# Huawei CFO arrested in Vancouver



## james4beach

The CFO of Huawei was arrested while changing planes in Vancouver
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ada-as-u-s-seeks-her-extradition?srnd=premium
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-huawei-arrest-cfo-1.4934269

This seems to be happening entirely on behalf of the US. Since when we do arrest people for suspicion of violating US trade sanctions? This doesn't seem right to me, acting as an extended arm of the US govt. It also affects our relationship with China.


----------



## humble_pie

there appear to be international high-level goverment security concerns with huawei's deployment of 5G networks. Canada is reportedly among the concerned countries.

i get the feeling that not even a tip of the iceberg that is supposed to be the problem has yet been shown to the public. Here's a globe article might shed a bit of light:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...arns-about-state-sponsored-espionage-through/


----------



## ian

Canadian police authorities regularly arrest people who are wanted in relation to criminal charges in other counties....and we extradite them. 

Other countries do exactly the same for us....providing we have an extradition treaty with that country.

No doubt the US was following her travels and jumped at the chance to have her detained in Vancouver and extradited.


----------



## Longtimeago

james4beach said:


> The CFO of Huawei was arrested while changing planes in Vancouver
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ada-as-u-s-seeks-her-extradition?srnd=premium
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-huawei-arrest-cfo-1.4934269
> 
> This seems to be happening entirely on behalf of the US. Since when we do arrest people for suspicion of violating US trade sanctions? This doesn't seem right to me, acting as an extended arm of the US govt. It also affects our relationship with China.


It is a standard procedure for Canada to honour any request to arrest and extradite to the USA, any person for whom a legitimate arrest warrant has been issued in the USA. You could say that there is in fact no option to do otherwise. It is simply following an agreement that has been made between countries in this regard.

The same could happen with any person wanted in another country with whom Canada has such an agreement. Julian Assange for example cannot step foot outside of the Ecquadorian Embassy in London as he would immediately be arrested by the UK Police and extradited to Sweden.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ses-to-withdraw-julian-assange-arrest-warrant

So yes, it is happening on behalf of the USA and has been doing so since we signed an extradition agreement. Nothing unusual in that at all and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of 'judgement' of the person, being made by anyone in Canada. It is not part of the agreement that a country would make their own 'judgement' of someone before arresting and extraditing someone wanted in another country with whom Canada has an extradition agreement. Don't read more in to it than exists, you're having a 'knee jerk' reaction to a very common situation.


----------



## sags

That all sounds great unless China retaliates by "arresting" a high level American or Canadian business person.


----------



## Longtimeago

sags said:


> That all sounds great unless China retaliates by "arresting" a high level American or Canadian business person.


What has one thing got to do with the other? Are you suggesting that China might arrest a Canadian business person on a trumped up charge as retaliation? Yes, they might and still, what has that got to do with Canada honouring an agreement to arrest and extradite someone for whom there is a legitimate USA arrest warrant issued? What other choice do you think Canada has?

What you are saying is that China might do something WRONG in retaliation and so Canada should not do something RIGHT for fear of what China might do. You do realize that is the same as saying, don't stand up to a potential bully for others, in case they smack you for doing so. Canada has an OBLIGATION to honour an agreement, there is no other choice. If China chooses to respond in some bullying type of way, that is up to China.

If that were to happen, China would be acting badly, Canada would still have acted correctly. If Canada had not honoured their agreement from FEAR of what China might do, what would that say about Canada?


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> The CFO of Huawei was arrested while changing planes in Vancouver
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ada-as-u-s-seeks-her-extradition?srnd=premium
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-huawei-arrest-cfo-1.4934269
> 
> This seems to be happening entirely on behalf of the US. Since when we do arrest people for suspicion of violating US trade sanctions? This doesn't seem right to me, acting as an extended arm of the US govt. It also affects our relationship with China.



it's not "entirely on behalf of the US" though. It's the Five Eyes operating together. Canada is one of the eyes. That globe article i linked above has some good background info. Presumably the lady has a top lawyer by now to fight extradition.

signed treaty or not, canada's extradition agreements w other countries don't extend to all suspected "crimes." However a 5 eyes scenario puts the situation in a special category.

imho it's far too soon for armchair commentators to have any opinion that matters. Only an ice cube's worth of this huge iceberg has yet surfaced to the public.

the military have to be involved. Top level national security has to be involved. There are a cmffer or 2 who may be involved, if they pass by this thread & witness us ignoramii tut-tutting away, they will have another silent laugh to themselves.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Her detention pending an extradition hearing is not remarkable in itself - there is a big to-do about it because she is high profile, and China may not take too kindly to it. The extradition hearing may be interesting, as each side argues: a) whether there is sufficient evidence (let's not have another Hassan Diab case please); and/or b) whether what she is being charged with constitutes an extraditable "crime" under current treaties. Remarkably few details have been released as to just what the US charges will be. Whatever the decision, no doubt there will be appeals.


----------



## bgc_fan

It'll be over in a week. China will bankroll another Trump related project and the US will give the green light to let the CFO go.

Pretty much what happened with ZTE: https://qz.com/1278297/donald-trump...s-financial-connections-to-chinese-companies/


----------



## sags

News reports are that Justin Trudeau knew of the impending arrest and John Bolton knew but didn't tell Trump, who was dining with Xi and talking trade at the time.

I can imagine Trump is furious and Bolton will be looking for a new job. Another example of a dysfunctional Trump administration.


----------



## Mukhang pera

And what did she do to any of us to deserve the ignominy of arrest and detention? While changing planes in Vancouver, she was probably going to drop $10 million into the economy, buying a Vancouver house and giving jobs to locals to maintain it.

As wisely remarked elsewhere (well, my _mutatis mutandis_ version:

it's all too outrageous for words. Extraditing this noxious baggage would be too kind. Ottawa should put the cleanup of this sinister situation at the top of its priority list.

Follow donald trump's example. The army. Tear Gas. Get her out. Blow her up.


----------



## sags

I am still wondering how violating *US sanctions on Iran* have anything to do with a Chinese citizen working for a Chinese company ?


----------



## Mukhang pera

On a more serious note.

One report cited by j4b says the fair damsel was “arrested on suspicion of violating trade sanctions against Iran”. I have never heard of any Canadian Criminal Code offence that allows arrest and prosecution based on “suspicion”. We prosecute for such things as attempts (eg. attempted murder) but not “suspicion of murder”.

Under Canada’s extradition treaties, an extradition partner has no right to ask Canada to arrest and extradite anyone without certain preconditions being met. The test is set out in the Extradition Act and has been developed in the case law. Reading the Act and not being up-to-date on the case law will not take one very far in trying to understand this stuff.

A fundamental underpinning of extradition proceedings is the “double criminality” principle. If Canada is to extradite to the U.S. (or to any other partner country), there must be an offence charged in the U.S. that corresponds to an offence under Canadian law. Let’s suppose, for a moment, that uttering the words “Screw Donald Trump” is a serious felony in the U.S. So we have a fugitive who hollers those words just before skipping over the border into Canada. The U.S. is outraged. They want him arrested here and extradited. But where is the matching Canadian offence? We have no laws against saying “Screw Donald Trump”. If we had a law against saying “Screw Justin Trudeau”, then there would be an arguable case that the gravamen of the offence is speaking against the country’s highest politician and that should be sufficient to meet the double criminality test.

Here, if the fugitive violated some U.S. trade sanctions against Iran, I am not sure just what corresponding Canadian offence exists. I do not say something cannot be rustled up. But this case will soon be before the BC Supreme Court sitting as an extradition court and I would imagine that, at this writing, the federal Crown is busy thumbing through the statutes and law books to come up with an argument on behalf of the requesting state that is saleable to the court.

While the extradition judge might order committal for extradition, that’s not the end of the matter. No extradition will occur without the federal Minister of Justice making an order for “surrender”. The fugitive will be permitted to make submissions to the Minister as to why surrender should be refused. The Minister must take into account, inter alia, principles of comity and Canada’s role on the international stage.

The Minister will not order surrender if the fugitive will face the death penalty or face cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of s. 12 of the Charter of Rights, again, as those rights have been defined and articulated in the case law. One way around this is for the Minister to “seek assurances” that a sanction we don’t like will not be imposed if we grant surrender.

Both committal and surrender orders may be appealed to the BC Court of Appeal. I see dozens of extradition cases every year, and this one is by no means grist for the extradition court mill. It is, perhaps, _sui generis_.

A useful discussion of some of the applicable principles, especially related to the “double criminality” principle may be found here (especially at para. 18 _et seq_.:

Hilts v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2013 BCCA 42

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/13/00/2013BCCA0042.htm


----------



## humble_pie

Mukhang pera said:


> And what did she do to any of us to deserve the ignominy of arrest and detention? While changing planes in Vancouver, she was probably going to drop $10 million into the economy, buying a Vancouver house and giving jobs to locals to maintain it.
> 
> As wisely remarked elsewhere (well, my _mutatis mutandis_ version:
> 
> it's all too outrageous for words. Extraditing this noxious baggage would be too kind. Ottawa should put the cleanup of this sinister situation at the top of its priority list.
> 
> Follow donald trump's example. The army. Tear Gas. Get her out. Blow her up.



i should have added Lockker Up


----------



## james4beach

This expert claims: Canada had no choice but to arrest Huawei executive at Washington's request
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/meng-huawei-extradition-1.4937146



> Critics of Canada's extradition law say it sets the bar too low and can lead to significant miscarriages of justice. They point to the Hassan Diab case — which saw an Ottawa academic spend more than three years in a French prison on suspicion of involvement in a terrorist attack. Because the case against him was so weak, he was never formally charged.
> 
> Diab ultimately was sent back to Canada and has been campaigning for a public inquiry into how his case was handled. French prosecutors are appealing Diab's release.


----------



## humble_pie

Mukhang pera said:


> On a more serious note...
> 
> ... I see dozens of extradition cases every year, and this one is by no means grist for the extradition court mill. It is, perhaps, _sui generis_




officially the US is muttering that it wants the lady, not because she sold chinese huawei components to Iran - that part's OK - but because some of those components had been manufactured in the US of A. That part's not OK.

still, i for one don't really believe that trafficking with iran is the issue. Me i think iran is just the coverup. The hidden issue is huawei's 5G capacity to intercept critical military & corporate communications

i've read that in the coming 5G network there will be a transmission cellule perched on top of every mailbox or affixed to every street light on every street in every municipal district. It's the speed & capacity of those radio bandwidths that will be enormously increased. A vancouverite will not be able to cough without beijing being alerted to the possibility of localized bird flu epidemic.

so far 2 out of the 5 eyes have said they're not permitting their countries to buy huawei. The other 3 eyes - canada, GB & NZ - are lollygagging around

a wilderness homesteader will likely stay off the radar though, there being neither mail boxes nor street lights on remote paradise islands


----------



## james4beach

*If* it is in fact an intelligence matter, then I don't approve of the government fabricating cover stories for why they arrested someone. Espionage and intelligence areas are already so opaque and lack public transparency. Governments should at least be honest and direct with what they are charging someone with.


----------



## nathan79

Mukhang pera said:


> And what did she do to any of us to deserve the ignominy of arrest and detention? While changing planes in Vancouver, she was probably going to drop $10 million into the economy, buying a Vancouver house and giving jobs to locals to maintain it.


https://theprovince.com/news/local-...omes/wcm/7b75abc7-4c26-480c-8b09-fa1411aa7e10

A suspected Chinese criminal with ties to Vancouver real estate... will wonders ever cease. :tongue:

Of course these people are a dime a dozen, but it's only because the US wants her that is suddenly a big deal. Normally we just turn a blind eye and let the money flow in.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> *If* it is in fact an intelligence matter, then I don't approve of the government fabricating cover stories for why they arrested someone. Espionage and intelligence areas are already so opaque and lack public transparency. Governments should at least be honest and direct with what they are charging someone with.



which gummint though? i had not noticed ottawa saying anything

what the US does or says is their story. Although surely you know that espionage/intelligence areas are never transparent, will never be transparent. Some will say should not be transparent.

in this case, if madame Meng would be any kind of mastermind spy, for the US to overtly accuse her of specific acts in this domain could mean revealing particular US counter-intelligence capabilities that are not known to the public

the big media will get the story out eventually, now is far too early imho

.


----------



## james4beach

For those who think this kind of arrest is OK... what if China arrests the CFO or CEO of, say, Intel or Google as they fly through China or Hong Kong? Would the Chinese govt be equally justified in that kind of arrest?


----------



## james4beach

james4beach said:


> For those who think this kind of arrest is OK... what if China arrests the CFO or CEO of, say, Intel or Google as they fly through China or Hong Kong? Would the Chinese govt be equally justified in that kind of arrest?


And answering my own question: in a CNBC interview, Jimmy Pethokoukis (former assistant US trade representative for China under President Obama) says every American firm doing business in China is now vulnerable, after this arrest. Basically, he says China could retaliate based on the same logic, and arrest executives of big US corporations.

I don't like that this "norm" has been established. This feels like a very bad thing for doing international business.


----------



## sags

A few years ago (2005) the US had a Canadian citizen extradited for selling marijuana seeds through the US postal service. He served time in an American prison.

His name is Marc Emery and he has been well known in our city for decades. He ran bookstores and was a longtime advocate for the legalization of marijuana.

I find it very disconcerting that the US can demand extradition of a Canadian citizen. If he is guilty of a crime he should be arrested and tried in a Canadian court.

There could be exceptions for very grievous crimes but Emery was sentenced to 5 years in prison, which is a sentence he never would have received in Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Emery


----------



## sags

Chinese law is so purposefully vague the government could arrest someone and easily justify it.

There are many options for the Chinese to retaliate if they choose to do so.

Of note......in October the Chinese imported 90% fewer soybeans from US farmers. They are now planning on developing their own soybean industry.

This was in retaliation for the US trade sanctions.

US foreign policy is being led by a President who Rex Tillerson basically described as totally incompetent. Canada should set our own course.


----------



## Longtimeago

Regarding the reasons for her arrest, speculation is just speculation. What is of interest to me is that while Hauwei the company and China the country are asking for an explanation of why she was arrested, Meng herself, through her lawyers, asked for and was granted a publication ban after a judge agreed to bar both police and prosecutors from releasing information about the arrest!!! Our government, through any department, has NOT released any information as to why she was arrested beyond saying it was based on a warrant issued by the USA. It is not a question of 'they decline to comment', it is a case of they CANNOT comment.


So some here are speculating as to why she was arrested and on one hand you have outrage and 'tell us why our innocent Heng was arrested' being demanded by Huawei and China's government and on the other hand you have HER saying, 'don't tell anyone anything.' The Canadian Justice Department CANNOT answer any questions with that publication ban in place. 

Those are facts, not speculation. If I wanted to speculate, I might speculate as to why she does not want information released.


----------



## sags

The details have been made public. As previously reported the charges are about circumventing US trade sanctions on Iran, which the Chinese don't recognize.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/07/tech/huawei-cfo-us-case/index.html


----------



## peterk

Not sure why the media is not refreshing Canadian's memories to the pertinent facts about Huawei. Namely the Chinese theft of Canadian technology in early 2000s through Huawei, and the subsequent demise of Nortel.

https://business.financialpost.com/technology/nortel-hacked-to-pieces

Followed by the use of stolen Canadian tech, now Chinese tech, being installed as the backbone of Canadian communication infrastructure by the big telecoms who awarded contracts to thief Huawei who, using Chinese government subsidies, undercut legitimate tech companies like Siemens, on the permission of former PM Harper who was infatuated with courting Chinese "investment" (infiltration, colonization - better words). His biggest failure as leader of the country.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chinese-firm-s-canadian-contracts-raise-security-fears-1.1157281


----------



## OhGreatGuru

As Peterk says, my own contacts in the high tech industry tell me it is well known that Huawei has been stealing intellectual property for years. This is not rumour or supposition: North American companies have examined Huawei products and found unlicensed proprietary software and hardware in them. But China doesn't abide by any western trade laws, so nothing can be done about it at the manufacturing end. 

There is reasonable suspicion, based on stories such as the one quoted by Peterk, that Huwaei makes a practice of building "backdoors" into their products for use by either/or
- Chinese intelligence;
- corporate spying; or
- simply selling to criminals.

The immediate grounds for the extradition request have to do with claims that Huwaei used a shell company to conceal the fact they were breaking national and international trade embargoes on Iran. This has yet to be proven in court, but US officials presented evidence to support their warrants. And the story about their ownership of the shell company has been in the business news. I think most people in High Tech would tell you "based on their past behaviour, it's likely true."


----------



## james4beach

Here's a Bloomberg column by an economics professor at George Mason University:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...t-s-exploitation-of-legal-system?srnd=premium



> *The West is abusing its legal power to punish people or institutions that do things it doesn’t like.*
> 
> I am concerned by Canada’s recent arrest and possible extradition of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou . . .
> 
> My more general worry is that the Western world is overusing the power of its systems of legal and economic cooperation. It is threatening to pull that access when people or institutions do things it doesn’t like, and more domestic laws are taking on a global reach. Political scientists Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman have called this “weaponized interdependence.” . . .
> 
> There are so many international laws, and so many are complex or poorly defined, and there are a couple hundred countries in the world. Arguably most multinational corporations are breaking some law in some manner or another, and thus their senior executives are liable to arrest. If I were a top U.S. tech company executive, I would be reluctant to travel to China right now, for fear of retaliation.


By the same reasoning, many American and Canadian corporations (and their executives) are guilty of many crimes in other jurisdictions too. It would be stupid to go around arresting everyone for every rule violation.

As a quick example, many large American & European banks have a history of committing financial crimes around the world -- rigging bond markets, helping conceal frauds, etc. Would it be sensible for Russia or China to arrest every banking executive who ever sets foot in their country?

How about employees of RBC, one of the banks alleged to have rigged global LIBOR markets? Some brave country may take it upon itself to seek justice for RBC's wrongdoings by arresting one of its executives.


----------



## kcowan

peterk said:


> Not sure why the media is not refreshing Canadian's memories to the pertinent facts about Huawei. Namely the Chinese theft of Canadian technology in early 2000s through Huawei, and the subsequent demise of Nortel.
> 
> https://business.financialpost.com/technology/nortel-hacked-to-pieces





OhGreatGuru said:


> As Peterk says, my own contacts in the high tech industry tell me it is well known that Huawei has been stealing intellectual property for years. This is not rumour or supposition: North American companies have examined Huawei products and found unlicensed proprietary software and hardware in them. But China doesn't abide by any western trade laws, so nothing can be done about it at the manufacturing end.
> 
> There is reasonable suspicion, based on stories such as the one quoted by Peterk, that Huwaei makes a practice of building "backdoors" into their products for use by either/or
> - Chinese intelligence;
> - corporate spying; or
> - simply selling to criminals.


Thanks guys. This explains why the US refuses to do business with those crooks. I remain mystified why our Canadian telcos have exposed us all to such espionage. At least this action serves to raise the profile of these crooks.


----------



## humble_pie

peterk said:


> Not sure why the media is not refreshing Canadian's memories to the pertinent facts about Huawei. Namely the Chinese theft of Canadian technology in early 2000s through Huawei, and the subsequent demise of Nortel.
> 
> https://business.financialpost.com/technology/nortel-hacked-to-pieces



me i find the finPost article to be thin & lightweight when it comes to pinning anything specific re norTel on huawei

what i do recall across the years of norTel's long-drawn-out demise is how it all started with no earnings plus more than a dozen senior officers all signing off on financial statements that showed product as sold & profits already earned. When in reality all that had happened is that norTel itself had financed questionable sales to highly challenged telcos in the US & elsewhere. Telcos that were in no position to ever be able to pay on their debts to norTel.

enough of those phony profit bookings & the norTel senior officers were all charged with fraud. Years passed while nortel collapsed into a penny stock. It's my recollection that 13 veeps escaped the SEC fraud charges in the end, while 3 senior officers were found guilty.

nothing about the above has anything to do with china's huawei.

once again, it seems far too simplistic to rush to judgment on this case. No one has adequate basic information. There is a small amount of basic public info - US charges against mme Meng are known for example - but these are not enough to constitute more than the proverbial tiny visible portion of a submerged iceberg.

.


----------



## sags

There are news reports that a Canadian business man who was a former diplomat has been arrested in China.

The government is remaining silent on details of the arrest. It was reported on Bloomberg and the WSJ.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> There are news reports that a Canadian business man who was a former diplomat has been arrested in China.
> 
> The government is remaining silent on details of the arrest. It was reported on Bloomberg and the WSJ.


They're going to arrest a lot more than 1 guy. Pretty much all big corporations are breaking some law somewhere. Banks, resource companies, industrials and multinationals... all violating laws.


----------



## gardner

Mukhang pera said:


> underpinning of extradition proceedings is the “double criminality” principle. [ ... ] Here, if the fugitive violated some U.S. trade sanctions against Iran, I am not sure just what corresponding Canadian offence exists.


This is roughly my thinking. While Canada has followed the UN with sanctions on Iran as regards nuclear and missile technology, I'm not aware that UN sanctions ever covered the trade in telecoms. Since in Canada sanctions like this emanate from the UN, I doubt there is a matching crime here. There is also the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act that spells out that American sanctions cannot operate in Canada -- otherwise 10,000s of Canadians who have visited Cuba could be rounded up.


----------



## james4beach

gardner said:


> This is roughly my thinking. While Canada has followed the UN with sanctions on Iran as regards nuclear and missile technology, I'm not aware that UN sanctions ever covered the trade in telecoms. Since in Canada sanctions like this emanate from the UN, I doubt there is a matching crime here. There is also the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act that spells out that American sanctions cannot operate in Canada -- otherwise 10,000s of Canadians who have visited Cuba could be rounded up.


Right. American laws don't operate in Canada. If they did, the US could start arresting every Canadian who's been to Cuba. The first article from the CBC that I read on this matter said:



> Under the terms of the extradition treaty, the U.S. could request Meng's arrest in Canada if she was wanted in connection with *conduct considered criminal in both Canada* and the United States, and if the offence carries a jail sentence of a year or more. Once that threshold is met, the treaty compels Canada to act.


So why is this even happening? The US claims that Meng violated US trade sanctions with Iran. This is not a crime in Canada. What's going on here? As I said before, if this really is how the law works, then the US had better arrest the executives of Canadian banks as well. TD bank has done business with both Iran and Cuba.

Besides our own TD, two other notable companies that do business with Iran are Airbus and Siemens. Let me help out the police right now by showing you where the criminals are located:
https://www.airbus.com/company/worldwide-presence/canada.html
https://goo.gl/maps/RvqTVY2YJCt

Canadian police: coming from the QEW, just take the Trafalgar Road exit, or Ford Drive, and follow it a bit to get to the headquarters where you will find the criminals violating sanctions with Iran. These guys are even easier to pick up than a passenger changing planes at YVR.

The US is making a fool of us. We've got to assert our sovereignty, or this will get a lot worse.


----------



## sags

^^^+10

If the Chinese company is putting spyware in their products, it is a simple matter to ban all their products in Canada.

Personally, I have doubts the company is doing anything more than Google or Facebook do. They track everything we do.


----------



## sags

Seriously........did Trump offer to intervene if China made some trade concessions ?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

sags said:


> Seriously........did Trump offer to intervene if China made some trade concessions ?


The only book Trump has ever read is "The Art of the Deal" - well actually, he just read the cover jacket and then had the cover framed. It has no chapter on Ethics & Honesty in Business and Trading.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> Seriously........did Trump offer to intervene if China made some trade concessions ?


The Americans are _using_ us. This is part of some negotiating tactic Trump is doing.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

james4beach said:


> ...The US claims that Meng violated US trade sanctions with Iran. This is not a crime in Canada. What's going on here? ...


The term "crime" is being used too loosely here. It is not just offences under the Criminal Code. The Extradition Act refers to indictable offences. Canada's Special Economic Measures Act https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-14.5/page-2.html#docCont under which Regulations restricting trade with Iran are passed, uses similar phrasing for penalties for contravening the Act or Regulations.

The USA is also hanging part of its case on the fraudulent misrepresentation of Huawei's relationship to a shell company. It's likely they are doing that because fraud is clearly a crime in Canada, regardless of what trade sanctions we may have with Iran.

In any case, we should probably all hope she skips bail, to get out of the economic and political storm.


----------



## robfordlives

james4beach said:


> The Americans are _using_ us. This is part of some negotiating tactic Trump is doing.


From the second this happened I was sure Trump was behind this and would use it as a bargaining chip in the negotiations. Looks like CAnada will be the loser on this battle too. Trudeau has been played like a chump by The Donald repeatedly


----------



## james4beach

robfordlives said:


> From the second this happened I was sure Trump was behind this and would use it as a bargaining chip in the negotiations. Looks like CAnada will be the loser on this battle too. Trudeau has been played like a chump by The Donald repeatedly


This is the first time I've been disappointed by Trudeau. You're right, he got played. This has business consequences for Canada.


----------



## humble_pie

could you guys - jas4 & gardner - please spell out what you suspect donald trump's master strategy is with this play

from the beginning it was clear that the US iran charges against ms Meng were _trumped up._ They were only a cover for the real reasons Meng was arrested.

but why was she arrested? what were those reasons?

now you two are saying that trump caused canada to arrest ms Meng as a high-ranking & important chinese business person who was conveniently located just over the US border? trump used Five Eyes rumour because the Eyes are a semi-clandestine intelligence grouping of five anglo nations that is little known to the public, thus making the Meng story difficult for journalists to sniff out? but a story that ottawa would likely buy?

now you are saying that the stage is set for trump to appear as _deus ex machina_ in Act Two? trump will intervene to appease china & stay charges against Meng, if only china will offer concessions in the US/china tariff wars? have i got that straight?

then you are saying that donald trump snookered the entire canadian military/intelligence apparatus, from the prime minister on down, into cooperating with his nasty trick?

the above interpretation certainly fits the details so far ...


----------



## gardner

humble_pie said:


> please spell out what you suspect donald trump's master strategy is with this play


I never claimed to have a clue what the underlying strategy is, or even if there is one. The Americans are constantly fishing for people they have some beef with, so her name could have just come up on some computer -- probably because the Vancouver-->Mexico leg of her flight overflies the US and they demand the passenger manifest. She could have just been unlucky.

The timing coincidence with the Americans wanting to exert leverage against China and the chance to get their hands on a valuable player seems hard to ignore, though. The fact that Trump has openly discussed his intent to use her as a bargaining chip *might* reveal intent behind the warrant, or just be Trump trying to latch onto an opportunity even though he didn't plan on it. In any event his mouthing off seems to introduce a politically motivated dimension to the arrest warrant, which is another case where extradition can be refused.


----------



## humble_pie

gardner said:


> I never claimed to have a clue what the underlying strategy is, or even if there is one.



you're right! so sorry!! it was robfordlives just upthread






> The timing coincidence with the Americans wanting to exert leverage against China and the chance to get their hands on a valuable player seems hard to ignore, though. The fact that Trump has openly discussed his intent to use her as a bargaining chip *might* reveal intent behind the warrant, or just be Trump trying to latch onto an opportunity even though he didn't plan on it. In any event his mouthing off seems to introduce a politically motivated dimension to the arrest warrant, which is another case where extradition can be refused.



yes. This thread has done a good job laying out a number of the specific points which lead to skepticism, no?

i don't see how canada can be blamed if the US specifically asked canada to arrest ms Meng, superficially on iran trade charges but more profoundly because of Five Eyes rumour mongering. 

the two countries - canada & the US - have an ancient & honourable history of cooperating together on north american security at the highest level. This goes way back long before lester b. pearson. Our grandparents, our parents, ourselves grew up knowing that the US is always our "best friend." Even when our countries' foreign policies diverged radically, for example over the war in Vietnam & canada's acceptance of US draft refugees, the 2 countries did not informationally cheat each other on a grand scale.

if donald trump was manipulating canada in the manner speculated upon above, this has to be an abrupt new low in canada-US relations.

.


----------



## sags

I read reports that Trump didn't know about the arrest, which took place while he dined with the Chinese Premier and they discussed trade issues.

John Bolton knew of the arrest and didn't tell Trump...........or so goes the story.

Could it be that Bolton was more instrumental in the arrest than Trump, and he has convinced Trump that he can use it to negotiate with China ?

By all accounts, Trump knows very little about trade, foreign affairs or much of anything else. I doubt that he masterminded any kind of plot himself.


----------



## kcowan

james4beach said:


> This is the first time I've been disappointed by Trudeau. You're right, he got played. This has business consequences for Canada.


Better late than never. I guess you have not been paying attention. Is the US that much of a biased news bubble?


----------



## sags

It is reported the Chinese are detaining 2 Canadians now.


----------



## dubmac

She's got a really nice house - I cycled past it on my way home from work, it's 2 blocks away! I think she has a few more in the city. There are always cameramen (and women) outside.


----------



## sags

I don't like that we detained her at the request of the US, and then Trump talks of using her detainment by us as a bargaining chip on trade with China.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> I don't like that we detained her at the request of the US, and then Trump talks of using her detainment by us as a bargaining chip on trade with China.


Ditto. It seems to me that the US is using us for a political issue, not an actual matter of justice. And while doing so it also hurts our own business prospects with China.


----------



## humble_pie

dubmac said:


> She's got a really nice house - I cycled past it on my way home from work, it's 2 blocks away! I think she has a few more in the city. There are always cameramen (and women) outside.



oh good, u are our Five Eyes, can u please keep on biking past

media are saying that the legal owner of 2 expensive vancouver RE residential properties is her husband, not ms Meng herself though

speaking of media, i've never seen any report on her resident status in this country. Does anyone know if Meng is a landed immigrant here or does she come & go as a tourist. & what about her husband, same Q.

more trivia: media have said meng's daughter is attending school in the US. No mention of any kids in school in canada.

challenging Q for the media: how exactly & through whose offices was the request to arrest Meng sent from washington to ottawa? who all are involved on the canadian side?


----------



## james4beach

I also still don't understand the logic of this arrest, when many companies are guilty of the same crime she's accused of. Why Huawei, when there are easier targets to arrest? It makes me think that the US is pursuing her for a reason other than violating Iran sanctions.

"Violating Iran trade sanctions" is what they _can_ get her for, but it's not really what they want her for.

We had some discussion of this at work with the American coworkers. People seem to generally agree, the US strategy is to have a ton of laws so that you can always find someone guilty of something (if you look hard enough). Then, once you find someone you want to get, you just grab & choose which laws you want to deploy. Have a gangster you can't nail on the right charges? Then you nail them on another law. Have a political enemy? Find which arbitrary law they are violating, and nail them on that.

It's dishonest and violates the purpose of laws. It makes the public cynical, because you're not really prosecuting people for what you say you're prosecuting them for. And if you distrust the government, you are always asking what the real motive is for prosecution.


----------



## james4beach

Here's an economist who makes the same argument as mine, in this CBC interview. He says that the arrest of a senior corporate executive for violating Iran sanctions is way outside of the norm. The economist says there is no precedent for this kind of arrest happening on foreign soil. Echoing what I've said, he points out that the US has never arrested countless other corporate executives, including those at HSBC while the bank violated the same sanctions.

The guest says: "The US is trying to impose sanctions that are completely in violation of the UN Security Council resolution... the whole notion of US extraterritorial sanctions is highly suspect... *Canada is being used and manipulated* while the US tries to show the world what happens if they dare cross them"






Canada doing U.S. bidding in Huawei case, economist says


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> Here's an economist who makes the same argument as mine ...




how is it "your" argument though? or the argument of any particular economist? thousands of observers all over the world doubted the iran charges from the getco. Several posted the same in this thread. MP also filed a legal pov questioning whether extradition would even be possible, since ms Meng has not violated any canadian laws or sanctions.

i for one believe this case is one for historians to unlock, decades hence when classified papers can finally be unlocked. We're being told an ice cube's worth of story melted down from the visible top 10% of an iceberg. All the rest is hidden.

i see no purpose in working oneself up into a frenzy at the prime minister. Canada has built an intricate military/intelligence relationship with the US that dates back a century or more. No one is expecting that justin trudeau would rampage out of bounds or refuse to respect protocols that the 2 countries agreed upon long ago. Only donald trump does that. 

we should not lose sight of the possibility that huawei 5Gen technology will indeed be spyware on a scale canada & the US have never had to deal with before. 

it's not the mom-&-pop-he-said-she-said Facebook gossip that beijing is looking for. What china wants is the advanced scientic knowledge in universities & research centres, the technology & engineering breakthroughs, the emerging medical discoveries & the military intelligence. Most north americans believe that those are worth protecting.


.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e88fde2b5b68

If Meng Wahnzou's lawyers are clever, they will take a transcript of Trump's statements to the extradition hearing and say "It is clear from President Trump's public statements that this (extradition) application is not about the rule of law; it is about holding the defendant hostage for trade concessions; and that her fate will not be determined by an independent judiciary, but by the Executive Branch of the United States."

Judge: "Has counsel for the Government of Canada anything to say?"

Counsel for the Government of Canada: "Your Honour, we would not impugn the motives of our colleagues in the US Justice Dept. for bringing this application, which we believe was brought in good faith. But we must agree that President Trump's statements have fatally undermined their case. We would consequently support a decision to dismiss this application."


----------



## james4beach

humble_pie said:


> i for one believe this case is one for historians to unlock, decades hence when classified papers can finally be unlocked. We're being told an ice cube's worth of story melted down from the visible top 10% of an iceberg. All the rest is hidden.
> 
> i see no purpose in working oneself up into a frenzy at the prime minister. Canada has built an intricate military/intelligence relationship with the US that dates back a century or more.


You seem to be saying that her arrest is some intelligence-related matter. I've seen similar suggestions in media coverage, bringing up Huawei technology security concerns in the same story as this arrest.

*But the US has charged her for violating Iran sanctions*. They are not saying it has anything to do with equipment security concerns. In both US and Canada, we expect that charges that a government brings against a person are accurate, and don't have some kind of ulterior motive or hidden wink-wink purpose.

She's charged with violating Iran sanctions, an entirely American-centric law that carries no weight anywhere else. It's not a crime in Canada and the charges are very out of the ordinary, since many other companies have violated the same law.

Do the Americans really want her for some other purpose (as humble_pie is suggesting)? Perhaps, but if so, both American and Canadian govts are lying to their citizens, and corrupting the justice process. This would show that neither country respects the rule of law, but corrupts the rule of law whenever they see fit, with no transparency or accountability to the people. It's wrong.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> Do the Americans really want her for some other purpose (as humble_pie is suggesting)? Perhaps, but if so, both American and Canadian govts are lying to their citizens, and corrupting the justice process. This would show that neither country respects the rule of law, but corrupts the rule of law whenever they see fit, with no transparency or accountability to the people. It's wrong.



spy stories are always spooky

thank you for observing that i'm only suggesting

shall we take bets? my money says this story will fade back into the woodwork without dramatic new developments. We will not know anything definitive until after the historians are allowed to open the files, an event that might not occur until the next century

we had a canadian spy at the canadian post where i worked in the US. He was masquerading as a commercial officer for industry & trade canada. Maybe there were deeper spies they didn't tell me about. Who knows, maybe Larry from the mail room was da real mole .each:





> Well of course they're burying the story. Why else would the meat of the action occur right before/during Christmas? The governments are up to something.



there you go. Xmas holiday smoke & mirrors is an original angle, thankx. Do u think the culprit is Donner or Blitzen? Rudolph would be too obvious


----------



## james4beach

The big question is: did she violate Canadian law? She can only be extradited if she has. Here's some analysis from Robert Currie, a professor of international criminal law at Dalhousie University's Schulich School of Law:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...on-case-canadas-legal-system-better-stand-up/



> 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*.


It's that last part that concerns me. Basically, this kind of extradition to the US has not ever happened before. In this case, it looks very possible that Meng is wanted in the US for reasons of *foreign policy* ... not justice. That would be a corruption of justice, and would show that US & Canada are nations that don't respect the rule of law.



humble_pie said:


> shall we take bets? my money says this story will fade back into the woodwork without dramatic new developments. We will not know anything definitive until after the historians are allowed to open the files, an event that might not occur until the next century


Well of course they're burying the story. Why else would the meat of the action occur right before/during Christmas? The governments are up to something. Personally I think it's this kind of shady dealing that erodes public confidence in government officials.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> The big question is: did she violate Canadian law?



isn't the big question Why are u so worked up abouddit though


----------



## james4beach

humble_pie said:


> isn't the big question Why are u so worked up abouddit though


It's not just me humble. This matter is getting huge attention from around the world for the reasons we've been discussing.

I don't like seeing justice systems corrupted for political purposes, or being used as tools in intelligence matters. This is what happens in third world countries and dictatorships. It offends me as a citizen who believes in democratic values and who demands honesty and transparency from people who I elect. It also offends my business sense, because the suspicious and non-transparent actions of US & Canada are hurting Canadian businesses, which ultimately hurts our nation's long term economic interests.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> n both US and Canada, we expect that charges that a government brings against a person are accurate, and don't have some kind of ulterior motive or hidden wink-wink purpose.



but jas4 you know as well as i do that in both countries, they normally charge a mafia with tax evasion and/or fraud

it's hard & often long-drawn-out to build a case against parties who are undermining national safety & security. So instead of leaving em free for another 10 years to subvert the state while they try to piece together enough evidence, they charge em with something simple like tax fraud

.


----------



## Mukhang pera

james4beach said:


> We had some discussion of this at work with the American coworkers. People seem to generally agree, the US strategy is to have a ton of laws so that you can always find someone guilty of something (if you look hard enough). Then, once you find someone you want to get, you just grab & choose which laws you want to deploy. Have a gangster you can't nail on the right charges? Then you nail them on another law. Have a political enemy? Find which arbitrary law they are violating, and nail them on that.


That might work out just ducky-poo within US borders, but “just grab & choose which laws you want to deploy” won’t work for the US in seeking extradition from a partner state. The crime must be an “extraditable offence” under the Extradition Act and meet the “double criminality” test to which I have already referred.

I agree with (and have already said) just about all the learned Prof. Robert J. Currie (quoted by j4b) has said. The only point he makes I am not sure I agree with is captured in this paragraph of the article cited:

_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._

It seems to me that the latter point is neatly covered by s. 5 of the Extradition Act.

Section 5 was addressed in United States v. Wong, 2015 BCSC 2276. For the full judgment see:

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/15/22/2015BCSC2276.htm

At para. 45 the court said:

[_45] Section 5 of the Act is, of course, a complete answer to this argument in addressing the jurisdiction of the requesting state to prosecute the offence. That section expressly provides that it is not necessary that the conduct of the person sought occurred in the jurisdiction of the requesting state:
5. A person may be extradited
(a) whether or not the conduct on which the extradition partner bases its request occurred in the territory over which it has jurisdiction; and
(b) whether or not Canada could exercise jurisdiction in similar circumstances.
_

The judgment carries on (following para. 45) with an interesting discussion of some of the relevant cases.

So I find the territorial aspect less alarming than does Prof. Currie. But then, he’s a professor (no doubt tenure track) at a prestigious law school and I am, at this stage of my legal career, but a lowly part-time legal writer/researcher/editor, a mere paramecium in the great pool of legal talent.


----------



## humble_pie

a canadian wall of silence has descended over the Meng Wanzhou story in the past 24 hours, suggesting at least to me that ottawa has managed to temporarily gag coverage for national security reasons.

more & more it's looking like a spy story & one at very high levels, at that.

defence minister harjit sajjan appeared with chrystia freeland at one press conference covering the meng case. Sajjan would not have appeared in an iran trade sanction case.

US senator marco rubio (R-florida) says outright that the Meng case is a national security issue over 5Gen internet communications.

next question goes: were michael kovrig & michael spavor secretly gathering intelligence for ottawa? if so, had ottawa realized that the chinese knew their identity & occupation all along? ms freeland certainly looked very grave on the circumstances of the 2 canadians who are being detained in china.

if the meng case is truly a spy story, every effort will be made to fade it back into the woodwork. As with every country on earth, a part of ottawa's international/global affairs work is classified information that should not be revealed for security reasons. Although inquisitive journos will always try!


.


----------



## james4beach

Surprise surprise, it seems China *also* has arbitrary laws that don't follow global norms: Canadian Robert Schellenberg Sentenced To Death In China In Drug-Smuggling Case

Canada/US has arbitrary laws.... China has arbitrary laws.

In my view, officials & police have put Canadians in danger (in China) by blindly following the dumb American request to nab the Chinese executive. It's not Canada's job to enforce dumb American foreign trade sanctions that are politically motivated, and applied unfairly. And if we are in the business of enforcing anti-Iran/whatever sanctions, then it's time for Canadian police to start rounding up the hundreds of other executives in this country who work for domestic & multinational firms which are violating US trade sanctions. While they're at it, Canadian police can also start arresting all tourists who've been to Cuba, and nail the executives at Sunwing, Westjet, etc who dare do business with Cuba.

But that would be dumb, right?


----------



## OhGreatGuru

humble_pie said:


> ... a canadian wall of silence has descended over the Meng Wanzhou story in the past 24 hours, suggesting at least to me that ottawa has managed to temporarily gag coverage for national security reasons...


I'm not quite so cynical about the ability of "Ottawa" to muzzle our media. Perhaps our politicians have decided they don't want to copy POTUS in commenting on a case that is coming before a judge: and the media's lawyers have told them they better tone it down too, or they will be slapped with charges for making prejudicial comments on a case coming before the courts. 

Or, as per my earlier comment, maybe "Ottawa" has decided their best plan is to let Trump undermine the case, thus letting us wash our hands of it without blowback from US Justice Dept.


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> Surprise surprise, it seems China *also* has arbitrary laws that don't follow global norms: Canadian Robert Schellenberg Sentenced To Death In China In Drug-Smuggling Case
> 
> Canada/US has arbitrary laws.... China has arbitrary laws.
> 
> In my view, officials & police have put Canadians in danger (in China) by blindly following the dumb American request to nab the Chinese executive. It's not Canada's job to enforce dumb American foreign trade sanctions that are politically motivated, and applied unfairly. And if we are in the business of enforcing anti-Iran/whatever sanctions, then it's time for Canadian police to start rounding up the hundreds of other executives in this country who work for domestic & multinational firms which are violating US trade sanctions. While they're at it, Canadian police can also start arresting all tourists who've been to Cuba, and nail the executives at Sunwing, Westjet, etc who dare do business with Cuba.
> 
> But that would be dumb, right?


except we have an extradition treaty with the united states that requires us to arrest on their request if it meets the criteria of being a violation of both countries laws ... it did in the case of accusations of fraud regardless of the nature of the fraud so canada wasn't enforcing usa sanctions, canada was arresting a fugitive charged with fraud

the usa and canada would be in pickle sharing a 3000 mile border and not having an ironclad extradition treaty, criminals would be border hopping like mad

save your anger for the chinese who apparently are going to murder this guy merely because they are angry with canada for enforcing the rule of law


----------



## james4beach

I _am_ angry at the Chinese for trying to murder this guy. But I also think Canada has been pulled into this, and should have been more careful about going along with what is clearly a totally selective application of this US law. Why this particular Huawei executive? Why not executives of TD Bank, or Siemens, or countless other business people who are in Canada and violating US laws? Any one of them can be targeted by the US for the same reasons.

Do you think the RCMP would drive to Richmond Hill or wherever the CFO of TD lives, arrest him, and extradite him to the US to face many possible years in jail? No way, because he's not a criminal. And yet the Huawei executive is being called a criminal under the same laws.

Why is it that TD Bank gets to pay a tiny $500,000 cash settlement for their crimes of doing business with Iran & Cuba, but the US captures and detains the Huawei executive for the same violation? This is not rule of law ... this is a corrupt US legal system, where ulterior motives (not named) are the real driver, and the state abuses the "law" as a tool to get what it wants.

It makes Canada look stupid, because there is no rule of law here. We're just a henchman for the US while they abuse the law. China can see the woefully inconsistent application of this particular "law" and this indicates that the US is specifically going after Huawei -- that's corruption.


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> I _am_ angry at the Chinese for trying to murder this guy. But I also think Canada has been pulled into this, and should have been more careful about going along with what is clearly a totally selective application of this US law. Why this particular Huawei executive? Why not executives of TD Bank, or Siemens, or countless other business people who are in Canada and violating US laws? Any one of them can be targeted by the US for the same reasons.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if the US tried the same trick on TD Bank executives for violation of trade sanctions, Canada wouldn't entertain the extradition. Or do you think the RCMP would drive to Richmond Hill or wherever the CFO lives, arrest him, and extradite him to the US to face many possible years in jail?
> 
> Why is it that TD Bank gets to pay a tiny $500,000 cash settlement for their crimes of doing business with Iran & Cuba, but the US captures and detains the Huawei executive for the same violation? This is not rule of law ... this is a corrupt US legal system.


canada would likely comply with any lawful request by the usa and the usa in turn would comply with canada

the extradition treaty has been strongly enforced by both countries for many decades, it is an absolute necessity or all hell would break loose

she was arrested for fraud, the fraud was in connection with sanctions but the crime itself was fraud

i am fairly certain that if there was any wiggle room canada would have taken it because they knew damn well exactly what the result would be, she is a big fish and our government knew what the result would be (roughly anyway)

each country must obey the rules of the treaty

if a TD bank was the subject of a lawful arrest warrant i am pretty sure canada would comply just as the united states would comply with a canadian request to arrest a jp morgan executive if he committed fraud in canada

i don't think the usa/canada extradition treaty has been politicized to any great degree which is exactly what you are suggesting james

perhaps cmf's in-house attorney will chime in here, i stand to be corrected


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Schellenberg was twice convicted of drug trafficking in Canada and served jail time.
He wanted to be a big wheel but was caught in China with a group attempting to smuggle meth to Australia. 
China has a death penalty for drug smugglers.
He had appealed his 15yr sentence. The Chinese agreed the sentence was wrong - not harsh enough. He rolled the dice and lost.
Canada had better not cut a deal and bring this scum back to Canada. You play in China, you pay in China.


----------



## Mukhang pera

fatcat said:


> canada would likely comply with any lawful request by the usa and the usa in turn would comply with canada
> 
> the extradition treaty has been strongly enforced by both countries for many decades, it is an absolute necessity or all hell would break loose
> 
> she was arrested for fraud, the fraud was in connection with sanctions but the crime itself was fraud
> 
> i am fairly certain that if there was any wiggle room canada would have taken it because they knew damn well exactly what the result would be, she is a big fish and our government knew what the result would be (roughly anyway)
> 
> each country must obey the rules of the treaty
> 
> if a TD bank was the subject of a lawful arrest warrant i am pretty sure canada would comply just as the united states would comply with a canadian request to arrest a jp morgan executive if he committed fraud in canada
> 
> i don't think the usa/canada extradition treaty has been politicized to any great degree which is exactly what you are suggesting james
> 
> perhaps cmf's in-house attorney will chime in here, i stand to be corrected


Fatcat, not sure if I am the attorney to whom you refer, but I would endorse your comments. Not much to find fault with in your post.


----------



## fatcat

Mukhang pera said:


> Fatcat, not sure if I am the attorney to whom you refer, but I would endorse your comments. Not much to find fault with in your post.


yes, thank you, please bill as follows: james4beach, south of the 49th, somewhere in cascadia, zipcode unknown


----------



## humble_pie

Mukhang pera said:


> Fatcat, not sure if I am the attorney to whom you refer, but I would endorse your comments. Not much to find fault with in your post.



MP would you happen to know whether ottawa or BC courts will have the final say on ms Meng's possible extradition?

someone upthread was adamant that the federal justice minister alone will decide. That seems reasonable. Extradition is a serious matter, with parties perpetrating acts that can affect the entire nation, not just a local region

on the other hand, if the final decision to extradite or not will be made by the federal justice minister, why is canada spending so much time pussyfooting around with a lower court in british columbia? waiting for their decision etc?

only MP would know about something like this

fwiw my old boss, now retired from global affairs so he can talk a bit more than before, says that canada must release ms Meng. No choice in that case at all, he says. He's been saying that since she was arrested in early december.

.


----------



## james4beach

You folks upthread are saying she is charged with fraud. That's only partially true; she's charged with not obeying trade sanctions with Iran, and the US alleges that she engaged in a fraud to bypass the sanctions (or conceal trade with Iran).

The "crime" is violating US sanctions on Iran. By that measure, other companies and executives guilty of the crime (including violating trade sanctions with Cuba) include: TD Bank, Sunwing, Westjet, Transat, Air Canada, Siemens

If Canada obeys the rule of law, why are all these monsters at the above companies walking free? Why does one executive of a company that the US happens to have a very public beef with get the charges, whereas countless other criminal monsters walk free?


----------



## sags

Allow her to leave the country and return to China. Tell the Americans the customs agent at the airport was drowsy from smoking pot and let her through.


----------



## Beaver101

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Schellenberg was twice convicted of drug trafficking in Canada and served jail time.
> He wanted to be a big wheel but was caught in China with a group attempting to smuggle meth to Australia.
> China has a death penalty for drug smugglers.
> He had appealed his 15yr sentence. The Chinese agreed the sentence was wrong - not harsh enough. He rolled the dice and lost.
> Canada had better not cut a deal and bring this scum back to Canada. *You play in China, you pay in China.*


 ... +1


----------



## Beaver101

As a famous carrot top twits "what collusion"?


----------



## Mukhang pera

humble_pie said:


> MP would you happen to know whether ottawa or BC courts will have the final say on ms Meng's possible extradition?
> 
> someone upthread was adamant that the federal justice minister alone will decide. That seems reasonable. Extradition is a serious matter, with parties perpetrating acts that can affect the entire nation, not just a local region
> 
> on the other hand, if the final decision to extradite or not will be made by the federal justice minister, why is canada spending so much time pussyfooting around with a lower court in british columbia? waiting for their decision etc?
> 
> only MP would know about something like this
> 
> fwiw my old boss, now retired from global affairs so he can talk a bit more than before, says that canada must release ms Meng. No choice in that case at all, he says. He's been saying that since she was arrested in early december.
> 
> .


HP, the way it works is that the first step is a request for extradition is made to Canada by the "requesting state". The matter is first considered in the office of the federal Minister of Justice. A fairly summary process to ensure that the requesting state is a treaty partner, etc. The case law says the minister need not personally be involved. Here's a case on point:

*EXTRADITION* — Committal — Authority to proceed • Junior government lawyer acting as minister's delegate in issuing Authority to Proceed under Extradition Act, s. 15 — Fugitive raising preliminary objection that the lawyer was too far down the ministerial hierarchy to validly perform the s. 15 function — Court dismissing objection.

United States of America v. Helfrich S.C., Groberman J., 2004 BCSC 297, Vancouver 22660, February 12, 2004 (oral), 16pp.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/04/02/2004BCSC0297.htm

The ATP is referred to the Attorney General of the province where the fugitive is believed to be, and the instruction goes to local police to effect the arrest. The fugitive may apply for bail (a.k.a. "judicial interim release"). The next step will be an extradition hearing in the superior court of the province. In BC, that is the BC Supreme Court; in Alberta the Court of Queen's Bench, etc.

If you follow the link to the case I cited, you will see the appearances by counsel. Note that the requesting state is not entitled to send its lawyers to appear. Hence you see the lines

"Counsel for Attorney General appearing on behalf of Requesting State"
and
"Counsel for Alleged Fugitive"

So, in the Meng's case, she will appear in BC Supreme Court, sitting as extradition court, at 800 Smithe St. in Vancouver. A Supreme Court judge will decide whether the AG's lawyer(s) appearing for the US have satisfied the requirements under the Extradition Act for “committal”. If the case for committal fails, the fugitive is released. If the committal order is granted, the fugitive is taken into custody (if not already in custody) to await the decision of the federal Minister of Justice on the issue of “surrender”. Without a surrender order, the fugitive will be released.

The surrender jurisdiction is somewhat circumscribed. The Minister cannot act on caprice. The Minister’s decision is subject to judicial review by the Court of Appeal of the province where committal was ordered. Here’s a case giving a good idea of how it all works:

*EXTRADITION* — Surrender — Judicial review • United States seeking extradition of fugitive on charges of fraud — Minister of Justice ordering surrender — Successor minister affirming surrender — Court dismissing application for judicial review of that decision.

The United States sought the extradition of the fugitive for trial on fraud offences. The US alleged that the fugitive sought investments from individuals to participate in non-existent joint ventures with M. Co. The US alleged he promised investors significant returns in a short period of time. He provided fraudulent bank documentation indicating that M. Co. was in possession of significant funds, when M. Co. did not have such funds. After funds were received from investors and placed in an escrow account, they were distributed to another company and then distributed to the fugitive and others involved in the fraudulent scheme. At the committal hearing, the US filed a record of the case ["ROC"] under ss. 32 and 33 of the Extradition Act. The ROC was certified by a prosecutor in the US Department of Justice, as required by s. 33(3) of the Act. At the hearing, the fugitive sought to adduce evidence to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the US sought extradition. The court dismissed that application and ordered committal. In 2015 the Minister of Justice ordered surrender of the fugitive to the US. The present Minister of Justice affirmed the surrender order in April 2017. The fugitive applied for judicial review of that decision.
*HELD*, application dismissed. 
The minister’s decision to surrender, including her assessment of the Charter rights of the person sought, is accorded significant deference on review and interference is limited to "exceptional cases of real substance." The standard of review is reasonableness. In this case, the decision was entitled to deference and was not unreasonable. The extradition process is neither equipped nor intended to determine the guilt or innocence of the person sought. Instead, the process ascertains whether surrender is justified in the particular case. It is not the minister’s role to question the sufficiency of the evidence for committal, nor is it the minister’s function to evaluate defence evidence. Generally, neither the minister nor the extradition judge should weigh evidence or assess credibility. As the minister said, it is not part of her function to assess what might support a defence at trial. It would be for the trier of fact to assess whether the fugitive had the knowledge required to convict him of the offences charged under American law. The minister correctly observed it was not for her to resolve credibility issues which could only be assessed by a judge or jury after hearing all the witnesses, including their testimony on cross-examination. Thus, the minister properly declined to assess the defence evidence.

United States of America v. Finn C.A., Saunders, MacKenzie & Hunter JJ.A., 2017 BCCA 443, Vancouver CA42499, December 08, 2017 (oral), 13pp.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/17/04/2017BCCA0443cor1.htm


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> You folks upthread are saying she is charged with fraud. That's only partially true; she's charged with not obeying trade sanctions with Iran, and the US alleges that she engaged in a fraud to bypass the sanctions (or conceal trade with Iran).
> 
> The "crime" is violating US sanctions on Iran. By that measure, other companies and executives guilty of the crime (including violating trade sanctions with Cuba) include: TD Bank, Sunwing, Westjet, Transat, Air Canada, Siemens
> 
> If Canada obeys the rule of law, why are all these monsters at the above companies walking free? Why does one executive of a company that the US happens to have a very public beef with get the charges, whereas countless other criminal monsters walk free?


the charge of fraud is all that is necessary to compel the arrest, the judge will decide whether of not she is extraditable

as to the issue of crooked executives, we don't have enough judges or courts to take up that issue


----------



## Mukhang pera

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Schellenberg was twice convicted of drug trafficking in Canada and served jail time.
> He wanted to be a big wheel but was caught in China with a group attempting to smuggle meth to Australia.
> China has a death penalty for drug smugglers.
> He had appealed his 15yr sentence. The Chinese agreed the sentence was wrong - not harsh enough. He rolled the dice and lost.
> Canada had better not cut a deal and bring this scum back to Canada. You play in China, you pay in China.


I would say if China routinely subjects its own drug traffickers/smugglers to the same harsh penalty, then this guy should pay the same price. If this is the first death penalty meted out in like circumstances in the last 20 years, then it looks a bit like retribution in a fit of pique related to the Meng case.

The fact that the Court of Appeal increased the penalty on appeal by the accused is unobjectionable in itself under Canadian law. In our law, the object of sentencing is to apply well-known principles to arrive at a "fit" sentence. So, if an accused appeals sentence, the task of the appeal court is to determine whether the sentence imposed below was fit. Even in Canada, if it's the accused who is the appellant and not the Crown (appealing what it sees as a too lenient sentence), then the matter is at large. The appeal court is obliged to ensure that the sentence is a fitting sentence. For an accused appellant, there is no guarantee that the sentence will be reduced, or, at worst, remain the same. It can be increased. That said, I am having a hard time recalling any case in BC in the last 40 years where our Court of Appeal has increased a sentence on an appeal by the accused. The law reports are replete with cases where the CA has made comments to an accused along the lines of “You’ve got a lot of nerve appealing a light sentence; now get out of here before we impose the death penalty”, but I cannot recall the court actually ordering a heavier sentence. I do seem to recall a few cases where the accused appealed, asking for a reduction in sentence, and the court allowed a Crown cross-appeal, seeking an increase. But that’s a different matter than the court increasing the sentence _ex mero motu_ (on its own motion). 

Cases where both the accused and the Crown appeal sentence are rare. Crown appeals are almost as rare. The vast majority of sentence appeals are brought by the accused. If appeal courts increased sentences on appeals by accused on any regular basis, I dare say it would have a chilling effect and we would see few sentence appeals. They are fairly common at present.


----------



## fatcat

another example of chinese perfidy

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/us/politics/china-exit-ban.html

and the chinese have just issued a retaliatory travel ban for chinese in canada

this is a country we are going to have to seriously re-evaluate our relationship with and proceed much more cautiously with over the next decade

we refuse to countenance the behaviour of venezuela (rightly), how is china any different ?


----------



## Mukhang pera

fatcat said:


> yes, thank you, please bill as follows: james4beach, south of the 49th, somewhere in cascadia, zipcode unknown


 IN ACCOUNT WITH MUKHANG PERA​ Barrister and Solicitor​james4beach
south of the 49th
somewhere in cascadia

TO: Professional services rendered including: taking instructions; to legal research pertaining to extradition; to preparation of memorandum of law; to reading endless posts on cmf to ensure no stone was left unturned (including a goodly number of my own "diatribes"); to sitting on the can for 20 minutes thinking about your issues; to all telephone attendances and necessary correspondence, to all services rendered,

MY FEE: $7,500.00

E. & O.E.


----------



## fatcat

Mukhang pera said:


> IN ACCOUNT WITH MUKHANG PERA​Barrister and Solicitor​james4beach
> south of the 49th
> somewhere in cascadia
> 
> TO: Taking instructions; to legal research pertaining to extradition; to preparation of memorandum of law; to reading endless posts on cmf to ensure no stone was left unturned (including a goodly number of my own "diatribes"); to sitting on the can for 20 minutes thinking about your issues; to all telephone attendances and necessary correspondence,
> 
> MY FEE: $7,500.00
> 
> E. & O.E.


is that all ? sheesh i thought it was going to be really costly, james will take care of this out of petty cash ... james, do you need a stamp, i have some disney 39 centers that i could send you as my contribution toward the bill ? let me know ...:tongue:

ps. i freaking KNEW that lawyers billed while sitting on the can ... I KNEW IT ! ... it's worth the price of the bill to find that out, and of course james is paying so that makes it even more precious knowledge


----------



## Mukhang pera

fatcat said:


> is that all ? sheesh i thought it was going to be really costly, james will take care of this out of petty cash ... james, do you need a stamp, i have some disney 39 centers that i could send you as my contribution toward the bill ? let me know ...:tongue:
> 
> ps. i freaking KNEW that lawyers billed while sitting on the can ... I KNEW IT ! ... it's worth the price of the bill to find that out, and of course james is paying so that makes it even more precious knowledge


You are right! It was intended to be really costly. That's why I put "E. & O.E." at the foot - Errors and Omissions Excepted - that allows me to go back and correct an error. Please substitute the figure of $750,000 for $7,500. That time on the can does not come cheap!


----------



## fatcat

Mukhang pera said:


> You are right! It was intended to be really costly. That's why I put "E. & O.E." at the foot - Errors and Omissions Excepted - that allows me to go back and correct an error. Please substitute the figure of $750,000 for $7,500. That time on the can does not come cheap!


fffing e and o.e !!! .... 

oh lord ... cmf, i am begging you, insert any and all lawyer jokes here, please, any lawyer joke you can think of no matter how bad

i'll begin with johnny carson's attorneys: dewey, cheatem and howe, barristers and solicitors :excitement::tongue:


----------



## james4beach

fatcat & Mukhang pera: have you ever vacationed in Cuba?


----------



## OhGreatGuru

james4beach said:


> You folks upthread are saying she is charged with fraud. That's only partially true; she's charged with not obeying trade sanctions with Iran, and the US alleges that she engaged in a fraud to bypass the sanctions (or conceal trade with Iran).
> 
> The "crime" is violating US sanctions on Iran. By that measure, other companies and executives guilty of the crime (including violating trade sanctions with Cuba) include: TD Bank, Sunwing, Westjet, Transat, Air Canada, Siemens....


The United States has a number of issues with Huawei. (And so several other Western countries) My suspicion is they picked the fraud charge for the extradition application, because it was the only one that might clearly fit within the scope of the extradition treaty for an executive of the company. Don't be surprised if the defendant's lawyers argue that "Your Honour, this trumped up charge of fraud is simply a cover for getting our client into US jurisdiction, so that they can charge her with offences that are not extraditable under the treaty. It is a cover for their real intentions."


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> fatcat & Mukhang pera: have you ever vacationed in Cuba?


no, why, are there a lot of lawyers in cuba ?



> The United States has a number of issues with Huawei. (And so several other Western countries) My suspicion is they picked the fraud charge for the extradition application, because it was the only one that might clearly fit within the scope of the extradition treaty for an executive of the company. Don't be surprised if the defendant's lawyers argue that "Your Honour, this trumped up charge of fraud is simply a cover for getting our client into US jurisdiction, so that they can charge her with offences that are not extraditable under the treaty. It is a cover for their real intentions."


 good point, she will get her day in court and james may yet be appeased


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Allow her to leave the country and return to China. Tell the Americans the customs agent at the airport was drowsy from smoking pot and let her through.


At this point, the only thing worse than having bent to American pressure to nab her would be to yield to Chinese pressure to let her go without regard to process.


----------



## Mukhang pera

fatcat said:


> fffing e and o.e !!! ....
> 
> oh lord ... cmf, i am begging you, insert any and all lawyer jokes here, please, any lawyer joke you can think of no matter how bad
> 
> i'll begin with johnny carson's attorneys: dewey, cheatem and howe, barristers and solicitors :excitement::tongue:


I have not vacationed in Cuba, although I am contemplating doing so in the next year or so.

Some of the law firms where I have worked include:

Dewey, Screwem and Howe
Readit and Weep
Grabbit and Run

Lawyer jokes, well, maybe just one, now that you ask:

The madam opened the brothel door in Glasgow and saw a dignified,
well-dressed, good-looking man in his late forties.

"May I help you sir?" she asked.

"I want to see Valerie," the man replied.

"Sir, Valerie is our most expensive lady. Perhaps you would prefer
someone else?" said the madam.

"No, I must see Valerie," he replied.

Valerie appeared and announced to the man she charged £5,000 a visit.
Without hesitation, he pulled out five thousand pounds and gave it to
Valerie, and they went upstairs. After an hour, the man calmly left.

Next night the man appeared again, once more demanding to see Valerie.

Valerie said that never before had anyone come back the next night; she was so expensive. There were no discounts; the price was still £5,000.

At once the man gave Valerie the money and they went upstairs. After an hour he left.

The following night the man was there yet again. Everyone was
astounded, but he paid Valerie and they again went upstairs.

After their session, Valerie said, "No one has ever been with me three
nights in a row. Where are you from?"

The man replied, " Edinburgh ."

"Really," she said. "I have family in Edinburgh ."

"I know." he said. "Your sister died, and I'm her solicitor. I was
instructed to deliver your £15,000 inheritance in person."

The moral of the story:
Three things in life are certain:

1. Death.

2. Taxes.

3. And being screwed by a lawyer.


----------



## humble_pie

andrewf said:


> At this point, the only thing worse than having bent to American pressure to nab her would be to yield to Chinese pressure to let her go without regard to process.



in a hyper complicated story where the greater part of the information is still classified so we don't know anything, the above is a wise opinion

it's possible ottawa initially thought they could squeak through without ruffling too many feathers. They could comply with extradition treaty with the US by gently detaining ms Meng. They could soothe china (they thought) by gently trying & then gently releasing the huawei veep after gentle due process. Bring on the federal minister of justice if necessary to gently speed her on her way, far out of washington's reach.

in this scenario, canada could almost be seen to be protecting ms Meng, by keeping her cloistered in vancouver. She's safe from american justice in her luxurious house arrest (i haven't figured out whether the residence is located in shaughessy or in point grey) (cmffer dubmac tells us he bicycles past the sumptuous dwelling from time to time though)

ms Meng's hearing is set for february, so in this scenario she should be safely back in china by the end of next month at the latest, with nary an american law officer even on the horizon.

oops. Somehow ottawa neglected to dial in china. The chinese are steaming mad. What are we going to do now.

.


----------



## james4beach

My view on this is that the US demanded this arrest for enforcement of their global economic/political agenda. It's not rule of law; it's a _corruption_ of the law, being used for political purposes. Here's another instance of it which is starting to play out now:
https://www.dw.com/en/us-ambassador...german-firms-over-russian-pipeline/a-47062540

The US Ambassador is threatening German oil & gas companies due to their involvement in a project that the USA does not approve of. The ambassador has sent letters to the companies threatening sanctions if they don't fall into line with American policies and wishes. If those German oil & gas CEOs aren't careful, they could also end up getting arrested for (something like) "fraud" or "conspiracy" to violate sanctions.

Which, as honoured barrister Mukhang pera has assured us, are perfectly valid charges... we must stop those awful people committing fraud and conspiracy. How dare they oppose America's agenda of the day. Oops, I mean, how dare they commit fraud -- monsters.

It would be a lot more honest if the US just gave charges they really mean to give: "failure to do what the USA wants", or "running afoul of the administration's wishes".



fatcat said:


> she was arrested for fraud, the fraud was in connection with sanctions but the crime itself was fraud


I think you're wrong. The US is carrying out foreign policy (possibly economic or security agendas), and her true crime was being an executive of Huawei, a firm in America's crosshairs. The US has launched a strong and very public anti-Chinese-tech campaign over the last year.

When charges are _spun_ around a political policy, that's an abuse of the law -- and it's unjust.


----------



## Mukhang pera

james4beach said:


> Which, as honoured barrister Mukhang pera has assured us, are perfectly valid charges... we must stop those awful people committing fraud and conspiracy. How dare they oppose America's agenda of the day. Oops, I mean, how dare they commit fraud -- monsters.


Actually James, I do not think I have anywhere opined that the charges are “perfectly valid”. To me (and, I think, to most of us), they remain rather opaque at this stage. I am aware of what the media have reported concerning the charges, but that's pretty thin gruel on which to form any opinion as to "validity". That will be for the extradition judge. It is perhaps a waste of time (because I doubt many - if any - here on cmf ever read the summaries I post), but I'll post yet another case summary, this one didactic as to what must be proved in the extradition court. 

*EXTRADITION* — Committal • Evidence • Surrender — Judicial review — Extradition judge finding Record of the Case providing sufficient, reliable, available evidence upon which to justify committal of fugitive on fraud charges — Appeal court finding no error on part of extradition judge — Court also dismissing judicial review of minister’s surrender order, finding no breach of the rule of specialty or the principle of double criminality.

The United States of America alleged that the fugitive engaged in conduct in Florida corresponding to the Canadian offence of fraud under s. 380 of the Criminal Code. The U.S. relied on a Record of the Case ["ROC"] in which it alleged that the fugitive had defrauded two individual complainants, one of whom, W., gave the fugitive $20,000 to invest in a cattle business. It alleged that the other, S. gave the fugitive $40,000 to invest in a trucking business. Both were promised their funds would be returned quickly, with a substantial profit. The fugitive gave them cheques to repay the advances plus promised profits, but none of the cheques ever cleared the bank. In a third transaction the fugitive was alleged to have deposited an NSF cheque for $75,000 and then to have withdrawn a like amount. The extradition judge concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify the fugitive’s committal for the bank transaction or the W. transaction, but found that a jury, weighing the evidence contained in the ROC as a whole, could reasonably conclude that the $40,000 S. gave the fugitive to invest was used to pay down the fugitive’s debt at the bank and was thus not used for the purpose stated. The judge ordered committal on that count. The fugitive appealed committal and a subsequent minister’s order for surrender. 
*Held*, appeal dismissed. The fugitive was properly committed. The extradition judge considered the whole of the evidence in the ROC, as he was entitled to do. His conclusions were reasonable and supportable on the evidence, which included the fugitive’s repeated attempts to pass NSF cheques, the deposit of $40,000 in his overdrawn bank account days after he received the same sum from S., his repeated and conflicting explanations and assurances to the purported payees, and the fact that S. was never fully reimbursed. The facts support a reasonable inference that the fugitive, through his use of NSF cheques, intended to deprive S. of his funds. The extradition judge was accordingly correct in concluding that a reasonable, properly instructed jury could reach a verdict of guilty based on those facts. The surrender order did not offend the rule of specialty. The minister elected to surrender the fugitive by reference to the offence in respect of which his extradition was requested. Extradition was sought for the offence of a "scheme to defraud", identified by reference to a specific provision of a Florida statute. The order of surrender referred to the same offence in identical terms. There was no ambiguity in that order. The fugitive knew exactly what charge he would face on his return. Any attempt to prosecute him for a different offence in violation of the rule of specialty would be easily detected. Nor did the order of surrender in the broad terms of the foreign offence of "scheme to defraud" offend the principle of double criminality. With respect to the fugitive’s concern that the foreign prosecution might encompass all three transactions, it was not a case in which extradition was sought on three different charges of fraud, each involving a different victim. The foreign state sought extradition on one fraud offence only: a count of scheme to defraud. The extradition judge broke the facts into three transactions for the purpose of the committal hearing, but the foreign offence remained the same. That was the offence on which the fugitive was being returned. The rule of specialty dictated that it was the only offence on which he could be tried and convicted. The failure to specify the S. transaction in the order of surrender thus did not expose the fugitive to additional charges or convictions that would offend the principle of double criminality.

United States of America v. Hislop C.A., Prowse, Chiasson & Neilson JJ.A., 2009 BCCA 94, Vancouver CA035852, March 06, 2009 , 30pp.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/09/00/2009BCCA0094err1.htm


----------



## sags

The Chinese invited all the media to attend the "trial" claiming they wanted "transparency" of the event.

The Chinese don't care about transparency. They wanted to send a message around the world through the gathered media.

Speaking of sending a message......is it just coincidence that at the first opportunity Trudeau shuffled his Justice Minister over to Veteran Affairs, which many consider a demotion ?

Election year........ruffle with China........not good for your career.


----------



## Mukhang pera

humble_pie said:


> in this scenario, canada could almost be seen to be protecting ms Meng, by keeping her cloistered in vancouver. She's safe from american justice in her luxurious house arrest (i haven't figured out whether the residence is located in shaughessy or in point grey) (cmffer dubmac tells us he bicycles past the sumptuous dwelling from time to time though



I think one report put the address somewhere around West 30th and Crown. That's in Dunbar, well south of Point Grey and well southwest of Shaughnessy. It's a new house in an old neighbourhood, with lot sizes usually in the range for 50 feet x 130 feet. A lot like that now sells for about $3 million. When I bought in the same general area in 1979 (a 60 x 130 lot), prices were around $100,000 for an old house (we paid $110,000 for a 1914 bungalow). Funny how a fairly ordinary neighbourhood has now become a place for the rich.


----------



## humble_pie

Mukhang pera said:


> Actually James, I do not think I have anywhere opined that the charges are “perfectly valid”. To me (and, I think, to most of us), they remain rather opaque at this stage. I am aware of what the media have reported concerning the charges, but that's pretty thin gruel on which to form any opinion as to "validity". That will be for the extradition judge. It is perhaps a waste of time (because I doubt many - if any - here on cmf ever read the summaries I post), but I'll post yet another case summary, this one didactic as to what must be proved in the extradition court.
> 
> *EXTRADITION* — Committal • Evidence • Surrender — Judicial review — Extradition judge finding Record of the Case providing sufficient, reliable, available evidence upon which to justify committal of fugitive on fraud charges — Appeal court finding no error on part of extradition judge — Court also dismissing judicial review of minister’s surrender order, finding no breach of the rule of specialty or the principle of double criminality.
> 
> The United States of America alleged that the fugitive engaged in conduct in Florida corresponding to the Canadian offence of fraud under s. 380 of the Criminal Code. The U.S. relied on a Record of the Case ["ROC"] in which it alleged that the fugitive had defrauded two individual complainants, one of whom, W., gave the fugitive $20,000 to invest in a cattle business. It alleged that the other, S. gave the fugitive $40,000 to invest in a trucking business. Both were promised their funds would be returned quickly, with a substantial profit. The fugitive gave them cheques to repay the advances plus promised profits, but none of the cheques ever cleared the bank. In a third transaction the fugitive was alleged to have deposited an NSF cheque for $75,000 and then to have withdrawn a like amount. The extradition judge concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify the fugitive’s committal for the bank transaction or the W. transaction, but found that a jury, weighing the evidence contained in the ROC as a whole, could reasonably conclude that the $40,000 S. gave the fugitive to invest was used to pay down the fugitive’s debt at the bank and was thus not used for the purpose stated. The judge ordered committal on that count. The fugitive appealed committal and a subsequent minister’s order for surrender.
> *Held*, appeal dismissed. The fugitive was properly committed. The extradition judge considered the whole of the evidence in the ROC, as he was entitled to do. His conclusions were reasonable and supportable on the evidence, which included the fugitive’s repeated attempts to pass NSF cheques, the deposit of $40,000 in his overdrawn bank account days after he received the same sum from S., his repeated and conflicting explanations and assurances to the purported payees, and the fact that S. was never fully reimbursed. The facts support a reasonable inference that the fugitive, through his use of NSF cheques, intended to deprive S. of his funds. The extradition judge was accordingly correct in concluding that a reasonable, properly instructed jury could reach a verdict of guilty based on those facts. The surrender order did not offend the rule of specialty. The minister elected to surrender the fugitive by reference to the offence in respect of which his extradition was requested. Extradition was sought for the offence of a "scheme to defraud", identified by reference to a specific provision of a Florida statute. The order of surrender referred to the same offence in identical terms. There was no ambiguity in that order. The fugitive knew exactly what charge he would face on his return. Any attempt to prosecute him for a different offence in violation of the rule of specialty would be easily detected. Nor did the order of surrender in the broad terms of the foreign offence of "scheme to defraud" offend the principle of double criminality. With respect to the fugitive’s concern that the foreign prosecution might encompass all three transactions, it was not a case in which extradition was sought on three different charges of fraud, each involving a different victim. The foreign state sought extradition on one fraud offence only: a count of scheme to defraud. The extradition judge broke the facts into three transactions for the purpose of the committal hearing, but the foreign offence remained the same. That was the offence on which the fugitive was being returned. The rule of specialty dictated that it was the only offence on which he could be tried and convicted. The failure to specify the S. transaction in the order of surrender thus did not expose the fugitive to additional charges or convictions that would offend the principle of double criminality.
> 
> United States of America v. Hislop C.A., Prowse, Chiasson & Neilson JJ.A., 2009 BCCA 94, Vancouver CA035852, March 06, 2009 , 30pp.
> 
> https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/09/00/2009BCCA0094err1.htm




but MP (& jas4 as well) why are we as canadians kibbitzing in advance on what might or could be a US fraud trial some day in the future? 

isn't it enough for canada to say OK-we've-signed-an-extradition-agreement-&-our-neighbour-says-fraud-has-been-committed-we-too-are-good-that-fraud-is-a-crime-so-we-have-an-obligation-to-hand-over-the-personnage

isn't that enough? i mean what is the point of our spending time & money to pre-try the case when it's the americans who are going to conduct the real trial


EDIT ok i get it that each country has a margin of discretion when agreeing or not agreeing to extradite an accused personnage to another country with which country A has signed an extradition agreement

from a common sense POV one would think it's not up to canada to thrash out all the details of what ms Meng did or did not do in iran

is this whole story really about Five Eyes & the possible capture by china of critical information via huawei 5Gen technology? if so what difference does it make whether the US gets to charge ms Meng or not. 

what a stupid thing for donald trump to do. Hunt down a high-ranking chinese executive specializing in communication technology at the exact same moment the POTUS is trying to gain headway with china in his neverending tariff wars


.


----------



## Mukhang pera

humble_pie said:


> but MP (& jas4 as well) why are we as canadians kibbitzing in advance on what might or could be a US fraud trial some day in the future?
> 
> isn't it enough for canada to say OK-we've-signed-an-extradition-agreement-&-our-neighbour-says-fraud-has-been-committed-we-too-are-good-that-fraud-is-a-crime-so-we-have-an-obligation-to-hand-over-the-personnage
> 
> isn't that enough? i mean what is the point of our spending time & money to pre-try the case when it's the americans who are going to conduct the real trial
> 
> 
> EDIT ok i get it that each country has a margin of discretion when agreeing or not agreeing to extradite an accused personnage to another country with which country A has signed an extradition agreement
> 
> from a common sense POV one would think it's not up to canada to thrash out all the details of what ms Meng did or did not do in iran
> 
> .


A couple of comments.

I would probably go along with an extradition regime that says, if your are not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and you happen to be in Canada when a foreign treaty partner asks that you be handed over, then just do it. No questions asked. No kibbitzing.

It seems to me that an underpinning of present extradition law is that, up to the point of the extradition hearing, it's an extra-judicial process and no one should be subjected to surrender to a foreign state without their day in court. I agree with the idea of the judicial safeguard, especially for our own. 

To the extent that an extradition hearing is, as you suggest, a "pre-trial" of the case, such is not intended. The extradition court is allowed to make only a "limited weighing of the evidence" to see if the test for committal is met. Extradition hearings seldom take more than a day or two. The actual trial might take weeks. The extradition court is not entitled to consider any potential defences to a charge. That is for the trial court.

Recent events suggest that Canada is quickly advancing to a "no kibbitzing" model. Things done summarily, on little or no evidence, and with haste. Case in point the popsie from Saudi Arabia. She makes a social media post saying if I go home my parents will kill me. With no investigation of that bald (and dubious) allegation, bingo - open sesame to Canada, with a federal minister there to greet you at the airport and, according to last night's CTV news, a 24-hour private security detail at taxpayers' expense to see to your comfort. None of this "wait until we assess and process your refugee" application nonsense. Just get 'em in here. 

I expect to see legions of Saudi and other women from around the globe jumping on that bandwagon. We might as well start sending military planes to fetch them.

So our extradition laws might soon be amended adapt to the new model. If a treaty partner makes a request, we just nab 'em and ship 'em.


----------



## fatcat

Mukhang pera said:


> I have not vacationed in Cuba, although I am contemplating doing so in the next year or so.
> 
> Some of the law firms where I have worked include:
> 
> Dewey, Screwem and Howe
> Readit and Weep
> Grabbit and Run
> 
> Lawyer jokes, well, maybe just one, now that you ask:
> 
> The madam opened the brothel door in Glasgow and saw a dignified,
> well-dressed, good-looking man in his late forties.
> 
> "May I help you sir?" she asked.
> 
> "I want to see Valerie," the man replied.
> 
> "Sir, Valerie is our most expensive lady. Perhaps you would prefer
> someone else?" said the madam.
> 
> "No, I must see Valerie," he replied.
> 
> Valerie appeared and announced to the man she charged £5,000 a visit.
> Without hesitation, he pulled out five thousand pounds and gave it to
> Valerie, and they went upstairs. After an hour, the man calmly left.
> 
> Next night the man appeared again, once more demanding to see Valerie.
> 
> Valerie said that never before had anyone come back the next night; she was so expensive. There were no discounts; the price was still £5,000.
> 
> At once the man gave Valerie the money and they went upstairs. After an hour he left.
> 
> The following night the man was there yet again. Everyone was
> astounded, but he paid Valerie and they again went upstairs.
> 
> After their session, Valerie said, "No one has ever been with me three
> nights in a row. Where are you from?"
> 
> The man replied, " Edinburgh ."
> 
> "Really," she said. "I have family in Edinburgh ."
> 
> "I know." he said. "Your sister died, and I'm her solicitor. I was
> instructed to deliver your £15,000 inheritance in person."
> 
> The moral of the story:
> Three things in life are certain:
> 
> 1. Death.
> 
> 2. Taxes.
> 
> 3. And being screwed by a lawyer.


hah! ... in my life i have found it to be axiomatic that lawyers always tell the best lawyer jokes


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> My view on this is that the US demanded this arrest for enforcement of their global economic/political agenda. It's not rule of law; it's a _corruption_ of the law, being used for political purposes. Here's another instance of it which is starting to play out now:
> https://www.dw.com/en/us-ambassador...german-firms-over-russian-pipeline/a-47062540
> 
> The US Ambassador is threatening German oil & gas companies due to their involvement in a project that the USA does not approve of. The ambassador has sent letters to the companies threatening sanctions if they don't fall into line with American policies and wishes. If those German oil & gas CEOs aren't careful, they could also end up getting arrested for (something like) "fraud" or "conspiracy" to violate sanctions.
> 
> Which, as honoured barrister Mukhang pera has assured us, are perfectly valid charges... we must stop those awful people committing fraud and conspiracy. How dare they oppose America's agenda of the day. Oops, I mean, how dare they commit fraud -- monsters.
> 
> It would be a lot more honest if the US just gave charges they really mean to give: "failure to do what the USA wants", or "running afoul of the administration's wishes".
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're wrong. The US is carrying out foreign policy (possibly economic or security agendas), and her true crime was being an executive of Huawei, a firm in America's crosshairs. The US has launched a strong and very public anti-Chinese-tech campaign over the last year.
> 
> When charges are _spun_ around a political policy, that's an abuse of the law -- and it's unjust.


you conveniently choose to be a stickler when it comes to human rights but allow your simmering anti-americanism to grant you the right to choose not obey laws that you decide are politically motivated (nevermind the pure politics that swirled around lil omar "the traitor" khadr)

the extradition treaty between the usa and canada is solid, longstanding and vital, if both countries didn't support and act on it ... all holy hell would break loose ... as people would be willy nilly crossing borders to evade arrest and detention

meng's arrest was pro-forma and canada didn't have a choice unless they want to politicize the issue and that would play badly for canada in the future

meng is merely detained (with full access to counsel and some freedom which is much more than the chinese have granted our citizens) and she may well yet still be freed by a judge, detention is a hassle but it isn't the end of the story

and even if it was politics, i will still side with the americans over the crooked thug chinese any day, despite his lunatic tweets, this is a department of justice matter not a donald trump matter

ps. look at the cases of marc emery the pot king and rafay and burns the parent killers (from bellevue near seattle) who all went through an extensive, exhaustive extradition process that respected their rights to the utmost until they were finally extradited to the usa


----------



## james4beach

Anti-American? Ridiculous. I'm a huge believer in freedom and justice -- the best American values. Because I love America and its core values, I want a fair and honest legal system... as all Americans (and global citizens) deserve.

Misusing the law for political purposes or demands of the State Department / White House is a kind of corruption that offends Americans and America-lovers like me. This is the kind of abuse of the legal system that is common in Russia, China, Philippines.

fatcat, why you are so supportive of third-world style corruption of American & Canadian justice?


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> Anti-American? Ridiculous. I'm a huge believer in freedom and justice -- the best American values. Because I love America and its core values, I want a fair and honest legal system... as all Americans (and global citizens) deserve.
> 
> Misusing the law for political purposes or demands of the State Department / White House is a kind of corruption that offends Americans and America-lovers like me. This is the kind of abuse of the legal system that is common in Russia, China, Philippines.
> 
> fatcat, why you are so supportive of third-world style corruption of American & Canadian justice?


hmmm, goodness james ... and i was about to accuse _you_ of being supportive of third-world style autocracy whereby laws are willy-nilly ignored at the whim of the governing morons

the usa/canada extradition treaty is, so-far anyway, well respected and supported by both parties, it is iron-clad ... and for a reason, we both need to respect it

to *not* arrest her would have been the third-world style (read: china) autocratic move ...

you completely miss the fact that she is still in canada and will get her day in court and may well be turned back to china

in the meantime she is serving as an object lesson for canada by providing us with a first-hand understanding of what it is like to deal with the gangster regime in bejing


----------



## fatcat

great article here on this issue: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-china-smells-weakness-so-its-picking-on-canada/

the takeaway is that we need to show strength not weakness, rgerettably, our prime minister doesn't have the courage to do the right thing and stand up against the chinese

sure, we are likely to pay a price, but i think the vast majority of canadians are willing to pay this price

indeed, if we don't then we betray our own principles

as the article says, big-hair extolled the chinese when in opposition and he rants against the venezuelans (quite rightly)

yet continues to kow-tow (yes, that right, its perfect) to the chinese ... disgraceful


----------



## james4beach

So fatcat, what happens when the US wants to go after these German companies that the US Ambassador is currently threatening. The ambassador already says they will create sanctions against the German companies. So what happens when those sanctions are in place (for these political reasons) and the US can charge the German executives with crimes?

Does Canada now start arresting those Germans who fly through Canada, or vacation here?

Aren't you concerned about the slippery slope here? It's easy to beat up on the Chinese. But how about when it's German, or Norwegian companies that the US wants to go after.

Again, these aren't real crimes. They are charges that are driven by political, or foreign policy motivations. Is this what we want for Canada, to be an arm of the US that implements _their_ foreign policy?


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> So fatcat, what happens when the US wants to go after these German companies that the US Ambassador is currently threatening. The ambassador already says they will create sanctions against the German companies. So what happens when those sanctions are in place (for these political reasons) and the US can charge the German executives with crimes?
> 
> Does Canada now start arresting those Germans who fly through Canada, or vacation here?
> 
> Aren't you concerned about the slippery slope here? It's easy to beat up on the Chinese. But how about when it's German, or Norwegian companies that the US wants to go after.
> 
> Again, these aren't real crimes. They are charges that are driven by political, or foreign policy motivations. Is this what we want for Canada, to be an arm of the US that implements _their_ foreign policy?


this all revolves the extradition treaty ... both parties respect the treaty to a great degree and thus is has been very successful for both sides

you seem to forget that arrest isn't conviction and a canadian judge will decide whether meng should go free or be turned over the usa

if they (unspecified german corporate executives for example) are charged with a crime and they transit canada and the usa makes an extradition request, they are going to be arrested and a canadian court will decide on whether they should ultimately be extradited

obviously it will be much easier for the americans to just request extradition from germany itself since the usa and germany also have an extradition treaty though it will be much harder to extradite a german national from his own country

it took the americans 5 years to get marc emery on charges of selling cannabis seeds

as to the political issue of the sanctions, it already has had much political pushback as the europeans are actively working to find ways to reroute money to avoid new york and the swift transfer system

https://www.rt.com/business/436921-germany-swift-us-relations-sanctions/

so the sanction stuff is backfiring on the americans already and i suspect will continue to do so


----------



## sags

It is now reported the kerfluffle is actually about the Chinese stealing technology from an American telco who had their products built in China.

What did they think was going to happen when they sent all the necessary engineering, tools, blueprints and equipment necessary to build the product and all of the components ?


----------



## kcowan

sags
That has been going on for decades first in Japan, then Taiwan, then Korea. What made it work was the rule of law.


----------



## m3s

It has been subtly reported all along that there are known national security concerns, even long before this ordeal. It was usually mentioned briefly in passing after speculating on other potential reasons. The intellectual property theft has also been reported long before this ordeal

There's likely still a lot to the story that isn't public. National security details are typically classified for good reason.


----------



## james4beach

m3s said:


> It has been subtly reported all along that there are known national security concerns, even long before this ordeal. It was usually mentioned briefly in passing after speculating on other potential reasons. The intellectual property theft has also been reported long before this ordeal
> 
> There's likely still a lot to the story that isn't public. National security details are typically classified for good reason.


If it is primarily a national security concern, then arresting someone and charging them with "fraud" is also an abuse & corruption of the law.


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> If it is primarily a national security concern, then arresting someone and charging them with "fraud" is also an abuse & corruption of the law.


it isn't a national security concern, sags posted a vague reference to stealing technology and then m3s responded to the issue of national security concerns with regard to china stealing technology and / or canada using chinese technology

the issue of ms.meng isn't even in the mix of these posts

once again there is no abuse or corruption of the law, it is canadian law recognizing ms. meng's right to habeus corpus and a fair hearing, two principles that are enshrined in the canadian charter that you purport to hold in such high regard

we really are spinning into newspeak territory here james, war is peace and peace is war

in simple terms there is no abuse of the law, there is only the sober and consistent application of mutually approved treaties, just as critical under canadian treaty obligations as omar "lil osama" khadr's right to representation at gitmo which you hold in such high regard


----------



## fatcat

james
from just today in the globe and mail
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...-huawei-executive-was-an-act-of-backstabbing/

given that this article makes it clear that the chinese government is going full-on-gangster, i am having a hard time understanding why you are so worked up by the americans and appear to be giving the real threat, i.e. the peoples republic of china a pass ?

threatening us that "we better buy their 5G ... *or else*"




> Canada’s arrest of a senior Huawei executive was the “backstabbing” of a friend, Chinese ambassador Lu Shaye said Thursday, and *he warned of repercussions if the federal government bars her telecom company from building a Canadian 5G network.*
> 
> 
> “In China, we have a saying that a good friend would die for his friend with a shield from … knife attacks of another friend,” said Lu, speaking through an interpreter in a wide-ranging news conference with Canadian journalists at the Chinese embassy in Ottawa.
> 
> 
> “But in this case we feel that it is completely the opposite – it’s considered as backstabbing.”


red chinese thuggery make the american sanctions thuggery look penny-ante by comparison


----------



## Beaver101

sags said:


> It is now reported the kerfluffle is actually about the Chinese stealing technology from an American telco who had their products built in China.
> 
> What did they think was going to happen when they sent all the necessary engineering, tools, blueprints and equipment necessary to build the product and all of the components ?


 ... you see, the foreign country is ordered to guard them with the upmost secrecy as per the Americans.

And then there absolutely no issue with outsourcing jobs (especially those with personal data information) to foreign countries such as India, the Phillipines, etc. because it is so much much much much cheaper. And let's MAGA!!!!


----------



## m3s

fatcat said:


> it isn't a national security concern


It has been reported publicly that the Canadian government was "reviewing" Huawei participation in our telecoms

Several of our closest allies have forbidden Huawei tech


----------



## fatcat

m3s said:


> It has been reported publicly that the Canadian government was "reviewing" Huawei participation in our telecoms
> 
> Several of our closest allies have forbidden Huawei tech


right, of course, i was trying to say that you and kcowan and sags are all addressing a completely different point and issue than james

the issue of the use or non-use of chinese technology (5G being the most well known piece of chinese kit) has nothing to do with james' beef with the canadian government for respecting treaty law and arresting meng

he accuses the canadian government of acting politically and doing the dirty business of the americans

you guys are talking about china's basic untrustworthiness with regard to respecting technological intellectual property not to mention the real possibility that they will use their technology to spy on the west


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> It is now reported the kerfluffle is actually about the Chinese stealing technology from an American telco who had their products built in China.



the story appears to be way bigger than that single company ZTE. In no way does the ZTE episode "explain" what is going on. ZTE is only a minor thread in the vast hidden tapestry of classified information which lies behind this story.

canadians could usefully spend their time & energy supporting efforts to free michael kovrig & michael spavor. By "support" i don't mean ranting & raving at china's gummint or calling them thugs. I mean intelligently & constructively looking for ways to get china to improve their detention circumstances & to move towards an orderly & reliable account of what they intend to do with the two imprisoned canadians.

the chinese charge is that kovrig & spavor are spies. Those are extremely serious charges. My guess is that ottawa right now is looking for a 3rd party neutral country to join the situation & obtain more information about our detained nationals.

in addition to the schellenberg death sentence, there are several reports of canadians being harassed or temporarily detained in china. The situation is gravely troubling.


----------



## james4beach

fatcat said:


> right, of course, i was trying to say that you and kcowan and sags are all addressing a completely different point and issue than james
> 
> the issue of the use or non-use of chinese technology (5G being the most well known piece of chinese kit) has nothing to do with james' beef with the canadian government for respecting treaty law and arresting meng
> 
> he accuses the canadian government of acting politically and doing the dirty business of the americans


Thanks, yes I think this is a different issue. One issue is the decision whether or not to use Chinese technology in critical systems in Canada.

My concern with the Meng arrest is (my suspicion) that the Americans are lying, and that it's not truly a case about fraud. But this is just a suspicion -- perhaps it really is a genuine fraud case, and not some kind of foreign policy action to flex American power.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> Thanks, yes I think this is a different issue. One issue is the decision whether or not to use Chinese technology in critical systems in Canada.
> 
> My concern with the Meng arrest is (my suspicion) that the Americans are lying, and that it's not truly a case about fraud. But this is just a suspicion -- perhaps it really is a genuine fraud case, and not some kind of foreign policy action to flex American power.



there are no "different issues" in this complex story, most of which appears to still be hidden. Every thread is interlinked.

upthread some expert is posting about "subtle" indicators that the story is all about western security concerns with huawei 5Gen IP technology. But in fact these indicators are not "subtle" in the least

couple days after meng wanzhou was detained in vancouver, the globe & mail was johnny on the spot with another extensive Five Eyes huawei story. Five Eyes stories had been proliferating in major media for more than a year.

canada's defence minister harjit sajjan appeared with chrystia freeland at the early Meng case press conferences. He soon disappeared, possibly following a decision to downplay security issues & concentrate instead on the safety of the canadians who were suddenly being apprehended in china.

in the US, senator marco rubio (R-florida) told media in the days immediately following meng's detention in vancouver that the meng case is a spy issue involving huswei 5Gen internet communications.

the US is the leader of the Five Eyes. The US is not buying huawei for security reasons. Neither are Eyes australia & new zealand. Remaining Eyes canada & great britain are said to be profoundly concerned by huawei 5Gen risk.

to further stir the pot, some northern european countries including germany & france are now said to be reviewing their existing huawei installations.

i for one would have no way of knowing whether the national & military concerns over huawei security are founded or unfounded. With one exception, no cmffer is able to comment reliably on this issue either. The exception is not able to discuss the issue; so leaves the forum 100% in the dark.

hampering or losing sales to most of the world's most developed economies would be a stunning blow to huawei. Surely everyone can understand that china will protect one of its most elite corporations with pit bull ferocity.

one has to wonder why washington blundered to arrest meng wanzhou. What difference does her arrest make? if the US wants to block military & civilian purchase of huawei, the US can easily block these purchases. Can just as easily agitate or bully australia, new zealand, canada & great britain into following suit.


----------



## sags

The WSJ has reported, and CNN have repeated that the US had Canada arrest Wanzhou before they unveiled the true criminal charges against her.

The charges are accusations of theft of robotic technology from a major US telco corporation. The corporation and Huawei company had previously settled in a US court.

Is the arrest and request for extradition politically motivated ? Does Canada arrest and extradite for political reasons.

It is quite a mess now and one wonders if it is why the PM moved the Justice Minister to Veterans Affairs. 

Coincidence.........or was he unhappy to have this matter dropped on his plate ?


----------



## sags

If the US and other governments are concerned about Huawei and other Chinese manufactured goods for security reasons, they have the option to not buy it.

It isn't a viable option to snatch executives from Chinese companies. Canada should tell the US.....sorry, but we don't participate in that kind of extradition.

President Trump said he would consider trading the executive as part of a trade deal. 

That isn't how extradition treaties are supposed to work.


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> It is quite a mess now and one wonders if it is why the PM moved the Justice Minister to Veterans Affairs.



the new minister of justice, david lametti, is said to be an expert in intellectual property. This gives a clue as to what ottawa considers to be a kernel of the huawei problem

i for one don't understand why there's so much interest in meng wanzhou. I'm expecting that she'll be released soon after her hearing in february. Until she's released she'll be extremely well-treated. Ottawa got cornered by washington. The extradition treaty has to be respected, as fatcat has explained.

canada can't pick & choose who the US might decide they want extradited. It's not up to our country to pre-try or overturn a treaty request from our southern neighbour. Upthread MP has posted an excellent summary of how-it-works. A canadian federal minister of justice can refuse to surrender a person whom a provincial court has already ruled is to be extradited. IE ottawa has the power to overturn provincial court rulings in matters of extradition.

a longer-term problem for ottawa is to determine national & military security risk posed by foreign owned telecommunication manufacturers. Reportedly a committee is studying the huawei 5Gen issue in canada. Meanwhile three out of the five Five Eyes have banned huawei 5Gen in their countries. Canada & Great Britain have not yet made up their minds.


even farther out in time is the question of corporate spying by 5Gen systems & the whole issue of technological espionage, which has been going on for decades, with many countries & manufacturers involved. This is where a specialist in intellectual property law like david lametti will be helpful.

.


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> If the US and other governments are concerned about Huawei and other Chinese manufactured goods for security reasons, they have the option to not buy it.



the US has already decided to ban huawei. So have Five Eyes allies australia & new zealand. Canada & britain are still considering whether to buy or not. Reportedly both bell canada & telus are lobbying ottawa that they need to buy huawei because huawei equipment is much less expensive than european or US manufactured equipment






> It isn't a viable option to snatch executives from Chinese companies. Canada should tell the US.....sorry, but we don't participate in that kind of extradition.


:biggrin: sags please tell us that you don't really believe that nations should carry on like high school drama queens. The above doesn't sound like you. 

the impression i have is that china is actually aiming at washington, which has already banned huawei products, but china is using canada as a message bearer & a hammerhead. We got trapped in the crossfire.

.


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> Thanks, yes I think this is a different issue. One issue is the decision whether or not to use Chinese technology in critical systems in Canada.
> 
> My concern with the Meng arrest is (my suspicion) that the Americans are lying, and that it's not truly a case about fraud. But this is just a suspicion -- perhaps it really is a genuine fraud case, and not some kind of foreign policy action to flex American power.


right, there is a presumption of authority on the part of both the americans and canada when an extradition request is made, we, and they, assume that the request is lawful and falls under the terms of the treaty

the person being detained suffers the stress and indignity of incarceration (though obviously not so much in the case of meng) but they get their day in court and meng may well go free ...

habeus corpus is enshrined in western law (and entirely foreign to the chinese) and that is how it gets sorted out, meng gets her day in court ... it took the us government 5 years to get marc emery on charges of selling pot seeds

ps. surely you are not suggesting that the americans would ... lie ... about something are you ?


----------



## Mukhang pera

fatcat said:


> right, there is a presumption of authority on the part of both the americans and canada when an extradition request is made, we, and they, assume that the request is lawful and falls under the terms of the treaty
> 
> the person being detained suffers the stress and indignity of incarceration (though obviously not so much in the case of meng) but they get their day in court and meng may well go free ...
> 
> habeus corpus is enshrined in western law (and entirely foreign to the chinese) and that is how it gets sorted out, meng gets her day in court ... it took the us government 5 years to get marc emery on charges of selling pot seeds
> 
> ps. surely you are not suggesting that the americans would ... lie ... about something are you ?


Fatcat, you demonstrate a fair understanding of Canadian extradition law, but permit me to point out that the prerogative remedies (such as writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, etc.) no longer apply to extradition proceedings. This is reflected in decisions such as _Thailand_ v. _Saxena_:

*EXTRADITION* — Jurisdiction of court • *EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES* — Habeas corpus — By way of habeas corpus application, applicant seeking either to have extradition proceedings against him declared void ab initio, or to have the committal decision overturned and his discharge ordered, or to have his committal remitted to extradition judge for reconsideration — Court declining jurisdiction over habeas corpus application, the impugned decisions having been made under Extradition Act, which provides a complete and comprehensive statutory regime — Court of Appeal thus being the appropriate forum.

_Thailand (Kingdom)_ v. _Saxena_ S.C., Stromberg-Stein J., 2009 BCSC 67, Vancouver CC960599, January 26, 2009 , 7pp.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/09/00/2009BCSC0067.htm

Habeas corpus as a remedy appears to have fallen from favour as a remedy in extradition proceedings following the repeal of the Fugitive Offenders Act and proclamation of the Extradition Act, as discussed in _Lau_ v. _Commonwealth of Australia and Canada_, 2006 BCCA 484, Finch C.J.B.C., Southin & Thackray JJ.A., 2006 BCCA 484, Vancouver CA32741, October 31, 2006 , 27pp.,

*EXTRADITION* — Surrender • Court quashing first order of Governor General for surrender of applicant to Australia to face heroin importing charges — Supreme Court finding no error in Governor General’s second surrender order, and dismissing applicant's habeas corpus application — Applicant unsuccessfully arguing infringement of his s. 6(1) and s. 7 Charter rights — Appeal dismissed.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/06/04/2006BCCA0484.htm

Note that the above refers to the Governor General making the surrender order. As the judgment explains: "Under the FOA the Governor General was responsible for responding to requests for surrender. This authority is now vested in the Minister of Justice under the present statute. Similarly, while the Extradition Act speaks of ‘surrender’ to the requesting state, the FOA uses the terms ‘return’ or ‘rendition’."

In a nutshell, the Extradition Act, is seen to provide a complete and comprehensive statutory regime, leaving no room for habeas corpus to operate. The most recent extradition case I could find where the term "habeas corpus" is even mentioned dates from 2008: 

*EXTRADITION* — Jurisdiction of court • Appeals • Legislation — Validity — "Extradition judge" finding no jurisdiction to entertain application to quash an authority to proceed — Court also finding Extradition Act, s. 15, not unconstitutional, and dismissing application for a writ of habeas corpus — Appeal court holding it had no jurisdiction, either at common law or under federal legislation, to hear an appeal from that order — Supreme Court of Canada dismissing fugitive's application for leave to appeal.

_Bezeredi_ v. _Canada (Minister of Justice)_ S.C.C., Binnie, LeBel & Deschamps JJ., 32311 , January 10, 2008 , 1pp., • On appeal from 2007 BCCA 443


----------



## fatcat

Mukhang pera said:


> Fatcat, you demonstrate a fair understanding of Canadian extradition law, but permit me to point out that the prerogative remedies (such as writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, etc.) no longer apply to extradition proceedings. This is reflected in decisions such as _Thailand_ v. _Saxena_:
> 
> *EXTRADITION* — Jurisdiction of court • *EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES* — Habeas corpus — By way of habeas corpus application, applicant seeking either to have extradition proceedings against him declared void ab initio, or to have the committal decision overturned and his discharge ordered, or to have his committal remitted to extradition judge for reconsideration — Court declining jurisdiction over habeas corpus application, the impugned decisions having been made under Extradition Act, which provides a complete and comprehensive statutory regime — Court of Appeal thus being the appropriate forum.
> 
> _Thailand (Kingdom)_ v. _Saxena_ S.C., Stromberg-Stein J., 2009 BCSC 67, Vancouver CC960599, January 26, 2009 , 7pp.
> 
> https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/09/00/2009BCSC0067.htm
> 
> Habeas corpus as a remedy appears to have fallen from favour as a remedy in extradition proceedings following the repeal of the Fugitive Offenders Act and proclamation of the Extradition Act, as discussed in _Lau_ v. _Commonwealth of Australia and Canada_, 2006 BCCA 484, Finch C.J.B.C., Southin & Thackray JJ.A., 2006 BCCA 484, Vancouver CA32741, October 31, 2006 , 27pp.,
> 
> *EXTRADITION* — Surrender • Court quashing first order of Governor General for surrender of applicant to Australia to face heroin importing charges — Supreme Court finding no error in Governor General’s second surrender order, and dismissing applicant's habeas corpus application — Applicant unsuccessfully arguing infringement of his s. 6(1) and s. 7 Charter rights — Appeal dismissed.
> 
> https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/06/04/2006BCCA0484.htm
> 
> Note that the above refers to the Governor General making the surrender order. As the judgment explains: "Under the FOA the Governor General was responsible for responding to requests for surrender. This authority is now vested in the Minister of Justice under the present statute. Similarly, while the Extradition Act speaks of ‘surrender’ to the requesting state, the FOA uses the terms ‘return’ or ‘rendition’."
> 
> In a nutshell, the Extradition Act, is seen to provide a complete and comprehensive statutory regime, leaving no room for habeas corpus to operate. The most recent extradition case I could find where the term "habeas corpus" is even mentioned dates from 2008:
> 
> *EXTRADITION* — Jurisdiction of court • Appeals • Legislation — Validity — "Extradition judge" finding no jurisdiction to entertain application to quash an authority to proceed — Court also finding Extradition Act, s. 15, not unconstitutional, and dismissing application for a writ of habeas corpus — Appeal court holding it had no jurisdiction, either at common law or under federal legislation, to hear an appeal from that order — Supreme Court of Canada dismissing fugitive's application for leave to appeal.
> 
> _Bezeredi_ v. _Canada (Minister of Justice)_ S.C.C., Binnie, LeBel & Deschamps JJ., 32311 , January 10, 2008 , 1pp., • On appeal from 2007 BCCA 443


thank you for your clarification counselor, i was of course using the term as a layman and very broadly to say that she would have the right to appear before a judge to plead her case and that detention alone did not mean that she would automatically be returned

i confess to pulling much of my knowledge of canadian jurisprudence right out me bum


----------



## Mukhang pera

fatcat said:


> i confess to pulling much of my knowledge of canadian jurisprudence right out me bum


For that candid admission, I'll give you another lawyer joke:

One afternoon a lawyer was riding in his limousine when he saw two men along the roadside eating grass.

Disturbed, he ordered his driver to stop and got out to investigate.

He asked one man, "Why are you eating grass?"

"We don't have any money for food," the poor man replied."We have to eat grass."

"Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I'll feed you" the lawyer said.

"But sir, I have a wife and two children with me. They are over there, under that tree."

"Bring them along," the lawyer replied.

Turning to the other poor man he stated, "You may come with us, also."

The second man, in a pitiful voice, then said, "But sir, I also have a wife and SIX children with me!"

"Bring them all as well," the lawyer answered.

They all entered the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limousine was. Once under way, one of the poor fellows turned to the lawyer and said, "Sir, you are too kind."

"Thank you for taking all of us with you."

The lawyer replied, "Glad to do it. You'll really love my place; the grass is almost a foot high!"

Come on now...you really didn't think there was such a thing as a heart-warming lawyer story...did you????


----------



## 319905

Then again, Canada could be playing the long game ... Meng won't be, and never was going to be, extradited to the US ... short story.


----------



## Pluto

I don't know much about this issue but I did hear a talking head explain his concerns. He claimed that all coporations in China have to agree to obey the government on any matter. Further, he claimed that the company, Huawei, has the capability to shut off its telecommunications equipment in any country it is installed. In that case, the Chinese governent has the capability to have the telecomunications systems in numerous countries shut off. its a concern in case of some serious political conflict with China. I haven't ratified this perspective, so wondering if anyone can offer any further insight. it does seem foolish to allow another country control over out communications system.


----------



## humble_pie

Pluto said:


> I don't know much about this issue but I did hear a talking head explain his concerns. He claimed that all coporations in China have to agree to obey the government on any matter. Further, he claimed that the company, Huawei, has the capability to shut off its telecommunications equipment in any country it is installed. In that case, the Chinese governent has the capability to have the telecomunications systems in numerous countries shut off. its a concern in case of some serious political conflict with China. I haven't ratified this perspective, so wondering if anyone can offer any further insight. it does seem foolish to allow another country control over out communications system.




pluto these are good questions & certainly the concerns you mention are the heart of the issue. The problem i have is that i don't know anyone who can accurately speak to these concerns.

just imagine the level of knowledge of military & security communication one would have to be the master of, if one truly wishes to know whether china is capable of shutting down the whole of north america just by flipping a huawei switch. 

there's one here who could shed light on the issue but - in one of those paradoxical loops of logic we see so often - the very fact that he's knowledgeable also means that he's not permitted to speak. Like i've mentioned so many times in this thread, all the critical information is classified.

i'm heartened to see how well the journos are working on the issue. The globe in particular is doing a magnificent job i think. Iota by iota, slowly but surely, they're dragging facts up into the public light of day.

some day soon, newspapers of record such as the globe & the NY times will find authorities who will discuss the science of huawei's 5G potential. There's always a continuum of information flow, from the scholarly engineering journals to the popular science magazines to, finally, science writers in the serious daily newspapers.

i'm waiting. But in the meantime i tend to think we should take it easy about inviting huawei in. Probably not yet. Let's see what canada's special huawei committee comes up with. They're meeting now. They'll recommend action sometime later this year.

.


----------



## fatcat

Mukhang pera said:


> Come on now...you really didn't think there was such a thing as a heart-warming lawyer story...did you????


hah ! heart-warming ? no ... i do know that my lawyers bills have the effect of sending a chill down my spine ... 

my dad was a lawyer ... we all tell lawyer jokes but we tend to get serious when we need a lawyer and things often aren't so funny


----------



## m3s

Pluto said:


> it does seem foolish to allow another country control over out communications system.


It seems foolish to allow private corporation control over something as critical as communications systems.


----------



## fatcat

bloomberg ran a story back in october called the "The Big Hack: How China Used a Tiny Chip to Infiltrate U.S. Companies" and the truth or fiction of this story is still a subject of much debate with apple and others hotly and unequivocally denying that these chips have been compromised ... bloomberg has something like 17 anonymous sources that claim the chips have been compromised

it could be a disinformation campaign by the cia, nsa or who knows ? ... it could be true ... what we do know is that so far the story hasn't be adequately confirmed or adequately debunked

this will likely remain the case for some time, we will never really know

the huawei story is much the same, we have no clear proof that their 5G will include spy chips so if we ban them, we are being unfair to a company that may be a honest actor

unfair though it may be, i think we have no choice but to ban chinese technology at the backbone of our telecom infrastructure ... they are a dictatorship and we see now that they have no respect for the rule of law, we should expect them to try and insert technology that can be disabled or used to spy on us

there are plenty of others companies from friendly trustworthy nations like finland and sweden (nokia and ericcson) who have good 5G products

3 of the 5 eyes have banned huawei and now, with the threat of murder hanging over our citizen and unspecified economic threats if we don't use huawei, we would be craven and cowardly to give in to chinese pressure not to mention it would disrupt the coherence of the 5 eyes and lead to significant security issues down the road between the usa and canada particularly

at this point to give the go-ahead to install huawei technology in canada would be a grave mistake on the part of this government, they aren't very bright but i don't think they are that stupid


----------



## Pluto

humble_pie said:


> pluto these are good questions & certainly the concerns you mention are the heart of the issue. The problem i have is that i don't know anyone who can accurately speak to these concerns.
> 
> just imagine the level of knowledge of military & security communication one would have to be the master of, if one truly wishes to know whether china is capable of shutting down the whole of north america just by flipping a huawei switch.
> 
> there's one here who could shed light on the issue but - in one of those paradoxical loops of logic we see so often - the very fact that he's knowledgeable also means that he's not permitted to speak. Like i've mentioned so many times in this thread, all the critical information is classified.
> 
> i'm heartened to see how well the journos are working on the issue. The globe in particular is doing a magnificent job i think. Iota by iota, slowly but surely, they're dragging facts up into the public light of day.
> 
> some day soon, newspapers of record such as the globe & the NY times will find authorities who will discuss the science of huawei's 5G potential. There's always a continuum of information flow, from the scholarly engineering journals to the popular science magazines to, finally, science writers in the serious daily newspapers.
> 
> i'm waiting. But in the meantime i tend to think we should take it easy about inviting huawei in. Probably not yet. Let's see what canada's special huawei committee comes up with. They're meeting now. They'll recommend action sometime later this year.
> 
> .


Thanks for the feedback and the clear summary that saves me a lot of background reading.


----------



## humble_pie

Pluto said:


> Thanks for the feedback and the clear summary that saves me a lot of background reading.



re huawei 5Gen tech, it's difficult to imagine canada taking a path that deviates from the US. Given our intricate military & continental linkages.

the US, australia & new zealand have already shut their doors to huawei 5Gen. If canada follows, that would leave britain alone among the Five Eyes. Would britain, could britain, resist the pull of the other 4 Eyes?

then suppose all 5 Eyes end up saying No Way Waaa Way! already germany & france are said to be re-thinking their huawei installations. What about italy, scandinavia, all NATO allies? one can see anti-huawei virus spreading like a contagious epidemic through the world's leading economies.

where does that leave huawei after a few years? arguably the world's lowest-cost provider of advanced telecommunication systems, proud corporate princeling of the middle kingdon, how would huawei survive abandonment by the world's leading western economies?

we need to think these issues through. It would be fine if canada's investigating committee - includes the military, air force & civilian radar/satellite telecommunication experts i would hope - it would be fine if they conclude that canada's best interest is served by excluding huawei 5Gen. 

but we need to be way more sensitive to chinese aspirations. What else would we continue to buy from huawei, for example? how long will we expect such an anti-huawei moratorium to remain in force? what are the bilateral actions of good will that could start melting such a moratorium?


----------



## robfordlives

As a Telco share owner is this a concern? My understanding is that some/all telco's may have some of their equipment installed and cost to replace would be enormous potentially. Couldn't they sue the gov't in that case??


----------



## fatcat

robfordlives said:


> As a Telco share owner is this a concern? My understanding is that some/all telco's may have some of their equipment installed and cost to replace would be enormous potentially. Couldn't they sue the gov't in that case??


a recent globe article stated that telus (i also own them) uses huawei thusly:



> Like many smaller Canadian telecom providers, they have used Huawei equipment in their radio networks – the antennas and radios at the top of cell towers – but not in their network cores, which contain more sensitive information.


this is not 5G equipment so we shall see going forward what happens

based on this article from the globe today, i don't see how this government can allow huawei equipment into the country, clearly china is behaving like a thug and trying essentially to scare canada into going along with their demands which must be resisted now regardless of the state of their equipment

to be clear, there are plenty of good options to huawei equipment from friendly countries



> Ambassador John McCallum told members of the House of Commons foreign relations committee that Michael Kovrig – a Canadian diplomat on leave – and businessman Michael Spavor are being kept in prison cells where the lights are on 24 hours a day, said sources at the hearing who were not allowed to publicly discuss what the envoy said. Authorities are also subjecting them to lengthy interrogations.
> 
> Mr. McCallum informed MPs at the in-camera session that China will only allow Canadian consular officials to visit the detained men once a month and only for half an hour. Authorities are monitoring their conversations and the Chinese guards forbid embassy officials from speaking to the Canadians in French in case they are passing on messages.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...streating-canadian-detainees-ambassador-says/


----------



## Pluto

humble_pie said:


> re huawei 5Gen tech, it's difficult to imagine canada taking a path that deviates from the US. Given our intricate military & continental linkages.
> 
> the US, australia & new zealand have already shut their doors to huawei 5Gen. If canada follows, that would leave britain alone among the Five Eyes. Would britain, could britain, resist the pull of the other 4 Eyes?
> 
> then suppose all 5 Eyes end up saying No Way Waaa Way! already germany & france are said to be re-thinking their huawei installations. What about italy, scandinavia, all NATO allies? one can see anti-huawei virus spreading like a contagious epidemic through the world's leading economies.
> 
> where does that leave huawei after a few years? arguably the world's lowest-cost provider of advanced telecommunication systems, proud corporate princeling of the middle kingdon, how would huawei survive abandonment by the world's leading western economies?
> 
> we need to think these issues through. It would be fine if canada's investigating committee - includes the military, air force & civilian radar/satellite telecommunication experts i would hope - it would be fine if they conclude that canada's best interest is served by excluding huawei 5Gen.
> 
> but we need to be way more sensitive to chinese aspirations. What else would we continue to buy from huawei, for example? how long will we expect such an anti-huawei moratorium to remain in force? what are the bilateral actions of good will that could start melting such a moratorium?


I was thinking that perhaps the underlying agenda here is, not security concerns, but giving China a broken nose over the US China trade deficit. (I can't emperically verify that however.)


----------



## m3s

Pluto said:


> I was thinking that perhaps the underlying agenda here is, not security concerns, but giving China a broken nose over the US China trade deficit. (I can't emperically verify that however.)


There's also this CBC article from 2012



> Brian Shields, who was the senior systems security adviser at failed Canadian telecommunications company Nortel, says working with Huawei is too big a risk. *Shields alleges Huawei spent years hacking into Nortel's system and stealing information so it could compete with Nortel on world markets.*





> The world’s second-largest telecommunications equipment supplier, Huawei is already providing high-speed networks for Bell Canada, Telus, SaskTel and Wind Mobile.


Canada is directly impacted here and yet it's US-China trade?


----------



## Pluto

^
Well Brian Shields made the allegation, but are we supposed to a priori accept it? What if it is just unfounded bad mouthing them for competitive reasons? After all, nobody back in 2012 payed attention to his allegation. Doesn't that sugest he has no proof?
Yes, it affects Canada, but apparently not too many care about Canada. We are not that big of a market.


----------



## m3s

Pluto said:


> After all, nobody back in 2012 payed attention to his allegation. Doesn't that sugest he has no proof?


US and Australia had already banned Huawei at the time of that 2012 article. It mentions US intelligence which suggests the proof may be in the intelligence reports which aren't public but would have been available to Canadian government. Unfortunately Canadian government did nothing



> The U.S. intelligence committee warned in a report Monday of the risk of spying that comes with working with Huawei and another Chinese telecommunications firm, ZTE. The committee said U.S. regulators should block attempted mergers and acquisitions by the firms, and that the government should avoid using components from those firms in their systems.
> 
> The head of the U.S. intelligence committee, Mike Rogers, told CBC News that Canada should also be wary.


----------



## humble_pie

Pluto said:


> I was thinking that perhaps the underlying agenda here is, not security concerns, but giving China a broken nose over the US China trade deficit. (I can't emperically verify that however.)



i believe this proposal is far off the mark, doesn't fit the current canada/china crisis at all

canada isn't going to "give china a broken nose" over our southern neighbour's longstanding china trade deficit imho. There's no reason for canada to waste even one second on US trade issues in asia.

what's evident is that this country's longstanding good relationship with china has fallen on hard times, plus - it never rains but it pours - right now we have the huawei 5Gen military/security issue on our doorstep. 

we have to figure out how to say Yea to restoring the relationship but Nay to huawei. Talk about navigating between Scylla & Charybdis. Stepping gingerly between the rock & the hard place.

what's interesting is that canada is taking the right approach to this challenge imho. So far, throughout the Meng/Kovrig/Spavor/Schellenburg crisis, ottawa has not uttered one anti-china word. Has done nothing to inflame a tense situation, although chinese officials have, uncharacteristically, made some provocative remarks.

instead ottawa has focused incessantly on the prisoners' safety & well-being, has worked hard to rally world opinion to the prisoner/freedom issue, is succeeding with this pressure campaign.

.


----------



## Pluto

^^ & ^

Well, apparently she was arrested due to allegations her company violated US trade sanctions on Iran. This happened right in the middle of US-China trade dispute. I'm suspicious, due to China's apparent unreasonablness on trade, US went looking for something for leverage. Then allegations of Chinese spying resurfaced. So i wonder why she is not wanted on spying charges too? considering all these other countries making similiar allegations, why not bring spying charges? Anyway, it just looks like it could be the US strategy to get leverage in the trade dispute. Remember the tarriffs on some Canadian exports based on "national security issues"? Canada poses a national security risk to the US? Nobody seemed to think there was much merit to that. 
This China thing could be the same type of deal; trump up security issues for leverage. 

Even so, I am concerned about the apparent requirement that Chinese corps have to do the bidding of their government. That's a scary fact.


----------



## m3s

Pluto said:


> So i wonder why she is not wanted on spying charges too? considering all these other countries making similiar allegations, why not bring spying charges? Anyway, it just looks like it could be the US strategy to get leverage in the trade dispute.


Wouldn't that be the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## sags

The chronology of events nay tell the story.

1 ) US giant telco T-Mobile sends it's patented testing robot to Huawei to test the phones it was making for T-Mobile.

2) T-Mobile sues Huawei for theft of proprietary technology regarding the robot.

3) The courts ruled Huawei guilty of failing to secure the product, but not guilty on all other counts. They pay a small fine.

4) The Americans request Canada arrest the Huawei executive and daughter of the founder/CEO and hold her for extradition. They tell the Canadians the charges are for fraud.

5) The arrest occurs while President Trump is personally meeting with the Premier of China in a talk on trade. The report says that John Bolton knew of the arrest but didn't tell Trump.

6) Shortly after the arrest, Trump makes a public statement that he might use the arrest as part of trade negotiations with China.

7) Indictments are unveiled in the US, which reveal she is to be charged with theft of technology. No mention is made of Iran sanctions.

8) Huawei claims that case has already been settled in a US court.

9) The US has now turned the discussion to the security of Huawei products, rather than Iran sanctions or theft of technology.

It looks to me that T-Mobile didn't like losing their case against Huawei in court and prodded the US into action against the company. Since the arrest, the US has been shifting it's position to adjust to criticism from the public and to defend it's request for the Canadian arrest and extradition.

There may or many not be an issue with security of Huawei products, but I doubt it has anything to do with the impetus for this arrest and extradition request.

The accusations regarding security matters for Chinese products has been around for many years already.

The spin that Trump wasn't informed is very doubtful. Bolton would have been sent packing immediately if that were true. He is still in the White House.

This looks like a manufactured crisis by the US to punish Huawei for stealing technology, and has nothing to do with spyware or sanctions.

This is really a civil matter and not a criminal one, therefore the Canadian government should refuse extradition to the US on that basis.


----------



## Pluto

^
Interesting. Where did you get that cronology?
so the original article that cited Iran sanctions was mistaken. hmmm.


----------



## fatcat

that china willy nilly steals technology and intellectual property is indeed old news and that canada is caught in the middle of political fight between two superpowers is also clear ... "when elephants fight, grass gets trampled", african proverb ... we are the grass

what should alarm us is the chinese response which gives us just a taste of what doing business with the thugs and autocrats of china will be like, arbitrary detention and economic threats and indeed even the threat of murdering one of our citizens

we have to ask ourselves whether the bulwark of doing business with china as an economic threat to the americans is worth the price we now see we will have to pay 

the price is submission to a gang of thugs


----------



## humble_pie

the chinese are not thugs, not even remotely

insulting beijing is going to get nowhere

fortunately canada is pursuing a cleverer strategy


----------



## Pluto

I do admire and respect the Chinese people. They are industrious and have a long history and rich culture. The goverment is a different story. 20 years solitary confinment for throwing a tomatoe at a portrait of the chariman. They look like insecure tyrants to me.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> *the chinese are not thugs, not even remotely*
> 
> insulting beijing is going to get nowhere
> 
> fortunately canada is pursuing a cleverer strategy


hmmm, should i weep or laugh hysterically ?

good lord, the list of violations of human rights by the unelected autocratic thugs that overlord china is so long its hard to know where to start:



total and complete surveillance of the citizenry including an arbitrary rating system which will be used to deny non-conforming citizens access to basic services
arbitrary detention and arrest
no habeus corpus
a complete crackdown on freedom of expression
no independent or free press
no academic freedom
businesses required to spy for the government
concentration camps for dissidents and minorities
suppression of freedom of religion
the ongoing repression of the tibetan people

just to hit a few highlights, detail would require pages and pages

china is a veritable smorgasbord of human rights violations

not to mention they are currently threatening to murder one of our citizens if they don't get their way

it astonishes me how trudeau constantly harps endlessly about human rights and gender rights and aboriginal rights and yet cannot wait to do business with china

"There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime." Justin Trudeau


----------



## fatcat

a classic example of why we all need to be cautious of the chinese (i refer to the nation of china and its "leaders" not canadians of chinese descent)

*'I'm being watched': Anne-Marie Brady, the China critic living in fear of Beijing

*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...dy-the-china-critic-living-in-fear-of-beijing

a new zealand academic who has studied chinese intimidation tactics for 25 years is the object of those very tactics herself including being watched, harassed and intimidated by the chinese after publishing a paper critical of the regime

she is by no means alone as the chinese are reaching out around the world to stifle critics

from the recent globe article talking about the open letter from 143 scholars, diplomats and foreign policy experts calling on bejing to release the detained canucks



> “Up until recently, most Chinese politics experts saw the issue of ‘human rights and China’ *in terms of how the party-state was restricting what Chinese people could say and do,*” said Bill Callahan, an international relations scholar at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who signed the letter. The detention of the two Canadians “shows *we now need to think about human rights in terms of how the party-state tries to restrict what we do in the West, as well.*”


----------



## jargey3000

looks like John MacCallum (sp.?) might be back hittin' the booze again, eh?


----------



## humble_pie

jargey3000 said:


> looks like John MacCallum (sp.?) might be back hittin' the booze again, eh?



spelling is perfect but conceptualization is far off the mark

macCallum is stone cold sober. He's playing the role of the counter-messenger in this complex intrigue.

jargey you're one who likes songs. In this one, the PM & the foreign minister are singing the principal melody. The ambassador has begun to quietly play the counterpoint.

all things considered, the chamber music is progressing excellently. The full orchestra of global complainants - the 143 letter signers, the nation-states speaking out against the chinese detention of canadians - is resonating with china. Has, in fact, touched the key nerve of chinese pride, which is what it was designed to do.

one can see that the letter from the dignitaries is "causing discomfort" by the way china immediately struck back at the 143 letter signers, university of london china scholar Steve Tsang told the globe & mail.

next, canada's ambassador to china appears onstage, sounding a new note. MacCallum hints that Meng Wanzhou will be released to freedom. It's a trial balloon. We're already into the symphony's 2nd movement.

next, ottawa has to prepare to make peace with the US of A. That'll be the crescendo, the big one, the war & peace 3rd movement of the symphony.

the 4th movement - not until february - is likely to be about the exchange of prisoners


----------



## fatcat

it's hard to know whether he is just pulling a spanky by shooting his mouth off or if this is a calculated move by the government and he is the mouthpiece

he is actually telling the truth, meng's extradition is far from a done deal, a canadian judge may well decide there are insufficient grounds to extradite, though his reasoning that canada doesn't support iran sanctions makes not a lot of sense if she is being held because of a charge of fraud ... he blames spanky for politicizing things and then does exactly the same thing himself

i also see the americans have not made a formal extradition request and i wonder if this is tied-in to negotiations with china which may come to a conclusion shortly and before the end of the month ... if this is the case, the extradition request may be dropped

if i were to guess, i suspect meng will be home, not quite in time for new year, but she will be home shortly


----------



## humble_pie

macCallum is not shooting off his mouth. He's the cello in a piece of exquisite chamber music.

ottawa is doing so much better than i ever could have imagined. Huge burst of energy. 20-30 countries lobbied by a team working round the clock. Almost 20 states on board with canada.

it's the chinese pride thing. The liberals knew it. Now they're playing it.


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> good lord, the list of violations of human rights by the unelected autocratic thugs that overlord china is so long its hard to know where to start:
> 
> 
> 
> total and complete surveillance of the citizenry including an arbitrary rating system which will be used to deny non-conforming citizens access to basic services
> arbitrary detention and arrest
> no habeus corpus
> a complete crackdown on freedom of expression
> no independent or free press
> no academic freedom
> businesses required to spy for the government
> concentration camps for dissidents and minorities
> suppression of freedom of religion
> the ongoing repression of the tibetan people
> 
> just to hit a few highlights, detail would require pages and pages
> 
> china is a veritable smorgasbord of human rights violations
> 
> not to mention they are currently threatening to murder one of our citizens if they don't get their way




was there a point to the above ancient history though. All those issues were known, explored, analyzed, reported in full to the watching world in the 1950s. They've been gone over w fine tooth combs for the last 3/4 century.

of course china is ruthless. Of course china is cruel. Those are not the current issues. The current crisis is about manoeuvering the middle kingdom into orderly, rational & law-abiding behaviour. To the extent that tiny canada david can have any effect upon giant china goliath at all, that is.

china is one of the two most ancient civilizations in the world. To the best of my knowledge, across more than two thousand years china has had no history of democratic government.

calling chinese rulers "thugs" merely because they are not like us, is worse than disrespectful imho. It's fomenting trouble. It's deliberately making matters worse at a moment when lives are at stake & parties of goodwill should be seeking to support policies that can or could solve the emergency problem.

.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> was there a point to the above ancient history though. All those issues were known, explored, analyzed, reported in full to the watching world in the 1950s. They've been gone over w fine tooth combs for the last 3/4 century.
> 
> of course china is ruthless. Of course china is cruel. Those are not the current issues. The current crisis is about manoeuvering the middle kingdom into orderly, rational & law-abiding behaviour. To the extent that tiny canada david can have any effect upon giant china goliath at all, that is.
> 
> china is one of the two most ancient civilizations in the world. To the best of my knowledge, across more than two thousand years china has had no history of democratic government.
> 
> *calling chinese rulers "thugs" merely because they are not like us, is worse than disrespectful imho. It's fomenting trouble. It's deliberately making matters worse at a moment when lives are at stake & parties of goodwill should be seeking to support policies that can or could solve the emergency problem.
> *
> .


"fomenting trouble" ? "worse than disrespectful" ? 

they are threatening to MURDER one of our citizens if they don't get their way ... my god pie, do we now inhabit the actual same country ? 

are you reading the bejing daily or the globe and mail ? ... lord ... (see cat bang head repeatedly against wall and laugh hysterically)

i am not calling the chinese thugs because they are not like us pie, i am calling them thugs because ... they *are* thugs .... lord ::cower:

anyway, the good news is that not only canadians but the entire world now sees the chinese for the thugs they really are (no different from maduro or the castro's or a long list of tyrants we are well familiar with) 

i count this episode a win however it rolls out


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> "fomenting trouble" ? "worse than disrespectful" ?
> 
> they are threatening to MURDER one of our citizens if they don't get their way ... my god pie, do we now inhabit the actual same country ?
> 
> are you reading the bejing daily or the globe and mail ? ... lord ... (see cat bang head repeatedly against wall and laugh hysterically)
> 
> i am not calling the chinese thugs because they are not like us pie (see pie holding the racism card high in hand eager to slam it down on the table), i am calling them thugs because ... they *are* thugs .... lord ::cower:
> 
> omg, you attain lofty notes of just plain ottawa left-wing-bureacratic-foreign-office-in-bred-ness that staggers me sometimes, take a trip to alberta maybe, have tea with the fat man, he'll give you some ideas on the chinese
> 
> anyway, the good news is that not only canadians but the entire world now sees the chinese for the thugs they really are (no different from maduro or the castro's or a long list of tyrants we are well familiar with)
> 
> i count this episode a win however it rolls out



there u go again each:

the explosions the emotionalism the cursing the oh-so-well-self-diagnosed hysterics

right now it appears that ottawa might be able to pull off the miracle of david battling goliath in the old testament. We'll see how it goes. Keep in mind that my years-ago boss from GA - recently retired so he's now free to speak out - was among the first to say that canada will not send ms Meng to extradition, canada will release her to freedom.

keep in mind also, fatcat, that it was yourself who insisted that canada had no choice but to respect the bilateral extradition treaty down to the last dot.

long-term, every country on the planet could benefit from settling down, in a very sober state of mind, to reconfigure its china policy. The middle kingdom has hardened its foreign politics in recent years, evidently believes very strongly that it is not being accorded its due as the world's No. 2 power.

no state has any choice but to get along, as best it can, with china. There's no longer any time or room to increase the temperature by insulting chinese leaders as "thugs."

in a related topic, so far china has not mentioned its ultimate weapon against the US. These are the trillions of US dollars that china holds in the form of US T-bills. This has been the situation for at least 2 decades. The US buys low-priced chinese goods & pays in US $$; china has no choice but to accumulate trillions of US $$; therefore china buys & so far has mostly been holding, USD government treasury bills.

a few years ago, in an effort to reduce US dollar hegemony on the planet, china was instrumental in setting up a new BRICs bank authority. The hope from its founders - china, brazil, russia, india - is that BRIC would come to rival the World Bank & its international monetary fund.

at that time, a few years ago, china sold off nearly half of its USD T-Bill holdings in order to endow the new BRIC banking authority. But china still holds an awesome amount of USD - far more than does america herself. If china were to dump its T-Bill holdings rapidly, many economists say a world recession, possible a global financial collapse, would inevitably result. Certainly such an action would destroy the US economy.

the above are only some of the reasons why persons of intelligent good will keep their tongues & their tempers under control when it comes to foreign policy. They don't resort to cheap insults. They don't throw the "thug" accusation around in a promiscuous manner.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> there u go again each:
> 
> the explosions the emotionalism the cursing the oh-so-well-self-diagnosed hysterics
> 
> right now it appears that ottawa might be able to pull off the miracle of david battling goliath in the old testament. We'll see how it goes. Keep in mind that my years-ago boss from GA - recently retired so he's now free to speak out - was among the first to say that canada will not send ms Meng to extradition, canada will release her to freedom.
> 
> *keep in mind also, fatcat, that it was yourself who insisted that canada had no choice but to respect the bilateral extradition treaty down to the last dot.
> *
> long-term, every country on the planet could benefit from settling down, in a very sober state of mind, to reconfigure its china policy. The middle kingdom has hardened its foreign politics in recent years, evidently believes very strongly that it is not being accorded its due as the world's No. 2 power.
> 
> no state has any choice but to get along, as best it can, with china. There's no longer any time or room to increase the temperature by insulting chinese leaders as "thugs."
> 
> in a related topic, so far china has not mentioned its ultimate weapon against the US. These are the trillions of US dollars that china holds in the form of US T-bills. This has been the situation for at least 2 decades. The US buys low-priced chinese goods & pays in US $$; china has no choice but to accumulate trillions of US $$; therefore china buys & so far has mostly been holding, USD government treasury bills.
> 
> a few years ago, in an effort to reduce US dollar hegemony on the planet, china was instrumental in setting up a new BRICs bank authority. The hope from its founders - china, brazil, russia, india - is that BRIC would come to rival the World Bank & its international monetary fund.
> 
> at that time, a few years ago, china sold off nearly half of its USD T-Bill holdings in order to endow the new BRIC banking authority. But china still holds an awesome amount of USD - far more than does america herself. If china were to dump its T-Bill holdings rapidly, many economists say a world recession, possible a global financial collapse, would inevitably result. Certainly such an action would destroy the US economy.
> 
> the above are only some of the reasons why persons of intelligent good will keep their tongues & their tempers under control when it comes to foreign policy. They don't resort to cheap insults. They don't throw the "thug" accusation around in a promiscuous manner.


first, to the easy part pie, there is no need to remind me that i insisted that canada had to arrest meng, under the obligations of the treaty canada had no choice, they are caught between gigantic opposing forces and had to honour their treaty obligations

i am well aware that china holds t-bills and holds that over the head of the usa

as to issue of whether we need to "get along' with china i disagree, vehemently, it would be nice to trade with china but based on their recent behaviour i don't think it's wise to do anything but low level trade

sure we could use the trade, we need the trade but we also, according to our pm, need to speak out with regard to human rights, we call out the saudis, the venezuelans and a host of other bad actors, we chide and scold countries for gender inequality, we preach constantly about human rights and why we are better because we stand by the rule of law

but we give china a pass, we look the other way when the chinese misbehave ... do you seriously think that we are supposed to merely remain polite canadians when the chinese threaten to murder our citizen (and virtually every observer who takes an interest seem to come to the conclusion that the death sentence meted out to the poor schlub in china is payback for the detention of meng)

and you seriously think we should remain polite and contrite ?

china reaches out across the globe to arrest, harass and silence its critics, wherever they are and you think we should remain polite canadians ?

sorry pie, i do not, indeed we have a responsibility to call them out for what they are, we have a responsibility to speak up

i don't know how you characterize the threat to murder the canadian held for drug smuggling as anything other than thuggery ? what else can you call it pie ?


----------



## jargey3000

2 types of music I'm not terribly fond of (well, 3, if you count "irish-newfoundland" as music!):
chamber music, and modern "country" music.
one hurts my soul, the other, my ears...hic! ...&#55358;&#56609;&#55358;&#56609;&#55358;&#56609;


----------



## jargey3000

testing....:distrust::subdued::smiley_simmons:

and &#55357;&#56848;&#55357;&#56859;&#55357;&#56447;


----------



## jargey3000

hmmmmm.?


----------



## fatcat

rather than the cello, i think pie needs to be playing the hurdy-gurdy to really drown out the strange noises coming from this government which is cocking up this file with a flourish

i am sympathetic since we are caught between two angry gorillas but big-hair has mishandled this by allowing mccallum to make his little speech which has only further politicized the issue or, if he didn't authorize mccallum's strange mouth noises, by not forcefully refuting them

the situation is now hopelessly muddled, confused and politicized

if meng actually is extradited, canada will face the full fury of the chi-coms, which i will love since it will further reinforce their true image as autocrats and dictators

i really do think there is a good chance that spanky and xi will make nice before the end of the month and the usa may drop its extradition request and the whole affair will deflate and come to nothing much like big-hairs giant bouffant

we shall see


----------



## humble_pie

the natPost's andrew coyne easily shows how ambassador macAllum's remarks are pre-planned & deliberate:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/an...nd-china-off-against-each-other#comments-area


----------



## humble_pie

canada announced late this past week that it will pay telecommunication network manufacturer Nokia of finland $40 million for 5Gen system research.

the federal department of innovation, science & economic development will provide the funds, Reuters said.

other media have reported that european 5Gen system equipment would be significantly more costly than huawei, which is said to be the world's lowest cost 5Gen manufacturer.


https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/canada-set-nokia-c-40-million-5g-research-232200355--finance.html


----------



## fatcat

i saw that and was pleased, it's a smart move even if the finns and swedes gear costs a little more, anyway, justin trudeau doesn't mind one damn bit, he pays top dollar for everything with our money

i also enjoyed this which tells a more sober story about china, haven't read the book but liked the review which accords with everything else i have read about china's lack of respect for our liberal democracy and their targeting of dissidents all over the world

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/art...horpes-new-book-claws-of-the-panda-shows-why/

in a nutshell, the chinese have targeted canada as an easy mark and we have been happy to walk around with the target on our back

his conclusion is that we: “need to find a less self-delusional, more courageous, and more intelligent way of dealing with the new version of the Middle Kingdom.”


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

McCallum is gone. 'bout time, even before his recent blithering. 
https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN1PK0Q5-OCATP


----------



## OhGreatGuru

humble_pie said:


> the natPost's andrew coyne easily shows how ambassador macAllum's remarks are pre-planned & deliberate:
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/an...nd-china-off-against-each-other#comments-area


Yeah, I thought Coyne's article was really interesting. He speculates that McCallum's faux pas may have been deliberately orchestrated. Which, as cynical/conspiracy theorist as it appears, also seems to be the only logical explanation for such an experienced diplomat to have done this.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

But McCallum is (was) not an experienced diplomat. That was part of the problem when he was given that plumb position 2yrs ago. Ah well, he'll have to survive on a big fat pension somehow.


----------



## fatcat

i think we now know that it was very likely not orchestrated by the government and was a serious slip on the part of an envoy who has perhaps become a little starry eyed in his views of the host country and wanted to step in, on his own initiative, to try and calm the chinese down 

now that trudeau has fired him seems to confirm that he was acting alone (good for trudeau on this one)

coyne is saying that by handing meng over we will then have a stronger hand in refusing to use huawei which strikes me as an indictment of our government if we are forced to hand over a lawfully detained person as an excuse to justify the non-use of huawei

we should not use huawei because it is our security interest not to do so (not to mention that the 5-eyes are moving in that direction and it will really cock things up if we flood our country with huawei equipment)

i sill think that spanky is getting close to a preliminary agreement with china and that the dropping of the extradition for meng will be part of it


----------



## OhGreatGuru

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> But McCallum is (was) not an experienced diplomat. That was part of the problem when he was given that plumb position 2yrs ago. Ah well, he'll have to survive on a big fat pension somehow.


I stand corrected. I thought he was a career diplomat. That changes my perception. But he is 68, 18 yrs as a distinguished academic; 6 years in private sector; ~15 years as an MP, including a couple of ministerial posts; and only last 2 years as diplomat. One suspects that he said to himself (assuming that he thought at all) "Hey, I can retire comfortably anytime, I'll say what I think and let the chips fall where they may." What he actually said is no more than many others have thought privately, and some have stated publicly: that China should focus on the judicial process, because they have a good chance of winning; and it gets better every time POTUS opens his mouth. The only thing wrong is that it was undiplomatic (for a diplomat) to say so. And the government couldn't say it without appearing to be politicizing the judicial process. 

I still don't think that entirely rules out orchestration either. He may have said the same thing privately to Trudeau ahead of time, and told him he was quite happy to be made a sacrificial lamb if needed.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

OhGreatGuru said:


> ...What he actually said is no more than many others have thought privately, and some have stated publicly...The only thing wrong is that it was undiplomatic (for a diplomat) to say so...


Yes :encouragement:


----------



## humble_pie

coyne got it. Oh great guru is getting it. Even a dumb pie crust has gotten it. 

my auld boss was right. See post # 72 on 14 january upthread. Now he's saying that ms Meng will go free; the 3 canadians will be returned to canada; & the jury is still out on huawei Gen5 for this country.

john macAllum didn't put a foot wrong. Didn't misspeak a comma. Canada is in the midst of the diplomatic coup of her century. There's been nothing this grand since lester pearson & the 1956 suez crisis.


----------



## fatcat

here is george soros speaking (slowly and hesitantly since he is almost 90) at davos about why we need to speak out against and stand in opposition to the chinese autocracy 

https://youtu.be/7ZGoXP-BWoc

“those of us who want to preserve the open society must work together and form an effective alliance, *we have a task that can’t be left to goverments *history has shown that even governments that want to protect individual freedom have many other interests and *they also give precedence to the freedom of their own citizens over the freedom of the individual as a general principle*” george soros, january 26, 2019

the chinese people are unable, by virtue of a complete lack of even basic human rights, to soeak for themselves and so we must speak for them


----------



## humble_pie

the real story is that washington is hell-bent on blocking huawei 5Gen internet. says the NY Times. FiveGen refers to the future high-capacity high-speed networks that will soon enable smart cities on a mass scale.

canada probably won't lag far behind australia & new zealand. Both are Five Eyes countries that have joined the US in saying No Way Waa Wei. If the US refuses to allow 5Gen huawei, then canada with its closely-linked commercial & defence networks will likely have to follow suit.

this leaves britain alone among the Five Eyes still dithering over huawei smart cities & smart airborne defence. Last week british foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt was summarily summoned to washington to be told Get You Huawei/Brexit Acts Together.


this New York Times article also explains, in layman's language, some of the technological concerns with huawei intelligence as it operates global 5Gen networks. Evidently western coders have discovered that huawei does indeed control all of its farflung 5Gen hookups out of its headquarters in schenzen, china. Not necessarily for sinister reasons, at least not yet, says the NY Times. So far, huawei's head office controls the 5Gen networks for updating purposes only.

but with huawei beholden to the chinese government - meng wanzhou's father Ren, who founded huawei, is a favourite son of the chinese communist party - any degree of chinese control of global 5Gen systems is troubling. I for one was happy to have the opportunity to read this article.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage


_NY Times photo: a Huawei production center in Dongguan, China_











.


----------



## fatcat

right, our own government has pointed out that article 7 of the national intelligence law requires all citizens and companies to cooperate with chinese national intelligence services



> 2. _Global reach of Chinese companies _*Compelling corporate cooperation significantly expanded Chinese intelligence organisations’ domestic coverage. *Huawei was not yet a global company. Xiaomi did not exist. Internet-of-Things was a vision rather than an emerging convenience. Both the human and technical reach of Chinese companies now give the intelligence services opportunities to gain direct access to many governments within the developing world


https://www.canada.ca/en/security-i...ountrys-future-intelligence-competitions.html



> Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of [emphasis added]. The state shall protect individuals and organisations that support, cooperate with, and collaborate in national intelligence work.


https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/h...inas-intelligence-and-counter-espionage-laws/

it is very hard to understand how huawei thinks they are going to sell their products to the west given that they are legally required to spy for the state


----------



## fatcat

the usa has fired a rather significant shot across the bow of both the chinese and canada today with the announcement of charges being filed against meng and two affiliates though i haven't heard that they have formally made the extradition request

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/wor...e-criminal-charges-related-to-huawei-sources/

i heard the assistant us attorney on the _liberal broadcast network_ ... aka the CBC ... and he was pants-wettingly effusive and eloquent in his praise of canada, my god, i haven't heard so much love since sonny and cher sang _i got you babe

_this is getting very, very good, the usa just upped the amount of brine in the pickle jar that canada is currently sitting in

on the good side, it will really piss the chinese off and they will continue to make ridiculous, aggressive and autocratic remarks which i will greatly enjoy as it lays bare the soul of the regime


----------



## m3s

Huawei poached a bunch of Nortel employees according to LinkedIn profiles

I first bought Qualcomm in 2011 as a play on these future mobile networks that will be in everything. I've been on and off that roller-coaster and back on today.

US had to step in for Qualcomm to survive Asian bids. Too bad we couldn't protect Nortel and now invest millions in a foreign flip phone company instead


----------



## james4beach

I still don't see the justification for Canada to extradite. Engaging in trade with Iran is not against Canadian laws, but that's still the basis for the US charges.

By the same logic, the US could demand extradition of CEOs and CFOs of many Canadian companies (including big banks) to face huge jail times. That would obviously not be acceptable.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> I still don't see the justification for Canada to extradite. Engaging in trade with Iran is not against Canadian laws, but that's still the basis for the US charges.
> 
> By the same logic, the US could demand extradition of CEOs and CFOs of many Canadian companies (including big banks) to face huge jail times. That would obviously not be acceptable.



isn't it too early to have any kind of opinion though. Why not sit back & see what the BC court has to say. Then after that see what the federal minister of justice has to say. By which date we will be getting into 2020. Good thing ms Meng has a nice comfy luxury house in vancouver to serve as her makeshift prison.


----------



## james4beach

humble_pie said:


> isn't it too early to have any kind of opinion though. Why not sit back & see what the BC court has to say. Then after that see what the federal minister of justice has to say. By which date we will be getting into 2020. Good thing ms Meng has a nice comfy luxury house in vancouver to serve as her makeshift prison.


Good point


----------



## james4beach

A commentator on the radio (guest on CBC's The Current who is the author of a book on extradition law) is echoing the concern I've talked about: that if America's case is fundamentally about trade sanction violations, it does not meet the test of dual criminality because this is not an offence in Canada.

The argument can be made that this is abuse of process: the extradition process is being abused because the Americans are seeking extradition for political (international policy) purposes.


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> A commentator on the radio (guest on CBC's The Current who is the author of a book on extradition law) is echoing the concern I've talked about: that if America's case is fundamentally about trade sanction violations, it does not meet the test of dual criminality because this is not an offence in Canada.
> 
> The argument can be made that this is abuse of process: the extradition process is being abused because the Americans are seeking extradition for political (international policy) purposes.


a request for extradition is not extradition, ultimately it will be up to a canadian judge interpreting canadian law ... he will determine if the charge of fraud meets the test

you are conflating the request to be held with the ratification of the extradition


----------



## Mukhang pera

james4beach said:


> I still don't see the justification for Canada to extradite. Engaging in trade with Iran is not against Canadian laws, but that's still the basis for the US charges.


It seems, james, that you want to see the extradition proceedings decided at the political level. Never mind having a court rule on it. Let JT or one of his minions decide. Just nip the thing in the bud. Decide we are no longer bound by any extradition treaty and repeal the Extradition Act. Like hp, I'd just as soon wait to see what the court has to say.

As well, unless you have some divine insight into the matter, how is it you are aware of the exact nature of the charges on which the US will seek to extradite? All most of us know is what has been reported in the media. And do they have some special connection to the attorneys in the US who are assembling the extradition materials, so they are able report with unerring precision, allowing us armchair extradition judges to see plainly that the case for extradition is hopeless? If it is, the court will say so.


----------



## james4beach

I want to see the courts do their jobs here and I pray they are independent of political pressure, including pressure from the US.

By the way, I work in the US defense space. I do have some knowledge about the general mood towards Huawei because I see it in my daily work. In some cases, the perspective towards Huawei that I hear is coming almost directly from US government officials. So yes, I do have some special insights on this matter.

As a technologist who helps defend both US & Canada from threats, I am firmly committed to helping our countries stay safe from harms. At the same time, I have a deep respect for our legal systems including public transparency because I think solid democracies and legal systems are what makes the west so great. I think it would be a tragedy if we let our legal systems get abused for political purposes. In this case, the "political purpose" I'm talking about is a strong anti-China, anti-Huawei agenda from the US govt.

That agenda should not be allowed to drive legal processes in Canada.


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> I want to see the courts do their jobs here and I pray they are independent of political pressure, including pressure from the US.
> 
> By the way, I work in the US defense space. I do have some knowledge about the general mood towards Huawei because I see it in my daily work. In some cases, the perspective towards Huawei that I hear is coming almost directly from US government officials. So yes, I do have some special insights on this matter.
> 
> As a technologist who helps defend both US & Canada from threats, I am firmly committed to helping our countries stay safe from harms. At the same time, I have a deep respect for our legal systems including public transparency because I think solid democracies and legal systems are what makes the west so great. I think it would be a tragedy if we let our legal systems get abused for political purposes. In this case, the "political purpose" I'm talking about is a strong anti-China, anti-Huawei agenda from the US govt.
> 
> That agenda should not be allowed to drive legal processes in Canada.


we can all agree that we want canadian courts to do their job independent of any political influence regardless of where it originates

what is more interesting to me is the issue of your defense of both huawei and china

the united states is far from alone in it's mistrust of chinese telecommunications equipment ... new zealand, japan, australia and korea are concerned about chinese spying using their technology, given that chinese law requires companies to spy for the state how can we not be concerned ?

finally, i'm trying to understand your defence of china as someone who regularly defends the rule of law and especially human rights given that china has neither

they are modelling for the world an authoritarian and total surveillance state which deprives citizens of even the most basic human rights


----------



## james4beach

fatcat said:


> we can all agree that we want canadian courts to do their job independent of any political influence regardless of where it originates


Yes, agreed



> what is more interesting to me is the issue of your defense of both huawei and china


I'm not defending them. Demanding fairness in legal process does not mean one sympathizes with the accused.

If a man is accused of murder and he's a child abuser, and I stand up for a fair trial and due process, it does not mean I support child abusers. It means that I want a fair legal system with due process.

In the case of Huawei, I am saying that US foreign policy and their political ideologies should not taint our legal system (and our sovereignty). I have reason to believe that this sanctions-based extradition request _is an abuse_ of the legal system. That upsets me, no matter who is accused. And when a very unpopular person is targeted (Huawei, etc) I think it can blind people to the abuse of process that is happening.

For similar reasons, legal processes can easily be abused when going after terrorists. The hatred and disgust for terrorists blinds people to the unfair processes. Similarly, it's popular to beat up on China and Huawei right now... the independent thinker should be especially watchful under these conditions.



> finally, i'm trying to understand your defence of china as someone who regularly defends the rule of law and especially human rights


I don't recall defending China for any of that.


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> Yes, agreed
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending them. Demanding fairness in legal process does not mean one sympathizes with the accused.
> 
> If a man is accused of murder and he's a child abuser, and I stand up for a fair trial and due process, it does not mean I support child abusers. It means that I want a fair legal system with due process.
> 
> In the case of Huawei, I am saying that US foreign policy and their political ideologies should not taint our legal system (and our sovereignty). I have reason to believe that this sanctions-based extradition request _is an abuse_ of the legal system. That upsets me, no matter who is accused. And when a very unpopular person is targeted (Huawei, etc) I think it can blind people to the abuse of process that is happening.
> 
> For similar reasons, legal processes can easily be abused when going after terrorists. The hatred and disgust for terrorists blinds people to the unfair processes. Similarly, it's popular to beat up on China and Huawei right now... the independent thinker should be especially watchful under these conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall defending China for any of that.


fair enough, i got the impression from your above post that you felt china and huawei were being unfairly targeted politically, personally i think they are indeed being targeted and it is entirely fair and based on the evidence at hand

as to the possibility of there being political motives behind meng's detainment, i think that may well be the case, we will see what a canadian court has to say


----------



## fatcat

it's now clear that the indictment against huawei and mrs meng is about far, far more than merely violating sanctions against iran and covers a wide range of malfeasance 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/business/huawei-charges/index.html



> The DOJ case against Ms. Meng, it needs be said, vindicated Ottawa’s legalistic approach to the crisis. As Jorge Guajardo, a former Mexican ambassador to China, told The Globe and Mail on Monday, *the DOJ filing “gives Canada a lot of credibility. They were not just being used by the United States to pressure China, but acting in accordance with a serious criminal issue.”*


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-on-huawei-justin-trudeau-needs-trump-to-be-trump/


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> it's now clear that the indictment against huawei and mrs meng is about far, far more than merely violating sanctions against iran and covers a wide range of malfeasance
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/business/huawei-charges/index.html
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-on-huawei-justin-trudeau-needs-trump-to-be-trump/




one cannot see that the above 2 linked articles offer any new evidence whatsoever that ms Meng did anything other than what the first charges against her, almost 2 months ago, alleged:


that her company has been stealing trade secrets from US companies for years


that ms Meng conspired to defraud a bank. Not even a US bank, it turns out it was a british bank w historic roots in china. The bank itself is not saying anything except to note that it has not been charged


that ms Meng used a subsidiary so that huawei could get around US sanctions against business deals w iran.



the lawrence martin piece in the globe & mail is not even about the US accusations. It's about canada's prospects as custodian & temporary jailer of china's crown princess of communication technology. Martin mentions US accusations only peripherally.

the cnn piece adds details to the well-known DOJ charges but adds nothing new to these. Of course the DOJ makes them sound like a big deal. Yawn.


----------



## m3s

That G&M article seems to be speculation and opinion by design

Today's CBC article was slightly more informative including this gem



> Since 2010, the U.K. government has overseen a cybersecurity testing facility that was founded to analyze Huawei's products for vulnerabilities in an attempt to mitigate any perceived national security concerns. (*In an ironic twist, the lab is run by Huawei*, but operates independently from its parent company, according to a government auditor.)





> Even the U.K.'s own oversight regime admitted last year that, due to recently identified shortcomings in Huawei's engineering process, it "can provide only limited assurance that all risks to U.K. national security from Huawei's involvement in the U.K.'s critical networks have been sufficiently mitigated.


----------



## humble_pie

^^

a story that i really liked, that i whizzed thru in the globe couple days ago, was written by a former canadian diplomat who's now a prof at some U like carleton. He was describing what it was like to work the trade shows in china in the 1980s & 90s.

the western manufacturers would set up their product displays in the chinese convention halls. Then at night, chinese engineers would disassemble all the critical products & conduct reverse engineering exams. Then as dawn approached, the engineers would assemble all these products back together again.

he said he was canadian embassy in what was then peking. I don't know how the westerners knew that their products had been spied upon during the wee hours, i suppose one could tag the products somehow so that if a screw were turned, such unscrewing would leave a marker ...


----------



## fatcat

m3s said:


> That G&M article seems to be speculation and opinion by design
> 
> Today's CBC article was slightly more informative including this gem


i posted a link upthread to the bloomberg story which is referenced in the cbc article

in brief, bloomberg has 17 sources that swear that super micro had their boards compromised by a chinese spy chip and yet apple, amazon and super micro ... swear ... on a stack of bibles ... that the story isn’t true, it never happened 

this is versus 17, count em, 17 bloomberg sources

so this goes to the heart of the matter, it’s extremely difficult to know whether the supply chain is compromised 

the smart thing to do is not to buy your critical infrastructure gear, your core gear from a supplier that is known to be a bad actor and is known to steal technology and moreover is known to have enshrined in the law that chinese companies have a legal obligation to serve the interest of the state, they must spy for the state if told to do so, they have no ability to resist or to push back

i can see no circumstances under which canada is going to allow huawei gear into the country, telus and bell need to follow rogers and get rid of it and move on, there are plenty of 5g alternatives to huawei


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> one cannot see that the above 2 linked articles offer any new evidence whatsoever that ms Meng did anything other than what the first charges against her, almost 2 months ago, alleged:
> 
> 
> that her company has been stealing trade secrets from US companies for years
> that ms Meng conspired to defraud a bank. Not even a US bank, it turns out it was a british bank w historic roots in china. The bank itself is not saying anything except to note that it has not been charged
> that ms Meng used a subsidiary so that huawei could get around US sanctions against business deals w iran.
> 
> the lawrence martin piece in the globe & mail is not even about the US accusations. It's about canada's prospects as custodian & temporary jailer of china's crown princess of communication technology. Martin mentions US accusations only peripherally.
> 
> the cnn piece adds details to the well-known DOJ charges but adds nothing new to these. Of course the DOJ makes them sound like a big deal. Yawn.


i linked the globe piece only as a reference for the mexican amabassadors quote which is thought was quite significant...


----------



## humble_pie

pretty amazing (thumbnail description of the Internet of Things, how it works):

https://networks.nokia.com/5g

there are only 4 manufacturers of 5Gen infrastructure equipment on the planet. Maybe 5 if you include qualcomm from the US.

a big surprise is that nokia & ericsson are successfully expanding 5Gen sales into china, of all places. Nokia's 5Gen sales to china are said to have tripled last 3 years. Evidently not all chinese telcos are uniquely favouring huawei, their own native son.

it might turn out to be the case that the most robust & secure 5Gen system for any nation, with least risk of interception or malicious invasion, is a hybrid system with modules supplied by at least 3 out of the 5 OEMS.

lay persons do not really understand about the I of T. I think this is why we in canada should wait for the reports from the expert committee. Some of their material may be classified; but there are good investigative journos in this country & some of the initially guarded information will certainly surface.

without the above inputs, no one in canada can be in any position right now to decide whether to ban huawei, or to what extent huawei products should be banned, & if so, which products.

there's risk with 5Gen from every foreign country. Canada, by definition, is going to have to buy this new architecture from a foreign country.

take the 2 scandinavian manufacturers. Finland is right on russia's border. Sweden is next west. What if russia invades helsinki or stockholm? certainly the way finns & swedes are agitating to join NATO these days, one would think there might be a genuine risk of russian expansion. Would canada have a dedicated nokia or ericsson 5Gen network at the time of such invasion? hello! goodbye sovereign canada!!

.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

I sure hope they figure it out soon. We need the talking toilet, custom billboards, and other capabilities 5G will provide.

Oh wait. It's about the greater data speeds and mobile phone capability that I don't need.


----------



## m3s

5G is low latency. Most people still confuse bandwidth for speed. Bandwidth lets you stream in HD by buffering data.. try gaming or 2 way communication and you will learn the difference. With low latency you could basically tap into a supercomputer processor from a thin client aka cloud computing, or control autonomous robotics with far less delay. This is required for many things that you may not even realize is coming. A doctor could perform surgery from the other side of the planet. SpaceX has also already started to launch global low latency internet that is routed far more efficiently than the current design that hasn't changed much in decades. Combine that with the death of cable TV and you might reconsider some telco investments soon.


----------



## humble_pie

^^ to onlyMO

incoming nuclear missiles. anti-missiles. driverless cars & trucks.

some day your life could be saved by a surgeon 10,000 km away doing laser surgery w 5Gen optics

if you're going to answer that you'd rather die than have your chest sliced open by a robot, might i say that i agree w that


----------



## humble_pie

m3s said:


> SpaceX has also already started to launch global low latency internet that is routed far more efficiently than the current design that hasn't changed much in decades. Combine that with the death of cable TV and you might reconsider some telco investments soon.



bear w us please we are all greenhorns here

ok cable tv might expire. Is that supposed to mean that we should start eliminating telco investments right now?


----------



## fatcat

jr


humble_pie said:


> pretty amazing (thumbnail description of the Internet of Things, how it works):
> 
> https://networks.nokia.com/5g
> 
> there are only 4 manufacturers of 5Gen infrastructure equipment on the planet. Maybe 5 if you include qualcomm from the US.
> 
> a big surprise is that nokia & ericsson are successfully expanding 5Gen sales into china, of all places. Nokia's 5Gen sales to china are said to have tripled last 3 years. Evidently not all chinese telcos are uniquely favouring huawei, their own native son.
> 
> it might turn out to be the case that the most robust & secure 5Gen system for any nation, with least risk of interception or malicious invasion, is a hybrid system with modules supplied by at least 3 out of the 5 OEMS.
> 
> lay persons do not really understand about the I of T. I think this is why we in canada should wait for the reports from the expert committee. Some of their material may be classified; but there are good investigative journos in this country & some of the initially guarded information will certainly surface.
> 
> without the above inputs, no one in canada can be in any position right now to decide whether to ban huawei, or to what extent huawei products should be banned, & if so, which products.
> 
> there's risk with 5Gen from every foreign country. Canada, by definition, is going to have to buy this new architecture from a foreign country.
> 
> take the 2 scandinavian manufacturers. Finland is right on russia's border. Sweden is next west. What if russia invades helsinki or stockholm? certainly the way finns & swedes are agitating to join NATO these days, one would think there might be a genuine risk of russian expansion. Would canada have a dedicated nokia or ericsson 5Gen network at the time of such invasion? hello! goodbye sovereign canada!!
> 
> .


both the ceo and founder of huawei seem like decent men who proclaim that they are honest businessmen with a vey good product ... we may well be doing them a disservice and are even being unjust by accusing them of things they haven’t done nor would not do

the problem is that first, as you say, even the experts have a very difficult time understanding how and in what ways the technology might be compromised 

second, there is the issue of the hegemony of the state over any and all chinese companies who simply have no grounds on which to say “no” when the state demands that you spy for them, its even written into chinese law

maybe we will see something like you suggest, a global standards body, a referee of some kind

indeed, as the chinese finally produce innovative and unique technology of their own, they are going worry about their own technology being stolen and their own networks compromised in exactly the same way that we worry they will do to us


----------



## m3s

There’s definitely people who understand it but they tend to be the same people who intend to exploit it themselves. Accusing someone of something acknowledges that it exists right. Otherwise why not strive to make next gen commercial networks secure. Secure networks have existed for decades already. Low latency secure networks even, to say control a drone from the other side of the planet, just not low latency and high bandwidth and secure all together.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Thanks m3s and humble. I'll admit being a bit contrary on some of this stuff. When I read some of the useless (imo) benefits of 5g being described I just shake my head.

Ok, here's an application - did you see the Market Place expose on care in long term care homes last nite (also available online - I'm not a total luddite). 
The issue of too few front line workers and elderly neglect will be no surprise to anyone who has spent time at a LTCH.
Communication, safety & comfort monitoring in LTCH's are archaic. There is HUGE opportunity to develop technology and mobile capability to improve the lives of our elderly and the folks trying to look after them.

These days, no one's mother should be dying alone in the middle of the night, in their bed due to breathing difficulty, trying but unable to reach the call button at the end of a cord because the psw forgot to clip it within her reach. 

Sometimes the frivolity of our (society) applications development focus - 5g being the next holy grail - makes me sick. (to our current McDonald's thread - no I don't need a f'ing iphone app to get a free coffee after buying 7).


----------



## m3s

Not a big fan of McDonald's but I like the mobile ordering when on a motorbike trip. It takes some time to take off motorbike gear and secure your GPS etc but with McDonald's app you can save your favourite orders, pay from the handlebars with a fingerprint and let them bring it out to you while you take off gear instead and keep an eye on GPS etc

When smartphones came I knew they were going to be a big deal but I didn't imagine ordering food with my fingerprint from the parking lot either. Low latency is a big deal and we can't imagine what all it will change. I would say it will change more important things than smartphones and high bandwidth has. Cloud computing and remote AI is pretty big combo


----------



## sags

A lot of fuss of Huwaei but I recall news of concerned security folks discussing Chinese parts imbedded in technology all over the US.

It was said that Chinese components are deeply inbedded in the cockpits of US fighter jets, nuclear plants, nuclear submarines and who knows what else.

Do people know the Chinese developed a satellite that nestles up to US satellites and releases a "baby robot" ? 

The Chinese claim it is designed to fix their satellites, but many in high level security positions are concerned they may actually be capable of disabling US satellites.

From the story, the US military was astonished to watch the Chinese satellite nestle up nice and close and...............pop.............out rolls the baby robot.

Point is..........maybe we are a day late and a dollar short. It isn't just this Chinese company and has been going on for decades from many Chinese companies.

Is it possible the Chinese used our fondness for cheap products and the global trade trend to their security advantage ?

How do we know if products and components manufactured somewhere else don't contain some level of Chinese supplied parts?

Without ferreting out the entire business chain of a product and all it's components, nobody would know.

I have seen original country of origin labels deliberately covered over by new labels indicating a different county. This stuff happens all over all the time.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Do people know the Chinese developed a satellite that nestles up to US satellites and releases a "baby robot" ?
> 
> The Chinese claim it is designed to fix their satellites, but many in high level security positions are concerned they may actually be capable of disabling US satellites.


You can google Chinese ASAT program. All I can say is not just US military are tracking those. Maybe google some Chinese/Russian hypersonic glide vehicles/missiles en passant

NATO is supposed to source all military equipment domestically.. even uniforms are supposed to be made domestically. Can't say for electronics in an F-22 but an F-22 would be strictly separated from the www


----------



## james4beach

These days everyone is complaining about untrusted foreign tech inside our domestic equipment & infrastructure, and yet, companies, shareholders and governments made a conscious decision to eliminate domestic engineering and production over the last 30 years in favour of much cheaper foreign equipment.

One after the other, the North American chip foundries were shut down, electrical engineering and hardware engineering (my own background) was eliminated. When I worked in chip design at an Intel subsidiary in Toronto, the company actually flew in a Chinese engineer... and I had to train him how to take over our jobs. Then the company laid off everyone. This Intel subsidiary by the way also directly accepted technology designs from Huawei. I would receive designs from Huawei engineers and was instructed to get them working; the technology got absorbed into the Intel products.

This Intel subsidiary I worked at loved Huawei and worked very closely with them, cooperating with them in every way, even accepting Huawei-designed tech into their own chips.

So yeah, after deciding that domestic EEs and hardware designers are not worth the big $ ... this is what you get.

Enjoy!


----------



## fatcat

james4beach said:


> These days everyone is complaining about untrusted foreign tech inside our domestic equipment & infrastructure, and yet, companies, shareholders and governments made a conscious decision to eliminate domestic engineering and production over the last 30 years in favour of much cheaper foreign equipment.
> 
> One after the other, the North American chip foundries were shut down, electrical engineering and hardware engineering (my own background) was eliminated. When I worked in chip design at an Intel subsidiary in Toronto, the company actually flew in a Chinese engineer... and I had to train him how to take over our jobs. Then the company laid off everyone. This Intel subsidiary by the way also directly accepted technology designs from Huawei. I would receive designs from Huawei engineers and was instructed to get them working; the technology got absorbed into the Intel products.
> 
> This Intel subsidiary I worked at loved Huawei and worked very closely with them, cooperating with them in every way, even accepting Huawei-designed tech into their own chips.
> 
> So yeah, after deciding that domestic EEs and hardware designers are not worth the big $ ... this is what you get.
> 
> Enjoy!


the reason has less to do with negligence on the part of the west and more to do with the fact that the real money is and will mostly always be in software ... why does so sony have their panels made in korea by lg ? why does apple have their phones assembled in china ? 

when you buy sony and apple you buy the intellectual property, the software and the operating system, sony’s operating system is their superior picture processing, all software

hardware is the sucker bet

obviously in the case of mission critical core telecommunications infrastructure this is now leading to problems 

and the usa should either think hard about trying to start a homegrown industry or coming to some clear understanding of what compromised telecom gear is capable of, and / or how to definitively identify it, or perhaps, learn how to build aftermarket defensive systems into it


----------



## fatcat

outstanding essay in the globe that summarizes quite nicely why we need to think very carefully about how we do business with china

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...sess-its-approach-to-china-if-not-we-may-get/


----------



## m3s

fatcat said:


> the usa should either think hard about trying to start a homegrown industry or coming to some clear understanding of what compromised telecom gear is capable of, and / or how to definitively identify it, or perhaps, learn how to build aftermarket defensive systems into it


US has a "cybertropolis" full scale fuctional city/residential infrastructure for training/testing cyberwarfare. Cyber is probably one of the fastest growing careerfields lately. But does the west have as much dominance in cyber as land/sea/air?


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> outstanding essay in the globe that summarizes quite nicely why we need to think very carefully about how we do business with china
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...sess-its-approach-to-china-if-not-we-may-get/



it's a good article, although fairly far on the rightwing side of the spectrum. Wouldn't call it outstanding though.

in the interests of fair, impartial, non-partisan journalism - which is what one would expect from canada's news media of record - the globe is also publishing a diametrically opposite point of view. This one says that Asia is already the world's Numero Uno superpower & the western world better start getting used to an erosion of democracy.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-welcome-to-the-asian-century/


more on parag khanna later. Notice that the globe presents his article with a perfectly straight face. Eyebrows level as kansas. Now that's class journalism.

.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> it's a good article, although fairly far on the rightwing side of the spectrum. Wouldn't call it outstanding though.
> 
> in the interests of fair, impartial, non-partisan journalism - which is what one would expect from canada's news media of record - the globe is also publishing a diametrically opposite point of view. This one says that Asia is already the world's Numero Uno superpower & the western world better start getting used to an erosion of democracy.
> 
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-welcome-to-the-asian-century/
> 
> 
> more on parag khanna later. Notice that the globe presents his article with a perfectly straight face. Eyebrows level as kansas. Now that's class journalism.
> 
> .


the reason i call it (the article i referenced) outstanding is because i agree with it 

what do i agree with?
boiled to its simplest message: that we should be cautious in dealing with china, we need to engage but never let china establish any kind of hegemony in its dealings with canada

your article though somewhat coloured by ethnic cheat beating (i’m pretty sure that educated asians aren’t the key reason that north american cities are more cosmopolitan and liveable, though they always contribute something of value) is excellent though a little breathless perhaps

anyone who thinks the next century doesn’t belong to asia isn’t paying attention

and the author does a good job of pointing out china’s strengths and weaknesses though i am not entirely sure that china does only want resources and markets and not colonies because china’s behaviour toward canada in the last couple of months seems to see us more as a colony that needs to behave on their terms, rather than a nation with an established respect for the rule of law

and china’s behaviour when it interacts with other countries is so far less than stellar, look at its behaviour in africa where it is frankly racist and treats african’s as badly as we, the european’s, did (khanna rightly points out that the chinese are experiencing some pushback to this behaviour, good)

i grew up on the west coast and lived for extended periods in 4 of the 6 major cities every one of which was deeply influenced by asians and asian culture

living with and working with asians and being influenced by their culture is something i love and take for-granted 

this isn’t a right / left or asian / western issue, it is an issue of human rights

if china is destined to become the dominant power of the next century then we ought all to be worried because at present what they are modeling to the world is an autocratic, dictatorial and total surveillance state completely and utterly devoid of basic human rights

this should worry all of us … that is my beef with china

if china turns out like hong kong where the chinese have a deep respect for human rights (yeah, they learned it from us along with medicine, capitalism and technology and the entire substructure on which the modern world is built, sorry, a little jingoistic detour here) then i am all for the rise of asia

it is inevitable and natural as all empires eventually fade and transform

the question is will they rise with a deep respect for human rights or will they rise as a nightmarish total surveillance state, that question is still unanswered

i am sorry i won’t live to see it


----------



## humble_pie

your author ^^ has a good sentence - i'm paraphrasing here because too lazy to go back & copy the quote

he says that china today is moving in the direction of the vastly enlarged imperial chinese dynasties of yesteryear

take tibet for example. When the empire was strong, china would overrun tibet & annex it. When the empire was weak, tibet's isolation & the resilient character of the tibetan people were enough to push the chinese out. There were several such cycles across the two millennia of chinese civilization. As best i can recall each cycle would last a few hundred years.

parag khanna is another story. You couldn't tell i had tongue in cheek? wry & dry. i'm not a fan of mister khanna.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> your author ^^ has a good sentence - i'm paraphrasing here because too lazy to go back & copy the quote
> 
> he says that china today is moving in the direction of the vastly enlarged imperial chinese dynasties of yesteryear
> 
> take tibet for example. When the empire was strong, china would overrun tibet & annex it. When the empire was weak, tibet's isolation & the resilient character of the tibetan people were enough to push the chinese out. There were several such cycles across the two millennia of chinese civilization. As best i can recall each cycle would last a few hundred years.
> 
> parag khanna is another story. You couldn't tell i had tongue in cheek? wry & dry. i'm not a fan of mister khanna.


hmmm, ok ... no, i did not see the telltale bulge of your cheeked tongue ... what don’t you like about khannas ideas ? as i say i found the essay a little breathless and ethno-centric, he is huffing and puffing for his team and he perhaps glosses over the vast challenges that asia faces, democratic institutions, demographics and climate change among them

and yes, the chinese do tend to think in terms of emperors just like the russians do of czars ... the japanese are in no way over their emperor fetish, which is fine, they are so far doing democracy and human rights reasonably well

my bedrock point is i don’t want to see canada do business with the chinese (or any country, including the usa though that is a tall order) in any manner that makes us beholden to them so that they are in a position to subvert our institutions 

an example being, if we are so dependent on saudi medical students to keep our medical system running then we have a problem, same for chinese student money

but i am certainly ok with trading with china and everyone else for that matter


----------



## humble_pie

BCE is not hanging itself up on huawei

bell ceo says that the telco has not yet chosen a 5G equipment provider. Bell's costs will not rise if the federal gummint 5G securitiy review happens to turn out negative on huawei, george cope told media today.

bell is presently using huawei 3G & 4G equipment in non-core network structures, cope said

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...i-decision-sees-no-spending-spike-if-chinese/


----------



## dubmac

good article (McKenna) in the G&M ROB today (16th) on Telus warning Ottawa about the consequences of banning Huawei. 
Telus wants Ottawa to compensate them (and by extension, likely others), since a full ban on Huawei will leave only more expensive suppliers (Ericcson and Nokia) left to supply 5G technology. McKenna says that Telus CEO Entwistle met with PM to notify him on this - hopefully Canada can arrange for something less that an outright ban, that will allow us to pick and choose which technology to use. 
This would suggest that if Huawei is banned, cell phone plans will go up - and Telus wants that responsibility shifted to Ottawa - an interesting move.
Much of this sounds like posturing by Telus right now - but it will be interesting to see where this all goes.


----------



## m3s

Exactly why privatized telecoms should be federally regulated, as they have been for decades. They're too important.

If Telus has a problem with that we should get rid of them. They don't provide any competition anyways, they just collude and pander

I believe Manitoba Telecom was the last crown corp telecom? Maybe that was a mistake


----------



## humble_pie

dubmac said:


> good article (McKenna) in the G&M ROB today (16th) on Telus warning Ottawa about the consequences of banning Huawei.
> Telus wants Ottawa to compensate them (and by extension, likely others), since a full ban on Huawei will leave only more expensive suppliers (Ericcson and Nokia) left to supply 5G technology. McKenna says that Telus CEO Entwistle met with PM to notify him on this - hopefully Canada can arrange for something less that an outright ban, that will allow us to pick and choose which technology to use.
> This would suggest that if Huawei is banned, cell phone plans will go up - and Telus wants that responsibility shifted to Ottawa - an interesting move.
> Much of this sounds like posturing by Telus right now - but it will be interesting to see where this all goes.




as best i can recall telus has made itself heard in ottawa loudly, frequently & clearly ... yes, posturing

afaik canadian telcos are already using huawei 3Gen & 4Gen, it's only the future ultra-speed 5Gen that is at issue

interesting that Bell CEO george cope says bell will manage fine financially if the gummint bans huawei 5G (note upthread)


----------



## fatcat

one of of the many reasons why i think we should all be cautious in any dealings with china whether it involves buying their telecom gear (looks like if we do prohibit huawei we may be liable for paying the chi-coms a large fine under the terms of a previous trade agreement, yikes) or educating their students

a simple google search for the many and manifold ways that the chi-coms are reaching around and across the globe to frighten, silence and intimidate opponents of their gangster regime should give us all pause

here we have a story right at home where the chinese appears to be trying to silence and intimidate supporters of a free tibet by using chinese students as proxies for government propaganda

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...ns-lead-to-allegations-of-chinese-government/

i was heartened to see the writer mention that schools “are being advised” (by whom ?) to diversify their international student makeup to avoid becoming dependent on students from any one country, like china


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> one of of the many reasons why i think we should all be cautious in any dealings with china whether it involves buying their telecom gear (looks like if we do prohibit huawei we may be liable for paying the chi-coms a large fine under the terms of a previous trade agreement, yikes) or educating their students
> 
> a simple google search for the many and manifold ways that the chi-coms are reaching around and across the globe to frighten, silence and intimidate opponents of their gangster regime should give us all pause
> 
> here we have a story right at home where the chinese appears to be trying to silence and intimidate supporters of a free tibet by using chinese students as proxies for government propaganda
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...ns-lead-to-allegations-of-chinese-government/
> 
> i was heartened to see the writer mention that schools “are being advised” (by whom ?) to diversify their international student makeup to avoid becoming dependent on students from any one country, like china





agree except gotta watch that "gangster" talk

"thugs" is off-limits too

me i've never been to china. Like many people i have a smattering of knowledge based on reading, contacts w chinese persons & deeply interested china scholars. Enough knowledge to tell me that we are dealing with a huge, ancient culture that does not rest upon a foundation of highly individuated liberty, creativity or freedom of expression such as we believe we have developed in western democracies.

we individualists are actually in the minority upon the planet. Chinese culture appears to value group, filial, clan, community, national, even imperial submission to authority.

3 things i've learned: 1) canada is not important to china, although it's in our interests to rescue the special relationship with china which canada began with mao zse dung nearly 3/4 century ago; 2) we may not like the news we hear about how china conducts itself domestically, but when push comes to shove, domestic china is actually none of our business; 3) our top priority should be to TCB our own stuff here in canada.

for sure we need to safeguard critical communication infrastructure in this country. For sure we need to be more wary about which chinese companies are buying which geological resources in our north country, including whether we will let em buy such resources at all. 

for sure we need to understand that hundreds of thousands of foreign graduate students in canada are, inevitably, learning engineering & scientific trade secrets from their profs as they study here. Not just chinese students, foreign students come here from all over the world, ie from saudi arabia, south asia, the middle east, russia, eastern europe, africa, latin america.

for sure we need to control foreign ships, including chinese freight vessels, that will soon be using our Northwest passage as the shortest ocean route from asia to europe & east coast north america.

for sure canada needs to proceed with a policy of orderly & productive comradeship with china. We don't need to be china's best friend.

but going a big step further & insulting chinese as "gangsters" & "thugs" because we've assumed they are not like us? IMHO that's going too far.


.


----------



## dubmac

having taught many, many students from China (and had discussions with their parents/families) over the years, I have gained a similar insight. Education is a very very high priority foe these students and especially the families. These young students are often focused - very focused - on getting into Ivy league schools (Harvard, Stanford etc) - so much so that it send some students into a frenzy of nerves. The counselling dept, especially the university counselling dept, are very busy! The suggestion that I am making is that some of these students have a program. They are driven & competitive. The families are supportive, very kind and they want the best education possible, for the best future (ie: one outside of China I presume) for their son. This is all rather intriguing since the school is a few blocks away from Ms. Meng Wanzhou's home in Dunbar, Vancouver.

The history between China, Japan and Korea, and Indonesia is also another interesting topic that has cropped up in some cases. Some boys wear their political affiliations in the form of country's flag on their shirts/jackets. Cases where a Taiwanese student is paired with one from Beijing (lookout), Korea and Japan (don't do it). China and Japan (don't do it!). Many of these students are very very well informed on the political realities of the world, and the subtleties therein. Asian politics is steeped in past wars, and in history.


----------



## humble_pie

dubmac said:


> The history between China, Japan and Korea, and Indonesia is also another interesting topic that has cropped up in some cases. Some boys wear their political affiliations in the form of country's flag on their shirts/jackets. Cases where a Taiwanese student is paired with one from Beijing (lookout), Korea and Japan (don't do it). China and Japan (don't do it!). Many of these students are very very well informed on the political realities of the world, and the subtleties therein. Asian politics is steeped in past wars, and in history.



i was surprised, way back in early 2008, when a taiwanese acquaintance who i'd always found to be very calm & reasonable, suddenly began speaking angrily & intensely about the august 2008 olympics in beijing.

he opposes china so intensely that he not only wanted canada to boycott the 2008 olympics, he was hoping or expecting that i would contact my own federal MP to demand the same!


----------



## fatcat

here you go pie, just a small story of a poor woman denied the chance to see her dad, imprisoned for advocating for human rights apparently 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ns-know-the-truth-about-the-ruthless-chinese/

stories of chinese perfidy litter the internet ... and this is a country that may well be the most powerful and watched nation in the world some day

this has nothing to do with the chinese people, (who have demonstrated in hong kong how much they love and value democractic ideals) they have 5000 years of emperors (like most of the rest of the world) and they are comfortable with “emperor xi”, i have no beef with the people of china

my beef is with the leadership, i could list their hideous evil at length which includes actual genocide and literally threatening to murder one of our citizens as a response to our merely detaining one of theirs 

and by the way, they regularly use the label “gangsters” to describe their political opposition, so they won’t be too offended, they understand the term, they are comfortable with the term because they ... are ... gangsters and they are thugs

perhaps you can tell me why we label the current venezuelan government as violators of human rights using all manner of flowery bureaucratic government-speak

https://www.international.gc.ca/wor...onflits/crisis-crises/venezuela.aspx?lang=eng

and yet say and do nothing about china, indeed we fall all over ourselves to take their money and we fill our schools with their students

it is part of the extraordinary hypocrisy and corrupt doublespeak of this government that paints a veneer of “human rights” and “open government” over what is now clearly seen as a bunch of backroom boys willing to do business at any price

morals ? ethics ? human rights ? ... oh please ...


----------



## fatcat

trumpy has opened his pie-hole once again and as far as can tell has handed ms. meng a get out of jail free card

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/wor...tion-to-drop-charges-against-huawei-in-trade/

if the charges are of such little consequence that they can be stayed on the order of the president then why should any canadian judge ordered her extradited ? we now see to the political nature of the charges unmistakably and this alone gives a canadian judge the right to release meng


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Not surprising. Trump has no moral compass. He has no compunction about screwing the other 'party' (i.e. Canada) as long as he gets what he wants.
The US has a pieceofshit for a president.


----------



## fatcat

china has now charged spavor and kovrig with spying ... chances that these charges are actually true are close to zero but they are now pawns sitting in the middle of the chess board awaiting exchange for meng

which puts a huge amount of pressure on the canadian judge because she won't be trade-able if she goes back to the usa

canadian's should all think very seriously about traveling to or doing business with china

trudeau's incompetence of course has made the whole issue infinitely more difficult


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

And of course Meng is now suing the CBSA, RCMP and Federal government for violation of her constitutional rights (failure to comply with rule of law) during her initial detention. I'm no lawyer, and I know border services have broad powers, but she may have some basis?:

_It alleges that RCMP officers and/or representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice arranged for Canadian border officials to delay the immediate execution of the arrest warrant “under the guise of a routine border check.”
The court document says that when Meng exited her plane at Vancouver airport, border officials checked each passenger’s passport on the jetway and after identifying Meng, brought her to an inspection area.
It says border officers prohibited Meng from speaking with her travel companion or anyone else, including a lawyer.
The officers “did not promptly inform the plaintiff of the reason for her detention, afford her an opportunity to retain and instruct legal counsel without delay, or inform her of her right to do so under the charter,” the claim says.
Instead, they directed Meng to surrender all of her electronic devices and computers, as well as her passwords, “which the plaintiff provided, believing she had no choice as the CBSA officers had intentionally failed to advise her of the true reasons for her detention, her right to counsel, and her right to silence,” it says.
Although the RCMP was aware of Meng’s scheduled arrival time at Vancouver airport, an RCMP officer did not enter the inspection area and present Meng with the provisional arrest warrant for *three hours*, it says.
The suit alleges that as officers of the peace, the border officials should have immediately presented Meng with the provisional arrest warrant instead of detaining, searching and interrogating her under the guise of a customs or immigration exam.
“This was both significant and deliberate,” the claim says._

https://globalnews.ca/news/5017311/huawei-meng-wanzhou-suing-canada-rcmp/


----------



## fatcat

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> And of course Meng is now suing the CBSA, RCMP and Federal government for violation of her constitutional rights (failure to comply with rule of law) during her initial detention. I'm no lawyer, and I know border services have broad powers, but she may have some basis?:
> 
> _It alleges that RCMP officers and/or representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice arranged for Canadian border officials to delay the immediate execution of the arrest warrant “under the guise of a routine border check.”
> The court document says that when Meng exited her plane at Vancouver airport, border officials checked each passenger’s passport on the jetway and after identifying Meng, brought her to an inspection area.
> It says border officers prohibited Meng from speaking with her travel companion or anyone else, including a lawyer.
> The officers “did not promptly inform the plaintiff of the reason for her detention, afford her an opportunity to retain and instruct legal counsel without delay, or inform her of her right to do so under the charter,” the claim says.
> Instead, they directed Meng to surrender all of her electronic devices and computers, as well as her passwords, “which the plaintiff provided, believing she had no choice as the CBSA officers had intentionally failed to advise her of the true reasons for her detention, her right to counsel, and her right to silence,” it says.
> Although the RCMP was aware of Meng’s scheduled arrival time at Vancouver airport, an RCMP officer did not enter the inspection area and present Meng with the provisional arrest warrant for *three hours*, it says.
> The suit alleges that as officers of the peace, the border officials should have immediately presented Meng with the provisional arrest warrant instead of detaining, searching and interrogating her under the guise of a customs or immigration exam.
> “This was both significant and deliberate,” the claim says._
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/5017311/huawei-meng-wanzhou-suing-canada-rcmp/


don't border agents have broad powers ? this looks like something thrown against wall to see if it sticks but not being a lawyer, i really don't know

what is interesting to me is that the chicoms are setting everything up for a trade of spavor and kovrig for meng except we aren't going to keep meng the americans will keep meng ... if we turn her over ... we cannot trade before the judge has ruled and if he rules against meng she goes to the usa and if he rules for her, she is free anyway

are the chinese really this dumb ? ... this is just a fairly naked exertion of pressure

which of course is what our prime minister has done a nice job of modelling with regard to his office pressuring his attorney general


----------



## Mukhang pera

Assuming there was some kind of misconduct on the part of the CBSA by using a customs/immigration inspection as a ruse to kill time until a cop came to arrest her, her case is worth no more than nuisance value. 

According to the cited news report, her cause of action is for "false imprisonment". Failure to comply with the "rule of law" is not, in itself, actionable. If indeed she was falsely imprisoned (the facts are too sparse to really venture an opinion there), she might be entitled to a remedy in damages. But the amount would be nominal.

One of the best-known false imprisonment cases in recent times is that of _Ward_ v. _British Columbia_, 2009 BCCA 23 (link to full text below).

TORTS — False arrest and imprisonment • CHARTER OF RIGHTS — Section 8 • PUBLIC AUTHORITIES — Police — Duties and liability — Police arresting plaintiff, a lawyer, for causing a disturbance and removing him to jail — Police subjecting plaintiff to unwarranted strip search and detaining him for several hours more than necessary, in breach of his s. 8 and 9 Charter rights — Trial judge finding plaintiff entitled to damages of $5,000 against defendant city for false imprisonment and damages of $100 for wrongful seizure of his car — Judge finding plaintiff entitled to damages of $5,000 against the province in respect of the strip search — Appeal court majority dismissing appeals and cross-appeals.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/09/00/2009BCCA0023.htm

The Supreme Court of Canada eventually allowed the city's appeal by striking the award of $5,000 damages against the city. So, Mr. Ward got $5k for being detained and strip searched. I think he suffered a greater indignity and inconvenience than Meng. So, let her sue and have fun.


----------



## sags

I think it is troublesome for several reasons, both legal and political.

Legally, it looks like law enforcement had an arrest warrant but didn't have a search warrant for her electronic devices. Her lawyers allege law enforcement obtained the passwords from her by deceit and without providing her with legal counsel or advising her of her rights.........which may have included not having to hand over her passwords.

There have been several criminal cases in Ontario, and I think some have traveled through the appellate courts, where the judges have thrown out any evidence obtained from electronic devices without a search warrant that specifically authorized such searches. One case I recall was the murder trial of Rodney Stafford. Another involved an acquittal of a guy who caused destruction in a graveyard. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that electronic devices have become a diary of our personal lives and any foray into them by law enforcement must be done with the utmost due care.

In any event....the sanctions may be trivial but politically, there is no doubt that China is watching intently, and currently hold several Canadians on serious criminal charges.

If Canada doesn't put much weight on law enforcement acting properly and the courts upholding the law, why would China feel compelled to do so ?

I think the Canadian government needs to tread very carefully here. This situation involves far more than a meaningless legal exercise.

At least it might to those Canadians in custody in China.

Meng's lawyers were doing far more than "flinging mud against the wall". They fired a warning shot across the bow of the Canadian government.


----------



## fatcat

if i read the counsellor correctly. mrs meng's case against the government is weak based on the actual damages incurred, clearly though her lawyers (read: china) is trying to add a layer of pressure to the proceedings 

whether this will work remains to be seen, her extradition is in the hands of a supreme court judge and for the attorney general to overrule would be a political bombshell both from the point of view of the american's and our treaty with them and from the point of view of an attorney general "interfering in an ongoing case" which obviously has resonances with the snc scandal

that china is doing this is entirely to be expected

yet another article in a long string of articles from the globe (who seem to me to be doing stellar work lately) citing a new book that describes the tentacles and culture of entitlement that describes the current chinese regime

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...naive-when-dealing-with-chinas-authoritarian/

we need to ask ourselves more seriously than ever whether or not and on what terms we want to deal with the chinese (government only ... in no way do i want to impute any of these negative qualities to people of chinese descent)


----------



## Mukhang pera

sags said:


> I
> 
> Meng's lawyers were doing far more than "flinging mud against the wall". They fired a warning shot across the bow of the Canadian government.


I'll accept that Meng's lawyers have a much more fulsome grasp of the facts and the issues than do most of us, but I see the legal action at this juncture as ill-advised. Meng and her lawyers should be focussed on the upcoming extradition hearing. I see no way this civil suit will deflect that. If it's the case that there have been egregious breaches of her Charter and other rights, improper importuning by the US government to have Canada invoke the Extradition Act, flagrant abuse of the process of the court, then that should all be put before the extradition court, perhaps with an application for a stay of proceedings. If she is vindicated in the extradition court, and say that court expresses rebuke for what Canadian authorities have done, then it might be time to bring a civil suit. Not that it would serve much purpose. The vindication would have been made already and a civil case for what almost certainly would be nominal damages would be of little utility.

I suppose the only way the civil case could lead to more than modest damages is it were found that, but for the misconduct of Canadian authorities in what went on in those few hours after her plane landed, the extradition proceeding would never have been commenced, Meng would never have been detained and never confined to her Vancouver hovel. I see that outcome as unlikely.


----------



## kcowan

fatcat said:


> are the chinese really this dumb ? ... this is just a fairly naked exertion of pressure
> 
> which of course is what our prime minister has done a nice job of modelling with regard to his office pressuring his attorney general


I think it is clearly "tit for tat" because they did not file a suit until they observed Trudeau's expedient behaviour with his own cabinet on the SNC-Lavalin case.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

And so it begins. 
I don't expect Trudeau to be very upset though, the Liberals don't have any seats to lose in canola country.
China halts canola shipments from major Canadian supplier


----------



## peterk

I'd be more than happy not to send/receive any food products to/from a hostile, very foreign state across the ocean. I am sick of having to check the product labels at the grocery store to make sure my produce isn't from China. Pretty sure we can get every single food item from our own country, the USA, and Mexico. 

Also, canola is a bad oil, it's poison. Nobody should be using it, and it's a shame we make so much of it here in Canada.

Ironic how so many think Canadian crude oil is bringing the imminent death of the world upon us, when all it ever did was bring wealth, prosperity, and civilization. While Canadian canola oil is actually slowly killing us all, and nobody seems to mind.


----------



## fatcat

here on vancouver island they appear to be retaliating by closing a tiny little pulp mill

http://www.iheartradio.ca/cfax-1070/news/port-alice-pulp-mill-s-future-is-uncertain-1.8985624

good that we are going through this now so we know who we are dealing with in the future 

we need to excercise utmost caution in dealings with china

they are doing this all over the world, using business and trade to exert political leverage

peter, i use safflower and avoid canola


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

peterk said:


> ... Canadian canola oil is actually slowly killing us all, and nobody seems to mind.


You may be confusing canola with rapeseed oil which has high erucic acid content. Canola oil does not, and canola oil is not unhealthy/poison, etc.


----------



## peterk

^ Well I might be, I don't know, I can't keep up, but I looked into it a long time ago and the overwhelming conclusion seemed to be that all refined seed oils were problematic.. So Canola has had the Erucic/ Omega 9 removed. The Omega 6 and Omega 3 are still problematic fats to be consuming in too high a quantity. And I thought Omega 9s were the least problematic because they are long chain molecules found in Olive oil, and are less reactive and closer to Saturated, which, I believe, despite the margarine ads, are the most healthy and stable oils for consuming. 

And really, I have no idea how I come to my conclusion from reading on the internet, nor you yours. It is all very annoying that there is no reliable, simple to digest (heh)information about nutrition in the modern era of mass agriculture and advanced food refinement processes.

For now, I'm maintaining that Canola and most seed oils are poison. Many grassroots health/nutrition websites, who appear to have genuine, curious, health-truth seeking authors, all seem to agree with this, and most major news articles, penned by employees within the food industry or government, seem to disagree.

Similarly, I do not know how one comes to the conclusion of whether meat and dairy are healthy or unhealthy either. There's a lot of conflicting information and a lot of blatant liars out there.


----------



## Barwelle

Your comments defending the oil industry apply equally to agriculture. Canola, too, has brought wealth and prosperity to prairie farmers, the descendants of the people who played a key role in developing the West; not to mention providing employment and stability for its supporting industries in transportation, manufacturing, etc. and, also is a major consumer of the product you work to produce. Just like crude oil, the ag industry is increasingly coming under criticism with varying degrees of truthfulness.

I'm sure you would agree that the oil industry is demonized unfairly; then you go and say that canola oil is a bad oil, it's poison. That's very strong language, that attacks the livelihoods of thousands of people here without much of a basis other than "I read it on the internet a while ago". Consider that those grassroots websites may have their own agendas, or may not have any real factual, scientific sources for their speculation, or may be standing on a soapbox blithering about whatever is in vogue (e.g. poisonous food) because it gets them heard and gets them likes and ad revenues. There are far worse things to worry about than canola oil.


----------



## fatcat

this took me about 30 seconds to find: 



> What’s the Difference Between Canola and Rapeseed Oils?
> 
> 
> In the 1970s canola was created through traditional plant cross-breeding by removing two things found in the rapeseed plant: glucosinolates and erucic acid. Erucic acid was removed because it was believed to be inedible or toxic in high doses. The newly developed plant was renamed “canola” – a combination of “Canadian” and “Oil” (or ola) to make this difference apparent.
> 
> 
> By definition, if a seed is labeled “canola” it has to have less than 30 micromoles of glucosinolates and less than 2% of erucic acid.


https://www.thekitchn.com/whats-the-difference-between-canola-and-rapeseed-206047

i also have heard that canola is not a healthy oil, this article seems to imply otherwise, a classic case of food panic perhaps ?

monosodium glutamate is a actually a completely safe flavour enhancer and does not cause headaches or rashes or any of the reactions attributed to it and this has been known for years and yet people still avoid it like the plague


----------



## sags

So now we have this huge problem, that was dropped into the PM's lap by the former AG. (according to former Foreign Minister John Manley)

The latest people paying the price will be the canola farmers, and interesting to note that Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland's father is a canola farmer out west and she worked the fields when they lived at home. In interviews Freeland has expressed the hope that after politics she can return to work the family farm.

Freeland is trying hard to find a solution, but the US put Canada in a bad position for their own political trade interests.

The Chinese aren't going to back down. They will continue to ratchet up the pressure, and I wouldn't doubt the pressure rises dramatically if Canada extradites Weng to the USA.

Regardless of what the US wants.....Canada cannot and should not extradite her. We should inform the US they abused the extradition process, apologize to China and let her go.

Such a decision would make Trump very angry, but he is a lame duck President who will be gone in a couple of years anyways. Besides, he already doesn't like us.


----------



## sags

I read an interesting comment somewhere online that said the extradition of Weng doesn't involve a terrorist, murderer, drug trafficker, child pornography smuggler, escaped convict or any other vile criminal. It involves snatching a high level executive of a foreign company for political purposes and under false pretenses. 

It never should have happened.


----------



## fatcat

sheesh comrade, you are exactly why we should be rightly terrified of the left, completely unprincipled and gutless ... the politics get rough so you want to raise the white flag of surrender and allow the thugs to win ... no doubt you want to gut the defence department too along with the rest of the snowflakes

you clearly despise your own legal system and that makes you so sympathetic to the chinese communists who think the law is a tool of social control rather than a fundamental principle of free people, you know exactly how they work and you don't think all that much about the law either, neither did lenin

when the heat is applied you raise the white flag and spread your legs to a bully ... a classic case of expediency in the name of the people and this is what the left increasingly is bringing to the table as we see now clearly in ottawa, government is whatever-you-can-get-away-with-in-the-name-of-the-people

never mind the legal process or the long-standing treaty that benefits canada as much as the usa, never mind that our legal system is the core of our values and without the rule of the law we are hosed

we are in a really tough spot but we should stand firm, stand on the law and especially stand on our principles (whichever of those we actually have left that is), let the court decide and we move on

“Give me what I want and I will go away” ― Stephen King, Storm of the Century.


----------



## sags

The US showed no respect for Canadian law and forfeited the right to expect Canada to honor their request.


----------



## kcowan

sags said:


> The US showed no respect for Canadian law and forfeited the right to expect Canada to honor their request.


Don't confuse Trump ramblings with the law. Let the lawyers handle it.


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> The US showed no respect for Canadian law and forfeited the right to expect Canada to honor their request.


seriously ... what the fcuk ? ... to the best of my knowledge the united states has honoured canadian extradition requests to the letter ... if you have some proof that they have dishonoured or broken our long standing extradition treaty, i would be interested to hear it ...

you vigorously defend corrupt companies that aid and abet the worst regimes on the planet ... regimes that largely inflict their cruelty on mostly the defenceless poor that you purport to love

you gush forth in defence of the possible obstruction of justice and you want to just abrogate long-standing treaties with key allies because you just don’t like em ...

you kind of resemble donald trump comrade, amoral and ethically confused 

ever thought about politics ? ... you would make a fine leader of the Liberal party


----------



## james4beach

The US just placed Huawei on a black list that bans the company from doing any trade with the US. The US administration says this will cripple Huawei because of their reliance on US parts. This is clearly an act of aggression in the trade war:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...es-placed-on-us-trade-blacklist-idUSKCN1SL2W4

I stand by my earlier comment that the arrest of the Huawei CFO is based on US foreign policy (and economic) interests rather than a matter of genuine criminal wrongdoing. In my view, it's wrong for authorities to pursue criminal prosecution for political purposes; I think this is a fundamental abuse of the law. It's fundamentally un-American and undemocratic.


Imagine for a moment that Russia started arresting top executives in Canadian companies because of a trade dispute, or international oil & gas power struggle, on charges such as "violating mother Russia's energy interests". Would those be legitimate arrests? Would Russia have the moral right to pursue these criminals? Their state propaganda machine would run stories about 'rule of law' being of top importance. Obedient Russian citizens would write on message forums that they live in a country with 'rule of law', and these foreigners (the Canadians) must be investigated for violating the law and also for endangering the security and sovereignty of Russia... as it has been rumoured that Canadian businesses may have gained access to potentially sensitive information that poses an economic and security threat to Russia. "The courts will find justice", the Russian citizen would write on the message boards.​
^ This is a completely plausible scenario of something an aggressive nation could do, abusing law to serve the government's foreign (economic) policy interests. Do we all agree this would be wrong if Russia did it?

The action by US/Canada gives China the moral authority to arrest foreigners for their own foreign policy and economic purposes. This can be dangerous because China could start detaining (and finding guilty) any American/Canadian citizens due to hostilities with the US, with parallel reasoning.


----------



## sags

I agree with John Manley, that in the past a government might have decided to act slowly on the request and allowed Weng to go back to China before they "found her".

Just because the US makes a request doesn't mean we have to rush into action and accept the consequences because of it.

I think our canola farmers would probably agree with Mr. Manley.


----------



## sags

The US is going to borrow money to offset damages to US consumers, farmers and business that Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods are causing.

If the Chinese buy the debt..... they will receive the interest from the debt the US borrowed to offset the economic damage the tariffs are causing.

It is a little bizarre.


----------



## Beaver101

sags said:


> The US is going to borrow money to offset damages to US consumers, farmers and business that Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods are causing.
> 
> If the Chinese buy the debt..... they will receive the interest from the debt the US borrowed to offset the economic damage the tariffs are causing.
> 
> *It is a little bizarre*.


 ... indeed or more like ironic. Let's see who is going to hold out on this economic/political war.


----------



## james4beach

And there we go, China arrests a Canadian business man and diplomat:
China formally arrests Spavor and Kovrig, accuses them of spying

This is almost exactly like my 'hypothetical' paragraph that I wrote in #242.


----------



## kcowan

It demonstrates the risk of dealing with any autocratic country.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> And there we go, China arrests a Canadian business man and diplomat:
> China formally arrests Spavor and Kovrig, accuses them of spying
> 
> This is almost exactly like my 'hypothetical' paragraph that I wrote in #242.


Did anyone think that China was going to let these two go or that the detentions back in Dec weren't payback?
The escalation to formal charges is China following through IMO instead of something "hypothetical" that is coming to pass.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> I read an interesting comment somewhere online that said the extradition of Weng doesn't involve a terrorist, murderer, drug trafficker, child pornography smuggler, escaped convict or any other vile criminal. It involves *snatching a high level executive of a foreign company for political purposes and under false pretenses*.
> 
> It never should have happened.


Exactly. And China has just as much moral authority to do the same. The US initiated this game of using the law (wink wink) for political actions. Canada, sadly, joined the game.

Now China is doing the same, naturally following America's guideline. They _could_ round up all American and Canadian business people in China if they want... it is an equally legitimate use of the law (wink wink).

Of course all the western business men can be suspected of crimes against the state. Remember, the only charge against Meng is that she facilitated doing business with Iran. This is an arbitrary foreign policy, part of America's claim to global dominance.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

kcowan said:


> It demonstrates the risk of dealing with any autocratic country.


Did you mean China or USA? :tongue-new:


----------



## kcowan

OhGreatGuru said:


> Did you mean China or USA? :tongue-new:


Funny you should mention that. I was also thinking about Canada! :tongue-new: :tongue-new: It seems to be necessary to keep rogue states and provinces aligned with unpopular policies. The difference is that we all get a chance to fix it every four years.


----------



## james4beach

As the US has aggressive ramped up the anti-Iran rhetoric, I think it's much more obvious now that Meng is another consequence of anti-Iran policy. The only "law" she is accused of violating is regarding American sanctions against Iran. She did not do anything illegal in Canada, nor in the rest of the world. It was only "illegal" in the eyes of the US, who's out to get Iran.

Canada only permits extradition when the alleged crime is a criminal offence in both countries. What she's been accused of is not a criminal offence in Canada.

As I've said from day one, the arrest was part of American foreign policy that targets Iran (and China). It has nothing to do with real crimes... Canada is just acting as an arm of the White House here to conduct US foreign policy.

Time for Canada to step up and assert its independence.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

If China's hardball position on Canada re/ trade and detentions changes before the fall we will have to wonder if it is because China has come on side with McCallum's pleadings that they help prop up the Liberal's re-election chances. Of course the quid quo pro will follow if they get re-elected - a green light to Huawei's 5G in Canada maybe? The guy is certainly a one man fvck up.

AndrewCoyne: McCallum is enlisting China’s aid in re-electing the Liberals — and coaching them how to do it 
_the former ambassador to China for Canada has not only been, by his own admission, enlisting China’s aid in re-electing the Liberals — inviting the leadership of a hostile foreign power, if not to intervene in the next election on their behalf, then to refrain from acting in a way that would help their opponents — but coaching them how to do it.

Among the many, many questions raised by the former ambassador’s new gig as a freelance political consultant: whose interests was he taking it upon himself to defend? The Liberal Party’s, certainly. China’s apparently. It’s just not clear where Canada’s interests fit into his thinking_


----------



## sags

I posted at the outset that China would retaliate and several posters said.........oh no, there is international law and Canada is only following the extradition treaty blah, blah, blah.

Well China doesn't give a fiddlers f**k about extradition treaties or the international law. They want their high level Chinese executive back.........end of story, full stop.

So what shall Trudeau do ? He got handed this situation by the AG who made the decision to arrest the executive. Trudeau fired her for that and other bad decisions.

Shall Trudeau hand over the executive to China ? I say he should have done it on Day one. What does Andrew Scheer say he would do ?


----------



## Beaver101

^


> Shall Trudeau hand over the executive to China ? I say he should have done it on Day one.


 ... too late now. Only if Junior was as wise as you sags.

Who cares what Scheer says he would do ... or not until he is Prime Minister aka "leader of the country" aka "holding accountability".


----------



## Mukhang pera

sags said:


> Well China doesn't give a fiddlers f**k about extradition treaties or the international law. They want their high level Chinese executive back.........end of story, full stop.


Well, in that case, China is indeed becoming dangerous. It means that it is free to be an international bully. Your comment suggests that all must accept that, ultimately, the rule of law must yield to the right of might.


----------



## humble_pie

Mukhang pera said:


> Well, in that case, China is indeed becoming dangerous. It means that it is free to be an international bully. Your comment suggests that all must accept that, ultimately, the rule of law must yield to the right of might.





MP don't you think the situation is far more complicated than law vs might, right vs wrong, though

the real bully in the corner appears to be donald trump, who drummed up a case aginst meng wanzhao because he was itching to ramp up another part of his fight with Iran. The US may not have a criminal case against meng at all. In addition some experts appear to believe that the action she's accused of in the US - bank fraud with respect to sales to Iran - is not an extraditable offence in canada; so those experts are saying canada should not have cooperated with the american extradition request.

my auld boss at what is now global affairs canada - recently retired after 40 years of service - tweeted the day after her arrest that Meng should be released.

if our goals are to free michael kovrig & michael spavor plus resume canola, pork & beef exports to china along with whatever other products china might choose to threaten, then canada does not appear to have any choice in the Meng matter.

john mcCallum's words to the hong kong post seemed reasonable to me.

on the other hand, if deep underneath the chinese posture is their insistence that canada must accept huawei 5G in all sectors in addition to releasing ms Meng, then we really do have a pickle.

what i find bumbling & amateur are preacherish assertions such as andrew scheer's that china is so Evil, Canada must immediately Up and Sell her exports Somewhere Else.

now what could scheer be talking about. Sell where else? canada has offered dollar assistance to canadian grain & meat producers, is working to grow alternate markets, but an important trade such as canola cannot be transferred overnight to luxembourg or cambodia or iceland.

there's also the risk that a highfalutin canadian attitude could consign kovrig & spavor to chinese prison cells for the rest of their lives. One detail i found heartbreaking came just the other day when it was reported that chinese prison guards have recently taken away kovrig's eyeglasses. Now he cannot read easily, or perhaps he cannot read at all. Death by a thousand blows.


----------



## Mukhang pera

humble_pie said:


> MP don't you think the situation is far more complicated than law vs might, right vs wrong, though


Agreed. But I was responding to the view expressed thus:



sags said:


> Well China doesn't give a fiddlers f**k about extradition treaties or the international law. They want their high level Chinese executive back.........end of story, full stop.


That suggests that China does not have to care about international agreements in any case. It says "We are Chinese; don't mess with us." "And certainly don't mess with our elite, even if they are criminals." If Canada is to bend to that view, should it not equally submit to the US, telling us "we don't give a fiddlers f**k about extradition treaties or the international law. We want that high level Chinese executive locked up in the US.........end of story, full stop." 

My view has always been that this matter, whether trumped up by Trump or otherwise, should be dealt with under the international law provisions in place. Apparently, the Minister of Justice issued an Authority to Proceed. I think I have set out some relevant case law elsewhere in this long thread, but here's one more describing the process.

_United States of America _v. _Babuin_, 2002, BCSC 1032

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/02/10/2002bcsc1032.htm

It could be that the Minister of Justice acted as Trump's puppet. I would like to see the international law do its job. If the case against Meng is as daft and ill-conceived as your average CMF denizen believes, it should be exposed at the committal hearing. I would like to add that it should be "quickly" exposed at such a hearing and I am not sure why all involved here have not moved with dispatch to get in front of a judge, who can administer a tongue-lashing to Trump and his henchmen Trudeau, et al.

I most extradition cases I have watched over the last few decades, it is usually the "person sought", a.k.a. "the fugitive" who seeks to see the wheels of justice turn slowly. They are in no rush for a committal hearing. Perhaps Meng and her lawyers are clamouring for an expedited hearing, as they should be. I am not privy to these things, as others here might be. 

A good example of how fugitives seek to draw things out may be seen in cases such as _Italy_ v. _Seifert_, 2007 BCCA 420, the saga of an aging war criminal, who sought to remain in Canada, hopefully for the last of his days. He managed to delay the inevitable for about 10 years. A good summary is provided in the CA judgment below. It went thereafter to the SCC, where his luck was no better.

https://www.bccourts.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/07/04/2007BCCA0420.htm


----------



## sags

I would be surprised if the Canadian government hasn't stated the case for observing International law in the most strongly worded statements and discussions possible, only to have the Chinese tell them to bugger off.


----------



## humble_pie

Mukhang pera said:


> My view has always been that this matter, whether trumped up by Trump or otherwise, should be dealt with under the international law provisions in place. Apparently, the Minister of Justice issued an Authority to Proceed.




but isn't this case proceeding exactly according to the provisions of international law though. 

david lametti as minister of justice issued an authority to proceed in march of this year. My understanding is that the minister of justice will have the last word, in that he has the power to overturn the BC extradition court judge's ruling if such ruling - when it comes - should uphold meng's extradition to the US.

in other words ottawa has all the power necessary to set meng free but intends to go through all the legal hoops required by "the rules of international law."

first to the BC courts. Then back to a higher level of justice in ottawa. This does not strike me as unreasonable. If in the end ottawa would release meng, it will have an ironclad legal history to present to a presumably irate donald trump.


PS i don't think one can compare eventually-extradited michael seifert to meng wanzhou when it comes to grounds for extradition. I mean quick googl search labels seifert a cruel WW II nazi prison camp murderer & torturer known as the Beast of Bolzano. Nothing in common with our delicate lady of vancouver, the most she apparently did was to mis-label the origin of her electronic goods when seeking bank loans to export them to iran ...


----------



## OhGreatGuru

To be fair to Ms. Meng, she is not exactly getting an expeditious hearing. She was arrested on Dec. 1, 2018, and has effectively been under house arrest in BC since. The US was given 60 days to formally apply for extradition (it seems to me they may have slipped that deadline a bit.). Since she was originally detained at their request, you would think they would have their case ready to go (or nearly). And now the judge says the hearings won't actually start until January 2020. Canada has bent over backward to accommodate our closest ally, but that will be more than a year out of her life, and the US has not yet presented a clear and compelling case. 

I agree China is throwing it's weight around in many ways. But if you look at it dispassionately it could easily be seen as a CEO being held unfairly on literally "Trumped-Up" charges.


----------



## AltaRed

She should be granted an expeditious hearing for sure. If the US is playing stall tactics, give them a drop dead date and release her if the evidence is not forthcoming.


----------



## humble_pie

as Guru has mentioned, the hearings are only scheduled to get underway in january 2020. There's nothing to be gained by clicking one's tongue, back-seat driving, castigating china or telling the US of A to "drop dead."

canada is caught between a rock & a hard place. A millimetre forward on one side will only serve to enrage the other side. No wonder ottawa is inching along as if walking on glass.

what i see ottawa doing is strictly respecting the rule of law. They respected the extradition treaty with the US. They respected ms Meng by granting her the most liberal conditions possible during her detention (keep in mind that she's living in one of her own houses in vancouver, where she already had a household set up) (plus she has at least one child attending school in BC) (plus undoubtedly Meng can carry out many of her responsibilities as huawei's CFO from her comfortable vancouver base)

ottawa is working tirelessly to improve the harsh conditions of kovrig & spavor's imprisonment in china. Evidently they are allowed only 30 minutes of a consular visit per month. Bright lights are said to be turned on in their cells 24/7. I do not know if the consuls can bring michael kovrig another pair of eyeglasses to replace the ones taken away by prison guards. 






OhGreatGuru said:


> I agree China is throwing it's weight around in many ways. But if you look at it dispassionately it could easily be seen as a CEO being held unfairly on literally "Trumped-Up" charges.



this is one of those situations where it's possible to see & understand all the different points of view from all the different parties who are involved - & unfortuntely so far these are not adding up.

but they will, in time. Inching forward is the best strategy. This is a situation where a high priority is Make No Mistakes.

canadians who can do anything or say anything should join the campaign to urge china to respect international law governing treatment of prisoners. Not that this will have any effect on the chinese bully; but it's important for kovrig & spavor's morale that canadians not forget them. It's important that we demand fair treatment in detention & it's imortant that we continue to demand their release.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

To add to the cynicism, (bolstered by Trump's public comments on the subject) I see the Americans trying to drag this out as long as they can, filing as much spurious documentation as they can, that the judge will have to listen to, in hopes that China will make some trade concessions. At which point the USA will conveniently drop the case. Leaving us wounded for trying to be good neighbours and allies. With friends like Trump, who needs enemies?


----------



## sags

I support Trudeau but he made a big mistake on this file. As soon as he learned of it he should have summoned his famous father's phrase to tell Trump........fuddle duddle.


----------



## gardner

So the hearings are finally under way.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/meng-wanzhou-extradition-criminality-1.5430149

Out of the gate, they are arguing not double criminality since the US sanctions are uniquely American and don't create criminality in Canada (or elsewhere for that matter). I hope she just succeeds and gets to go home. It would be a shame to have to sit through all this and THEN have to start looking at whether the charges are politically motivated (which they probably are).


----------



## gardner

This mess is finally over.

The Americans finally seem to have backed down with some face-saving DPA, as far as I can see signalling that the whole thing was made-up BS from the beginning.

Meanwhile the Chinese have let the Michaels go, even while still re-iterating that the Meng situation is unrelated.

What do we suppose that THIS mess cost us?


----------



## sags

Meng and some Chinese officials thanked the Canadian government, and correctly attributed the mess to the Trump administration.

I think PM Trudeau deserves some kudos for remaining silent during the negotiations, especially through the election campaign when he was attacked constantly about it from the opposition. It must have taken some doing to keep a tight lid on the events happening behind the scenes.

I don't think our trade or relationship suffered with the Chinese, as we were sending them PPE and they were sending it back to us wherever possible. They did allow Canada to "rent" a warehouse in China, load it up with masks and other PPE, and fly in charter flights to pick it up and bring it to Canada. I didn't hear that they allowed any other country to do that.

I will be interested to hear what the conditions were like for the 2 Michaels held in prison. Hopefully, they were treated better than was reported in the media.

If not....we might still have some bones to pick with the Chinese about that. 

After all, Meng was allowed to live in one of her $14 million dollar mansions in Vancouver.


----------



## Eder

Not only that....any time a foreigner gets arrested now it is obvious kidnapping works to fix the problem.
I hope at least our twerp has his eyes opened to how corrupt & dangerous China is to Canadians...I won't hold my breath.


----------



## scorpion_ca

China has done exactly what it should be doing for its citizen instead of bending over that US can screw it.


----------



## sags

The world has to deal with China.........like it or not.

The proponents of global free trade are unhappy with what they created, but they were warned.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The world has to deal with China.........like it or not.
> 
> The proponents of global free trade are unhappy with what they created, but they were warned.


Well when you deal with corrupt governments, there are problems.
That's why it is so important that Canada does not accept corruption.


----------



## james4beach

Unfortunately this whole thing really is a case of Americans abusing the justice process to flex their foreign policy (world power) muscle.

But we can't stop the Americans, they have too much power over us. It's really unfortunate we got dragged into this.

To any impartial observer, this did not meet the test of double criminality as sanctions against Iran *are a uniquely American thing*. It does not violate any Canadian laws, so there was no justification for detaining her and extradition. Unfortunately the Americans bullied us (as usual) into cooperating with their agenda, and this reflected poorly on Canada.

And the argument the Americans used around this, that it became fraudulent misrepresentation to the bank, is totally laughable. American, Canadian, and European firms constantly engage in this kind of "fraud" relating to banking and you don't see the people nabbed in airports and held for extradition to the US. When the firms engage is fraud such as securities frauds or misrepresentations (just think of the big banks doing this endlessly) what they get are somewhat minor fines or settlements of a few million $.

So why would companies normally pay fines or settle with the DoJ, except in this case, the high level executive is jailed and held for years awaiting extradition? There was no justification for this, which is why the Chinese were -- CORRECTLY -- extremely angry at this.

This was a blatant abuse of the law by the Americans. They did all of this to make a point and flex muscle.

Otherwise they would have just fined Huawei a few million $, which is normally what happens when companies engage in fraud. Banks across Europe routinely engage in fraud, even defraud governments, and just get some fines.


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> Well when you deal with corrupt governments, there are problems.
> That's why it is so important that Canada does not accept corruption.


It is too late. Canada's international reputation is ruined. The election was our best chance to change that. Suck it it buttercup!


----------



## Beaver101

gardner said:


> This mess is finally over.
> 
> The Americans finally seem to have backed down with some face-saving DPA, as far as I can see signalling that the whole thing was made-up BS from the beginning.
> 
> Meanwhile the Chinese have let the Michaels go, even while still re-iterating that the Meng situation is unrelated.
> 
> *What do we suppose that THIS mess cost us?*


 ... too much to measure. 

Looking on a bright side, some Canadian lawyers must have made a bundle.


----------



## MrMatt

kcowan said:


> It is too late. Canada's international reputation is ruined. The election was our best chance to change that. Suck it it buttercup!


I think that's a key part.
During this China saw Trudeau illegally interfere with a criminal trial, they were likely confused as to why he wouldn't illegally interfere with an extradition hearing.


----------



## Mukhang pera

And I suppose only sporting that Canada pay compensation for false arrest and imprisonment. 

The standard green poultice applied to paupers is $10 million. That's not even pin money given the lofty status of the fair maiden treated so shabbily in this case. Maybe an opening bid of $1 billion? Maybe give her British Columbia? Of course, we will have to buy that from the First Nations before we will have a good and marketable title to pass on. Get ready for higher taxes.


----------



## MrMatt

Mukhang pera said:


> And I suppose only sporting that Canada pay compensation for false arrest and imprisonment.
> 
> The standard green poultice applied to paupers is $10 million. That's not even pin money given the lofty status of the fair maiden treated so shabbily in this case. Maybe an opening bid of $1 billion? Maybe give her British Columbia? Of course, we will have to buy that from the First Nations before we will have a good and marketable title to pass on. Get ready for higher taxes.


The two Michaels definately deserve compensation for Canada failing to protect their human rights.
I believe the opening bid for terrorists is $10M, so the Michaels, being fine upstanding citizens should start at what, $50k?


----------



## bgc_fan

Lot's of armchair quarterbacking, but I don't see anyone actually proposing what the Canadian government should have done. You have these options:
1. Diplomatic route to get the 2 Michaels back - using pressure and getting other countries involved, which is what was done;
2. Ignore our agreements with the US and let Meng go free, basically yielding to blackmail and hostage taking;
3. Turn a blind eye and never arrest Meng in the first place;
4. Up the stakes and start arresting Chinese nationals as spies;
5. Start a trade war;
6. Try a military operation to rescue the 2 Michaels.

So which option do you propose, or is there another one you'd want to suggest.


----------



## sags

I would vote for option number 3.

Some past government ministers suggested it has been done in the past to avoid similar situations.

Just tell the Yanks........sorry, she left before we could nab her.

But.....the AG didn't consult with anyone before ordering customs to slap the cuffs on a high level Chinese national.

From page 1 post 5 of this thread.....

_That all sounds great unless China retaliates by "arresting" a high level American or Canadian business person.
_


----------



## Beaver101

^


> Just tell the Yanks........sorry, she left before we could nab her.


 ... opportunity of a lifetime for a legit mistake and we blew it.


----------



## Eder

I think in the future we need to just start deporting Chinese nationals including students as part of hostage release negotiations.


----------



## sags

Nah......we should just stop arresting people because a lunatic in the US tells us to.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Nah......we should just stop arresting people because a lunatic in the US tells us to.


Well I don't see how not considering US requests for criminals is a good idea.

The US makes a claim to Canada that we have a criminal they want, then we decide if we'll turn them over or not.
That's exactly how it should work.

Are you proposing we simply say "no" and become a haven for US fugitives? 
That seems like a bad idea.


----------



## sags

If the US is going to abuse the current system, we need to strengthen the system.

Requiring some evidence the alleged crime would be considered a crime in Canada, would be a good place to start.


----------



## gardner

The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act deals specifically with the Americans' bizarre idea that their sanction system somehow applies to everyone in the world regardless of their actual relationship to the US. It should be expanded to apply to any and all foreign sanctions that are at odds with the UN's, and to apply to natural persons, not just corporations.

I think that the FEMA should specifically spell out that actions stemming from (eg dressed up as fraud or false statements and such) any sanctions offence that is not actually a sanctions offence in Canada, are not extraditable. There should also be gazzetted guidance that dressing up a sanctions offence as "fraud" is not good enough to make extradition stick.

While having a solid working extradition treaty with the Americans is important to Canada, I think it's worth looking into how often it fails. The Americans routinely refuse to give folks up when it suits them:









America REFUSES to hand over diplomat's wife accused of killing Harry


Anne Sacoolas, 42, the wife of a US intelligence official, is believed to have been driving on the wrong side of the road outside a US airbase in Northamptonshire.




www.dailymail.co.uk





Extradition treaties that the Americans write generally provide that the US Secretary of State retains a discretion to refuse extradition -- and often does so.

Sometimes I think the fallout with the Chinese is a little puzzling. We actually did them a favour by hanging onto her, even though they didn't like it. We could have, and maybe should have, just handed her over to the Americans right then and there. She could have been in a lockup in Blaine in 45 minutes, before her next flight was even ready for boarding and then Canada would have been out of the equation entirely. Instead we stood up to the Americans on China's behalf and they just treated us like ****. I doubt they see it that way, of course.


----------

