Canada's Ambassador To China Hopes US Won't Extradite Huawei Exec, Gets Fired (go.com) 101
First, a Canadian diplomat on Thursday contradicted what he'd said on Wednesday, according to a story shared by hackingbear:
John McCallum, Canada's ambassador in China, appeared to provide legal advice to Meng Wanzhou, who is fighting extradition to the U.S. over fraud allegations. Saying she had a "strong case", McCallum outlined numerous weaknesses of the legal proceedings: political interference from Donald Trump, the extraterritorial nature of the charges and the fact that Canada is not party to American sanctions against Iran.
"I regret that my comments with respect to the legal proceedings of Ms Meng have created confusion. I misspoke," McCallum said in a statement released late on Thursday afternoon. "These comments do not accurately represent my position on the issue. As the government has consistently made clear, there has been no political involvement in this process."
But ABC News reports that the same diplomat then said Friday that it would be "great" for Canada if the U.S. dropped its extradition request, "in what seem like off script remarks again...."
"The Canadian government didn't return multiple messages in response to questions about whether McCallum is speaking for the Canadian government."
UPDATE (1/26/2019): "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has fired Canada's ambassador to China, John McCallum," reports the BBC.
"I regret that my comments with respect to the legal proceedings of Ms Meng have created confusion. I misspoke," McCallum said in a statement released late on Thursday afternoon. "These comments do not accurately represent my position on the issue. As the government has consistently made clear, there has been no political involvement in this process."
But ABC News reports that the same diplomat then said Friday that it would be "great" for Canada if the U.S. dropped its extradition request, "in what seem like off script remarks again...."
"The Canadian government didn't return multiple messages in response to questions about whether McCallum is speaking for the Canadian government."
UPDATE (1/26/2019): "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has fired Canada's ambassador to China, John McCallum," reports the BBC.
Hilarious comment, coming from an American. (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because you have more advanced brainwashing methods, doesn't mean you're relevantly different.
China is just better at capitalism than the Trump administration, and the USA is better at dictatorship than China. The grass is always more dystopic on the other side, I guess ...
Re: (Score:1)
What's different is the legal system in this country gives you several actual factual advantages over the legal system in China, no matter what crime you are accused of. If you don't want to be honest about that, then go fuck yourself.
Find out what Chinese justice is all about. Go live there faggot apologist. I AM A PROPONENT OF HUMAN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The US is no guarantor of them nor is it perfect, but it's not fucking CHINA.
Would I hold the US fully accountable to their own laws, yes I would. Wo
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to believe your own marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgot your password, AmiMoJo?
Re: (Score:1)
How many hours a day does the Party have you posting stuff like this?
Re: (Score:2)
Guy who is job? if you mean the patient dude, at least capitalize him.
Balancing Act (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel sorry for him in a way. He is probably a great ambassador, but these diplomats when the spotlight suddenly shines on them sometimes have no idea what to do. He is basically right on all counts -- she does have a strong case, and it would be better for Canada if the US just dropped the issue. He just doesn't know enough to keep his mouth shut while this is going on, because in Canada (unlike in China) this is a legal case, not a political one. That is why the PM is keeping his mouth shut (and why he should to). In the US the president has (as we have seen) his/her own set of powers. In Canada the PMs power ends with the ruling party's will to go along with him/her. They don't have any power unto themselves unless emergency measures are declared.
Since I'm on my soapbox anyway... Before open source was the bomb we had something called "source code licenses". You sign a legal document and you got the full source of the product which you could compile yourself or even make changes to if you needed to. If I were worried about a foreign power spying on my citizens I would require (by law) that providers of communication technology from foreign powers have the source code in their possession, require deployments to be compiled from source, and enact stiff fines for unauthorized surveillance (that could be globally enforced). Yes it could still happen, but just imagine a foreign power like China thinking about the geeks of a foreign nation pouring over one of your pet company's source code. Either they have nothing to hide or they will suddenly not be that interested in selling to you after all and the political BS will stop.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He is probably a great ambassador
Great ambassadors know when to STFU.
but these diplomats when the spotlight suddenly shines on them sometimes have no idea what to do.
It is very simple: Don't comment on ongoing judicial proceedings.
Canada has repeatedly explained that they have an independent judiciary, outside of political influence and control. The ambassador's verbal diarrhea undermines Chinese perception of that independence.
Re: (Score:2)
"These comments do not accurately represent my position on the issue. As the government has consistently made clear, there has been no political involvement in this process."
(...bold mine...)
He should have given us comments that do represent his position on the issue. Otherwise, with all due respect, I request that he sees some professional folks to be checked out.
Re: Balancing Act (Score:1)
Looks like he is throwing comments at the wall to see what sticks. This is the new standard... Say a bunch of crap, see who gets offended the most and what their angry replies and threats are (could also be from your own group), then decide what you're going to pick as your official position. Speak, assess, backpedal, repeat.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Balancing Act (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh come on. You can't be that naivd. The judiciary system may be independent, but if their ruling could seriously damage the country politically or economically, they'd be reined in quite rapidly.
Re: (Score:3)
That was not an extradition case. Extradition by definition is political. Go read the US-Canada treaty. very clearly says the govt can override it in national interest.
Re: (Score:3)
Extradition is not independent. Extradition is not like a normal case. It is the carrying out of a political decision - an extradition treaty- and by definition the govt can overrule any decision made an extradition court. Canada is never going to extradite Meng. This is just putting pressure on Huawei to add NSA backdoors to their code so it is as easy to spy on Huawei equipment as it is on Cisco and Nortel equipment.
Re: Balancing Act (Score:1)
"they have an independent judiciary, outside of political influence and control"
Do they also have the tooth fairy and Santa Claus?
Re: (Score:2)
None of things he listed would make a strong case.
Extradition doesn't get a trail. It gets hearings that check if the paperwork is in order.
None of his comments are about the paperwork.
Re: Balancing Act (Score:3, Informative)
Not according to the minister of justice who is responsible for this case:
âoeAt each stage of the extradition process in Canada, there is careful balancing of the interests of the person sought for extradition against Canadaâ(TM)s international obligations. The person sought is able to challenge their extradition at multiple levels, both before the superior and appellate courts in Canada, and by making submissions to me on the issue of surrender. â
https://www.canada.ca/en/depar... [canada.ca]
Re: Balancing Act (Score:4, Informative)
If you knew what those words mean, you'd understand that they support what I said.
Do you understand that "international obligations" is referring to compliance with their extradition treaty?
Do you understand that "balancing the interests" means making sure that they have a lawyer, and that they receive the correct process?
Do you understand that they have a right to challenge their extradition, but that is only designed to succeed where the paperwork is out of order, or where there was some legal problem with the way they were arrested?
It is diplomatic language, and you clearly don't understand what was said. That's why I used simple words.
Re: Balancing Act (Score:1)
I think you sound like a condecending prick. I just pointed you at the ultimate source of the process, I didnâ(TM)t fuck your girlfriend (yet). Weâ(TM)re all eternally grateful that your here helping us understand the complex world with your simple explanations.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I'm a condescending prick, this is slashdot. Look at your own response, why would I be other than condescending? You're a fucking idiot who is also an asshole. You at your own words; you've earned no fucks to give.
Extradition is always political (Score:4, Insightful)
Extradiditon by nature is a political decision because a nations law do not extend beyond its borders. Every extradition treaty has national interest loophole clauses in it. What it comes down to is whether China can cause enough pain for Canada to believe it is in their interest to invoke the loophole in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
National Interest isn't a "loophole." It is there by design.
If a country thinks that means they can decide cases based on politics, guess what? Other countries won't value their word. That is basic diplomacy, not politics.
And, isn't it a bit irrational to think that China can "cause pain" to Canada to get them to alter their stance towards their closest ally? That is just crazy talk.
If China is seen trying to do that, they lose automatically. Why would Canada reward that type of behavior by doing what they
Re: (Score:2)
China decided to make it into a political one, when they started pushing the "Canada is full of white supremacists" as the reasoning for the arrest of the executive. Likely the only reason Trudeau has kept his mouth shut is because everytime in the last 3 years he's opened it on any case, he's managed to piss everyone off. And we're 9mo or less out from a federal election - with the Liberal Party(Trudeau) polling at 3rd place, and him having a popularity of under 30%
Re: (Score:2)
I remind you the NDP Beard led all the polls before the last national election and was clearly going to be the next PM but fucked it up with two months of talking about trans issues rather than the economy and security.
Correction, economy and security. Canada likely wouldn't survive as a nation if the NDP became the leaders. Especially with the complaints of what they're doing now at a provincial level.
Microsoft and NSA (Score:2)
The reason why open source became such a big deal was Microsoft refused to share the source code with China to make sure there were no NSA backdoors. its not China we have to worry about when we are talking about big brother
Re:Balancing Act (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps he's a useful idiot (ambassadors aren't necessarily smart people, just diplomatic ones). By outlining why Meng has a strong case, he's just given the US lawyers preparing their case the potential Chinese defense strategy, and what parts they need to focus on to bolster their case. In effect, he's just outlined how China intends to resist the extradition and the US needs to prepare rebuttals to all those points.
Sure, a good lawyer would already do so, but it doesn't hurt to have someone make sure you're prepared for the defense arguments.
No, he knew what he was doing. He actually invited the Chinese newspaper reporters to a meeting where he spewed why he thinks China has a strong case. Note he didn't invite over "reporters" in general - none of the many English speaking news reporters were present, just the ones working for Chinese newspapers and TV. (Note that by "Chinese newspapers and TV" does not mean "TV and news from China" - there are plenty of Canadian Chinese newspapers and TV networks, most of whom would've shared newsrooms with the normal English press and who may have tipped them off as well).
This is not hackingbear's story (Score:4, Informative)
That one [slashdot.org] is.
“One, political involvement by comments from [US President] Donald Trump in her case. Two, there’s an extraterritorial aspect to her case, and three, there’s the issue of Iran sanctions which are involved in her case, and Canada does not sign on to these Iran sanctions. So I think she has some strong arguments that she can make before a judge,” McCallum said.
Sounds like /. is also afraid of publishing stories inconvenient to the American public.
And this ambassador had to retract his words after facing political pressure from Canada’s main opposition party leader for McCallum’s removal [scmp.com]. Great for freedom of speech!
Re: (Score:2)
He isn't in Vancouver, and it is a major accusation against the local Canadian authorities.
But no, it will turn out that what happened in that the US authorities filed the correct paperwork, and that is what the local Canadians went off of. It will not turn out that there a phone call from Orange Man, or that his "fixer" made a trip to Canada.
Re: (Score:3)
It looks like everything he said is verifiable fact. The case does have an extraterritorial aspect (the crime she's accused of did not occur in the US or Canada) and Canada is not party to the anti-Iranian sanctions in question. Finally, Trump did make comments about the case, suggesting that he would definitely intervene to get a trade deal with China signed: https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Those three things seem to be pretty much exactly the situation that Canadian extradition law is written to block.
Re: (Score:2)
And this ambassador had to retract his words
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence. If I go on TV and make a comment about a legal proceeding involving my employer I can rightfully expect to be lining up at the unemployment office the very next business day.
The ambassador does not have a PR role and his only comment about this case to anyone outside of the respective governments involved should have been "no comment".
Re: (Score:1)
Ok. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. I'm getting tired of people using them interchangeably.
Freedom of speech means you cannot be arrested for saying something publicly. It does not mean you are entitled to a soap box or any kind of platform. It also does not protect you from getting fired. Saying whatever you want has repercussions. Especially when you are giving the impression that the government you work for is interfering with the judicial process.
Send this witch to the gas chamber (Score:1)
Especially if China executes the people they have detained. Time to show China that it is a peon compared to the mightiest power in the history of Earth.
Is Canada really a lapdog? (Score:1)
Screw the extradition treaties, you can't just bend over and pull the pants down everytime the U.S. waves its cock and wants to throw someone in prison for life to bully other governments into doing what they want.
Asked to step down ... (Score:3)
Canada's Prime Minister asked the ambassador to step down [www.cbc.ca], because of his previous remarks on the case of the Huaweoi executive who is detained and waiting extradition hearings to the USA.
Canadian Ambassor resigns as requested (Score:3)
John McCallum were completely inappropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Note it doesn't matter if McCallum's statements are true, false, or just his personal opinion. The fact that he is the Canadian Ambassador to China means he can't say those things.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Before the case reaches the court, the Canadian DOJ can decide whether to proceed with the case first. The Canada government should therefore stand against US political persecution.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it can. A request by an extradition partner triggers a set of proceedings. The justice minister can't just say "no, fuck you." The court needs to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
He got fired, of course.
The basic job requirement of a diplomat is to be able to be diplomatic. McCallum failed, there....
Re: (Score:1)
The basic job requirement of a diplomat is to in many profound and official words say nothing. Or, as you say, "be diplomatic". There's a reason a lot of people despise diplomats.
He was doing his job (Score:2)
His job as Canada's ambassador to China is to keep good relations between China and Canada. He should not give a fuck about Canada's relations with USA unless he is the ambassador to USA. If his comments make this look like the vengeful misuse of the judicial process that it is and it gets USA panties in a bunch - too bad- he needs to calm down his host country over this gross misuse of the judicial process and if he can do so by pointing out the available loopholes good for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, he can do what everyone else who holds a job knows to do and shut up about things publicly unless officially sanctioned to speak. I wouldn't do a TV interview criticizing some aspect of my current employment without expecting repercussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Diplomat is undiplomatic, and asked to resign. I could see if perhaps these things were said in private, as I'm sure diplomats have to. However apparently this was said to media, as the official ambassador... should have known better.
Makes me wonder if it was just a total gaff, some sort of international ploy throwing oneself under the sacrificial bus, or if he just didn't care anymore and/or just wanted a way out of the mess.
To me (who is not a Ambassador), I don't see why China is in such a twist wit
Golly! (Score:2)
"What? You mean I can't just shoot off my mouth, repeatedly, and make life difficult for my elected bosses, who were elected to set policy and not me?"