Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Pushing the limits of free speech on American TV | Main | New cartoon at the WS »

Friday, January 25, 2008

Greens on Emery

Just got wind of this press release. The Green Party, including all the people running in the by-elections, has come out to ask Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to intervene in the Marc Emery case.

We wrote (sympathetically) about the Emery case in "Seeding Sovereignty."
Our cartoonist, J.J. McCullough, saw things differently.

Here is the press release from the 21st:

Green Party calls on Nicholson to intervene in Emery extradition

VANCOUVER – Dan Grice, the Green Party candidate in the Vancouver-Quadra by-election, is condemning Justice Minister Rob Nicholson’s refusal to intervene in the Marc Emery extradition case.

“We need to ensure the independence of the Canadian justice system,” said Mr. Grice. “Our citizens have the right to be protected and punished according to our legal standards, not those of other governments. This case is a clear infringement of Canadian sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent. Minister Nicholson’s willingness to abandon a Canadian whom we are unwilling to charge ourselves is disturbing.”

Vancouver resident Marc Emery and two of his employees have been facing extradition to the United States for mailing cannabis seeds across the border, where draconian legislation could have forced them to spend life in prison. Mr. Emery is set to agree to serve a five year sentence on the condition that his employees, including one who has Crohn’s disease and uses medicinal marijuana for her condition, are not charged. Selling cannabis seeds is typically considered a summary offense in Canada and Mr. Emery has not been charged domestically.

Canadian law enforcement officials have been aware of Mr. Emery’s activities for years yet have chosen not to penalize him. By turning a blind eye to his activities, Canada has implicitly acknowledged that our marijuana laws are nothing short of ridiculous,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “The United States’ ideologically-motivated pursuit of Mr. Emery has gone far enough. We should either enforce our laws, or change them. Justice is not served when actions are penalized only when requested by another country.”

Mr. Grice added that the Green Party would heed the call of the Canadian Senate’s 2002 Special Committee on Drugs by legalizing the adult use of marijuana and taxing the substance at a rate similar to tobacco.


Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 25, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Greens on Emery:


P.M., if you want to say that marijuana is overprohibited and that the drug laws are obsolete and unnecessary, you might have the beginnings of a case. But ascribing words like insane and unjust--both false on their face--just makes you sound like another panic-stricken prophet of doom.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-29 12:43:14 AM

Matthew wrote: "What's the difference?"

One has broken no law. The other has broken both domestic and international law. The actions of one are Constitutionally protected. The other's are not. About the only thing Ezra and Emery have in common is that they are both shameless media whores.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-29 12:45:43 AM

"Panic-stricken prophet of doom."

Okay, Shane. But, uhm, "prophet of doom?" Where in my comments do you get anything resembling an end-of-the-world scenario, or something even remotely similar? What is the "doom" that I am a "prophet" for? My claim is that the drugs laws *are* insane and unjust. I made no claims about "what is to come," or anything about the future.

Drug laws are unjust. And they are insane. I don't claim that they will lead to anything remotely resembling doom. And I'm in no panic, since I don't even smoke pot (or do any other illegal drugs, for that matter).

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-29 1:27:21 AM

P.M., in order to demonstrate that marijuana prohibition is unjust (as opposed to merely unwise), you must be able to demonstrate that a non-existent legal or ethical right has been violated. Since no such right exists, there is no injustice. And if you want to see true insanity, pull up a chair while a crackhead lights up. I really don't see what you expect to gain by this hysterical hyperbole.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-29 7:53:07 AM

Another study. Probably funded by tobacco companies to try and find an alternate explanation for all the tobacco related health issues. A "second gunman" so to speak.

Besides, since when did proof of a product being dangerous to your health cause the government to ban it, when the tax they attach to it is driving a big piece of the economy?

The number of pot smokers has been fairly stable for decades. They are paying big bucks to organized criminals for it. What a terrible waste of disposable income. Legalize it, control it, tax it.

Compare this form of taxation to VLTs. Is it any less morally tasteful? Thousands of people, hundreds of families suffer daily from the effects of gambling addiction.

Posted by: dp | 2008-01-29 8:05:30 AM

Leaving aside the issue of legalizing pot for a moment, let's consider something. The people who buy pot know about the crime, the murders, the blood the flows endlessly to provide them with product. Now, what does it say about these people that they would rather the blood continue to flow than to alter their lifestyle a little? If blood for oil is morally wrong, why is blood for pot okay? I DARE anyone to answer this question.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-29 8:20:14 AM

I'll attempt an answer.

How many people actually know anything about the products we consume? Eggs that come from horribly cruel operations, beef from slaughterhouses that come straight from a horror movie, clothes that were produced by child labor. It goes on and on.

We're all guilty of enjoying products that cause misery to someone somewhere. What I'm suggesting would stop some of the bloodshed caused by illegal pot distribution.

Now excuse me while I have some ham and eggs.

Posted by: dp | 2008-01-29 8:30:24 AM

These drug addict/advocates don't give a damn about our children and our communities and towns being destroyed by drugs. They don't care about families that are struggling with their children, in junior high, that are destroying their brains and their futures by consuming this junk.

The pushers that do this need to be locked up and forgotten. This crap needs to gone and off our streets for good.


Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-29 8:31:48 AM

OBC wrote: "You can't talk logic with anyone hooked on drugs."

You can't talk logic with most people. And I thought one of the pro-pot camp's most insistent points was that you can't GET hooked on pot in the first place, so how is your reply relevant?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-31 7:21:42 AM

On the other hand, DP, the "cruelty" of these operations is a matter of debate. Recent years have seen the rise of animal-rights nutbags like PETA who insist that it is better to euthanize stray animals then sell them into "slavery" as pets.

While the life of a born-for-slaughter chicken is hardly a bed of roses, nor is it a life of searing agony from birth until death. Gutting and butchering animals can look gross (I know; I've done it to a deer myself), but at least she was dead first, which would not have been the case had a pack of wolves caught her instead of me. Today we find child labour repulsive, but only 100 years ago it was commonplace--and necessary for some families.

Food and clothes are not optional products; we all need them in order to live. What seems like a little cruelty but which is in fact far less cruel than Nature is therefore necessary. But when the creatures suffering are your own kind, and the product in question is one of the most frivolous and unnecessary imaginable, things do take on a different perspective.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-31 7:34:21 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.