Take a hard line on China

Before Wednesday’s B.C. Supreme Court ruling in Meng Wanzhou’s ongoing extradition case, Chinese authorities were busy threatening Canada and setting the stage for the Huawei executive’s triumphant release.

Last Saturday, Meng ran up the steps in front of the court to have her photo taken giving a thumbs- up. It seemed mighty strange to Canadian eyes, but it was largely intended for a Chinese audience, who was being groomed to expect her imminent release, or to lash out in anger if the hearing didn’t go her way.

On Tuesday, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry warned that Canada “should immediately correct its mistake, release Ms. Meng and ensure her safe return to China at an early date so as to avoid any continuous harm to China- Canada relations.” Then, only hours before Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes’s ruling was handed down, leaked reports from Chinese state media saying that Meng had been found innocent started circulating on social media.

Had things turned out the way Beijing had hoped, it would have provided the perfect narrative: a Chinese businesswoman who was persecuted by Canadian and American authorities is vindicated, as a Western country cowers under the boot of an aspiring global power.

But what China’s authoritarian rulers seem incapable of understanding is that this isn’t a political decision. Once approved by Department of Justice officials, in accordance with our international treaties, an extradition request does not become a political decision until after it has made its way through the courts, at which point it is up to the minister of justice to decide on. Until then, there is a set process that must be adhered to because Canada has an independent judiciary and we are governed by the rule of law.

Of course, one cannot fault China’s Communist rulers for thinking that our Liberal government would be willing to bend the rules: a month after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stressed that, “Canada is a country of the rule of law and we will make sure that the rule of law is properly and fully followed” in Meng’s case, he was caught pressuring his own attorney general to score a sweet deal for SNCLavalin. Despite Trudeau’s blatant and self-serving hypocrisy, Canadian authorities never really had a choice but to do what they did. We had a treaty obligation to honour the U. S. Justice Department’s extradition request, and we are now bound to leave the outcome of the case in the hands of the courts.

The U. S. accuses Meng of making false claims to the HSBC bank about a telecommunications equipment supplier, which put the bank at risk of violating U. S. sanctions against Iran. Meng’s legal team argued that since Canada doesn’t have similar sanctions against the Islamic republic, what she did would not have constituted a crime here.

Justice Holmes, however, ruled that, “The essence of the alleged wrongful conduct in this case is the making of intentionally false statements in the banker- client relationship that put HSBC at risk. The U.S. sanctions are part of the state of affairs necessary to explain how HSBC was at risk, but they are not themselves an intrinsic part of the conduct.”

It was the right decision to make. But what we think of it is besides the point. Despite the fact that China’s state- controlled Global Times newspaper, citing unnamed “Chinese experts,” accused Canada of surrendering its “self- proclaimed judicial and diplomatic independence to U. S. bullying,” the ruling was actually a clear display of judicial independence.

As the Post’s John Ivison noted, “The judge was not bullied by the Americans into making her decision. She administered justice without respect to political pressure.”

Meng’s judicial odyssey is far from over. She could appeal this ruling all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. She will be back in court soon to argue that she was unlawfully arrested. In November, she is scheduled to face an extradition hearing. And she will have numerous opportunities for appeal after that.

Meng, who splits her time between two Vancouver mansions, has been accorded the right to fair and transparent judicial proceedings. The same cannot be said for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who have now been held in a Chinese prison for 537 days and subjected to sleep deprivation and repeated interrogations. The two Canadians, who were clearly detained in retaliation for Meng’s arrest, have not even been given access to a lawyer, and have not been able to see Canadian consular officials since February.

The stark difference in how our two countries have treated these people illustrates the colossal divide between our two systems of government and the respect our nations have for human rights and the rule of law. While we must do everything in our power to secure the release of those two political prisoners, our leaders must also recognize that Sino- Canadian relations are going to deteriorate even further as a result of this ruling.

And for that reason, the time to reject Huawei’s involvement in this country’s next- generation wireless network is now, and now is also the perfect time to start improving our relationship with those Asian- Pacific countries that share our values.

China won’t like that much, either. So be it.

ONE CANNOT FAULT CHINA’S COMMUNIST RULERS FOR THINKING (TRUDEAU) WOULD BE WILLING TO BEND THE RULES.