Justin Trudeau is getting advice from Liberals of the Past. But he refuses to intervene in the Meng Wanzhow extradition case. Susan Delacourt writes:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is getting a remarkable degree of cross-partisan support for his firm decision to not intervene in Meng’s extradition case, despite a letter from 19 prominent Canadians urging that he do just that.
But the letter has highlighted one political schism that is a recurring theme in Trudeau’s career — the one between this current regime and Liberals who governed before him.
Jean Chrétien’s signature was not on the letter signed by 19 of some of Canada’s most serious legal and foreign-policy thinkers, including former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour and former justice minister Allan Rock.
It's a difficult decision. Trudeau is following the law -- which, in this case, does the bidding of a lawless president. Past Liberals would have thumbed their noses at Trump. But Trudeau is not of their ilk:
One thing should be clear to anyone who has been watching Trudeau’s life in the politics — this is not a prime minister likely to be persuaded by arguments from former Liberals. From the moment he ejected Liberal senators from his caucus as a newly elected leader in 2014, Trudeau has shown a near-complete lack of deference to Liberals who came before him, including those who worked with his father. His clear “no” to the letter this week very much echoed the tone of the senators’ ejection.
Perhaps Justin's position has been influenced by his recent experience with Jody Wilson-Rayboult. Or, perhaps, he has read Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons. When Thomas More's son-in-law suggests that he not give the devil the benefit of the law and, instead, save himself, More replies:
And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
This is a matter of safety -- present and future.
Image: MEME
4 comments:
The law itself recognizes that extradition can be a political matter and allows the justice minister to “at any time withdraw” the government’s support from an extradition case and release the subject. The UK, which has a similar law, did this in the case of Augusto Pinochet when Spain tried to extradict him for trial on charges of crimes against humanity.
It's quite possible that this case will grind on for another 3 or 4 years in the courts. Meng is out on bail and living comfortably in her own place in Vancouver, while two Canadians are holed up in a Chinese prison on trumped up charges. Regardless of what the courts say, the final decision rests with Lametti. He can either piss off Trump or piss off Xi. Pick your poison, but do it now, not after China decides to execute our citizens.
Cap
I take your point, Cap. Canada is caught between a rock and a hard place. If China gets particularly nasty -- which could happen -- I suspect that Trudeau will alter his position. It's not easy to stand for the rule of law in a world of autocrats.
China's on a rampage and nothing we can do is gonna stop them. How do you get an international consensus when half of the other half of the world is run by the business pukes who used to sell China's Kool Aid (That's right; that's you, Mr. Ambassador; you weren't a consumer; you were one of the licenced vendors.) and the other half of the other half is run by Trumplings?
When thugs are in the driver's seat, John, they're going to give the law a hard time.
Post a Comment