Angry in the Great White North

[For a very different point of view from a fellow conservative, check out Stephen Taylor.]

From the Globe and Mail:

The fiancee of pro-marijuana activist Marc Emery is "terrified" to think what the future holds after her partner was arrested in Halifax on Friday and charged with selling marijuana seeds over the Internet to customers in the United States.

Now that Mr. Emery's Internet business -- Emery Seeds -- has been shut down, he will no longer be able to afford lease payments on his Ford Thunderbird and the couple will likely have to move in with relatives, according to [Cheryl Redick], who runs a furniture design business.

"It's outrageous that the U.S. should be allowed to come into Canada and interfere with our laws."

Yet again it is my job to clear up sloppy liberal thinking. Canada wanted to decriminalize marijuana possession with Bill C10. Large scale production and distribution would remain illegal -- indeed, some supporters of decriminalization would like to see punishment for running a large scale grow-op increaded dramatically.

Marc Emery makes $2 million a year distributing seeds by mail, including into the United States.

Also, the Americans are not insisting that the Crown arrest Emery and charge him under some Canadian law. That would be interference. They have charged him under their own laws, and have submitted their evidence to Canadian authorities, who then signed a Canadian warrant based on that evidence. Canadian laws regarding extradition will now apply, including further evaluation of the evidence the Americans are using to see if they meet the Canadian standard.

Canadian laws are being applied, as they were meant to be applied. I get the feeling that Redick and her kind are upset that the laws are being applied in the first place.

Perhaps I shouldn't expect well thought-out arguments from Rebick. Fortunately, the Globe and Mail frames the debate for us:

The arrests raise the question of how far another country should be allowed to go in trying to influence the way in which Canadian police deal with a substance that many Canadians consider to be an acceptable recreational tool.

Wait! That's not what the Americans are doing! If Marc Emery had sold his seeds just to Canadians, and had respected American laws with regards to American-based customers, there wouldn't be a problem here.

Maybe a law professor can help clear this up:

"If Mr. Emery was a person who had been suspected of homicide in the U.S., we wouldn't have any problem with what was done at all," said Neil Boyd, a criminology professor at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby.

He said Mr. Emery has been able to operate his marijuana seed business for more than a decade in Canada, where pot possession has traditionally not been vigorously policed as a criminal act.

"For us to send Mr. Emery to the U.S. to face what might be life imprisonment would seem to me to be ceding a certain amount of our sovereignty in terms of how we want to see Canadian citizens treated for certain kinds of behaviour."

OK, let's get this straight. Emery was making tons of cash sending material considered illegal in the United States into the United States via the US Postal Service.

If anyone is messing around with the sovereign right of a nation to regulate its affairs, it was Emery doing it to the Americans, and the fact that Professor Boyd doesn't seem to get that makes me wonder if he's one of Emery's customers. I don't say that just be insulting:

Prof. Boyd said the arrest of a high-profile Canadian marijuana advocate is an indication that the United States is out of step with Britain and other European countries, which have been moving to decriminalize pot possession.

"Holland has been a regulator of marijuana for over 30 years," he added.

Well, thanks for the opinion. I thought the question was about national sovereignty and extraditions, not about your opinion about how "out of step" the Americans are with regards to marijuana.

"Out of step" -- legal term, is it? I wonder if Professor Boyd actually used that phrase, or if the Globe is helpfully translating his words for us.

Nice job by the Globe and Mail in constructing an article designed from top to bottom to avoid the actual issue -- Canadians who break American laws in American jurisdictions face the consequences of their actions, including extradition proceedings. Not all get extradited. But the Americans are within their rights, indeed are obligated by their oaths to uphold the law, to go after foreign operations targeting the United States and committing illegals acts (under American law).

Guess what? Canadian authorities are under the same obligation to go after Americans who break Canadian laws in Canada. For instance, it was alleged that American-based organizations helped fund mass mailings during the same-sex marriage debate. No actions were taken, as it happened, because it was decided by Justice Minister Cotler that no laws had been broken, but the issue had been considered, and at the highest level.

Instead, everyone in the article, including the law professor who should be helping clear this up for us, gets a chance to say how dumb and backwards the Americans are. Six-hundred words, and no counter examples, no references to the Criminal Code or to extradition treaties, no unbiased analysis.

Just a bunch of US-bashing.

When did the Globe fire all the reporters and replace them with the editorial staff from rabble.ca?