Marijuana.com

Lothar121

Marijuana or Sovereignty?
Rita Dawson | PEJ News | 08/11/2005

Citizens are always shocked by a sense of betrayal when they discover just how much their governments have accomplished in direct opposition to the public good and with their own taxpayer dollars to boot!

The big overall picture of what is happening to Canadian society is becoming evident, as pieces of the globalization puzzle have fallen together. The methods used in transforming society to the will of the corporate elite have been deeply ingrained into the susceptible public as the only course to take; there is no alternative. Uh huh.

Globalization has been used to tie the world together through a maze of international laws and treaties that now pose a serious threat to the sovereignty of individual nations and their cultures. The public does not become aware until it is too late.

The current threat and publicly induced fear of terrorists lurking behind every corner is being used as justification to enforce man-made laws that were slipped in and legislated during quieter times. The same holds true concerning the United States and their War on Drugs. The United States, in its self-imposed role as policeman for the world, infamous for always warring against something, has now moved its dubious attention northward to Canada in their war on drugs.

In 1985 Canada created an Act entitled The Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act that puts effect to Canadian cooperation in a number of treaties dealing with criminal law. Here is a clear classic example of how international agreements are stealing away from Canadians our own protection created by our forefathers for us in our own Constitution. It should not be possible for a foreign jurisdiction to have the clout to cause our own police to arrest Canadians in our own country, even under the protection of extradition hearings, for any matters except those of real internationally heinous matters or crimes against humanity. (1)

National sovereignty precludes the carrying out of an official act on behalf of a foreign state. However, thanks to legislation of The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, states may help each other in the fight against international criminality.

International Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal matters - Fact Sheet

http://www.ofj.admin.ch/themen/rechtshilfe/intro-e.htm

Ergo Marc Emery!

It was brought to the Canadian public's attention through various news sources that a warrant for the arrest of three members of the B.C. Marijuana Party, was executed on behalf of the U.S. government. Apparently, None of the three face charges in Canada. The DEA is seeking to have them extradited for trial in the U.S. (CBC Vancouver News August 1, 2005.)

Marc Emery, Leader of the B.C. Marijuana Party, plus our Canadian laws, policies and general overall public sentiment towards marijuana use, represents a process that flies in the face of Yankee self-righteousness and superiority. We'll have none of that!

As Connie Fogal, Leader of the Canadian Action Party wrote: Our federal government is close to making some significant changes in the law for Canadians as a result of political pressure from the public and advocates like Marc Emery. The U.S. does not like that. (2)

Marc Emery and his Marijuana Party, a legal and duly registered political party under the Canada Elections Act, working legally as an activist to inform and shape Canadian law, has become a lightening rod! Contrary to what some may shrug off as just another pesky drug related issue, the extradition of Marc Emery from Canadian soil to American territory has become an issue of sovereignty as the United States blatantly interferes in Canadian criminal law and policy.

The United States is poking its nose into Canadian affairs and is using marijuana as justification for their actions. In light of the war in Iraq, a person can't help but wonder since we don't have any weapons of mass destruction but do have Alberta oil, if Canada is to become the next Afghanistan or Iraq? Is the war on drugs their justification to move their armies up here? Not such a far-fetched question in light of world events!

Now, back to the fact that international arrangements, through The Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act are being used by the United States to attack Marc Emery. In the province of BC our newly minted Attorney General and ex-judge Wally Oppal says Canadian sovereignty is a non-issue in the case of the so-called Prince of Pot. He says it has nothing to do with sovereignty. If a person who may be on Canadian soil and is accused of committing crimes in the United States, we have a treaty with the Americans that we will assist the Americans in extraditing that person. Vancouver/CKNW (AM980) August 04 2005 7:00 PM)

According to the letter of the law, Mr. Oppal may be correct, but is the law protecting Canadians on Canadian soil , is it constitutional and, who knew? This Act legislated in 1985 is only coming to the public's attention now. If this international arrangement has given the US the legal route to extradite Marc Emery, where will it end? Marc Emery has not been accused of committing a crime in Canada. Therefore, it logically follows that anyone the thought police may think is a drug-dealer or a terrorist could be picked up anytime on Canadian soil and extradited to the United States. Therefore, this Act with its international arrangement affects all Canadians.

It is particularly offensive for our (Canadian) government to be cooperating with another regime to subject Canadians to criminal charges for actions that are not an offence in Canada, or for actions that may have been an offence but are in policy process of eliminating the offence. (3) Are we a sovereign nation or not?

It is long overdue that Canadians woke up to the fact their rights and freedoms have, and are being, legislated away.

Mr. Wally Oppal, BC's new Attorney General can no longer hide behind the black robes of a judge. He is now right out in full public view as a public servant, an elected representative of the people, and as such it is up to us to demand that he serve We The People! If laws such as The Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act neither serve nor protect Canadian and British Columbian citizens and do not protect our sovereign rights as a nation, then they must be changed.

Some American visitors to Canada voiced their displeasure at their government's actions. I resent my (Drug Enforcement Agency) for infringing on Canadian policy , said Nick Frey of Los Angeles. Our government has overstepped its bounds , Nebraskan Scott Tanner said. Whatever happens on this side of the border, it's none of our business . (CBC News Sat., 30 July 2005)

Vancouver East NDP MP Libby Davies says she doesnt support Canadian police carrying out American style drug raids, Well, I find it very disturbing that the long arm of US enforcement in the war on drugs is sort of reaching into Vancouver . She says if anything, Canada should be distancing itself the US war on drugs, which she calls a complete failure. (Vancouver/CKNW (AM98) July 30, 2005)

The people have it right. This is not about marijuana. This is about national sovereignty.

If nothing else The Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act should be revisited with consideration given as to how it affects national sovereignty and adjusted accordingly or terminated altogether.

The public should not become aware of how legislation affects their lives after the fact. As one of my activist friends has put it. We need to spread the idea of a Citizens' Legislative Committee. We certainly do!

---
(1) Connie Fogal, Leader Canadian Action Party July 31, 2005 conniefogal@telus.net

(2) Connie Fogal, Leader Canadian Action Party July 31, 2005

(3) Connie Fogal, Leader Canadian Action Party July 31, 2005

---

Sites of Interest

On the issue of sovereignty:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4467.html

http://www.misterc.ca/can_sovereignty.htm

http://canadian.sovereignty.news.from.ca/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FOG20050807&art icleId=818

On The Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/M-13.6/

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/m-13.6/

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/intpolicing/mlat_e.htm

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference..
Libertyindex | Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

Buzzby

I've heard this repeatedly from Canadian activists but I've never heard any details.

As far as I know, the issue before the Canadian legislature is a "decriminalization" bill that reduces penalties for minor possession to a fine and doubles the penalties for everything else. Instead of a scolding by a judge, people in possession of less than an ounce would have to pay a hefty fine. Everyone else, dealers, growers, and people with a decent size stash, would be much worse off than they are today.

Where, exactly, are these "significant changes" that the Canadian government is close to making? Do these claims have any basis in reality or are they just pipe dreams?

__________________

Niteshift

It should not be possible for a foreign jurisdiction to have the clout to cause our own police to arrest Canadians in our own country, even under the protection of extradition hearings, for any matters except those of real internationally heinous matters or crimes against humanity.

If that became the case, imagine all the crimes you could commit from the safety of Canada without fear of extradition.........fraud, identity theft, embezzlement, counterfeiting, trafficking in stolen property, forgery and a host of other crimes that aren't "internationally heinous matters or crimes against humanity".

The author, and her opinion piece, are so caught up in focusing on her defense of Emery that she loses sight of the much larger picture.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

BC.Buddy

I thought it was a nice change of pace for Buzzby and Niteshift to be the first to post under this news piece!

The only reason the decrim bill was introduced was because the Canadian Senate unanimously said prohibtion is harmful to society. They also recommended legalization, full legalization to fix the problem. They found prohibitionist laws to be unconstituitional, especially after we legalized medicinal marijuana, and told the government they had ONE YEAR to either change them to reflect the nation's interests or they would strike down the marijuana laws completely.

One day before the year was up, the decrim bill was introduced.

The Federal NDP(New Democratic Party) leader, Jack Layton, not only advocates legalization, but also came to Marc Emery's house to have an interview about the topic! His house! A political leader in our country! Marc was also invited to testify for the Senate among others about the prohibition problem. Do you think if he was just a simple "drug kingpin" (and on the top 10 hit list of the D.E.A. by the way, in the wake of problems with Colombia, Venesuala and Mexico, to boot!), they would've have given him such honours!? No.

Vancouver Mayor, Larry Campbell has already implemented unprecedented "harm reduction" policies in Vancouver (AUDIO, VIDEO) and is successfully bringing other municipality leaders on board. He advocates outright legalization, taxation and regulation of the beautiful cannabis plant. And so did the mayor before him, whom was an extreme prohibitionist until he participated with Marc Emery at a marijuana policy event. Afterwards, he urged legalization!

There are examples all OVER my country for legalization. Probably because we don't have an ominous D.E.A. like you do. And all the while, our police's perspective of legalization is not good. Even though they're technically not supposed to be political. By police, I mean official groups (Canadian Professional Police Association), not individual police officers.

In fact, the group L.E.A.P., their website here, have numerous police officer members. L.E.A.P. stands for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

I've been telling you that legalization is an active political debate here in Canada for this entire Marc Emery episode and you've shrugged it off.

That was my point, assuming it is, Marc's case is not that of a typical seed seller. It's a POLITICAL issue.

:spark:

I'm sure even this will be shrugged off by you guys.

In fact:

Yeah, no doubt, the larger picture, huh? THIS IS THE LARGER PICTURE NITESHIFT! And you're so caught up with your opinion about Marc's criminality that you're continually making links between his crimes and crimes that inflict on others' rights (eg. "fraud, identity theft, embezzlement, counterfeiting, trafficking in stolen property, forgery and a host of other crimes that aren't internationally heinous matters or crimes against humanity)

How do you make the link between marijuana seeds and, well for instance, stealing people's stuff? Besides the fact that your government chooses to condemn them both!

Here's the difference to me: He's not trying to have stealing legalized, or fraud legalized. He's trying to have marijuana legalized. A drug that's easily less harmful to social and individual health than many of our legal drugs, including prescription drugs that are far more harmful and addictive.

__________________
BC Marijuana Party
"Overgrow The Government"
| Cannabis Culture | Pot TV |

- Proud Cannabis User -

Niteshift

Yeah, no doubt, the larger picture, huh? THIS IS THE LARGER PICTURE NITESHIFT!

It's not. It's the arrest of one guy who committed crimes and admits doing it.

I know this will be hard for you to accept, but the earth does not revolve around Marc Emery, nor does the sun rise and set at his bidding.

And you're so caught up with your opinion about Marc's criminality that you're continually making links between his crimes and crimes that inflict on others' rights (eg. "fraud, identity theft, embezzlement, counterfeiting, trafficking in stolen property, forgery and a host of other crimes that aren't internationally heinous matters or crimes against humanity)

How do you make the link between marijuana seeds and, well for instance, stealing people's stuff? Besides the fact that your government chooses to condemn them both!

I don't link them at all. You need to pay closer attention.

In that link I sent you, I made it clear that I often use a non-drug example so people can step back and view the topic from a point where they have no emotional involvement. You have so much emotional involvement that it prevents you from listening to what is ACTUALLY said instead of what you think is said.

I gave examples of other crimes that wouldn't be extradited if Ms. Dawson's idiotic notion of what extradition should apply to was ever put into place. Nowhere did I compare Emery's crimes to those crimes. That is simply something you made up.

 

BC.Buddy

We are never going to agree.

You think this is insignificant and so do a lot of others. I think it's a huge issue and so do a lot others.

And you do link those crimes. You equate the denial of Marc's extradition with the denial of a car theft's extradition. If this is a political persecution, they are not equal. And that is the debate. Not the law broken, but whether or not this is politically motivated. Simple.

Cassius

He's not trying to say that the earth revolves around Marc Emery, he's trying to say that there are bigger things going on here than Marc Emery. It's not just about somebody who broke the law and was proud of it. I think Canadians are beginning to realize that, and I think it's hard for Americans who have lived with such strict prohibition to see from our perspective -- I admit my own initial doubt and bias, it was hard for me to see that Canadians might just possibly feel threatened by what has occurred.

Let me ask you this, if this happened 5 years from today, and Canada had already legalized marijuana, and then of the 20 or so (who knows how many, but there are at least a dozen today and likely to be more in five years) companies shipping marijuana seeds to US citizens, the DEA asked for the arrest and extradition of the owner of the company that was the single largest (by a great majority) marijuana activist in Canada, would that change matters? Would Canada approve the extradition? I suppose it could be argued that Marc Emery is trying to influence American public opinion by selling seeds to us as much as the DEA is trying to influence Canadian public opinion by silecing it's most prominent marijuana activist, but I also think that if during the extradition process the Canadian laws that are struck down, that we may be in the very situation I talked about.

It's certainly is an issue that has merit to both sides. I think the most reasonable way to look at it is that public opinion is changing in both Canada and America, and that the DEA is merely trying to curtail that change (they pay, on a regular basis, for anti-legalization ads don't they?). I don't think American courts would look at it that way, as Americans tend to be quite stubborn (myself among them), but how would the Canadian judiciary look at it? If they truly are as reasonable as they claim, I think they just might make a stand. I'd be curious to see what their stances on foreign law are, if they are more accepting of changes in international law as an influence of their own law, like the US used to be before this century.

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

killer12382

This decrim law in Canada is a double edged sword and will in the long run be bad for Canadians who use marijuana. Sure it changes possession to just a civil fine but the growers have had their sentences doubled. If your growers have a hard time growing then the users will have a hard time using...does this make sense or is it just me?

Niteshift

And you do link those crimes. You equate the denial of Marc's extradition with the denial of a car theft's extradition.

Please read this carefully and I will say it as simply and plainly as I can:

I am not equating his crime with theft, fraud etc. Wait, I'll say it again for you........I am not equating his crime with theft, fraud etc.. You with me so far?

Ms. Dawson made the assertion that extradition should only be used for ONLY for "those of real internationally heinous matters or crimes against humanity." If we accepted that ridiculous criteria, then people who commit the crimes I listed (which does not include Emery to my knowledge) would also be exempt from extradition.

Keep paying attention................. I am saying that she is so focused on Emery when she advocates a position like that, she loses sight of the damage her criteria would cause, such as making Canada a haven for economic crime. In other words, her idea is overbroad and not thought out.

Does that make sense to you now? Or are you going to tell me what I "really" think again?

He's not trying to say that the earth revolves around Marc Emery, he's trying to say that there are bigger things going on here than Marc Emery.

I know he's not literally, but in many aspects, the hero worship thing is getting in the way of the issue.

There ARE bigger things, one of them is advocating rash decisions based solely on ones reaction to the Emery arrest, which is exactly what I think the author is doing.


Let me ask you this, if this happened 5 years from today, and Canada had already legalized marijuana, and then of the 20 or so (who knows how many, but there are at least a dozen today and likely to be more in five years) companies shipping marijuana seeds to US citizens, the DEA asked for the arrest and extradition of the owner of the company that was the single largest (by a great majority) marijuana activist in Canada, would that change matters? Would Canada approve the extradition?

If the US could prove that he was selling the seeds in the US in violation of US law and that he knew it was illegal, I suspect they would still approve the extradition. The main reason I think so is because I would hope that the Canadian courts would look at the law, not the politics.

BC.Buddy

That's unfortunate, because that's an important factor, and I've explained why.

And let's look at the law! Why not? Let's consider the law everyone!! We can't let this guy go free!! Please help me in making sure YET ANOTHER person gets tossed into our increasing number of prisons!! We must honour our laws! We must uphold the will of our government.

Can anyone say elected dictatorship?!

Niteshift, don't treat me as a child. Belittling me won't make your opinion more valid, nor change mine.

You are, and you did, YOU GET ME!? You discredit yourself, and you're pissing me off!

You can't admit you're wrong, can you!? You sure as **** did equate them! You've made the point of someone coming to kill Marc Emery from Seattle and whether or not I would support extradition. Does that not equate the murder of a person with the sale of seeds? I'm sure you would deny it does, but then you would go on to argue they're the same, because they're both breaking the law!!!! ****!!!!

You will never respect the fact that perhaps the U.S. is trying to quash the legalization movement in my country, since it's clear they're doing it in their's. That's your choice, but it's an ignorant one. This goes beyond Marc Emery, and it goes beyond you. I know you don't believe that, but it does.

I take back my comments about respecting you, as you've systematically failed in every attempt I've made to create even ground.

Even as the D.E.A. admits that it was a politically motivated arrest, you say it isn't and that it's simply because he was breaking the law. Think about that!

In light of all the times your government has lied to and betrayed you, you still stand by them and the carefully rehearsed propoganda they feed you. They should be proud they have such a good wittle pet!

But you know what? What would a debate be without the other side, huh? Yeah, for sure. I guess it shouldn't make me so ****ing angry that you're bringing the D.E.A.'s case to these forums, should it?

Yeah, both sides in fact oppose the bill. It does fix the "sending people to jail" part for recreational users, but it stops short of almost every other issue, and most of them are equally important in the whole scheme of things.