3 ms·

We already forbid export of chips and other technology to them. I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground

We already forbid export of chips and other technology to them. I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here.

richbell 3y ago
> I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here. I'm not sure I understand your point about "moral high ground". Is the implication that US sanctions or arresting people for violating sanctions is immoral?
- woooooo 3y ago
  I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat. If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated. And, yes, arresting non-citizens for insufficient loyalty to our state is immoral unless there's a war on, in which case you can shoot them. They never pledged loyalty and are not breaking any faith.
  - richbell 3y ago
    > I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat. This is being reductive and making a false equivalence. These scenarios are not comparable: 1. Arresting an executive of a company that intentionally evaded sanctions and provided supplies to a country that is hostile to the US. 2. Arresting two random Canadian citizens, who are of no importance, and holding them as political prisoners until another nation capitulated to your demands. > If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated. See above. Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a difference?
    - woooooo 3y ago
      Let's flip it and see how different they are. China sanctions France. Would you be supporting their right to detain arbitrary American businessmen for doing business with France? The same exact way you're supporting our detention of their nationals over Iran?
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        If China said: all businesses in China must not do business in France, and then some business person working in China for an American company decided the company would send Chinese components to France anyways, they would be thrown in jail fairly quickly. This is actually a pretty common restriction for companies operating in China. There are lots of rules they have to follow, that they wouldn't need to follow if they weren't operating in China.
        woooooo 3y ago
        But someone who's just passing through, the founder's daughter btw, and Huawei has no manufacturing in Canada that I'm aware of? She wasn't shipping stuff out of Canada to Iran, the problem is that Huawei generally does business there. It's a "rule by law" situation if they're grabbing her for things her company does outside of US/Canadian borders.
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Huawei decided to import HP components from the USA and re-export them to Iran to get around US sanctions. Huawei also has a presence in the USA, but in general the USA subjects any company re-exporting American stuff to sanctioned countries as breaking American law, and actually so does China. Now...let's say some American executive happened to be in China and China accused this company of re-exporting something made in China to another country that China was sanctioning. Yes, they would go to jail, there wouldn't even be an outcry over it. There are other things the Chinese could get them on, so not even this pretext is needed, but you better believe they would do it. Now, let's say some Swedish citizen is accused of violating Chinese law but is not in China, rather they happen to be in Thailand. Yes, the Chinese are still going after that person as well, but no, the Thai government isn't involved. They just go and kidnap the guy. Ok, so now we get to Canada, who has an extradition agreement with the USA. The USA puts in a request for her extradition because they accuse her of violating American law. There is a valid accusation, though it is questionable if she would have been convicted. Canada says: ok, we have to evaluate if this order is correct, so they arrest Huawei daughter, and then it goes to the courts. China tit for tat grabs some random Canadians off the street, throws them in jail for a couple of years (Huawei daughter is in jail for a couple of weeks then at home under house arrest for the rest of the time, but that's canada for you). Eventually, Canadian courts decide on their own that America's request isn't valid and they decide not to extradite Huawei daughter to the USA (the Canadians arrested in China wouldn't have mattered, because the courts are independent and they can't make "deals" with other countries). China is really just rule by law: they don't like you, you are going to jail. The USA, and Canada, have laws, independent courts that aren't subject to whims of prime minsters or presidents, etc...they even have bail where you can spend 2 years in your Vancouver mansion rather than a Chinese prison while your case works its way through the system. They are not comparable.

We already forbid export of chips and other technology to them. I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here.

richbell 3y ago

> I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here. I'm not sure I understand your point about "moral high ground". Is the implication that US sanctions or arresting people for violating sanctions is immoral?

woooooo 3y ago
I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat. If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated. And, yes, arresting non-citizens for insufficient loyalty to our state is immoral unless there's a war on, in which case you can shoot them. They never pledged loyalty and are not breaking any faith.
- richbell 3y ago
  > I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat. This is being reductive and making a false equivalence. These scenarios are not comparable: 1. Arresting an executive of a company that intentionally evaded sanctions and provided supplies to a country that is hostile to the US. 2. Arresting two random Canadian citizens, who are of no importance, and holding them as political prisoners until another nation capitulated to your demands. > If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated. See above. Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a difference?
  - woooooo 3y ago
    Let's flip it and see how different they are. China sanctions France. Would you be supporting their right to detain arbitrary American businessmen for doing business with France? The same exact way you're supporting our detention of their nationals over Iran?
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      If China said: all businesses in China must not do business in France, and then some business person working in China for an American company decided the company would send Chinese components to France anyways, they would be thrown in jail fairly quickly. This is actually a pretty common restriction for companies operating in China. There are lots of rules they have to follow, that they wouldn't need to follow if they weren't operating in China.
      - woooooo 3y ago
        But someone who's just passing through, the founder's daughter btw, and Huawei has no manufacturing in Canada that I'm aware of? She wasn't shipping stuff out of Canada to Iran, the problem is that Huawei generally does business there. It's a "rule by law" situation if they're grabbing her for things her company does outside of US/Canadian borders.
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Huawei decided to import HP components from the USA and re-export them to Iran to get around US sanctions. Huawei also has a presence in the USA, but in general the USA subjects any company re-exporting American stuff to sanctioned countries as breaking American law, and actually so does China. Now...let's say some American executive happened to be in China and China accused this company of re-exporting something made in China to another country that China was sanctioning. Yes, they would go to jail, there wouldn't even be an outcry over it. There are other things the Chinese could get them on, so not even this pretext is needed, but you better believe they would do it. Now, let's say some Swedish citizen is accused of violating Chinese law but is not in China, rather they happen to be in Thailand. Yes, the Chinese are still going after that person as well, but no, the Thai government isn't involved. They just go and kidnap the guy. Ok, so now we get to Canada, who has an extradition agreement with the USA. The USA puts in a request for her extradition because they accuse her of violating American law. There is a valid accusation, though it is questionable if she would have been convicted. Canada says: ok, we have to evaluate if this order is correct, so they arrest Huawei daughter, and then it goes to the courts. China tit for tat grabs some random Canadians off the street, throws them in jail for a couple of years (Huawei daughter is in jail for a couple of weeks then at home under house arrest for the rest of the time, but that's canada for you). Eventually, Canadian courts decide on their own that America's request isn't valid and they decide not to extradite Huawei daughter to the USA (the Canadians arrested in China wouldn't have mattered, because the courts are independent and they can't make "deals" with other countries). China is really just rule by law: they don't like you, you are going to jail. The USA, and Canada, have laws, independent courts that aren't subject to whims of prime minsters or presidents, etc...they even have bail where you can spend 2 years in your Vancouver mansion rather than a Chinese prison while your case works its way through the system. They are not comparable.