so, the media has just fastforwarded this case through all kinds of stuff...

first of all, would intervening in the case be consistent with upholding the rule of law? there's a simplistic narrative in the media that just because the law allows for a specific power abstractly, that it can therefore be used in any way desirable, without following certain customs and regulations placed down by existing precedent, which is, in fact, actually a key component of analyzing whether a specific behaviour upholds the rule of law or not, in the specific anglo-canadian legal context. i guess that, in the chinese context, power is expected to be used; in the british context, power is expected to be restrained. so, any foreign reading of our law that deduces that the presence of a power allows for it's arbitrary use on command by some type of sovereign is reading it out without the context of our legal traditions, and is consequently doing so incorrectly.

there was recently a court decision in this case that the issue should proceed. so, for the minister to intervene would be to overturn the court - explicitly, directly. in canada, we have judicial independence, and intervening it is also a disastrous breach in the rule of law; that would be overturning a set of precedents that underlies our legal traditions.

it is unclear exactly when it would be appropriate for a minister to intervene, but it would likely be at the beginning of a trial, or perhaps at the end of one. the minister may, for example, deduce that the outcome of a trial is illegitimate, for some very clear and well argued reason. or, the minister may decide, at the outset, that a trial should not take place for some also very clearly and well argued reasons. these occurrences would need to be exceedingly rare for the minister to withstand accusations of abuse, and the system to withstand reform and reversal.

what is crystal clear is that the minister cannot flagrantly intervene in the middle of proceedings because it doesn't like a specific outcome, or due to political pressure of any sort. for, that is the rule of law, in context - judicial independence, as a central component of our legal tradition.

now, what about this idea of a hostage release?

well, first, we're talking about this like the prime minister can order this woman released for that reason, which is absurd. the prime minister is not holding this woman hostage, she's being held under house arrest by an independent judicial process.

ignoring the inappropriateness of the premise, do i think that actually carrying through with a trade is going to endanger canadians? this is rooted in the premise that terrorist groups may get a greenlight to hold people hostage under the expectation of payment, but that's kind of a weird argument. first, we're talking about an exchange of humans, not a ransom payment. second, china isn't a terrorist group.

well, wait a second - i just said china isn't a terrorist group. why is it acting like one, then?

and, this is my actual reaction to the scenario - what? we're talking about a hostage exchange with china, in 2020?

china needs to be told that it needs to discard all discussion of exchanging hostages as a pre-requisite for further constructive dialogue.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7105816/china-kovrig-spavor-wanzhou-intervention/