Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Double standard of student journalism | Main | Sunday Shopping in Manitoba »

Monday, November 30, 2009

Marc Emery vs. Roman Polanski: A tale of two extraditions

Canadian libertarian publisher and activist Marc Emery faces extradition to the U.S. on charges related to selling marijuana seeds. Movie director Roman Polanski faces extradition to the U.S. on charges related to drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. While the Canadian government refuses to protect its own peaceful, productive natural-born citizen from extradition, Polanski’s adopted country of France is fighting to keep this confessed sex offender from facing the U.S. justice system.

In a Western Standard column entitled “Marc Emery vs. Roman Polanski: A tale of two extraditions,” Peter Jaworski and Michael Wagner compare the two very different extradition cases.

...Polanski committed a heinous crime. Raping a child is clearly execrable and leaves a very identifiable victim. Selling marijuana seeds isn’t obviously a crime, and is only made to be one through legislation. Furthermore, there were no “victims” of Emery’s crime. No one claims to have been harmed by him, and no one has urged the government to punish him. Canadians, for the most part, find him interesting, admirable, and entertaining. They do not think of him as someone deserving a stint in a prison.

Polanski was actually in the U.S. when he committed his crime, whereas Emery was always in Canada. Polanski can be sent back to the place where he perpetrated his crime. Emery can’t be sent “back” to the U.S. because he wasn’t there in the first place. Polanski was a fugitive from justice, but Emery did not run away from anyone and operated his marijuana seed business openly and transparently. Emery even paid income taxes from being a "marijuana seed vendor," an occupation he volunteered on his tax forms.

Metro Vancouver reported on November 18, 2009 that Marc Emery would be paroled after he promise to surrender to U.S. custody within 72 hours after an extradition order is signed, which could happen as soon as Dec. 1. (h/t to Norm Smith)

MSNBC is reporting Monday that Polanski remains in a Swiss jail despite expectations that he would be released on bail under house arrest. It is believed that Polanski remains in jail because has not yet met his full bail payment of $4.5 million.

Continue reading "Marc Emery vs. Roman Polanski: A tale of two extraditions" here.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 30, 2009 in Marc Emery | Permalink

Comments

Thanks AB. Now I can empathize with Polanski. I mean, who wants to wait 2 weeks?, she's prime NOW.

Off with his nuts, I say.

Posted by: dp | 2009-12-02 2:48:00 PM


There is an important difference between Polanski and Emery: about three years worth of prison time! Polanski may do two years, while Emery WILL do five.

They both have one other thing in common: each did something stupid. Emery willingly broke US law knowing the consequences of his actions but naively thinking he was safe. Polanski thought this would be a routine trip to Switzerland.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-02 4:44:44 PM


AB,

So let's analyze the situation. None of us were there, but the odds that Polanski committed a crime seem pretty high to me.

First off, is a 13 year old really capable of consent (I don't think so but regardless)? If not, this was rape. Let's assume for a moment that a 13 year old is capable.

Next, did she consent to taking drugs. That's a pretty tough question. If she didn't, and the drugs led her to lose control of her faculties, then it was clearly rape. Let's now assume that she did consent to taking the drugs.

Is the fact that she consented to taking drugs imply she consented to sex? Of course not! Can a drugged up person consent to sex? How far off was she? If she no longer could control her actions, it is pretty clear to me that this was rape.

In the end, only if you make a series of three dubious assumptions do you find Polanski innocent.

Oh ... and btw. Do you really think it's moral for a middle aged man to have sex with a 13 year old girl (who was most likely stoned out of her mind)? If so, I have to ask, what the hell is wrong with you?

Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-02 5:14:11 PM


"Intervention" Zeb? That show is like Jerry Springer. Lets go find some trailer trash and put them on TV. Its ranks right up there with "Cops" as complete televised drivel. My mom watchs that show once in awhile, so I have an idea about what it is about, and I have yet to see one on the poor addicted pot user. These people need help, not publicity. Incarcerating them is not help. Do you really stalk around the web to spew your brainless drivel everytime a Marc Emery article is published? You are a sad little black man. Get a life, it might change your perspective.

And on another note, where is Shane "the mouth" Matthews these days? Did his family take away his PC? LOL
Not that I miss him. Good riddance to bad rubbish .

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-12-02 7:50:12 PM


Threads are usually meant for debate, not simply lionizing Emery. Yes, druggies need help not jail but without the force of law they might not get it. Dealers like Emery, on the other hand, deserve imprisonment.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-02 9:06:20 PM


To Charles:

I'm pressed for time right now so all I can say is that your three arguments don't even come close to creating a single solid hypothesis. There are so many blatant flaws in your arguments.

If anything, to use your own words, "In the end, only if you make a series of three dubious assumptions do you find Polanski"... GUILTY of forcible rape. (Obviously he's guilty of sex with a minor.)

I'll respond further in the next day or so.

"Oh ... and btw. Do you really think it's moral for a middle aged man to have sex with a 13 year old girl"

No, of course not. But morality has little to do with law. Up until recently the age of consent in Canada was 14. Didn't make that moral in my book.

Posted by: AB | 2009-12-03 2:03:50 PM


My bum really hurts

No comparison. Canada should find for Marc

Posted by: Louie | 2009-12-04 6:09:54 AM


Seb said -
"Yes, druggies need help not jail but without the force of law they might not get it. Dealers like Emery, on the other hand, deserve imprisonment."

So any "druggie" is someone who purchases SEEDS and cultivates a LIFE for 2-4 months, taking care of it, feeding it. Yea these sound like hardcore druggies trying to get their fix to me! Since when does using something make you a druggie right off the bat? Well if that's the case Zeb, every single wine connoisseur is a "druggie" as well, its an illogical leap that the irrational pro-prohibitionists need to stop. Its sad, make a real argument.

"They both have one other thing in common: each did something stupid. Emery willingly broke US law knowing the consequences of his actions but naively thinking he was safe. Polanski thought this would be a routine trip to Switzerland."

Its obvious what side of the fence your on zeb, and its always the one against emery. Notice how you go over what emery technically did, but then only go on to say Polanski mistake was a trip to Switzerland. You cant rationally deal with this contrast of situations, and for that you FAIL. Go HOME.


"druggies need help not jail but without the force of law they might not get it."

The numbers have shown that places with decriminalized and "legalized" models have higher rates of people deciding to seek help with addictions (due to less fear of law) as well as lower general usage rates in teens and adults overall. The Law in this situation is anti-productive.

Posted by: Baker | 2009-12-04 6:54:05 AM


BTW everyone. Bill c-15 is basically past with some odd amendments made to it.

1-199 plants in a rural area = no mandatory mins.
1 plant in a residential area = 9 Months Min Prison.

Anyone else's mind boggled?

Posted by: Baker | 2009-12-04 7:02:38 AM


"1-199 plants in a rural area = no mandatory mins.
1 plant in a residential area = 9 Months Min Prison."

"Anyone else's mind boggled?"

Posted by: Baker | 2009-12-04 7:02:38 AM

My mind is not boggled because I think I understand the dynamic at work.

The RCMP did not want the 1-201 plants to be part of the Bill regarding rural areas because it jeopardizes job security. Do a search on how many rural grow op busts fall into this category, and realize how quickly budgets would be decreased instead of increased if this part of the rural population decided the risk was too great. We are all stooges of the government agencies because we never understand their cause, and constantly get duped by their shell games. Government only wants to increase in size, the drug war will go on for decades yet I fear because not enough of society is smart enough understand what is going on because of intellectual ignorance. This intellectual ignorance is being aided or fostered by media/television, X-box or derivatives and such.
Nobody has to remain supid in a 2.0 world it is a purposeful choice.

Posted by: The drug war will keep on keep'n on | 2009-12-04 9:08:45 AM


Some of you act like children this age do not have sex with men. Every city in Canada has child prostitutes for hire, often standing out right on street corners. The police do not go after the pimps or prostitutes but instead the johns get busted if anything. Why does each country ignore on going social problems that could be tackled each and everyday, and opt for something that was part of a 70's phenom, and was encouraged by the guardian of the child. Why scapegoat Polanski for what was part of accepted 70's culture for glitterati or the objects of hero worship,like The Rolling Stones or whoever. Society now wants to punish some for what it created, a privileged few.

Posted by: Baby prostitutes | 2009-12-04 9:23:13 AM


True enough, i defiantly understand the benefits and job security law enforcement receive from the drug war but hadn't noticed that this fits in well with that rational. When someone grows now, it will be more likely for them to do up to 200 ruraly, as opposed to a few residentially since the risks are basically non existant in comparison. This creates bigger busts, in areas when helicopters would be the most efficient way to get around. Thereby "justifying" large expenditures.

Also the type of people growing will change, the non violent small scale rural grower will in general leave the market, leaving the market open to more violent, much larger enterprises. Thereby increasing violence associated with the trade, and again "justifying" a larger response.

But neway, what really boggled my mind is how this was passed like it is. Recent evidence clearly shows without a shadow of a doubt cannabis is by far safer then alcohol, in the states they are getting rid of the mandatory min's that havn't worked, and in some places could be legal and regulated as early as next year. Many countries around the world have admitted the cannabis prohibition is a failure and decriminalized with very positive results. But we go in this direction... Yay us!

Posted by: Baker | 2009-12-04 9:47:21 AM


Baker is wise

Posted by: Autonomous | 2009-12-04 12:01:08 PM


Both like women half their age and both have given drugs to minors. Am I missing the contrast?

Who ever wrote this article obviously didn't do any research on the case whatsoever. The charge was unlawful sex with a minor and the girl asked for the qualude. Fox News tactics at best.

It's just amazing how all the Libertarians turn puritan when the situation suits itself. Can 13 year olds consent to a smoke in at the Court house? Could 13 year olds buy seeds from Emery and commit felonies in the States?

Posted by: Frank | 2009-12-07 1:18:11 PM


what did anybody expect?

Posted by: 419 | 2009-12-30 5:20:23 PM



Thank you for contacting the Western Standard!


I'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Matthew Johnston
Publisher
www.westernstandard.ca

Phone: 403-701-3045
Email: [email protected]

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-12-30 5:22:07 PM


The real crime Mark is being punished for is competing with the big guys and doing a good job of it.An examination of the US war on drugs who benifits and how.I cant help but wonder how few know that the US government has allowed the CIA to run their own drug operation for decades. Please dont take my word for it check out Infowars on You Tube.Alex Jones is fast becoming the most reliable source for accurate breaking news on issues that are developing by the day.Infowars recently ran a story on this, positively mindblowing in every way.Im sure in the future Alex will be heralded as a great Hero of freedom his story will be told forever.Freedoms are being threatened on every front no one else does more for its cause than Alex and his dedicated staff.

Posted by: mikeg | 2010-02-13 3:49:41 PM


Thank you for contacting the Western Standard!


I'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Matthew Johnston
Publisher
www.westernstandard.ca

Phone: 403-701-3045
Email: matthew.john[email protected]

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2010-02-13 5:14:49 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.