Is the US shooting itself in the foot by banning Huawei?

Equation said:

The original problem was started when Brat began talking about freedom while everyone else was talking about resources and wealth gap. He was quickly shut down for being off topic and wrong but you chose to continue his mistake.

Click to expand...

The issue is, it became a problem when you choose to decide that it was a problem and not before.

You were totally complicit in engaging me on the topic of freedom when I responded to hkbc and subsequently our iterations went on multiple times until you decide that it was off topic and not before. The excuse of off topic is pretty lame when you actively participated in an activity until it suits you to call it off topic but not before.

I also disagree that Brat was shut down because he was off topic. You guys say things that do not correlate to facts but fortunately we have a trail of the interaction as to who is actually making up stuff rather than being truthful

post # 404 - Equation went on a tirade against "Western" stuff. How is it on topic according to the "Equation" standard?
post # 405, #406, #407 was essentially echo chamber to your post. How are they on topic?
post #408 - This was when Brat commented about freedom in his post
post #409 - Equation rebutted Brat over freedom as an engagement point.
post #410 - This was Jura posting some news on Huawei which would even qualify as on topic.
post #411 - This was when hkbc questioned Brat over the meaning of freedom.
post #412 - Equation then engaged Brat again on the issue of freedom

Out of the nine posts only one would technically qualify as on topic. You were an active participant in three post of which none were on topic, two of which were relating to the idea of "freedom". None of the posts suggest any attempts to shut down Brat because he was off topic but rather it was an attempt to suppress his sharing the notion of freedom. Obviously you guys could not shut Brat down as being off topic because you and others were equally guilty of being off topic. A case of do what I say and not what I do.

Facts matter.

Equation said:

I concede nothing. I said that a government without checks and balances has greater potential to become corrupt but ultimately it depends on the actual people ruling. In this case, I would say that despite the checks and balances in the American system and the lack thereof in the Chinese system, American politics is much more corrupt and abusive at this point than Chinese politics.

Click to expand...

An established fact build on sound principles of risk management always trump a system build on the susceptibility of human weakness to corruption. You are entitled to your claims but they are rather hollow. .

Equation said:

Due process has a different meaning from country to country. Meng Wanzhou was kidnapped for supposed "crimes" that are not illegal in Canada and not done on Canadian soil. Michael Kovrig was arrested for alleged crimes that he committed in China against China. The latter makes perfect sense and is standard practice while the former is an international outrage and a perfect example of how a system that was designed to fend off corruption can become corrupt nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Due process will certainly have degrees in application across different legal jurisdiction but that is unimportant. What is important is whether the application of the process is based upon sound legal jurisprudence of fairness and a fair trial. There are objective test centred around transparency, access to legal representation and a fair trial.

So what do we have in contrast in terms of due process.

Clarity of specific charges, transparency in due process and access to legal counsel
Meng was detained in Canada pursuant to request by the U.S. under the U.S.-Canada extradition treaty. Meng was indicted by a U.S. grand jury in Brooklyn in August 2018 and an arrest warrant was issued. The U.S. then sent that an official request to Canada’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which eventually sent it to the Ministry of Justice and then local authorities in Vancouver. In Canada, the minister of justice must first conduct a review to determine whether the defendant could be extradited under and the U.S.-Canada Extradition Treaty. A judge in Vancouver must also review the U.S. request and the specific charges and the supporting evidence provided by the U.S.

Meng has had access to counsel from the time of her detention, and following due process had the chance to challenge her extradition before a neutral independent Canadian judge. At the bail hearing, the court was packed with Meng's supporters. A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, Meng is being charged with bank fraud

A 25 page indictment was also filed in the U.S. district of New York on January 24, 2019 laying out the specific charges. Meng if she is extradited will get to have her day in court with full legal representation in a trial that will have full visibility in the proceedings.

In contrast, what has happened to Michael Kovrig's case in terms of clarity of charges, transparency in due process and access to legal counsel? Nothing that we know of.

Objectivity is not based on claims but of facts and not of words but of actions.

A clear political persecution for whatever was supposed to have happened in 2014 -- 2014 for JC & his single Dad's sake! --- wrapped up in the chicanery of a broken civil and criminal justice system which even the bloody Kanye and Kardashians want to fix. OJ would be very proud.

Nobody is above the money before the law, unless it's political.

With multiple multi-million dollar homes to live in Vancouver, Ms Meng can easily afford $10,000 a day round the clock private security. This game can be played by both parties. In the end, Canadian tax payers will keep the costly legal tab for Justin's eff-up, which is not surprising at all given the laundry list of how Canadian PM's exit their scene.


Huawei CFO Meng Wangzhou suing Canada, border agency and RCMP

Canadian Press
Updated: March 3, 2019



TORONTO — An executive of Chinese tech giant Huawei is suing the Canadian government, its border agency and the national police force, saying they detained, searched and interrogated her before telling her she was under arrest.

Lawyers for Meng Wanzhou said Sunday they filed a notice of civil claim in the British Columbia Supreme Court. Canada arrested Meng, the daughter of Huawei’s founder, at the request of the U.S. on Dec. 1 at Vancouver’s airport. She is wanted on fraud charges that she misled banks about the company’s business dealings in Iran.

The suit alleges that instead of immediately arresting her, authorities interrogated Meng “under the guise of a routine customs” examination and used the opportunity to “compel her to provide evidence and information.” The suit alleges Canada Border Service Agency agents seized her electronic devices, obtained passwords and unlawfully viewed the contents and intentionally failed to adviser her of the true reasons for her detention. The suit said only after three hours was she told she was under arrest and had right to counsel.

“This case concerns a deliberate and pre-meditated effort on the part of the defendant officers to obtain evidence and information from the plaintiff in a manner which they knew constituted serious violations of the plaintiff’s rights,” the claim says.

Meng is out on bail and living in Vancouver awaiting extradition proceedings.

On Friday, Canadian Justice Department officials gave the go-ahead for her extradition proceedings to begin. Meng is due in court Wednesday to set a date for the proceedings to start. It could be several months or even years before her case is resolved.

Meng’s arrest set off a diplomatic furor and severely strained Canadian relations with China. Beijing has accused Washington of a politically motivated attempt to hurt the company.

China detained former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian entrepreneur Michael Spavor on Dec. 10 in an apparent attempt to pressure Canada to release Meng.

A Chinese court also sentenced a Canadian to death in a sudden retrial, overturning a 15-year prison term handed down earlier. Kovrig and Spavor haven’t had access to a lawyer or to their families since being arrested.

Nicholas Dorion, a spokesman for the Canada Border Services Agency, said it’s not a practice of the agency to comment ?on legal matters that are before the courts. A justice department spokesman referred comment to the border agency and a spokesman of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said they were unlikely to comment Sunday.

Gary Botting, a Vancouver extradition lawyer who is not representing Meng, said Canada’s Border Services Agency tends to overstep.

“They took her under custody without telling her why,” Botting said. “They disguised the real reason why they detained her. Her rights were violated.”

Botting said they had no reason to detain her as she had travelled to Canada many times before. “They are trying to get all this information ahead of time and they know ultimately an arrest was in the works,” he said.

Julian Ku, senior associate dean for academic affairs at Hofstra Law, noted the civil action is separate and apart from Meng’s extradition proceeding. He said the lawsuit will allow her to argue she is being unfairly treated and support her broader public relations claim that the detention is part of a U.S and Canadian political conspiracy against Huawei.

Brumby said:

The issue is, it became a problem when you choose to decide that it was a problem and not before.

You were totally complicit in engaging me on the topic of freedom when I responded to hkbc and subsequently our iterations went on multiple times until you decide that it was off topic and not before. The excuse of off topic is pretty lame when you actively participated in an activity until it suits you to call it off topic but not before.

I also disagree that Brat was shut down because he was off topic. You guys say things that do not correlate to facts but fortunately we have a trail of the interaction as to who is actually making up stuff rather than being truthful

post # 404 - Equation went on a tirade against "Western" stuff. How is it on topic according to the "Equation" standard?
post # 405, #406, #407 was essentially echo chamber to your post. How are they on topic?
post #408 - This was when Brat commented about freedom in his post
post #409 - Equation rebutted Brat over freedom as an engagement point.
post #410 - This was Jura posting some news on Huawei which would even qualify as on topic.
post #411 - This was when hkbc questioned Brat over the meaning of freedom.
post #412 - Equation then engaged Brat again on the issue of freedom

Out of the nine posts only one would technically qualify as on topic. You were an active participant in three post of which none were on topic, two of which were relating to the idea of "freedom". None of the posts suggest any attempts to shut down Brat because he was off topic but rather it was an attempt to suppress his sharing the notion of freedom. Obviously you guys could not shut Brat down as being off topic because you and others were equally guilty of being off topic. A case of do what I say and not what I do.

Facts matter.


An established fact build on sound principles of risk management always trump a system build on the susceptibility of human weakness to corruption. You are entitled to your claims but they are rather hollow. .



Due process will certainly have degrees in application across different legal jurisdiction but that is unimportant. What is important is whether the application of the process is based upon sound legal jurisprudence of fairness and a fair trial. There are objective test centred around transparency, access to legal representation and a fair trial.

So what do we have in contrast in terms of due process.

Clarity of specific charges, transparency in due process and access to legal counsel
Meng was detained in Canada pursuant to request by the U.S. under the U.S.-Canada extradition treaty. Meng was indicted by a U.S. grand jury in Brooklyn in August 2018 and an arrest warrant was issued. The U.S. then sent that an official request to Canada’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which eventually sent it to the Ministry of Justice and then local authorities in Vancouver. In Canada, the minister of justice must first conduct a review to determine whether the defendant could be extradited under

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the U.S.-Canada Extradition Treaty. A judge in Vancouver must also review the U.S. request and the specific charges and the supporting evidence provided by the U.S.

Meng has had access to counsel from the time of her detention, and following due process had the chance to challenge her extradition before a neutral independent Canadian judge. At the bail hearing, the court was packed with Meng's supporters. A

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, Meng is being charged with bank fraud

A 25 page indictment was also filed in the U.S. district of New York on January 24, 2019 laying out the specific charges. Meng if she is extradited will get to have her day in court with full legal representation in a trial that will have full visibility in the proceedings.

In contrast, what has happened to Michael Kovrig's case in terms of clarity of charges, transparency in due process and access to legal counsel? Nothing that we know of.

Objectivity is not based on claims but of facts and not of words but of actions.

Click to expand...

No, it was always a problem to be off-topic. Although we may discuss topics that are indirectly related to Huawei's treatment, they are, nonetheless, related.

Post 404: Although there are digressions because of a European poster's curiosities, the main theme is that discriminatory treatment against Chinese makes it much less likely to truly assimilate them and when they are not assimilated, they are likely to take their success home (and although that can be offset by material offerings, that diminishes the more it pertains to particularly talented and accomplished people). That is one of the main reasons for why the US fell behind Huawei in the 5G race. Had it not done so, banning Huawei would be a moot point.

Post 408: Not only does Brat contribute nothing, nor can he contribute anything because of his lack of experience with China, he slips "freedom" in while agreeing with another poster to make it seem that that poster had spoke about freedom and agree with him. This is a recurrent theme for him to mention freedom in every thread for absolutely no reason. If he had said, "Chinese may choose to stay in America and loyal to American technology because of the freedoms afforded here," he could have been engaged and obviously defeated nonetheless, but the way he attempted to do it is illegitimate and underhanded.

Post 409: He is chastised for being both off topic (mentioning such ridiculous things even in the J-20 thread) and wrong.

Post 411: hkbc makes a challenge that Brat doesn't even answer, bringing into question whether or not he even knows what he means.

Post 412: Does not engage Brat. It reaffirms that Brat cannot answer hkbc's question meaning he likely doesn't know what he's talking about.

To bring up an off-topic spat such as freedom and then to be left unable to answer any challenges, that is the definition of being shut down, which is what happened to Brat. Right from the get-go, there is a problem from mentioning freedom, it's just that the members couldn't help but point out how wrong he was in addition to how off topic he was.

These are the real facts, not your "alternative facts."

"An established fact build on sound principles of risk management always trump a system build on the susceptibility of human weakness to corruption. You are entitled to your claims but they are rather hollow."
Whenever you deal in absolute terms such as "always," you put yourself on track to be wrong. Your laziness of attempting to generalize a situation that is very unique is a strategy doomed to fail from the beginning. If you wish, let's discuss China and America. I have lived in both places and felt the freedoms present in both. Have you? Or do you know China only through the biases of media presentation? You will be ill-qualified to speak if you do not have first hand experience with Chinese law. You believe my claims to be "hollow" because you know nothing about China, which has made you confuse being vague with being hollow. I was vague and the reason is that there are so many areas of evidence that China has greater freedoms than the US that it is difficult to decide where to start. It probably requires a new thread. I am willing to educate you as I have educated many others here.

Regarding Kovrig and Meng, due process is different in different countries. You seem to be familiar mostly with US/Canadian law and thus wish to judge other legal systems based on their parameters. But this is a mistake because these systems are different and cannot be measured by each other. While Western law focuses on paperwork and transparency, that does not necessarily afford fairness because paperwork, evidence, and what is presented to the media can always be forged or created on false terms. The "system" only creates an image of fairness based on false trust in a "virtuous" government. In addition, this system has been shown to be vulnerable to creation of laws that are inherently unfair such as the arrest of a person for an act that is not a crime in the arresting country. Chinese law is much more efficient in arresting someone and bringing him to justice. It is much fairer than US law because it is a more flexible tool for bringing those who wish to harm Chinese society to justice and thus affords greater reward to those who wish to protect and prosper in said society. It is much more flexible than US law because it can prevent someone with malicious intention from using "legal holes" and "loops in the system" to escape justice since Chinese law has ways of prosecuting clearly malicious people even if they can claim innocence through some technicality. Chinese law is fair because it gives criminals nowhere to hide.

now noticed the tweet





Huawei CFO has filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government, border agency, and police force, alleging serious constitutional rights violations when they detained, searched, and interrogated her before telling her she was under arrest, local media reported.

@Brumby what you are trying to compare makes zero sense.

The “legal counsel” Meng received is no different from kangaroo courts giving the accused a phony who is on the other side to begin with. Canada’s law explicitly forbids taking political prisoners for other countries, but that law was voided specifically for Meng. The same charges against a Canadian company (SNC) results in nothing. This is not a system that has rule of law now or has ever attempted to instate rule of law.

Talking about the path the kidnapping order went is supposed to give legitimacy to it how?

In contrast, Kovrig, despite being arrested for high level espionage, is allowed visits from the Canadian intelligence even if it would allow destruction of evidence.

Once he has found a lawyer he wants to entrust his case to and when the deadline for evidence gathering for the prosecution has passed, he is set to appear before an impartial court which has already put to trial dozens of individuals, both civilian, party members, soldiers, foreign agents and foreign civilians on the same charges and generated consistent sentences regardless of the accused’s ethnicity. The sentence will be decided by the criminal law only.

I recommend reading Article 105, 107, 110, 111 and 113, which is probably what the prosecution’s case will be based on.

The criminal law:

Equation said:

No, it was always a problem to be off-topic.

​

Click to expand...

Equation said:

Although we may discuss topics that are indirectly related to Huawei's treatment, they are, nonetheless, related.

Click to expand...

I think it is a rather oxymoron statement. When you introduce the qualifier "indirectly" you are making it subjective rather than an objective standard. What is indirect is highly dependent on individual perspective. For example, the problem I have in this instance is the selective application of drawing the off topic card when it became expedient. I will give you the last word as I have belaboured long enough on this "off topic" conversation.

Equation said:

Post 404: Although there are digressions because of a European poster's curiosities, the main theme is that discriminatory treatment against Chinese makes it much less likely to truly assimilate them and when they are not assimilated, they are likely to take their success home (and although that can be offset by material offerings, that diminishes the more it pertains to particularly talented and accomplished people). That is one of the main reasons for why the US fell behind Huawei in the 5G race. Had it not done so, banning Huawei would be a moot point.

Post 408: Not only does Brat contribute nothing, nor can he contribute anything because of his lack of experience with China, he slips "freedom" in while agreeing with another poster to make it seem that that poster had spoke about freedom and agree with him. This is a recurrent theme for him to mention freedom in every thread for absolutely no reason. If he had said, "Chinese may choose to stay in America and loyal to American technology because of the freedoms afforded here," he could have been engaged and obviously defeated nonetheless, but the way he attempted to do it is illegitimate and underhanded.​

post 409: He is chastised for being both off topic (mentioning such ridiculous things even in the J-20 thread) and wrong.

Post 411: hkbc makes a challenge that Brat doesn't even answer, bringing into question whether or not he even knows what he means.

Post 412: Does not engage Brat. It reaffirms that Brat cannot answer hkbc's question meaning he likely doesn't know what he's talking about.

Click to expand...

The point about those posts is not about specific content but rather they are off topic in every sense of the word.

Equation said:

To bring up an off-topic spat such as freedom and then to be left unable to answer any challenges, that is the definition of being shut down, which is what happened to Brat. Right from the get-go, there is a problem from mentioning freedom, it's just that the members couldn't help but point out how wrong he was in addition to how off topic he was.

Click to expand...

Brat has the right to say his piece just like anyone else in this forum. If others find it objectionable, they have the option to ignore it or challenge it. If Brat is out of place there is the moderator option. Fundamentally forum members need to exercise maturity and respect for others even if they find a contrary view highly objectionable. Members should have a degree of self awareness that the world doesn't revolve only around their own world view.

Equation said:

These are the real facts, not your "alternative facts."

Click to expand...

The fact is regardless of your attempt at characterising the reason for the posts, they are off topic. There is no alternative facts between off and on topic.

Equation said:

"An established fact build on sound principles of risk management always trump a system build on the susceptibility of human weakness to corruption. You are entitled to your claims but they are rather hollow."
Whenever you deal in absolute terms such as "always," you put yourself on track to be wrong. Your laziness of attempting to generalize a situation that is very unique is a strategy doomed to fail from the beginning.

Click to expand...

The context of "always" is that I believe my odds are favourable of one outcome against another. It is not dependent on whether I am always right or wrong. Favourable odds mean I would generate a favourable outcome on betting averages

Equation said:

If you wish, let's discuss China and America. I have lived in both places and felt the freedoms present in both. Have you? Or do you know China only through the biases of media presentation? You will be ill-qualified to speak if you do not have first hand experience with Chinese law. You believe my claims to be "hollow" because you know nothing about China, which has made you confuse being vague with being hollow. I was vague and the reason is that there are so many areas of evidence that China has greater freedoms than the US that it is difficult to decide where to start. It probably requires a new thread. I am willing to educate you as I have educated many others here.

Click to expand...

I noticed it is one of your favourite angle in your argument i.e. having live in China somehow makes you an authority on China. That is a fallacious logic.

Equation said:

Regarding Kovrig and Meng, due process is different in different countries. You seem to be familiar mostly with US/Canadian law and thus wish to judge other legal systems based on their parameters. But this is a mistake because these systems are different and cannot be measured by each other.

Click to expand...

I have already made the argument due process is not about application but fundamentally about transparency, procedural fairness, and access to defence. they are essentil ingretuents but yet you conveniently avoid challenging these principles.

Equation said:

While Western law focuses on paperwork and transparency, that does not necessarily afford fairness because paperwork, evidence,

Click to expand...

Fairness mean the defendant knows exactly what he or she is being charged. What evidence support those charges and what laws are invoked. Such transparency ensures many things that lead to fairness. The defendant knows the scope and whether it is within prescribed laws. It helps the defence counsel to prepare the appropriate defences because every charge within stature has standards of compliance to enforce charges. It is a critical component of any defence. Can you tell me what Michael Kovrig is being charged with? This is the most basic require standard of fairness i.e. transparency.

Equation said:

and what is presented to the media can always be forged or created on false terms.

Click to expand...

Such an argument of yours actually support why transparency is needed rather than not to ensure fairness. Anything that is brought to light invites scrutiny, prevent changing storyline or evidence tampering. It is call accountability and the media plays an important role in this.

Equation said:

The "system" only creates an image of fairness based on false trust in a "virtuous" government.

Click to expand...

System ensures procedural process that is more difficult to manipulate because it prevents the prosecutor in dictating terms or behaving outside of established protocol. Anything that has some form of accountability minimises abuse.

Equation said:

In addition, this system has been shown to be vulnerable to creation of laws that are inherently unfair such as the arrest of a person for an act that is not a crime in the arresting country.

Click to expand...

The test of fairness is whether procedural rules and laws have been applied correctly in a legal jurisdiction. Whether it is fair or not relative to other legal jurisdiction is irrelevant.

Equation said:

Chinese law is much more efficient in arresting someone and bringing him to justice. It is much fairer than US law because it is a more flexible tool for bringing those who wish to harm Chinese society to justice and thus affords greater reward to those who wish to protect and prosper in said society. It is much more flexible than US law because it can prevent someone with malicious intention from using "legal holes" and "loops in the system" to escape justice since Chinese law has ways of prosecuting clearly malicious people even if they can claim innocence through some technicality. Chinese law is fair because it gives criminals nowhere to hide.

Click to expand...

The conversation is not about efficiency but due process. The claims you are making has no connection to the subject of due process but rather in your claim China's laws are somehow better .

Biscuits said:

@Brumby what you are trying to compare makes zero sense.

The “legal counsel” Meng received is no different from kangaroo courts giving the accused a phony who is on the other side to begin with. Canada’s law explicitly forbids taking political prisoners for other countries, but that law was voided specifically for Meng.

Click to expand...

I don't know what laws you are talking about regarding political prisoner. Meng was detained in Canada pursuant to request by the U.S. under the U.S.-Canada extradition treaty. The extradition proceedings itself will have to follow procedural rules.
Below is the website containing Canadian's Extradition legislation and procedure as generally applicable to Meng's case.


I am not aware of any legal expert opinion that the prescribed extradition rules are not being followed by either the US or Canada. If you have please share and we can discuss.

Biscuits said:

The same charges against a Canadian company (SNC) results in nothing. This is not a system that has rule of law now or has ever attempted to instate rule of law.

Click to expand...

I have no idea of this SNC case or why it is pertinent to Meng's case. You will have to educate me.

Biscuits said:

Talking about the path the kidnapping order went is supposed to give legitimacy to it how?

Click to expand...

Just because you choose to use the term "kidnapping doesn't make it so. It has legal definition and qualifying conditions applicable behind the meaning.

Biscuits said:

In contrast, Kovrig, despite being arrested for high level espionage, is allowed visits from the Canadian intelligence even if it would allow destruction of evidence.

Click to expand...

The news wire that I have seen is reporting that he only has limited embassy assistance which is the minimum prescribed under international obligations. Beyond that no one knows what is happening even almost three months after his detention. There are no known indictment charges beyond the murky spy charges. There is no due process in comparison to Meng's case.
The destruction of evidence comments is almost comical. If China does not have evidence why is Kovrig being detained?

Biscuits said:

Once he has found a lawyer he wants to entrust his case to and when the deadline for evidence gathering for the prosecution has passed, he is set to appear before an impartial court which has already put to trial dozens of individuals, both civilian, party members, soldiers, foreign agents and foreign civilians on the same charges and generated consistent sentences regardless of the accused’s ethnicity. The sentence will be decided by the criminal law only.

I recommend reading Article 105, 107, 110, 111 and 113, which is probably what the prosecution’s case will be based on.

The criminal law:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The above are just general description of procedures.
Can you tell me whether he has been charged and if so what are the charges?
Can you tell me whether he has been given defence counsel access and do you have a news wire supporting it?
Can you tell me when is the deadline for the prosecution?

Brumby said:

I don't know what laws you are talking about regarding political prisoner. Meng was detained in Canada pursuant to request by the U.S. under the U.S.-Canada extradition treaty. The extradition proceedings itself will have to follow procedural rules.
Below is the website containing Canadian's Extradition legislation and procedure as generally applicable to Meng's case.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I am not aware of any legal expert opinion that the prescribed extradition rules are not being followed by either the US or Canada. If you have please share and we can discuss.


I have no idea of this SNC case or why it is pertinent to Meng's case. You will have to educate me.

​

Just because you choose to use the term "kidnapping doesn't make it so. It has legal definition and qualifying conditions applicable behind the meaning.


The news wire that I have seen is reporting that he only has limited embassy assistance which is the minimum prescribed under international obligations. Beyond that no one knows what is happening even almost three months after his detention. There are no known indictment charges beyond the murky spy charges. There is no due process in comparison to Meng's case.
The destruction of evidence comments is almost comical. If China does not have evidence why is Kovrig being detained?



The above are just general description of procedures.
Can you tell me whether he has been charged and if so what are the charges?
Can you tell me whether he has been given defence counsel access and do you have a news wire supporting it?
Can you tell me when is the deadline for the prosecution?

Click to expand...

On paper, Canada's law forbids extraditing prisoners for political reasons. You have it from Trump's own mouth that Meng's arrest is political in nature. There's plenty of articles on that.

The SNC case also pertains to improper foreign relations, but as a Canadian company and due to it's connection with the state, it was spared from court.

I am just calling a spade a spade. If you can look over the terminology, what I'm saying is that you listing the procedure an order traveled does not make the order legit. Would listing Bin Laden's communication to the 9/11 attackers make the attack a lawful execution?

Kovrig is being charged with espionage, abusing knowledge of state secrets. We are expected to hear more about his case when it hits court. The queue should be available on website, or at least a sample of it. If he isn't in the sample, you would have to phone or email them.

If you are that worried about him and convinced that he is innocent, the justice system allows you to sue the courts and the government if they commit a wrongful ruling. I am sure Kovrig would go for this option if the prosecution turns up with weak evidence. TBF Canada also allows this, and Meng is doing it right now. So it's not like Canada is entirely phony.

Prosecution is given 13.5 months max to hand over their case. Maximum detention is 37 days, extendable to a max of 13.5 months if the prosecution successfully argues that the chance of destroying evidence or escape is high enough to warrant detention. Compensation for wrongful detention is calculated by job salary, benefits, defaulting to a basic 83 RMB/day if there is no good material to base it on

Brumby said:

In principle I don't have an issue with your statement about the need to be on topic even though off topic discussions in my observation are predominant in this forum especially politically related issues where emotions tend to drive the conversation. ​

I think it is a rather oxymoron statement. When you introduce the qualifier "indirectly" you are making it subjective rather than an objective standard. What is indirect is highly dependent on individual perspective. For example, the problem I have in this instance is the selective application of drawing the off topic card when it became expedient. I will give you the last word as I have belaboured long enough on this "off topic" conversation.

​

The point about those posts is not about specific content but rather they are off topic in every sense of the word.


Brat has the right to say his piece just like anyone else in this forum. If others find it objectionable, they have the option to ignore it or challenge it. If Brat is out of place there is the moderator option. Fundamentally forum members need to exercise maturity and respect for others even if they find a contrary view highly objectionable. Members should have a degree of self awareness that the world doesn't revolve only around their own world view.


The fact is regardless of your attempt at characterising the reason for the posts, they are off topic. There is no alternative facts between off and on topic.

​

The context of "always" is that I believe my odds are favourable of one outcome against another. It is not dependent on whether I am always right or wrong. Favourable odds mean I would generate a favourable outcome on betting averages


I noticed it is one of your favourite angle in your argument i.e. having live in China somehow makes you an authority on China. That is a fallacious logic.

​

I have already made the argument due process is not about application but fundamentally about transparency, procedural fairness, and access to defence. they are essentil ingretuents but yet you conveniently avoid challenging these principles.


Fairness mean the defendant knows exactly what he or she is being charged. What evidence support those charges and what laws are invoked. Such transparency ensures many things that lead to fairness. The defendant knows the scope and whether it is within prescribed laws. It helps the defence counsel to prepare the appropriate defences because every charge within stature has standards of compliance to enforce charges. It is a critical component of any defence. Can you tell me what Michael Kovrig is being charged with? This is the most basic require standard of fairness i.e. transparency.


Such an argument of yours actually support why transparency is needed rather than not to ensure fairness. Anything that is brought to light invites scrutiny, prevent changing storyline or evidence tampering. It is call accountability and the media plays an important role in this.


System ensures procedural process that is more difficult to manipulate because it prevents the prosecutor in dictating terms or behaving outside of established protocol. Anything that has some form of accountability minimises abuse.


The test of fairness is whether procedural rules and laws have been applied correctly in a legal jurisdiction. Whether it is fair or not relative to other legal jurisdiction is irrelevant.

​

The conversation is not about efficiency but due process. The claims you are making has no connection to the subject of due process but rather in your claim China's laws are somehow better .

Click to expand...

Reread post 409. Off topic was called immediately after Brat's 408. Perhaps you are confused because in addition to calling him for being off topic, he was called for being wrong. It was not called when it "became expedient" and you flatter yourself if you think you have made that change. Only through reading comprehension errors can you insist on what you say after my counter-arguments.

Reread line of reasoning for post 404. My post was mostly on topic (with some digressions because of the questions of Max) before Brat's 408. Of course, we can be indirectly on topic or the discussion would be very limited, but Brat's way of sneaking "freedom" in was both facetious and off topic. As I said for the line of reasoning for post 408, he could have brought the issue up as a new indirect point without trying to make it look like he was agreeing with someone else's assertion of freedoms when there were none. Furthermore, as he didn't respond to post 411, it rather shows that he had no knowledge nor intent to continue that discussion; he laid it there and left as a form of trolling.

The odds don't mean anything. We are talking about a specific cases and specific countries. If we were stuck at the hypothetical phase, then odds would come into play and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what you said, but we are seeing live examples play out so to analyze the situation, we cannot gloss over the actualities in favor of "odds."

Well, yes, I'm Chinese and have lived in China therefore I know China better than someone who has only read of it through media biases. That's not fallacious logic; that's called first hand real world experience. A guy who's been boxing for 10 years knows how to box better than a guy who's been watching Youtube clips of boxing regardless of how long he's been watching them, and your media is going to be far more biased than video clips of fights. Your insistence that people with no experience on a topic can stubbornly lock horns with people who have real world experience on it is fallacious logic.

Yes, you can argue that application and law are separate but there's no point because if your application is flawed and unable to execute the intended purposes of the law, then it's all useless. It goes back to what I said, which is that even though a system might be developed to be more resistant to corruption, with corrupt people, it can still become corrupt. Having laws for transparency, fairness, etc... is worthless if they cannot be applied to achieve their intent. In essence, being transparent and not transparent are the same in terms of fairness if transparency is not properly applied to ensure fairness.

Michael Kovrig is charged with stealing state secrets and endangering national security. Read the news; why ask me this basic question? Now that I have answered it, you will believe that the process is fair and transparent?

Legally speaking, fairness is the implementation of the law. But common sense is above legality. Making senseless and corrupt laws that are to be implemented is a failure of governance that is an order higher than the implementation of laws.

You missed it, my link between efficiency and due process. Due process is different from country to country but it is always to ensure fairness. An increase in efficiency is an increase in fairness to the common citizen, who wishes his nation purged of malevolent foreign entities, traitors, and others who would harm society. To increase efficiency of processing such criminals, and to diminish the legal loopholes and other tools they typically use to escape justice is to improve the fairness to the common law-abiding citizens. Fairness to this great majority far outweighs "fairness" or the offering of legal tools/chances of evasion to the few who choose to commit crimes. I basically wrote this twice. It was already in my last post but you didn't get it... Once again, reading comprehension is required.

Equation said:

Reread post 409. Off topic was called immediately after Brat's 408. Perhaps you are confused because in addition to calling him for being off topic, he was called for being wrong. It was not called when it "became expedient" and you flatter yourself if you think you have made that change. Only through reading comprehension errors can you insist on what you say after my counter-arguments.

Reread line of reasoning for post 404. My post was mostly on topic (with some digressions because of the questions of Max) before Brat's 408. Of course, we can be indirectly on topic or the discussion would be very limited, but Brat's way of sneaking "freedom" in was both facetious and off topic. As I said for the line of reasoning for post 408, he could have brought the issue up as a new indirect point without trying to make it look like he was agreeing with someone else's assertion of freedoms when there were none. Furthermore, as he didn't respond to post 411, it rather shows that he had no knowledge nor intent to continue that discussion; he laid it there and left as a form of trolling.

The odds don't mean anything. We are talking about a specific cases and specific countries. If we were stuck at the hypothetical phase, then odds would come into play and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what you said, but we are seeing live examples play out so to analyze the situation, we cannot gloss over the actualities in favor of "odds."

Well, yes, I'm Chinese and have lived in China therefore I know China better than someone who has only read of it through media biases. That's not fallacious logic; that's called first hand real world experience. A guy who's been boxing for 10 years knows how to box better than a guy who's been watching Youtube clips of boxing regardless of how long he's been watching them, and your media is going to be far more biased than video clips of fights. Your insistence that people with no experience on a topic can stubbornly lock horns with people who have real world experience on it is fallacious logic.

Yes, you can argue that application and law are separate but there's no point because if your application is flawed and unable to execute the intended purposes of the law, then it's all useless. It goes back to what I said, which is that even though a system might be developed to be more resistant to corruption, with corrupt people, it can still become corrupt. Having laws for transparency, fairness, etc... is worthless if they cannot be applied to achieve their intent. In essence, being transparent and not transparent are the same in terms of fairness if transparency is not properly applied to ensure fairness.

Michael Kovrig is charged with stealing state secrets and endangering national security. Read the news; why ask me this basic question? Now that I have answered it, you will believe that the process is fair and transparent?

Legally speaking, fairness is the implementation of the law. But common sense is above legality. Making senseless and corrupt laws that are to be implemented is a failure of governance that is an order higher than the implementation of laws.

You missed it, my link between efficiency and due process. Due process is different from country to country but it is always to ensure fairness. An increase in efficiency is an increase in fairness to the common citizen, who wishes his nation purged of malevolent foreign entities, traitors, and others who would harm society. To increase efficiency of processing such criminals, and to diminish the legal loopholes and other tools they typically use to escape justice is to improve the fairness to the common law-abiding citizens. Fairness to this great majority far outweighs "fairness" or the offering of legal tools/chances of evasion to the few who choose to commit crimes. I basically wrote this twice. It was already in my last post but you didn't get it... Once again, reading comprehension is required.

Click to expand...

Dude don’t argue with people who make replies to each sentence. They just playing devils advocate from a bored person’s perspective. You can say cake tastes good and they’ll find a comment to antagonize you.