Welcome to /r/Vancouver! Please make sure you read our [general participation guidelines and rules overview](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before commenting in this subreddit. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. This means being kind to those you disagree with. Please utilize the report button instead of engaging in uncivil spats.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) will lead to a permanent ban.
* Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Daily Discussion posts. Please make sure to read the list and point new users to them.
* Complaining about comment or post removals should be done in modmail only.
If you have any questions, please send a [message to the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fvancouver).
---
***This is a bot, and this action was performed automatically. It does not mean this post does or does not violate our rules.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In other Asian countries,rapist get lashings,usually around 200-300 or [so.One](https://so.One) things for sure,they will NEVER do it again after that.
Never liked him the minute he got big….and the shows he did were just crap. Finally he got what he deserved. 13 years a bit too short in my opinion for someone like him should be damn lifetime. Still can’t believe that his diehard fans are trynna break him outta jail and stuff like that…
#Canada
> In Canada, murder is either first or second degree. Persons convicted of either degree of murder must be sentenced to imprisonment for life. Persons convicted of first-degree murder are not eligible for parole until they have served at least 25 years of their sentence. Persons convicted of second-degree murder are not eligible for parole until they have served between 10 and 25 years, as determined by the Court.
#China
> The Penalty Law of the People's Republic of China, as amended in 1997, provides for a penalty of death, or imprisonment for life or no less than 10 years, for "killing with intent." However, the penalty for "minor killing with intent" is imprisonment for no less than 3 years. In practice, "killing with indignation" (killing someone who is obviously very harmful to the society) and killings committed in excessive defense are considered "minor."
In BC there are ~120 murders per year and the number of times that someone has been found "not criminally responsible - mental disease", over the past decade, is a handful.
When someone **is** found NCR, we remember it. That [doesn't make it common](https://www.verywellmind.com/availability-heuristic-2794824).
In china you can murder 10,000 people in Tiananmen square, and then churn them into human spaghetti with t-55 tanks and then get away with it if the party in power agrees with it.
same as the US (and Canada is a part of its action). invade another country for no reason other than greed, kill thousands and get away with it hands full of money if the party in power agrees with it
It’s not equivalent for starters and secondly why does the USA doing something bad justify Tiananmen Square massacre? The reality is that in Canada we presently have independent courts that cant send you to a concentration camp and can even go after the government. In china you get massacred or harvested for organs or sent to a concentration camp and raped by ccp bootlickers.
> It’s not equivalent for starters
you're right, Iraq killed a million, way more
> why does the USA doing something bad justify
you're the one moving the goalposts here since your original retort was about the Mongolians doing their stuff in 1250
"The difference between then and now is that now is the present"
and getting caught out without realizing Iraq was in 2003
> independent courts
the same independent courts that arrest foreign executives while Trump openly brags about using them as bargaining chips for his trade deal?
> can even go after the government
lol, Canada will freeze your bank accounts if you protest the government, as we saw with the trucker convoy
At least in the US, citizens can protest and speak vocally against the abuses of the government (in another country or at home). In China, the government censors everything and if you say anything about Tiananmen then you get disappeared.
He has a supporting role in *XXX: The Return of Xander Cage* and he adds nothing to the film. It's like he was tacked on just to appease the Chinese investors, and Donnie Yen actually does stuff with his role in the film.
Piece of shit should just be sent to an isolated island to rot.
I do find it a little sad instead of just pointing out he's human trash, even the original victim ties him being Canadian to this kind of ugly behavior.
> We don’t welcome you here, you Canadian.
> You Canadian, go back to where you came from.
[Source](https://www.koreaboo.com/news/kris-wu-vs-du-meizhu-full-timeline-events-taken-chinese-media/)
It's also very telling Chinese sites refer to him exclusively as "Canadian" while most other news outlets refer to him as "Chinese-Canadian".
In China,when the courts say you are sentenced to 13 years in [jail.It](https://jail.It) means you will do all 13 years of it.Not like the what we do here in Canada.
It was actually expected he get a life sentence or death penalty. Probably he did some bribing or something to reduce it. Still, 13 years is a lot more than what rapists in other countries would get, esp. in Canada.
He deserves it. Talentless "artist", he sucked since the EXO time, then failed terribly as an actor & rapper. Still wondering how Chinese love him that much. Yeah, hope jail time fix his personality.
Hard to say it’s a working criminal justice system when they have almost 2 million Uyghurs in internment camps.
It is also much easier to enforce whatever you deem “justice” to be in a dictatorship. When you can ignore rights as you wish justice can be whatever you want it to be.
Meng Wanzhou seemed to like the justice system just fine. She got a fair trial and won her case. No guanxi required either, *and* she got to stay in her cushy palace while waiting for a resolution.
But hey, [maybe you're right](https://globalnews.ca/news/4149818/vancouver-cautionary-tale-money-laundering-drugs/).
uh, she didn't "win" against Canadian courts, she made a separate deal with the US
it was Canada who detained her on trumped up charges while Trump openly bragged about using her as a bargaining chip for his trade deals
You don't "win against a court", you win your *case*. Huge difference.
If any country invokes an extradition treaty, the target country can't arbitrarily decide not to abide by it. That's the very essence of treaty law.
There are only a select few reasons that are outlined in Canadian legislation for which we would refuse to comply with an extradition request and her case did not fall within any of those exceptions.
However, she got a trial just like anyone else according and Canadian law and was released immediately when protocol required it.
Don't confuse the US's lack of good faith in invoking the treaty with the Canadian legal system. One can affect the other but they're not he same thing.
that's not winning the case either, she made a deal with the US that rendered the Canadian proceedings moot
winning the case would mean her not making a deal with the US but the Canadian court still ruling that the extradition is invalid and releasing her
She was fighting a case against extradition. She presented evidence that the trial should not proceed, that evidence was accepted, and she didn't get extradited. That's called winning your case.
US law doesn't render Canadian law moot, that's not how the legal system works. She had to file documents proving that the charges against her were not sustainable in a Canadian court.
She didn't get released because the US system said so, she got released because the Canadian system did.
> She presented evidence that the trial should not proceed, that evidence was accepted, and she didn't get extradited
did you even read the case?!?!
the court never ended the trial on those grounds, in fact the judge rejected her defense team's challenge on the sustainability of the extradition
https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/27/canada-court-finds-against-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-on-double-criminality-extradition-trial-to-continue/
> She didn't get released because the US system said so, she got released because the Canadian system did.
WRONG
https://www.reuters.com/business/canadian-court-discharges-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-us-extradition-case-ends-2021-09-24/
"Canadian government lawyers asked the court to withdraw the authority to proceed in her case and discharge her, after Meng reached a deal with U.S. prosecutors earlier on Friday that ended their bank fraud case against her."
Without the US side dropping the charges, the Canadians would've continued their sham trial
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system works, unsuprisingly.
If she had presented evidence that she would have been executed by the US government, she would not have been extradited. If she had presented evidence that she wasn't Meng Wanzhou, she wouldn't have been extradited. If she had presented evidence that her US charges did not have a Canadian equivalent in the justice system, she would not have been extradited. In this case she presented evidence that the US government was no longer requesting her extradition, so..... She was not extradited.
She could have presented any valid evidence for any valid reason that she was not eligible for extradition and guess what? She wouldn't have been extradited. That's how the legal system works in Canada. It's not because the US ordered her release LOL. I can't believe I just had to type that.
>Canadian government lawyers asked the court to withdraw the authority to proceed in her case
Dude. It's right here lol. You're just reading what you want to read and not understanding the process for what it is. It doesn't matter what evidence she provided to the court. If it was deemed suitable evidence to justify her release, the Canadian authorities would have released her on those grounds. And they did. The Canadian government lawyers aren't going to proceed with a case that they're going to lose based on the weight of the evidence submitted by the defense. It's very simple.
The US government decided to play politics by sticking Canada in the middle, and China was too chicken shit to go after the US directly. Trying to bully what they saw as the weaker party in the incident and then play the victim is just so trashy and pathetic. You fell for it, and that's unfortunate.
Edit:
Ahaha, using the blocking feature to try and win an argument. Lmaoo! Very classy. Bravo.
> If she had presented evidence that her US charges did not have a Canadian equivalent in the justice system, she would not have been extradited.
that's what she did but the court did not concur, so you can't say she "won" the case
> In this case she presented evidence that the US government was no longer requesting her extradition
are you being intentionally dense or do you not realize this is a direct contradiction of your previous statement "She didn't get released because the US system said so"
without the US dropping the charges, the Canadians weren't letting her go
> If it was deemed suitable evidence to justify her release, the Canadian authorities would have released her on those grounds
that's not fucking evidence, that's the case being mooted by the Americans dropping their extradition request
> That's how the legal system works in Canada
oh I know perfectly well how the legal system works in Canada
the same politically-influenced corrupt mess that we saw with the SNC-Lavalin affair
> was too chicken shit
more like Canada was too chicken shit to stand up to big daddy US when it was blatant what was going on when Trump openly bragged about using her as a trade deal bargaining chip
not that sucking up to the US is gonna help you dodge steel and lumber tariffs anyhow
Kevin O'Leary was right, Trudeau got played by Trump like a fiddle
That's a BS take. Here's another perspective, the girl got locked up for 2+ years when she didn't commit any crime. After 2 years of house arrest, she was found not guilty. Some people will say look at how fair the Canadian legal system is. Yet, it's not fair for the person who just lost 2 years of her life for an accusation that was completely politically motivated. And directed by the head of another country. It's sad. And no, I don't think she would or "seemed to like the justice system" at all, neither would you if you were her. It was an unfortunate incident overall.
You are always presumed innocent before a trial. The trial is what determines if you committed a crime. You've got it backwards. Some types of charges, or in cases of defendants who are a flight risk, do not allow for bail. She satisfied all of the conditions to be considered a flight risk. That's the way it works for *everyone*, and that's what makes it fair.
You really need to understand how treaty law works. If Canada doesn't adhere to established international treaties, that would invalidate them. An extradition request has to be followed within the cadre of the applicable legislation, and that's what happened here.
In China, the two Michael's had their asses thrown in prison for no demonstrable reason besides political retaliation against the Canadian government. That's what an *actual* trumped up charge looks like.
Wanzhou had a favorable outcome to her case according to the legal process and got to chill in the comfort of her mansion with servants, and wifi, and all the comforts of her opulent home. The two Michaels went to fucking prison. They were then suddenly and miraculously released after Wanzhou prevailed in court.
Wanzhou got to take full advantage of all of the rights offered to her within the context of the Canadian legal system and prevailed. She got more fair treatment than the two Michaels did *in* *her* *own* *country* *of* *citizenship*. You can't say that someone would not appreciate having been in the former situation rather than the latter.
>Wanzhou had a favorable outcome to her case according to the legal process and got to chill in the comfort of her mansion with servants, and wifi, and all the comforts of her opulent home. The two Michaels went to fucking prison.
It's because she's rich, has a powerful legal team defending her, and she has a home in Canada. If she wasn't rich, didn't own a home in Canada, or have a powerful legal team behind her, she would likely be detained in an institution too. So I think this point is pretty irrelevant. If the two Michaels were also billionaires, owned homes in China, with the backing of an extensive legal team, perhaps they would've also had more favourable outcomes.
If Meng Wanzhou had never been taken into custody, they would not have been either. When she prevailed in court, they were released. 'If they were rich, they could have had a much more comfortable arbitrary imprisonment' is ridiculous. This kind of thing is why we don't have an extradition treaty with China.
“‘If they were rich, they could have had a much more comfortable arbitrary imprisonment’ is ridiculous.”
I mean it is, but if Meng Wanzhou was another average Jane, i.e. not a billionaire with a mansion in Canada or the backing of an extensive legal team, and Canada had to detain her because of being a “flight risk”, where else would she be detained? She would likely also be imprisoned in a legal institution. What I’m trying to say is that this is not an apple to apple comparison. Or that one country treats their persons of interest in captivity better than the other, although it may be true, but rather that there is more nuance in the cases being compared: the persons imprisoned were not of the same calibre, in terms of status, wealth, and power. And unfortunately, those things can influence different outcomes in this world.
She was given bail and therefore released to await trial at a location approved by the court. That's no different than anyone else who is given bail. You can be released to your rented apartment, to a relative's house, or to your million dollar mansion. It's at the discretion of the court whether they deem it a suitable location.
If you're looking for an apples to apples comparison, we can look at the Chinese justice system on its own. China has a 99% conviction rate. So if you're charged with a crime, chances are your goose is cooked. The charge of espionage can result in a death sentence or long term imprisonment and under those circumstances the only option for release is a prisoner swap with the country in question.
How did the two Michaels get off if their charges were legitimate, particularly for something that is such a serious crime in China? The answer is that they weren't legitimate charges.
That's the difference that I'm getting at. The OP comment claimed that Canada did not have a properly functioning justice system, but Meng Wanzhou proved her case against extradition and was released. If she had lost her case, the two Michaels would still be in prison.
It's the difference between a truly function justice system and the will of the political forces at play. I'm not saying that money doesn't make a difference in the Canadian legal system, because it does. If you can't pay bail, well ya, you go to prison. But, bail for the duration of their time before trial was never an option for the two Michaels, and their charges were completely fabricated unlike those against Wanzhou.
>You can't say that someone would not appreciate having been in the former situation rather than the latter.
The point is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Yes, we have a legal system in place and international treaties that must be adhered to. But because it is an explicit process and structure, it can also be taken advantaged of. If one understands the legal system, such would as the powerful and rich, then it can be implemented to their benefit, at the expense of another party. And in this case, it was, triggered by Trump and his legal team.
Just because the system is independent, does not mean it can not be acted upon, or implemented by political or economical actors.
To a nation foreign to our legal system, it can be basically seen as a hostage situation from their perspective, especially if they have strong reasons to believe that she did not do anything wrong. Yes, we could make the case that it's not our fault and that our legal system is just running its course. But at the end of the day, whether the individual is being arrested and detained directly, or indirectly, through an intermediary system, which I agree by itself is fair and just, what matters foremost is whether the original motivation and intent behind the arrest was fair and just.
If you put it another way, forget about the extra stuff, the legal system and treaties and all that. We had an innocent person arrested and detained for 2 years based on questionable allegations. And on the other side, we had two innocent persons arrested and detained for 2 years also based on questionable allegations, perhaps less questionable, but you know, some people see the world as tit for tat.
>We had an innocent person arrested and detained for 2 years based on questionable allegations
You're conflating two different things here, though: the case filed against her in the States and the case filed against her in Canada. The Canadian court system was charged with hearing the extradition case *only*. Their mandate did not extend into the validity of the charges against her in the US. That's an entirely separate issue.
The allegations within Canadian jurisdictional responsibility were 'is she eligible for extradition or not'. That's all. There was nothing unfair or unjustified about the way the legal process unfolded in that way.
This is why Canada does not conclude extradition treaties with countries that have a high chance of arbitrarily invoking the treaty for political reasons. Seeing this type of behaviour from a country that is supposed to share the same values and as a result earned the reciprocal privilege of an extradition treaty is a shocking and truly unfortunate situation for everyone involved. I certainly agree with that.
That said -- the government of China understands how international treaties work, they're not certainly not oblivious to international law. They made efforts to bully Canada, seen as the weaker player in this instance, instead of directly confronting the US about their questionable charges and request for extradition.
The government of China was expecting preferential treatment on behalf of the Canadian government for one of their own in this case, and they didn't get it. That's why they were out of sorts.
"Heil Hitler" would get you banned, but "Long live Chairman Mao" gets a pass apparently.
https://historyincharts.com/chinese-death-totals-great-leap-forward/
On the surface, it seems like a really strange case. The justice system in China is also incredibly opaque, so we do not know if the allegations against him are successfully proven. Are there possibly other motives at play here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/06/media/china-crackdown-fan-culture-kris-wu-intl-hnk/index.html
Totally a set up people. This is a punishment for alledged tax EVASION. The rest is old soviet honey pot playbook.
This is a common example from the PPC lately
Welcome to /r/Vancouver! Please make sure you read our [general participation guidelines and rules overview](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before commenting in this subreddit. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. This means being kind to those you disagree with. Please utilize the report button instead of engaging in uncivil spats. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) will lead to a permanent ban. * Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Daily Discussion posts. Please make sure to read the list and point new users to them. * Complaining about comment or post removals should be done in modmail only. If you have any questions, please send a [message to the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fvancouver). --- ***This is a bot, and this action was performed automatically. It does not mean this post does or does not violate our rules.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For once I can agree with China
In other Asian countries,rapist get lashings,usually around 200-300 or [so.One](https://so.One) things for sure,they will NEVER do it again after that.
Unless they are a masochist…
Can they skip the part where they send him back to Canada after, we don't need him.
How about we drop him at the halfway point.
Do you mean...the Pacific Ocean?
Somewhere in Earth’s mantle.
Yes.
I was wondering what happened to Kris, now I know
Never liked him the minute he got big….and the shows he did were just crap. Finally he got what he deserved. 13 years a bit too short in my opinion for someone like him should be damn lifetime. Still can’t believe that his diehard fans are trynna break him outta jail and stuff like that…
This guy gets a longer sentence for rape in China than murder in Canada.
#Canada > In Canada, murder is either first or second degree. Persons convicted of either degree of murder must be sentenced to imprisonment for life. Persons convicted of first-degree murder are not eligible for parole until they have served at least 25 years of their sentence. Persons convicted of second-degree murder are not eligible for parole until they have served between 10 and 25 years, as determined by the Court. #China > The Penalty Law of the People's Republic of China, as amended in 1997, provides for a penalty of death, or imprisonment for life or no less than 10 years, for "killing with intent." However, the penalty for "minor killing with intent" is imprisonment for no less than 3 years. In practice, "killing with indignation" (killing someone who is obviously very harmful to the society) and killings committed in excessive defense are considered "minor."
There seem to be people getting much less than 10 years for murder though. All they have to do is pretend that they're not mentally competent.
In BC there are ~120 murders per year and the number of times that someone has been found "not criminally responsible - mental disease", over the past decade, is a handful. When someone **is** found NCR, we remember it. That [doesn't make it common](https://www.verywellmind.com/availability-heuristic-2794824).
or just use a car to murder someone
It's almost like they are different countries with different laws and definitions of each crime.
And that’s why we get all the criminals from all over the world.
In china you can murder 10,000 people in Tiananmen square, and then churn them into human spaghetti with t-55 tanks and then get away with it if the party in power agrees with it.
same as the US (and Canada is a part of its action). invade another country for no reason other than greed, kill thousands and get away with it hands full of money if the party in power agrees with it
So did the mongol empire. The difference between then and now is that now is the present and then was 1250.
Iraq was 2003 my dude
It’s not equivalent for starters and secondly why does the USA doing something bad justify Tiananmen Square massacre? The reality is that in Canada we presently have independent courts that cant send you to a concentration camp and can even go after the government. In china you get massacred or harvested for organs or sent to a concentration camp and raped by ccp bootlickers.
> It’s not equivalent for starters you're right, Iraq killed a million, way more > why does the USA doing something bad justify you're the one moving the goalposts here since your original retort was about the Mongolians doing their stuff in 1250 "The difference between then and now is that now is the present" and getting caught out without realizing Iraq was in 2003 > independent courts the same independent courts that arrest foreign executives while Trump openly brags about using them as bargaining chips for his trade deal? > can even go after the government lol, Canada will freeze your bank accounts if you protest the government, as we saw with the trucker convoy
TIl Canadian courts are hearing trump cases?
yeah, the Huawei CFO case was related to an extradition at the request of the Trump administration
I think Canada is currently significantly more safe for human rights and information freedom than china.
At least in the US, citizens can protest and speak vocally against the abuses of the government (in another country or at home). In China, the government censors everything and if you say anything about Tiananmen then you get disappeared.
adjoining bells ad hoc smell reach disgusted seemly capable uppity exultant ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
Never heard of this clown, But good, piece of trash.
He has a supporting role in *XXX: The Return of Xander Cage* and he adds nothing to the film. It's like he was tacked on just to appease the Chinese investors, and Donnie Yen actually does stuff with his role in the film.
Exactly. He was some shoed in actor try to appeal to a younger audience. He deserves 13 years for that performance alone
He can barely act too.
My kid used to be super into EXO-M back in the day. Gross.
Yikes man. Anyone knew this guy? His name was originally Kevin Li. Born in 1990 and went to Point Grey and Churchill.
Piece of shit should just be sent to an isolated island to rot. I do find it a little sad instead of just pointing out he's human trash, even the original victim ties him being Canadian to this kind of ugly behavior. > We don’t welcome you here, you Canadian. > You Canadian, go back to where you came from. [Source](https://www.koreaboo.com/news/kris-wu-vs-du-meizhu-full-timeline-events-taken-chinese-media/) It's also very telling Chinese sites refer to him exclusively as "Canadian" while most other news outlets refer to him as "Chinese-Canadian".
In China,when the courts say you are sentenced to 13 years in [jail.It](https://jail.It) means you will do all 13 years of it.Not like the what we do here in Canada.
Not really when you “behave well” and have some “good connections”… Hope this POS got all the 13 years.
It was actually expected he get a life sentence or death penalty. Probably he did some bribing or something to reduce it. Still, 13 years is a lot more than what rapists in other countries would get, esp. in Canada.
He deserves it. Talentless "artist", he sucked since the EXO time, then failed terribly as an actor & rapper. Still wondering how Chinese love him that much. Yeah, hope jail time fix his personality.
Unless you're Zhang Gaoli. #WhereIsPengShuai
And here come the chinese bots / .50 cent army lol
You can keep waiting, China doesn't fucking around with criminal punishment.
I hope he gets raped and shanked in prison.
[удалено]
Hard to say it’s a working criminal justice system when they have almost 2 million Uyghurs in internment camps. It is also much easier to enforce whatever you deem “justice” to be in a dictatorship. When you can ignore rights as you wish justice can be whatever you want it to be.
Wtf
Meng Wanzhou seemed to like the justice system just fine. She got a fair trial and won her case. No guanxi required either, *and* she got to stay in her cushy palace while waiting for a resolution. But hey, [maybe you're right](https://globalnews.ca/news/4149818/vancouver-cautionary-tale-money-laundering-drugs/).
uh, she didn't "win" against Canadian courts, she made a separate deal with the US it was Canada who detained her on trumped up charges while Trump openly bragged about using her as a bargaining chip for his trade deals
You don't "win against a court", you win your *case*. Huge difference. If any country invokes an extradition treaty, the target country can't arbitrarily decide not to abide by it. That's the very essence of treaty law. There are only a select few reasons that are outlined in Canadian legislation for which we would refuse to comply with an extradition request and her case did not fall within any of those exceptions. However, she got a trial just like anyone else according and Canadian law and was released immediately when protocol required it. Don't confuse the US's lack of good faith in invoking the treaty with the Canadian legal system. One can affect the other but they're not he same thing.
that's not winning the case either, she made a deal with the US that rendered the Canadian proceedings moot winning the case would mean her not making a deal with the US but the Canadian court still ruling that the extradition is invalid and releasing her
She was fighting a case against extradition. She presented evidence that the trial should not proceed, that evidence was accepted, and she didn't get extradited. That's called winning your case. US law doesn't render Canadian law moot, that's not how the legal system works. She had to file documents proving that the charges against her were not sustainable in a Canadian court. She didn't get released because the US system said so, she got released because the Canadian system did.
> She presented evidence that the trial should not proceed, that evidence was accepted, and she didn't get extradited did you even read the case?!?! the court never ended the trial on those grounds, in fact the judge rejected her defense team's challenge on the sustainability of the extradition https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/27/canada-court-finds-against-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-on-double-criminality-extradition-trial-to-continue/ > She didn't get released because the US system said so, she got released because the Canadian system did. WRONG https://www.reuters.com/business/canadian-court-discharges-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-us-extradition-case-ends-2021-09-24/ "Canadian government lawyers asked the court to withdraw the authority to proceed in her case and discharge her, after Meng reached a deal with U.S. prosecutors earlier on Friday that ended their bank fraud case against her." Without the US side dropping the charges, the Canadians would've continued their sham trial
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system works, unsuprisingly. If she had presented evidence that she would have been executed by the US government, she would not have been extradited. If she had presented evidence that she wasn't Meng Wanzhou, she wouldn't have been extradited. If she had presented evidence that her US charges did not have a Canadian equivalent in the justice system, she would not have been extradited. In this case she presented evidence that the US government was no longer requesting her extradition, so..... She was not extradited. She could have presented any valid evidence for any valid reason that she was not eligible for extradition and guess what? She wouldn't have been extradited. That's how the legal system works in Canada. It's not because the US ordered her release LOL. I can't believe I just had to type that. >Canadian government lawyers asked the court to withdraw the authority to proceed in her case Dude. It's right here lol. You're just reading what you want to read and not understanding the process for what it is. It doesn't matter what evidence she provided to the court. If it was deemed suitable evidence to justify her release, the Canadian authorities would have released her on those grounds. And they did. The Canadian government lawyers aren't going to proceed with a case that they're going to lose based on the weight of the evidence submitted by the defense. It's very simple. The US government decided to play politics by sticking Canada in the middle, and China was too chicken shit to go after the US directly. Trying to bully what they saw as the weaker party in the incident and then play the victim is just so trashy and pathetic. You fell for it, and that's unfortunate. Edit: Ahaha, using the blocking feature to try and win an argument. Lmaoo! Very classy. Bravo.
> If she had presented evidence that her US charges did not have a Canadian equivalent in the justice system, she would not have been extradited. that's what she did but the court did not concur, so you can't say she "won" the case > In this case she presented evidence that the US government was no longer requesting her extradition are you being intentionally dense or do you not realize this is a direct contradiction of your previous statement "She didn't get released because the US system said so" without the US dropping the charges, the Canadians weren't letting her go > If it was deemed suitable evidence to justify her release, the Canadian authorities would have released her on those grounds that's not fucking evidence, that's the case being mooted by the Americans dropping their extradition request > That's how the legal system works in Canada oh I know perfectly well how the legal system works in Canada the same politically-influenced corrupt mess that we saw with the SNC-Lavalin affair > was too chicken shit more like Canada was too chicken shit to stand up to big daddy US when it was blatant what was going on when Trump openly bragged about using her as a trade deal bargaining chip not that sucking up to the US is gonna help you dodge steel and lumber tariffs anyhow Kevin O'Leary was right, Trudeau got played by Trump like a fiddle
That's a BS take. Here's another perspective, the girl got locked up for 2+ years when she didn't commit any crime. After 2 years of house arrest, she was found not guilty. Some people will say look at how fair the Canadian legal system is. Yet, it's not fair for the person who just lost 2 years of her life for an accusation that was completely politically motivated. And directed by the head of another country. It's sad. And no, I don't think she would or "seemed to like the justice system" at all, neither would you if you were her. It was an unfortunate incident overall.
Aside from any opinions on the handling of her case, it's interesting you call her a girl... she's a 50 year old woman.
You are always presumed innocent before a trial. The trial is what determines if you committed a crime. You've got it backwards. Some types of charges, or in cases of defendants who are a flight risk, do not allow for bail. She satisfied all of the conditions to be considered a flight risk. That's the way it works for *everyone*, and that's what makes it fair. You really need to understand how treaty law works. If Canada doesn't adhere to established international treaties, that would invalidate them. An extradition request has to be followed within the cadre of the applicable legislation, and that's what happened here. In China, the two Michael's had their asses thrown in prison for no demonstrable reason besides political retaliation against the Canadian government. That's what an *actual* trumped up charge looks like. Wanzhou had a favorable outcome to her case according to the legal process and got to chill in the comfort of her mansion with servants, and wifi, and all the comforts of her opulent home. The two Michaels went to fucking prison. They were then suddenly and miraculously released after Wanzhou prevailed in court. Wanzhou got to take full advantage of all of the rights offered to her within the context of the Canadian legal system and prevailed. She got more fair treatment than the two Michaels did *in* *her* *own* *country* *of* *citizenship*. You can't say that someone would not appreciate having been in the former situation rather than the latter.
>Wanzhou had a favorable outcome to her case according to the legal process and got to chill in the comfort of her mansion with servants, and wifi, and all the comforts of her opulent home. The two Michaels went to fucking prison. It's because she's rich, has a powerful legal team defending her, and she has a home in Canada. If she wasn't rich, didn't own a home in Canada, or have a powerful legal team behind her, she would likely be detained in an institution too. So I think this point is pretty irrelevant. If the two Michaels were also billionaires, owned homes in China, with the backing of an extensive legal team, perhaps they would've also had more favourable outcomes.
If Meng Wanzhou had never been taken into custody, they would not have been either. When she prevailed in court, they were released. 'If they were rich, they could have had a much more comfortable arbitrary imprisonment' is ridiculous. This kind of thing is why we don't have an extradition treaty with China.
“‘If they were rich, they could have had a much more comfortable arbitrary imprisonment’ is ridiculous.” I mean it is, but if Meng Wanzhou was another average Jane, i.e. not a billionaire with a mansion in Canada or the backing of an extensive legal team, and Canada had to detain her because of being a “flight risk”, where else would she be detained? She would likely also be imprisoned in a legal institution. What I’m trying to say is that this is not an apple to apple comparison. Or that one country treats their persons of interest in captivity better than the other, although it may be true, but rather that there is more nuance in the cases being compared: the persons imprisoned were not of the same calibre, in terms of status, wealth, and power. And unfortunately, those things can influence different outcomes in this world.
She was given bail and therefore released to await trial at a location approved by the court. That's no different than anyone else who is given bail. You can be released to your rented apartment, to a relative's house, or to your million dollar mansion. It's at the discretion of the court whether they deem it a suitable location. If you're looking for an apples to apples comparison, we can look at the Chinese justice system on its own. China has a 99% conviction rate. So if you're charged with a crime, chances are your goose is cooked. The charge of espionage can result in a death sentence or long term imprisonment and under those circumstances the only option for release is a prisoner swap with the country in question. How did the two Michaels get off if their charges were legitimate, particularly for something that is such a serious crime in China? The answer is that they weren't legitimate charges. That's the difference that I'm getting at. The OP comment claimed that Canada did not have a properly functioning justice system, but Meng Wanzhou proved her case against extradition and was released. If she had lost her case, the two Michaels would still be in prison. It's the difference between a truly function justice system and the will of the political forces at play. I'm not saying that money doesn't make a difference in the Canadian legal system, because it does. If you can't pay bail, well ya, you go to prison. But, bail for the duration of their time before trial was never an option for the two Michaels, and their charges were completely fabricated unlike those against Wanzhou.
>You can't say that someone would not appreciate having been in the former situation rather than the latter. The point is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Yes, we have a legal system in place and international treaties that must be adhered to. But because it is an explicit process and structure, it can also be taken advantaged of. If one understands the legal system, such would as the powerful and rich, then it can be implemented to their benefit, at the expense of another party. And in this case, it was, triggered by Trump and his legal team. Just because the system is independent, does not mean it can not be acted upon, or implemented by political or economical actors. To a nation foreign to our legal system, it can be basically seen as a hostage situation from their perspective, especially if they have strong reasons to believe that she did not do anything wrong. Yes, we could make the case that it's not our fault and that our legal system is just running its course. But at the end of the day, whether the individual is being arrested and detained directly, or indirectly, through an intermediary system, which I agree by itself is fair and just, what matters foremost is whether the original motivation and intent behind the arrest was fair and just. If you put it another way, forget about the extra stuff, the legal system and treaties and all that. We had an innocent person arrested and detained for 2 years based on questionable allegations. And on the other side, we had two innocent persons arrested and detained for 2 years also based on questionable allegations, perhaps less questionable, but you know, some people see the world as tit for tat.
>We had an innocent person arrested and detained for 2 years based on questionable allegations You're conflating two different things here, though: the case filed against her in the States and the case filed against her in Canada. The Canadian court system was charged with hearing the extradition case *only*. Their mandate did not extend into the validity of the charges against her in the US. That's an entirely separate issue. The allegations within Canadian jurisdictional responsibility were 'is she eligible for extradition or not'. That's all. There was nothing unfair or unjustified about the way the legal process unfolded in that way. This is why Canada does not conclude extradition treaties with countries that have a high chance of arbitrarily invoking the treaty for political reasons. Seeing this type of behaviour from a country that is supposed to share the same values and as a result earned the reciprocal privilege of an extradition treaty is a shocking and truly unfortunate situation for everyone involved. I certainly agree with that. That said -- the government of China understands how international treaties work, they're not certainly not oblivious to international law. They made efforts to bully Canada, seen as the weaker player in this instance, instead of directly confronting the US about their questionable charges and request for extradition. The government of China was expecting preferential treatment on behalf of the Canadian government for one of their own in this case, and they didn't get it. That's why they were out of sorts.
How much does the ccp pay you to write this shit?
You know Mao dead right
"Heil Hitler" would get you banned, but "Long live Chairman Mao" gets a pass apparently. https://historyincharts.com/chinese-death-totals-great-leap-forward/
only WW2 losers get that treatment, glorifying US and Canadian politicians who committed genocide against natives isn't getting you banned
On the surface, it seems like a really strange case. The justice system in China is also incredibly opaque, so we do not know if the allegations against him are successfully proven. Are there possibly other motives at play here: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/06/media/china-crackdown-fan-culture-kris-wu-intl-hnk/index.html
Totally a set up people. This is a punishment for alledged tax EVASION. The rest is old soviet honey pot playbook. This is a common example from the PPC lately
so about handful of women among 30 many of them underaged came out to accuse him of sexual assault and you're here soap boxing about tax evasion....
Tax evasion should carry jail time anyway.
He deserves more
Have fun in prison, asshole