The end of the article interested me more, because the rest was just tooting China’s horn:
And what about the case of Robert Lloyd Schellenberg, the Canadian schmuck found guilty of drug smuggling by China not long before Meng’s arrest?
Once the Two Michaels had returned to Canada, Canadian media lost all interest in the fate of the poor guy, found guilty of trying to smuggle drugs out of China to Australia, who had his 15-year jail term goosed up to a death sentence to increase the pressure on Canada to release Meng.
A Chinese court rejected Schellenberg’s appeal of his death sentence in 2021.
There doesn’t seem to have been another news report about him since then.
He wasn’t a model citizen, a spy, or a corporate executive. He’s still a Canadian, though. Does anybody give a hoot?
That was the person I knew was just arrested and charged up for dubious political reasons more than the two Michaels. I’d never really followed up on China’s whole espionage allegations because that’s often just a he-said she-said.
He was arrested before the Meng thing happened, so the arrest was not dubiously political. The upgrading to the death sentence, however, was very clearly a pressure tactic of dubious politics.
Yep. Regardless of what your position is on drugs (and I’m in the “legalize and license most of them” camp), it’s well known that the Chinese government (for very valid, albeit unfortunate, historical reasons) has absolutely no tolerance for the recreational narcotics industry and that this includes the death penalty.
You’d have to be a very special kind of stupid to traffic drugs in China, or any number of other countries with similar policies.
And make no mistake. The Chinese government is bad. It’s just bad in ways that the western governments and press don’t actually give a shit about so they make up other shit instead.
You are free to call it whatever you like. This is just how it appeared to me.
Even if I agree with much of it, yes Canada was acting on behalf of the US (the Trump admin for that matter) and for American self-serving purposes, the parts that describe “establishment Canadian media has an egg on its face” and talking about how “Meng did nothing wrong, let her go with a quiet whisper not to come back” is just as silly an attitude as “China bad”. If Canada would defy the US here, we should do so openly, with integrity and don’t pretend we’re powerless and Meng ‘just happened’ to slip away.
“Meng did nothing wrong, let her go with a quiet whisper not to come back”
That was absolutely not my read on it here. It’s describing a realpolitik situation where Canada is on shaky legal grounds since they are not a signatory to a foreign embargo, and thus overreach their strict legal obligations to please an ally. The suggestion of letting Meng go isn’t about her being right or wrong; it’s about what’s the savviest move Canada could have made here that would have neither pissed off China nor the U.S.
Simply refusing to act on behest of the Trump Administration and giving plausible deniability why isn’t defying them. It’s a neutral political move. The consequence of not doing so is what we’ve since experienced: deteriorating relations with a major foreign power with no gains in return with the ally we tried to suck up to.
The end of the article interested me more, because the rest was just tooting China’s horn:
That was the person I knew was just arrested and charged up for dubious political reasons more than the two Michaels. I’d never really followed up on China’s whole espionage allegations because that’s often just a he-said she-said.
He was arrested before the Meng thing happened, so the arrest was not dubiously political. The upgrading to the death sentence, however, was very clearly a pressure tactic of dubious politics.
Also a case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Yep. Regardless of what your position is on drugs (and I’m in the “legalize and license most of them” camp), it’s well known that the Chinese government (for very valid, albeit unfortunate, historical reasons) has absolutely no tolerance for the recreational narcotics industry and that this includes the death penalty.
You’d have to be a very special kind of stupid to traffic drugs in China, or any number of other countries with similar policies.
That part is fair. You have to know the risks of the crime you’re committing, where some governments care more than others about it.
Is that what we’re calling reporting on facts that don’t completely feed the “China bad” narrative, now?
Yes.
And make no mistake. The Chinese government is bad. It’s just bad in ways that the western governments and press don’t actually give a shit about so they make up other shit instead.
You are free to call it whatever you like. This is just how it appeared to me.
Even if I agree with much of it, yes Canada was acting on behalf of the US (the Trump admin for that matter) and for American self-serving purposes, the parts that describe “establishment Canadian media has an egg on its face” and talking about how “Meng did nothing wrong, let her go with a quiet whisper not to come back” is just as silly an attitude as “China bad”. If Canada would defy the US here, we should do so openly, with integrity and don’t pretend we’re powerless and Meng ‘just happened’ to slip away.
That was absolutely not my read on it here. It’s describing a realpolitik situation where Canada is on shaky legal grounds since they are not a signatory to a foreign embargo, and thus overreach their strict legal obligations to please an ally. The suggestion of letting Meng go isn’t about her being right or wrong; it’s about what’s the savviest move Canada could have made here that would have neither pissed off China nor the U.S.
Simply refusing to act on behest of the Trump Administration and giving plausible deniability why isn’t defying them. It’s a neutral political move. The consequence of not doing so is what we’ve since experienced: deteriorating relations with a major foreign power with no gains in return with the ally we tried to suck up to.