Marc Emery, is an infamous marijuana activist from Vancouver. On January 21st an extradition hearing will begin, aimed at determining whether or not to extradict him to the US.He's been charged in the US with conspiring to manufacture and distribute marijuana. As this column by Karen Selick points out, the court is likely to recommend extradition.
Should Marc be extradited to the U.S.? The Canadian court will almost certainly say yes. It has little choice under the Extradition Act. Marcopenly admits selling marijuana seeds over the Internet to customers around the world, including the United States, for years. His conduct would have been grounds for criminal charges here, although Canadian authorities never chose to charge him. But that’s enough under the Act to make it mandatory for the judge to commit him for surrender to U.S. authorities.
So what will our government do? Well, we know that they are happy to find any issue on which they can agree with the US administration. My guess is the court will do what it must and Nicholson will not exert his power to stop it.
Whether or not you agree with Emery is not the issue. What should be concerning to all of us is how we defend our sovereignty. If he is extradited and goes to the States to stand trial, there is a good chance that he will be convicted and spend the rest of his life in prison. Obviously, this would not happen in Canada...life for a pot conviction?
I'm not sure what Selick means when she says:
The prohibition against selling marijuana seeds in Canada went unenforced for years
I don't doubt her knowledge that it is illegal, but under what law I'm not sure. You cannot be charged for trafficking if the substance you are selling does not actually contain narcotics and that is my understanding of marijuana seeds. That said, I do not have enough knowledge on the subject.
This will be yet another test that will tell us who the Con's truly are. The problem this year is the fact that 75% of Canadians believe we will have an election. Sorry I cannot find the poll yet on line, but I heard that number on the news. If 3/4's of us think there will be an election, we'll probably be paying more attention. The Con's will have to pay more attention to how they proceed. We know they do more polling than the Lib's ever did, so perhaps they will, but something tell's me their arrogance will prevent that. I'm not a betting person, but I can see Rob Nicholson standing up in the House stating that his government doesn't protect drug dealers.
The War on Drugs in the States has been a dismal failure, not unlike the War on Terrorism. That our current government is happy to walk in their footsteps is beyond alarming.
UPDATE: Here is the poll I referred to. More on that tomorrow.
14 comments:
A war on drugs sounds like a curious thing for people who supposedly want the government to "butt out" of their lives. Plus, it will cost one hell of a lot of money, and since they are cutting taxes, it makes you wonder where they are going to get the money to do it from.
Maybe there will be law enforcement user fees.
:), ryan. I do not think that all Con's are libertarians, which is what you describe, though many are.
A great number of them want government to "butt out", unless the action being described attacks their "moral" view. A complex bunch these guys. Counter-intuitive in my view, but there we have it. How they agree is beyond me.
Harper is of the moralistic mentality, but he embraces aspects of libertarianism. Translation, he's an opportunist.
I'm surprised to learn that Nicholson is a moralist apparently, though I say that tongue in cheek. Nicholson does what his master tells him to.
Money? The numbers in the US are staggering. The result, more in jail and a rising usage rate.
If we go down that path, which obviously this government wants to do,we solve nothing.
This is tough part of what your party and mine need to explain to Canada.
The Con's say, "jail drug dealers", we have to explain through stat's why what they say is wrong.
We have to figure that out. We have to get Canada engaged in a deeper discussion.
How do we do that?
KNB this person is accused and charged with conspiring to manufacture and distribute marijuana, and conspiring to launder money. Laundering money is not something to sneeze at. I just do not get you people. He has allegedly of course committed an illegal act. What would you people say if there was someone in the U.S.who has committed a crime under our laws and that the American government would refuse the extradition to Canada?
He is allegedly being accused of this crime. We should keep this in mind of course. Why is it people think that just because something may or may not be illegal here in Canada that it should the same for the rest of the world.
If our government should stop this extradition to the U.S. where would it then end? Don't you think that down the road the U.S. government would do the same to us and what would we say then?
A Canadian woman is raped in Saudi Arabia. It's considered a crime because she was not with her husband at the time.
She's home now, but they want to extradict her.
What's your answer then John?
Their laws or ours?
Call me what you will but I am for standing for our laws, not another country's.
You'll get less grief on this blog if you stop referring to other as "you people".
Note, ryan and I are not alligned, but we do not refer to each other "you guys".
It's fine to have a different view, but not all conservatives (if they are progressive, lol), nor NDP are bad people.
That some con's bow to Harper no matter what, is really disconcerting.
He's adopted most of what he decried in opposition, yet you support him.
Sorry, no credibility there what so ever.
BTW ryan, cool pic.
KNB
"A Canadian woman is raped in Saudi Arabia. It's considered a crime because she was not with her husband at the time."
"She's home now, but they want to extradict her."
"What's your answer then John?"
We are talking about apples and oranges here not the same.
The difference here in my opinion is that the U.S. with all its fault is a democracy with the rule of law. Unlike Saudi Arabia where they treat women has possessions not has equals.
"You'll get less grief on this blog if you stop referring to other as "you people".
KNB I did not mean it in a derogatory way I am sorry about that please accept my apology. Again I am sorry about the remark "you people."
"A Canadian woman is raped in USA. It's considered a crime because she was not with her husband at the time."
Like John said...apples and oranges.
John, it's not apples and oranges.
Canada with this government and the US assumes that Pakistan will go forward with democratic elections. Please.
So, now that we have pronouced them democratic, we should abide by their law? Throwing judges and lawyers in jail because you disagree with their democratic stance?
Bush and co. have compromised many rights among their citizens and Harper seems happy to follow suit.
The laws of other countries do not interest me. Canada is a democratic entity and we should respect it's laws, period. That you are happy to relinquish them is astonishing.
You and other Harper followers are starting to sound worse than the Bloc. You want your own set of rights and rules that don't conform to the country called Canada.
I say keep it up. You will keep yourselves at the margins. Most of us do not share that extreme view.
btw, apology not necessary. I simpy pointed out how you attract attack.
"KNB this person is accused and charged with conspiring to manufacture and distribute marijuana, and conspiring to launder money. Laundering money is not something to sneeze at.'
Look if you are going to spout off about Emery you should at least know some background. It is a crime to sell marijuana seeds in Canada; that is why he can be shipped off to the States to face charges. People have been charged with such a crime in Canada before and one person was even convicted in, if memory serves, 1999. They were ordered to pay $200. Under US law he is facing a minimum of 10 years and could get life.
Of course, the other thing that makes it possible for the US to request that he be set down is that despite the fact that Emery has paid over a half a million in taxes for "selling marijuana seeds" he has not been charged under Canadian law. If he was facing charges in Canada and no one doubts that he is guilty of such a crime, he can not be extradited to the States. That is why various activists have been trying force the government to charge him under Canadian law. They employ argument many conservatives like to employ. If Emery did the crime, he should pay the $200 fine.
As for the money laundering charges, they are a joke. Giving money to various marijuana legalization campaigns is hardly what one considers a classic example of money laundering. Anyway, the charges are not going to stick. Emery never got any “laundered” money back.
Thanks for the compliment, KNB. It's hard to pick from all the Woody Guthrie pics...
Anyway, I was being a little more tongue-in-cheek with the comment earlier. I just think its hilarious how they hate taxes and think that they are an act of government interference in their lives, but the new war on drugs will take money to accomplish it. Money they are essentially unwilling to tax the population for.
I found a story I thought you'd appreciate, as an observer of conservative double-speak. right here.
Emery is scum, 'nough said.
knb:
The Republican incarnation of conservatism, which is where the CPC falls, is all about removing government intervention in the marketplace. They want to be able to remove all barriers to the wealthy increasing their wealth.
Beyond the economic, the Republican incarnation of conservatism is much more interventionist than most other political ideologies. They very much want citizens to live their lives according to their view of how it should be lived and they are willing to use the levers of government to push society in that direction.
I am going to get raked over the coals for this next statement but who cares. That trait I just described is similar to Naziism, Fascism, Phalangism and Communism. All of these "missionary ideologies" believed that government was there to "take care" of their citizens, at every level, not just provide a stable society in which they could grow and prosper.
It should be noted that the intellectual underpinnings of all of these ideologies strongly believed that their approach to government was best for their countries and their citizens. It was only the fullness of time that demonstrated that they were wrong.
Of course, the CPC and the Republicans in the US do not take it to the extremes that we have seen with these other ideologies but the similarities are still there. And they certainly do not use any of the political tactics and strategies that governments ruled by these ideologues used during their time. But...
So to answer you question. This government will take the politically expedient route as it has done since it was elected.
The only question is what will be politically expedient when the decision will have to be made.
Will the Conservatives find it more politically expedient to throw a bone to their base?
Or will they find it more expedient to relent to the more progressive elements in society, particularly in BC and Quebec where they will need to pick up some support?
As we speak the Conservatives are spending party and government money on polling to answer those very questions. We will know the results of that polling when we see the final decision.
So wait and see.
manual:
Ray Emery may be going through a rough patch but he is a good goal tender. So, labeling him scum seems a little harsh.
Thanks for the article ryan. Interesting.
Ottlib: As we speak the Conservatives are spending party and government money on polling to answer those very questions.
Indeed.
Speaking of spending, I heard a radio ad telling me how great Harper was doing vis a vis the the GST cut?
Since when do we need our tax dollars running ads praising the government? I mean, it's not as if no one knew about the cut.
Post a Comment