Why Emery Has To Go…
January 6, 2008 · By Matthew
A lot of secular libertarians are talking up a storm this month since decisions are coming down the line now on whether a B.C. businessman, Marc Emery, should be extradited to the United States at that country’s request to face charges over selling marijuana seeds through the internet to U.S. customers. The libers are taking exception to this mainly over the fact that they don’t think that narcotics should be controlled substances, but at least some of them have been making decent attempts to justify their stance outside of just saying *it’s the right thing to do*. (note to all John Tory supporters: take a clue here!)
Among the more reasonable explanations that I’ve been offered are that if the roles were reversed, the U.S. would be laughing right through the primaries at the thought of turning one of its citizens over to a foreign nation to face a criminal charge that it is not willing to make itself, and that Emery is just being used as an example; there are many B.C.-based websites that offer the same service that Emery has, but the U.S. law enforcement agencies aren’t even recognizing their existence.
There are problems though, even with these justifications. First, while it’s true that the U.S. would be more keen on keeping its own safe, I seem to recall many examples wherein the country is willing to extradite American citizens to Europe, or Canada to face charges such as fraud, murder or theft; if I’m not mistaken, many of the recent business scandals that have been recently rocking the U.S. financial world involve execs in just this situation. Irregardless, two wrongs wouldn’t make a right; everyone, including Emery, agrees that he willingly provoked the States and is now facing the consequences. Canadian law is quite reasonable in this case, giving discretion to the Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson, who has the ability to veto a citizen’s transfer to a foreign country to face charges if he feels that there is the potential that that individual’s basic rights (to a fair trial, to life…) would be violated or that the crime stated is unreasonable (eg. if you are a woman charged with walking down the street sans a male escort). This allows our nation’s officials to get a glance at the situation and make a judgment call. As for why Emery is being singled out, I understand that he’s particularly provocative and even if he isn’t the biggest or more dangerous seed seller out there, it’s the U.S. government’s freedom to decide who and who they will not contact Canada about wishing to prosecute.
With all of that aside though, let us remember one thing here. Marc Emery knowingly conducted business in the United States. As unfair as it may seem to someone like me, when a site like Pandora, is told that it is not authorized to allow its service into Canada by the music industry, it has to comply lest it is in contempt of the law. Likewise, the U.S. is a playground with different but very specific rules regarding drugs: zero tolerance. Emery does not have an entitlement to sell his product wherever he pleases; whenever he enters a different jurisdiction, be it Vancouver, Saskatchewan, or Chile, he must respect the rule of law as it pertains to that area. I have very little sympathy for the man as he seems to have set up his business in a blatant attempt to fudge the rules, or at least side-step them; if a perfectly legitimate business did this, we would call that evasion and an investigation would follow.
Marc Emery will certainly face a steep sentence if he is convicted in the States, make no doubt about it. However, he knew the risks going into the situation and figuratively thumbed his nose at America’s right to authority as he did so. To cry foul now that the tables are turned is to completely disregard every step he’s taken up until now!
Marc didn’t go into the United States, his “crimes” were committed in Canadian territory. The charges are absurd on that basis alone, and it would be an outrage if he were extradited.
He knew the law Huh, and he chose to break it. To my mind he did so to make a statement. Emery must face the consequences the same as someone who shipped kiddie porn south.
[...] The Politic | Why Emery Has To Go… [...]
selling seeds? is that not agriculture?
I’m not in favour of acquiescing to the demands of the U.S. for selling what amounts to nothing more than seeds of a herb. This aint kiddie porn, actually, and I’d probably tell the U.S. to wait and hope their man tries to cross over. Unless he’s an illegal, that is, in which case boot him out.
They should have put Gandhi in jail too. Oh wait…they did.
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.
While Emery isn’t physically in the U.S. while he is conducting his illegal activity, his actions are a present. A crude equivalent would be like a man throwing guns over to the Canadian side of the border that would be used illegally. Again, just because you don’t agree with U.S. drug laws (and I have to confess that I am not sure if I do or not), you cannot say that this man cannot be charged under the due process we have set up in Canada for such a case — the laws and procedures are already on the books for a reason.
You’re right that as a matter of law the US is entitled to seek the extradition of Mr. Emery… which is why Canada should change the law to preclude extradition when the penalty in the requesting country is drastically out of step with our own.
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.
Steve, Canadian law is not a moral absolute, and at least Ghandi realized that his actions were illegal. Emery, on the other hand, did the crime (regardless of whether it should be a crime or not is moot) but now he and his supporters are whining that he shouldn’t do the time.
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?
“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?”
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.
Well if this is the noblest cause our society has to strive for these days, perhaps our civilization has become spoiled. Ghandi’s cause was a matter of dignity of life, not living it up.
Matthew, like it or not, pot just aint seen as the evil here that it is in the U.S. In fact, I would say that even conservatives mostly see pot as one of the more harmless things in this world. The fact he was selling seeds, not even the plant itself, makes his offense even more benign.
Don’t the U.S. have better things to do anyway?
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?
Matthew, you don’t seem to get it. If you cherry pick rights, you have no rights.
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.
Steve,
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.
Hi, Matthew. That was a serious question, so I’ll ask it again.
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?
Matthew,
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.
I apologize Dalton, I just realized that I have an issue in changing my email address that prevents me from receiving updates when people post comments. However, to answer your question, the country is in it’s rights to determine how commerce is allowed to be conducted on its own soil; while I am not a hard nationalist, I do respect the rights of legitimate governments to conduct the flow of goods within its borders. If a foreign citizen decides to purposely violate a country’s laws, said country X then has the right to ask that alien’s own government to hand over said citizen for prosecution. I think, again, that this is reasonable so long as the alien’s country is able to conduct due procedure to ensure that this person is not going to have his or her rights violated, etc, etc as I mentioned in an above comment.
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.
So applying your logic to the example I cited: you would consider it reasonable for, let’s say, the government of Iran to demand that Canada hand over members of the Gideon society if it could be shown that they had filled an order for Bibles originating in Iraq?
Sorry, Matt, last word should be “Iran”.
Well no Dalton, as I stated a few times now, the Canadian justice system has a say in the process as set out by our laws for extradition wherein the courts and the Minister of Justice can block a citizen from being sent to a foriegn nation to face either unreasonable crimes (as seen by our courts/minister) or an unacceptable punishment. Again, my main point here is that Emery would have a hard time (and should know that he would have a hard time) justifying his case and cause to our system so he and his supports shouldn’t be crying “fairness” without making an exceptionally good case for him (which, in my view, they haven’t). After all, freedom of religion is a human right and is defined as such in even the narrowist definition simply because no government, person or organization can ever force me believe something different from my convictions no matter how hard they try simply because this it is a decision made of my very essence. Same with political views, opinions, who I love, etc., etc. Our modern “rights” that we keep inventing on the fly, like a right to get high whenever we feel like and wherever we fell like can never meet this test.
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.
Sorry, Matthew. That’s a bit too complicated for me. I really do apologize, but I can’t understand what you’re actually saying. I can’t help but thinking that’s because you’re trying to obscure what should be a fairly simple point…any county can declare what’s illegal on its own turf, but should not be allowed to dictate its domestic laws to the rest of the world.
I agree Dalton, however it does not have to allow commerce access to foreign citizens. I apologize though if I’m getting wordy, but after having people misinterpret my shorter points, I felt safer in being thorough.