Canada's ability to stop extradition doesn't mean it should.

I read an article yesterday that the PM does in fact have the authority to intervene in the Huawei case and effectively release her. Specifically, it can intervene in the extradition itself.

But, the government shouldn't. At least, not at the moment.

The argument in favour of intervening would be that 2 Canadian nationals are being detained in retaliation, and that releasing Meng will result in their freedom as well.

Unfortunately, the game of chicken has already gone too far. China is claiming the detainment is not politically motivated and the 2 Michael's have now been charged.

For them to be simply released now if Meng were freed of potential extradition wouldn't just look fishy. It would put the lie to their claims that the detainment of 2 foreign nationals was anything but illegal. In short, China needs to maintain the facade that they are justly detaining these citizens. Up until the point where they were charged, it would have been trivial to release them and make up some excuse.

Also, with the now public refusal of the claim that it is politically motivated, Canada can't release the Huaweai CEO either.

Technically speaking, I don't believe that the PM lied. The Canadian judiciary system IS independent, and there is nothing, legally, which the PM can do at this moment. I don't believe the PMs office can even exercise what little muscle that they may have until the extradition is ruled upon.

We're still well within the realm of where the legal system has the authority. However, the courts don't carry out the judgment. If we reach a point where extradition is handed down by judge, it THEN falls under the scope of politics. As it certainly must. There is absolutely no direct connection between the Canadian and American judiciary systems.

But, the most egregious problem of all; the US is also our ally.

Canada's BEST option is to maintain the rule of law. By doing such we can readily justify our actions to our allies. We have much less to fear in terms of retribution this way.

It is easy to imagine that if we refused to extradite, that the US would be angry. We have agreements in place that allow for them to seek this extradition. We would be violating those agreements and without a justifiable reason. It is likewise easy to imagine that under these circumstance, other allies might also condemn our actions. This could lead to sanctions, erode political relationships and jeopardize the country in a host of other ways.

On the other hand, if China were to acknowledge their governments interference in these cases and make some sort of formal agreement Canada could justify the intervention as a means of protecting it's citizens. While the US may still denounce us it would perhaps be less forceful. And it would be less likely to draw the ire of other allies as it is quite likely that most would prioritize their citizens health and well being over the outcome of such a case.

But, as stated, this requires a CLEAR connection between the two cases to be agreed upon in public. And, THAT is unlikely to happen now.

And this is because the likely outcome would be; the US is disappointed in Canada's action, but much strongly denounces the actions of China. Virtually everyone, including many of China's allies support the US denouncement of China. Sanctions are imposed, and the Chinese economy suffers.

China has more to lose by admitting its motivation is political. And now that the charges have been pressed, they have a lot less wiggle room.

Maybe some back room deals could resolve it. But, beyond that, I wouldn't be hopeful.

It is an unfortunate outcome. But, Canada can't really afford to sacrifice its other allies and agreements on the whim that China might release the 2 Michael's if Huawei's CEO manages to avoid extradition.

However, the timing of the escalation of the threats really does show that China may truly not understand how our judicial system works. Basically, Meng's lawyers tried to argue a loop hole, but there was already precedent to defeat that argument. Furthermore at this point in time, there was really no place in the judicial system for the PM to intervene. It was really just a court hearing to determine whether or not an argument to dismiss the case was valid or not.

At present, there has been no trial and no determination. And there are legitimate reasons to believe that extradition may still be avoidable. There are a lot more loop holes when it comes to extradition. For instance, there is no assumption that justice will be fairly delivered. She may walk free if she can prove a legitimate reason to fear she won't receive a fair trial if extradited. There is also the chance that she could be cleared at the hearing where sentencing would have happened.