Thanks to Mishaal for doing the heavy lifting in the post just below. Will add a couple of more articles for you to consider (click on the screen-captures).
So our Question of the Week is simply:
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.Jon
I thought it was interesting how Chrystia Freeland used the term “rule of law” to explain the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, and indicated that her arrest was not a political decision. As most of us know, the term “rule of law” indicates that all persons, institutions and entities are accountable to laws which are equally enforced. However, the Sach’s article notes that the arrest was unprecedented and that corporate managers are rarely arrested for alleged crimes committed by their companies. Sach’s article notes examples such as JP Morgan Chase, who violated US sanctions against Iran in 2011 and whose executives were not subject to extradition or brought into custody. Unless the US starts enforcing this treaty for every senior business person in transit through Canada working for a company accused of crimes, it doesn’t appear that rule of law would be upheld. To me, Meng’s arrest appears very arbitrary and I am annoyed that Canada has chosen to be in the middle of what appears to be a political disagreement.
As for whether Huawei should be banned from Canadian networks, in my opinion the reasoning behind this decision would be relevant. I would not support banning Huawei simply for this alleged violation of US sanctions on Iran. However, there has been concern expressed regarding the potential for Chinese spying through Huawei networks. As Jonathan pointed out last class – all other members of the Five Eyes Alliance have disallowed Huawei. If CSIS sees Huawei as a legitimate spy threat, I think they should be banned from 5G networks.