The "journalism" in this fascinating and well-written piece is absolutely fine, as you already know, of course. The allegations in the US Justice Department case against Meng Wanzhou, are indeed unclear, as Chief Justice Heather Holmes said during the extradition hearing on August 11.
China's seizure of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig in 2018 and its holding them in custody as hostages ever since has been an appalling and thuggish abuse of police state power. But if ta principled way to resolve the extradition case against Meng Wanzhou that facilitates an early release and return home for Spavor and Kovrig can be found, it will be an important victory for humaneness and justice.
Hi Mr. Tan. Thanks for your comment. I did read article this very carefully. As I'm sure you would agree, these are not matters that should be treated except with the utmost seriousness. However, The authors did not actually make an allegation that Michael Spavor or Michael Kovrig have been tortured. Rather, they cited the Canadian Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) which stated that during the time Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig have been held in custody in China, “they are believed to have been subject to torture, sleep deprivation, and solitary confinement.”
As I'm sure you are aware, Mr. Tan, the IPAC is an international, cross-party alliance of parliamentarians from twenty different democratic countries which was formed to
make it possible for a broad cross-section of democratic countries to be able to mount a coordinated response to initiatives by the Chinese government and/or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on issues related to global trade, security and human rights.
Can the Canadian IPAC 'prove' that Spavor or Kovrig have been subject to "torture, sleep deprivation, and solitary confinement"? Of course not, nor does it claim to have any such proof in its hands. As I'm sure you also know as well as any of us, the practice of restricting or blocking regular and easy consular or diplomaic access by Canadian or third-country diplomats to Spavor and Kovrig (and other incarcerated persons in China) make it inconceivable that such evidence could ever be found, assembled, or presented in the present circumstances.
As I'm sure you are also aware, access to Mr. Spavor’s hearing was denied to Canadian diplomats as well as to diplomats from 8 other countries: Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Moreover, access to Mr. Kovrig’s hearing was also denied to Canadian diplomats and to diplomats from 23 other countries—Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States—and the European Union.
As a powerful and sophisticated country which has at times claimed tht its own citizens have at times been subject to mistreatmet by judicial, penal and/or intelligence organs in other countries, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Chinese government and the ruling CCP could have provided sufficient access to Canadian diplomatic representatives and/or independent observers from international, multilateral and/or non-governmental organizations to the accused, and could have provided access to Canadian and third-country observers to the judicial and sentencing hearings for Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig. Such access could have gone a long way toward clarifying the issue of whether Spavor and Kovrig have been tortured or otherwise mistreated or not while in custody and whether their convictions and sentences were arrived at in a manner consistent with Chinese Law and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
That the Chinese government and/or the ruling CCP chose not do do so has, inevitably I'm afraid, led many people to assume that claims of torture and mistreatment of Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig are in all likelihood true, or else that, at a minimum, the Chinese leadership doesn't really care whether the governments of other countries, international organizations, and citizens believe or don't believe those allegations.
Many people would be delighted the Chinese government chose to arrange sufficient access to Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig to Canadian diplomats and other multilateral and international observers to either confirm these accusations or put them to rest. I am sure members of Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig's families and their friends would be delighted as well. Needless to say, however, nobody really expects the current Chinese government or the ruling CCP to take these concerns seriously. Under these circumstances, then, I'm sure many people would join me in concluding that the evidence put forward in support of the allegation by the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance is as complete and persuasive as it could possibly be, and therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, should be treated as true.
Hi Mr Delfs, thank you for explaining your logic. The argument that an allegation becomes true because someone refuses to defend it is contrary to my up bring. It doesn't matter how many countries are involved. One can refuse to defend it for a variety of reasons, not necessarily because one is guilty. As far as I have seen China has consistently rejected any outside interference with what happens within its border and does not like to be told that she should conform with western practices. In short she doesn't believe she has a case to defend. To be fair to China, she is consistent and doesn't meddle in other countries' internal affairs too. What Mr S or Mr K did or did not do in China neither you nor I would ever know the truth. Whatever the Chinese courts decided will not be believed by westerners even if it were true. This much is probably true - they were not picked up randomly as hostages are. They were already in their radar and timing was probably opportunistic.
Putting aside above, it is hard to fault China for disagreeing that US sanction applies to her citizen, in this case a prominent one, when the act occurred not in US territory and within China's own borders. Citizens obey national laws in their own country not foreign laws. US thinks she has extra-territorial rights simply by weaponizing the USA dollar. This improper use does not auger well for the future of the US dollar.
Thanks Henry, I must confess that I find your "allegation" that providing accused persons who are citizens of foreign countries full access to diplomatic representation and allowing those diplomats to attend judicial hearings to be a "Western practice" seems to me to be an unintentional slight to the People's Republic of China, implying that you believe the PRC government is somehow incapable of providing basic legal protections to accused persons (whether Chinese citizens or foreigners) that are routinely and carefully observed in many "non-Western" countries in Asia and around the world. Perhaps I hold a higher opinion of China's actual capacity to provide basic legal guarantees to all persons.
However, your allegation that "Whatever the Chinese courts decided will not be believed by westerners even if it were true" is not only without any support or basis; it is utterly absurd. There have of course been many thousands of legal cases involving foreign and non-foreign defendants that have been competently decided in Chinese courts according to Chinese law and legal principles which no foreign government has or would ever challenge. There is large body of academic research and discussion of China's legal system by foreign scholars, Western and non-Western, which you could consult if you wished, though I'm quite sure you won't bother to do so.
The issue here isn't a matter of "interfering" with China's internal affairs, but rather determining, to the best of our ability, whether there was legitimate cause for the arrest, prosecution and conviction of Spavor and Kovrig, or whether (as some have charged) Chinese authorities arbitrarily arrested these former diplomats to use as leverage against the Canadian to try to force the Canadian government to reject the US extradition request, whether or not extradition would be allowed or appropriate under Canadian law, the only applicable standard. Let us agree, at a minimum, that if the Chinese government possessed evidence to of wrongdoing under Chinese law by Spavor and/or Kovrig to support their prosecution and imprisonment and wanted to share that evidence with the outside world, then it has failed to do so.
I am interested, however, by your reference to the Meng Wanzhou case in this context and your charge that the US is attempting to exercise extra-territorial rights in extraditing her to answer charges in the US. I mainly find this interesting because it was my impression that the Chinese government has consistently maintained there is no linkage whatsoever between the Meng Wanzhou case in Canada and the arrest and prosecution of Spavor and Kovrig in China. By raising these together, you seem to be implicitly agreeing with China's critics that the two cases are indeed inter-linked, and that the prosecution and Spavor and Kovrig may indeed have been at attempt to interfere in the judicial process of Canada in deciding the Meng Wanzhou extradition case. Was that your intention?
Thanks Henry, I must confess that I find your "allegation" that providing accused persons who are citizens of foreign countries full access to diplomatic representation and allowing those diplomats to attend judicial hearings to be a "Western practice" seems to me to be an unintentional slight to the People's Republic of China, implying that you believe the PRC government is somehow incapable of providing basic legal protections to accused persons (whether Chinese citizens or foreigners) that are routinely and carefully observed in many "non-Western" countries in Asia and around the world. Perhaps I hold a higher opinion of China's actual capacity to provide basic legal guarantees to all persons.
However, your allegation that "Whatever the Chinese courts decided will not be believed by westerners even if it were true" is not only without any support or basis; it is utterly absurd. There have of course been many thousands of legal cases involving foreign and non-foreign defendants that have been competently decided in Chinese courts according to Chinese law and legal principles which no foreign government has or would ever challenge. There is large body of academic research and discussion of China's legal system by foreign scholars, Western and non-Western, which you could consult if you wished, though I'm quite sure you won't bother to do so.
The issue here isn't a matter of "interfering" with China's internal affairs, but rather determining, to the best of our ability, whether there was legitimate cause for the arrest, prosecution and conviction of Spavor and Kovrig, or whether (as some have charged) Chinese authorities arbitrarily arrested these former diplomats to use as leverage against the Canadian to try to force the Canadian government to reject the US extradition request, whether or not extradition would be allowed or appropriate under Canadian law, the only applicable standard. Let us agree, at a minimum, that if the Chinese government possessed evidence to of wrongdoing under Chinese law by Spavor and/or Kovrig to support their prosecution and imprisonment and wanted to share that evidence with the outside world, then it has failed to do so.
I am interested, however, by your reference to the Meng Wanzhou case in this context and your charge that the US is attempting to exercise extra-territorial rights in extraditing her to answer charges in the US. I mainly find this interesting because it was my impression that the Chinese government has consistently maintained there is no linkage whatsoever between the Meng Wanzhou case in Canada and the arrest and prosecution of Spavor and Kovrig in China. By raising these together, you seem to be implicitly agreeing with China's critics that the two cases are indeed inter-linked, and that the prosecution and Spavor and Kovrig may indeed have been at attempt to interfere in the judicial process of Canada in deciding the Meng Wanzhou extradition case. Was that your intention?
Aha! now I can call you Robert. It is pointless to engage further as you choose to ignore even the simplest of arguments i.e. that an allegation does not become true simply because one chooses not to put up a defence. What the Chinese government said or did not say do not change my point about weaponizing the US dollar to impose the will of the US government on other nationals. I only hope that all three persons involved return home to their loved ones. Bye, got to make a living, unlike some more fortunate ones.
Well, we're agreed on your last point, if nothing else. I too need to make a living — zoom work call starting in 2 minutes. Thanks for the exchange, Henry.
“Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig have been held hostage since 2018 in an attempt to exert pressure on the Canadian government. During this time they are believed to have been subject to torture, sleep deprivation and solitary confinement,” said the alliance.
The quote contains an allegation that had no supporting evidence. Better journalism please.
The "journalism" in this fascinating and well-written piece is absolutely fine, as you already know, of course. The allegations in the US Justice Department case against Meng Wanzhou, are indeed unclear, as Chief Justice Heather Holmes said during the extradition hearing on August 11.
China's seizure of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig in 2018 and its holding them in custody as hostages ever since has been an appalling and thuggish abuse of police state power. But if ta principled way to resolve the extradition case against Meng Wanzhou that facilitates an early release and return home for Spavor and Kovrig can be found, it will be an important victory for humaneness and justice.
Do read again. By issue is if you believe there was torture, show the evidence otherwise not print it or correctly report as alleged.
Hi Mr. Tan. Thanks for your comment. I did read article this very carefully. As I'm sure you would agree, these are not matters that should be treated except with the utmost seriousness. However, The authors did not actually make an allegation that Michael Spavor or Michael Kovrig have been tortured. Rather, they cited the Canadian Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) which stated that during the time Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig have been held in custody in China, “they are believed to have been subject to torture, sleep deprivation, and solitary confinement.”
As I'm sure you are aware, Mr. Tan, the IPAC is an international, cross-party alliance of parliamentarians from twenty different democratic countries which was formed to
make it possible for a broad cross-section of democratic countries to be able to mount a coordinated response to initiatives by the Chinese government and/or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on issues related to global trade, security and human rights.
Can the Canadian IPAC 'prove' that Spavor or Kovrig have been subject to "torture, sleep deprivation, and solitary confinement"? Of course not, nor does it claim to have any such proof in its hands. As I'm sure you also know as well as any of us, the practice of restricting or blocking regular and easy consular or diplomaic access by Canadian or third-country diplomats to Spavor and Kovrig (and other incarcerated persons in China) make it inconceivable that such evidence could ever be found, assembled, or presented in the present circumstances.
As I'm sure you are also aware, access to Mr. Spavor’s hearing was denied to Canadian diplomats as well as to diplomats from 8 other countries: Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Moreover, access to Mr. Kovrig’s hearing was also denied to Canadian diplomats and to diplomats from 23 other countries—Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States—and the European Union.
As a powerful and sophisticated country which has at times claimed tht its own citizens have at times been subject to mistreatmet by judicial, penal and/or intelligence organs in other countries, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Chinese government and the ruling CCP could have provided sufficient access to Canadian diplomatic representatives and/or independent observers from international, multilateral and/or non-governmental organizations to the accused, and could have provided access to Canadian and third-country observers to the judicial and sentencing hearings for Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig. Such access could have gone a long way toward clarifying the issue of whether Spavor and Kovrig have been tortured or otherwise mistreated or not while in custody and whether their convictions and sentences were arrived at in a manner consistent with Chinese Law and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
That the Chinese government and/or the ruling CCP chose not do do so has, inevitably I'm afraid, led many people to assume that claims of torture and mistreatment of Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig are in all likelihood true, or else that, at a minimum, the Chinese leadership doesn't really care whether the governments of other countries, international organizations, and citizens believe or don't believe those allegations.
Many people would be delighted the Chinese government chose to arrange sufficient access to Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig to Canadian diplomats and other multilateral and international observers to either confirm these accusations or put them to rest. I am sure members of Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig's families and their friends would be delighted as well. Needless to say, however, nobody really expects the current Chinese government or the ruling CCP to take these concerns seriously. Under these circumstances, then, I'm sure many people would join me in concluding that the evidence put forward in support of the allegation by the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance is as complete and persuasive as it could possibly be, and therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, should be treated as true.
Hi Mr Delfs, thank you for explaining your logic. The argument that an allegation becomes true because someone refuses to defend it is contrary to my up bring. It doesn't matter how many countries are involved. One can refuse to defend it for a variety of reasons, not necessarily because one is guilty. As far as I have seen China has consistently rejected any outside interference with what happens within its border and does not like to be told that she should conform with western practices. In short she doesn't believe she has a case to defend. To be fair to China, she is consistent and doesn't meddle in other countries' internal affairs too. What Mr S or Mr K did or did not do in China neither you nor I would ever know the truth. Whatever the Chinese courts decided will not be believed by westerners even if it were true. This much is probably true - they were not picked up randomly as hostages are. They were already in their radar and timing was probably opportunistic.
Putting aside above, it is hard to fault China for disagreeing that US sanction applies to her citizen, in this case a prominent one, when the act occurred not in US territory and within China's own borders. Citizens obey national laws in their own country not foreign laws. US thinks she has extra-territorial rights simply by weaponizing the USA dollar. This improper use does not auger well for the future of the US dollar.
Thanks Henry, I must confess that I find your "allegation" that providing accused persons who are citizens of foreign countries full access to diplomatic representation and allowing those diplomats to attend judicial hearings to be a "Western practice" seems to me to be an unintentional slight to the People's Republic of China, implying that you believe the PRC government is somehow incapable of providing basic legal protections to accused persons (whether Chinese citizens or foreigners) that are routinely and carefully observed in many "non-Western" countries in Asia and around the world. Perhaps I hold a higher opinion of China's actual capacity to provide basic legal guarantees to all persons.
However, your allegation that "Whatever the Chinese courts decided will not be believed by westerners even if it were true" is not only without any support or basis; it is utterly absurd. There have of course been many thousands of legal cases involving foreign and non-foreign defendants that have been competently decided in Chinese courts according to Chinese law and legal principles which no foreign government has or would ever challenge. There is large body of academic research and discussion of China's legal system by foreign scholars, Western and non-Western, which you could consult if you wished, though I'm quite sure you won't bother to do so.
The issue here isn't a matter of "interfering" with China's internal affairs, but rather determining, to the best of our ability, whether there was legitimate cause for the arrest, prosecution and conviction of Spavor and Kovrig, or whether (as some have charged) Chinese authorities arbitrarily arrested these former diplomats to use as leverage against the Canadian to try to force the Canadian government to reject the US extradition request, whether or not extradition would be allowed or appropriate under Canadian law, the only applicable standard. Let us agree, at a minimum, that if the Chinese government possessed evidence to of wrongdoing under Chinese law by Spavor and/or Kovrig to support their prosecution and imprisonment and wanted to share that evidence with the outside world, then it has failed to do so.
I am interested, however, by your reference to the Meng Wanzhou case in this context and your charge that the US is attempting to exercise extra-territorial rights in extraditing her to answer charges in the US. I mainly find this interesting because it was my impression that the Chinese government has consistently maintained there is no linkage whatsoever between the Meng Wanzhou case in Canada and the arrest and prosecution of Spavor and Kovrig in China. By raising these together, you seem to be implicitly agreeing with China's critics that the two cases are indeed inter-linked, and that the prosecution and Spavor and Kovrig may indeed have been at attempt to interfere in the judicial process of Canada in deciding the Meng Wanzhou extradition case. Was that your intention?
And are we finished here?
Thanks Henry, I must confess that I find your "allegation" that providing accused persons who are citizens of foreign countries full access to diplomatic representation and allowing those diplomats to attend judicial hearings to be a "Western practice" seems to me to be an unintentional slight to the People's Republic of China, implying that you believe the PRC government is somehow incapable of providing basic legal protections to accused persons (whether Chinese citizens or foreigners) that are routinely and carefully observed in many "non-Western" countries in Asia and around the world. Perhaps I hold a higher opinion of China's actual capacity to provide basic legal guarantees to all persons.
However, your allegation that "Whatever the Chinese courts decided will not be believed by westerners even if it were true" is not only without any support or basis; it is utterly absurd. There have of course been many thousands of legal cases involving foreign and non-foreign defendants that have been competently decided in Chinese courts according to Chinese law and legal principles which no foreign government has or would ever challenge. There is large body of academic research and discussion of China's legal system by foreign scholars, Western and non-Western, which you could consult if you wished, though I'm quite sure you won't bother to do so.
The issue here isn't a matter of "interfering" with China's internal affairs, but rather determining, to the best of our ability, whether there was legitimate cause for the arrest, prosecution and conviction of Spavor and Kovrig, or whether (as some have charged) Chinese authorities arbitrarily arrested these former diplomats to use as leverage against the Canadian to try to force the Canadian government to reject the US extradition request, whether or not extradition would be allowed or appropriate under Canadian law, the only applicable standard. Let us agree, at a minimum, that if the Chinese government possessed evidence to of wrongdoing under Chinese law by Spavor and/or Kovrig to support their prosecution and imprisonment and wanted to share that evidence with the outside world, then it has failed to do so.
I am interested, however, by your reference to the Meng Wanzhou case in this context and your charge that the US is attempting to exercise extra-territorial rights in extraditing her to answer charges in the US. I mainly find this interesting because it was my impression that the Chinese government has consistently maintained there is no linkage whatsoever between the Meng Wanzhou case in Canada and the arrest and prosecution of Spavor and Kovrig in China. By raising these together, you seem to be implicitly agreeing with China's critics that the two cases are indeed inter-linked, and that the prosecution and Spavor and Kovrig may indeed have been at attempt to interfere in the judicial process of Canada in deciding the Meng Wanzhou extradition case. Was that your intention?
And are we finished here?
Aha! now I can call you Robert. It is pointless to engage further as you choose to ignore even the simplest of arguments i.e. that an allegation does not become true simply because one chooses not to put up a defence. What the Chinese government said or did not say do not change my point about weaponizing the US dollar to impose the will of the US government on other nationals. I only hope that all three persons involved return home to their loved ones. Bye, got to make a living, unlike some more fortunate ones.
Well, we're agreed on your last point, if nothing else. I too need to make a living — zoom work call starting in 2 minutes. Thanks for the exchange, Henry.
“Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig have been held hostage since 2018 in an attempt to exert pressure on the Canadian government. During this time they are believed to have been subject to torture, sleep deprivation and solitary confinement,” said the alliance.
The quote contains an allegation that had no supporting evidence. Better journalism please.