Pot Crusader Marc Emery Jailed in Canada Pending Extradition to US
Pot Crusader Marc Emery Jailed in Canada Pending Extradition to US
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/143062/pot_crusader_marc_emery_jail...
"I'm disappointed in my government, but very proud of my 'Overgrow the Government' revolution," Emery told supporters. "This terrible, insidious prohibition has been propped up by Liberal and Conservative governments for 45 years. It's a public policy with no public benefit, and it has caused so much misery, heartbreak and torment for so many Canadians.."
Legalize it..
Comments
snert, you keep trying to divert the argument with irrelevancies because the facts as they are aren't enough. Your bank robbery example is based on a bank being robbed in the USA. That example isn't relevant. As for the customers of drug dealers not charging their dealer with a crime, it was you that brought up mail fraud. The point is, this isn't like mail fraud where there is a victim charging someone with a crime. As for jaywalking in Germany, once again that's not relevant since Emery didn't do his "jaywalking" in the US.
"The U.S. can't extradite you for something that isn't a crime in Canada"
Yet you yourself are agreeing with the Americans, and presumably everyone else, that being able to prosecute Canadians for crimes our law enforcement agencies ignore is a good thing.
Yet you yourself are agreeing with the Americans, and presumably everyone else, that being able to prosecute Canadians for crimes our law enforcement agencies ignore is a good thing.
Primarily because I don't believe that our law enforcement agencies ignoring a crime is a good thing.
For what it's worth, if we and our lawmakers want to legalize the using, possession and trafficking of marijuana tomorrow, I'd be behind that. And if we, collectively, decided we didn't want to do that I'd disagree, but I'd support our collective right to decide our laws.
But I'm not really impressed by unelected law enforcement officials deciding to turn a blind eye. That doesn't make sense. I don't think that, say, the RCMP should be deciding whether or not they like a law (or like a citizen!) before choosing to act or to not act.
So, if you want Emery and others like him to be in the clear, I'd say that step one would be legalizing the trafficking of marijuana. Then Canada would be in no way bound by our current extradition agreement, as we could say "Sorry, but that's not a crime here, just like mailing someone a book isn't a crime".
But I'm sorry, it really makes no sense to me to have a law on the books, choose to ignore that law, then demand some kind of special exemption from an extradition agreement on the grounds that even though we have a law, we ignore it and we're just too lazy to remove it from our Criminal Code. What a ponderous and stupid solution that is, compared with legalizing it, if that's really what we want to do.
"And if we, collectively, decided we didn't want to do that I'd disagree, but I'd support our collective right to decide our laws."
Same
"But I'm not really impressed by unelected law enforcement officials deciding to turn a blind eye."
I'm not either, and I'm certainly no fan of Emery's. However, if and when Canadian law enforcement chooses to ignore a crime I don't think that should open the door to other countries putting our citizens in their jails.
"I don't think that, say, the RCMP should be deciding whether or not they like a law (or like a citizen!) before choosing to act or to not act. "
Neither do I but in a democracy we have the power to demand that our politicians reign in the RCMP, I don't want the FBI stepping in.
"So, if you want Emery and others like him to be in the clear"
I don't. I'm happy he's going to the US. I just disagree with the loss of sovereignity that signifies.
I think it would be a loss of sovereignty if we didn't want to extradite him, didn't have an agreement to extradite him, but felt that the U.S. had its foot on our neck.
We're not extraditing him because we "do whatever they say", we're extraditing him because we've had an extradition agreement with the United States for decades now, and because he qualifies for that.
Now IF Canada had no law against trafficking in marijuana, and the U.S. insisted that we extradite him anyway, even though he would not qualify for extradition if we had no law against trafficking, and if we went ahead and extradited him then I'd say that our sovereignty was compromised. But despite the Chicken Littles, the sky isn't falling. This is Canada respecting a very old agreement.
And if Canadians want to exercise some sovereignty, we could certainly start by repealing our own law, if we do indeed feel that it should not be enforced. Let's either start with that, or not.
snert, your reply says that if we don't enforce our own laws then other countries can and should have the right to enforce them for us. I see that as a loss of sovereignity, you don't. I have no idea how we would find agreement as I believe that as long as we live in a democratic state we have the right to enforce AND not enforce our own laws.
"And if Canadians want to exercise some sovereignty,"
Choosing not to put one of its own citizens in jail is also something a truly sovereign state should have the right to do. Sovereignity includes the right to not prosecute.
Not at all.
Emery appears to have done two things:
1) trafficked marijuana seeds by mail in Canada
2) trafficked marijuana seeds by mail in the U.S.
His extradition has nothing to do with #1. The U.S. is NOT trying or incarcerating him for something he did in Canada, and they are NOT "enforcing our laws for us". They're enforcing their own law, for them. Emery will not, for example, have a criminal record in Canada as a result of this, though he will have a criminal record in the U.S.
Choosing not to put one of its own citizens in jail is also something a truly sovereign state should have the right to do. Sovereignity includes the right to not prosecute.
When Emery returns to Canada, Canada will still have the right to either charge him or not charge him for #1. And if we charge and convict him for #1, we will still have the right to sentence him to prison, or not sentence him to prison. Our sovereignty is untouched.
"The U.S. is NOT trying or incarcerating him for something he did in Canada, and they are NOT "enforcing our laws for us". They're enforcing their own law, for them."
But that brings us in a circle back to square one, that the US has no right to have foreign nationals that didn't commit a crime on US soil to be extradicted to their country. If I don't have the right, as a Canadian that isn't stepping across the border, to ignore US laws then my country is not 100% sovereign. Americans on the other hand do have the right to ignore Canadian laws as long as they don't enter Canada.
Emery committed a crime against US law by mailing seeds to US addresses. The trafficking law that he is charged with has a matching law of sufficient seriousness on the books in the Canadian system which is the criteria of the extradition treaty.
Or to say it otherwise he broke an American Law and the Americans have a deal with Canada to return people accused of breaking laws that Canada agrees should be laws (Canada has a similiar law).
This does not mean it is fair, just that it is legal. What this means is that Emery is not Leonard Pelletier (where the application of the law is very suspect to say the least). Emery broke a law intentionally, and made a bundle doing it. He is also someone who a lot of people find hard to like. So what. The law he broke is a dumb law and should be changed and it is therefore wrong that he is being charged. Moreover the law and his incarceration is an integral part of the War on Drugs policy of Canada and the US which is responsible for a lot of unnecessary suffering. I probably would not like Mark Emery, based on many of the characterizations I see here and elsewhere, but I think standing up for him is important not just for his unjust incarceration, but also as a line in sand in the bigger fight against the War on Drugs policy.
Under extradition treaties, Canada is required to extradite, upon request, a person to the U.S. if the person has been convicted of a crime in the U.S. and the offense is also criminal in Canada. Selling marijuana seeds is apparently a crime in Canada. There is an exception if the person is subject to the death penalty. There is also an exception for political crimes. But, as we all know, there are no political crimes in either Canada or the U.S.
You don't need to be standing on a country's soil to commit a crime in that country. Wire fraud, mail fraud, etc., typically don't require an accused to have been physically in the jurisdiction in which they committed their crime.
Now before you go off worrying, you will (or should) know when you're committing any of these crimes. Emery did. So no, you won't suddenly be awakened by the police and told that you committed a crime in Florida and you have no idea what they mean.
But you really have to get past this inaccurate belief of yours that as long as Emery didn't hand deliver the seeds himself, on U.S. soil, that somehow he didn't commit a crime in the U.S.
"But you really have to get past this inaccurate belief of yours that as long as Emery didn't hand deliver the seeds himself, on U.S. soil, that somehow he didn't commit a crime in the U.S."
snert, you agree with, as Pogo and km1818, the letter of the law. The law itself is something Canada should not have signed because its the law itself that represents a loss of sovereignity.
What does Canada gain from agreeing to the US demands for this law?
""But you really have to get past this inaccurate belief of yours that as long as Emery didn't hand deliver the seeds himself, on U.S. soil, that somehow he didn't commit a crime in the U.S.""
By the way, he didn't. He committed a crime that is a crime in the US but he was not in the US and he's not a US citizen. If Canada hadn't signed that agreement he would not be subject to US laws and this wouldn't even be up for discussion.
Your argument has been that whether the agreement exists or not that Emery should be subject to US law yet its only the existence of the agreement that makes that so.
The same in return.
And by the way, this isn't about "U.S. demands". It's an agreement that's much older than Stephen Harper's tenure as PM. I'm really having trouble understanding your and others' desire to try to frame this as Ottawa licking the boots of their Washington masters. Does everyone understand that our extradition agreement with the U.S. (and many other countries) is NOT some part of the Patriot Act? I just can't wrap my head around WANTING to feel beaten and subjugated when you're not.
I don't, personally, have a problem with Canadians doing business in the U.S. being subject to relevant U.S. laws, just as I'm OK with U.S. citizens doing business in Canada being subject to relevant Canadian laws.
To propose otherwise would be to turn the postal system into the ultimate legal shield. Do you really believe the world, or Canada, would be a better place if we could mail bales of marijuana down to the U.S., in return for crates of handguns, with no legal redress because they're not standing on Canadian soil and we're not standing on U.S. soil? That would be short-sighted to the point of stupidity.
I personally have no problem with the message his supporters are trying to deliver. This quote is from the article in the first post of this thread.
While Emery is behind bars awaiting extradition to the US, his friends and supporters are mobilizing. Their immediate objectives are three-fold: to urge the Justice Minister to refuse to sign the extradition papers, to urge the US sentencing judge to give him a short or non-custodial sentence, and, in the event he is sentenced to prison time in the US, to urge the Canadian Public Safety Minister to approve his transfer to a Canadian prison.
Whether or not people think it is a good idea to have US enforcement agencies working inside Canada ia a different issue although IMO intimately related to this case. Security integration with the US is something I think is a very dangerous thing for our society to allow. Look how well the war on drugs is going in the places where the US agencies work closely with the local police. Mexico our NAFTA partner is a good example as is Columbia our potential new trade partner.snert, guns are already flooding into Canada from the US. So your "better place" hasn't happened. I can't recall any US gun dealer being extradicted to Canada.
Googling has turned up Ugur Yildiz, a Chicago gun dealer who Canada wanted extradicted but it didn't happen. He was eventually charged in the US instead.
I'm not sure there's any logical merit in that. I'm saying that things would be considerably worse if mail crime were not a crime at all, and guns are only one part of it. The fact that guns find their way into Canada through other channels doesn't change that.
Perhaps not yet, but the potential exists. The agreement is a reciprocal agreement.
While admittedly this comes from Mark's own press it contains some interesting facts. Extradition treaties are not always followed apparently. This crime was committed on Italian soil and the US will not oblige. Its not like they always respect the rule of law when it comes to their illegal wars.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/4566.html
A similar situation is occurring in relation to Italy's request to extradite 22 Americans to Italy to face charges regarding to the blatant kidnapping of Muslim religious leader Abu Omar in Milan in February, 2003.
Italian authorities allege that the kidnapping was carried out by CIA operatives, including a former US embassy official. Their evidence for this allegation is voluminous, with eyewitness accounts, phone records, and a clear paper trail linking American government employees to the illegal kidnapping.
After he was kidnapped, American agents secretly transported him to several countries. He finally ended up in an underground dungeon in Egypt, where he was tortured by interrogators.
For two years, Italian officials have sought US cooperation to put the alleged kidnappers and their handlers on trial, but American authorities have stonewalled.
The Italian government issued extradition requests after an incident in February, 2005 in which American soldiers in Iraq killed Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari and wounded Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena as they were approaching Baghdad airport in a car.
The US military claims that the car had not been cleared at security checkpoints and that the car's driver ignored soldiers' attempts to stop the car using lights and hand signals, but Sgrena and other witnesses have stated under oath that the US soldiers are lying, that there were no warnings, and that the killing of Calipari is murder.
American officials have refused to cooperate with Italian officials who seek a full and objective criminal investigation into the matter.
More recent news report over the same incident shows the charges are not speculative but proven in court and still the US refuses to extradite but a docile Canadian government should kowtow to the empires requests.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/05/italy-convicts-23-americans-for-...
An Italian judge convicted a base chief and 22 other Americans, almost all CIA operatives, for kidnapping a Muslim cleric from the streets of Milan in 2003, theNew York Times reported Monday. The case was a victory for Italian prosecutors and for critics of the Bush administration's terrorism-fighting tactics, which included the illegal kidnapping-and-interrogation routine known asextraordinary rendition.
All 23 Americans were convicted in absentia and given sentences ranging from five to eight years. The defendants pleaded not guilty through their court-appointed defense lawyers, and the U.S. government has refused extradition requests. Three other Americans were given diplomatic immunity in the case; the others will be considered fugitives.
If Canadian authorities were to charge Marc Emery under Canadian law, with exporting marijuana (in the form of seeds) then Emery could not be extradited to the USA for the same offence. This could be done at any time, and it would end the extradition.
The Canadian government is choosing NOT to charge Marc under Canadian law, and instead turn him over to the US authorities to be charged in the USA.
This is where the abrogation of sovereignty is happening. We have laws in Canada that our government is ignoring, in favour of a foreign government's laws. Marc Emery should be charged in Canada, or else this law should be taken off the books if we don't wish to enforce it.
Marc's actions were committed in Canada, and he was breaking Canadian law. However, our courts and prosecutors don't see marijuana seeds as a serious crime, and so the penalties Marc would receive here, for exporting marijuana seeds, would likely be a short prison term of some sort, not the five-years he is getting in the USA, and far less than the 30 years Emery would have been looking at without his plea-bargain deal.
This contempt for Canadian law and favouritism for the harsher foreign laws of our southern neighbour is also shown in a recent interview with Ontario's provincial police Commissioner Julian Fantino. Fantino openly said that he favoured charging Canadians in the US because of their harsher laws, as follows:
"Those (criminals) working cross-border, we'd love for them to get indicted into the United States because that's where they're really going to get the business."
Now if this seems normal, then I ask you to imagine the reverse scenario, where the police were saying something like "We prefer for Canadians to be charged in the US because the penalties there are lower, and we don't see this as a serious offence." Wouldn't there be howls of outrage? How can the police say they prefer to see Canadians charged in a foreign court? What an absolute show of contempt for Canadian laws by those who have sworn to uphold them!
By the way, Marc Emery is out on bail and will remain out of prison for at least a few more days. The Minister of Justice can sign the extradition order as soon as this coming Tuesday December 1.
He's back at the Cannabis Culture Headquarters on West Hastings, working away until he is extradited.
There is an ongoing, 24 hour vigil happening outside the North Fraser Pretrail Centre where Marc Emery is currently incarcerated.
There's a growing tent city, banners and flags flying, and it's about day 30 now of the 24/7 presence outside the prison, letting Marc know that he has support and that there's people who don't think he should be sent to the US for actions not considered worth pursuing in Canada.
Visit http://www.freemarc.ca for some info about Marc and his situation.
Phony war on drugs taking place says Afghan minister Like the CIA and US Military are for a long time, has Canadian Army become a dope delivery service , too?
I'm ashamed of both of my countries right now.
But such is the irresistable nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing.
- Thomas Paine
The U.S. Government has a patent on medical hemp.
The Department of Health and Human Services hold the patent 6630507, Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants, a medical hemp patent.
Below is the text of the patent, US Patent No 6630507,
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html
Abstract: Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoidsuseful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory andautoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurologicaldamage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in thetreatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses, useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula(I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH3, and COCH3.##STR1##US Patent Issued on October 7, 2003
Inventor(s)
Hampson, Aidan J.
Axelrod, Julius
Grimaldi, Maurizio
Assignee
The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services
Please also see
http://h4v.blogspot.com/2008/07/us-patent-6630507-cannabinoids-as.html
So, if you are sitting on a sack of seeds, the government won't get paid.
http://www.humanhemphealth.ca/
http://www.phoenixtears.ca/
"Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica." - Abraham Lincoln (from a letter written by Lincoln during his presidency to the head of the Hohner Harmonica Company in Germany)
"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country."
- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President
"Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere."
- George Washington, U.S. President
"We shall, by and by, want a world of hemp more for our own consumption."
- John Adams, U.S. President
"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marihuana in private for personal use... Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marihuana." - Jimmy Carter, U.S. President
"I inhaled frequently. That was the point." - Barack Obama, U.S. President
"The war on drugs has been an utter failure. We need to rethink and decriminalize our nation's marijuana laws." -Barack Obama, January 2004
BTW, I don't smoke.
Nary a word in the MSM or our state media about this protest. This is happening in our backyard and is not worth reporting but this morning a small demonstration in Iran made my local news headlines [none about Honduras though]. CBC all the news they think is worth reporting.
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Thread Drift/Marc Emery is mentioned in the latest Spider Robinson novel, Very Hard Choices, which I am currently reading/end thread drift.
Thread Drift/Marc Emery is mentioned in the latest Spider Robinson novel, Very Hard Choices, which I am currently reading/end thread drift.
Drifting over to Callahan's Bar...
http://www.spiderrobinson.com/podcast.html
Emery is a scary libertarian who doesn't even believe in a public school system. Dick Cheney looks like an NDPer in comparison.
Emery is a scary libertarian who doesn't even believe in a public school system. Dick Cheney looks like an NDPer in comparison.
So what do his political beliefs have to do with his Charter Rights? Are you implying Charter rights are only for people that share your political views?
No matter what his other beliefs are he is being attacked for his activism in opposition to the War on Drugs. Our government's conduct in this matter is reprehensible.
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Yep!!!!!
kropotkin,
Hey, if you want to hold candle vigils for a guy that thinks you're an idiot then by all means do so but I'm not going to lose any sleep over what happens to him.
how did you get to candle vigils from kropotkins words?
Dana stated the candle vigils......
the point is of course not Emery, but the actions against him, for me at least
remind,
I'm just not going to get excited over a cause that to me would be right up there with protecting the charitable tax status of places like the Fraser Institute, who by the way are a lot closer ideologically to Emery than Dippers are.
I would think fellow libertarians like Michael Walker or anti-government crusaders like Charles Adler would be the ones publicly supporting Emery and I'm sure they would be but there is that little problem that they happen to like the current government very much.
On the Left, a lot of you hate to see a guy incarcerated for running a business where no one got hurt. So I understand your sympathy, its admirable and I'm not being sarcastic. But there's a million things more important to me than defending a guy that disagrees with everything I believe and who wouldn't do the same for me.
Do not disagree a with a thing you said, but that does not mean, that I am supportive of the phoney extradition...
I agree with remind. The issue isn't whether or not Marc Emery is a good person or not. It is much bigger than that.
Frank they will come for you when its your turn and no one will agree with your political views enough to challenge them. The Empire wants him arrested so our sycophants arrest him and are going to deport him. If you think this is only about one person you are not thinking of the bigger picture of our rights as Canadian citizens. They are being replaced by obligations to adhere to the Evil Empire's laws or our own government will hand you over. He paid taxes on his seed sales in Canada and was not charged with any crime in this country but he is being deported to the US because of their laws. Being a Canadian in this day and age seems to mean being a second class citizen of the empire. Only Americans have any rights the rest of us are serfs.
I see Frank's views. I didn't lose sleep over the free speech rights lost by nazi haters. Still I think here the issue is far bigger than the activities and views of Emery.
kropotkin,
"The Empire wants him arrested so our sycophants arrest him and are going to deport him." and "He paid taxes on his seed sales in Canada and was not charged with any crime in this country but he is being deported to the US because of their laws."
Which I agree is worth getting upset about.
"If you think this is only about one person you are not thinking of the bigger picture of our rights as Canadian citizens."
I don't think its only about one person, my point is that the activities of the "one person" in this case are not helping the overall cause and are in fact probably hurting that cause. Who in Canada is going to fight this besides some Dippers? Is Iggy going to go to the wall for a pot crusader? Unlikely. Harper supporters? Very unlikely.
So, going back to the "because I wasn't Jewish... because I wasn't a Catholic... because I wasn't a communist... " thing, its not me, its Emery who has found that being anti-community all these years has left him with no community that will support him.
Frank, our laws should protect us regardless of our "community" standing and participation.
kropotkin,
"So, going back to the "because I wasn't Jewish... because I wasn't a Catholic... because I wasn't a communist... " thing, its not me, its Emery who has found that being anti-community all these years has left him with no community that will support him.
Which is exactly why we need to stand beside him when the Empire comes for him. The current corporate totalitarians who run America use the war on drugs as a state control mechanism. It has resulted in a police state mentality where they have more money for incarceration than education. Allowing our citizens rights to be subject to America's laws is an abdication of our status as a country and allowing ourselves to become a colony where our citizens are without any status in the empire and at the whim of American prosecutors. Being judged by a jury of your peers does not mean being extradited to a different country to be tried for something that was not considered a crime in Canada by a group of Americans who may not particularly like foreigners breaking sacred American law.
As well the analogy is far more;when they came for the communists I was not a communist so I did not say anything. The corporate totalitarians always go for left wing and social activists first in every society they have taken over. Mark's views on most things are not to my liking and were the reason for my not even considering supporting his political party. However he has been at the forefront of confronting the Empire on the war on drugs and that is why he is being targeted. It is a control issue. He cannot be allowed to protest the war on drugs particularly if he is blatantly trying to get publicity by flaunting the laws he is protesting.
This makes everything sound so ominous, like we've replaced our own Criminal Code with theirs or something.
Haven't the U.S. and Canada always had extradition agreements?
And didn't Emery break effectively the law in the U.S. by selling seeds in the U.S.?
I'd like to be all righteously indignant, but what's the big surprise here? A guy sells seeds in a country where that's illegal and then gets busted for it. Why the excessive hand-wringing drama about how now we're all second class citizens?? There's nothing else to get into high dudgeon about?
1) Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the offenses listed in the Schedule annexed to this Treaty, which is an integral part of this Treaty, provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.
He was not charged in Canada despite paying taxes on it. I know many Canadians have no trouble with allowing the US drug enforcement agents to direct the RCMP but I think it is a major problem if we are supposed to be a soverign country.
Does your first paragraph state that a person to be extradited must have been charged in Canada? Or just that the offense is punishable by a one year prison term in Canada? Because if I'm not mistaken, possession for the purposes of trafficking, importing/exporting and possession for the purpose of exporting all carry the potential of one year sentences.
Somehow this reminds me of drug laws at a much smaller scale. If you live in Toronto, you can pretty much walk down the street smoking a joint, if you want to. But if you decide, while smoking your joint that you really need to find a cop and tweak his nose about it, you'll probably find yourself in a spot of trouble, because while you can easily fly under the radar and go about your business, if that's what you want to do, the laws aren't gone, and pot isn't legal. If you want to make a cop lose face or feel challenged, expect some grief.
Perhaps the Emery fan club admires him for wanting to tweak the nose of both Canada and the U.S., but really, is anyone shocked that the two governments didn't say "Oh, Marc, you scamp! What can we do but laugh? You got us good."
Absolutely we can all just keep our heads down and go about our business. that is the best way to deal with a foreign goverment telling us what laws we have to enforce even if we don't enforce them in Canada
snert,
"Haven't the U.S. and Canada always had extradition agreements?"
That's for when a criminal in one country escapes to the other. Such as what's happening in Switzerland with Polanski, the crime was committed in the US.
"And didn't Emery break effectively the law in the U.S. by selling seeds in the U.S.?"
But he wasn't "in" the US was he? Wouldn't this be akin to a Canadian sending banned books to US addresses? If so, the US can stop those books at the border but they have no right to have the guy arrested in Canada and sent to the US because I don't think US laws should apply to the actions of a foreigner when he's on his native soil.
"I'd like to be all righteously indignant, but what's the big surprise here? A guy sells seeds in a country where that's illegal and then gets busted for it. Why the excessive hand-wringing drama about how now we're all second class citizens?? There's nothing else to get into high dudgeon about?"
And this sort of sums up my point, Emery is not a guy most of us feel like defending. I know that that means the law can be applied to people we like versus people we don't like but that isn't new in Canada. Happens every day I'm sure.
And this sort of sums up my point, Emery is not a guy most of us feel like defending. I know that that means the law can be applied to people we like versus people we don't like but that isn't new in Canada. Happens every day I'm sure.
kropotkin,
A "left-wing" protest isn't going to change anything. The best thing would be to have the vigil instead be a big street party, a celebration of a right-wing Canadian being sent to a US prison. Big signs saying "one is not enough". That will get some attention and then you'll have right-wingers realizing their government is sending one of their own across the border because he broke an American law while in Canada. Maybe then "Adler nation" will wake up.
It would be nice if Canada announced that we would start doing the same to Americans that don't abide by Canadian laws, gun laws in particular.
I couldn't find a link that unambiguously says that this, and only this, is grounds for extradition. If it is, I urge every gun store in Texas to start mailing guns to Canadians at rock-bottom prices. It's legal down there, so I trust we'd respect the legality of it up here too. Which we would, right? Nothin' we can do about it, that sort of thing?
I wasn't aware that the only way you could break a country's laws was if you were standing in that country. I'm told that you can be tried in Canada for something you allegedly did in Thailand. If that's true, then evidently it's possible to be in one place and break the laws of another, yes?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't defend him because he's unliked. I'm saying we shouldn't defend him because he knowingly broke the law in the U.S. He's not some kind of innocent. In fact, I would be shocked if at any point, he was shocked. What did he expect?? My guess: he expected this. And if he didn't expect this then what? That he could sit in Canada, breaking U.S. law by mail and having a laugh at them and somehow he'd be teflon?
Save the drama for your mama.
Don't break the law is the best strategy in ANY state.
My point in this is, usually something of this trivial of a nature, means arrangements are made for time to be served in Canada, and no extradition occurs...unlike with other crimes, I thought that would be self evident, but apparently not.
Pot Crusader Marc Emery Jailed in Canada Pending Extradition to US
I think the problem with some U.S. citizens (being one myself) is that they still believe that Canada is the Canada of the 60s when Vietnam War resisters would not be extradited. They also thought the Canadian maple leaf was a marijuana leaf.
Many Canadians have a hard time understanding the profound effects our deep integration with the American police state model is having on our society. As Canadians we have gone back to being a colonial state without the rule of law that operated within the Commonwealth. As a Canadian nationalist I dislike seeing our sycophants give more and more of our rights away to a foreign government. I don't want to be a second rate citizen of an empire I want to be a citizen of an independent democracy.
He should not have been extradited for a crime he would not be charged with in Canada. That is just normal international law and the plain words of the treaty.
"I wasn't aware that the only way you could break a country's laws was if you were standing in that country. I'm told that you can be tried in Canada for something you allegedly did in Thailand. If that's true, then evidently it's possible to be in one place and break the laws of another, yes"
But that only applies if you're Canadian. Emery is not an American, he only seem like one. What you're saying is that if an American goes to Thailand and breaks the law that Canada should be able to have him extradicted. Or if I send a banned book to someone in North Korea then the Koreans should be able to have me extradicted. That would be ludicrous.
How is that the Russians never extradicted any Americans for broadcasting Voice of America programs into the old Soviet Union? Because according to what the Americans are doing to Emery they should have been able to.
"If it is, I urge every gun store in Texas to start mailing guns to Canadians at rock-bottom prices. It's legal down there, so I trust we'd respect the legality of it up here too. Which we would, right? Nothin' we can do about it, that sort of thing?"
If you know of a Texan that is sitting in a Canadian jail for mailing a gun to a Canadian I'd like to read about it. Seriously.
"I'm not saying that we shouldn't defend him because he's unliked."
I am.
"I'm saying we shouldn't defend him because he knowingly broke the law in the U.S."
No, he didn't.
"He's not some kind of innocent."
He is according to Canadian law. And since he's Canadian and "committed his crimes" on Canadian soil its only Canadian law that applies. Whereas Gordon Campbell broke US law while on US soil yet he got off easy and Emery goes to jail.
"Don't break the law is the best strategy in ANY state."
And even if you're not in a state apparently.
remind,
"My point in this is, usually something of this trivial of a nature, means arrangements are made for time to be served in Canada, and no extradition occurs...unlike with other crimes"
But did he enter the USA and commit a crime? Or has he broken Canadian laws?
If neither applies then he should be a free man, otherwise its just politicians and lawyers playing silly bugger.
How is that the Russians never extradicted any Americans for broadcasting Voice of America programs into the old Soviet Union? Because according to what the Americans are doing to Emery they should have been able to.
Assuming the two had a treaty (I doubt they did) and assuming that broadcasting a radio program was also illegal in the U.S. and punishable by at least a year in prison (and I doubt that too).
If you know of a Texan that is sitting in a Canadian jail for mailing a gun to a Canadian I'd like to read about it. Seriously.
I'm not claiming it happened. But why shouldn't it, if it's perfectly legal to mail an illegal product to another country? What's to stop them? Certainly not Canada, if they're smart enough to do it from somewhere else!
Actually, he's getting (or got, at any rate) a giant free gift from Canadian law when he openly flouted trafficking laws and the Crown didn't charge him. That certainly doesn't mean that what he did isn't illegal, any more than a cop letting you off with a warning means speeding is legal now.
And even if you're not in a state apparently.
But Emery most certainly was in a state. A state with both a history of cooperation with another state regarding international drug trafficking, and also an extradition agreement with that state. Whoopsie!
"Assuming the two had a treaty (I doubt they did) and assuming that broadcasting a radio program was also illegal in the U.S. and punishable by at least a year in prison (and I doubt that too)."
Why would it also have to be illegal in the US? Emery isn't a criminal in Canada therefore it wouldn\'t matter if broadcasting Voice of America was a crime in the US, it only has to be a crime in the Soviet Union according to you.
"I'm not claiming it happened. But why shouldn't it, if it's perfectly legal to mail an illegal product to another country? What's to stop them?"
Nothing. We don't arrest Texans that mail guns to Canada because we don't think we have the right to do so. Americans on the other hand think they do.
"Actually, he's getting (or got, at any rate) a giant free gift from Canadian law when he openly flouted trafficking laws and the Crown didn't charge him. That certainly doesn't mean that what he did isn't illegal, any more than a cop letting you off with a warning means speeding is legal now."
If a cop lets you off with a speeding ticket it doesn't give an American cop the right to incarcerate you. That's up to Canadian law enforement only.
"But Emery most certainly was in a state. A state with both a history of cooperation with another state regarding international drug trafficking, and also an extradition agreement with that state. Whoopsie!"
You're a supporter of US laws applying to Canadians in Canada. And of all laws in other countries that have extradition agreements with Canada, that's quite a few countries. Makes one scared to get out of bed in the morning not knowing if I'm breaking a law in Britain, Germany, Japan or whereever. Yet you think being against that is being dramatic.
If one wants to live under US law there's a simple remedy for that.
Why would it also have to be illegal in the US? Emery isn't a criminal in Canada therefore it wouldn\'t matter if broadcasting Voice of America was a crime in the US, it only has to be a crime in the Soviet Union according to you.
Emery doesn't need to be a criminal in Canada. The crime need only also be a crime in Canada, and a sufficient crime to warrant a sentence of over a year. Nowhere does it say that he has to have been convicted of that crime in Canada. If you believe that this is a condition (again, that he be convicted of the same crime in Canada) then by all means, show me.
Emery is a very lucky guy that he didn't get prosecuted in Canada, but understand that that does NOT mean that trafficking is no longer a crime.
Emery is also a bit of an odd case, in that he was committing the same crime in two countries. One would expect that if, say, a Canadian were to be extradited to the U.S. for committing a bank robbery in Vermont, that person wouldn't necessarily also have committed a bank robbery in Quebec. Note that that person would be eligble for extradition not because "Canada arrested him" but because bank robbery is a crime in Canada, for which the sentence upon conviction is greater than one year.
If a cop lets you off with a speeding ticket it doesn't give an American cop the right to incarcerate you. That's up to Canadian law enforement only.
Not if your only speeding was in Canada. Of course. But if you're also speeding in the U.S. then the U.S. cop has every right to ticket you. Emery didn't just sell illegal seeds in Canada, he sold them in the United States. How do you figure it's reasonable that the United States would just shrug? Or that Canada would say "Sorry, but for reasons unknown, we've decided not to prosecute him (though the law is still part of the Criminal Code) so you shouldn't either!"?
No, I'm a supporter of Canadian laws applying to Canadians in Canada, and U.S. laws applying to Canadians when they're in, or effectively "in" the United States. For what it's worth, the only inconsistency I'm seeing here is that for reasons unknown, Canada decided to look the other way with regard to Emery. Thus far, I haven't heard of some comprehensive amnesty program for all Canadians currently incarcerated for trafficking, nor have I heard that laws against trafficking have been repealed. So why did Emery get a free ride? Or, conversely, if dealing dope isn't illegal anymore, why have the laws not been repealed, amnesties granted, and big public announcement made informing Canadians that we're now free to sell drugs legally??
Here's a hint for you: if you're not doing business in those countries, you're fine. If you are doing business with them then you may be subject to their laws, so you might want to make sure you're not breaking any of them. Is that really so hard, or so scaaaaary?? I don't know if you really just don't understand, and think that suddenly every Canadian is subject to every other country's criminal code, or if you're just being absurd. But I assure you, you won't suddenly be arrested for breaking some Japanese law you've never heard of. Unless perhaps you want to start mailing cocaine to Japan or some other stunt.
Or we could just stay here and keep pretending that we're living under "their" laws. You certainly seem to enjoy the pretending.
"Emery doesn't need to be a criminal in Canada."
To most of us it would make sense that if he's going to be placed in a jail he should be guilty of a crime.
"The crime need only also be a crime in Canada, and a sufficient crime to warrant a sentence of over a year. Nowhere does it say that he has to have been convicted of that crime in Canada."
If he's not convicted then he's not guilty. Assuming we still live under that belief.
"Emery is a very lucky guy that he didn't get prosecuted in Canada, but understand that that does NOT mean that trafficking is no longer a crime."
Again, if he's not convicted, he's not guilty.
"Emery is also a bit of an odd case, in that he was committing the same crime in two countries."
When exactly did he commit a crime in the US? Was he visiting there perhaps?
"One would expect that if, say, a Canadian were to be extradited to the U.S. for committing a bank robbery in Vermont, that person wouldn't necessarily also have committed a bank robbery in Quebec."
But then it would be a case of him being in the US and committing a crime. That would make him subject to US law. if he wasn't in the US when he robbed a bank then US law doesn't apply.
"Not if your only speeding was in Canada."
But Emery was in Canada when he was "speeding".
"But if you're also speeding in the U.S. then the U.S. cop has every right to ticket you."
of course, but Emery wasn't.
"Emery didn't just sell illegal seeds in Canada, he sold them in the United States."
No, he sold them to Americans. He didn't go into the US and sell them.
"How do you figure it's reasonable that the United States would just shrug?"
Because its what Canada has to do when the shoe is on the other foot. We can't arrest Americans who mail guns to Canada or sell guns to Canadians while they're in the US. All we can do is stop the guns at the border.
"No, I'm a supporter of Canadian laws applying to Canadians in Canada, and U.S. laws applying to Canadians when they're in, or effectively "in" the United States."
So am I, and it neither applies in Emery's case.
"For what it's worth, the only inconsistency I'm seeing here is that for reasons unknown, Canada decided to look the other way with regard to Emery."
Its an "inconsistency" that trumps all other arguments. If Emery isn't found guilty in a Canadian court he should not be in jail.
"Here's a hint for you: if you're not doing business in those countries, you're fine."
But apparently even if I'm doing business or sending parcels to friends in those countries I'm subject to their laws and can be extradicted from Canada in spite of breaking no Canadian law.
"If you are doing business with them then you may be subject to their laws, so you might want to make sure you're not breaking any of them. Is that really so hard, or so scaaaaary?? "
Yes
"I don't know if you really just don't understand, and think that suddenly every Canadian is subject to every other country's criminal code, or if you're just being absurd. But I assure you, you won't suddenly be arrested for breaking some Japanese law you've never heard of. Unless perhaps you want to start mailing cocaine to Japan or some other stunt."
Or books to North Korea.
"Or we could just stay here and keep pretending that we're living under "their" laws. You certainly seem to enjoy the pretending."
And you certainly enjoy plugging your ears, chanting and ignoring the facts.
I'll try again, though I'm running out of new ways to say this.
For a person to be extradited from Canada to the United States they do NOT need to be convicted of a crime in Canada. They need to be accused of or convicted of a crime in the United States, AND that crime needs to be a crime in Canada, of sufficient gravity to warrant sentences of a year or more (this is to prevent someone for being extradited over, say, a traffic ticket).
I really can't figure out why you're still fixated on the fact that Emery was lucky enough to not be prosecuted for trafficking in Canada. It doesn't matter. What matters is that trafficking IS a crime in Canada. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Do you think that Roman Polanski can only be extradited from France or Switzerland if he molests a 13 year old in France or Switzerland and is tried and found guilty of it? Of course not.
You do understand that I cannot commit mail fraud against U.S. citizens and be free from prosecution in the United States, yes? I don't actually have to go and stand on U.S. soil to commit a crime that falls under U.S. jurisdiction.
Can you imagine, though, if you were right? We could all commit all the fraud we wanted to against citizens of the U.S., and as long as we didn't actually physically travel to the U.S. we could get away with it for our entire lives. Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
I'll say again, trafficking IS against the law in Canada. I'll say again, if you don't believe me, look it up. I'll say again, it's against the law, even if you do it and don't get arrested. Thousands of people jaywalk every day in Canada and are not arrested for it, yet jaywalking is still a law, and it's still on the books. Yes! Even if someone jaywalks and doesn't get arrested! Go ahead and look that up too.
Which? Hard? Or Scaaaaary?
You could be extradited for that if the books were also illegal in Canada. *ahem* EVEN IF YOU WEREN'T CONVICTED OF THE SAME CRIME IN CANADA.
"For a person to be extradited from Canada to the United States they do NOT need to be convicted of a crime in Canada. They need to be accused of or convicted of a crime in the United States"
If the alleged crime didn't take place in the United States and does not concern an American citizen then US law should not apply.
"AND that crime needs to be a crime in Canada, of sufficient gravity to warrant sentences of a year or more"
But if he's not found guilty in Canada then there is no reason to believe he committed a crime here.
"I really can't figure out why you're still fixated on the fact that Emery was lucky enough to not be prosecuted for trafficking in Canada. It doesn't matter."
Kropotkin or anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong but it matters a lot, in fact, its the most important point. Nobody would care about this if Emery was found guilty in Canada by a Canadian court and was put in a Canadian prison.
"What matters is that trafficking IS a crime in Canada. Look it up if you don't believe me."
What matters is that a person has to be found guilty of a crime before being sentenced. You can look that up if you need to.
"Do you think that Roman Polanski can only be extradited from France or Switzerland if he molests a 13 year old in France or Switzerland and is tried and found guilty of it?"
If Polanski hadn't been in the USA when the crime was committed do you think he would be being extradicted there? He was physically in the US when the crime was committed. I don't understand why you think where the crime and the nationality of who committed it makes no difference.
"We could all commit all the fraud we wanted to against citizens of the U.S., and as long as we didn't actually physically travel to the U.S. we could get away with it for our entire lives. Fortunately, it doesn't work that way."
Have any of Emery's customers charged him with a crime?
"I'll say again, trafficking IS against the law in Canada."
And I'll say again, if you're not found guilty in a court then you shouldn't be sentenced.
"Thousands of people jaywalk every day in Canada and are not arrested for it, yet jaywalking is still a law, and it's still on the books. Yes! Even if someone jaywalks and doesn't get arrested!"
Yet Germany isn't demanding they all be extradicted there so that the jaywalking laws we have in common can be enforced.
"You could be extradited for that if the books were also illegal in Canada. *ahem* EVEN IF YOU WEREN'T CONVICTED OF THE SAME CRIME IN CANADA."
If you're not convicted in Canada then you aren't guilty in Canada and being extradicted to another country for it is something many of us find scary.
But it did. American citizens received their illegal seeds, standing at their mailbox on U.S. soil.
Whether he did or didn't commit a crime here is neither here nor there, so long as what he's being accused of in the U.S. is also, officially, a crime in Canada. And trafficking marijuana IS a crime in Canada. That doesn't change, even if Emery was not convicted of that same crime here in Canada. As I noted further up, it's uncommon for a person who is being extradited to have commited the same crime in more than one country. In the example of extradition for bank robbery in the U.S., the person being extradited does NOT have to have also robbed a bank in Canada.
As I understand it, the only reason he knows his sentence already is because he entered a plea bargain. Otherwise you're quite right, he would be extradited to the U.S. to face trial, and from there if convicted, would be sentenced.
Do the customers of drug dealers usually charge their dealer with a crime???
First off, there would be no extradition for a crime that trivial. But let's suppose jaywalking could carry a 2 year sentence. If you jaywalked in Germany, then fled back to Canada, you could be extradited for it. It's a crime both there and here, and it's not a trivial crime. It wouldn't matter one eensy teensy little bit whether you'd jaywalked in Canada, whether you'd been arrested for that jaywalking in Canada, or whether you'd been convicted of jaywalking in Canada.
Your fear is based in your ignorance. I've been trying, patiently, to tell you that he's not being extradited to the U.S. for having broken the law in Canada. He's being extradited for having broken the law in the U.S. You keep returning to the non sequitur that he didn't get convicted of trafficking in Canada, and I keep trying to tell you that he's being extradited for breaking U.S. law, effectively in the U.S. (whether his feet were on U.S. soil at the time or not). Put your fears to rest. The U.S. can't extradite you for something that isn't a crime in Canada, nor can they decide to try you for Canadian crimes. You'd need to be under U.S. jurisdiction when you commited a U.S. crime.
So no, the sky isn't falling, we're not all American citizens, and you don't need to hide under the bed.