[1] https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/09/29/michael-kovrig-and-sp...
[2] https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441576564374769665
Canadian Patriot Review Editor’s note: On September 24, 2021, an agreement was reached to free Meng Wanzhou who had been illegally held captive in Canada since December 2018 . . .
There was nothing illegal about Meng Wanzhou's arrest. The U.S. made a request under a long extant extradition treaty. As for being "held captive," she was released on bail and lived in a home that she owned in Vancouver: very different to the conditions of the "two Michaels." In the end, the extradition hearing was never completed as the arrest warrant was eventually dropped by the U.S.. It was, by no means, a foregone conclusion what the outcome of the hearing would have been. Whatever you think of U.S. motives in all of this, the process was legal.
>Edith Terry: Michael Kovrig is a friend, and I am very conscious of the privations he has endured. And while his background is complex and possibly included intelligence gathering for the Canadian government during his diplomatic career, he was very open about his research interests and contacts. [0]
At end of day, billionaire who commited alleged fraud gets treated like billionaires while Spies who commited alleged espionage get treated like spies. This shouldn't be shocking, it's how the game is played. Canada excuting US foreign policy (China Initiative) because US found a paper loophole to kidnap Meng legally doesn't change the fact Canada kidnapped Meng in terms of diplomatic norms in the same way "enhanced interrogation" is still torture. Nevermind that Canada had legally right to drop extradition if case is sufficiently politicized as well. But laws are subservient to politics.
[0] https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china
This one one seems particularly political, given her crime was trading with Iran against U.S. law. Funny that she is not a U.S. citizen, though.
I wonder how would the U.S. feel if China arrested a U.S billionaire in a third-party country because they broke a Chinese law. File this under "might makes right", I guess.
I also agree that the U.S. most likely took advantage of the Canadian legal system to push a political agenda. That does not mean that the Canadian justice system did anything wrong. An extradition request was received, and so the process has to be followed in order to give a fair outcome under Canadian law. It is possible that extradition would have been refused and Meng Wanzhou would have been released. A big part of the reason that it dragged on for so long is that it was not an obvious straightforward case like most extradition hearings (though coronavirus certainly didn't help).
As for the claim that the Michaels actually were spies, well, I will keep an open mind, but I have not seen any credible evidence of that.
EDIT:
Nevermind that Canada had legally right to drop extradition if case is sufficiently politicized as well. But laws are subservient to politics.
You are seriously misunderstanding the Canadian legal system and the rule of law if you believe this. Laws generally are not subservient to politics except to the extent that Parliament can change the law. The law applies to everyone, politicians included. Yes, extradition can be refused if the motive for the request is determined to be political, BUT the court case must play out in order to determine this. Yes, the foreign minister can block any extradition if they believe there is a good reason to do so, but this would be a highly unusual thing to do as politicians avoid interfering in the legal system. It would be a very controversial thing to do.
It's okay to try to understand the world beyond conventional discourse. No one should be afraid of analyzing an issue with skepticism.
> Aidan Jonah is the Editor-in-Chief of The Canada Files, a socialist, anti-imperialist news site founded in 2019. He has written about Canadian imperialism, federal politics, and left-wing resistance to colonialism across the world.
Site mission:
> With the emergence of China’s New Silk Road (One Belt and One Road Initiative) as a force for global progress, poverty eradication, and peace, Canada has been confronted with an existential choice: Either continue to abide by the rule of monetarism, post-industrialism and war which have become signature features of the Anglo-American system dominant since World War two and run through the City of London and Wall Street, or embark upon a new mission of “win-win cooperation”, respect for the sovereignty of each nation while working in harmony with a community of share interest vectored around long term goals, great infrastructure programs and scientific discovery. This latter system is empowered by the force of new institutions such as the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Eurasian Economic Union. New credit generating institutions have been created to advance the expanded New Silk Road vision have come online such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the New Development Bank and the Silk Road Investment Fund to name a few.
Prasing Donald Trump approach to Russian and China:
> European nations are now deliberating whether they should continue to sit in the failed Euro cage, or embark on this project which openly welcomes all sovereign countries as partners in development. Donald Trump’s United States, having broken with the Neo-Conservative paradigm of war with China and Russia, also increasingly moves towards a new collaborative relationship with Eurasia and the New Silk Road. The question is what will Canada do in the face of this historic opportunity?
Any country that has ever taken on debt from China would like to have a talk with you.