Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Ezra Levant has denormalized Canada’s human rights industry; it’s now time for the law to change | Main | Rob Nicholson voted in favour of squelching section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act »

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Marc Emery extradition poll

Here's a poll we put together:

Vote away (if you want to post this poll on your own blog or website, here's the link for that).

If you want the back story, here's our take. If you want to read Emery's latest piece exclusive to the Western Standard, you can read it here.

As for our "official" position: The Western Standard strongly opposes the extradition of libertarian publisher and Western Standard columnist, Marc Emery.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 18, 2008 in Marijuana reform | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010536023487970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Marc Emery extradition poll:

Comments

do we win T shirts?

Posted by: 419 | 2008-11-18 8:37:43 PM


Web polls are not scientific. How do we know some activist type hasn't been voting over and over all day? In any case, all this poll does is reflect people's opinions, informed or otherwise. Democracy does not equal mob rule.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-18 8:40:36 PM


Come on, Shane, no one thinks this is "scientific." It's just an online poll.

But do try and vote over and over. Please, be my guest. Go nuts.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-11-18 8:44:52 PM


Why not ask whether or not it was a good idea to deport Ernst Zundel? After all, according to your logic, he was just expressing himself instead of spreading bigoted hate. No wonder he was so popular in Toronto.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-18 8:55:13 PM


Zeb poses a false dichotomy. Actually, Zundel was expressing himself BY spreading bigoted hate.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-11-18 9:08:41 PM


I voted "strongly agree". Marc knew the law. Marc knew the potential consequences. Marc knowingly went ahead with his venture anyway.

It may seem strange to some here but we have to tailor our actions toward the laws we currently have, not toward the laws we wish we had. This isn't a civil rights issue and Emery isn't MLK. The martyr BS is getting tiring.

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-11-18 9:38:51 PM


I'm not voting in this stupid poll because nobody gives a shit about some drug pusher.

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-11-18 9:44:34 PM


Where's the actual poll? I don't see a link.

I have to oppose the extradition, because the punishment does not fit the crime. At a time when many American politicians are reconsidering their drug policies, I think a wait and see policy would work well here.

This all seems like an incredible waste of manpower for the American justice system. They're obviously just testing their jurisdictional boundaries, at the expense of someone commiting a fairly harmless crime.

Posted by: dp | 2008-11-18 9:44:56 PM


Do you feel the same way about Ezra Levant, Richard?

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-11-18 9:45:09 PM


Emery isn't MLK. The martyr BS is getting tiring.

Posted by: Richard Evans | 18-Nov-08 9:38:51 PM

Wouldn't someone wanting to be a martyr go willingly?

And I seem to remember hearing of a few other people over the years who knew the potential consequences, and went ahead anyway.

When you think about it, Marc is a lot like Ghandi, or Jesus. Maybe not Jesus, but Ghandi for sure. Well, maybe not Ghandi either, but maybe Jean Valjean.

Posted by: dp | 2008-11-18 9:52:25 PM


Why not ask whether or not it was a good idea to deport Ernst Zundel? After all, according to your logic, he was just expressing himself instead of spreading bigoted hate. No wonder he was so popular in Toronto.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 18-Nov-08 8:55:13 PM

Wasn't Jim Keegstra just expressing himself instead of spreading bigoted hate. No wonder he was so popular in Alberta.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-18 9:56:07 PM


If he was so popular, why did Keegstra disappear after he was convicted. No one came to his defense, unlike Toronto which rallied around Zundel like he was the Messiah.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-18 10:02:01 PM


PMJ sez: "Do you feel the same way about Ezra Levant, Richard?"

Absolutely. If he's charged under the criminal code (ours or theirs) I see no reason why he shouldn't stand trial. Why do you ask?

dp sez: "Wouldn't someone wanting to be a martyr go willingly?"

Not if they can gain some mileage toward their cause by generating press coverage, no.

dp sez: "When you think about it, Marc is a lot like Ghandi, or Jesus. Maybe not Jesus, but Ghandi for sure. Well, maybe not Ghandi either, but maybe Jean Valjean."

Dude, are you smokin' some of Emery's weed?

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-11-18 10:05:10 PM


richard, by your logic there's no such thing as a conscientious objector. everyone should play along with every silly or unjust law. perhaps someday someone will find a law you broke, and you will hope others don't share your views.

Posted by: n | 2008-11-18 10:14:13 PM


Zubulon Pike: "Why not ask whether or not it was a good idea to deport Ernst Zundel? After all, according to your logic, he was just expressing himself instead of spreading bigoted hate. No wonder he was so popular in Toronto."

The extradition of Ernst Zundel was an embarrassing low point in Canada's justice system. Even misguided fools have a natural and inalienable right to express their honestly-held opinions. As for Emery, he participated in the free marketplace just like any other business owner. The government accepted his taxes. They just didn't approve of his product.

But even if you believe that Zundel and Emery should be treated as criminals, extradition is not the answer in either case.

In Canada, Holocaust denial is punished with a fine. The sale of marijuana seeds is punished with (at most) a month in prison.

Is Canada such a wimpy country that we must send our "criminals" to other countries to endure penalties that we don't have the political courage to enforce ourselves?

Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-11-19 4:16:51 AM


I'm trying to figure out how folks are voting on this poll. I'm sure some folks view this as simply a poll asking - do you think someone should face "up to a life sentence" for selling marijuana seeds? The inclusion of that piece of info in the poll doesn't just add context, it's there to make us think about that consequence. Still, it's asking a question about extradition. Others might very fairly frame this as a poll asking "given that Marc Emry was quite able to know and be aware (and probably was aware) of the fact that Canada and the US are two countries with very close relationships on matters of extradition and law enforcement co-operation, why should he be an exception?"

Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 2008-11-19 7:23:38 AM


n sez: "richard, by your logic there's no such thing as a conscientious objector. everyone should play along with every silly or unjust law. perhaps someday someone will find a law you broke, and you will hope others don't share your views."

The last time I checked, we live in a democracy. If the pro-dope lobby doesn't like a law, they have the ability to publicly state their position and lobby the voters to elect someone who will change the law. If the cause is just and the argument can be made in an articulate manner, it should be an easy sell.

But that's neither here nor there.

Emery willingly shipped his dope into a legal jurisdiction (out of Canadian control) where he knew what the penalties are. He shipped them to a country with whom, he knew, we have extradition agreements.

Emery knowingly/willingly made his own bed. I see no reason to protest or feel pity when he's made to lay in it.

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-11-19 8:33:34 AM


I've already voted twice, P.M., from two different computers. Let me loose in a lab and I could really stuff the ballot. And all of this assumes that the poster of the poll is not fudging the numbers himself, which given the fact that it was posted by an activist, has to be considered. You know better than to trust information hand-delivered by a partial source. :-)

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-19 9:07:37 AM


P.S. It would be interesting to see what the results would be if the question were, "Do you think Marc Emery should be extradited if the Americans promised to sentence him to not more than five years"? See, it's a loaded question, putting that "life sentence" in there, in an attempt to shock the responder. Subtle.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-19 9:09:32 AM


Not like Jean Valjean either, DP. Valjean had enough sense to keep a low profile and by no stretch of the imagination could he be called a shameless media whore, or the early 19th-century equivalent. He also committed his one (almost two) crime at the utmost end of need, not for profit.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-19 9:12:20 AM


Jeremy wrote: "Is Canada such a wimpy country that we must send our "criminals" to other countries to endure penalties that we don't have the political courage to enforce ourselves?"

Yes.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-19 9:13:40 AM


richard:
in one thing we agree, that it might be better if all laws were followed exactly and in all cases. less gov't discretion can lead to less discrimination, rule of law would exist as it should, and we'd probably see a lot fewer silly laws.
however, about the godliness of democracy we disagree. a system in which a mob of 51% can persecute 49%, where bad laws are nearly impossible to get rid of, that is not a good system. before you pray before the alter of democracy, consider what it really is, and some of the awful laws it has produced. just because it may be better than other systems, doesn't mean we need to worship it.

Posted by: n | 2008-11-19 9:57:29 AM


n sez: "however, about the godliness of democracy we disagree. a system in which a mob of 51% can persecute 49%, where bad laws are nearly impossible to get rid of, that is not a good system. before you pray before the alter of democracy, consider what it really is, and some of the awful laws it has produced. just because it may be better than other systems, doesn't mean we need to worship it."

I'm no fan of pure democracy or mob rule. I'm just as, if not more, libertarian than a lot of folks on this board. Having said that, I also have to say that I'm pragmatic and that I acknowledge reality. Society and our political climate are what they are and we have to deal with that at face value. You can piss and moan and complain all you want but the fact is that we live in a democracy where the mob rules. Period. If you want to make changes, you have to do it within that system. The only other option is armed revolt and that isn't going to happen any time in the near future.

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-11-19 10:53:03 AM


Liam and Shane: Unfortunately, the polling program only allows a certain number of characters for the poll question. I tried to put in 25 to life, as well as additional context, but I ran out of characters. In the end, I thought "Canadian" was important, the punishment was, and some indication of the nature of the crime.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-11-19 11:40:44 AM


>> "The only other option is armed revolt and that isn't going to happen any time in the near future"

not with THAT attitude! :)

Posted by: n | 2008-11-19 11:47:34 AM


If buyers were voluntarily purchasing seeds from Marc where is the harm? It's a consensual act and even if you and I disagree with it (which I personally do not) we do not have the right to use the force of government to stop that transaction.

As for Holocaust denial -- that's just crazy. Both denying it and issuing fines or levying prison sentences against those who espouse it (as 13 EU countries now do). That's exactly why it should be allowed -- so that through reason and objective facts can be entered into the discussion. Remember, it's unpopular speech that needs to be protected most of all. Just because someone has a view that differs from yours does not give you the right to use the force of government to shut them up.

Posted by: Pete | 2008-11-19 1:18:05 PM


Wow ! its easy to vote several times on this extradition pol thingie on the same computer..so I don't believe any of the results.. ha ha who would? especially the massive support in the NO to extradion dept. - CALLING ALL STONERS- JUMP ON THIS POLL AND FREE THE WEED> press the disagree button as hard as you can

If you decide to do telephone surveys to settle this question , just call your friends you know are home who will give you the answers you wanted in the first place..

This was a fun sort of game more than a valid indicator of true public sentiment, right>??

Afterall somebody at Western Standard spent some time gathering signatures in support of freeing the Emery gang for presentation to the Justice Minister. No wonder petitions never worked..nobody believes in them except the signature collectors of the likes of Barb Wire, Ben Dover and the King of Kindergarten himself: - I.P. Knightly

Posted by: 419 | 2008-11-19 3:24:40 PM


Pete sez: "If buyers were voluntarily purchasing seeds from Marc where is the harm? It's a consensual act and even if you and I disagree with it (which I personally do not) we do not have the right to use the force of government to stop that transaction."

You're basing your perception on the laws you wish we had instead of the laws that we currently have. Spend some time in the real world and then get back to us...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-11-19 9:30:01 PM


We just voted for the fourth time..we'll have six or seven votes in by lunch, was that ever easy. ' guess other people have figgured out how to warp the results too, its so tempting to keep hitting the button we wish reflects the world that isn't that way.

No hard feelings, actually- no feelings-not this time
and to be fair , we randomly voted " strongly disagree ' because we can take a joke, maybe the Justice Minister can't take a joke .. but thats another story

THIS POLL IS AS VALID AS TELEVISION ITSELF

Posted by: 419 | 2008-11-20 8:48:58 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.