Hacker News Reader

Comment by justicezyx | Hacker News Reader

Actually, this is not the official charge on Mrs. Meng.

According to wiki, the actual charge is: ``` proxies conspired "to misappropriate intellectual property", and Meng lied to HSBC bank. ```

Canada's legal agreement with US is that they work in accordance with US, for criminals that violated the laws at Canada. But there needs to be laws in Canada that are equivalent to US ones.

For example, if I committed murder in US, and fled to Canada, they legally are obliged to capture and send me back to US. But if I sell limited item to Iran, and fled to Canada, then Canada are obliged to send me back, because Canada does not have a sanction on Iran.

And this is why this action outraged a lot of Chinese, and worried a lot business people.

View on HN

She was arrested for the fraud involved in lying to HSBC. Fraud is also against Canadian law.

Not sure what there is to be worried or outraged about here.

> Not sure what there is to be worried or outraged about here.

That's a CPC threat point. They frequently put things like: "if you do this, the Chinese people will be very upset," they always use strong emotional language like "outraged" or "angry" - it's non-subtle code for: we'll force the Chinese people to harm your commercial interests. Almost any time you see something about how the Chinese people are or will be outraged, that is what is really going on. The party constantly uses that tool against any foreign entity that steps out of line. It's how they have threatened & browbeat everyone from South Korea & Japan to Britain and various large corporations. It's meant to inflate the size of the opponent on the other side, because upsetting 1.4 billion people seems a lot more intimidating than upsetting a small collection of authoritarian bureaucrats in Beijing.

If an airline refers to Taiwan, the CPC will say that the airline has upset or outraged the Chinese people, and then follow with subtle descriptions of the consequences. The Chinese people are typically overwhelmingly unaware of what is going on. What they mean is, the CPC is upset and will force the Chinese people to do something bad to hurt your interests if you don't get back into line with what the CPC agenda is.

> we'll force the Chinese people to harm your commercial interests

Many years of conventional education, propaganda, modern technologies make it not a force. It's quite easy to trigger those behaviors nowadays.

Put everything in the context of sino-US relationship, and the propaganda exercised by both parties.

But I doubt either side is surprised by these type of behaviors. These are all just minor details. The strategic shift in the sino-US relationship from collaborating to confrontation is pretty much set in course.

Now it's more of the question how to avoid the disaster of the previous cold war. Given that USSR collapsed, either one will be desperate to avoid becoming the new USSR in the confrontation; and they might be doing something stupid in the last resort...

I disagree, Huawei has a track record of IP theft, fraud, and sanctions violations. The time has come to reign them in.

I know many great chinese engineers and all of them in the tech industry are enraged with how huawei treats IP. They made it very clear to me that they think the U.S is being to lenient with them, and as a proxy of the chinese government, it is time to take them down.

I have heard stories from friends who when they were interviewed by huawei were asked what IP they can contribute from their old company to them. If this is not indicitive of Huaweis intentions, I do not know what is. They are a threat to everything we hold dear.

Sanction violation - whose sanctions and why? This is a sign of decreasing US power and the desperate attempts to keep things from changing.

This does not look like correct analysis - the extradition treaty between the US and Canada[1] states:

Article 1

Each Contracting Party agrees to extradite to the other, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions described in this Treaty, persons found in its territory who have been charged with, or convicted of, any of the offenses covered by Article 2 of this Treaty committed within the territory of the other, or outside thereof under the conditions specified in Article 3(3) of this Treaty.

Article 3(3) states

When the offense for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, the executive or other appropriate authority of the requested State shall have the power to grant the extradition if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over such an offense committed in similar circumstances.

[1] http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Canada%20International%20Ext...

What exactly is Canada's locus standi on this? Is anyone sanctioned/wanted by US liable to be arrested if they land in Canada?

On what charges was the Canadian warrant issued to arrest Meng?

Canada will only extradite for things that would be considered criminal in Canada, and only in cases where the requesting party can provide enough evidence that it could be brought to trial in Canada as well.

They also will also consider every decision in the face of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides for a fundamental right to justice and security. If the extradition, or actions post-extradition, would likely violate the person’s rights then they will not be extradited. (So, e.g., will not extradite someone to face the death penalty.)

There’s a general overview of the process, checkpoints, appeals, etc here: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/emla-eej/extradition.htm...

Meng is being charged with fraud for lying to HSBC. It was a point of contention since the representations she made would not have been criminal in Canada (no sanctions). However the actual act of making fraudulent misrepresentations is the crime, and it's criminal in Canada as well. There's some information and a link to the actual court ruling here: https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/with-the-meng-wanzhou-de...

Yes, but how was her initial detainment by Canada justified? So in effect does it imply that anyone wanted by US can be detained by Canada, and Canada needs to establish legality of it only after the fact?

It was justified as any arrest is -- people are generally arrested and then taken to court to have their outcome determined, not the other way around.

Your question phrased another way:

> "Does it imply that anyone wanted by the government can be detained by the police and the government needs to establish the legality of it only after the fact?"

Yes, very much so.

I suspect if the US were randomly and wantonly requesting illegal extraditions to harass people located in Canada that Canada would simply stop making provisional arrests pending formal requests for extradition and require the paperwork up front.

No. The US has to present evidence to a Canadian judge first. Just like any other arrest warrant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com