As China moves ahead with the trials of two detained Canadians, experts say the government should have taken a stronger stance against the Chinese government – and that early efforts to allow common sense to prevail have since been proven fruitless.
Their comments come as Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau confirmed on Wednesday that the Canadian Embassy in Beijing has been notified of the court dates for the two Canadians, Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig.
“At the outset, there was this feeling that by following what I call an appeasement strategy, that common sense would prevail and that eventually, our two Canadians would be free,” said Guy Saint-Jacques, a former Canadian ambassador to China.
“We should have reacted more strongly because, you know, when you look at what has been accomplished so far. Well…we have had zero result.”
The pair known as the Two Michaels have been detained in China since 2018, when they were thrown in Chinese jail in apparent retaliation for Canada’s arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver.
0:39 China says it ‘fully’ safeguards rights of ‘2 Michaels’ after report that trial will come soon
China says it ‘fully’ safeguards rights of ‘2 Michaels’ after report that trial will come soon
In the years since, China has made it clear that the cases are linked in their eyes. As a result, they’ve been applying pressure on Canada to release the executive.
Canada has taken some steps to push back on China. Canadian politicians, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau, have repeatedly and vocally expressed their opposition to the politically-motivated detentions.
The Canadian government has also pushed allies to raise Spavor and Kovrig’s plights in their dealings with China. The conversations have led to public displays of support, including comments that U.S. President Joe Biden made following a meeting with Trudeau in late February.
Story continues below advertisement
“Human beings are not bartering chips,” Biden said at the time.
“We’re going to work together until we get their safe return. Canada and the United States will stand together against abuse of universal rights and democratic freedom.”
Canada also spearheaded the global signing of a declaration denouncing state-sponsored arbitrary detention of foreign nationals for political purposes, a move that infuriated China as 58 countries added their names in support.
1:43 Canada’s foreign affairs minister says he raised issue of Michael Kovrig, Spavor detentions to U.S. counterpart Blinken
Canada’s foreign affairs minister says he raised issue of Michael Kovrig, Spavor detentions to U.S. counterpart Blinken – Feb 26, 2021
However, much of this visible pushback on China has been a recent move – and Charles Burton, a senior fellow and China expert at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, says strength was needed from the moment the two Canadians were detained.
Story continues below advertisement
“The Canadian government has consistently said that quiet diplomacy, negotiations in secret would be the way to achieve Kovrig and Spavor’s release. But after 860-some days of incarceration, clearly that policy has not succeeded,” Burton told Global News in an interview.
Burton explained that China believed if they applied enough pressure to Canada, the government would acquiesce and influence our judiciary to release Meng. However, that’s not possible in Canada, where politics are not designed to hold sway over the justice system.
“I don’t think that we did enough to make it clear to the Chinese government that scenario was not going to pan out, nor did we retaliate in any objective way by, say, imposing sanctions on the Chinese officials implicated in the detainment and brutal treatment of Kovrig and Spavor,” Burton said.
Saint-Jacques echoed the idea that some form of firm action should have been applied against the Chinese, whether it be preventing Chinese delegations from coming to Canada or refusing to allow Chinese athletes to train for the Winter Olympics in Canada.
“All this to show to China that we would – we could – retaliate, even if they consider us as insignificant,” Saint-Jacques said.
And now, a frustrating trial process lies ahead for Spavor and Kovrig. Canadian officials have not yet been granted permission to attend the trial, which is already closed to both the media and the public, and will be conducted in a judicial system that boasts a 99.99 per cent conviction rate.
Story continues below advertisement
0:41 Biden calls on China to release Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor
Biden calls on China to release Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor – Feb 23, 2021
It’s a familiar story for Peter Humphrey, a former Reuters journalist who was himself imprisoned in China while working as a fraud investigator there in 2013.
While he won the right to have an open trial, it wasn’t truly open when his court date came to pass.
“The media were kept in another room somewhere else in the building, watching screens with a very delayed and censored feed from the courtroom,” Humphrey told Global News.
“They didn’t allow any defense evidence to be presented. So we were completely crippled in that trial.”
He explained that this is the kind of unfair trial that Spavor and Kovrig can expect to face during their court dates in the coming days.
“You’re not going to see a real trial here. What you’re going to see is a deliberate act of humiliation,” Humphrey said.
Story continues below advertisement
“These two men have, actually, no real means of defending themselves.”
Meanwhile, the heat is on for Canada to take action to free the two Canadians as they face a looming decision on the espionage charges, a crime that is punishable in China by life in prison and carries a minimum sentence of 10 years.
Burton noted, however, that the negotiations to try to free Spavor and Kovrig may not really be in Canada’s hands anymore.
“The Canadian government’s essentially passive response to the hostage diplomacy has more or less dealt us out of the negotiations with China,” he said.
“We have nothing on the table with regard to Kovrig and Spavor. So it does seem to me that Canada is more or less standing idly by while the United States and China try and sort this matter out.”
2:15 Chinese ambassador’s claims at odds with Trudeau
Chinese ambassador’s claims at odds with Trudeau – Mar 3, 2021
However, both Burton and Saint-Jacques acknowledged that recent actions show that Canada is beginning to chart a more firm path when it comes to its dealings with China.
Story continues below advertisement
Between the recent recognition in the House of Commons that China’s treatment of the Uyghurs constitutes genocide and the Canada-led declaration denouncing state-sponsored arbitrary detention, China has been repeatedly angered by Canada of late – indicating the government may be starting to feel more comfortable stepping on China’s toes.
When asked if he feels Canada is getting a bit stronger on China, Saint-Jacques said he thinks “it’s moving in that direction.”
However, both Burton and Saint-Jacques agreed that more change is needed.
“I feel that the way the Canadian government has handled (the detentions) has not produced the desired result and that we should really do a very strong reassessment of how we approach this regime in light of how things have been developing,” Burton said.
0:54 China warns U.S. to stay out of Hong Kong affairs ahead of summit
China warns U.S. to stay out of Hong Kong affairs ahead of summit
Saint-Jacques pointed out that it can be difficult for a country of Canada’s size to stand up to a global superpower like China. However, the perfect opportunity for Canada to link up with like-minded countries on the issue is looming: Biden’s Summit of Democracy in April.
Story continues below advertisement
“I think that now, everyone understands that China is a strategic competitor and we have to agree on common measures to oppose China and to protect and defend our interests and values,” Saint-Jacques said.
“Otherwise, it’s China that will dictate the terms of the relationship in the future.”
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona voters have approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion access up to fetal viability, typically after 21 weeks — a major win for advocates of the measure in the presidential battleground state who have been seeking to expand access beyond the current 15-week limit.
Arizona was one of nine states with abortion on the ballot. Democrats have centered abortion rights in their campaigns since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Abortion-rights supporters prevailed in all seven abortion ballot questions in 2022 and 2023, including in conservative-leaning states.
Arizona for Abortion Access, the coalition leading the state campaign, gathered well over the 383,923 signatures required to put it on the ballot, and the secretary of state’s office verified that enough were valid. The coalition far outpaced the opposition campaign, It Goes Too Far, in fundraising. The opposing campaign argued the measure was too far-reaching and cited its own polling in saying a majority of Arizonans support the 15-week limit. The measure allows post-viability abortions if they are necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the mother.
Access to abortion has been a cloudy issue in Arizona. In April, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for the enforcement of a long-dormant 1864 law banning nearly all abortions. The state Legislature swiftly repealed it.
Voters in Arizona are divided on abortion. Maddy Pennell, a junior at Arizona State University, said the possibility of a near-total abortion ban made her “depressed” and strengthened her desire to vote for the abortion ballot measure.
“I feel very strongly about having access to abortion,” she said.
Kyle Lee, an independent Arizona voter, does not support the abortion ballot measure.
“All abortion is pretty much, in my opinion, murder from beginning to end,” Lee said.
The Civil War-era ban also shaped the contours of tight legislative races. State Sen. Shawnna Bolick and state Rep. Matt Gress are among the handful of vulnerable Republican incumbents in competitive districts who crossed party lines to give the repeal vote the final push — a vote that will be tested as both parties vie for control of the narrowly GOP-held state Legislature.
Both of the Phoenix-area lawmakers were rebuked by some of their Republican colleagues for siding with Democrats. Gress made a motion on the House floor to initiate the repeal of the 1864 law. Bolick, explaining her repeal vote to her Senate colleagues, gave a 20-minute floor speech describing her three difficult pregnancies.
While Gress was first elected to his seat in 2022, Bolick is facing voters for the first time. She was appointed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to fill a seat vacancy in 2023. She has not emphasized her role in the repeal vote as she has campaigned, instead playing up traditional conservative issues — one of her signs reads “Bolick Backs the Blue.”
Voters rejected a measure to eliminate retention elections for state Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices.
The measure was put on the ballot by Republican legislators hoping to protect two conservative justices up for a routine retention vote who favored allowing the Civil War-era ban to be enforced — Shawnna Bolick’s husband, Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, and Justice Kathryn Hackett King. Since the measure did not pass, both are still vulnerable to voter ouster, though those races hadn’t been decided by early Wednesday morning.
Under the existing system, voters decide every four to six years whether judges and justices should remain on the bench. The proposed measure would have allowed the judges and justices to stay on the bench without a popular vote unless one is triggered by felony convictions, crimes involving fraud and dishonesty, personal bankruptcy or mortgage foreclosure.
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska voters supported a measure Tuesday that enshrines the state’s current ban on abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy in the state constitution, and they rejected a competing measure that sought to expand abortion rights. Nebraska was the first state to have competing abortion amendments on the same ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending the nationwide right to abortion and allowing states to decide for themselves. The dueling measures were among a record number of petition-initiated measures on Nebraska’s ballot Tuesday.
What were the competing abortion measures?
A majority of voters supported a measure enshrining the state’s current ban on abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in the state constitution. The measure will also allow for further restrictions. Last year, the Legislature passed the 12-week ban, which includes exceptions for cases of rape and incest and to protect the life of the pregnant woman.
Voters rejected the other abortion measure. If they had passed it by a larger number of “for” votes than the 12-week measure, it would have amended the constitution to guarantee the right to have an abortion until viability — the standard under Roe that is the point at which a fetus might survive outside the womb. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.
Abortion was on the ballot in several other states, as well. Coming into the election, voters in all seven states that had decided on abortion-related ballot measures since the reversal of Roe had favored abortion rights, including in some conservative states.
Who is behind the Nebraska abortion measures?
The 12-week ban measure was bankrolled by some of Nebraska’s wealthiest people, including Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, who previously served as governor and donated more than $1.1 million. His mother, Marlene Ricketts, gave $4 million to the cause. Members of the Peed family, which owns publishing company Sandhills Global, also gave $1 million.
The effort was organized under the name Protect Women and Children and was heavily backed by religious organizations, including the Nebraska Catholic Conference, a lobbying group that has organized rallies, phone banks and community townhalls to drum up support for the measure.
The effort to enshrine viability as the standard was called Protect Our Rights Nebraska and had the backing of several medical, advocacy and social justice groups. Planned Parenthood donated nearly $1 million to the cause, with the American Civil Liberties Union, I Be Black Girl, Nebraska Appleseed and the Women’s Fund of Omaha also contributing significantly to the roughly $3.7 million raised by Protect Our Rights.
What other initiatives were on Nebraska’s ballot?
Nebraska voters approved two measures Tuesday that will create a system for the use and manufacture of medical marijuana, if the measures survive an ongoing legal challenge.
The measures legalize the possession and use of medical marijuana, and allow for the manufacture, distribution and delivery of the drug. One would let patients and caregivers possess up to 5 ounces (142 grams) of marijuana if recommended by a doctor. The other would create the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, which would oversee the private groups that would manufacture and dispense the drug.
Those initiatives were challenged over allegations that the petition campaign that put them on the ballot broke election rules. Nebraska’s attorney general said supporters of the measures may have submitted several thousand invalid signatures, and one man has been charged in connection with 164 allegedly fraudulent signatures. That means a judge could still invalidate the measures.
Voters also opted Tuesday to repeal a new conservative-backed law that allocates millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund private school tuition.
Finally, they approved a measure that will require all Nebraska employers to provide at least 40 hours of paid sick leave to their employees.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Voters in Missouri cleared the way to undo one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans in one of seven victories for abortion rights advocates, while Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota defeated similar constitutional amendments, leaving bans in place.
Abortion rights amendments also passed in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana. Nevada voters also approved an amendment, but they’ll need to pass it again it 2026 for it to take effect. Another that bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes” prevailed in New York.
The results include firsts for the abortion landscape, which underwent a seismic shift in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a ruling that ended a nationwide right to abortion and cleared the way for bans to take effect in most Republican-controlled states.
They also came in the same election that Republican Donald Trump won the presidency. Among his inconsistent positions on abortion has been an insistence that it’s an issue best left to the states. Still, the president can have a major impact on abortion policy through executive action.
In the meantime, Missouri is positioned to be the first state where a vote will undo a ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with an amendment that would allow lawmakers to restrict abortions only past the point of a fetus’ viability — usually considered after 21 weeks, although there’s no exact defined time frame.
But the ban, and other restrictive laws, are not automatically repealed. Advocates now have to ask courts to overturn laws to square with the new amendment.
“Today, Missourians made history and sent a clear message: decisions around pregnancy, including abortion, birth control, and miscarriage care are personal and private and should be left up to patients and their families, not politicians,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement.
Roughly half of Missouri’s voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 2,200 of the state’s voters. But only about 1 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in all cases; nearly 4 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in most cases.
Bans remain in place in three states after votes
Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota became the first states since Roe was overturned where abortion opponents prevailed on a ballot measure. Most voters supported the Florida measure, but it fell short of the required 60% to pass constitutional amendments in the state. Most states require a simple majority.
The result was a political win for Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican with a national profile, who had steered state GOP funds to the cause. His administration has weighed in, too, with a campaign against the measure, investigators questioning people who signed petitions to add it to the ballot and threats to TV stations that aired one commercial supporting it.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the result is “a momentous victory for life in Florida and for our entire country,” praising DeSantis for leading the charge against the measure.
The defeat makes permanent a shift in the Southern abortion landscape that began when the state’s six-week ban took effect in May. That removed Florida as a destination for abortion for many women from nearby states with deeper bans and also led to far more women from the state traveling to obtain abortion. The nearest states with looser restrictions are North Carolina and Virginia — hundreds of miles away.
“The reality is because of Florida’s constitution a minority of Florida voters have decided Amendment 4 will not be adopted,” said Lauren Brenzel, campaign director for the Yes on 4 Campaign said while wiping away tears. “The reality is a majority of Floridians just voted to end Florida’s abortion ban.”
In South Dakota, another state with a ban on abortion throughout pregnancy with some exceptions, the defeat of an abortion measure was more decisive. It would have allowed some regulations related to the health of the woman after 12 weeks. Because of that wrinkle, most national abortion-rights groups did not support it.
Voters in Nebraska adopted a measure that allows more abortion restrictions and enshrines the state’s current 12-week ban and rejected a competing measure that would have ensured abortion rights.
Other states guaranteed abortion rights
Arizona’s amendment will mean replacing the current law that bans abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The new measure ensures abortion access until viability. A ballot measure there gained momentum after a state Supreme Court ruling in April found that the state could enforce a strict abortion ban adopted in 1864. Some GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats to repeal the law before it could be enforced.
In Maryland, the abortion rights amendment is a legal change that won’t make an immediate difference to abortion access in a state that already allows it.
It’s a similar situation in Montana, where abortion is already legal until viability.
The Colorado measure exceeded the 55% of support required to pass. Besides enshrining access, it also undoes an earlier amendment that barred using state and local government funding for abortion, opening the possibility of state Medicaid and government employee insurance plans covering care.
A New York equal rights law that abortion rights group say will bolster abortion rights also passed. It doesn’t contain the word “abortion” but rather bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Sasha Ahuja, campaign director of New Yorkers for Equal Rights, called the result “a monumental victory for all New Yorkers” and a vote against opponents who she says used misleading parental rights and anti-trans messages to thwart the measure.
The results end a win streak for abortion-rights advocates
Until Tuesday, abortion rights advocates had prevailed on all seven measures that have appeared on statewide ballots since the fall of Roe.
The abortion rights campaigns have a big fundraising advantage this year. Their opponents’ efforts are focused on portraying the amendments as too extreme rather than abortion as immoral.
Currently, 13 states are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions. Four more bar abortion in most cases after about six weeks of pregnancy — before women often realize they’re pregnant. Despite the bans, the number of monthly abortions in the U.S. has risen slightly, because of the growing use of abortion pills and organized efforts to help women travel for abortion. Still, advocates say the bans have reduced access, especially for lower-income and minority residents of the states with bans.
The issue is resonating with voters. About one-fourth said abortion policy was the single most important factor for their vote, according to AP VoteCast, a sweeping survey of more than 110,000 voters nationwide. Close to half said it was an important factor, but not the most important. Just over 1 in 10 said it was a minor factor.
The outcomes of ballot initiatives that sought to overturn strict abortion bans in Florida and Missouri were very important to a majority of voters in the states. More than half of Florida voters identified the result of the amendment as very important, while roughly 6 in 10 of Missouri’s voters said the same, the survey found.
___
Associated Press reporters Hannah Fingerhut and Amanda Seitz contributed to this article.
___
This article has been corrected to reflect in the ‘other states’ section that Montana, not Missouri, currently allows abortion until viability.
