The US does have a tendency to overreach with it's law and policies, but this is not the case here. Mr. Emory is not being arrested for anything he did in Canada, he is being charged with shipping an illegal substance into the US. Just like with sales taxes, it doesn't matter where the product was shipped from, it's where it's being shipped to. He broke US law, in the US.

   

What Emory did, he did while standing on Canadian soil subject to Canadian law only .No country will extradite someone to another country to face penalties which are more severe than those in the country who's jurisdiction he was under,for an act which is not considered as serious in the country in which it was done, except Canada.<br /> This leads to prosecutors shopping for a country to send people to which has the harshest penalties ,for that which is not considerd serious or even illegal in Canada. It makes Candians vulnerable to any loonytoon laws anywhere in the world, a complete surrender of our national soveriegnty or our ability to set legal standards for and protect Canadians on Canadian soil.<br /> An example would be to extradite someone to an islamic hard line country for sending a bible in the mail to that country because that would be considered a crime in that country, or extraditeing someone for political comments made on the internet which would be illegal in another country who's citizens would have access to those comments via the internet.<br /> Where do we draw the line? At the outset one would hope .It's a very slippery slope.<br /> Brent

   

Brent,<br /> <br /> see <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050806111824313">here</a> (search that page for the word <i>viable</i>) — the charge against Emery <i>is</i> a violation of Canadian law, and the potential punishment under Canadian law <i>is the same</i> as the equivalent charge would be under American law; <i>that</i> is why extradition is both possible and legal. However, it is not mandatory; whether he be extradited or not is entirely up to the Canadian government.

   

Then why didn't they charge him under Canadian law and try him in Canada? Because there is no early parole eligibility in the US and convictions are much harsher there.In other words it is definitly not the same . You are lying .It's similar to the US sending people to countries where torture is legal because they can't do the same in the US.<br /> Put him on trial in Canada and it wouldn't be an issue . They wouldn't take on such a contentious strategy without a reason. <br /> Brent

   

Brent,<br /> <br /> I don’t know why Canadian authorities chose to extradite over trial in a Canadian court. Perhaps Emery’s alleged actions enraged people in high places? [Kindly pardon the pun.]<br /> <br /> I also don’t know why you’d accused me of lying. The link above has a link to the Department of Justice Canada site that contains the text of the relevant legislation: did you follow that link to read the legislation for yourself? I’ll summarise it right here, on the chance that you’d trust me to accurately copy the relevant text:<br /> <br /> [QUOTE from <i>Controlled Drugs and Substances Act</i>]</b><br><br /> <b>6.</b> (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall import into Canada or export from Canada a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV, V or VI.<br><br /> (2) […]<br><br /> (3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2)<br><br /> (<i>a</i>) where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life;<br><br /> (<i>b</i>) […]<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I highly encourage you to read the text for yourself at the Department of Justice Canada site if you have any doubt about the summary above being accurate.<br /> <br /> Note that the law states <i>liable to imprisonment for life</i>, not <i>liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding life</i> or other such language that leaves discretion to judges for the length of punishment. The law mandates a life sentence — full stop.<br /> <br /> Not even on my side of the border can one receive a sentence longer than life for exporting viable cannabis seed; thus, as I’d stated in my post above, <i>the potential punishment under Canadian law is the same as the equivalent charge would be under American law</i>. In fact, since there can be leeway for judges on this side of the border to decide the length of imprisonment for this offence in a Federal court (due to our Federal sentencing guidelines, which determine the range of possible term lengths according to a complex points system), it’s well within the realm of possibility that if Emery be found guilty, he could receive <i>less</i> than a life sentence down here.<br /> <br /> Hey — you don’t suppose that <i>that</i> could be the reason for their decision to extradite? So that if found guilty, he could receive a <i>lighter</i> sentence than what Canadian law mandates?

   

"Life" in the US is for your entire life, "life" in Canada is 25 years. US judges have a record of handing out harsher sentences for marijuana-related charges than do Canadian judges. <br /> <br /> This is a highly politicised case related as much or more to Emery's activism as to his alleged crime, as witnessed by the involvement of the head of the DEA and statements she has made.<br /> <br /> Emery should not be extradited. He should be released and encouraged to resume his business.

   

On this particular charge, Canadian law allows judges no discretion on term lengths. It’s life, period.<br /> <br /> There may well be significant differences in parole policies between Canada and the USA (in federal jurisdiction), but that has no bearing on determining whether or not extradition is possible. As I’d stated twice before, <i>the <b>potential</b> punishment under Canadian law is the same as the equivalent charge would be under American law</i> — and it is that potential punishment, <i>not</i> a comparison of the mean term length for a given conviction, that counts in whether extradition is possible.<br /> <br /> I completely agree with you that it is a highly politicised case due to Emery’s activism; I don’t dispute that in the slightest. What I disagree with is summarised by the first paragraph of Brent’s first post, because:<br /> <ul><br /> <li>Emery was arrested in Canada for allegedly breaking a Canadian law, not for allegedly breaking an American law;</li><br /> <li>The punishment under Canadian law for this violation is not less (and could well be greater) than the equivalent punishment under American (federal) law;</li><br /> <li>The choice of whether he will be extradited or not belongs solely to the Canadian “executive authority”, according to the <a href="http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cts.1976.03.en.html">extradition treaty</a> (<a href="http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cts.1991.37.en.html">as currently amended</a>); (Would the “executive authority” refer to the PM alone, or to his Cabinet?)</li><br /> <li>Even if Emery were extradited on this charge, it would not be <a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/section-46.html">treason</a> on the part of the Canadian executive authority.</li><br /> </ul>And even if he were released, he would still be eligible for extradition; he would need to be tried on the Canadian equivalent of every charge in the extradition request for there to be no possibility of extradition, and thus need to be acquitted on or discharged from every charge to remain a free man.<br /> <br /> All that being stated, I simultaneously believe that the cannabis laws in my country are long overdue for reconsideration; I’d guess that many of you believe the same for Canada.<br /> <br /> [<i>Edited for greater clarity in the penultimate paragraph.</i>]

   

Judges look for precedent when handing down sentences. The precedents in Canada are much lower. Do you know of anyone who has been sentenced to life for such an incident in Canada by Canadian courts?I'll bet they are common in the US.At any rate they are much more severe, which is why Canada went shopping for a country with harsher sentences.Canadians standing on Canadian soil should have their sentences decided by Canadian judges , based on Canadian precedent. Anything else is an abdication of Canadian sovereignty.<br /> If you personally would prefer to live under US law than you have no business being in Canada.<br /> Brent

   

As I’d shown above, Canadian law only permits a sentence of life imprisonment on a conviction for this charge.<br /> <br /> Do you know of anyone who has <i>not</i> been sentenced to life for a conviction on this charge in a Canadian court?<br /> <br /> The extradition treaty most certainly permits Canadians in Canada accused of breaking Canadian law to be tried in a Canadian court. However, Canadian judges are bound by Canadian law, just as other Canadians are; when Canadian law does not give discretion to Canadian judges on term lengths, judges would be breaking the law by rendering a sentence that isn’t permitted by law.<br /> <br /> Again, I must stress that extradition is <i>never</i> mandatory, because <b>Canada is sovereign</b>. Any extradition request is just that — <i>a request</i>, which can be denied just as easily as be granted. The US <i>requested</i> extradition of Emery, just as Canada <i>requested</i> extradition of <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/06/08/despres050608.html">Gregory Despres</a>. Do you consider US sovereignty to have been abdicated to Canada because the US granted the Canadian extradition request for Despres?<br /> <br /> I don’t understand how the Canadian goverment’s choice of whether Emery is to be extradited or not has anything to do with where my home is. Would you explain to me its relevance to this topic?

   

As Emory didn't leave Caanda for the US and hasn't set foot on US soil, extraditing him for what was done on Canadian soil would be an abdication of Canadian jurisdiction over what Canadians do on Canadian siol , and thus an abdication ,of Canadian sovereignty.<br /> Would the US ever extradite one of their citizens to another country over what they did on US soil? Not a chance.The electorate would never put up with that.<br /> Brent

   

If an American shipped handgun parts from the US to Canada without a federal licence to do so, he would be breaking the laws of both the US and Canada without having set foot on Canadian soil. It would be perfectly valid for Canada to request the shipper’s extradition to try him for breaking Canadian law, and the US would not be abdicating its sovereignty if the extradition request were granted. Why? Because the choice to grant or deny the extradition request resided with the US.<br /> <br /> Similarly, the choice to grant or deny the request to extradite Emery resides with Canada; that is why Canada would not abdicate its sovereignty should it grant the extradition request.<br /> <br /> The closest real-life example that I could find of the US extraditing one of its citizens to another country over an act on US soil is the case of Suwit Prasoprat, who was arrested in the States and extradited to Thailand to face the potential of a death penalty for smuggling heroin from Bangkok to Los Angeles, despite not facing the death penalty for the same charge in the States.<br /> <br /> It’s not an exact analogue, though, since the act of smuggling by definition requires two physical nexus points (in this case, Thailand and the US), as opposed to a crime by mail, which only requires one physical nexus. But if one subscribes to the “sentence shopping” theory, then one would have to conclude that the US is just as willing to “shop” its own citizens abroad to face the greatest potential penalty for a given crime.

   

The US ships its prisoners to the middle east to be tortured on behalf of the US government despite its having signed international treaties forbidding torture. If that is the kind of country you prefer to live in then what the hell are you doing in Canada. Rather than drag us down to their level, you should simply emmigrate, ands enjoy the crime free society that has resulted..Yankee go home.<br /> Brent

   

Harper and Bush were out fishing off Kenebunkport Maine. Bush stood up to take a leak and a huge shark jumped up and grabbed him by the dick. Bush calmly poked the shark in the eyes with his thumbs, and the shark let go and fell back. Bush turned to Haper and said " There , do you think you can do that". Harper said "Sure, if you'll promise not to poke me in the eyes."<br /> Brent