(And I’d encourage any Canadians of a similar mind to let your representatives know). Yesterday we were fulfilling our responsibilities to US treaties and international law. After Trump’s comments today saying he’s willing to “intervene”, we’re accomplices to a hostage-taking in order to win trade deals.
Even with the mainly-US angle on the extradition, I was behind the arrest and prepared to understand the coming complications with an angry China. Two Canadians are currently detained in the tit-for-tat, one currently “missing”. I seriously doubt Trump knew about this arrest in advance, but he clearly sees this as a winning bargaining chip in his failing China deals as he says he’s willing to “intervene”.
Not only is his outrageous action going to cost Canada, but the US’s complete abdication of the previous self-assigned role of defender of democracy leaves us really twisting in the wind.
I’ve sent emails to my MP and the minister of foreign affairs to let them know that if they should decide to tell the US to pound sand on this issue I’m completely behind them.
I worry about democracy going forward. Huge swatchs of the US public don’t value democracy, but this seems to be happening in Europe too (France, Germany, Netherlands, etc are seeing a growth in anti-democracy right wing parties).
I hope Canada holds down the fort until we all come back to our senses.
I’m just hoping “coming back to our senses” doesn’t involve the necessity of invasion or civil war. I kind of feel like we’re about to replay the 30s, only without the sensibility and maturity of FDR in the White House.
What gets me is what a goddamn hypocrite Trump is. The allegation is that the lady Canada arrested had some back-channel dealings with Iran. Iran, remember? The one country that Trump has never said anything good about. And they’re getting technology transfers from China, the country Trump keeps whining about because they steal intellectual property and technology (allegedly). But that can all be swept under the rug for a trade deal.
The problem may be that Canada is bound by treaty to carry out the extradition request. If the federal government just tells the US to pound sand for a political reason, it could be in breach of its treaty obligations.
I’m positive we’re bound by treaty - but according to this extradition treaty which was on the first page of a Google search and therefore must be the latest and most binding, article 4 indicates
and I feel there’s a lot of leeway to work with there.
There’s little question that this is a politically motivated detention. Yes, Huawei is breaking the law, and we would be within our rights to arrest a foreign national who was hurting Americans with criminal fraud. But you don’t arrest the equivalent of Sheryl Sandberg for violating economic sanctions, which is a political policy, not an economic policy.
Except she wasn’t arrested for violating the sanctions, she was arrested for international bank fraud. Which is, you know, illegal, regardless of how you feel about Trump or the Iran sanctions.
The thing with the OP is that this is moot…the justice department has already shut down Trump’s idiotic trial balloon to use the arrest to wring concessions out of China. It’s not going to happen. When she is actually extradited to the US she will face trial, not be used as some sort of bargaining chip in this stupid trade war, because, again, what she did was illegal.
Uh huh. I’m sure the Chinese government just simply takes the U.S. Justice department at its word and will immediately cease proclaiming the arrest as politically motivated.
Oh, I’m sure they don’t (they probably see it as simple propaganda and are confident this is exactly what they would do wrt their own statements) and are puzzled why Canada hasn’t just released her back to them. I mean, when it comes to breaking rules, the CCP is the master. The thing is, in a lot of things the CCP doesn’t really understand how our system (and I mean that more broadly than just the US) works, and tends to miscalculate and step on it’s own dick with it’s golf shoes in it’s responses.
But none of that really has much to do with my own response to the OP or the poster I quoted. Because Trump tweeted some horseshit doesn’t mean that’s what we will do, and he’s already been stepped on by the justice department about this…and whatever the CCP thinks, that is the reality. And the arrest wasn’t about the sanctions but about bank fraud and potentially selling US technology to Iran through shell companies. Which the Canadian’s rightfully saw as illegal.
I don’t think I disagree with you on the legalities but the OP is not moot because of them. Trump has eagerly cosigned the Chinese view that this is all political and that will linger despite Justice’s “shutting down” their boss’s public statements.
Only if they (the JD) subsequently cave in and actually allow Trump to use Meng Wanzhou as a bargaining chip in the trade war…which isn’t going to happen. The fact that the Chinese might not believe (or understand) why that is the case is interesting, but they will just have to be puzzled as they are on many of the workings of our (and much of the rest of the Wests) government. Trump isn’t Xi, the US government doesn’t work like the CCP and can’t just tell the justice department how this will play out, no matter what he tweets or spews out. You’d think they would have caught onto that at this point, but seemingly they haven’t.
I think if the DID cave in it would really damage our relationship and treaties such as the one in effect with countries like Canada. Not that I think justice would change it’s stance in any case…just like I don’t think Canada will change their stance regardless of the pressure China tries to put on them to do so. Our systems just don’t work that way.
Yes, that’s a basic principle of our extradition treaties. But that in turn is implemented by the Extradition Act, which sets out the process to be followed:
The foreign country requests extradition.
The Minister of Global Affairs reviews the request to see if on its face, the request satisfies the requirements of the Act: apparent evidence of the offence, and the offence alleged to have occurred in the foreign country is an offence in Canada. If that test is met, then the Minister authorises the Attorney General to begin extradition proceedings. This stage is primarily a legal one, and the issue of political persecution is not a factor.
Extradition proceedings in court, where the Crown presents the case for the foreign country, and the individual can call evidence and challenge the extradition.
The Court either concludes that the test for extradition is met, or it is not met. If it’s not met, the individual is discharged. If it is met, the Court makes a report to that effect to the Minister.
Again, this is a legal issue, in much more detail than the initial review by the Ministry, tested for legal grounds in a court of law. Assessments of political prejudice are not considered or permitted at this stage.
If the Court reports that the legal tests for extradition are met, then the final decision to extradite lies with the Minister. It is only at this stage that factors such as political persecution, discrimination in the foreign country, and the death penalty in the foreign country can be considered. That’s because these are essentially political determinations, not legal ones. The Minister must decide whether to refuse extradition on those policy grounds, even though the legal test for extradition is met.
If the Minister concludes that the prosecution in the foreign state is politically motivated, she can refuse extradition and let the individual go free. If not, she issues a warrant of extradition.
So that’s the process. And since Canada is a country of the rule of law, that statutory process has to be followed. The Minister can’t short-circuit the process at the first stage, nor intervene improperly in the Court stage. Under the statute, the issue of politically motivated extradition requests can only be considered at the third stage.
For a similar analysis, see this Globe and Mail article: “Corners could not be cut with US arrest request of Huawei CFO, says Freeland”
The previous thread was in GQ and was asking questions about how extradition works, how Canada had jurisdiction, and what charges she was facing in the US.
This thread is more about the “should Canada extradite” and “why” questions, “is Canada being played for a sucker by its Trumpian ally” type of question, more suitable to Elections.
Um…hm. I honestly didn’t think of this aspect. Now that you mention it, though, I think you are right…I think Trump COULD simply pardon her and put her on a plane back to China. I seem to recall that during the Bush II administration this came up about the president preemptively pardoning someone who hadn’t even been charged yet. I assume this goes for non-US citizens as well. :smack:
My apologies if this is what others in the thread were getting at. I honestly never even considered this aspect.
Well, technically Parliament is supreme and if they thought that following the regular rules was playing into some disastrous Trump shenanigans could they not also pass a private bill that basically let her leave the country? Yes, yes treaties but we can let some international council decide how badly we broke the treaty. At some point.
