Jonny5
Senior Member
It's official. The Michaels are coming back to Canada.
Last edited:
The US could well benefit from a dramatic decrease in military spending. Instead spend those tax dollars enacting universal healthcare (the same those in the military receive), fixing the nation’s broken infrastructure and eliminate student debt and invest in the people.You and all of NATO. LOL.
But let's be clear. Canada is along for the ride. No questions asked. And broadly our citizens are just fine with it. Heck, our under-spending on defence is actually a point of pride and cultural differentiation for most Canadians.
So it was always a sham, the communist dictatorship in Beijing seized two Canadians out of spite. Their transparency is almost toddler like.It's official. The Michaels are coming back to Canada.
I think both what kEiThZ said and what you said are true; we have a woefully underfunded military, while their military is way too large.The US could well benefit from a dramatic decrease in military spending. Instead spend those tax dollars enacting universal healthcare (the same those in the military receive), fixing the nation’s broken infrastructure and eliminate student debt and invest in the people.
We can’t depend on the US to defend the Arctic or the NWP. And we don’t need to double our defence spending to carry our own weight at home.I think both what kEiThZ said and what you said are true; we have a woefully underfunded military, while their military is way too large.
Part of the problem is that without the US's protection, we'd have huge defense liabilities. The Arctic is opening up, and we have huge areas we now need to defend. I think that part of the issue with the US and the NW Passage is that they feel that they have a right to use it, because they are the ones ensuring our defense is covered up there. If we had actual naval capabilities, then we'd rely less on the US, and I suspect, their infringement on the Passage would be less of an issue.
I agree with the first part. I'm not a military expert, at all, so what I'm saying is more likely to be false or true. But here goes.We can’t depend on the US to defend the Arctic or the NWP. And we don’t need to double our defence spending to carry our own weight at home.
Wow. Not even a pretense of legitimacy or process. This should be a lesson for anybody who considers vacationing or working (or competing) in China - anybody is fodder for the Party.It's official. The Michaels are coming back to Canada.
I’ve been to China five times for work, plus transited through Hong Kong on way to KL and Singapore. But never again, the risk of arbitrary arrest is clear and present. No Canadian should ever go there, including our athletes for the coming winter games.Wow. Not even a pretense of legitimacy or process. This should be a lesson for anybody who considers vacationing or working (or competing) in China - anybody is fodder for the Party.
Wow. Not even a pretense of legitimacy or process. This should be a lesson for anybody who considers vacationing or working (or competing) in China - anybody is fodder for the Party.
You'll never get rid of tax-dodgers and money launderers who are not citizens of the US, but conduct and/or directly authorise business be conducted there, without going down this same road.To be fair, the U.S. law that reached Meng was almost certainly illegal under International law {its extra-territorial) and predicated on authority to enact US law on non-citizens, on non-U.S. territory.
Something Canada does not accept as a matter of black-letter law.
WE do accept that we can regulate our own citizens in overseas territories...............I find even that questionable.
Do we think a tourist from a nation where Cannabis is illegal should be able to prosecuted for partaking here?
Yes, the pretense used for the charged was fraud...........
It was a load of @#$# @#$#
I'm not clear, based on the sworn evidence that there was fraud; but in order for there to be, you have to accept the validity of a law applying to non-U.S. citiizens, and non-U.S. companies doing business in a third country.
I do not accept that.
That should not be construed as being OK w/what China did to two of our citizens.
Rather, it should be construed as suggesting we participated in a very dangerous game to which we were not a legitimate party, and two of our citizens unfairly bore the consequences.
The answer to the American request should have been 'no'.
You'll never get rid of tax-dodgers and money launderers who are not citizens of the US, but conduct and/or directly authorise business be conducted there, without going down this same road.
There are definitely trades offs on this. Huawei wanted to do big business in the US, but do we accept their most senior executives can flout US law as long so long as they never set foot in the country? It's a complex relationship.
To be fair, the U.S. law that reached Meng was almost certainly illegal under International law {its extra-territorial) and predicated on authority to enact US law on non-citizens, on non-U.S. territory.
Something Canada does not accept as a matter of black-letter law.
WE do accept that we can regulate our own citizens in overseas territories...............I find even that questionable.
Do we think a tourist from a nation where Cannabis is illegal should be able to prosecuted for partaking here?
Yes, the pretense used for the charged was fraud...........
It was a load of @#$# @#$#
I'm not clear, based on the sworn evidence that there was fraud; but in order for there to be, you have to accept the validity of a law applying to non-U.S. citiizens, and non-U.S. companies doing business in a third country.
I do not accept that.
That should not be construed as being OK w/what China did to two of our citizens.
Rather, it should be construed as suggesting we participated in a very dangerous game to which we were not a legitimate party, and two of our citizens unfairly bore the consequences.
The answer to the American request should have been 'no'.
Next item needs to be Trudeau (and Biden) leading the Western world in a global and public condemnation of China‘s behaviour and a clear declaration that this was kidnapping. Followed by Canada and the US boycotting the upcoming Beijing winter gamesThe next item on the agenda is whether Canada will finally take a definitive position of Huawei infrastructure now that this little irritant is out of the way.
Next item needs to be Trudeau (and Biden) leading the Western world in a global and public combination of China‘s behaviour and a clear declaration that this was kidnapping. Followed by Canada and the US boycotting the upcoming Beijing winter games
Fixed, thanksAgree, although I assume you meant 'condemnation'.