4 ms·

It's really hard to say because Parliament wields extraordinary powers. It once found the Government itself in contempt, triggering an election; IIRC, the only

It's really hard to say because Parliament wields extraordinary powers. It once found the Government itself in contempt, triggering an election; IIRC, the only time that's ever been done was in Canada. In the few other times contempt charges have been laid no punishment was applied, at the discretion of Parliament, or Parliament dissolved before any punishments were prescribed. What's really fun to consider is that Parliament could apply criminal charges upon Zuck, and the USA may have to arrest and extradite him.

mises 7y ago
I highly doubt America would ever extradite for such an issue. It is not a crime for an American citizen to refuse to appear in another nation before the assembly of another nation. Other nations may not legislate for or compel citizens of America. Most importantly, extradition requires the crime to be illegal in both nations. This is not. Contempt of Canadian parliament is not a crime on American soil, whereas something like murder is.
- rexarex 7y ago
  I don’t think Meng from Huawei was committing a crime that was illegal in China yet the USA still had her held and extradited from Canada.
  - buckminster 7y ago
    She hasn't been extradited yet. Her defence say: > her case should be tossed anyway because: her arrest was an abuse of process; the fraud charge she is facing in the United States is for a crime that doesn't exist in Canada; and the U.S. government's extradition request represents an 'abuse of power'.
  - zerocrates 7y ago
    The relevant question would be whether the activity is a crime in Canada, not in China.
- dleslie 7y ago
  Obstruction of Justice is a crime in both countries, and Parliament could certainly charge him with that, if it wished.
close04 7y ago
> Parliament could apply criminal charges upon Zuck, and the USA may have to arrest and extradite him. Consider that this is where political pressure from the US (and I'm sure all countries would do the same in such a case) comes into play to prevent such instances. Also consider the kind of diplomat present at the helm of that ship. Most countries would rather not trigger him into irreparably damaging long term relations between them. He seems to do that even when there's obviously no long term benefit for the US. So don't hold your breath for this decision to hold anything other than a symbolic meaning. But this to be honest is good enough in this case. It sends a signal to people, it sends a signal to FB, and it's plausible that the legal framework targeting such companies will be adjusted to mirror the sentiment.
- dleslie 7y ago
  I suspect that the true impact will be in weakening Facebook's bargaining position WRT the new Digital Charter. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/h_00108.html https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/h_00108.html
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
tinus_hn 7y ago
If Facebook has presence in Canada the company or its personnel could be impacted much more easily.

mises 7y ago

I highly doubt America would ever extradite for such an issue. It is not a crime for an American citizen to refuse to appear in another nation before the assembly of another nation. Other nations may not legislate for or compel citizens of America. Most importantly, extradition requires the crime to be illegal in both nations. This is not. Contempt of Canadian parliament is not a crime on American soil, whereas something like murder is.

rexarex 7y ago
I don’t think Meng from Huawei was committing a crime that was illegal in China yet the USA still had her held and extradited from Canada.
- buckminster 7y ago
  She hasn't been extradited yet. Her defence say: > her case should be tossed anyway because: her arrest was an abuse of process; the fraud charge she is facing in the United States is for a crime that doesn't exist in Canada; and the U.S. government's extradition request represents an 'abuse of power'.
- zerocrates 7y ago
  The relevant question would be whether the activity is a crime in Canada, not in China.
dleslie 7y ago
Obstruction of Justice is a crime in both countries, and Parliament could certainly charge him with that, if it wished.

close04 7y ago

> Parliament could apply criminal charges upon Zuck, and the USA may have to arrest and extradite him. Consider that this is where political pressure from the US (and I'm sure all countries would do the same in such a case) comes into play to prevent such instances. Also consider the kind of diplomat present at the helm of that ship. Most countries would rather not trigger him into irreparably damaging long term relations between them. He seems to do that even when there's obviously no long term benefit for the US. So don't hold your breath for this decision to hold anything other than a symbolic meaning. But this to be honest is good enough in this case. It sends a signal to people, it sends a signal to FB, and it's plausible that the legal framework targeting such companies will be adjusted to mirror the sentiment.

dleslie 7y ago
I suspect that the true impact will be in weakening Facebook's bargaining position WRT the new Digital Charter. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/h_00108.html https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/h_00108.html
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

tinus_hn 7y ago

If Facebook has presence in Canada the company or its personnel could be impacted much more easily.