By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to newly revealed details, a former Chinese spy, known as “Eric,” has shared information about his missions for China’s secret police, exposing their covert operations. From 2008 to 2023, Eric worked for the 1st Bureau at China’s Ministry of Public Security, targeting dissidents, including artist Hua Yong. Eric’s mission involved befriending Hua Yong to lure him to a country where he could be captured, though Hua ultimately ended up in Canada. Hua Yong died in B.C. in 2022 under mysterious circumstances.
Read the original article here
This Chinese ex-spy says kayaking death of a dissident in BC may not have been an accident, and the very notion opens up a can of worms, doesn’t it? It plunges us headfirst into a world where “accidents” are anything but, where shadows dance behind every official statement, and where the line between reality and plausible deniability blurs into an almost impenetrable haze. It’s a heavy thought, particularly when you consider that we’ve seemingly become desensitized to the possibility of foreign nations, or even corporations, actively silencing people. The sad truth is, even with evidence, justice often feels like a distant dream.
The more chilling aspect of this is the chilling potential impact on the average person. The very foundations of our legal systems are built on proof. But in a world where powerful entities operate with impunity, and with the ability to deflect any responsibility, the whistleblowers are few and far between. It’s hard to imagine anyone who would risk their life for so little payoff. We’re not talking about some abstract concept. We’re talking about very real individuals, silenced, and the fear this generates chills the spine. The ex-spy speaking out is now potentially at risk themselves, a reminder of the high stakes involved in exposing uncomfortable truths. Some countries, especially, have a well-documented history of “accidents” befalling those who threaten their secrets.
It’s easy to understand why the situation is described as a mess. The world is a complex place filled with individuals and organizations who would be willing to kill to protect their own interests. The issue is often not a question of “plausible deniability” as much as it is a dearth of verifiable evidence. It’s a frustrating paradox: we can suspect, we can even believe with a certainty, that a crime has been committed, yet the absence of proof effectively ties our hands.
The systemic issue of corruption is also important to address. Corporations and governments, often operating with apparent immunity, create an environment where accountability is the exception, not the rule. The focus of the current situation is to make it as difficult as possible to hold these criminals responsible.
In a global landscape where geopolitical maneuvering often takes precedence over justice and mutual respect, the situation is set to get much worse. The problem won’t be resolved, but instead, it will become an accepted form of combat between powers, at the expense of ordinary people. It is the perfect recipe for injustice to continue to fester.
This story, the suggestion that the kayaking death wasn’t an accident, is as old as time, really. Convenient “accidents” have served political and financial purposes throughout history. From ancient Egypt to the modern day, the pattern repeats itself. The justice system is built on the concept of proof and a lack of this proof makes it nearly impossible to punish those responsible. This distinction keeps society running, protecting us from the chaos of both conspiracy theories and vigilante justice.
The key question is simple: Where is the evidence? Right now, there is not any hard evidence to suggest that the kayaking death was anything but an accident. While some may disagree, this specific lack of evidence does not immediately point to foul play, however much suspicion there may be.
It’s also important to remember that not everyone is trustworthy. There are many incentives for former officials, including former spies, to make money by inventing stories of supposed misdeeds to support themselves. Even if the ex-spy is being truthful, we should scrutinize their claims. Just because the person used to be a spy doesn’t mean they have better knowledge.