Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« WS Radio: Guy Earle interview | Main | Indoctrinate U »

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Face-Off: Marc Emery and Gerry Nicholls debate what the best way to get liberty is

What's the best way to fight for liberty?

That's the question Marc Emery, columnist here at the Western Standard, and Gerry Nicholls, blogger here at the Shotgun, e-debated for us. It's a little taste of the debate that they will have in person at the Liberty Summer Seminar this upcoming weekend in Orono, Ontario (you can still register and attend). You can read the Face-Off debate here: "Face-Off: What's the best way to fight for liberty?"

Gerry is a little bit more staid and conservative than Marc is. Gerry thinks we should join advocacy groups, and support the work of think tanks like the Fraser Institute. That's the best way, he thinks, of building and promoting a culture of liberty--expose people to the ideas of liberty, make an intellectual case for liberty, and then push for liberty within the law, urging political, legal, and social change.

Marc disagrees. The best way to get liberty, he tells us, is to break unjust laws in a transparent, non-violent, and public way. Marc thinks this is really the only way we've ever seen success--think of the American Revolution, the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks, and other instances. All of these helped foment social and political change that led to more liberty. And all of them were violations of the law.

And that, says Marc, is the best way to get to liberty.

It's a timely discussion in light of the extradition proceedings against Emery (he faces the extraditioners in February of next year), and the Human Rights Commission hearings against Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Guy Earle (to name just a few).

All of these cases are a result of possible violations of the law. In Marc's case, we know he broke the law, and he freely admits it. In the HRC cases, we're not yet sure if there will be a judgment against any of the people I've mentioned, but we do know that, technically, people like Stephen Boisson, who wrote a letter to the editor critical of homosexuality, have broken the law. And it is possible that Ezra, Mark, and Guy will share Boisson's fate.

But would they have done something different if they had known, in advance, that the law prohibited publishing depictions of the prophet Muhammad (in Ezra's case), or publishing an excerpt from "America Alone" (in Mark's case), or responding to heckling by unleashing a torrent of anti-lesbian commentary (in Guy's case)? Suppose the law was not a vague mystery about "giving offense" and "hurting feelings," but clearly stated that you can't insult lesbians, can't publish editorial cartoons of such-and-such a sort, and can't argue about demographic shifts that threaten western values?

Would we criticize them if they did it anyways? Or would we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them, in open defiance of laws that clearly undermine our freedom of speech, economic freedom, or other liberties? And if Canadians failed to raise a ruckus about the trials and the government's response, would that mean that they were wrong to break the law, or would we be criticizable for failing to stand up for their liberty?

In his rebuttal, Gerry makes it plain that, without a social and cultural foundation of support for liberty--a foundation that advocacy groups and think tanks provide--it would be next-to-impossible to generate the kind of feedback from the public that would lead to greater liberty. Without the work that these groups do, people like Ezra Levant and Marc Emery would be left to defend themselves without public support, and without the kind of clout that might actually generate changes in the law that help protect and preserve, rather than defame and defile, our personal and economic freedoms.

Read the exchange. Then drop a comment and let everyone know where you stand on the issue.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on July 22, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Face-Off: Marc Emery and Gerry Nicholls debate what the best way to get liberty is:


I can't believe that criminal Emery would dare to use the civil rights movement and Rosa Parks to justify his criminal enterprises. For shame.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 11:07:03 AM

Rev. Boissoin didn't break the law, which clearly and expressly protects his freedom to speak on matters of public interest exactly as he did. It's the HRC and the Alberta government that broke the law.

Posted by: ebt | 2008-07-22 11:17:36 AM

Hey Zeb,

Some (including myself) consider it our civil right to do with our bodies as we please. This includes smoking cannabis for medicinal (or even non-medicinal) purposes. Cannabis is one of the least harmful substances on the planet.

Try looking up the LD50 test for Cannabis; I know, I'm trying to use actual facts to back my case and that's not really fair to the "low-information voters" out there who typically back our ass-backwards drug policy. Consider it a favor to me and do it anyway; who knows, you might actually get "informed."

Posted by: Dan Givens | 2008-07-22 11:22:31 AM

And there are people like me who think drug dealers should be executed, and druggies put into chain gangs collecting garbage alongside highways.

Emery is the worst person behind whom your movement should rally. His actions and background will deter potential supporters. Rosa Parks would have been just another trespasser if the black community in Montgomery not rallied behind her. She was, in their eyes, a decent person (a married working woman) who ran afowl of the unjust segregation laws. This was a microcosm of the entire Civil Rights Movement - an entire community rising up to protest these laws.

I just can't see that happening for Emery. His strategy will lead no where. He ought to be using Nicholls strategy of changing the laws through the system. Instead, he'll be seen as just another criminal trying to evade the consequences of his actions by wrapping himself in the guise as a freedom fighter.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 11:40:24 AM

As I have stated before, I don't agree with what Marc Emery is fighting for on the surface. But the underlying principle he advocates is something I do agree with. I give him credit for his willingness to fight for what he believes in, at great cost, I imagine. I would say in answer to the question of which way is best to fight for liberty, my answer would be - both, at the same time. Engage the "enemy" on more than 1 front. So to those who are willing and able to take on the battles to which they are best suited and inclined - may you be successful. The cowards like me who hide under a keyboard appreciate what you do, and who knows, one day we may join you in person as well as in spirit.

Posted by: Momathome | 2008-07-22 11:41:58 AM

ZP - there is widespread support for marijuana liberalization. In fact, a Fraser Institute research report showed only 1 in 10 Canadians think marijuana users should go to jail.

Also, Emery has never sold drugs. He only sold harmless seeds. And he did it openly and gave the proceeds away to anti-prohibition activist groups.

As a purely practical matter, all of this makes him a good person for the freedom movement to rally around.

In fact, I think Ezra and Marc are the two most important people in the Canadian freedom movement right now -- and they both deserve our full support.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-22 11:50:54 AM

I'm with Matthew on this one. I agree that Marc and Ezra are the most important cases that we have before us right now, and I support both of them, for the same (or similar) reasons.

We should be free to say what we'd like (Ezra)
We should be free to ingest what we'd like (Emery)

You might think it falls under the same principle--this is *my* body, to do with as I want. How I pollute my brain (whether through drugs or through books and speech), should be no grist for the state's mill.

While I know not very many commenters will actually read the exchange between Gerry and Marc, but Gerry does make an interesting point worth referencing: Gerry mentions that he and the NCC supported the farmers who broke the Canadian Wheat Board law. It was a law, they broke it, and Gerry spearheaded their battle.

Gerry also supported the blogger who violated Canada's laws against publishing how the vote went out west before easterners went to vote.

And so on.

And many of us here on the Shotgun who are unsympathetic with Emery should realize that the Wheat Board folks, the bloggers, those who violate closed shop union laws, and so on, are all of them "criminals" according to the letter of the law. We should be careful to not make arguments here that apply across too many situations and cases.

Be sensitive to the differences between the cases, but be careful to make a principled point. Not an argument that can be used against you when someone you are sympathetic with is facing down the government's wrath.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-22 12:12:04 PM

I think that there is a great gulf between drug dealers who deal in hard stuff, like heroine and cocaine and cannabis users.

While I do most certainly think that those that feast on the misery and destruction of others should be executed, the legalization of cannabis should go forward. Why? Because if it was, it could be controlled, and taxed just like booze. It makes no sense for alcohol to be legal, and cannabis illegal, given the high cost that alcohol places on society, in terms of sheer human misery. In a perfect world, we would not require stimulants to enhance our experiences but this is not a perfect world, nor will it ever be until the return of Jesus Christ.

Posted by: DCM | 2008-07-22 12:18:23 PM

Put me down as one of the ten percent.

In the eyes of the Vancouver Police Service and the US Drug Enforcement Administration, Emery is a criminal. He and his co-conspirators face charges of Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana, Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana Seeds and Conspiracy to Engage in Money Laundering. I guess they're not very 'harmless' if distributing them is a crime. These are very serious charges.

I think Ezra should distance himself as much as possible from Emery. He's a deadweight that will only delay if not prevent your cause. Moreover, Emery has next to no political support - just the devotion of his fellow druggies.

That's why they call it dope.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 12:26:18 PM

Zeb wrote: "I guess they're not very 'harmless' if distributing them is a crime."

That does not follow.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-22 12:28:30 PM

As was said in another recent post about Harper not being conservative enough, how do you people expect to promote your cause with someone like Emery? Most conservatives are not radicals - you call them Red Tories - and they might not like what he stands for. The best politicians know their bases of support, and do their best to retain as much of them as they can, and attract others. Emery cannot be so easily whitewashed. I advise you to dump him concentrate your efforts on a better, less controversial candidate. If you don't, you'll never succeed in changing the Conservative Party.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 12:51:18 PM

Thanks for the advice, Zebulon. I respectfully, but very strongly, disagree.

Marijuana is a winning issue. The sooner the Tories realize this, the better. If Emery does get extradited, Canadians will be angry. They might not do something about it, but it will simmer.

You also don't know Emery. I do. So does Matthew. I'm happy to defend him. If you knew him, then you could speak authoritatively about his character and his sincerity. But you don't.

I understand the further claim that can be made--in politics, perception is key, and the truth is a minor distraction. So I know that you might say that other Canadians will get the same impression as you have of his character and his manner. I am sympathetic with this line of argumentation, but, in my judgment--and this is a judgment call, since neither you nor I know what Canadians do and will think of Emery--Canadians will see Emery and his cause sympathetically.

Separately, so many Conservatives believe in ending the prohibition of marijuana already. That's important to keep in mind.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-22 1:12:16 PM

I agree with PMJ.

ZP, you said "Rosa Parks would have been just another trespasser if the black community in Montgomery not rallied behind her. She was, in their eyes, a decent person (a married working woman) who ran afowl of the unjust segregation laws." Note the "unjust" part of your last sentence?

Like Marc or not (I'm sure not everyone liked Rosa Parka), some people will look back one day and say Marc ran afowl of unjust marijuana laws.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-22 1:26:42 PM

Ever wonder why McCain beat Ron Paul for the Republican nomination? Because he attracted a lot of people by not being a radical.

Emery is a Dipper (strike one) who has failed to win in Vancouver (strike two). Why you people are defending him - your political opponent - is a mystery to me.

The best strategy would be to win first, then implement your ideas. It works for the Liebrals, so it might work for you.

I personally want to see Emery on the next bus to the Supermax Prison at Florence, Colorado, where he'll spend the rest of his life behind bars amongst the worst criminals in the world.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 1:29:24 PM

ZP - I don't believe that deep in your heart you want to see Marc Emery spend a lifetime in prison for selling seeds, a crime for which the Canadian justice system punishes with only a small fine.

I think you're just busting our balls on this.

I believe you when you say you don't like him. Cultural conservatives have many good reasons not to like the lifestyle Marc promotes - sex, drugs and rock 'n roll. But a lifetime in jail? I just can't believe you support that.

Say it aint so.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-22 1:49:55 PM

There is no comparison between Jim Crow Segregation and today's drug laws. Drug use is a lifestyle choice. One voluntarily enters it. Racial segregation on the other hand is involuntary. Such laws existed to keep African Americans legally inferior to whites. They ran counter to the basic freedoms the US stood for.

Rosa Parks and other civil rights heroes fought an unfair and arbitrary system. Emery, on the other hand, is a selfish clown trying to legitimize his awful lifestyle. He deserves his jail time.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 1:52:41 PM

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 2:10:15 PM

Zeb, I noticed that you didn't follow up on my request that you google the LD50 test for Cannabis. I'm guessing that you prefer NOT to know the facts.

Posted by: Dan Givens | 2008-07-22 2:19:28 PM

ZP wrote: “If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.”

I’m not giving up yet, ZP.

Consider this:

In places like Saudi Arabia, it is a crime punishable by death to publish images of the Muslim prophet Mohamed. Due to the borderless nature of the web, Ezra published images of the Muslim prophet Mohamed in Saudi Arabia. Ezra freely admits to doing the “crime.” Should he now be extradited to Saudi Arabia to do the “time”?

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-22 2:35:30 PM

If Ernst Zundel, Toronto's favorite son, can be deported, so can Emery, Vancouver's favorite son.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 2:48:26 PM

And so, then, can Ezra, Calgary's favourite son?

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-22 2:52:58 PM

The Cdn gov't would ever extradict someone to a country to face the death penalty, let alone to a country without an extradition treaty.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 3:01:40 PM

If the shortcut to liberty is breaking any law you don't agree with- then look out- here comes the assholes

Emery is desperate to sell his smash the state argument because he is looking at a loooooooong jail stretch-the only way he will ever escape his fate behind bars is for the western world society to rise up, smash the tyrants or error who busted him for black market profiteering and then that same belicose mob of billions spring him out of jail

Its a long shot, but to weed weasals like the Prince of Pot -social collapse is the only way to go..

for doped up mega maniacs like spit-in- the-cops-face nice guy saint Marc Emery to do what they want- everybody else has to suffer their excesses -

Snap out of it stoner press release readers: Emery is a Brat -not a planetary policy shaper.

Freedom great and small comes from loving thy neibour as thyslf..

Go ahead Frazer Institite- think tank that one away.

Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-22 3:15:53 PM

Z, Pike,

I know you think that you actually have a viable career as a prolific commenter on the Shotgun blog, but the truth is that you are nothing but an obnoxious malcontent, angry pest. I suggest you go outside and get some air. Rethink your life and do something useful.

If ever there was a candidate for smoking a joint, it's you.

Posted by: John West | 2008-07-22 4:46:37 PM

We won't have political and economic freedom in this country without individual and property rights enshrined in our constitution.
People don't seem to know the meaning of "freedom" or "rights" until it's THEIR $50,000 bull that is confiscated and destroyed by the state for no reason other than the rulers political purposes.
Do the people have a government or does the government have a people? In Canada it is still the latter.
Alcohol prohibition did nothing to stop people from drinking but did finance and enable a viscious criminal underground that is now well established and has inserted its corrupting influence into our political life.
"No no no no I don't smoke it no more.." but I supported PM Harper in the last election and the Reform Party before - in the hope that they could make a dent in reversing the statist dictatorship that has grown up in Canada. Thanks to the talent of Preston Manning in explaining (in simple language) that the "Charletan Accord" was a blank cheque for the leftie social engineers, it was voted down in the referendum - people understood and acted accordingly. We need people like Preston, Gerry, Ezra and Mark with the ability to explain and show the right direction to achieve individual liberty.
Gerry Nichols and Mark Emery are both right. The intellectuals have to advocate for freedom and rights and this has to translate into action in the form of challenging any and all unjust laws.
Mark Emery stands on principal - that every individual has the right to live the way he wants as long as he doesn't violate the rights of others.
The problem is we don't have individual rights in this country except by tradition, and that's not good enough.
Mark Emery's detractors have not presented any rational arguments against his fight, just emotionalism - 419 and ZP
Why should it be worth years in jail for selling herb seeds? The so-called "war on drugs" is a farce. Who stands to gain from it? Is it political pressure from the real criminal gangs who see Mark as cutting into their business? Why do these people want to see this destructive, unworkable farce continue?

Posted by: DonnaB | 2008-07-22 5:12:05 PM

I suppose this is my reward for daring to disagree with people here. I've been warning of the dangers of supporting Emery, and all I'm told is "Rethink your life and do something useful." Had you ever considered that I may have a point, and you refuse to listen? You can't all be Toronto people!

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 5:15:51 PM

I apologize for misspelling your name Marc (not Mark) and Mr. Nicholls (not Nichols)

Posted by: DonnaB | 2008-07-22 5:17:03 PM

"Mark Emery's detractors have not presented any rational arguments against his fight, just emotionalism - 419 and ZP"

I never took on his cause at all. To me he's just a criminal trying to evade a long prison sentence, like another "freedom fighter"/cop killer named Mumia Abu Jamal. Like Mumia, Emery will end his days in prison.

Instead, I said that libertarians should not use him to further their cause. His crimes will repel Conservative voters, much like how Ron Paul failed among Republicans. It is in your best interest to find another way. I'm quite secure in how I vote, and why. I'm not sure about you.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 5:42:29 PM

basically Marc Emery is a career criminal with a magazine and a website- The only difference between his gang & the other black market drug profiteers. is he was stupid enough to advertise

He surrounds himself with lawyers- he knows what he was doing- took a huge risk and got a huge takedow- and may well face a huge jail sentence.

He knew he was breaking the law and sold his weed seeds to anyone in any jurisdiction in the world at the highest buck- and he knew full well that cannabis is against the law in every nation of the world..and what those who bought his seeds, grew those pot seeds and consumed or sold the finished plant were risking their loves and libery to satisfy his kookie fantasy of Marijuana Royalty..

in some nations his seed customers faced the death penalty. So how did he help anyone charging $20 for a three cent weed seed?
So much for not hurting anybody
and enriching himself with $15,000,000.00 (US)
at a time when the US dollar was worth _much more than the canadian dollar..he knew what he was doing- he knew what he was doing was against the law..

The penalty for playing this game,
as a repeat offender is... many years in jail

Why would I present a rational argument against his fight? its his fight- and he is fighting against the criminal justice system in at least two nations..There may still be more charges laid

If you don;t like the pot laws, change them- if they don;t change its because its not a good idea to change them. If, like marc Emerty you take a huge chance and lose, you pay the price.

Maybe being stoned is not a good idea. Maybe your fellow humans are trying to send you a message by stepping up the heat in the Drug War.. They sent His majesty the Prince of Pot a clear message and he ignored it, time and time again-and look what happened to him ?

His " Overgrow the Government " did not achieve the expected results- You can thank Marc Scott Emery for bringing the Drug War to Canada

Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-22 6:22:46 PM

Read below from cnn.com today before all you libertarian types sream over the state taking away the kids at that ranch in Texas. These kids are fighting law enforcement becasue they are told they need to marry these older men in order to enter celestial heaven.
These are under age girls folks!! some as young as 15.

Polygamist leader Warren Jeffs was indicted in Texas on a count of child sexual assault, a first-degree felony. Five members of the sect also face charges.

Members of the polygamous FLDS revere jailed leader Warren Jeffs as their prophet.

Attorney General Greg Abbott says four of Jeffs' followers are charged with one count of sexually assaulting girls under the age of 17.

One of the four faces an additional charge of bigamy.

Abbott says a fifth follower is charged with three counts of failure to report child abuse.

The charges follow an ill-fated child custody case in which more than 400 children were placed in foster care. The Texas Supreme Court ruled child welfare authorities overstepped in taking all the children from their parents even though many were infants and toddlers.

Abbott earlier Tuesday went into a small community building where a grand jury was meeting in the West Texas town of Eldorado.

Women and girls in prairie dresses, including a 16-year-old daughter of Jeffs, were escorted into the same building, while lawyers and members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints crowded a bench in front of the courthouse.

The grand jury met for one day in June without issuing indictments in the case. Timeline: Warren Jeffs and the FLDS »

Weeks later, the Texas Supreme Court directed the judge overseeing the case to return the children to their parents, saying the state had overstepped its authority because it didn't show that any more than a handful of teenage girls may have been abused.

FLDS leaders have consistently denied that there was any abuse at the ranch and vowed not to sanction underage marriages.

Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret, but documents released as part of the separate child custody case involving the FLDS children have revealed some of the evidence collected by law enforcement during the weeklong raid of the ranch.

Among the hundreds of boxes of photos, documents and family Bibles, investigators found photos of Jeffs kissing and intimately embracing several apparently teenage girls.
Don't Miss
Jeffs released from hospital

A journal entry purportedly from Jeffs attached to a report by a child advocate indicates that he married his daughter to a 34-year-old man the day after she turned 15. The girl turns 17 on Saturday and has denied being married, though the child advocate report indicates that intimate notes between the girl and man were also found in the raid.

The girl, who playfully climbed a giant oak tree while waiting to be called to testify last month, left the community building frowning as she talked to her lawyer. The Associated Press is not identifying her because authorities believe she may be a sexual abuse victim.

Under Texas law, a girl younger than 17 cannot generally consent to sex with an adult. Bigamy is also illegal in Texas, although FLDS members in plural marriages did not get Texas marriage licenses.

In addition to discussions of the girl's marriage, the Jeffs journal entry indicates that he blessed marriages of two other underage sect members.

The FLDS, which believes that polygamy brings glory in heaven, is a breakaway sect of the mainstream Mormon church, which officially renounced polygamy more than a century ago.
Jeffs, who is revered as a prophet, is jailed in Arizona awaiting charges related to the marriages of young girls. He was convicted in Utah of rape as an accomplice for his role in the marriage of a 14-year-old last

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-07-22 6:46:47 PM

What's your point? Bad cases make for bad law.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-22 6:54:18 PM

I answer to no one.

That doesn't mean I am a scofflaw who does whatever the hell he wants. what it means is, I refuse to admit or acknowledge that anyone has any authority over me. Not my parents, not the government, not a judge, CERTAINLY not the imaginary friend that some people call "god". I answer to myself. Period.

When you break your self out of the pattern, when you refuse to participate in the paradigm of leader and follower, boss and underling, higher and lower...... you realize we are all truly equal.

Everyone is free to do whatever they want, no matter WHAT the laws say. But we must also realize that other people, individually and collectively, have the right to stop me or punish me. That doesn't mean i agree with their ideas, but the simple fact is, they have that freedom just as i do.

But when you acknowledge authority, when you AGREE to the idea and accept paradigm that someone is somehow "above" you as an authority, you are basically a slave. We are either FREE, which means we answer to no one.... or we are not free which means we answer to someone.

I answer to no one.

Posted by: Russell Barth | 2008-07-22 6:55:36 PM

Matthew wrote: "Also, Emery has never sold drugs. He only sold harmless seeds. And he did it openly and gave the proceeds away to anti-prohibition activist groups."

C'mon Matthew give me a break-harmless seeds that made him millions of dollars that in turn criminal gangs like the Hells Angels and other turned into pot plants and traded for cocaine with U.S gangs and in the end people have died over these drug gang to gang wars.
Thats the problem Matthew with your posistion as you try to squirm out of it.
Thats like saying if a man sold camera equpment he knew 100% was going to be used for taking pics of kids for kiddie porn-oh its only harmless camera equipment-it does not matter much if Russian mob distributors of kiddie porn bought the cameras from us.
Matthew that is really either naive on your part or blatently dishonest to say "harmless seeds"
Marc has to take responsibilty for what those seeds are and what they can do.

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-07-22 6:58:11 PM


"Thats like saying if a man sold camera equpment he knew 100% was going to be used for taking pics of kids for kiddie porn-oh its only harmless camera equipment-it does not matter much if Russian mob distributors of kiddie porn bought the cameras from us."

One can only hope you don't sell your home to a grow-op.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-22 7:02:24 PM

All things that come from nature should be legal. The natural hallucinogens from nature help get people off hard synthesized drugs, and give them new percpectives on life and help with alot of things and are entirly benificial if used properly. Hard drugs should be legal with a perscription and regualted with actuall REAL education and not biased propaganda, cause the people who chose to do heroin are gonna do it no matter what, and they dont choose it cause they think its good for them. The reality is we are all one, and as long as we see eachother as seperate we are dooomed!! its all about keeping the human race safe and happy. why are so many people goin crazy, killing themselves/others, doin hard drugs,, easy to escape from reality/make there egos happy..why, because the reality humanity has created for ourselves. we can choose a new one when we relize what we are and what reality really is.. and what the main cause of all the damage to humanity is!.. its not drugs and killing..thats a by product of the real problem.. they way we precive what reality is and who we are.

Posted by: Spencer | 2008-07-22 7:03:08 PM

h20 what is your point? I am not the one saying it was wrong for the state to intervene in Texas.

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-07-22 7:05:27 PM

h20 are you daft or maybe stoned? I said knowingly!!! and No I would never sell my house to people I knew were going to make it into a grow-op.
What damned cowards over this seed thing-HE KNEW DAMNED WELL WHAT THOSE SEEDS WERE.
Oh now its poor Marc going to jail for selling "seeds"
Even more B.S. with this "pot is the most harmless thing on the planet."
ya sure, I know plenty of people that cant hold down a job becasue of their addiction to pot.
Thats right I said it-ADDICTION!!!!!
Enough of this recreational use BS.

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-07-22 7:10:27 PM

Spencer: none of this "seeds" business would be a problem had Emery not sent them to the US. He is accused of breaking US law, and must face justice. Had he just sent them within Canada, there'd be less trouble.

He has no one to blame but himself and his arrogance for his predicament. Serves him right.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 7:25:58 PM

419, so what your saying is people should be punished for bad laws that oppress people. I think I see your logic. The more you control people, can you imagine how perfect everything would be. Lets keep throwing people in jail untill everyone but the rich is in a locked compound or in strict military controlled police states. Lets devalue human rights. Lets strip away the need for happiness and real human interaction. The governments and corporations are taking away our rights and your helping them. In case you haven't been noticing my sarcasm may be you should read some Norm Chomsky. Mark may have broken laws but at least he stood for something so fundamentally important like human rights. He actually did something about it. BC has one the biggest cash crops for Marijuana. So big that there is no way the police will ever fully crack down on EVER. I think Mark probably had his hand in there. That makes me ever so happy that I will continue to exercise my freedoms that have been taken away by law. So screw your cynicism and go do something productive like throw a rally in support of what you feel is important. Maybe it's time you put yourself on the line for your cause.

Posted by: Justin Steen | 2008-07-22 7:26:16 PM

Merle, I think your missing the point. Of course he knew what selling seeds would do but American and Canadian law do not enforce the same. Extradition should not take place if the country the individual is being extradited to is fairly parallel with Canadian law. If it not parallel and unfairly punishes the individual considered by Canadian law then he should be protected and at most be punished under Canadian law. Mark Emery paid taxes on the product he sold and the Canadian government had no issues with his business and is being double crossed by the Canadian government. He should have been if anything punished under Canadian law long ago and there would be no cause for extradition. The American government does not support your rights and freedoms. It is a totalitarian government hidden by a thin vail of what we call democracy. There are 1 in 100 Americans in jail right now and is currently increasing. Land of the free indeed.

Posted by: Justin Steen | 2008-07-22 7:36:07 PM

Merle, also fuck you for oppressing rights and freedoms.

Posted by: Justin Steen | 2008-07-22 7:37:09 PM

"Extradition should not take place if the country the individual is being extradited to is fairly parallel with Canadian law."

But US law is parallel with Cdn law. Extraditions occur all the time, in both directions. Emery has been treated fairly - that's his problem.

"The American government does not support your rights and freedoms."

Well that's not entirely fair. It can't do that in Canada or in any foreign nation, only within its own territory. And it does work for all, citizens and non-citizens alike. If anything, it does so too much, like failing to deport felon illegal aliens.

"It is a totalitarian government hidden by a thin vail of what we call democracy. There are 1 in 100 Americans in jail right now and is currently increasing. Land of the free indeed."

Blah blah blah meaningless banter.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 7:43:02 PM


How many people do YOU successfully control?

Just wondering, since you seem to have the notion that somebody it trying to control you.

Sounds like you're ONE OF THEM.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-22 7:58:52 PM

Zeb, the two laws are not punished the same. Here let me get some links for you. This is what it takes to get life in prison in Canada. No where does it say for selling drugs or trafficking. Mark Emery faces the same charge as murder in the states and could face the death penalty in some states. The two laws are simply not the same. Also your dismissing my point about the continued oppression of your rights and freedoms. You've obviously have been hiding under a rock for like the last 20 or so years. Read a little, it might do you a little good.


Posted by: Justin Steen | 2008-07-22 8:00:56 PM

Merle, I would like to start by thanking you. I haven't laughed that hard all day, and needed something comedical to get my mind off work.

First, I'm going to start off by saying you hit it bang on, he did know exactly what those seeds were. And he made a helluva lot of money off it too. More than a few million in fact. Shows you what demand is like for those things, and how it could help an economy eh?

Second, I won't disagree with you, saying "pot is the most harmless thing on the planet" is bs. There's a lot less harmless things on this earth. Lets take water for example shall we? That's pretty harmless. A lot more harmless than weed.
But I am going to inform you, besides tar deposits in your lungs smoking weed is not bad for you. THC has no known side effects, other than hunger and tiredness. You know they even make vaporizours now, which are completely safe. They heat the weed up to the boiling point of THC, but not hot enough to burn the weed, so you get no tar, only pure THC. Which actually could concieveably be less harmless than water. You can get water poisoning, but you sure havent heard of anyone getting weed poisoning. It simply doesn't exist.

Thirdly, and finally, There is no such thing as an addiction from weed. You can get addicted to coffee easier than you can addicted to this stuff. I'm being completely serious here, the only people that get addicted to weed are the same people that get addicted to something like apples. There's not many.

And don't give me this, "Enough of this recreational use BS," BS. If people are aware of the risks in what they do, let them do it. Everyone is educated on things like weed, and they're even educated by propaganda that makes it seem worse then it really is.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-22 8:01:02 PM

Zeb, you claim Marc Emery has no support, but you're so very, very wrong. Have you even looked at ANYTHING about Marc Emery's extradition case? I seriously doubt it, as your opinion is so grossly misinformed.

First you say "Emery...has failed to win in Vancouver" then you say "Emery, Vancouver's favorite son". So which is it? Does Vancouver love or hate him?

I've got an idea! Zebulon, who don't you pay Angus Reid for a poll? Show us all how "right" you are, how many people "don't" support Emery?

Oh, wait... Way back in 2005, Angus Reid/Global Monitor did that poll -- and 58% of Canadians said Marc should NOT be extradited. The number has certainly grown since then.

"Canadians Reject Extradition in Marijuana Case"

Where do you live, anyway? Not in Vancouver, because this city is extremely supportive of Marc Emery. So are the local and provincial -- and even federal -- politicians. All the links and documents are on our website (though you're so blinded by your hate, and afraid of being proven wrong, that you probably won't look).

Radio hosts, TV anchors, newspaper editorial boards, and millions of regular everyday people support Marc Emery. There have been positive and supportive TV shows, radio segments, newspaper/magazine articles, letters, editorials and columns, movies and more about Marc Emery produced by every major media network in North America and abroad.

I have over thirty pounds of signed petitions from people around the world. I've got copies of a hundred letters written to Rob Nicholson and other Members of Parliament. I've got a recorded phone message from the previous Justice Minister (Irwin Cotler) begging us to "stop having people call to protest the extradition of Marc Emery, we're being flooded and can't handle it" (that's recorded on tape). I've got Canadian Senators and MPs who will speak up against the extradition -- and who mostly already have!

So, Zeb, you are really "out of the loop" about Marc Emery if you truly believe he has no support. Are you hanging out in the White House ONDCP? Getting your gossip from Rob Nicholson and Harper? It's laughable and unbelievable, and that's why you're floundering here against legitimate arguments and facts from intellectuals.

"No one supports Emery" you say. Well, I invite you to attend the Liberty Summer Seminar. Do you have the balls to meet Marc Emery in person this weekend?

Posted by: Jodie Emery | 2008-07-22 8:02:07 PM

set you free, what point are you trying to make here. Are you saying I'm trying to control people. If so, then that is just not the case I believe in rights and freedoms for people and if things continue as they do, there will be dire consequences for people. The soldiers fought for our rights and freedoms and we must continue to fight for them because they are being taken away every day. They are instituting fear in society and people are becoming accepting of giving up freedoms.

Posted by: Justin Steen | 2008-07-22 8:05:30 PM

"Thats like saying if a man sold camera equipment he knew 100% was going to be used for taking pics of kids for kiddie porn-oh its only harmless camera equipment-it does not matter much if Russian mob distributors of kiddie porn bought the cameras from us.
Matthew that is really either naive on your part or blatantly dishonest to say "harmless seeds"
Marc has to take responsibility for what those seeds are and what they can do."

Jesus Christ, this argument is beyond absurd. Anything that is sold can be used for bad or good with some exceptions. There are millions of people to whom marijuana is medicine.

If cameras are tools for perverts then kill the perverts. The camera is only the fucking piano player.

What is wrong with you people? There is much on this planet and there are good and bad people making use of it. It is the people that need to be scrutinized not the objects that are available to them.

If you think banning guns for example, will end murders, ask the Tutsis of Rwandan what they think of machetes.

Marc Emery is a freedom fighter. You may not like or use marijuana, but tens of millions do and no one has the right to tell them they shouldn't.

If you want to purge society of badness, start with crack heads, ecstasy producers, politicians, eco freaks, Al Gore, stock market manipulators, not to mention radical Muslims in our midst.

Marc Emery is the least of our problems.

Posted by: John V | 2008-07-22 8:11:43 PM

"Have you even looked at ANYTHING about Marc Emery's extradition case? I seriously doubt it, as your opinion is so grossly misinformed."

I have not looked at anything because I have better things to do. Like anything else.

Despite all this "support", he has yet to place higher than fourth in any election. That's what I call a lack of support. He's a loser, and no self-respecting Conservative should support him.

I'll bet many of those same "supporters" also backed the US military deserters. Gee, that worked well. One was sent home last week, and many more will soon follow.

What your cause needs is genuine support, like that from a senior government official, like the Prime Minister. The Civil Rights Movement succeeded in part because of the Johnson Administration's assistance - legislation, federal troops, federal marshals, etc.

You don't have that. In fact, Emery shot himself in the foot by calling the Justice Minister, Mr. Cotler "a Jewish-Nazi, or Nazi-Jew". Disgraceful. You shouldn't antagonize the people who can help.

Go on, keep defeating yourselves. I'll be where I am, in the US for the record, enjoying my freedom.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 8:19:30 PM

Yeah you sound like a typical and hypocritical American. We all know the political system is flawed influenced by big corporations. I bet 4th place is a lot higher then your will ever get.

Also Mr. Cotler is no longer in office anyway, so what does it matter. He's in the hands of the puppet Bush government that we call the conservative party.

Posted by: Justin Steen | 2008-07-22 8:27:03 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.