The Shotgun Blog
« 1989 | Main | George Smitherman will run for mayor of Toronto »
Monday, November 09, 2009
Libby Davies restates opposition to extradition of Marc Emery
NDP MP Libby Davies has a lot to offer civil libertarians.
Western Standard blogger, free speech champion and social conservative Paul Tuns wrote disapprovingly here of Davies’ efforts to legalize prostitution, a policy that libertarians, by contrast, support. In fact, I’ve personally written in support of the legalization of prostitution here and here.
Davies is also a champion of drug policy reform. She’s a strong advocate for harm reduction and has publicly opposed the extradition of publisher and libertarian activist Marc Emery, who awaits extradition to the U.S. on charges related to selling marijuana seeds.
Davies continues to be an advocate in parliament for Emery. On October 2, 2009, in an open letter to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, Davies wrote:
I write once again to ask that you stop the extradition of Canadian Marc Emery to the United States and allow him to serve his prison sentence in Canada.
Canadian law enforcement officials have for a decade ignored Mr. Emery’s well publicized activities. I have expressed to you on many occasions my vehement opposition to sending Mr. Emery or any Canadian to face harsh punishment in another country when we have agreed as a society that these actions are not worthy of prosecution in Canada. Yet, your government has refused to intervene on Mr. Emery’s behalf and he will now serve a five year prison term in the United States.
It is my understanding that the United States government will allow Mr. Emery to remain in Canada to serve his sentence if the Government of Canada agrees. I therefore urge you to act in best the interest of this Canadian citizen and in the interest of Canadian sovereignty and allow Mr. Emery to serve his sentence in Canada.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible on this urgent matter.
While I disagree with Davies more than I agree with her, she has shown courage and intelligence on issues important to libertarians.
NDP leader Jack Layton has also expressed his opposition to the extradition of Marc Emery. You can read his comments here, courtesy of Jacob Hunter.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on November 9, 2009 in Marc Emery | Permalink
Comments
He should have never sold his crappy seed to Americans! Why diid he not keep his shit in Canada? Now he wants to stay in Canada? Bullshit! he sold his illegal shit acroos the border like a pirate and now he should go and pay the piper! Marc is an asshole anyways!
Posted by: What? | 2009-11-09 6:29:02 AM
Like a pirate? Sure. Like Ragnar Danneskjöld.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-11-09 6:56:06 AM
I can see Mr. Nicholson reading this letter, crumpling it up, and tossing it into the wastepaper basket on the other side of the room - complete with basketball hoop. Emery is a convicted drug dealer, and no amount of pleading is going to save his ass from hard time. Bless the American justice system for doing what Canada SHOULD have done years ago.
All this letter shows is that the Liberal/NDP/Green Party is soft on crime. She should look out of her limousine window at her riding in BC - it's a drug infested hole.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-11-09 8:12:37 AM
Looks like Matthew is endorsing liberalterianism.
Looking back at my original Western Standard post it appeared that I was criticizing a taxpayer-subsidized junket to research alternative approaches to dealing with prostitution and implicitly mocking what might be regarded as research.
While my own views on decriminalization of drugs and prostitution aren't entirely set in stone, I find some merit in the Swedish model as described by Mark Logan in today's Wash Examiner.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Taking-a-Swedish-cue-on-prostitution-8503882-69523472.html
Posted by: Paul Tuns | 2009-11-09 8:16:25 AM
Liberaltarian? That hurts, Paul. I'm a conservative libertarian. Prostitution bad, prohibition worse -- that kind of thing.
Fair comment, though. Perhaps you should start blogging again for us and expand on your views on these matters. :-)
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-11-09 8:44:31 AM
Beth (Merrill), I not convinced of the "happy hooker" idea. Prostitution seems to have a very negative impact on the prostitute, and entirely divorces sex from love, respect or even basic physical attraction, which can't be healthy for society.
Of course, prohibiting prostitution makes things much more dire for the women involved, and for everyone else.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-11-09 9:25:16 AM
"Who gives anybody the right to decide what is the govenor or how we should govern our persnal affairs?"
Nobody has the right to meddle in private affairs. My only point is that prostitution is not a healthy practice. Don't conclude from that statement that I would support the continued prohibition of prostitution. I don't.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-11-09 11:23:54 AM
Zeb we've decided to take away your right to consume red meat seeing as it is both bad for you and the planet.
As a vegetarian administration we don't give a damn about how you feel nor do we care about your fine ability to debate. Its just the way its going to be from now on so shut up and eat your broccoli while continuing your hard tax paying work in order to support of this great society that knows best.
Posted by: David Stewart | 2009-11-09 1:02:52 PM
How credible is Libby Davies? Here she is spouting "9/11 Truth" statements in Parliament. Surely even Emery's supporters can do better than someone like her. She has no credibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6DK_jTVcA
Emery is a goner for the next few years, entirely by his own actions. Get used to it. I'm happy to see a criminal like him rot.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-11-09 1:52:45 PM
Like a pirate? Sure. Like Ragnar Danneskjöld.
A more appropriate comparison might be Robin Hood, Matthew. His name at least everyone knows.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-09 2:15:30 PM
If you don't give these men an outlet, a portion of them will abuct, and often murder your children, wives, and girlfriends.
What makes you think they won't do it anyway? By the way, children are more at risk of being murdered by their mother than their father. A statistic which, tellingly enough, does not even include abortion.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-09 2:17:18 PM
Speaking of everyone's favourite drug smuggler, when is his next hearing?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-09 2:18:09 PM
"NDP MP Libby Davies has a lot to offer civil libertarians."
Sure she does, and Hitler had a lot to offer the Jews of Germany.
Some propositions are so preposterous they beg for a thorough Godwinning. You're a complete idiot Matthew.
Posted by: Matthew is still a statist | 2009-11-09 2:18:58 PM
Oog, is it necessary for you to contaminate EVERY thread on this site?
Oog piss in punch...
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-09 2:28:28 PM
"Zeb we've decided to take away your right to consume red meat seeing as it is both bad for you and the planet."
It's his "right to type" I'm more concerned with ;)
Posted by: Charles | 2009-11-09 2:44:33 PM
"Charles , I am playing nice with you, don't make me poke you in that winking eye."
Yawn.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-11-09 2:50:27 PM
I'm much better off than Emery - which goes without saying. Unlike him, I can leave my home and go for a walk. That's real liberty for you.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-11-09 2:58:18 PM
But if I do drugs, I'll wind up like him. How is that liberation?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-11-09 3:12:28 PM
Pike,
Your use of circular logic never ceases to amaze. You can't use the fact that something is illegal to argue that something should be illegal.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-11-09 3:51:39 PM
Where's the circular logic? Emery does and sells drugs, he's in jail. I do neither and I'm free. That's rather straightforward, unless of course the accuser is on drugs.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-11-09 4:17:23 PM
Pike,
Simply breaking the law does not make someone deserving of jail or of rotting. The existence of a law is not proof of its validity nor justifies the imprisonnement of those who violate the law.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-11-09 6:04:16 PM
Zebulon Pike, I'd rather be in prison than be in your shoes. How can you call yourself free when you live in such bondage to bigotry? Marc Emery knows more about freedom than you may ever know. It seems to me that Mark is loved by many more people than love you, which would put him in a much better place, socially speaking.
Posted by: douglas | 2009-11-09 6:36:08 PM
Wow, it didn't take long for jail to change Emery. Oh wait, he has always been that pathetic.
Anyone who sends stuff to Emery will probably end up in a police database. This would only be a problem for those not already there.
Oh word to the wise: Chapters service SUCKS! The last time I ordered from them in 2000-2001 I waited for six months. They're the worst.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-11-09 6:46:22 PM
I can think of one thing Emery could use in jail. A rope. Imagine his lifeless body dangling silently in his cell, eyes popped out, tongue hanging out. It wouldn't be a pretty sight, and his family would be in mourning (except his wife who would be very angry at not having a penny left since he ruined the drug business). But the upside is that he would be a true martyr for his cause - namely, himself. For the majority, he's just more proof that drugs ruin lives.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-11-09 9:38:12 PM
"Pig cops", Lou? I have heard this expression only from some people who were caught breaking the law. What did the "pig cops" catch you doing?
Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2009-11-10 7:08:41 AM
zebulon said:
"For the majority, he's just more proof that drugs ruin lives."
The majority of what? American prohibitionists?
The majority in Canadian society has decided that his punishment should be a $2000 fine. This is the law they support. In the view of this same majority, it would therefore be more proof that the drug policies of the united states ruin lives.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-10 10:18:16 AM
It is also "more proof" that the Canadian government is more concerned with the well-being of their relationship with the united states than the well-being of their relationship with their own country's people.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-10 10:20:40 AM
Our government should be representing us, not the will of the US.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-10 10:23:45 AM
It is this same lack of backbone in our leadership that has cost us so dearly over seas.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-10 10:25:16 AM
Emery repeatedly taunted US authorities with his action. He should have realized that his game could never last forever. He was a fool, a loser, and a moron. He got what he deserved.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-11-10 10:47:50 AM
Whats your point fatboy? Are you saying legalize prostitution, and take children away from their mother and father. Are you low on B-12 today?
Contribute or piss off, twig boy.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 10:59:20 AM
Charles , I am playing nice with you, don't make me poke you in that winking eye.
"Sensitive" and "caring," huh?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 11:00:26 AM
I guess you can't comprehend from reading or reflect. Once he's out he is free, but you will be still locked away in your self imposed dungeon...
Unlike you, who has his very own self-imposed prison yard miles from anywhere.
You are on the outside, and it appears from your demeanor that life is more rotten for you because of the mental prison you have created.
Yet you're the one riding the bitter bus and gonchie pulling everyone in sight, twig boy.
Isn't that the street signal for "want some head"?
Are you offering?
I am guessing he would have read more than once Voltaires "Candide", what are som other very intersting books he might like to read?
This just kills me. A guy who pontificates about the works of Socrates and Voltaire, but who can't spell the word "some," perhaps due to brain damage got either by smoking too much weed or during one of his profounder beatings. This is pathetic beyond words.
Why would it matter if the pig cops know that I sent him 5 books?
Maybe because you've admitted to buying and using illegal drugs on this site and they can now theoretically find you based on the titles of the books you sent.
That's about right, Zebulon Shane is using 9 year old information, based on one incident to try and totally discredit this companies competency regarding shipping.
You still can't get past that tired old saw, can you, twig boy? You post under a hundred different names; therefore everyone must be as dishonest as you. Or as stupid. Hey twig boy, tell everyone where I live.
I realize nobody loves or admires anything about you, but is it necessary to project your misery here.
That was Zeb, not me, but who are you to complain about anyone projecting anything, you who projectile-vomits on everything in sight until the whole place stinks of bile and puke?
Shouldn't you get help if cammando knives and imagining peoples tongues hanging out from strangulation is what floats your boat?
Shouldn't YOU get help if beating people's brains in is what floats yours? Oops, I forgot, you're really a "sensitive" and "caring" guy who tries to get along with everybody. How's that workin' for ya?
P.S. The word is "commando," dipshit. You know, you're too stupid to even be good at insulting people.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 11:16:10 AM
To elaborate, pig cops to me are the Cops who actively involve themselves in prohibition of any type. It is my strong opinion that cops who knowingly perpetrate crimes against humanity in an unreasonable manner are pig cops. This is how I always differentiate.
Prohibition is not a crime against humanity, though, is it? But floating your product to you across lakes of blood? That's a potential candidate. Back to stamping out widgets, twig boy.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 11:17:24 AM
"For the majority, he's just more proof that drugs ruin lives." The majority of what? American prohibitionists?
Visit the Downtown Eastside sometime and its stark realities will cure you of your romantic delusions that drugs are harmless.
The majority in Canadian society has decided that his punishment should be a $2000 fine. This is the law they support.
That's not the way it works, Fed. What's required is that both laws and maximum sentences between the countries be comparable. In this case, they're virtually identical. A quick opinion poll proves nothing. And it certainly doesn't provide an argument for letting Canadians break American law with impunity. If Americans started breaking our laws, those same Canadians would be seething with indignation.
It is also "more proof" that the Canadian government is more concerned with the well-being of their relationship with the united states than the well-being of their relationship with their own country's people.
The Tories just took two seats in by-elections (no mean feat for a sitting government), and their poll numbers are up. Apparently their relationship with their own people has not suffered over the Emery affair.
Our government should be representing us, not the will of the US.
That doesn't mean they can ignore the law and/or international agreements. This is not an issue of sovereignty. If anything, we allowed one of our citizens to impugn American sovereignty--and some of you have the nerve to tell them they should just suck it up!
It is this same lack of backbone in our leadership that has cost us so dearly over seas.
What has cost us dearly overseas is a generation of wussy urbanites who believe in soft power and moral superiority over hard power and actual morality. They're unable to see past their own little lives and drift from cause du jour to cause du jour without any thought or reflection.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 11:24:59 AM
Why don't you contribute, send Marc a book that will influence him to maybe he will see things from your perverted perspective, that is if any books exist from that extreme.
Don't change the subject. We are talking about the thread. And unlike you, I don't send care packages to drug pushers.
A nerd like you has nothing to fear of soviet era style documentation regarding dissent because it only exists in your mind. Feel free to send it off without concern.
If information from the past is so bad, why do pot smokers try to offer marijuana's supposed 10,000-year history as justification for legalizing it?
Regarding the "twig boy" comment, are you familiar with who Matt hughes is? He is 5'9" 170 , does he look like a twig. I am same height, 12 pounds heavier, and my life has been about lifting and working with heavy things, I am not saying I am nearly as tough as he.
Those must be some pretty substantial widgets to qualify as "heavy lifting." And did you put fishing sinkers in your guitar to give yourself more of a workout?
The rest of your post is so hopelessly jumbled and incoherent that I can't even follow what you're trying to say, and anyway it's irrelevant to the topic, much like most of your ramblings. I did not ask you what you thought; it would be a wasted effort, for it's clear by now you are not overly gifted with an apparatus for cerebration. And what you do have is dope-addled.
This much is clear, though; you're always on the lookout for a fight. That doesn't make you brave; it makes you mean, stupid, reckless, and probably even more of a criminal than we already know you are. If your contribution, in a nutshell, is "Hey, fuck you, wanna fight?" I think we'll pass.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 11:56:04 AM
shane said:
"Visit the Downtown Eastside sometime and its stark realities will cure you of your romantic delusions that drugs are harmless."
I've indicated in this very blog that I agree drugs are harmful to society.
shane said:
"That's not the way it works, Fed. What's required is that both laws and maximum sentences between the countries be comparable. In this case, they're virtually identical."
It is my understanding, (as well as Davies indicated by her letter above), that the Canadian government is in position to allow emery to serve his time in Canada.
shane said:
"Apparently their relationship with their own people has not suffered over the Emery affair."
Whether the Canadian people realize it or not, we are now subject to some kind of precedent where well-being of canadians can be traded for political reasons by our own elected government. Emery may have met the extradition standards, but that doesn't change the fact that the government has decided to give up a Canadian citizen to a foreign government when confronted with an opportunity to ensure his just treatment. Afterall, as was already pointed out, we are talking about a country that is proven to torture upon suspicion of terrorism.
shane said:
"If anything, we allowed one of our citizens to impugn American sovereignty--and some of you have the nerve to tell them they should just suck it up!"
Did Emery make it clear to the government that he was selling them to the US? Who exactly "allowed" him to impugn American sovereignty?
shane said:
" What has cost us dearly overseas is a generation of wussy urbanites who believe in soft power and moral superiority over hard power and actual morality. They're unable to see past their own little lives and drift from cause du jour to cause du jour without any thought or reflection."
Is this how you explain the recent movement sparked by Ron Paul? A movement that is largely made up of young people. At least their generation is aware enough to recognize an issue of liberty when one arises.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-10 12:14:50 PM
If I haven't said it here it is so you can save it on your hard drive for reasons of feeding your psychosis, I HAVE USED ILLEGAL DRUGS IN THE PAST, ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. Hows that ,feel better, put it with all my other memorable quotes, that you think will some how aid you in something.
Aid me? No. But you just made it that much easier for the cops to build a case against you if they were so inclined. Nice spazz, by the way.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 12:34:46 PM
lou said:
"Hi Fed are you referring to the dead Canadians killed in afghanistan protecting I'm not sure exactly what, or something else that has cost us dearly?
How are things by the way?"
Busy! I wish I had time to pick up the new Call of Duty. Thanks for askin'. How about you?
Yeah, dead canadians, and mis-allocated funds. My best friend is scheduled to go to Afghanistan in february. I, for one, will be very upset if our deadline of 2011 is pushed back under pressure from our "neighbors". There is no need for Canadians to be fighting in afghanistan.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-10 12:39:43 PM
shane said:
"But you just made it that much easier for the cops to build a case against you if they were so inclined"
I don't think admitting past drug use is a criminal offence. The police could use it as sufficient evidence to suspect drug possession and search you, particularly if the past drug use is as recent as 20 minutes ago or something. I doubt that any judge would grant a warrant to search lou's house for marijuana based solely on a blog post, so I'd say as long as he leaves his marijuana at home he'd have nothing to worry about.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-10 12:53:22 PM
I've indicated in this very blog that I agree drugs are harmful to society.
Yet you also said:
"For the majority, he's just more proof that drugs ruin lives." The majority of what? American prohibitionists?
Thus insinuating that drugs do NOT ruin lives, and/or that Marc Emery's case does not exemplify this, except in the eyes of American prohibitionists. And what about Canadian prohibitionists? There are more than a few, you know. Even if half support legalizing the weed, that means half don't. And in spite of what you would prefer to see, their votes count for just as much.
It is my understanding, (as well as Davies indicated by her letter above), that the Canadian government is in position to allow emery to serve his time in Canada.
And why should we pay for his incarceration when the Americans are willing to pay? Should we start paying for their citizens' medical bills, too? He broke American law; he deserves an American jail.
Whether the Canadian people realize it or not, we are now subject to some kind of precedent where well-being of canadians can be traded for political reasons by our own elected government.
Balderdash. Canadians who break American laws have no right, legal or otherwise, to be allowed to flout American justice just because Canadians are still mad about the War of 1812. Everything that is happening is doing so in accordance with an international treaty that has been in place for nearly 40 years.
Emery may have met the extradition standards, but that doesn't change the fact that the government has decided to give up a Canadian citizen to a foreign government when confronted with an opportunity to ensure his just treatment.
By Canadian standards, his treatment is both legal and just. He's being given a jail cell for a moderate term. He's not being shipped off to some human-rights disaster area where he'll be whipped with chains, beheaded in a marketplace, suspended from a crane, or raped with specially trained dogs.
After all, as was already pointed out, we are talking about a country that is proven to torture upon suspicion of terrorism.
Being shipped FROM a country that is already proven to commit "genocide" against aboriginals. If you want to play politics, Fed, then let's go ahead. That's pretty much your only hope and Emery's, isn't it? Appeal to the policy process least beholden to truth and most likely to be distorted by emotion.
Did Emery make it clear to the government that he was selling them to the US? Who exactly "allowed" him to impugn American sovereignty?
Is this coming from the same side of the fence that repeated over and over again that Emery made no secret of what he was doing, went so far as to pay income tax on it, and was even recommended to medical marijuana patients as a source of seeds on several occasions? EVERYBODY knew he was selling seeds to the US. Including, unfortunately for him, the DEA.
Is this how you explain the recent movement sparked by Ron Paul? A movement that is largely made up of young people. At least their generation is aware enough to recognize an issue of liberty when one arises.
What has Canada's limp-wristed foreign policy for the last few decades to do with Ron Paul? You really should make your attempts at redirection a little less obvious, Fed. Ron Paul has nothing whatever to do with this discussion. Smoking marijuana is not a protected liberty.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 12:53:57 PM
There is no need for Canadians to be fighting in afghanistan.
That attitude, taken up by pretty much by all other nations in general and by NATO nations in particular, explains why the U.S. acquired hyperpower status. They gave up the power, and Nature, abhorring a vacuum, allowed the Americans to flow into it. Congratulations, Fed, for making the Americans even stronger.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 12:56:04 PM
I don't think admitting past drug use is a criminal offence.
There you go thinking again, Oog. I suggest you stop it; thinking when your brain isn't set up for it will get you into more trouble than not thinking at all. It is not a criminal offence to ADMIT to anything. But the past act admitted to can certainly be, and anything you say can be used against you.
The police could use it as sufficient evidence to suspect drug possession and search you, particularly if the past drug use is as recent as 20 minutes ago or something. I doubt that any judge would grant a warrant to search lou's house for marijuana based solely on a blog post, so I'd say as long as he leaves his marijuana at home he'd have nothing to worry about.
Based SOLELY on a blog post? Perhaps not. But how do you know what else they have already? A bit of evidence here, a scrap there, and before you notice it, you've got a case—and a search warrant. Given your colourful history, as well as your implacable hostility towards cops, I'd be very surprised if you hadn't run afoul of them a time or two. Glad I don't have to worry.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 1:00:59 PM
P.S. Yes, I know that was really you, Fed. Assuming of course you're not Oog to start with. I suspect you aren't--for one thing, you're literate, whereas he clearly isn't--but every so often, you do something to make me wonder.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 1:02:38 PM
shane said:
"Even if half support legalizing the weed, that means half don't"
You forgot about the Indifferent crowd.
shane said:
"And why should we pay for his incarceration when the Americans are willing to pay?"
Is "so the government can save money" a sufficient reason to sacrifice the well-being of Canadians at the behest of a foreign government? Then why is it not also sufficient to stop arrests of simple possession?
shane said:
"He broke American law; he deserves an American jail."
Ignore the actual case for a moment and consider the repercussions of following such a policy. What if it was china and not the US? North Korea?
shane said:
"By Canadian standards, his treatment is both legal and just. "
Then why did he only get a $2000 fine?
shane said:
"Being shipped FROM a country that is already proven to commit "genocide" against aboriginals. If you want to play politics, Fed, then let's go ahead."
Okay, let's say "TO a country that currently actively engages in torture upon suspecting terrosim".
shane said:
"Is this coming from the same side of the fence that repeated over and over again that Emery made no secret of what he was doing, went so far as to pay income tax on it, and was even recommended to medical marijuana patients as a source of seeds on several occasions?"
There are drugs that are legal in the US that are not legal in Canada. Do we go after CEO's of drug companies in the US when they turn up in Canada? No. If canada allowed him to operate then the case should be no different when the roles are reversed.
shane said:
"What has Canada's limp-wristed foreign policy for the last few decades to do with Ron Paul? You really should make your attempts at redirection a little less obvious, Fed. Ron Paul has nothing whatever to do with this discussion. '
LOL. It never ceases to amaze me how you can both accuse me of commiting some act, and commit that very act in the same paragraph.
The redirection here is when you tried to make my connection between "Ron Paul and the awareness of the young generations compared with your own" a connection between "Ron Paul and foreign policy". Nice try.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-10 1:20:52 PM
shane said:
"That attitude, taken up by pretty much by all other nations in general and by NATO nations in particular, explains why the U.S. acquired hyperpower status. They gave up the power, and Nature, abhorring a vacuum, allowed the Americans to flow into it. Congratulations, Fed, for making the Americans even stronger."
So let me get this straight. The withdrawal of Canadian and other NATO nations' soldiers from fighting alongside the US, some how makes the US stronger? Huh? You would make a terrible General.
And why are you insinuating that making our ally stronger is a bad thing? Thank you for congratulating me, I guess (?).
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-11-10 1:26:13 PM
You forgot about the Indifferent crowd.
Which amounts to, what, ten percent tops? You’re splitting hairs. The fact remains that a great number of Canadians support continued prohibition, and you haven’t succeeded in portraying them all as unintelligent, morally bankrupt knuckle-draggers.
Is "so the government can save money" a sufficient reason to sacrifice the well-being of Canadians at the behest of a foreign government? Then why is it not also sufficient to stop arrests of simple possession?
As delineated elsewhere, his well-being is not at risk. You really are out of legal or ethical options, if you’re resorting to touch-feely emotional vagaries like this. Canadians who don’t wish to be incarcerated in American jails should not break American laws.
Ignore the actual case for a moment and consider the repercussions of following such a policy. What if it was china and not the US? North Korea?
“What if” is a game for sophists. And we do not have extradition treaties with either of those countries, so the question is moot.
Then why did he only get a $2000 fine?
Maybe because that charge didn’t involve international smuggling.
Okay, let's say "TO a country that currently actively engages in torture upon suspecting terrosim"..
Fine, as long as we also say, “FROM a country that is already proven to commit ‘genocide’ against aboriginals.” At least the Americans wait until they’re reasonably sure someone is plotting something fairly hideous before resorting to torture; what did the Indians in Canada do?
There are drugs that are legal in the US that are not legal in Canada.
Marijuana (and viable seeds) is not one of them.
Do we go after CEO's of drug companies in the US when they turn up in Canada? No.
Because it is the act of smuggling that is the crime, not the production. Dual criminality applies only if the act is a crime in both countries. Smuggling is a separate offence, and smuggling can even involve products that are perfectly legal on both sides of the border, such as firearms.
If canada allowed him to operate then the case should be no different when the roles are reversed.
Past declinations to prosecute do not provide immunity from future prosecution, nor do they render the acts in question ineligible for consideration under the standards of dual criminality. Case law 101.
LOL. It never ceases to amaze me how you can both accuse me of commiting some act, and commit that very act in the same paragraph. The redirection here is when you tried to make my connection between "Ron Paul and the awareness of the young generations compared with your own" a connection between "Ron Paul and foreign policy". Nice try.
I never mentioned Ron Paul until you did, and then only to point out that he is irrelevant to the discussion. You talked yourself into a complete circle and, to use your own parlance, "stepped on your dick." I thought you said you didn’t touch the stuff, Fed. You’re certainly not up to your usual standards today.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 2:11:52 PM
So let me get this straight. The withdrawal of Canadian and other NATO nations' soldiers from fighting alongside the US, some how makes the US stronger? Huh? You would make a terrible General.
But a very smart politician. By giving up their contributions to enforcing world order, other nations also give up their say into how it is done. The U.S. has so much power now because the rest of the world has shrugged it off, finding the burden uncomfortable. They're then reduced to screaming impotently while the U.S. fights four wars at once.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 2:13:51 PM
The kids, and people, including myself who are being moulded in the information age are not nealry as easily fooled by what does not add up.
This is the same guy who "added things up" and concluded I lived in Colorado. You can stop pretending to be smart, Oog; thanks do to your frenzy of happy-slapping and gonch-pulling, everyone knows that while you may be a "kid" intellectually and emotionally, you're not very smart.
They blog and chat world wide, so misinformation attempts fail repeatdly.
This is one reason for the strides marijuana is making, and arguably it would have been much harder without the web.
This trend was well underway when Reboot was prime-time viewing. It is the demographics that are playing the role in this case. Those pushing for legalization are ex-smoking (or not) baby boomers, purporting to act on behalf of other baby boomers who find the travails of old age uncomfortable. (Ditto for right-to-die movements.)
Before the web when has anybody here had such in depth discussion via letters, or with anybody they encounter in life?
When did you ever have a discussion about anything? By your own admission you prefer the fist to the pen.
Probably nobody, the net has created a nightmare for those who desire unquestionable control.
Tell it to the Cubans, the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Africans, pretty much the whole Middle East, the...
Regular folk like we witness right here have an intellectual avenue open to them like never before in the history of the earth, and it is very powerful.
You have an avenue; however, as you so skilfully prove, the intellect required to use it is minimal. All you need is some working fingers for the mouse and a brain the size of a garbanzo bean.
This kind of information spreading is, and will be responsible for all types revolutions to come. knowledge is power, but not to the liar who's claims can be checked.
Very inspiring. Is this why you avoid saying anything of substance and instead focus on personal attacks? As your ham-fisted attempt to find me proves, information is NOT the same thing as knowledge. One of the ironies of the information age is that it has lent new credence to uninformed opinion. But the Net has positive properties too, as you said. Got to take the bad with the good, I guess. :-)
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 2:21:51 PM
Libby Davies is used to licking her opponent.
Posted by: set you free | 2009-11-10 2:22:47 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.