Why are Liberals negotiating extradition treaty with China?

[Argus]

The whole basis for an extradition treaty is that we extradite people based on verified evidence to a jurisdiction where they will be given a fair trial. China, as a dictatorship, has no free or independent judiciary nor police. Their police do and their courts find as the communist party orders. What is to stop their police demanding the extradition of a criminal on trumped up evidence and charges? I'm sure there will be plenty of eyewitness statements in the extradition requests, for example.

It seems to me this is basically Trudeau surrendering to China (again), and agreeing to send back anyone the Chinese Communist Party wants. And this to a regime which is already secretly sending agents over here to harass, threaten and intimidate Chinese who have come here to get them to return home.

Canada has agreed to negotiate an extradition treaty with China – a country where trials are politicized, confessions are secured through torture, defence lawyers are harassed and detained, and the death penalty is applied for a wide variety of crimes.

Defendants in China have no opportunity to challenge the “evidence” against them. The Canadian government, or a Canadian judge, would be similarly unable to evaluate the evidence behind an extradition request. By negotiating a treaty, the Canadian government is indicating a willingness to take Chinese prosecutors at their word.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/extradition-treaty-with-china-would-be-an-affront-to-human-rights/article31968585/

Lawyer Clive Ansley, who has served as an expert witness on China’s legal system in deportation hearings, called an extradition treaty with Beijing “an atrocious idea.”

“Torture is routine in the Chinese criminal justice system,” he said. “The idea of Canada sitting down at the table and smiling nicely and entering into new extradition treaties to send people back – to me, it’s just beyond the pale.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chinese-agents-enter-canada-on-tourist-visas-to-coerce-return-of-fugitive-expats/article31981251/

Edited September 21, 2016 by Argus

[capricorn]

We don't need no stinkin' treaty with China. I mean, do we really need it for the protection of our citizens? Who in their right mind would commit a crime in Canada and run off to China to evade prosecution?

[PIK]

China must be dancing with glee. Under trudeau china will get want the want with this boy. Here is a leader that once said I don't read newspapers or watch the new, if something important happens someone will tell me. And the pipeline that trudeau will allow is the one that china wants us to build.

[Smallc]

Pretty sure if something important happens, someone will tell him.

[Smoke]

Pretty sure if something important happens, someone will tell him.

Since you've become a full-fledged Liberal, you merely shrug off everything Mr. Potato Head does. At least you fit right in with the rest of them.

[Smallc]

Since you've become a full-fledged Liberal, you merely shrug off everything Mr. Potato Head does. At least you fit right in with the rest of them.

You don't think anyone will tell the Prime Minister that something important happened?

If I was the PM, I wouldn't watch the news. Why would they?

[PIK]

You would think if you wanted to become PM you would take the time to learn what is going on in the world. Your trudeau excuses are getting lame. This guy could not keep a job and any job he had, was to do with kids. Even now his Q & A's are always with students. Eventually he is going to have to answer to the adults in this country. And you think harper was a dictator. I think the job is going to get to him and he is going to have a melt down and the other 2 parties better get their leaders picked now.

Edited September 21, 2016 by PIK

[msj]

If I was the PM, I wouldn't watch the news. Why would they?

As a regular person I wouldn't watch the news. Why would they?

No, seriously, the typical TV newscast is about 3/4 of the front page of a newspaper.

Even assuming the quality is decent the quantity surly is not. And we know the quality of TV news, not to mention print news, is complete utter crap.

Just look at the threads in this forum - crap after crap after crap being posted thanks to people "reading" the news.

Wait a little bit, go find primary sources such as videos, direct links to primary documents, etc and remove the spin and what do you get?

You get a more informed person than the ones starting all these crap threads on this board with their endless speculation how Trudeau is in bed with the Chinese and how Trudeau isn't a real feminist because women supposedly went through the side door of a mosque etc....

Edited September 21, 2016 by msj

[Smallc]

When did I say that Harper was a dictator?

[Argus]

You get a more informed person than the ones starting all these crap threads on this board with their endless speculation how Trudeau is in bed with the Chinese

Cool story. Let's see it then. Let's see the more cerebral explanation of how an extradition treaty with China makes sense for Canada or would even be in any way legal given we would have to send people to a regime which has no rule of law, tortures and executes on a whim, and has no problem falsifying evidence.

Instead of bragging about how much more sophisticated you are for not reading the news how about you refute what was posted? Or if you can't, go away.

[?Impact]

Even now his Q & A's are always with students

Yes, Trudeau holds Q&A sessions with students, but also with a wide range of others as well. Unfortunately for the previous 9 years our Prime Minister woulnd`t answer any questions.

[Machjo]

An extradition treaty to Hong Kong I can see; but to the Chinese mainland?

I won't say no, but we'd better have a very good vetting process in place before we do that.

[msj]

Instead of bragging about how much more sophisticated you are for not reading the news how about you refute what was posted? Or if you can't, go away.

Never said I am/was more sophisticated. I did say, in general, a person (any person) is more informed when using primary sources.

Cool story. Let's see it then. Let's see the more cerebral explanation of how an extradition treaty with China makes sense for Canada or would even be in any way legal given we would have to send people to a regime which has no rule of law, tortures and executes on a whim, and has no problem falsifying evidence.

Also never said anything about a more "cerebral explanation" to support (or oppose, for that matter) an extradition treaty with China.

​I just think this idea that Trudeau is "surrendering" to the Chinese is plainly stupid and it poisons intelligent discussion to frame it in such a way.

As to whether we should enter into a treaty:

The biggest problem stems from lower courts rolling over on extradition - the process in total is far too generous and is likely highly biased to turning over the alleged criminal back to the other state. But I say that without having fully read one of the most important cases on such matters: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2306/index.do [oh, there's a primary source]

On the other hand Australia has a treaty in place and I am curious as to what their experience is.

I do not see why we should not at least explore a treaty to see what it may bring - these treaties are reciprocal so our interests may be served here too.

We do not know until we see the treaty document so I would rather talk to the substance of a draft treaty than discuss what I think is essentially a stupid thread founded on the basis of "Trudeau = surrender monkey" as already stated above.

But who knows, it could be our banks who want Trudeau to do this as they are anticipating going after some Chinese nationals as a means to recoup fraudulent loans.

After all, the banks practically have a seat at the cabinet table.

I state this only slightly tongue in cheek but I do not think it is any more, nor less, stupid than the premise you have started this thread about.

Edited September 21, 2016 by msj

[capricorn]

Last year, China executed three times as many people as all other countries in the world combined.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/extradition-treaty-with-china-would-be-an-affront-to-human-rights/article31968585/

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada will maintain high standards as it negotiates an extradition treaty with China, while critics raise concerns about that country's weak record on human rights.

"Canada has extremely high standards on extradition treaties," Trudeau said to reporters at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa.

"We have a very, very rigorous process, that conforms with the expectations and values of Canadians, and that continues."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-china-extradition-treaty-1.3772322

It's kind of amusing to think that just because an extradition treaty is negotiated, China will change its ways and magically respect human rights.

[WestCoastRunner]

On the other hand Australia has a treaty in place and I am curious as to what their experience is.

Australia has an Extradition Treaty in place but it has not yet been ratified, as far as I know.

[Smallc]

We don't extradite if the death penalty is on the table.

[WestCoastRunner]

We don't need no stinkin' treaty with China. I mean, do we really need it for the protection of our citizens? Who in their right mind would commit a crime in Canada and run off to China to evade prosecution?

http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2014/01/09/canadas-most-wanted-fugitive-to-be-tried-in-china-for-murder.html

In this case, China agreed to try him for murder but they would not return him to Canada to face justice here.

[Argus]

An extradition treaty to Hong Kong I can see; but to the Chinese mainland?

I won't say no, but we'd better have a very good vetting process in place before we do that.

How could you vet? I mean, the Chinese can present you with ten thousand signed affidavits from 'eyewitnesses' testifying to someone's guilt, and create a mountain of evidence without difficulty. "Look, see, we found his DNA on over one thousand items at the scene of the crime".

[Argus]

​I just think this idea that Trudeau is "surrendering" to the Chinese is plainly stupid and it poisons intelligent discussion to frame it in such a way.

No, you simply resent my saying he's surrendering - when he is.

For example, the Chinese decide they're going to screen out Canadian canola oil for some made-up reason. They're willing to 'negotiate' however. This just means "give us what we want".

Trudeau does so. He agrees to join China's version of the World Bank and open up new visa offices in China as China's foreign minister had demanded months earlier.

China arrests a Canadian man in China on trumped up charges and keeps him in jail for a long time. Canada agrees to negotiate an extradition treaty and suddenly he's released.

Both were complete abject surrenders to what China wanted, with no upside for Canada.

No wonder their foreign minister felt confident he could come over here and treat everyone like lackeys. Because he could.

[Argus]

We don't extradite if the death penalty is on the table.

No problem. They'll just die of 'natural causes' in prison, after a few months of torture.

[Smallc]

No problem. They'll just die of 'natural causes' in prison, after a few months of torture.

We let people die in prison.

Anyway, have you seen the treaty, or are you just feigning outrage?

[capricorn]

http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2014/01/09/canadas-most-wanted-fugitive-to-be-tried-in-china-for-murder.html

In this case, China agreed to try him for murder but they would not return him to Canada to face justice here.

Thanks for the link. I was not aware of that case. I wonder, following his trial in China, is Wu now 6 feet under?

[Argus]

We let people die in prison.

Anyway, have you seen the treaty, or are you just feigning outrage?

We don't kill them on purpose.

Just what wording do you imagine can be in the treaty which will negate the fact there is no rule of law in China and that its police organizations can simply manufacture evidence and witness testimony if they so desire?

[Smallc]

We don't kill them on purpose.

And we won't extradite them if that's the plan. We don't extradite to the US on death penalty cases. What makes you think we'd do it for China?

Just what wording do you imagine can be in the treaty which will negate the fact there is no rule of law in China and that its police organizations can simply manufacture evidence and witness testimony if they so desire?

Wording that disallows things that we dissalow. The government must uphold the Charter, including with extraditions.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Smallc

[Machjo]

One possibility I cold see would be this:

Both sides agree to respect the extradited person's rights as per the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Should either side violate the treaty when dealing with an extradited person, the Treaty becomes null and void.

Since it's in China's best interest to maintain the Treaty (as it is in ours), however much China might violate international law when dealing with other arrestees, it would respect the international rights of an extradited person for the sake of the Treaty.

China is not a great defender of international human rights, granted, but it's also not stupid and would recognize the value of preserving such a treaty.