Marc Emery

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

This goes on the heels of the two posts about Roman Polanski, which while completely different, has a reoccurring theme.

Marc Emery, a Canadian, is wanted on 5yr old charges of trafficing, conspiracy, and whatever else they can throw at him. The author of the news story expects Marc to get 5yr.s for a crime he might get 1 month in Canada. It might be illegal to mail pot seeds in Canada, be in reality, it's rare that prosecutors seek the full extent of the law in drug cases.

Companies like Bud Buddy operate unhindered within Canada, and are largely ignored. I can't think of one that has been brought up on charges. That said most don't make sales across international borders anymore as a result of the Marc Emery waiting case.

It makes no sense to jail weed sellers and serves little benefit to society at large. This has been Emery's argument as part of his political platform running in Provincial and National elections. In Canada the Marijuana Party is less controversial, and more a special interest story on the same level as the WorkLessParty and the SexParty.

Not saying the USA shouldn't exercise it's laws or sense of justice. It does feel this is beyond their borders. Just as an American teen in Singapore in given a caning for graffiti. While you want to protect you and yours. One must accept the foreign jurisdiction's sovereignty. As if that's ever stopped Americans before.

Comments

[xforge.livejournal.com]

In Canada the Marijuana Party is less controversial, and more a special interest story on the same level as the WorkLessParty and the SexParty.

That's it, honey pack my bag, I'm movin' ta Toronto.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Innocent until proven guilty, except when you're swarthy. Or there's drugs involved. America, land of the somewhat free and pretty much always hypocritical.

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

Both Roman Polanski and the kid who got caned where in the relevant countries when they broke the law. Sorry but you are in a place, you need to know the law. Not a lot of sympathy for either.

In this case Emery never went to the US, but he did send illegal substances into the US. I think one can make a good case for that making him susceptible for prosecution here. If I send a bomb to a Canadian, the country of Canada would have a pretty good arguement for prosecuting me. Not sure either really trumps sovereignty as in both cases action is being directed toward a foreign country.

I do think pot (hell all drugs) should be legal, but at the same time I don't think it rises to the fundamental right level where I think civil disobedience is fully warranted. This guy knew it was illegal to send seeds into the US. I am all for people working to change laws, but I can't say I have a ton of sympathy for people who willingly and knowingly violate them.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

I agree with this, and I think it should be extended to foreign diplomats as well. If you're a guest in someone's home, you should follow house rules.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I too agree, I have never understood total diplomatic immunity.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

It exists to stop, say, China from arresting Hillary Clinton for saying that China artificially depresses its currency under their "Don't criticize the party" laws.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I understand that, which is why I used the word 'total'......my understanding of what that means may be in error tho, since it seems to derive from fiction.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

changing laws from within the system is the correct legal path to take. You write your politicians, make a clear argument, use the courts to your advantage and persuade all the right people.

However, there is long standing precedence of civil disobedience provoking change, not just in Canada, but in most democracies. Break the law to draw attention and show how unjust the law is.

I remember when all stores were closed on Sundays. Trying to get the attention of lawmakers proved impossible. It took many convictions and media attention before it was allowed to go before the Supreme Court and finally the law was changed.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It worked in Nazi Germany too at one time.

Didn't change anything at all.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

What historical tangent are you going off about?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Rosenstrasse Protest. Civil Disobedience against the guns of the SS. Hitler's boys got cowardly. Didn't dare pull a Tienanmen Square on those good Aryan women. Where that brought down Jim Crow the Nazi regime survived for about 2 more years after the Rosenstrasse Protest.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Not sure why you need to go back to WW2 all the time when recent history is so much fresher in our minds.

a conservative estimate of 35 million and a liberal estimate of 80 million people attended protests against the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. This was the single largest failure of democracy ever. There was not nearly that many in support of finding the non-existent WMD's.

Still, this doesn't mean that protest is pointless. Nor does it indicate that democracy doesn't work. It is what it is. Sometimes it works and other times not so much. As Churchill said, it's the worst form of government except for all others.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

How many of those were in the United States, which is the place that really matters to oppose the United States government?

I dunno, I think that democracy as we have practiced it thus far has steep flaws, not the least of which is the exorbitant bloodshed that goes along with imposing democracy in places that have minorities large enough to care about.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Huh? USA had huge protests too. As large as those that attended MLK's "I have a dream" speech.

Yes. Agreed. But less dramatic then war is municipal democracy. Once elected to town council, there is little accountability. Oh to have Libya's direct democracy.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

A question-was it right for Israel to violate the national sovereignty of Argentina by taking Adolf Eichmann to face justice? Does the standard you wish to apply in this particular case apply to all countries and all cases?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Answer #1
No it wasn't right. Kidnapping a former Nazi some 40yr.s (off the top of my head, might hav been 30 or 50yrs.) after the crimes must have felt like justice, but it reeked of vengence. Revenge is a bucket with a hole. Fill it but it holds nothing. I mean I don't know if you can rehabilitate an old man. I don't know that he was posing much threat.

Answer #2
For all countries. All cases that I can think of. Might go over well in your neck of the woods, but Charles Bronson style diplomacy seems to cause more problems then it solves.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Consistent.

Except that there is no country on record who has a fugitive felon war criminal who believes there is a statue of limitations on genocide.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I understand there is a warped definition of what justice is. I don't believe that vengeance serves justice very well. This is why most modern nations do not have capital punishment. Not Canada. Not the European Union. Not anywhere in South America.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Does Russia somehow not count as modern?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I have no idea if Russia practices the death penalty still. What does it matter? I didn't pretend to make a complete list of either side.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

It's issues like this that make us ask; what is the purpose of justice?

I absolutely agree that vengeance alone is insufficient (even irrelevant) cause for punishing people for their actions.

However that said, when it comes to genocide, rather than for the purpose of vengeance, Eichmann and other like them earned their fate because the punishment for such terrible crimes should be inescapable - those who would ponder commiting such crimes in future must know that if they do so, they will be hunted down and punished, even if barely another soul is alive remembers their crime, and even if they are already on their death beds.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

inescapable... any sane person trying to justify such actions in their mind will cry themselves to bed. Former Nazis would have to live with themselves depressed, and in fear. Getting caught finally must have been some sort of relief. "Justice" for Eichmann was no punishment. Getting captured would have actually released his mental anguish, as I'm sure it did.

...those who would ponder committing such crimes in future must know that if they do so, they will be hunted down and punished,...
Lol, as if. This kind of reasoning is used over and over, yet all evidence disproves it. Genocides, ethnic cleansings, mass murders, etc have continued even with the lessons of WW2. From Cambodia, Rwanda, Kurdistan, Bosnia, etc. there is no shortage of examples where this lesson wasn't learned. Even in USA we know that drug crimes will be punished severely, yet they dissuade only a few. The punishments for all crimes have penalties, yet even after getting a huge fine for speeding we sometimes still speed. We're just more careful about where we speed.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

inescapable... any sane person trying to justify such actions in their mind will cry themselves to bed. Former Nazis would have to live with themselves depressed, and in fear. Getting caught finally must have been some sort of relief. "Justice" for Eichmann was no punishment. Getting captured would have actually released his mental anguish, as I'm sure it did.

I don't care whatsoever for Eichmann's mental state or anguish (or lack thereof). The purpose of justice is not vengeance on Eichmann or any other, regardless of how deserving a person might be. The purpose of justice is, where possible; restoration/compensation of loss, rehabilitation and deterrence. In short, to fix the wrong (as far as possible) and to try to stop it happening again. Do you suggest that in cases of Genocide, we should abandon the principle of justice and simply throw our hands in the air? To say, oh well, sometimes we should just let it go and send a message to potential committers of genocide that, if they do mass murder other human beings, then if they run for a year and a day they will get away with it?

Justice is what sustains a society in the face of the inevitability of wrong doing, because people believe they can rely on it to protect them and to correct any injustice done to them. If you abandon it in this case, you encourage it in others, as people lose their faith in justice and seek their own solutions to wrongs, which become self perpetuating vicious circles of injustice.

all evidence disproves it

Care to quote a few sources that show that deterrence does not work at all?

I'm not arguing that it is anything like 100% effective. But when it comes to genocide, if it has any efficiency at all, we can pretty much guarantee that if the lives of 1 group of genocidal persons who are executed dissuade others from doing it once, then we have achieved a large net positive gain in a large number of people, who are innocent, at the cost of small number of people, who are guilty and who have therefore deserved their punishment in any case.

Understand, I oppose the death penalty as a rule. But there are certain isolated cases, where if guilt is rock-solid absolutely sure and the crime is the mass murder of thousands, that the death penalty is the right punishment, not for vengeance, but for justice.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

The purpose of justice is, where possible; restoration/compensation of loss, rehabilitation and deterrence. In short, to fix the wrong (as far as possible) and to try to stop it happening again.
Agree. Completely agree. So what's your issue?

Do you suggest that in cases of Genocide, we should abandon the principle of justice and simply throw our hands in the air? Never did I suggest that. Throw them behind bars whenever possible. This serves the public's protection.

Nazi's who fled to South America were already being punished. They were fugitives, who lived with some fear (possibly guilt) and not FREE. This serves the public protection with them out of the country and away from victims family and friends. If Argentina (or Brazil or whereever felt they posed a risk, they would certainly act to protect themselves.

Being on the lam is already a self imposed prison. Yes, I know that's still not the same as actually being behind bars. It doesn't serve a sense of retribution. Nor does it serve to rehab the offender.


Justice is what sustains a society in the face of the inevitability of wrong doing, because people believe they can rely on it to protect them and to correct any injustice done to them. If you abandon it in this case, you encourage it in others, as people lose their faith in justice and seek their own solutions to wrongs, which become self perpetuating vicious circles of injustice.
Awesome thoughts. But again you assume I wish to abandon justice. I just don't agree how it's often administered. Or with whom it's really serving. In the case of Marc Emery, a victimless crime, it's not serving the public good. In the case of fugitive Nazi's, I'm not sure it served the greater society. I mean the war was over. Defeat was complete and utter.

Even though the USA has 1% of it's population on prison, there are still very dangerous streets there. Heck, maybe they should imprison even more people. But Sweden has a very relaxed prison system where murderers are free to work and even roam, remains a relatively safe country.

Care to quote a few sources that show that deterrence does not work at all?
at all? No. Dissuades a few. Perhaps a majority. Still, anecdotally, everybody knows the odds of getting away with murder are slim to none, yet murders continue to happen.

Genocide was eradicated after the Nuremberg Trials. We collectively vowed that never again would the world stand by and allow such atrocities to happen. Never. Yet even after the kidnapping of fugitive Nazi's these things did occur. They continue to occur.

And damn it all.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

According to Peter McWilliams (cf., Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country, 1996) $200 billion is wasted on the legal proceedings against 'victimless crimes'