at the center of one aspect of
sino-american relations
is the case of mung wong joe on house
arrest in canada for years now
she's been accused of misleading hsbc
executives
about huawei having control over another
company
which owned another company which
operated in iran
and because she misled the hsbc
executives
they conveniently saved a bunch of money
by using cheaper channels to move money
around
which included through the united states
and by going through the us for iran
related money transfers they violated
u.s sanctions on iran
yes those are the same sanctions the u.s
used to block iran's request for kobe 19
assistance violating the u.s specific
sanctions against iran has nothing to do
with canada
and so when the u.s ordered canada to
arrest ms mong
it was for extradition based on fraud
she defrauded hsbc into making these
sanctions violations
when institutions from american allied
countries like
germany or france intentionally violate
these sanctions directly
they are fined but when a chinese
company is accused of causing a british
institution to violate the sanctions
well the chinese person must be arrested
illegally searched have her passwords
illegally shared
and then she must be touted around as a
political captive
while we all yell shame shame shame
because she's guilty and that's easy to
see
because when we examine the evidence it
shows us that clearly
the trick in canada is to maintain the
appearance of a fair hearing
by carefully examining the evidence just
not
all the evidence that's canada's special
sauce
don't allow evidence to be presented
which disproves the allegations
because it's not a trial it's a request
to extradite
and definitely don't allow evidence
which disproves the request for
extradition
because it's not actually a request for
extradition it's a political trial of
public opinion
[Music]
[Applause]
the canadian court has finally released
a short document
which for some reason took nearly two
weeks to write spelling out the latest
reason miss mung is not allowed to
present evidence against the extradition
and those reasons are pure gold let's
examine them
mong wang zhou is facing a weird legal
situation
the u.s told canada she misled hsbc
executives into continuing business with
hsbc
and violating sanctions since she's not
in the u.s
she can't be on trial now she's only
able to fight
the actual request for extradition and
the only way she's allowed to do that
basically is to prove the request itself
is
manifestly unreliable and the request
says
she misled hsbc the executives weren't
aware of the details involved with
huawei's financial situations
and basically the hsbc was an innocent
mom-and-pop shop that was tricked by
big bad monk so via court battle she
acquired direct
evidence disproving everything in the
extradition request
so what's the court to do oh right just
don't allow that evidence
and that's exactly what the candidate
court did here deny the evidence
they released their reasons for doing so
and man are they a great study
if you're a law student out there i
sincerely hope you study this well
this is how you continue to prosecute
when you are sitting in front of
evidence
proving not only that the defendant is
innocent of the charges but also that
the extradition request is bogus
the evidence ms mung submitted shows
very clearly that hsbc staff
chatted about the situation in emails
vice president
and senior vice presidents discussed it
so they knew
then the prosecution changed the request
for extradition
you see those aren't executive positions
those are middle management
an actual executive would be like this
secret l
person that is the real person who
needed to know the situation
that's a risk assessment expert so yes
hsbc
knew but just not the right people like
l
except that l also knew according to the
evidence but
that doesn't matter because l possibly
wasn't one of the risk assessment
experts who made the final decision
about huawei
except that l literally co-authored the
risk assessment report within hsbc
about huawei but that doesn't matter
because
uh like i i mean who knows how much the
risk assessment committee actually uses
those reports anyway
see how this is going this is apparently
how law works in canada
try to imagine this by way of a more
simple parallel
you call your internet company and tell
them you want to cancel your service
you're moving
then when you arrive at your destination
you're arrested for defrauding the
internet company
years later while still on house arrest
they tell you that
you only told junior members of the
company about your cancellation
you didn't tell the decision makers they
didn't know anything about your
cancelled service so they kept providing
it to your empty apartment
then you acquire direct evidence proving
that a higher up account
cancellation specialist knew about your
case but that account cancellation
specialist
wasn't part of a committee to cancel
accounts sure they literally
wrote the report of which accounts
needed to be canceled and gave it to the
committee
but i mean who knows if they even read
those things and all of this
is your fault somehow you're really in
deep trouble for not telling them you're
cancelling your account
it's your fault the internet company
didn't notice what you directly told
them
because canada
that's roughly what this case is like
you are at fault because the company
which had numerous staff at all levels
in the know about the situation
communicated to each other but suddenly
are saying they didn't
even though you can prove they did and
your court hearing
they literally don't even allow you to
present the evidence
you're being deported straight to the
united states
and if that isn't a master class on how
to persecute demonstrably innocent
people i don't know what is
so because this latest turn of events i
think it's safe to say there's a high
chance canada will knowingly extradite
an innocent person
for political reasons to the united
states which is
utterly dominated the canadian legal
system and if that happens
i suspect we may get further master
classes and how to block clear evidence
use word play and semantics to try to
gain politically
and escalation of international tensions
after all
as we learn from canada it doesn't
matter if the request for extradition is
littered with lies
it doesn't matter if the evidence
clearly proves more than ever the
defendant is innocent
it doesn't matter if every single entity
accused of the same thing in the past
has only been fined
it doesn't matter if the entire arrest
and search process was illegal
if you're a minority and you're in
canada or the united states
you have reduced rights you are at some
risk level of being used as a political
pawn at your own expense
and that's something all of my fellow
countrymen including our
northern colony of canada can surely get
behind
let's strip these non-whites of the
rights we pretend to grant them
let's violate our own laws to go after
the chinese
to further trump's trade war agenda
who's with me
until next time i'm nathan rich
thanks everybody
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music]
you