Willy Hutton’s gusset dampener

Huawei may protest its innocence – it’s a private company undertaking its own research – but nobody is fooled. Every substantial company in China has a Communist party committee overseeing it.

Will Hutton’s vision for Britain is only that those who sit on the committee be different. Federasts of course, the group clearly and obviously including Willy Hutton. Other than that there’s no difference.

9 comments on “Willy Hutton’s gusset dampener

  1. With socialists, it all comes down to “like”, rather than principles.

    X is guilty of doing what I want to do. Therefore some people who read me may think X is right. But I don’t like X for personal reasons. Therefore X is wrong. And you are wrong.

    No wonder the NPC meme makes them want to stamp their feet and pout.

  2. ‘The US wants to try her on charges of busting its trade sanctions against Iran.’

    This is an outrage. Ms Meng is not a U.S. citizen. U.S. law does NOT apply to her.

    A pox on Canada for participating in this human rights violation.

  3. Gamecock,

    Huawei were buying parts from US companies that they were specifically not allowed to sell on in products to Iran. If she didn’t want to be charged under a US law she probably should have purchased her bits and pieces from elsewhere.

    That the people at the top of these companies are always commie stooges one can only enjoy this.

  4. “Ms Meng is not a U.S. citizen. U.S. law does NOT apply to her.”

    Ooo wonderful. I’m not a US citizen, can I pop over to the US and murder somebody?

  5. Ms Meng didn’t murder anyone in the U.S., dumbass. Nor did she murder a U.S. citizen in Canada.

    “Huawei were buying parts from US companies that they were specifically not allowed to sell on in products to Iran.”

    International sale of products by U.S. companies is strictly regulated. U.S. approval of sales to the ChiComs is where the problem lies. Ms Meng is a scapegoat.

  6. It may be a problem with the US export control process but if the Chinese company (Skycom?) were deliberately re-exporting to Iran then they were breaking sanctions. If that particular sanction was a UN one then the US is on solid legal ground internationally. If it’s just a US thing then perhaps it’s extra-territorial overreach.

  7. @ Gamecock
    The is the “strict liability” trap based on Code Napoleon instead of English Common Law. She has to ensure that no product has gone to Iran in order to be innocent under the US law.
    Maybe you should organise a plebiscite to reverse 1776?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.