On the other hand, your Gideon example would also have to consider that the Gideons would be well aware of the risk they are taking in distrubiting Bibles in Iran and should not be expecting a guaranteed intervention if, say, they are physically caught and locked up in an Iranian jail. If Emery were in that boat, he’d probably be whining how unfair Canada is to him by not sending the military after him, judging by how he’s been acting during this whole deal.

It is not even a case wherein Emery was ignorant of the law here; he proudly admits that he wasn’t. As Steve, in his latest post notes, I am irked that he tweaked his nose of the government, but that is only half-true; I’m actually irked that he did this within the context that he did, and now demands that he not face the consequences as though he did nothing wrong. It’s like on the playground with the kid who provokes the bigger kid to get into a fight with him by throwing snowballs at him — we can argue about whether the big kid should’ve given into the temptation (and I accept these arguments that maybe the US shouldn’t be handling this as it is) but certainly we shouldn’t be allowing the instigator to get off scot-free just because he didn’t throw the first physical punch. The US has a right to ask us for Emery, we have a right to refuse. Again though, I think Emery deserves whatever may come to him after the provocation he caused, and to respectfully disagree with you Steve, I think it’ll make the rest of the seed sellers here think twice before doing the same thing that Emery has.

If any government is to charge Emery, it should be the Canadian government. It is our law that is being broken since the crime is being committed on this side of the border.

The U.S. case should be against those who ordered the seeds from Emery, not Emery, since he has not been directly operating in U.S. territory. We don’t go extraditing drug lords from Columbia for the same reason.

Without doubt, Emery is tweaking his nose against the U.S. government. Maybe that is what irks you too. But in making an example of him, the U.S. government is likely to undermine its case, as well as public opinion about its draconian marijuana laws. The prohibition approach has totally failed and the U.S. government knows it. Instead, the Americans have chosen to make an example of Emery, conveniently ignoring dozens of other Canadian seed vendors that do the same thing.

In Emery’s case, U.S. justice is not blind. It is vindicative and the Canadian government would be well advised not to participate in their vendetta against Emery.

If our government does decide that Emery’s seed vending activity is criminal, they just should prosecute him themselves. Simple as that.

Let’s assume that Mr. Emery had been selling rosaries to an Islamist extremist country where possession of a rosary was illegal.

Now, the resident of country X who buys the rosary may be committing a crime by the laws of that country. But I fail to see how the Canadian rosary supplier is. Could you explain?

Any country can declare object under the sun to be prohibited within their national borders - and they can make it illegal for their citizens to possess them. By what right, however, does the US forbid a Canadian to sell - whatever?

While I respect basic human rights, there are a few things that you need to understand:

First, not every right out there is actually a right. Some are quite arbitrary and controversial. If you’re going to accuse me of cherry-picking, might I ask if you are in favour of abortion, because if so, I’m going to lob that accusation right back in your face given that, from where I stand, you’re putting more value in a man & woman shacking up in the most consequence-free way possible before the basic human right to life.

Now, I’m not sure what you mean by the Jonas quote but I would say that it actually demonstrates my point perfectly: Emery had every RIGHT to demonstrate against pot laws in the U.S., lobby our government to change it’s attitudes towards drugs etc. WITHOUT violating any laws. Now that he has crossed a very serious line he must face the consequences, even if he is morally correct (and I don’t think he is anymore given his disregard for the rule of law).

Next, you’re implying a right where none is formally acknowledged to exist. No U.S. court has recognized a right to possess/smoke marijuana, and therefore Emery should have kept his practice limited to Canadian clients; again, no one forced him to sell his seeds in the US and he does not have a right to intrude upon the affair of a sovereign nation given that he is a Canadian citizen.

Finally, just because people say that pot heads are noble for this defiance does not make them so. Unlike cases of life, freedom-of-speech, religious freedoms, etc., not being able to get a buzz on the weekend is not going to dramatically limit or harm anyone in our society, aside from medical cases. I’m no fool though, I’ve seen how Emery and his supporters are touting their case and it isn’t to help the poor grannies cope with their arthritis so I’m sorry, Emery, you et all are baseless in your arguments that this man should somehow be shown leniency when he has intentionally violated the rules of a sovereign nation, for hardly a worthy cause and with no risk of unreasonable punishment. Again, if he believed so strongly in his cause, both countries are free enough that he was able to make an impact and lobby for change quite reasonably within the parameters of the law.

You might want to check out what George Jonas wrote in the Post yesterday:

Freedom is indivisible. Questioning HRCs only after they shift their aim from areas in which intellectuals have little emotional investment, such as business, to areas in which they have much, such as public discourse, is too late. So is raising one’s voice when HRCs go after all-time champions like Mark Steyn, having kept mum when they singled out also-rans like the late Doug Collins.

Similarly, you don’t have to be a pot head to understand that Emery’s cause is a just one.

Now, the resident of country X who buys the rosary may be committing a crime by the laws of that country. But I fail to see how the Canadian rosary supplier is. Could you explain?

Any country can declare object under the sun to be prohibited within their national borders - and they can make it illegal for their citizens to possess them. By what right, however, does the US forbid a Canadian to sell - whatever?

Don’t the U.S. have better things to do anyway?

Sounds like a pretty noble cause to me. If the beer drinkers of Canada were told they couldn’t drink on Friday night they would be up in arms. Knock of the paternalistic nonsense and let people be free.

That all aside, Ghandi was at least fighting to liberate his people; what noble cause is Emery fighting for? To get high on Friday night?

Similarily the US should be able to refuse to extradite and charge in the US when our law calls for a slap on the wrist… as is the case with many violent offences.

Emery’s actions are no different than those of Gandhi’s. I respect him for standing up for his beliefs. But he has committed his “crime” in Canada, not the United States. He should not be extradited for that.

The fact that he has been able to conduct his business in Canada without criminal sanction basically concedes his point that current prohibitions on marijuana are not only ineffective, but morally wrong.

The state has no business telling us what we can or cannot put into our bodies. If it did, alcohol would be illegal too.