Holding a Mirror up to Hamlet

It was the worst of plays; it was the best of plays

Hamlet is either the best play ever written or the worst, depending on your perspective. I have, at different times, held both opinions. T.S. Eliot was very critical of the play and of critics of the play. Ultimately he was categorical that “the play is most certainly an artistic failure” (Hamlet and His Problems. T.S. Eliot. 1921. The Sacred Wood; Essays on Poetry and Criticism).

The problem of many Hamlets

Eliot reminds us that Shakespeare’s Hamlet was a “revised” version of earlier Hamlets, most notably one by Kyd—and Eliot seems convinced that the play is inferior for this among other reasons. Eliot also points out the tendency of “creative critics” (he mentions Coleridge and Goethe) to imagine a Hamlet character rather than the one actually in the play. Hamlet is so vague and inscrutable that the character invites speculation, confabulation and imaginative interpretations of his “true” nature.  Hamlet is a young man's play--at least, that's when it spoke most deeply to me.  Suicide is a young man's disease--the second leading cause of death in the 15-to-35-year-old age group behind accidents, but a lot of accidental deaths could easily be interpreted as suicides.  "To be or not to be" is bound to have purchase with this age and gender.

Hamnet and depression

In Shakespeare: The Biography, Peter Ackroyd suggests that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet in a fit of depression over the death of his 11-year-old son, Hamnet. I see lots of evidence in the play to support this view. When you stop to consider, as objectively as one can, the various elements of the play, it turns out to be incredibly self-indulgent. 

Hamlet:  the model not to follow

If you were giving a play-writing course and wanted a model to show students how not to write a play, Hamlet would work. We teachers of English are accustomed to referring to "Hamlet's procrastination," but what about Shakespeare's procrastination?  "Come on, Will, get to the point!" The play is too long, the mood is morose, meandering and depressive, the plot travels all over the place (literally) without any sense of direction (Eliot suggests it was written by a committee), the playwright (through his central character) criticizes the audience (the Globe theatre smells foul) and actors (they tear an emotional line to shreds).

Holding a mirror up to Hamlet

 It amazes me that Shakespeare uses the play to give fairly condescending instructions to actors. It amazes me even more that in the typical production of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, directors don’t seem to know what Hamlet’s instructions about “holding a mirror up to nature” mean. The allusion is to Renaissance painters who used mirrors as a trick to get the proportions right in large scene painting. The instructions are "don’t exaggerate the emotions" and "maintain perspective," but still I’ve seen Hamlet writhing on the floor over and over again in paroxysms of emotions in both amateur and professional productions. On the other hand, in this play, the playwright didn’t seem to follow his own advice either.

HAMLET

Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to

you, trippingly on the tongue: but if you mouth it,

as many of your players do, I had as lief the   [enunciate, don't mumble]

town-crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air [don't shout]

too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently; [no excessive gestures]

for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say,

the whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget

a temperance that may give it smoothness. O, it [understate emotions]

offends me to the soul to hear a robustious

periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to

very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who [don't shout, then Shakespeare/Hamlet insults the audience]

for the most part are capable of nothing but

inexplicable dumbshows and noise: I would have such

a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant; it

out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it. [overdoing exaggerated characters]

First Player

I warrant your honour.

HAMLET

Be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion

be your tutor: suit the action to the word, the

word to the action; with this special o'erstep not

the modesty of nature: for any thing so overdone is  [don't exaggerate]

from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the

first and now, was and is, to hold, as 'twere, the [maintain perspective, get the proportions right, as they are in nature, "nature" here means in the neoclassical sense]

mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature,

scorn her own image, and the very age and body of

the time his form and pressure. Now this overdone,

or come tardy off, though it make the unskilful [overdone is lowbrow]

laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve; the

censure of the which one must in your allowance

o'erweigh a whole theatre of others. O, there be

players that I have seen play, and heard others

praise, and that highly, not to speak it profanely,

that, neither having the accent of Christians nor

the gait of Christian, pagan, nor man, have so

strutted and bellowed that I have thought some of

nature's journeymen had made men and not made them

well, they imitated humanity so abominably. [act normally; in short, avoid exaggeration, avoid excess in volume, manner and gesture]

The Market, the State and the Monkey in the Middle

Profit versus regulation

In Economics for the Common Good, Noble laureate Jean Tirole describes the efficient and effective running of the economy.  The market operates in order to make a profit; the state regulates the market in order to insure that the population is well served and, in particular, to avoid monopolies and price fixing in the market.  Pro-business conservatives will complain about and protest over-regulation, the interference of the state in the market, administrative red tape and taxation which stifle and hamstring businesses from innovating, expanding and making a profit. Pro-state socialists and liberals will complain about and protest under-regulation, the failure of the state to control companies who, in their greed for profit, damage the environment, break or corrupt the law, and undermine the health and welfare of the population.  

"Game theory" and "cognitive bias"

Tirole's claim to fame is the application of game theory to economics.  Game theory attempts to determine optimal strategies by anticipating the actions and reactions of players in the game or agents in the  economy.  Traditional economics worked on the assumption that agents acted in rational self interest.  History and experience show that logic is not always determinant.  Tirole describes illogical, counter-to- the-evidence-and-self-interest beliefs as "cognitive bias."

Ideology

In a similar but more conspiratorial vein, postmodernists explain individuals' acting in opposition to their own best interests in terms of ideology.  In Ideology: An Introduction, Terry Eagleton describes ideology as follows:

A dominant power may legitimate itself by promoting beliefs and values congenial to it; naturalizing and universalizing such beliefs so as to render them self-evident and apparently inevitable; denigrating ideas which might challenge it; excluding rival forms of thought, perhaps by some unspoken but systematic logic; and obscuring social reality in ways convenient to itself. Such `mystification', as it is commonly known, frequently takes the form of masking or suppressing social conflicts, from which arises the conception of ideology as an imaginary resolution of real contradictions. (5-6)

Ideology can thus explain the historical phenomenon of women's opposing the right to vote being given to women.  In the historical context, some women felt that involvement in politics was "unfeminine" and even "unnatural." Similarly, ideology is invoked to explain how an impoverished American citizen in need of affordable health care will vote for a billionaire who opposes social welfare programs.  The disadvantaged voter adheres to the market ideology that "all will be well" if the state is run like a business.  Conversely, Tirole cites the statistic that 60% of Americans (including many of the poor) believe the poor are poor "because they are lazy or lack determination." A typical third example, even if the empirical evidence is conclusive that more lenient treatment of prisoners will result in reduced recidivism and a lower crime rate, the ideological notion that the purpose of prison is punishment will commonly prevail.

Is education the answer?

Tirole's perhaps wishful solution (and the purpose of Economics for the Common Good) is that we all need a better understanding of economics.  In particular, citizens need to understand that economics is focused on results based on historical, empirical and statistical evidence while considering as many variables as possible.   I desperately want to agree with Tirole that education is the answer, but I am all too aware of the Cassandra effect.  (Cassandra was condemned by the gods to know the future and always tell the truth but, whatever she said, no-one would believe her.)  Being right, having knowledge, ethics and honesty on your side are weak forces of social change compared to celebrity, wealth, propaganda, manipulation of mass media, ideology and cognitive bias.  The devolution of skepticism into cynicism is no help either.

Change requires consensus

You and I are the "monkeys in the middle" as the ball gets passed back and forth between the state and the market. (I'm assuming you've played the game of my analogy sometime in your life.)  As voters we can influence the state; as consumers the market.  However, our influence is entirely dependent on our ability to act collectively; as individuals it is virtually nonexistent.  Have you noticed that in an era when we have enormous amounts of information and data at our individual fingertips, the possibility of consensus has grown evermore remote?  Society at every level--global, national, local--has grown more polarized.   The media, which once had a decisive effect on both the state and the market, has become nigh on irrelevant as journalists have become news-readers, panelists, gossips, messengers of pre-packaged press releases and cheerleaders for the cognitive biases of their particular readership.

The Rules of "monkey in the middle"

Even "monkey in the middle" has rules.  The basic rule is that there must always be a distance between the players so that the "monkey" has a chance to catch the ball as it is thrown back and forth overhead.  This is the rule we all need to be concerned about.   For example, Tirole points out that there is a distinct "lack of enthusiasm shown by most economists toward industrial policy."  "Industrial policies"; that is, governments attempting to pick and choose winners and losers in the market through subsidies and tax breaks, frequently fail because "politicians and voters lack information about the technologies, sectors and businesses that will produce tomorrow's economic wealth."

The Separation of state and market

While the state has the obligation to provide conditions for thriving markets, its presumed objective is the wealth and welfare of the citizenry.  We are all too familiar with the scandals of companies and lobby groups which seem to have taken control of the government.  The risks of Western democracies devolving into oligarchies and plutocracies seem evermore imminent as we have all come to accept that elections are won by campaigns and campaigns are won with ever larger sums of money.  We are called upon to vote for candidates we have likely never met based on slogans and sound bites tailored to appeal to what some guru or algorithm has determined to be our cognitive biases.  The solution isn't revolution; it's more self-awareness, diligence, consciousness and conscientiousness.

Overcoming cognitive bias

Overcoming my own cognitive bias is a challenge.  I recognize that I am left-leaning and quick (perhaps too quick) to see signs of capitalist greed corrupting both the market and the state.  I would like to know more about the experiences of businesses dealing with the state.  In my online review of various sites dealing with "why small businesses fail," none of them mention problems with the state. However, whenever I read blogs or op-eds with a pro-business perspective, the ideological anti-state rhetoric seems consistently inflated.

The Rhetoric on "passive income"

 "Time Hasn't Taken The Sting Out Of Feds' Attack On Small Business" is a good example of the rhetoric.  At issue is the Canadian tax rate on "passive income."  "Passive income" is money that you earn without having to work for that specific amount; in other words, money earned by money invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and so on.  In order to encourage small businesses the Federal tax rate on businesses with fewer than 100 employees is 10%.  The debate is about how profit should be taxed when it comes not from your business but from investments made outside your business.  Should your "passive income" be taxed at the same rate as everyone else's investment income (including pension income), or should this money be taxed at the lower small-business tax rate of 10%?  Up until 2017 when the Liberal Government changed the rules, the answer was that if you followed the right tax procedures (often described as "loopholes"), your passive income was taxed as if it was small-business income.

Context and comparisons

Let's put the issue in perspective.  If you are a full time, permanent employee at a MacDonald's, you probably earn around $26,000 a year (salaries at a MacDonald's franchise can go up to $75,000 for an Operations Manager).  The tax rate on your $26,000 salary will be around 15%.

If you own the MacDonald's, you are probably making $150,000 a year in profit.  That $150,000 is taxed at the small-business rate of 10%.  No-one is debating this difference in tax rate.  No-one is questioning the idea that the MacDonald's owner takes on risks and responsibilities that allow him to earn that profit while paying a lot of bills and employing people, and he therefore gets the additional reward of a lower tax rate than his employees'.

In fact, to get to the issue of "passive income" tax rates, you have to imagine someone significantly wealthier than your average MacDonald's owner.  In order for the new rules to apply, you have to imagine someone with more than a million dollars in investments.  So let's imagine that our MacDonald's man has 10 franchises.  He is therefore pulling in 1.5 million dollars annually and, as long as he has fewer than 100 employees, can continue to pay the 10% tax rate.  After a few years our MacDonald's man has 2 million saved up.  He invests the 2 million, and makes an annual 5% return on his investments; that is, 100 thousand dollars.  Finally, we have made it to the question of "passive income":  What tax rate should the MacDonald's man pay on this 100 thousand of passive income?"

How should passive income be taxed?

Should our hypothetical business man pay the small business tax rate of 10% on his 100-thousand of passive income?  The Conservative answer is yes.  This was the status quo until 2017.

Should our imagined MacDonald's owner pay the normal (what everyone pays) tax rate on this 100 thousand of investment profit?  Interestingly, no-one is suggesting this possibility.

The Liberal solution, which became law in 2017-18, is that the MacDonald's man will pay the 10% tax rate on the first $50,000 and the normal rate on amounts over $50,000.  This is the new regulation that is being described as the "Feds' Attack on Small Business."

Economics, finance and education

Okay, I haven't quite succeeded in overcoming my socialist cognitive bias.  I first encountered the issue of tax rates on passive income when some of my former students (none of them multi-millionaires) shared a a video on my Facebook feed of Conservative MP, Michelle Rempel, railing against this Liberal attack on farmers and small businesses.  My students, in their comments, shared Minister Rempel's outrage at this attack on farmers and small businesses.  How many farmers do you know with more than a million dollars invested in the stock market?  Tirole has got it right; we all need to learn a lot more about economics and finance.

Extradition from Canada to the USA: Why Meng's Chances of a Favourable Canadian Verdict Are Slim

Extradition by the numbers

This Extradition Fact Sheet from a Government of Canada website provides statistics on Canada-to-the-USA extradition cases over a ten year period from 2008 to 2018.  As you can see, once a  case is before a Canadian judge (as Meng's is now) only 8 times (total number of discharges/refusals in 10 years) of 798 US extradition requests has the court ruled in favour of the individual resisting extradition--roughly 1% of the time.

Fiscal YearTable note *	Total number of requests	Arrests	ATP’s Issued	Order of Committals	Total number of discharges/ refusals	Withdrawals	Total number of people surrendered
2008-2009	97	84	67	40	0	1	61
2009-2010	118	65	63	30	1	3	49
2010-2011	132	71	58	16	1	6	61
2011-2012	117	93	72	31	0	2	81
2012-2013	101	95	66	34	3	6	65
2013-2014	53	49	43	34	1	7	58
2014-2015	47	53	38	29	1	5	52
2015-2016	44	34	30	29	0	2	41
2016-2017	40	35	32	21	1	6	49
2017-2018	49	47	38	23	0	2	35
TOTAL	798	626	507	287	8	40	552

 A CBC News report on the "High Rate of Canadian Extraditions" described the need for reform.  As Robert Currie, a professor of law at Dalhousie University, described the Canadian system, "Once you are sought for extradition, your goose is pretty much cooked."

Best chance of avoiding extradition before Minister issues Authority to Proceed

In the same table above, when we compare the "number of requests" to "ATPs issued" (Authority to Proceed), we discover that in 65% of cases an Authority to Proceed was granted.  In other words for a person facing extradition, the best chance of avoiding extradition (35%) comes before an ATP has been issued.  Unfortunately for Meng, On March 1, 2019, the Department of Justice issued a press release announcing:

Today, Department of Justice Canada officials issued an Authority to Proceed, formally commencing an extradition process in the case of Ms. Meng Wanzhou. 

The decision follows a thorough and diligent review of the evidence in this case. The Department is satisfied that the requirements set out by the Extradition Act for the issuance of an Authority to Proceed have been met and there is sufficient evidence to be put before an extradition judge for decision.

 

Who issues Authority to Proceed?  Justice Canada officials or the Minister?

While this press release makes anonymous "Department of Justice Canada officials" responsible for the issue of an Authority to Proceed, elsewhere the Ministry website seems clear that "The Minister of Justice must determine whether to authorize the commencement of extradition proceedings in the Canadian courts by issuing an 'Authority to Proceed'."  In other words, from December 1, 2018 to March 1, 2019, the Minister of Justice, in consultation with the International Assistance Group of the Canadian Department of Justice, had the option not to issue an "Authority to Proceed" and release Meng from house arrest.

Who issues provisional arrest warrant?  A judge or the Minister?

On December 12, 2018, Jody Wilson-Raybould issued a statement saying:  “As the Minister of Justice, I take my extradition responsibilities and obligations very seriously." In that statement Wilson-Raybould claims:

Ms. Meng was arrested pursuant to a provisional arrest warrant issued by a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia a procedure which is contemplated in both the Extradition Act and the Treaty on Extradition between Canada and the United States in circumstances where urgency has been established. The decision to seek a provisional arrest warrant from the court is made by Department of Justice officials without any political interference or direction.

However, what the Extradition Act says is:

The Minister may, after receiving a request by an extradition partner for the provisional arrest of a person, authorize the Attorney General to apply for a provisional arrest warrant 

And consequently:

A judge may, on ex parte application of the Attorney General, issue a warrant for the provisional arrest of a person

How could Wilson-Raybould claim that "a provisional arrest warrant was issued by a judge" in accordance with the Extradition Act, when the Act specifies that she as Minister of Justice was responsible for issue of the warrant?  As explained on the Public Prosecution Service of Canada website:

Extradition treaties do not themselves create an obligation or a power to arrest in Canada. They merely define the basis on which provisional arrest may be requested. The judicial power to order provisional arrest arises under section 13 of the Extradition Act, once the Minister of Justice approves the request for provisional arrest (section 12).

How could Wilson-Raybould claim that the decision was made "without political interference or direction" when the Act and the Public Prosecution Service confirm that "the Minister of Justice approves the request"?

In Canada EXTRADITION IS POLITICAL

I must admit I have started yelling that in Canada EXTRADITION IS POLITICAL.  (By the way, kudos to David Akin for sharing my rebuttal to his ANALYSIS on his Twitter feed.  What better way to contradict my claim that journalists were censuring the discussion than to forward a link to my post.  As of today, I can report that the post has been viewed 71 times.)

I have gone looking for an answer to the question:  When the Extradition Act says "the Minister" does the text really mean anonymous "Officials of the Department of Justice"?  I have not found an answer that I can quote here, other than the glossary of definitions at the beginning of the Act which states: "Minister means the Minister of Justice."  What I have found are repeated confirmations that in Canada extradition is political.

Justice Minister David Lametti has already confirmed, in an interview with the Star that

foreign affairs will be a factor if and when it comes time for him to make what he acknowledges is a political decision whether to extradite Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou to the United States over China’s furious objections.

David Akin also confirms that

[ . . .] there will be an opportunity for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, through his justice minister, David Lametti, to intervene and, if they so choose, to block the extradition.But that opportunity comes much, much later, at the very end of the extradition proceeding.

 

The Shift from "it's not political" to "it's not political yet"

 The argument has shifted from "it's not political" to "it's not political yet." The problems with the new argument are numerous.  In the first place, someone should tell Minister of External Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, so she can stifle her strident claims that “When it comes to Ms Meng there has been no political interference ... and that is the right way for extradition requests to proceed.”

The second problem with the "let's do nothing now" approach, is that the extradition hearings in BC Supreme Court are not scheduled to start until January 2020.  The case will go on for at least two years, Canadians will languish in a Chinese prison, Canadian businesses and trade will suffer, and Canadian trade and relations with China may never fully recover.  As I commented at the beginning of the year: "if the naivety and Dudly-Do-Rightism of Canadian leadership allow the extradition hearings and detainment of Meng to continue for years, then the corporate objective of slowing down the competition will have been achieved--and the Government of Canada will have colluded in that corrupt undertaking."

The third problem with "let's wait" is that there is no legal, moral or practical reason to wait.  The Extradition Act states: "The Minister may at any time withdraw the authority to proceed and, if the Minister does so, the court shall discharge the person and set aside any order made respecting their judicial interim release or detention."  "At any time" includes right now.  If the Minister considers "all the relevant circumstances," as indicated in the law, the grounds for withdrawing the Authority to Proceed are numerous:  the original warrant is suspect, the request political, contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights regarding nationality and ethnicity, no individual has been convicted of a crime in the USA for the behaviour of which Meng is accused (business in Iran), such behaviour is definitely not a crime in Canada, and, for obvious, practical reasons she will never be imprisoned in the USA as required by the Act and the Treaty on Extradition Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America.

The fourth problem with the passive, "wait and see," "let the judge decide" attitudes of our political leadership is they grossly overestimate the power of judges in extradition cases.  As the Supreme Court of Canada Judgement outlines in McVey versus the USA, "the role of the extradition judge is limited but important:  he or she must determine whether a prima facie case exists that the conduct of the fugitive constitutes an 'extradition crime' according to Canadian law."  In this "Judgement," the Justices make the point 15 separate times that the extradition judge has "limited" functions and "modest" powers.

The solution is political, but Canadian politicians play Pontius Pilat

The point here is that unlike the Minister of Justice who is tasked with considering "all the circumstances," the extradition judge is only tasked with considering whether or not what Meng has done looks, at first glance, like bank fraud--the extraditable offense of which she is accused.  However, the Supreme Court Justices have indicated that the extradition judge cannot investigate or consider American law.  Can she,  for example, consider the fact that no individual has ever been convicted of a crime in the USA for transgressing the Iran sanctions?  It appears not.  This responsibility falls to the Minister of Justice.  The historical statistics indicate that Meng has a 99% chance of being extradited.  This is so because of the limitations of an extradition hearing and limited powers of an extradition judge, and the reluctance of the Minister of Justice to act at the end of extradition hearings.

Supreme Court of Canada confirms Minister, not a judge, has the power 

The Supreme Court Justices make the point repeatedly that the extradition judge's powers are limited, but the Minister of Justice's powers are broad:

When a request is made, the political authorities in the requested state will examine the material to see that the request complies with these terms and conditions.  The treaties also make provision for the requesting state to supply certain material whereby the requested state can determine the validity of the request and its compliance with the terms and conditions of the treaty (see Art. 9 of the treaty here (Can. T.S. 1976 No. 3)), and it is reasonable that these are the materials to be looked at in determining the issue.  In essence, the treaty obligations are of a political character to be dealt with in the absence of statute by the political authorities.

          [ . . . .]

Nowhere is the duty to consider the foreign law assigned to the extradition judge.  This, as I mentioned, is a task for the political authorities at common law, now assigned by statute to the Minister of Justice.

          [ . . . .]

In Canada, the procedure, we saw, is more fluid, the case frequently coming before the extradition judge before the formal requisition has been made.  But the substance is the same; the Minister of Justice may at any time refuse to surrender and discharge the fugitive (s. 22 of the Act).

           [ . . . .]

the Extradition Act, which we saw only requires that there be prima facie evidence of an act that constitutes a crime listed in the treaty according to the law of Canada.  In fact, the Act does not deal with proof of foreign law at all.  That, as I said, is a matter for the executive.  (The executive, in Canada, means political representatives of the Queen, in particular the Prime Minister. See https://www.lawnow.org/democratic-governance-the-constitution-and-canadas-branches-of-government/).

           [ . . . .]

[ . . .] what is really important is that a person should not be surrendered to another country for conduct that is not considered a serious crime in the requested country.  

Canada and Canadians are facing a serious situation which requires political action.  We have to stop letting our politicians off the hook with delaying, "it's not political" arguments and require them to perform the duties for which they were elected.

Canadian Politicians Were Caught Like Deer in the Headlights, but Why Are Canadian Journalists Censuring any Discussion of the Merits of Meng's Case?

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."                                                                                 

                                                     Noam Chomsky         

HSBC, "the victim," doesn't want to prosecute

After the G20 summit, President Trump let it be known that he is backtracking on the Huawei ban. Bloomberg and the Financial Times are reporting that HSBC is telling Beijing "It Is Not to Blame for Huawei CFO Arrest."  Where does that leave us?  Let's see:  HSBC is, according to the Grand Jury indictment, supposed to be the victim of Meng Wanzhou's alleged bank fraud.  The only evidence against Meng, according to the indictment, is a meeting she had with an HSBC executive and an accompanying Power Point presentation.  If the "plaintiff" and the "victim" are backing away from the case, the original warrant suspect and the evidence thin to non-existent, what's left?

It's all about Richard Donoghue, a CA Tech employee

Why is Canada still holding Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei CFO, under arrest? Why is Canada accepting that Canadians are being held in a Chinese prison or facing execution?  Why is Canada accepting the blockade of Canadian shipments of canola, pork and beef?  Why is Canada accepting this extreme deterioration of our trade and relations with China?  The answer is:  "Richard Donoghue asked us to." Yes, Canada and Canadians are facing these dire consequences because Richard Donoghue, Chief Litigator for CA Technologies (a Huawei competitor, now owned by Broadcom) who became a US Attorney in 2018, is the individual who requested Meng's arrest and is requesting her extradition.

Do Canadian journalists do any research?

"Richard Donoghue": what a dumb answer, except that it's true.  Despite the apparent conflict of interest, Canada and Canadians are facing these consequences because Richard Donoghue asked us to. I understand that our Canadian politicians panicked when faced with the request to arrest Meng and were paralyzed with fear and indecision.   "Deer in the headlights" is a very apt analogy.  Later they would have to come up with justifications for their paralysis and spread the nonsense claims that extradition is a "judicial, non-political" affair and we are "following the rule of law"--claims that are easily refuted by simply having a look at the relevant 14 pages of the  Canadian Extradition Act (pages 11 to 15 and 40 to 48).  Bizarrely, politicians of every political stripe lined up behind them without a single example of anyone looking at the details of the case or the law.  However, what continues to baffle and confound me is the refusal of Canadian journalists to allow any serious discussion of the case, in particular, the merits of Meng's defence.

Is the Meng arrest justified according to Canadian law?

Last week I watched a "rebroadcast" on CBC News of Natasha Fatah hosting a panel of three commentators to discuss Canada-China relations.  "How is it possible," I asked myself, "for four journalists to discuss current Canada-China relations, and never get around to the facts (let alone the legality) of our arresting and holding Meng Wanzhou?"

David Akin of Global News seemed to offer some hope of an open discussion with his "ANALYSIS: Trudeau cannot just order Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou to go free — or can he?"   Those three words-- "or can he?"-- are the nearest I have seen to any Canadian journalist opening up discussion of the grounds for Meng's release.  However the "analysis" turns out to be the usual diatribe designed to close down any rational dialogue.  Although Akin begins by noting that former Prime Minister Jean Chretien has joined John McCallum in discussing the possibility of releasing Meng Wanzhou, he then quotes University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that “I think it’s shocking. [ . . . .] I think that’s absolutely inappropriate. If they want to make those comments, run for office again.”

Who in Canada is allowed to question Meng's arrest?

Take note of the Catch 22.  We have been told that elected officials and their appointees are not allowed to comment (on the grounds that "politicians" and their appointees cannot comment on "judicial" affairs).  Now we are being told that you have to be elected to comment.  Once you have eliminated both the elected and the un-elected, who's left?  We have to wonder, who is this Amir Attaran, who would have us believe that no-one is allowed to discuss the arrest or release of Meng Wanzhou?  According to his Wikipedia page, Amir Attaran has had a very distinguished legal career. He is an American-born Iranian who specializes in medical and environment cases.  Why is a medical/environment lawyer being asked to comment on an extradition case?

We get an answer to this question by reading to the bottom of Attaran's Wikipedia page, where we discover: "In 2013, Attaran accused Peter MacKay of falsely alleging that Justin Trudeau committed a crime by smoking marijuana."  And, when Attaran launch a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against the Canadian Research Chair program  "The government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sided with Attaran [ . . .].

Finally the questions is asked:  and the answer is . . . 

Akin asks the rhetorical question "Why suffer all that pain? Why not just send Meng back to China?" Then answers:  "But we cannot. At least, not right now. Because in Canada, like most western democracies and not — this cannot be stressed enough — like China, politicians cannot simply phone up a judge and order that an accused person be set free."  The folksy tone makes this claim sound like an obvious truth, but it is an absolute falsehood.  This is what the Extradition Act actually says:

Withdrawal of the authority to proceed 

 (3) The Minister may at any time withdraw the authority to proceed and, if the Minister does so, the court shall discharge the person and set aside any order made respecting their judicial interim release or detention.

According to Canadian law, extradition is a political decision

"The Minister" in this case is Minister of Justice.  So yes, a politician, according to the law, can put an end to these proceedings and have Meng released "at any time."

Akin claims that

Meng’s case is right now: before Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes of the British Columbia Supreme Court. 

If Holmes does eventually rule that Canada should honour the extradition request by the United States — which has charged Meng with fraud in association with alleged violations of Huawei on American sanctions on trading with Iran — and surrender her to American authorities, there will be an opportunity for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, through his justice minister, David Lametti, to intervene and, if they so choose, to block the extradition.

There is some truth in this claim, but it seems to deliberately get the chronology of events and responsibilities upside down. The Extradition Act specifies that

The Minister may, after receiving a request by an extradition partner for the provisional arrest of a person, authorize the Attorney General to apply for a provisional arrest warrant, if the Minister is satisfied that  

(a) the offence in respect of which the provisional arrest is requested is punishable in accordance with paragraph 3(1)(a); [i.e., that the crime is punishable by two years of imprisonment] 

and (b) the extradition partner will make a request for the extradition of the person.

As the Justice Committee hearings on SNC-Lavalin revealed, we have an odd situation in Canada in which the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General are the same person.  The Lavalin scandal was about the fact that the government was putting pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould in her role as Attorney General.  Minister of Justice is a political office, distinct from the Attorney General.

Consider how this single paragraph of the law contradicts so much of what we have been told about the Meng case.  First, extraditions are clearly and explicitly political decisions in Canada.  Second, the Minister of Justice is the first to receive a request for extradition (and it is "a request"; so much for "we had no choice").  Third, the Minister of Justice authorizes the arrest, not a judge.  Fourth, once the Minister of Justice has given the authorization, the Attorney General can instruct a provincial judge (in this case ACJ Heather Holmes) to issue the arrest warrant.  What Akin's claim gets right is that the Minister of Justice can intervene "at any time," including after ACJ Holmes has made her decision.

 How can any Canadian claim we are "following the law"?

The law is explicit:

Powers of the Minister

Assurances et conditions 

(3) The Minister may seek any assurances that the Minister considers appropriate from the extradition partner, or may subject the surrender to any conditions that the Minister considers appropriate,

Not only does the law make it plain that the Minister of Justice (a politician) is responsible for the extradition, it lays out the specific circumstances in which a request for extradition is to be refused:

Reasons for Refusal

order not to be made 

 44 (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that 

(a) the surrender would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances; or

(b) the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status or that the person’s position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons.

When order not to be made  

 46 (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that  

[ . . . .]

(c) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a political offence or an offence of a political character

And finally:

48 (1) If the Minister decides not to make a surrender order, the Minister shall order the discharge of the person.

Ignoring the law, then bragging about our "unwavering insistence of the rule of law"

Without a single citation from the law or even mention of the Canadian Extradition Act, Akin concludes:

Canada is a nation of laws with a fully independent judiciary to interpret and enforce those laws. Full stop. 

And the nations of the world — Chretien and McCallum, notwithstanding — can take inspiration and comfort from Canada’s unwavering insistence on the rule of law.

Petrodollar Warfare: Understanding the US Obsession with Iran

First invasion of Iraq 1991

When the USA was planning its first invasion of Iraq, a young Kuwaiti nurse testified before Congress  describing Iraqi soldiers pulling infants out of their incubators and tossing them on the floor.  The "nurse" turned out to be a princess of the Kuwaiti royal family, and her testimony pure fiction. However, her story created the needed public support for the invasion.

Second invasion of Iraq 2003

As the USA was preparing its second invasion of Iraq, Colin Powell was tasked with presenting "irrefutable" evidence that Saddam Hussein was producing weapons of mass destruction.  Powell's presentation together with the totally fatuous belief, held by some Americans, that Hussein was responsible for 9/11 were sufficient to once again garner support for a war against Iraq.  As is well known at this point, the proclaimed purpose of the war was baseless--no WMDs or facilities were found.

USA preparing for war in Iran

As the USA once again prepares to go to war in the Middle East, this time against Iran, perhaps it's time to ask why.  What is the "real" reason the USA is about to invade Iran?  The answer is for the same reason the USA invaded Iraq:  petrodollars.  There are hundreds of sites on the internet which will give you a more detailed, sophisticated description and expert explanation of petrodollars than I will give you here.  As usual, I am shocked by my own ignorance.  However . . .

Petrodollars are basically another name for American dollars, but to understand the significance of this simple fact we need a primer on how money works.  Imagine you are looking at a house and the price is one million USD.  We always think in terms of what the house or the product or the service is worth in terms of money, but we rarely ask "What is $1,000,000 worth?"

Prior to the 1970s it was easy to say what one American dollar was worth, because the USA promised to maintain a stockpile of gold and every American dollar was backed up by that gold.  However in the early 70s the USA was no longer able to maintain a sufficient amount of gold to back up the amount of money they were spending on the Vietnam War.  Richard Nixon announced that the US dollar was no longer on the gold standard.

How the "gold standard" became the "petrodollar"

Keep in mind that money, the US dollar, for example, is physically just paper or pixels--pretty worthless.   The challenge for the USA was:  How do you make your money worth something when you don't have the gold or resources or anything else to back up the trillions and trillions of dollars you want to create and spend?   The answer is that the USA made a deal with the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia--the largest oil producing country in the world.  "We will buy your oil and provide you with military protection against any and all your enemies.  In return, you agree to only sell your oil for American dollars."  Eventually, all the OPEC countries signed on to the same deal.  Over time, virtually all oil transactions world-wide would come to be conducted using American dollars.

Why is an American dollar worth something even in China or Japan or Sweden or Australia?  Because you are going to need American dollars if you want to buy oil, and every industrialized country in the world needs oil (so far).  Oil remains the most valuable resource on the planet. From an American perspective this means you can print paper money and produce pixel dollars, endlessly running up deficits and debts, but you don't have to worry about your money losing its value because virtually every country in the world has a vested interest in maintaining the value of the US dollar because they have some and they need them to buy oil.

As William Clark puts it in Petrodollar Warfare, "No longer backed by gold, the dollar became backed by black gold."  The irony is, of course, that the American dollar isn't backed by American oil; it's backed by oil from other countries.  What happens if some countries and some oil producers decide that they want to start buying and selling oil in a currency other than American dollars?

Military defense of oil, the USD and the petrodollar seems inevitable

The USA is the largest debtor nation in the world.  The USA spends more on its defense and runs larger deficits than any other country in the world.  The economy of the USA (including the strength of its military) depends on oil, the US dollar, and the connection between these two.  If you are still wondering why the USA invaded Iraq in 2003, as Williams points out: "On September 24, 2000, Saddam Hussein emerged from a meeting of his government and proclaimed that Iraq would soon transition its oil export transactions to the euro currency."

Iran has also announced its intention to sell oil for Euros and other currencies--as has Venezuela.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWtIu7mbnbM&feature=youtu.be

Is Education the Answer to Economic Inequality? Not in the USA.

Education can't solve economic inequality

When my guru forwarded Nick Hanauer's article in The Atlantic, "Better Schools Won't Fix America," I devoured it enthusiastically.  Hanauer, a wealthy American philanthropist, with considerable credentials as a patron of education in the USA, was disavowing the dogma that education can erase the income gap--a dogma he calls "educationalism."  Hanauer's criticism of his  cohorts in the 1% is scalding.  "Educationalism," Hanauer writes, "appeals to the wealthy and powerful because it tells us what we want to hear: that we can help restore shared prosperity without sharing our wealth or power."

Global education versus American education

The article does not devalue education, but debunks a generalized notion that education alone can solve economic inequality.  His argument, in a nutshell, is that "great public schools are the product of a thriving middle class, not the other way around."  However, in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which is arguably the Bible for crusaders against income inequality,  Thomas Piketty, argues that "the poor catch up with the rich to the extent that they achieve the same level of technological know-how, skill and education, [ . . .]."

The world's poor and the American lower middle class

How can we rectify this shared preoccupation with wealth inequality leading to such different conclusions?  The simple answer is that Hanauer is talking about the USA  (once known as the land of opportunity) and Piketty's perspective is global.  As Steve Pinker observes, in Enlightenment Now, "the world's poor have gotten richer in part at the expense of the American lower middle class."

"The American lower middle class" (whom Pinker identifies as the Trump constituency) were exactly the people who were ill prepared to take advantage of globalization.  In contrast, highly educated individuals from emerging economies, whose expertise, skills and products easily crossed national boundaries or flourished in cyberspace, enriched not only themselves but their home countries as well.

Education and the classroom

The American vision of education (which tends to be shared by most Canadians) is that it begins and ends in the classroom.  The classroom, if you stop and think about it, is a very poor learning environment.  A lot has to happen outside the classroom if the education which is initiated there is going take hold and have any effect.

Money isn't usually the purpose of an education

Economic advantage is rarely the unique objective of education, but most people, quite rightly, expect  economic stability, if not affluence, to be a beneficial side effect of an education.  That expectation is frequently disappointed.  The problem is that cost effectiveness and capital gains (in every sense of these terms) have come to dominate the thinking of both educational institutions and some individual educators.  When everyone is asking "What's in it for me?" the average student is left out in the cold.

The simple solution

Hanuaer's got it right that putting more wealth into the hands of Americans in the bottom half of the socio-economic ladder is the obvious, Occam's-razor solution to wealth inequality.  He's also right that education in the USA would improve if more American families were empowered with the affluence, influence and the confidence to make themselves part of the educational process, rather than turning over the young of America to schools and universities in the vain hope that education will just happen, and the future will, magically, be richer and brighter than the past.