|
6#
楼主 |
发表于 2021-8-13 08:56:32
|
只看该作者
那篇报道下网友的评论(很明显,网友普遍认为法官的问题非常有利孟晚舟):
Fred888:
the US case has taken a broadside hit. It's taking on water. The US could make it go away by signaling they might turn the other way if the Minister of Justice withdrew support for extradition on the grounds raised by Justice Holmes.
This could end sooner than we expect. On the other hand, Schreiber's case took around ten years. Schreiber didn't want to leave and Meng doesn't want to stay.
Cynical in Toronto:
Canada never should have arrested Meng. Thank you, Jody Wilson-Raybould, you could have denied the Trumpian request, but instead, you got pushed over. And let's not forget that Trudeau knew about this before it happened, too.
Spineless Canadians. I am no China fan, but in this case I hope Meng gets released.
APK:
I’d bet that if lawyers and judges were paid on a per-case basis, rather than a per hour salary, justice would be more efficient by orders of magnitude.
The Meng trial would have been over long ago.
montrealer0:
As in vague.
Politically motivated.
Hyphenated Canadian:
Meng is getting off.
Goerge Not Bush:
I see a lot of judge blaming for how long the case has dragged on. But judges are duty bound to hear the cases brought before them.
The weaknesses in the case against Meng have long been apparent, but the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has been insistent on prosecuting this case to the max (and letting the two Michaels rot).
Lametti and his predecessor could have put a halt to this questionable case (and gotten the two Michaels back) years ago.
Brendan P. Dick:
You can’t help and wonder if even Ms. Wanzhou realized the glacial pace of the Canadian judiciary, year and half in and the judge only now is clueing in on the case, The obvious explanation is that Canadian judges don’t think anyone who is “white collar” can commit a crime.
So Meng isn't expedited because she landed in a country that allows all corporate crooks to go free, then what, the Americans don’t play by that rule, they’ll understand their case, so will judges and juries and getting out of the true great North only brings you a reprise, not freedom.
It’s big world and one day in the future she could find herself landing in a country that has faster learners.
my suggestion concede defeat, face the charges get this behind you, if the case is that weak then you’ll really go free, the alternative, Canada sets you free you go back to China the bastion of due process, or worse the plane has an emergency landing in Alaska
George Not Bush:
The government needs only to make the case that, if the crime were alleged to have happened in Canada, the evidence was sufficient to send it to trial.
Wrongly framed – Correct framing is:
The government needs only to make the case that, if the crime were alleged to have happened between two foreign nationals in another country, Canada would have criminal jurisdiction if the evidence was sufficient to send it to trial.
Mikhailovich:
So this "extradition" is about unilateral US sanctions which have no standing in international law, are therefore illegal, and are in fact, or could be interpreted as acts of war. Of course you can argue that since the US did it, everything is OK, because in effect the US sets its own "laws" of conduct which ipso facto are legal everywhere. That is not the way that "international law" is supposed to work. The judge asked interesting questions, but the one interesting question she did not ask is whether US unilateral sanctions should be enforced in Canada. Clearly, they should not if Canada still counts itself an independent state. And all of this, spoiling Canadian-Chinese relations, over a PowerPoint presentation in 2013! This is nuts.
yukon:
The Judge knows the Liberals need the CCP support with the upcoming election.
Well played Judge, Supreme Court next perhaps?
Michele K:
The judge – a former prosecutor specializing in corporate crime –
What a shame that you are trying to turn this into something political, whereas the judge is actually schooled in all areas necessary to judge this matter.
I think I'll go with Madame Justice over anything you've got to say on the matter.
Wangster75:
so there is good business and bad business in Iran? I was led to believe or have the perception that doing any business with Iran is on United States bad books. Who decides and what a joke this has become....I sincerely hope Canada get out of being the middleman here
TH16:
You are right. We are all losing brain cells trying to figure out the legal arguments.
But you nailed it in the last sentence. At heart, our high minded legal system is getting used for a power play. We have two seven year olds fighting in a sandbox. And Canada is the sandbox, getting trampled on.
BlahBlahBlahh:
This has been one of the most interesting events to watch. I learn about international affairs, law, sanctions, class structure in China. Fascinating.
I hope the judge's questioning will get Meng off our hands and the two Mike's freed. Otherwise I understand there are years more appeals Meng can make.
Although if she gets freed 3 years after being detained, it will make our constant claims of 'Canada follows the rule of law.' seem weak. If our law allows this, what good is it really?
|
|