China detains former Canadian diplomat, possibly in retaliation for arrest of Huawei executive.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kovrig ... -1.4940725

International Crisis Group says it's 'doing everything possible' to find its employee and secure his release

Janyce McGregor · CBC News · Posted: Dec 11, 2018 9:13 AM ET | Last Updated: 5 hours ago

The detention of Canadian Michael Kovrig follows the arrest in Canada of the chief financial officer of China's Huawei Technologies Co Ltd on Dec. 1. Meng Wanzhou's bail hearing continues Tuesday in Vancouver. (International Crisis Group)
4241 comments
Former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig has been arrested and detained in China without explanation, the Canadian government confirmed Tuesday.

"Obviously we are aware of the situation of a Canadian detained in China," said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on his way into question period Tuesday. "We have been in direct contact with the Chinese diplomats and representatives. We are engaged on the file, which we take very seriously, and we are providing consular assistance to the family."

A written statement from Global Affairs Canada said that because of Canada's Privacy Act, no further information would be disclosed about the case of Kovrig, who until recently served as a Canadian diplomat in China.


Chinese officials have not given an official explanation for Kovrig's arrest.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said Canadian officials were "sparing no effort" to make sure Kovrig is safe and appropriately treated, but offered few details on the emerging situation.

"Canadian diplomatic officials have been in touch with their Chinese counterparts to explain how seriously Canadians view this," Goodale said. "Clearly we are deeply concerned and [Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland] and her officials will be taking all appropriate action."

Watch Public Safety Min. Ralph Goodale discuss the Kovrig case on Power & Politics


Power and Politics
Goodale on China's detention of former Canadian diplomat
WATCH 00:00 06:35
"Their approach and their culture is different, their tradition, their method of operating," says the public safety minister. 6:35
Goodale would not confirm speculation that this arrest could be connected to the recent arrest of a Chinese executive at Vancouver's airport — something Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lu Kang warned again Monday could mean "severe consequences" for Canada.

Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer for the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, awaits possible extradition to the United States to face fraud charges. She is accused of misleading multinational banks about Huawei's control of a company operating in Iran, putting those banks at risk of violating U.S. sanctions.

Meng was granted bail, set at $10 million, early this evening.

Trump says he'd interfere in Huawei case hours after U.S. envoy to Canada said case isn't political
China's threats over Huawei CFO's arrest rattle Canadian business
China exerting pressure on Canada, U.S. ahead of Huawei CFO hearing
China's Vice-Foreign Minister Le Yucheng called in Canada's ambassador to China, John McCallum, on Saturday to express Beijing's anger over Meng's arrest and detention.

The Chinese also called in the American ambassador last Sunday. There's no indication to date that the American request for Meng's arrest and extradition has had any negative effects on efforts to negotiate an end to the escalating tariff war between the U.S. and China.

Detention 'highly inappropriate'

"There is no explicit indication" of a connection to the Meng case at this point, Goodale said.

But it wouldn't be the first time the Chinese detained a Canadian in an apparent act of retaliation.

In 2014, the Canadian government accused China of hacking into government computer systems. A week later, Canadian Christian aid workers Kevin and Julia Garratt, who were running a small café in China, were detained and accused of spying. Julia was released in 2015 but Kevin was detained for two years before being found guilty and deported.

Conservative MP Lisa Raitt, who had a connection to the Garratt case in her riding, said she hopes Kovrig's arrest isn't about payback.

"There's also a lot of negative press in China right now calling us a puppet, calling us a lap dog, so obviously sentiments are rolling very very high," Raitt said, adding she fears consequences for Canadian agricultural exports and international students.

"This is a very troubling situation."

Concerns percolating over Huawei's 'leverage' over Canadian cybersecurity
Status of Huawei CFO's husband questioned as he tries to post bail for wealthy wife
"I would be very surprised if there's valid reason for detention," said Conservative MP Erin O'Toole, who served along with Raitt in the cabinet of the previous Conservative government. "If it's solely related to retaliation, that's highly inappropriate and he should be released immediately."

A former Canadian ambassador to China says he would be surprised if the detention was not tied to the arrest of Meng​.

"In China there's no coincidence, and I've seen this many times when things happen. If they want to send you a message, they will send you a message," Guy Saint-Jacques told CBC News Network's Power & Politics.

Watch Guy Saint-Jacques discuss the signals sent by China on Power & Politics


Power and Politics
'In China, there's no coincidence'
WATCH 00:00 08:17
Former Canadian Ambassador to China Guy Saint-Jacques tells Power & Politics that he sees a connection between the Chinese detainment of Michael Kovrig and the Canadian arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou. 8:17
"In this case, it is all related in my view to the strategy presently pursued by the Chinese leadership to put as much political pressure as possible on the Canadian government and it's related, obviously, to the case of Mrs. Meng."

Saint-Jacques said he worked alongside Kovrig in China for two years. He said Kovrig was a Global Security Reporting Program (GSRP) officer, a position held by a member of the foreign service tasked with gathering information from non-traditional sources for Global Affairs Canada, the security services and the government at large.

GSRP officers are not intelligence operators; they do not run sources or recruit and pay agents.

Saint-Jacques described Kovrig as a "career diplomat" who had previously worked as a journalist and had a great "analytical sense." He worked on "sensitive" issues, including meeting with dissidents, during his time as a Canadian diplomat in Beijing and Hong Kong. He also helped co-ordinate Trudeau's 2016 visit to China, but left his position later that year.

Kovrig is currently on a leave of absence from the foreign service, and because he is not currently serving as a diplomat he has no special status in China.


Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou poses with one of her children in one of a series of pictures filed with the court in support of her bail application. (B.C. Supreme Court)
The former ambassador said Kovrig will know what kind of process he's getting into — potentially lengthy interrogation sessions and detention in a cell with up to 20 different people — because he worked at the Canadian embassy when the Garratts were detained and Canadian officials were working to secure their release.

Most recently he was based in Hong Kong as an adviser with the International Crisis Group. The think tank confirmed his detention Tuesday.

"International Crisis Group is aware of reports that its North East Asia Senior Adviser, Michael Kovrig, has been detained in China," the think-tank said in a statement.

"We are doing everything possible to secure additional information on Michael's whereabouts, as well as his prompt and safe release."

Trade risks for Canada?

International Trade Diversification Minister Jim Carr downplayed suggestions that Kovrig's arrest would affect other Canadians trying to do business in China.

"We have a sophisticated, complicated relationship with China that dates back decades and I'm sure will endure," the minister said. "There are business leaders in China now, there are more who plan to go."

B.C. trade mission trip to China derailed in wake of Huawei executive's arrest
Chinese-Canadian group defends detained Huawei CFO
Canada had been trying to restart talks toward a comprehensive trade deal with China, but even before these developments it was unclear how much progress had been made.

Canadian officials from Trudeau on down have emphasized this week that Canada's arrest of Meng at Vancouver's airport was not arbitrary, but done in accordance with the extradition treaty in place with the United States.

At an event hosted by The New York Times Thursday, Freeland told the audience that Canada is taking this case "really seriously" and there's a "geopolitical complexity potentially radiating" from this situation.

She reiterated that there has been no political interference from the Canadian government in Meng's case. But shortly after, U.S. President Donald Trump suggested he would intervene if it would help U.S. trade interests.

A Canada-China parliamentary friendship group had been scheduled to leave on a trip to China on Jan.4. The group was to meet with government officials, civil society leaders and business leaders in three cities to strengthen diplomatic ties.

One of the parliamentarians in the group, Conservative MP Michael Cooper, said that at this point he was still planning to go, but this arrest is "concerning."

Mélanie Joly is the next cabinet minister scheduled to go to China, for events marking the conclusion of 2018 as the "year of tourism" between Canada and China. It's unclear whether recent events will impact that trip.

So, emerging diplomatic crisis between China and Canada. Figured it was worth posting.

I wonder if we're going to see a lot more of this sort of thing (and worse) now that Trump has given dictators all over the world the green light to murder or disappear anyone they don't like without repercussions.

[mr friendly guy]

Its quite funny when Canada says its not political, and then Trump goes and outright says its political by saying they might free the Huawei executive for trade concessions. After both China and the US tried to make it clear its not political. It might not be political on Canada's side, but the attempt to extradite the Chinese citizen is based on both what the US and Canada do. Clearly anyone with half a brain is going to say, this is an attempt at great power politics and China is just playing the same game (even if they don't say it outright like Trump), and Canada is caught in the middle.

[mr friendly guy]

Ok, after reading some arguments, I have concluded Canada fucked up. Instead of doing a smart thing for a smaller power to do, ie play the bigger powers against each other, they ended up footing the bill while the US gets off lightly because Chinese attention is now diverted to Canada rather than the US.

Looking at Canada's own laws.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... -stand-up/

Another requirement to be met is “double criminality,” which means the court must find that the crime for which Ms. Meng is sought also amounts to a crime in Canada in order for extradition to be completed.

At the moment it appears that the basis of the U.S. case is fraud and conspiracy to defraud, with some relation to breach of sanctions. Fraud offences are known to Canadian law, and under our Special Economic Measures Act, it is an offence to have economic dealings with foreign states against which the government has issued sanctions, and Iran is one of the listed states. While this may be a parallel to the relevant U.S. laws, one important difference is that Canada’s law is not applied against foreign nationals who act outside Canada, whereas it appears the U.S. is pursuing Ms. Meng for conduct that did not touch American territory. Moreover, sanctions are as much a tool of foreign policy as they are a form of regulation, and an extradition case on this basis will be breaking new ground, and courting uncertainty.

Translation - Meng is being charged with breaking US law even though outside American territory. Canada is obligated to extradite if that law broken is also against Canadian law (it is), but not applied if they break the law outside of Canada. AFAIK, she wasn't accused of doing the deed on Canadian soil or American soil. In other words, she shouldn't fit the criteria for extradition under Canada's own laws. But it gets better.

Under Canada’s Extradition Act, the decision about whether extradition is available in cases with these kinds of differences in territorial jurisdiction is made not by the courts, but by the federal Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould. In fact, the Minister’s role involves a heavily intertwined set of political and legal functions. She will already have approved the arrest of Ms. Meng on the extradition request; lawyers in her department will represent the U.S. government before the Canadian courts; and she will make the ultimate “surrender decision” about extradition after the fairly perfunctory court process is completed. In making the surrender decision, the Minister must balance a complex set of factors, including Canada’s obligation to extradite under the treaty and whether there are any human rights concerns that might make extradition unlawful. If the U.S. prosecutors seek harsh penalties, Ms. Meng’s lawyers might very well argue that surrendering her would be oppressive and breach Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Much rests, then, on the Justice Minister’s decision. And the high-stakes choices Ms. Wilson-Raybould now faces are complicated by the necessity to weigh Canada’s political and diplomatic relationships. Court reviews of these decisions tend to be very deferential because of the presence of these factors; Canada has a long history of co-operation with the U.S., and in virtually all cases the minister is highly disposed to order extradition, because such neighbourliness makes for smooth relations. In fact, as critics have asserted, Canada’s entire extradition regime is heavily tilted toward surrenders going through, and it takes the presence of quite extraordinary factors to scotch a request.

In other words the Canadian minister of justice could have chosen not to look into extradition and their decision is based on political factors, such as the relationship with the United States. It gets worse when Trump has outright made it political in a tweet so there can be doubt. Canada can talk about rule of law all it wants, but when its own law suggest she shouldn't be extradited, and when it has to approved by minister of justice, yeah its political.

Meanwhile China has given some reasons for detaining a Canadian. Hint, he broke Chinese law.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china ... KKBN1OB0AZ

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang, also speaking earlier in the day, said he had nothing he could say on the details of the case. He said the ICG was not registered in China as a non-government organisation (NGO) and Kovrig could have broken Chinese law.

Apparently having a NGO not registered is a big no no in China. Who knew right? That was a joke btw, because countries like China and Russia are paranoid about NGOs.

You could argue its a bullshit rule, but no one forced him to go to China. He could be ignorant of the law, but ignorance is no excuse. The timing strongly suggests its political, but then so was Canada's actions.

Now for all those rule of law types, China should follow its own laws right, and arrest Kovrig. Just as Canada should follow its own laws and release Meng. Right guys. Right?

Oh BTW, well played USA. You gain some benefits without accruing much of the risk. Unfortunately, if China does get Meng back in quick time, it also strengthens their hand at least in prestige points anyway, while the US prestige looks weaker. If this drags on, the US will end up with the better end of the bargain. Well played regardless.

[mr friendly guy]

History of violating US sanctions by companies 101.

1. In 2018 JP Morgan Chase paid $5.3 million to settle allegations it violated Cuban Assets control regulations

2. In 2011 JPMorgan Chase has agreed to pay $88.3 million as part of a settlement with the Treasury Department over a series of transactions involving Cuba, Iran and Sudan.

3. In 2014 Bank of America Corp’s banking unit (BAC.N) agreed to pay $16.6 million to resolve allegations that it processed several hundred transactions for drug traffickers who are subject to U.S. sanctions

4. In 2015 PayPal fined $7.7 million over violating US sanctions from 2009 to 2013 included ones tied to weapons of mass destruction, as well as related to Iran, Sudan and Cuba.

5. Last month US officials fined Societe Generale US$1.3 billion (S$1.78 billion) after charging the French bank with violating US sanctions on Cuba, Iran and other countries.

6. In 2012 Standard Chartered hit by $300m in Iran fines


1. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/jp-morg ... ions-.html

2. linky

3 . linky

4. https://www.cnet.com/news/paypal-to-pay ... sanctions/

5. https://www.straitstimes.com/business/b ... -sanctions

6. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-20669650


**********************************************************************************************************************************************************
You know what was the interesting thing about all these. None of these organisations had their CFO arrested, despite doing the thing Huawei is accused of doing, violating US sanctions. Coupled with Trump's tweets, its almost like Meng is being used as leverage against China for trade war negotiations. But I am sure its purely a case of rule of law. And if its ok for the West to kidnap people for leverage, well.....this could get ugly.

[The Romulan Republic]

Whether or not US companies have violated the same rules as Meng is accused of is irrelevant here- unless you are suggest that because the arrest of Meng is (allegedly) unfair, that somehow justifies arresting random Canadians in retaliation. And if that IS what you're suggesting, then fuck off.

Nor is listing the whole history of corruption by US companies relevant, because Whataboutism is another name for ad hominem fallacy.

The only relevant questions here should be "Did said Canadian commit a crime?" and "If so, was it a sufficiently serious crime to warrant arrest?" In either case, I wouldn't wish the Chinese "justice" system on my worst enemy, but the evidence for either of those thus far is shaky at best. The Chinese spokesman you quoted said he "may" have broken the law. No charges have been named, to the best of my knowledge. If China lays out an inarguable case of serious criminal wrongdoing, fine. They have yet to do that. So you, who have a reflexive ideological need to defend China because they're against "the West", are forced to fall back on ad hominem and deflection.

I also expect you to back up the insinuation that the charges against Meng are unjustified, however. And no, showing that some other person got off on the same crime in the past doesn't count. I am asking you to provide evidence that the charges are false.

[aerius]

China gonna China, news at 11. Maybe one day Canada and the rest of the world will realize that they're not our fucking friends.

[The Romulan Republic]

China gonna China, news at 11. Maybe one day Canada and the rest of the world will realize that they're not our fucking friends.

Indeed. That said, the fact that this is predictable should not be used to treat it as acceptable.

Now, if further investigation shows evidence that the arrest was warranted, fine. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Galvatron]

This is such a strange news story. I thought everyone got along with Canada.

[Tribble]

This is such a strange news story. I thought everyone got along with Canada.

Canada was screwed either way.

If Canada agreed to the USA's request (whether or not it was a valid one) we would have to incur the wrath of China.

If Canada refused the USA's request then we would inevitably incur the wrath of Trump once he found out about it.

Between the two Trump can hit us a lot harder than China can, so this was more along the lines of choosing the (arguably) the lesser of two evils. Good play by the US - Trump gets some leverage while Canada pays for it. Gotta hand it to them.

Canada's biggest mistake is assuming that the US is a friend and ally, when truth is that the US simply views Canada as a client state that can be exploited at will. Which to be fair is more or less accurate given our near total economic and military dependency on the US.

As to the rest of the world... Canada doesnt really matter all that much. At most you could say that we're those nice guys that can be safely ignored and/or whipped into line when necessary. Or as a morality pet of sorts - who doesnt like taking time out petting a dog once in a while, it feels good right?

We're almost entirely dependent on the US for survival, so why should anyone take us seriously as a seperate country? Whether we like it or not, we're a client state, ableit perhaps in a better position than most.

[mr friendly guy]

Whether or not US companies have violated the same rules as Meng is accused of is irrelevant here- unless you are suggest that because the arrest of Meng is (allegedly) unfair, that somehow justifies arresting random Canadians in retaliation. And if that IS what you're suggesting, then fuck off.

Its perfectly relevant when pointing out that a double standard is applied here. Those companies were fined, not had their CFO arrested. Coupled with the fact Trump outright states he will swap her for trade concessions, shows the arrest is politically motivated as part of the US trade war with China, and not by following rule of law as the West likes to imply.

Nor is listing the whole history of corruption by US companies relevant, because Whataboutism is another name for ad hominem fallacy.

How can I make this easy for you to show why you overuse whataboutism. Oh I know. A black man and a white man commits the same crime. The white guy gets fined $400 and the black man sent to jail for several years. I point its a double standard, you say its whataboutism, and the only thing relevant is whether the black man did commit the crime he is alleged to have done.

The only relevant questions here should be "Did said Canadian commit a crime?" and "If so, was it a sufficiently serious crime to warrant arrest?" In either case, I wouldn't wish the Chinese "justice" system on my worst enemy, but the evidence for either of those thus far is shaky at best.

The Chinese spokesman you quoted said he "may" have broken the law. No charges have been named, to the best of my knowledge. If China lays out an inarguable case of serious criminal wrongdoing, fine. They have yet to do that.

When they do inevitably lay charges, will you eat your words?

So you, who have a reflexive ideological need to defend China because they're against "the West", are forced to fall back on ad hominem and deflection.

No I actually point out the blatant double standard and the fact the arrest is politically motivated with the fucking president of the US outright saying so. If Putin said something along on why Russia arrested a Canadian you will be jumping up an down whining, but when the US says it, why anyone complaining is just against the West. AM I RITE?

I also expect you to back up the insinuation that the charges against Meng are unjustified, however.

I have to prove a negative now? Ok sure. As soon as you prove you're not a rapist.

And no, showing that some other person got off on the same crime in the past doesn't count. I am asking you to provide evidence that the charges are false.

Good thing I showed more than that then. Its just a matter of explaining to you in small words. Ok I know. Imagine a German giving the Nazi salute in China. Nothing should happen to him in a legal sense because its not illegal in China nor did he do it on German soil where it is illegal. Imagine a Dutchman insulting their king while in Australia. It is punishable by jail for a few months BTW. Nothing should happen to him because he didn't do it on the Netherlands soil. Imagine an Australia smoked pot while in Amsterdam. Nothing should have happen to him because he didn't do in on Australian soil. With me now? Good.

What Meng is accused off did not occur on US or Canadian soil. While breaking US law off US territory is a thing for the US, it is not for Canada, and I stated in an earlier passage. For extradition to occur, this is one of the criteria must be made, that is while it is illegal under Canadian law, did she also do it on the Canadian soil.

Whether Meng did the deed or not, is secondary to whether she did it on Canadian soil (see my earlier post on this). If she didn't, and that's what its looking like, she shouldn't match the Canadian criteria for extradition, and arguable shouldn't be arrested in the first place. Thus the country that is engaging in kidnapping is Canada, at the behest of the USA. But that's what happens when you're a client state. You're used as a pawn in the game between the US and China.

[Tribble]

Incidentally events like this make me wonder sometimes if we are better off just applying for statehood in spite of the obvious drawbacks like healthcare, the environment, gun control etc.

If we were US states at least we'd have some actual influence. As things stand right now we're entirely at the mercy of the president / government of the day with no real say in the matter.

[Gandalf]

Incidentally events like this make me wonder sometimes if we are better off just applying for statehood in spite of the obvious drawbacks like healthcare, the environment, gun control etc.

If we were US states at least we'd have some actual influence. As things stand right now we're entirely at the mercy of the president / government of the day with no real say in the matter.

Or just funnel government funds into buying US politicians like others do. It's an easier workaround I would think.

[aerius]

Or just funnel government funds into buying US politicians like others do. It's an easier workaround I would think.

Clearly, we need to install a puppet president in the US like the Russians did.

[Tribble]

Incidentally events like this make me wonder sometimes if we are better off just applying for statehood in spite of the obvious drawbacks like healthcare, the environment, gun control etc.

If we were US states at least we'd have some actual influence. As things stand right now we're entirely at the mercy of the president / government of the day with no real say in the matter.

Or just funnel government funds into buying US politicians like others do. It's an easier workaround I would think.

Who says we don't?

We spend quite a lot of money time and effort sending lobbyists to the US for things like NAFTA, for all the good that does.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its perfectly relevant when pointing out that a double standard is applied here. Those companies were fined, not had their CFO arrested. Coupled with the fact Trump outright states he will swap her for trade concessions, shows the arrest is politically motivated as part of the US trade war with China, and not by following rule of law as the West likes to imply.

Whether the arrest was justified or simply political would depend on whether the charges are supported by evidence. Which will be determined in a court of law. How Trump is using the arrest is yet another disgraceful abuse of his office, but he did not personally order the arrest, to my knowledge. He's just being Trump, and throwing Canada under the bus in the process.

How can I make this easy for you to show why you overuse whataboutism. Oh I know. A black man and a white man commits the same crime. The white guy gets fined $400 and the black man sent to jail for several years. I point its a double standard, you say its whataboutism, and the only thing relevant is whether the black man did commit the crime he is alleged to have done.

I would say that both should be subjected to the same penalty, but that one got off should not be used to justify letting the other off altogether if an actual serious crime were committed.

In the case of Meng, I would be inclined to say that the American businessmen should be punished more severely, not that Meng should be punished less (presuming that she is found guilty).

When they do inevitably lay charges, will you eat your words?

Depends on whether those charges are supported by credible evidence of wrong-doing.

No I actually point out the blatant double standard and the fact the arrest is politically motivated with the fucking president of the US outright saying so. If Putin said something along on why Russia arrested a Canadian you will be jumping up an down whining, but when the US says it, why anyone complaining is just against the West. AM I RITE?

No, that's not what I'm saying. That's just your straw man to caricature me as an EVIL WESTERN IMPERIALIST because I do not automatically side against America/"the West" in every situation. Trump is and will always be an utter cunt, but his will is not (yet) synonymous with the US government's in the manner that Putin's is with the Russian government.

Show me that the arrest occurred on Trump's orders or at his prompting, rather than him simply using the situation after the fact. Show me that the charges are false, or that the arrest is in violation of the proper legal procedure. If you do any of that, I will immediately agree that Meng should be released.

I have to prove a negative now? Ok sure. As soon as you prove you're not a rapist.

Go fuck yourself. Seriously. Go fuck yourself. I don't care if I get banned for saying that. You do not insinuate false rape allegations, not even as a joke or to make a rhetorical point. Not when it is notoriously difficult for REAL rape allegations to get taken seriously, and when Republicans are actively using fake rape charges to try to discredit their opponents, the MeToo movement, and the entire female half of the human race.

As far as I am concerned, you have permanently forfeited any right to any respect whatsoever.

Good thing I showed more than that then. Its just a matter of explaining to you in small words. Ok I know. Imagine a German giving the Nazi salute in China. Nothing should happen to him in a legal sense because its not illegal in China nor did he do it on German soil where it is illegal. Imagine a Dutchman insulting their king while in Australia. It is punishable by jail for a few months BTW. Nothing should happen to him because he didn't do it on the Netherlands soil. Imagine an Australia smoked pot while in Amsterdam. Nothing should have happen to him because he didn't do in on Australian soil. With me now? Good.

What Meng is accused off did not occur on US or Canadian soil. While breaking US law off US territory is a thing for the US, it is not for Canada, and I stated in an earlier passage. For extradition to occur, this is one of the criteria must be made, that is while it is illegal under Canadian law, did she also do it on the Canadian soil.

Then Meng can make that argument at her extradition hearing. Because here in the evil West, we actually have this nifty concept called "due process". I wonder if China will extend the same right to those it has just arrested.

Whether Meng did the deed or not, is secondary to whether she did it on Canadian soil (see my earlier post on this). If she didn't, and that's what its looking like, she shouldn't match the Canadian criteria for extradition, and arguable shouldn't be arrested in the first place. Thus the country that is engaging in kidnapping is Canada, at the behest of the USA. But that's what happens when you're a client state. You're used as a pawn in the game between the US and China.

As I said, she can argue against extradition, and may very well win her case. Because Canada is not actually a mere client state, and does not rubber-stamp everything Fuhrer Trump says.

I very much doubt China will extend the same legal rights to its victims.

[mr friendly guy]

Whether the arrest was justified or simply political would depend on whether the charges are supported by evidence. Which will be determined in a court of law. How Trump is using the arrest is yet another disgraceful abuse of his office, but he did not personally order the arrest, to my knowledge. He's just being Trump, and throwing Canada under the bus in the process.

Its political when the fucking president of the country asking for extradition outright states it. We both know if China did it, you would be accusing them of doing it for political purposes even if they are smart enough to not outright state it. And yes I know this because you stated as such in your opening passage.

"I wonder if we're going to see a lot more of this sort of thing (and worse) now that Trump has given dictators all over the world the green light to murder or disappear anyone they don't like without repercussions.

Hmm. Sounds like you likening what the Chinese are doing to disappearing people based on not liking them, ie a purely political justification. But that's kind of the double standard western apologetics we see.

I would say that both should be subjected to the same penalty, but that one got off should not be used to justify letting the other off altogether if an actual serious crime were committed.

Great. Then Huawei should be fined like those European and American banks who broke the same law. Not have their CFO arrested facing a 30 year jail sentence. While we are at it, lets disperse with this strawman about the banks being let off (they weren't, they were fined) and the other strawman about myself saying Huawei should be let off (if they are guilty they get the same penalty as everyone else, ie a fine).

In the case of Meng, I would be inclined to say that the American businessmen should be punished more severely, not that Meng should be punished less (presuming that she is found guilty).

That's nice. But when only last month a bank was punished completely differently for breaking the same law, it suggests that this case, is not motivated by the existing regulations/precedents. Now I wonder what that motivation could be. If only someone on the American side was stupid enough to say it out in the open.

No, that's not what I'm saying. That's just your straw man to caricature me as an EVIL WESTERN IMPERIALIST because I do not automatically side against America/"the West" in every situation. Trump is and will always be an utter cunt, but his will is not (yet) synonymous with the US government's in the manner that Putin's is with the Russian government.

That's not the point. The point is you apply a totally different standard to proof when the West does it. You demonstrated this several times when you ask me to reverse the burden of proof and prove a negative, and also when Trump can outright say he is doing this for political purposes and you still make excuses, while China despite being smart enough to not state it, is believed by yourself to be doing it for political purposes.

Show me that the arrest occurred on Trump's orders or at his prompting, rather than him simply using the situation after the fact. Show me that the charges are false, or that the arrest is in violation of the proper legal procedure. If you do any of that, I will immediately agree that Meng should be released.

Who the fuck cares whether Trump personally ordered it, or his underling one or underling number two did it. Its irrelevant to the fact that its politically motivated. You don't even hold such a high burden of proof. Let me demonstrate.

Can you show me Putin personally ordered the hacking of the DNC. Come on, do it in your next post. Oh what... you can't. Ok, so are you going to stop believing Putin was responsible? We both know the answer to that, and its doesn't start with a Y.

Trump outright states he wants to use Meng as a bargaining chip for China trade negotiations and we are expected jump through more of your hoops and prove every little detail like Trump personally ordered the arrest when it makes no god damn difference. You don't even hold that ridiculous burden of proof with your own assertions, yet you expect others to. Give me a break.

And you're asking me to prove a negative again. Seriously. I thought innocent until proven guilty.

Go fuck yourself. Seriously. Go fuck yourself. I don't care if I get banned for saying that. You do not insinuate false rape allegations, not even as a joke or to make a rhetorical point. Not when it is notoriously difficult for REAL rape allegations to get taken seriously, and when Republicans are actively using fake rape charges to try to discredit their opponents, the MeToo movement, and the entire female half of the human race.

As far as I am concerned, you have permanently forfeited any right to any respect whatsoever.

So I take it after that histrionic rant you can't actually prove a negative. What a shocker right?
Now think about this for a moment. Would you normally ask to reverse the burden of proof in say, a sci fi vs debate? I am willing to bet you wouldn't, but over here, you asked me to do it twice already. Why is that I wonder?

Then Meng can make that argument at her extradition hearing. Because here in the evil West, we actually have this nifty concept called "due process". I wonder if China will extend the same right to those it has just arrested.

OMG, its ok to arrest someone for political purposes because she can talk her way out of it. Why didn't I think of that?

As I said, she can argue against extradition, and may very well win her case. Because Canada is not actually a mere client state, and does not rubber-stamp everything Fuhrer Trump says.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... -stand-up/

In making the surrender decision, the Minister must balance a complex set of factors, including Canada’s obligation to extradite under the treaty and whether there are any human rights concerns that might make extradition unlawful. If the U.S. prosecutors seek harsh penalties, Ms. Meng’s lawyers might very well argue that surrendering her would be oppressive and breach Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Much rests, then, on the Justice Minister’s decision. And the high-stakes choices Ms. Wilson-Raybould now faces are complicated by the necessity to weigh Canada’s political and diplomatic relationships. Court reviews of these decisions tend to be very deferential because of the presence of these factors; Canada has a long history of co-operation with the U.S., and in virtually all cases the minister is highly disposed to order extradition, because such neighbourliness makes for smooth relations. In fact, as critics have asserted, Canada’s entire extradition regime is heavily tilted toward surrenders going through, and it takes the presence of quite extraordinary factors to scotch a request.

No need to rubber stamp things just because its Trump. As we can see, Canada has a history of rubbery stamping requests from which ever bozo is in the White House. Aside from "the presence of quite extraordinary factors" which I am going to say China is trying to create.

I very much doubt China will extend the same legal rights to its victims.

If you mean by "legal right," not rubber stamping what Trump says, I am pretty China isn't going to do that either Yeah I know that's most probably not what you meant, but I am not 100% sure.

[The Romulan Republic]

In which objecting to being called a rapist as a debating tactic is a "histrionic rant".