Lai should be sent back china no matter what excuse.
By: superman on 四月 6, 2007 at 6:29 下午
What a shame that quality of dial-in listeners are so low..
Those who advocate to send him back despite the risk of
1, Unfair trial
2, Death penalty
should have their Canadian citizenship or immigrant status revoked immediately and sent back to China.
Culprits (Lai is probably, if not definitely, one) find loopholes in the law and use the excuse of humanity to get permission to stay in Canada and avoid from repatriation to the country where the crimes were committed. It is normal that we, citizens who have done nothing against the laws and worked hard to protect the well-being of our society, feel aggrieved because public funds have been wasted for the law suits in connection with their issues and these culprits can be our neighbors. However, we have to remember that this is the cost we have to pay for maintaining a society with human rights and freedom. I think most, if not all, of us won’t come to Canada if she doesn’t have such a well- established legal system.
I agree to Michael’s point of view. If you are living in a country where its legal system is not a mature one, you are still not able to get the same status as your government in a court case against her even though you are financially capable. I’m very reluctant to point out that in my broadly defined Motherland (I’ve sworn to be a Canadian), China, the lawyers (who are paid by those involved in the legal proceedings) facing the government cannot fulfill their duties in political-related court cases as their counterparts do in countries with a mature legal system. As I have said in my previous entry, permitting culprits like Lai to stay in Canada is the cost we have to pay to maintain a society with freedom and human rights. The reason why we have to pay the cost is simply because the countries where they came from do not have a well-established legal system.
Here is an excerpt from: http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/1/1/3/n29179.htm
Here is another link about the death of his brother, which is among other people who either died or will be dying in a Chinese jail mainly becaus of him:
So much for the guarantee of his safety in the Chinese judicial system after his extradition, if it ever happens.
This is by no means a mom-and-pop smuggling of a 6-pack from Buffalo to Toronto, Lai has built an entire empire that systematically controlled the import and export business in and around the Guangdong province to support his lavish lifestyle. The extent of his bribery in mainland China was staggering. He carefully studied the habits and weaknesses of each of his preys (government officials, reporters, etc.) before he flooded their bank accounts with large sums of bribe.
By: 獨孤求丙 on 四月 9, 2007 at 12:13 上午
I’d agree with the opinions expressed by many.
Here are some of my thoughts in addition to some well thought ones.
(1) Lai was a very legendary figure who had emerged to become a very successful smuggler from a “peasant". Given his lack of formal education, he was really street-smart enough to navigate in a sea of corruption by matching the right brides (as quoted by 獨孤兄’s “五子絕招") to the right people.
(2) Has anyone ever questioned the diplomatic assurance issued by the Chinese foreign ministry? Like others here say; his crime already fits for a death penalty sentence, how could someone outside the judicial system say that Lai could be exempted from the execution?
Isn’t that an irony and mockery to the independence of justice system? In fact, everybody knows that the Chinese government has her “visible” hands over the court and justice system. Even if a decision not to execute Lai was made by the highest official (President Hu or Premier Wen) rather than a judicial procedure, one can not guarantee the next official coming into power would overturn that. The issue at hand is that the decision is made by human and not by system. After Lai’s turnover, Canada will never have the power to ensure Lai would not be subject to torture or unnecessary hardship because it becomes China’s “internal affair”, not alone to visit him in jail.
(3) The emergence of Lai was no doubt unique to China, Russia, and any country where totalitarian regime has an iron grip over resources, human rights, way of thinking, etc. A free and democratic system would not allow corruption to develop in such a scale and be unchecked, I would blame the government as much as Lai for being equally corrupted. After all, Lai was using his wit to take advantage of the already corrupted system to his benefits. Imagine how a peasant and the poorest would be allowed to advance in society and be given better opportunities in nowadays China, they (peasants) are typically the victims of the corrupted systems. I am not saying I endorse him and approve his actions but he, at least unlike many other peasants, would try everything necessary to get rich. Deng promised his economic reform to allow some to be affluent but he did not mention that peasants were not part of the formula.
(4) A peasant is more or less a member of a social class whereas a farmer is more of a profession. If Lai could stay in Canada, I could hardly imagine him being a successful farmer even though he was a peasant before.
Personally, I would incline not to send Lai back to China (same reasons as 獨孤兄, Michael, and 一聽眾). With the death of Lai’s brother, I think it would present more incentive not to send him home.
It’s not necessary for Michael to categorize a few of his friends who are greedy for a few bucks as same gang as Lai. 求丙’s view points and valuable information must have made him understood how seriousness of detriment Lai has made to the society. I believe that if your friends acted in the similar ways as Lai, you would have felt insulted to have dealings with them.
However, we still believe culprits like Lai should have the same human rights as ours. Based on this belief, we can’t be hardhearted to hastily repatriate them to countries whose judicial system is biased, leading to a result that they are unable to get fair trials and their lives can be at risk.
I don’t think there will be any one who will agree to no trials to be imposed on those culprits. The problem is they can flee from their home country (probably they have bribed the officials concerned) to Canada, which is forced to entertain them. This is the cost paid by a country which treats freedom and human rights as high priority. She has to pay because there are some countries which don’t have the same high standard of these values as Canada.
You look to be agitated, resulting a fallacy in logics. If there won’t be fair trials in countries with human rights, what rationales to convince you that there’ll be fair trials in countries without human rights? Moreover, even though China has capital punishment, how can you definitely say that Lai is to be executed without going through a fair trial?
You are right. China can refuse Canada’s requests to extradite culprits, but probably for reasons other than racial discrimination and human rights. If you genuinely think that she may use these reasons for the refusals, you may be irrational in facing this issue.
In fact, you have already got the main point. Why has Canada still not repatriated Lai after judgment of repatriation has been granted by the court? The reason is the one you have said. Canada cannot make sure that Lai won’t be tortured and sentenced to death after repatriation . Why does Canada have to worry about that? It’s simply because China’s record of human rights is poor.
Another problem is a judgment-before-trial attitude. In addition, there is a pressure from the masses. Even an open-minded person like you has already said that Lai should be sentenced to death before any trial. It is not difficult to imagine what Lai’s fate will be after his repatriation.
Your remarks on Jia Qing Lin are even more horrible. Can he influence the court?
By: 一聽眾 on 四月 11, 2007 at 1:54 上午
By: 慢感人 on 四月 11, 2007 at 8:16 下午
Despite his “alleged" crimes, Lai’s case has led many to believe that Canada has become a heaven for criminals who could exploit the protection given by Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms (presumed innocent until proven guilty and not subject to cruel and unusual punishment).
No doubt, Lai and a few may have exploited that but like 一聽眾 has explained previously that that is the “price” we all have to pay for our freedom and democracy in order to protect the majority of the people for their rights and freedom.
The only way to avoid giving the slightest chance for criminals is to have every incoming Chinese immigrant and visitor subject to an entirely different set of laws in order to filter out those who try to take advantage of the system. But, that means all of them will be discriminated. That is, it creates an even bigger problem than the existing system.
I definitely agree to Cytodex’s view points. Just as what he said, screening Chinese immigrants and visitors by an entirely different set of laws is impracticable and totally unacceptable. I think, one, if not the only one, of the possible ways to solve the problem of abuse of Canadian laws in this aspect is when all or at least most of the following happen.
1. The concepts of human rights between China and Western countries can be reconciled.
2. China’s judicial system is genuinely independent.
3. People’s representatives are genuinely elected by those represented by them and they are not just acting as a rubber stamp.
4. The officials, especially those at the top level, of China government, are not scared by opposite opinions and criticisms.
5. The relationship of superiors and subordinates is not to be viewed as the same as that of masters and servants. The feudal concept of death to reciprocate should be abandoned.
It is hoped that under these circumstances, there won’t be tortures, people can speak up for themselves or through their representatives, officials are willingly to listen to people’s voices, and fair trials are possible.