Heavy weight! For the first time, Canadian members of Parliament publicly support the release of Meng Wanzhou

category:Finance
 Heavy weight! For the first time, Canadian members of Parliament publicly support the release of Meng Wanzhou


Mr. daliwal said the note with Mengs mobile phone code was handed to him by Scott Kirkland of Border Services Canada. Cochrane, in his testimony, claimed that he put the note in the same bag as his mobile phone due to negligence, and federal police obtained the code note. If the testimony of officer daliwal is true, the border service is suspected of violating the Customs Law and deliberately handing over the passenger information obtained by the customs to the police.

Another important detail is that the password obtained by the police includes not only the mobile phone password, but also the password of the security system of Meng Wanzhou residence, which is obviously not the privacy information that the Border Service Bureau should obtain.

Since the Canadian police handed the IMEI number and other information of Meng Wanzhous mobile phone to the Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI), it means that the U.S. law enforcement departments can obtain the detailed information of Meng Wanzhous mobile phone, such as call records and SMS.

On the same day, according to local media reports, two representatives of the Canadian federal Congress, Niki Ashton from the New Democratic Party and Paul manly from the green party, announced that they supported the demand for the release of Meng Wanzhou. Subsequently, Vancouver City Councilor Anne Roberts also announced her support for the release of Meng Wanzhou.

Just a few days ago, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau just said that he did not regret the arrest of Meng Wanzhou.

Canadian Border Service officials have repeatedly overturned written testimony

For example, in his will say statement, he said he was the person in charge of the Border Services operation against Meng Wanzhou on December 1, 2018, but in court, he said he was not responsible. His colleague Scott Kirkland said there was no designated person in charge of the operation.

For another example, he said in his civil litigation defense that he searched Meng Wanzhous information online on December 1, 2018. But in court, he said it was his boss, Bryce McRae, who was searching when he saw the information nearby. He also claimed that before questioning Meng Wanzhou that day, he called the National Security Department of border service at 13:09, but the work record of his boss Bryce McRae showed that the call was made by himself at 13:36 There are still a lot of inconsistencies in katragadas testimony.

Sign immigration restriction order before finding a reason

Defense lawyers asked him why he signed an immigration restriction order after Meng Wanzhou was arrested on December 1, 2018? Katla GADAs explanation is that this is to allow Meng Wanzhou to return to the border service after being released by the police for re-entry inspection. The lawyer then asked him why he signed the restraining order? He said that at that time, there was no reason to find out, he just had no other forms to use

A screenshot of the surveillance video of Meng Wanzhou interrogated by the Canadian Border Service on December 1, 2018 image source: CCTV news

Defense lawyers pointed out that in fact, there are relevant legal provisions for signing immigration restriction orders. Katragada replied that he did not remember how the law stipulated it. As a government official, katragada signed the immigration restriction order, but there was no reason and no other form. Such a statement is ridiculous and absurd.

Defense lawyers directly pointed out that katragadas work notes and the immigration restriction order signed were specially prepared to make others look as if the cross examination of Meng Wanzhou by the Border Service Bureau was random.

The defense lawyer asked Katla GADA, have you checked Meng Wanzhous luggage? He replied No. The lawyer asked him again, did you ask what was in Meng Wanzhous luggage? He replied that he did not remember.

In fact, he never asked Meng Wanzhou what was in his luggage, let alone checked it.

This exposed the problem:

Since it is the normal inspection of the Border Service Bureau, checking passengers luggage is an essential work. Why is he not interested in Mengs luggage? This actually shows that the inspection and cross examination of Meng Wanzhou by the Border Service Bureau is not a normal entry inspection at all.

Defense lawyers pointed out in court that katragada actually violated section 107 of Canadas Customs Act. There are the following statements:

Section 107 of CCTV news act

Prohibition - provision or use of customs information

(2) Except as authorized by this section, no person shall:

(b) Wilfully permit any person to have access to any customs information; or

The head of Canadas Border Service Bureau judged by his own intuition that it posed a threat to national security

According to China News Network on November 21, 2018, when Meng Wanzhou arrived in Vancouver from Hong Kong on December 1, 2018, Canadian law enforcement officers did not immediately arrest him according to the temporary arrest warrant, but conducted an inquiry for about 3 hours.

Sanjit Dhillon, a director of Canadas Border Service Bureau, asked questions about whether Huawei had any business in Iran and other issues that had no direct bearing on the entry inspection, such as whether Huawei had any business in Iran. He explained in court that he was worried that Bangladesh would pose a threat to Canadas national security. This worry came from the information he searched on the Internet open source website and his intuition before his flight landed. But he did not ask Meng about Canada.

Dillon also admitted in court that before the operation, he deleted the email about the arrest from the person in charge of the border service on duty. He also admitted that due to the existence of the arrest warrant, the result of the immigration inspection of Bangladesh will only make it impossible for the party concerned to enter the country. Meng Wanzhou once asked the reason for the second inspection, but Dilong did not give a positive answer and concealed the existence of the arrest warrant.

Defense lawyers believe that the purpose of the inspection of Bangladesh by Canadian border officials is to obtain information for the US and Canadian authorities through the extraordinary power of the immigration department without disclosing that she will be arrested.

Daily economic news, comprehensive CCTV news, China News Agency

Recommended reading:

Meng Wanzhous hearing in court: two witnesses admit that there are errors in the process of law enforcement

The two witnesses who have been cross examined admitted in court that they had made mistakes or mistakes in the process of law enforcement. Among them, the police officer surnamed ye from the Canadian federal police admitted that he had provided false information in the process of obtaining the arrest warrant signed by the judge. Scott Kirkland, from the Canadian border service, admitted that it was his work fault that he wrote Meng Wanzhous mobile phone code on a note that allowed police to obtain the code.

The key witness of the Canadian side refuses to testify in court in the Meng Wanzhou case

According to reports, on November 16 local time, British Columbia High Court of Canada held another hearing on Meng Wanzhou case. Ben Chang, a retired Canadian Mounted Police officer suspected of providing Meng Wanzhou electronic equipment password to the Federal Bureau of investigation, refused to testify in court. A reporter asked at a regular press conference held by the Ministry of foreign affairs this afternoon what is Chinas comment?

Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said that we have taken note of the relevant reports. This kind of cover up approach of Canada will only make more people have doubts, and at the same time more clearly see the political nature of the Meng Wanzhou incident. I would like to ask why the Canadian politicians who have been clamouring about the so-called coercive diplomacy have been playing dumb and deceiving and misleading the Canadian public about the constant doubts in the Meng Wanzhou incident.

Zhao Lijian stressed that no matter how hard Canada tries to hide the truth and mislead public opinion, it can not get rid of its responsibility. We once again urge the Canadian side to meet with the Chinese side, take measures to correct the mistakes, immediately and properly solve the Bangladesh evening boat incident, and make practical efforts to get China Canada relations back on track.