There is a comparison to be made between claiming your system is above political interference in legal proceedings on one hand and demonstrating political interference on the other.
Perhaps a NYT reported got it right when he tweeted that there's no difference between both our Ts. They both demonstrate a certain contempt of their legal systems, which they twist to meet political objectives (and are egomaniacs as well). No need to get your NADs in an uproar over their stupidity.
As for China, the quicker we all play hardball with them on larger issues like the South China Sea, cyber and IP rights, the quicker they will understand how they are to operate in this world.
I can assure you, my NADs are not in any uproar.
You want a comparison? Okie dokie.
SNC Lavalin, a huge construction firm, was accused of bribery to obtain contracts in Libya. They were charged and the court case is ongoing. From everything I've read on the subject, if you don't pay bribes in pretty much any North African/Middle Eastern country, you don't get a contract - period. So, any western firm doing business in that region should be assumed to have bribed somebody, but that's here nor there. The crown prosecutor decided criminal charges were warranted in this case. Meanwhile, the Canadian government has recently brought in legislation similar to that in the US, UK and other western countries, enabling it to offer a deferred prosecution agreement to companies accused of misdeeds, in place of criminal prosecution. The MoJ reviewed the case (she is a former crown prosecutor herself) and decided that she would not overrule the CP and criminal prosecution would proceed.
The problem is, SNC Lavalin is a huge conglomerate, employing thousands of people. A conviction would block them from bidding on government contracts for 10 years, which could have grave consequences for the firm - and the thousands of employees. So, there are clearly political considerations that could not be ignored, especially since a federal election is coming in the Fall. So, the Prime Minister and staff within his office, tried to persuade the MoJ to offer a deferred prosecution agreement, in place of criminal prosecution. There is an ongoing debate over whether that constitutes political interference. For what it's worth, the MoJ herself said that it wasn't political interference. I'm on the fence in that regard. I support her decision, as she had already decided that the case should proceed and that political considerations should not be taken into account - even if her own party could suffer for it during the next election.
As for the Meng case, the US Dept of Justice requested that she be detained and extradited, for which there is a treaty between Canada and the US. The US DoJ must present sufficient evidence that would warrant charges
under Canadian law in order for extradition to proceed. I'm not sure the US sanctions against Iran that she is accused of violating constitute an offence in Canada, so stand by - she may be set free yet. There has been no concrete suggestion (other than the Chinese government's) that the Prime Minister wanted her detained. In fact, it would have been much less of a headache for the government if she had
not been detained at all, which should be pretty obvious by now.
The Chinese government is saying that the SNC Lavalin case is proof that the Canadian justice system is subject to political interference. It is certainly an inconvenient time for the SNC Lavalin case to come up, but it isn't going to change anything with Meng's case. The Chinese government is trying to muddy the waters, but the cases are apples and oranges. It would have been far more convenient for the government if she was "accidentally" allowed to slip through Canada unimpeded. But, she was detained and she will have her day in court. SNC Lavalin is just a distraction - nothing more, nothing less.
To be clear, I am no fan of Justin Trudeau. When everyone was swooning over him after he was elected, I said, just wait, he's going to be shown to have feet of clay, just like the rest of them. That said, regarding contempt for legal systems, to suggest that there is no difference between JT and DT is utterly laughable. It's like saying a person convicted of drunk driving is the same as a mass murderer - Hey! They both have criminal records! They're the same!
