3 ms·

"just" retaliation... this makes their detention arbitrary. After Meng Wanzhou was arrested (and placed under house arrest in her multi-million dollar Vancouver

"just" retaliation... this makes their detention arbitrary. After Meng Wanzhou was arrested (and placed under house arrest in her multi-million dollar Vancouver mansion), the Chinese government arbitrarily picked two high-value Canadians (an entrepeneur and a Candian diplomat) and threw them into solitary confinement, interrogating them 24/7 in shifts, and giving ostensibly no access to lawyers/representation. Oh, and by the way, you don't need to be a diplomat or entrepeneur to be picked up. They do it all the time [0]. You can read more about Spavor and Kovrig, the Canadians detained in solitary confinement in China for over a year, here: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-michael-kovrig-michael-spavor-canadian-detainees-china-explainer/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-michael-kov... [0] https://torontosun.com/news/national/123-canadians-detained-in-chinese-jails-foreign-affairs https://torontosun.com/news/national/123-canadians-detained-...

mytailorisrich 6y ago
It's difficult to determine whether it is arbitrary (in the legal sense) because the Chinese government does not communicate on these issues and the Canadian government will obviously not want to spill any beans. What is plain to me is that a Canadian guy who can live in China at the border with North Korea, can run a business there, and personally knows Kim Jung Un is not just any "entrepreneur"... Likewise we cannot know exactly what "diplomat" means for someone stationed abroad (including Afghanistan, and Beijing). I'm not defending the Chinese government but these 2 guys were clearly not arbitrarily picked, it's a little disingenuous to claim that they were.
- mthoms 6y ago
  The parent only claimed it was arbitrary in the meaningful sense that they had not committed any crimes. So yes, their detention is indeed arbitrary. Of course, the CCP is going to pick high-profile targets and not some random tourists. Thus, who they chose was (of course!) not arbitrary. Since you're intent on splitting hairs, lets' say "they arbitrarily detained two people who were specifically targeted for maximum effect". Is that better? >were clearly not arbitrarily picked, it's a little disingenuous to claim that they were. Being pedantic with the parent posters words when their intent was plainly clear is even more disingenuous and does not contribute anything to the discussion. If you've got evidence they were detained for just cause, rather that innuendo then lets hear it. I find it very curious that you're inclined to give the CCP the benefit of the doubt given their track record and the details of this incident. Specifically, see paragraph 5 of this article where a Chinese representative is directly quoted linking the fate to the two Canadians to the case of Meng. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-china-suggests-it-will-free-two-michaels-if-canada-allows-huawei/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-china-sugge...
- jszymborski 6y ago
  > I'm not defending the Chinese government Strange, because this comment, as well as the vast majority of your comment history, expressly come to the defence of the CCP. Being an entrepreneur nor a diplomat is not probable cause for an arrest, and the opaqueness of the CCP on all their criminal cases is by design for this very reason; it's a smoking gun, not a smoke screen. You're right that these two weren't entirely arbitrarily picked, they chose two people high-profile targets as you normally would in a hostage situation.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

It's difficult to determine whether it is arbitrary (in the legal sense) because the Chinese government does not communicate on these issues and the Canadian government will obviously not want to spill any beans. What is plain to me is that a Canadian guy who can live in China at the border with North Korea, can run a business there, and personally knows Kim Jung Un is not just any "entrepreneur"... Likewise we cannot know exactly what "diplomat" means for someone stationed abroad (including Afghanistan, and Beijing). I'm not defending the Chinese government but these 2 guys were clearly not arbitrarily picked, it's a little disingenuous to claim that they were.

mthoms 6y ago
The parent only claimed it was arbitrary in the meaningful sense that they had not committed any crimes. So yes, their detention is indeed arbitrary. Of course, the CCP is going to pick high-profile targets and not some random tourists. Thus, who they chose was (of course!) not arbitrary. Since you're intent on splitting hairs, lets' say "they arbitrarily detained two people who were specifically targeted for maximum effect". Is that better? >were clearly not arbitrarily picked, it's a little disingenuous to claim that they were. Being pedantic with the parent posters words when their intent was plainly clear is even more disingenuous and does not contribute anything to the discussion. If you've got evidence they were detained for just cause, rather that innuendo then lets hear it. I find it very curious that you're inclined to give the CCP the benefit of the doubt given their track record and the details of this incident. Specifically, see paragraph 5 of this article where a Chinese representative is directly quoted linking the fate to the two Canadians to the case of Meng. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-china-suggests-it-will-free-two-michaels-if-canada-allows-huawei/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-china-sugge...
jszymborski 6y ago
> I'm not defending the Chinese government Strange, because this comment, as well as the vast majority of your comment history, expressly come to the defence of the CCP. Being an entrepreneur nor a diplomat is not probable cause for an arrest, and the opaqueness of the CCP on all their criminal cases is by design for this very reason; it's a smoking gun, not a smoke screen. You're right that these two weren't entirely arbitrarily picked, they chose two people high-profile targets as you normally would in a hostage situation.