Hacker News Reader

Comment by tyleo | Hacker News Reader

Supposing they were held in contempt, what does that mean?

I’ve seen this story a couple of times now and both sources had the quote, “Nobody is going to come with some handcuffs and arrest them, but to be held in contempt by an entire country would not serve any platform well.”

I would assume that there would be some punishment though, otherwise what power does a summons really have? Or is it just assumed that the market will punish Facebook because users won’t want to use the service of a founder who has been held in contempt of parliament?

View on HN

It means Facebook may find its ability to do do business in Canada made significantly more difficult. Travel through Canada for Zuckerberg may come with risk of detention and arrest.

Canada can put diplomatic pressure on the United States to do something about Facebook, and few things are more indicative of a need for Corporate dissolution than a corporation beginning to make diplomatic enemies of your allies.

Also, should Zuckerberg keep up this belligerence, and the share price of Facebook drop as a result, he could be held responsible under securities law.

Thus is the downside of making big waves. It gets you a lot of attention, and makes everything you do that much more complicated.

It's really hard to say because Parliament wields extraordinary powers. It once found the Government itself in contempt, triggering an election; IIRC, the only time that's ever been done was in Canada.

In the few other times contempt charges have been laid no punishment was applied, at the discretion of Parliament, or Parliament dissolved before any punishments were prescribed.

What's really fun to consider is that Parliament could apply criminal charges upon Zuck, and the USA may have to arrest and extradite him.

I highly doubt America would ever extradite for such an issue. It is not a crime for an American citizen to refuse to appear in another nation before the assembly of another nation. Other nations may not legislate for or compel citizens of America.

Most importantly, extradition requires the crime to be illegal in both nations. This is not. Contempt of Canadian parliament is not a crime on American soil, whereas something like murder is.

I don’t think Meng from Huawei was committing a crime that was illegal in China yet the USA still had her held and extradited from Canada.

She hasn't been extradited yet. Her defence say:

> her case should be tossed anyway because: her arrest was an abuse of process; the fraud charge she is facing in the United States is for a crime that doesn't exist in Canada; and the U.S. government's extradition request represents an 'abuse of power'.

The relevant question would be whether the activity is a crime in Canada, not in China.

Obstruction of Justice is a crime in both countries, and Parliament could certainly charge him with that, if it wished.

> Parliament could apply criminal charges upon Zuck, and the USA may have to arrest and extradite him.

Consider that this is where political pressure from the US (and I'm sure all countries would do the same in such a case) comes into play to prevent such instances. Also consider the kind of diplomat present at the helm of that ship. Most countries would rather not trigger him into irreparably damaging long term relations between them. He seems to do that even when there's obviously no long term benefit for the US.

So don't hold your breath for this decision to hold anything other than a symbolic meaning. But this to be honest is good enough in this case. It sends a signal to people, it sends a signal to FB, and it's plausible that the legal framework targeting such companies will be adjusted to mirror the sentiment.

I suspect that the true impact will be in weakening Facebook's bargaining position WRT the new Digital Charter.

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/h_00108.html

If Facebook has presence in Canada the company or its personnel could be impacted much more easily.

If they're anything like the UK parliament (which I would expect), they do actually have the power of arrest.

But not on an American. Though I guess he can't go to Canada now.

If nothing else it is symbolic gesture. Other countries are watching Facebook's behaviour. (It's also worth noting that they aren't merely being asked to meet with Canada, but an international committee of which a number of nations are a part, and whose combined populations are roughly half a billion people.)

Zuck will be limited in his travels.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com