this or that specific requirement that is not satisfied. For me such an information would be very interesting.
You may agree with my opinion. But in this case why do you need any quote?
My source is in fact random one
The alleged fraud that Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou is accused of committing by U.S. authorities would be considered a crime in Canada if it happened here, a British Columbia judge ruled Wednesday, marking a major loss for the powerful Chinese businesswoman in her ongoing extradition battle.
Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes found that the case against Meng passed the test of double criminality, a basic principle of Canadian extradition law. In Canada, a person cannot be extradited to face punishment in another country for behaviour that wouldn’t be considered criminal in Canada.
So the basic requirement of Canadian extradition law is satisfied. Also I haven't heard that Meng's lawyers claimed that any other (maybe minor) requirements are not satisfied (correct me if I'm wrong).
So I make a conclusion that you quoted.
As for alleged violation of ms.Meng rights then it is a separate matter. Even if her rights were violated then she could demand official apologies, material compensation but it is not an obstacle for extradition.
 

Latest Threads

Top