Pursuant to the instruction of Industry Minister Tony Clement, on June 28, 2010, Statistics Canada announced, in part, that:

The 2011 Census will consist of the same eight questions that appeared on the 2006 Census short-form questionnaire. It will be conducted in May 2011.

The information previously collected by the long-form census questionnaire will be collected as part of the new voluntary National Household Survey (NHS). This questionnaire will cover most of the same topics as the 2006 Census, but will exclude the question asking for consent to release personal census information after 92 years as this is only required by the census. The NHS questions will be made available by the end of July.

The National Household Survey will be conducted within four weeks of the May 2011 Census and will include approximately 4.5 million households. (emphasis added)

The one somewhat unconvincing reason given by Clement for the government’s decision to make the long form optional was explained in a July 13, 2010 media release by Clement which stated, in part:

The government does not believe it is appropriate to force Canadians to divulge detailed personal information under threat of prosecution. For this reason, we have introduced changes for the 2011 Census.

The rationale for objecting to lifting the mandatory completion of the long form are numerous. According to the CBC, the long-form of the census includes questions about religious affiliation every 10 years (2011 being the next such year) and religious groups complain that they need the data to deliver programs and services and to track changes the “religious landscape”. The Star reports that Canadian Medical Association journal needs long-form information for health care planning. In short, a good number of private associations like getting free data, and are quite happy to have the federal government threaten Canadians with fines and jail time in order to get it.

Others, not focusing upon the use to which census data is put, complain instead that taking a gun from the heads of those asked to fill out the long form will undermine the quality of the data. For example, the Ottawa Citizen’s Dan Gardner, and a host of statisticians about whom he writes, express concern that:

…the switch from a mandatory to a voluntary form will bias the data in many ways and increasing the number of households that get the long form won’t correct the biases. It will just produce more numbers. That are biased. And not comparable with past census data.

Toronto Dominion Bank senior economist Drummond has complained that if the long form is optional, white middle-class individuals will submit a greater percentage of the long-forms, leaving minorities, aboriginals and the very wealthy under-represented in the data. He says that, eventually, the data would be useless.

Implied in such complaints is an underlying belief that the data collected with the long form should be used by government. So, what exactly is the nature of the data that so many are clamouring for, and to what purposes can a government put such data?

In 2006 – the year in which the most recent long-form census was sent out to Canadians – talk radio host Robert Metz described in great and illuminating detail the questions set out in the 2006 long form, which he refused to file. Metz is the founder of the pro-free-market Freedom Party of Ontario and a long-time opponent of the census. In his account (which is a must-read for anyone weighing in on the issue of continuing to force people to fill out the long form), he explains that the long form of the census divides Canadians into discrete collectives distinguished by race and wealth:

None of the census questions relate to any proper function of government or of its proper relationship to the citizen: the administration of justice, maintenance of an objective court system, or the function of the military. They’re all about genetic make-up and wealth redistribution.

Many opponents of the plan to make the long form optional take the position that the long form does not take too long to fill out. Others, like Liberal Party industry critique Marc Garneau argue that:

“…no one has gone to jail over the census, at least as far back as 1981. Only about 50-60 people are charged over each census, with about six having to pay fines”.

Metz’s account anticipates that argument, and responds as follows:

But again, fines and jail sentences are a secondary issue, particularly when rarely enforced. The real significance of Canada’s Census lies not in the seemingly senseless questions being asked, nor in the threats of penalties directed against us, but in what we are being told about our collective future. Sadly, if the racists and other collectivists who design and administer the Canadian Census have their way, Canadians can expect a continued reversion from a productive society — which survives by consensual trade in which wealth is earned by productivity — towards an uncivilized jungle inhabited by warring tribes forced to segregate and divide themselves according to a genetic code.

Now, before the reader rebuts that Metz, an unflinching advocate for individual freedom and free markets, might be misrepresenting the purpose of the collection of such data, consider the statement issued last Tuesday by Armine Yalnizyan, an economist with the collectivist Canadian Centre for Policy Initiatives:

The long form is a critical tool that helps business, communities and governments decide where you need your money…

Without this information, we are all punching in the dark. Without this information, we cannot properly allocate our resources. The people who will pay most dearly are those who are already most vulnerable: the poor, aboriginal communities, recent immigrants and racial minorities.

Yalnizyan essentially agrees with Metz about the intended use of the data is to redistribute wealth to collectives distinguished by race. To conclude that those not getting “our” resources (i.e., government subsidies) thereby “pay”, it is necessary first to assume that the money taxed out of the pockets of those who earn it is, in fact, money that is owned by, and owed to, Canadians collectively. Characterizing collectives of individuals defined almost exclusively by race as those who “pay”, Yalnizyan confirms Metz’s summation that the collectives in question are racial collectives; that the census is a tool to impose and facilitate tribalism (a state of affairs in which government governs not individuals, but collectives distinguished by race, sex, nationality, et cetera).

Whether they realize it as explicitly as does Yalnizyan, the opponents of making the long-form optional are condemning not merely privacy and the freedom not to provide information, but also the individualism and free markets that the long form data is ultimately intended to undermine. Whether the opponents want unpaid-for data or consistent statistical history, their objections are in the service of the most vile form of collectivism – racism – and of that well-known toxin to any economy, central planning.

It would give me great comfort were I to believe, as Liberal Party industry critic Marc Garneau somehow does, that the Harper Conservatives are motivated by a desire to put an end to central planning:

By attacking the census, this government is throwing us in the dark on immigration-related issues. They’re doing the same for aboriginals, visible minorities and the disabled, and for those arguing for the need for pay equity…That’s what the Conservatives’ endgame is here -to permanently hobble the government’s ability to enforce legislation and deliver social programs aimed at our most vulnerable.

To be sure, the economic case against the practicality of central planning is as damning as the moral case against it (the immoral being the impractical, such will always be the case, in the long term, as knowledge grows). But, alas, I do not share Garneau’s belief that the Conservatives are using privacy concerns as a cover story for a secret agenda to end central planning. The painful evidence is everywhere about us that the Harper Conservatives have no particular affinity for free markets, and no particular opposition to central planning. Billions of dollars borrowed by the federal Conservatives to bail out or nationalize private companies – after having campaigned against such deficit spending; cuts to the rate of the inherently single-rate, less invasive GST instead of to the progressive rates of income taxes; soccer-mom hand-outs at taxpayer expense; quiet and countless transfers of billions across little community groups like Youth for Christ of Langley, BC: all stand as the best evidence that the Conservatives’ only agenda is to do whatever it thinks it needs to do to stay in power.

Moreover, such Conservative actions have been backed also by Stephen Harper’s unequivocal condemnation of free markets; a condemnation not made in public to lefties and righties alike, but to a closed-door conservatives-only audience in 2009 at the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. In that speech, he condemned liberals for thinking government to have a role in all economic decisions, and condemned “libertarians” for thinking government to have no role in economic decisions. Like so many on the left, his argument was founded upon the falsehood that the west’s economies are free markets, and that it was the alleged free market – rather than fraud, credit inflation and government mandated loans to the uncreditworthy – that led to the current economic crisis. Playing second fiddle to no Keynesian, Harper made it clear he thinks individuals are all irresponsible children that need governmental parenting from cradle to grave:

Now, I know the libertarian – and I am sure there are a few in this room that define themselves that way – the libertarian says, and it’s a perspective that I have a lot of sympathy for, let individuals exercise full freedom and take full responsibility for their actions.

The problem with this notion is that conservatives know from experience that people who act irresponsibly in the name of freedom are almost never willing to take responsibility for their actions. I don’t speak *just* of individuals who may have ruined their lives through drugs or crimes or whatever, but look at Wall Street, the great free-enterprise financial institutions who wanted so much freedom from government regulation. They were the first in line for government support when the recession hit. And now I read, I read yesterday, that now some of them are saying they don’t like that this government money may limit their freedom.

These are not the words of a closet capitalist. They are the anti-capitalistic (i.e., anti-free-market) words of a man who, first and foremost, likes the Prime Minister’s chair.

It is true, in my view, that the Conservatives do not at all care about the quality of the data collected in the long form of the Census. And I would quite agree with any leftist who said that the Harper Conservatives, in fact, have no real need or desire for census data: I sincerely doubt they will use it to identify spending priorities, and I suspect that the only reason they did not announce scrapping it altogether was to ensure that the various people wanting free data (including Conservative-friendly religious organizations) could not argue that they have been deprived of it (they are left, instead, making sleep-inducing technical arguments about statistical accuracy, and other things that few voters care about).

Though it pains me to say it, the decision to eliminate the mandatory completion of the long form is not founded upon a secret Conservative agenda to end central planning. It is, in reality, nothing more than an effort to feed a bit of red meat to that slender, politically homeless demographic that nowadays finds itself so uncomfortable associating itself with a Conservative Party so bent upon managing the economy, pandering to the more radical religious elements, and setting itself up as a hand of god that will deliver us from such evils as the decision to smoke a bit of cannabis. For years, the conservatives have dangled the carrot in front of that constituency, winking and smirking – but never voicing – a false promise to deliver a pro-free-market, pro-individualism revolution. The mandatory long-form is a long-term gripe of that constituency and making it optional – without eliminating it – is only the latest half-hearted attempt to maintain whatever party loyalty there remains among those who cherish individual freedom and capitalism.

I do not think the Conservatives will gain or maintain much loyalty among those who cherish freedom and capitalism, but neither do I think they have much to lose by taking the step they have taken (unless they commit the cardinal sin of, again, reversing themselves to fend off the Liberals and other collectivists). Nonetheless, making the long form optional accomplishes something more important for conservatives and non-conservatives alike. I anticipate relatively few people will volunteer to spend their time filling out an optional long-form census and, if that ends up being the case, the Conservatives will at least unintentionally have struck a blow against that most destructive and dehumanizing form of collectivism, racism.

Within one minute after the peaceful arrival of two Canadians at the Niagara Falls constituency office of Canada’s Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, a police officer arrives on motorcycle. He says he has been called to the scene. He asks that the video camera recording him be turned off. When the camera person refuses to do so, the officer – shockingly – asserts that the camera filming him is “interpreted as a weapon”.

Clearly, it appears the officer has been called by the constituency office of Canada’s Justice Minister, because he was not called by the two Canadians attempting to visit it. He knocks on the locked door of the Justice Minister’s constituency office. The staffer unlocks the door that she had locked when she saw the two Canadians approaching the office in their car. One of the Canadians – Jacob Hunter – says he will not remain outside the office, because – being a taxpayer-funded office of a member of Parliament – it is a public space. The police officers turns, smacks a video or phone device out of Mr. Hunter’s hand, presses him back by the throat area, then sweeps behind Mr. Hunter and slaps on the cuffs claiming – falsely – that Mr. Hunter has assaulted him.

Who is Mr. Hunter? Mr. Hunter is a Canadian opposed to the prosecution of people who use Cannabis. Mr. Hunter uses Cannabis pursuant to a Canadian-government-recognized license to do so. He has, in recent weeks, sat peacefully and quite legally in the constituency offices of one or more elected members of Parliament. He has, in those offices, quite legally rolled marijuana cigarettes (though he has been polite enough not to smoke them indoors). He has done so to protest the extradition of anti-prohibitionist Marc Emery to the USA (Justice Minister Rob Nicholson surrendered Emery to the USA unconditionally on May 10, 2010), and to oppose violations of the liberty of Canadians in general.

Why did the police arrive only 1 minute or so after Mr. Hunter’s car pulled into the parking lot of Mr. Nicholson’s constituency office? How could they possibly have responded so quickly? I leave the answers to such questions to whatever sound, honest and diligent minds remain in Canada’s journalistic community.

Why did the police officer do to Mr. Hunter what he did to Mr. Hunter? Why did he pretend that Mr. Hunter had assaulted him, as a pretext for arresting Mr. Hunter?

Why does anyone pretend that things are not getting as bad as they are getting under the Conservative government?

I write this not as a socialist: I am a capitalist. I write this not as a bleeding heart: I seek justice, not mercy.

And just as the tens of billions currently borrowed each year by Conservatives is not capitalism, the throat-clenching grasp of police urged by our government to de-humanize and bear false witness against Canadians is neither justice nor mercy. And, apparently, it is on-call to respond, at a moment’s notice, to the Justice Minister’s staff.

Free speech? We’re on the razor’s edge, my fellow Canadians. And that implies that we’re also upon the razor’s edge between freedom and oppression.

Please watch this video, and share it with the media and with your friends.

First, the lion’s share of people who want religion mixed with government – a minority in Canada – are *already* voting conservative. McDonald’s book won’t give any social conservative voter more ballots.

Second, Nicholls’ description of Harper in the 1997-2002 period (when Gerry says he knew Harper), is pretty much the description that anyone would have given Harper in that same period:

During all the time I knew him, he never displayed an ounce of zealotry. He never even talked about religion. He did, however, talk a lot about the intersection of religion and politics. And his views in those days would probably shock Marci McDonald.

Harper did not have much affinity for social conservatives. He viewed them as “culturally isolated” and a dwindling political force in Canada. That’s why he also believed a conservative political party would be successful only if it talked less about social and moral issues, and more about economic and fiscal issues. In other words, he was a libertarian.

But alas: people change. Religion in particular tends to become more attractive to many people when their children are entering their teens and making scary choices (Harper’s eldest lad is that age, and Harper has expressed concern that his children will increasingly come into contact with drugs in their teenage years). Religion is also more attractive to people once they are entering the last third or quarter of their life (Harper is 51). Harper is a member of the Alliance church, and is a church-goer. Harper fits the demographic.

Of course, I cannot know why any particular stranger – I don’t know Harper personally – chooses to hold on to any arbitrary (i.e., not founded on physical evidence) belief. I have observed, like many others, that some people just can not deal with the reality that you only get one shot at life. Such a person, considering his mortality, considers also that his life is not the one he wanted and hoped for when he was younger. To cope with the disappointment – disappointment that, for many, is crushing – he holds onto a belief like a lifeline: that he will have a non-physical afterlife in which existence in infinite, effortless, and blissful. And it is precisely because that arbitrary belief functions as a lifeline that it is regarded by many as the greatest of sins to cause such a person to lose his faith. It is equated with murder: death by reality.

But I digress. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Harper’s belief in a God, or the influence of religion in his decision making because….

3. If it barks and wags it’s tail, you can call it a cat all you like, and it won’t change the fact that it’s a dog. Before Harper was in power, he called for an end to corporate welfare, for lower taxes, et cetera. But by 2006, he was barking and wagging like a liberal. Call him “libertarian” cat all you like, but his government has cranked up the deficit to unbelievable levels, bailed out (even bought out) private businesses, declared war on a Canadian culture that doesn’t share his professed desire to prohibit marijuana use (“because it’s bad”), and expressly condemned libertarians and libertarianism. And he has expressly said that his conservative policies are “tempered” by one of his three values: faith (the other two being family and – oh p-lease – freedom).

For some, apparently, faith in the notion that a socialist is actually – somewhere deep down inside, eventually, in spirit, etc. – a “libertarian” is itself a belief that, like a belief in the afterlife, is held onto so as to cope with the fact that there is no libertarian party in power, and no party currently in power that has any plan of any sort ever to govern as libertarians. Libertarians, too, have their faith-based lifelines…which is why libertarians and social conservatives belong together.

Me: I’ll stay grounded on earth. Gravity is my only lifeline, and it’s the only one I want or need.

In stark contrast, the Quebecor-owned Sunmedia newspaper chain – a chain that historically supports Progressive Conservatives provincially and Conservatives federally, no matter what the policies of those parties might be at the time – is today running columns the apparent function of which is to take the focus off of the governing Conservatives, and to place it on Marc Emery himself. In each case, the point of the exercise is to lower the reader’s opinion of Emery so that people will pay no attention to the Conservatives’ failure to defend Canadian freedom and sovereignty. Each column takes an approach somewhat akin to suggesting that a rape victim had it coming because she wears low-cut blouses and doesn’t go to church on Sundays, all to take the focus off of the fact that the main suspect is a church minister.

In a Toronto Sun column titled “Why they call it dope“, Christian Conservative columnist and talk-show host Michael Coren takes a particularly low-brow approach. Specifically, he has written an article that pretends to be about the harmfulness of marijuana use, but that is actually nothing more than a vehicle for ad hominem attacks on those who use marijuana or those who oppose marijuana prohibition. Coren’s command of gutter language is quite impressive, and his use of it exceptionally boorish. In a column comprised of only 524 words, Coren uses all of the following words to describe those who use marijuana or who oppose marijuana prohibition: pothead, selfish, silly (x2), wrong, foolish, naive, callow, high, indifferent, lazy, underachievers, lacking memory, sexually impotent, confused, having poor judgment, unhealthy, escapist, pompous, self-rightous, moronic. In case you are not doing the math, that is a full 4% of the words used in Coren’s screed. Words not found in Coren’s article include: government, Conservative, Harper, Nicholson, rights, freedom, sovereignty.

In Sunmedia’s London Free Press “news” paper (it hardly contains news anymore, but it is reportedly useful if you are looking for coupons to clip), in a column titled “Marc Emery’s pet cause is Marc Emery“, former editor Larry Cornies takes a different approach. Specifically, he refers to a number of things Emery has indeed done, but removes any of the context that would allow a reader to decide why Emery was doing what he was doing over the last 30 years of his life in activism. Having left the whys unaddressed, Cornies thereby leaves himself the latitude to make a wholly unwarranted claim, nowhere supported in his column: that “…the overriding perception is that the most important cause in the mind of Marc Emery is Marc Emery.” The rational among my readers will immediately notice the Ellsworth Toohey nature of Cornies’ conclusion: it speaks about an alleged consensus, rather than about a demonstrable reality. I wrote the following letter to Cornies, as a result:

Larry:

Re: Marc Emery’s pet cause is Marc Emery

“But the overriding perception is that the most important cause in the mind of Marc Emery is Marc Emery.”

That was an inaccurate and mean conclusion to a decidedly myopic version of Emery’s history. If you haven’t already seen it, I invite you to watch “The Principle of Pot” , my Marc Emery documentary, recently released on youtube (Part 1 here, Part 2 here). Emery did indeed make himself the focus, especially with respect to the marijuana issue, but you have entirely missed his purpose in doing so. It was not an ego trip. It was a deliberate strategy based on sound observations about the nature of the majority of people in our society.

From 1980 until 1990, Emery’s message was that individuals have a right to their own life, liberty and property. By 1990, he had decided that people, essentially, are too busy to think about and adopt abstract political principles. So he changed his strategy.

Emery stopped speaking about individual rights. Having researched the history of individual freedom, he discovered that virtually every advancement in individual freedom was the result of someone intentionally breaking a law. The point was, in each historical case, to have the people observe government punishing a person who was harming nobody (or, at least, nobody but himself/herself). Emery observed that when the governments do that, the public condemns the government for being a bully, and the government repeals the law.

Freedom Party being a party founded upon, and continuing to advocate, individual rights, Emery left Freedom Party. He broke censorship laws and urged everyone to follow his example: pick just one oppressive law and break it. He left London because he found that, although people admired him for his efforts, they would not follow his example: they lacked the courage or will to break a oppressive laws in efforts to have them repealed.

While in India, Emery considered other historical examples: civil rights movements. These differ from the break-a-law-change-a-law efforts of others. The essence of a civil rights movement is that it is a collective of people commonly oppressed by a given law. Normally, those civil rights movements are based upon the unchosen: sex, skin colour etc. Emery’s innovation was to apply the same strategy to a collective defined not by unchosen characteristics, but by the fact that they had already chosen to break the same laws: the laws that prohibit the growth, sale, or possession of cannabis. He chose marijuana prohibition precisely because it is the instance of the violation of individual rights that has led to the greatest number of people being imprisoned, fined, expropriated, separated from their children, etc.. Emery chose to fill the role that two of his civil rights inspirations – Ghandi and King – had filled with respect to their collectives: like them, Emery chose to bring the collective together, to give it a voice (Cannabis Culture magazine), and to give it the money it needed peacefully to fight back (via court challenges and political campaigns). He sold seeds both to violate-the-law-so-as-to-change-the-law, and to raise the necessary funds for the collective that he brought together, organized, and gave a voice.

Having decided that it is not possible – at least in the short-term – to change peoples’ minds such that they believe themselves to have individual rights, he tried a different route: winning their sympathies, their loyalties, and their hearts. And, to do that, he needed to conduct himself in the way expected of a predominantly altruistic society (a society that regards the self-sacrifice of Jesus as the ultimate example of virtuous conduct): he needed to be a self-sacrificial person, sacrificing himself so that marijuana users could be freed from the governments/laws that oppressed them.

The results are everywhere to see. Emery is the go-to-guy, world-wide, with respect to the marijuana prohibition issue. Millions of people both know who he is, admire him, are loyal to him, and recognize him as the leader of a civil rights movement: the movement of those who refuse any longer to be punished for the choice to put something into their bodies; the choice to make decisions for themselves, rather than allowing the government to assume the role of parental authority.

If the “overriding perception” is that Marc Emery’s cause is Marc Emery, your job – if you are a columnist – is not merely to serve as a mirror, telling us what ignorant beliefs exist, but to explain to people that they are mistaken in their beliefs, if so.

Moreover, the relevant issue for Canadians is not what is in Emery’s mind, but what the Conservative government has put into its prison cells. To leave out of your article any mention – any moral evaluation – of what the government is doing to Emery, and why it is doing it, is disgraceful. I suspect that the “overriding perception” concerning your article is that – like another Sunmedia article published today and written by conservative Michael Coren – you are attempting to take the spotlight off of the oppressive conduct of Canada’s Conservative government, and to blame one among its millions of victims. If such a perception is accurate – and only you can know – you should be ashamed of yourself.

Although selling cannabis seeds is technically illegal in Canada, Canadian authorities have rarely ever charged any of the numerous seed sellers doing business in Canada, in broad daylight. And the few that have been charged – including Emery – have received only small fines (in the $200 range) or community service as a sentence. Nicholson’s surrender of Emery was unconditional, and – though he was authorized by Canada’s Extradition Act to seek assurances that Emery would not be prosecuted except for the less serious offenses to which he has already agreed to plead guilty – Nicholson shockingly chose not to do so.

In his written reasons, Nicholson made the following conclusions:

I have decided to order Mr. Emery’s unconditional surrender to the United States on the American offences for which his extradition was sought.

The key word in that quotation is “unconditional”. The second of three steps in an extradition from Canada is the obtaining of a “committal order” from a judge. Emery is facing three U.S. charges, two of which include 10 year mandatory minimum sentences. In September of 2009, Emery and US prosecutors agreed to a plea deal: if surrendered by Canada’s Justice Minister, Emery would plead guilty to the one charge having no mandatory minimum, and both sides would seek from the sentencing judge only a 5 year term of imprisonment. In his submissions to the Justice Minister dated January 4, 2010, Emery’s lawyer asked, in part, that the Justice Minister exercise his authority under subsection 40(3) of the Extradition Act to make Emery’s surrender conditional upon the USA first assuring the Minister that Emery would be prosecuted only of the offence to which he agreed to plead guilty. Nicholson flatly refused to even bother seeking such an assurance. He thereby implied, essentially, that Canada has no objection if the U.S. wants to prosecute Emery for all three offenses and lock him up for the rest of his life: Emery is 51 years of age, such that 20+ years in prison would probably amount to a life sentence without parole.

Nicholson went on to say:

As Minister of Justice acting under section 40 of the [Extradition] Act, my role in the extradition process is essentially political in nature…

The Extradition Act does not require the Justice Minister to extradite anyone. Its language is permissive, not imperative. Murderers, pedophiles, you-name-it: nothing in Canada’s Extradition Act requires Canada’s Justice Minister to surrender a person for extradition. As Nicholson said, his role is “essentially political”: he is free to deny the surrender of a person and to base such a decision upon political considerations.

However, the Extradition Act does prevent the Justice Minister from deciding to surrender a person where the person is being prosecuted for his political beliefs/conduct, or where such beliefs/conduct are such that he would face prejudice in the country seeking the person’s extradition. Nicholson knows, or ought to know, that all of Emery’s seed selling efforts were a political campaign, the proceeds from which notoriously were spent on anti-prohibition campaigns by mainstream politicians and political parties, cannabis legalization groups, U.S. cannabis legalization ballot initiatives, and court cases in which marijuana legislation was challenged. A full-length documentary – “The Principle of Pot” – was released this year, and media releases provided the Justice Minister and all of Canada’s 308 MPs with links to the documentary, which is still available for free on youtube (you can watch all of it, Part 1 and Part 2, on Paul McKeever’ youtube channel). In short: Nicholson knew, or ought to have known before making his decision on Emery’s surrender, that Emery’s political beliefs and conduct are the actual target of U.S. (and, arguably, Canadian) authorities, and that Emery will – at the very least – face extreme prejudice in the USA because of his political beliefs and political campaigns. As the person who researched and produced the aforementioned documentary, I am left with the distinct impression that Nicholson either disregarded the history, or disregarded the Extradition Act’s prohibitions.

Nicholson continues:

In my view, it is appropriate in the circumstances of this case to yield to the superior interest of the United States in prosecuting this matter.

Given his “essentially political” role, the fact that the Justice Minister considers the United States to have a “superior interest” in prosecuting Marc Emery is essentially a political statement, not a legal one. Two things need to be said about the Minister’s statement in that regard.

Canada not only knew Emery to be selling seeds, but gladly received the tax revenues voluntarily paid by Emery, who openly declared himself to be a cannabis seed seller in his tax returns. Canada demonstrably has had no interest in prosecuting Emery in Canada. With a majority of Canadians being in favour of outright legalization of cannabis, and with sentencing precedents of mere fines or community service for seed selling in Canada, Canadian authorities have seen no point in prosecuting Emery in Canada.

That is not to imply that Canadian authorities do not want Emery prosecuted. The Vancouver Police Department sought Emery’s prosecution in 2003, but Canadian prosecutors refused to prosecute Emery, presumably because cannabis seed selling is such a minor and rarely-prosecuted offense in Canada. Thereafter, Vancouver police shared their investigation with US authorities, knowing full well that US prosecutors would have every incentive and ability to lock Emery up for the rest of his life or, worse, to sentence him to death. In the USA, the death penalty is available for individuals convicted of the crimes with which Emery is charged, due to the sheer quantity of seeds sold by Emery. Given that the Justice Minster refused to restrict the surrender to just the relatively minor charge, it shocks the conscience that Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson surrendered Emery unconditionally without seeking any assurances that a death penalty would not be imposed. To this author, it looks more like the Conservative government of Canada is the one having the “superior interest” in having Emery prosecuted in the USA.

Given the dark and smelly history of the investigation into Emery’s seed campaign – an investigation commenced 8 years after Vancouver police knew of Emery’s seed selling, and only after Emery humiliated Vancouver police and visiting US Drug Czar John Walters, in 2002 (readers can see the details of how this all went down in the “The Principle of Pot” documentary) – the following part of the Justice Minister’s statement is something that, in my view, could be made only negligently or with insincerity:

While a Canadian prosecution was possible based on these allegations, I accept that the Canadian authorities have yielded in good faith to the interests of the American authorities in prosecuting this matter. In the circumstances of this case, I see nothing improper in this regard. Neither conclusion is merited in this case…I conclude that my refusal to seek assurances would not make Mr. Emery’s surrender to the United States to face the outstanding charges “shocking to the conscience”. (emphasis added)

“Shocking to the conscience” is a legal phrase that relates to a situation in which the country seeking a person’s extradition would subject the person to procedures or penalties that would breach the principles of fundamental justice enshrined in s. 7 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Essentially, Nicholson is implying that, in his opinion, it does not “shock the conscience” to see a Canadian citizen locked up potentially for the rest of his life – or sentenced to death – for an offence for which a Canadian would face only a small fine or community service were he charged and convicted in Canada. In my view, Nicholson’s opinion itself shocks the conscience of any person on this globe who deserves to be regarded a Canadian. Nicholson’s view about what is a just penalty for Emery is not merely at odds with the Canadian understanding of fundamental justice, but is obscenely blood-thirsty, mean-spirited, and malicious.

In his “essentially political” role, Nicholson concludes that:

…Mr. Emery’s unconditional surrender to the United States on the offences for which his extradition was sought would not be unjust or oppressive under all of the circumstances.

Consider that the fine for littering is, in many Canadian towns, higher than the fine Emery would be likely to face were he charged and convicted, in Canada, for selling Cannabis seeds. It burdens the mind to figure out just what would be unjust or oppressive, in Rob Nicholson’s view, if he figures it right to sentence a Canadian to life imprisonment or death for an offense regarded, in Canada, as less offensive then failing put ones coffee cup in a garbage pail.

In my view, there is no more accurate moral assessment of Rob Nicholson’s decision than that Rob Nicholson committed a disturbingly evil act today, arguably for no better reason than to keep a few of the Conservative Party’s radical, hard-core, wanna-be Americans happy. The blood is on his hands, and on that of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, which clearly gave Nicholson tacit permission, if not an order, to surrender Emery.

The Conservatives had better hope that Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton remain incompetent in the lead-up to the next election because, if either of them gains the courage, masculinity and spirit of Pierre Trudeau and stands up for Canadian sovereignty, for moral goodness, and for Canada as we knew it prior to today, the Conservatives will be sent packing in the next federal election…packing, with a one-way ticket to the USA, gladly paid for by the Canadian voter.

The investigation of Marc Emery’s seed campaign commenced years after it had already acquired international recognition and fame. The Vancouver police force, and the governments of Canada, of British Columbia, and of Vancouver all knew Emery was selling cannabis seeds. In fact, it was also known world-wide that Emery paid the Canadian Revenue Agency hundreds of thousands of dollars in income taxes each year, and identified himself, in his tax returns, as a cannabis seed seller. And, through countless profiles and quotations in A-list media, including the Wall Street Journal (1995 – front page), National Enquirer (1996), CBC (1996, 1998, 2003), CNN (1997), CBS (1998), Time Magazine (2000), Mclean’s Magazine (2001), the police, all governments, and the rest of the world’s population were inundated with descriptions of Emery’s motive and twofold method: (a) to raise money for anti-prohibition ballot initiatives in the USA, for political parties and candidates the world over, for court challenges, and for the publication of his anti-prohibition magazine, Cannabis Culture (by 2005, he had given such efforts millions of dollars generated by the sale of cannabis seeds), and (b) “plant the seeds of freedom, overgrow the government” by facilitating the continent-wide growth of so much marijuana that the government would finally realize it fiscally infeasible to destroy it all. Emery has described it as a “peaceful revolution” involving not guns, but “botany”.

However, in 2002, Emery ran for Mayor of Vancouver. His campaign focused on alleged corruption within the Vancouver Police Department at a time when that force was being heavily criticized for its failure to have successfully investigated the murder of numerous prostitutes in the area. Emery promised to “squeeze the nuts” of the Vancouver Chief of Police for getting involved in proposing policy instead of focusing on the job of enforcing the law. He promised to “expose corruption”, called the VPD “dirty” and, ultimately, called it “evil”. He promised to take out full-page ads in Vancouver newspapers concerning the police, which he called “the worst police force” in Canada.

During that mayoral campaign, Canada’s Senate issued a report recommending the legalization of marijuana – not just for medical purposes, but for recreational purposes as well. It thoroughly debunked the numerous false allegations made by cannabis prohibitionists. Canada’s House of Commons was scheduled to release its report months later. On November 20th, 2002, just after the mayoral race had ended, and before the House of Commons could issue its report, America’s then drug czar John Walters was invited by the Vancouver Board of trade to give a speech. Emery bought a table-for-10 for the event. There were also 6 tables of police officers present. As Walters launched into a range of half-truths – all of which had been debunked by Canada’ senate – Emery and the guests at his table called out “lies” and otherwise heckled the drug czar whenever he made a misrepresentation about cannabis. The police in attendance were angered, telling Emery and his guests to shut up. Walters was humiliated and incensed, and media the world over caught it all on film…film that was aired around the globe that evening.

Later that evening, a Vancouver police officer in its drug squad escorted Walters to Emery’s so-called “pot block” where Emery’s “Cannabis Culture Headquarters” store and “BC Marijuana Party Headquarters” are located, right next door to the New Amsterdam Cafe, where patrons openly smoke cannabis without being harassed by police. One of its patrons puffed a cloud of hash smoke into Walters’ face while he looked on.

The Vancouver Police commenced an investigation of Emery’s seed business; a business that it had already known, for 8 years, to have existed.

Months later, in the summer of 2003, the Vancouver police brought the results of their investigation to Crown prosecutors. However, in January of 2003, an Ontario court held that Canada had no law against the possession of 30g or less of marijuana, because the federal government had failed to correct a statute that violated Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms (because it unconstitutionally prevented medical patients from obtaining and using cannabis). The Crown refused to prosecute Emery. The Vancouver police force having been shown the door by Canada’s prosecutors, the Vancouver police decided to share their Emery file with American authorities, including the DEA. The DEA, with the assistance of Canadian police in Vancouver, continued to investigate Emery on Canadian turf. In July of 2005, US authorities requested Emery’s extradition to the USA

At that time, Canada was governed by the Liberal Party of Canada, then led by Paul Martin. Under Canada’s Extradition Act, a person cannot be arrested for extradition purposes without Canada’s Justice Minister first granting an “authority to proceed”. At the time, Canada’s Justice Minister was Irwin Cotler, a human rights lawyer who is currently the Liberal Member of Parliament for the riding of Mount Royal. As is apparently normal – though still ridiculously unacceptable – the matter of issuing an authority to proceed is delegated to government lawyers in the International Assistance Group, which makes such decisions on behalf of Justice Ministers. That said, Cotler had the power – and, I would argue, the moral obligation – of declining to issue an authority to proceed.

In January of 2006, Canada’s Liberal Party deservedly fell both from grace and from power, creating a power vacuum just strong enough to give the Conservative Party of Canada enough seats to form the smallest minority government in Canadian history. And, with that change, the Emery file got dropped in the lap of the Conservative Justice Minister who replaced Cotler, Vic Toews (now Rob Nicholson, Member of Parliament for Niagara Falls).

By late 2005, the clamor to have Emery shipped to the USA appeared largely to have died down, owing perhaps to America’s then focus on the November 2006 election. Since that time, Emery’s case has been largely in limbo, as the parties have attempted to come to terms of settlement. Emery’s lawyers and U.S. authorities came to a tentative deal in January of 2008, whereby Emery would serve a 5 year sentence in Canada. The deal required the approval of Canada’s federal conservative government. Without explanation, the conservatives refused to approve the deal. Accordingly, Emery was forced to agree to 5 years imprisonment in a US facility, where he will have relatively limited contact with any Canadian audience. The conservatives having launched their “anti-drug strategy” in 2007, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper having declared that the enemy was a permissive “culture”, the refusal to allow Emery to serve his time in Canada appears designed to please spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child conservatives, and to silence Emery during his prison stay: Emery in the past has continued to publish from prison, using his imprisonment to stoke the fires of political outrage against prohibitionists.

Canada’s Conservative government has taken care to build a reputation for being pro-federalist, and for being strong on national sovereignty. In the context of defending Canada’s oil and gas reserves under the arctic sea bed, Prime Minister Harper has stated that: “Protecting national sovereignty – the integrity of our borders – is the first and foremost responsibility of a national government.” The long, dark and smelly history of Emery’s investigation and arrest is rightly one with which the Liberal party should be saddled: it all happened under their watch. For the Conservatives now to surrender Emery for extradition to the USA would destroy any hope they have of appearing credible on national sovereignty, and would needlessly leave them wearing the mess that the Liberals created.

Almost 8 years have passed since Canada’s Crown refused to prosecute Emery for selling cannabis. Almost 5 years has passed since the Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler allowed this farce to take root. This mess was not created by Canada’s Conservatives, and until Emery’s committal in September of 2009 (the second, judicial phase of Canada’s extradition process), Justice Minister Rob Nicholson could do little but wait. Indeed, Emery’s lawyer having fallen ill for several months, a decision by Nicholson could not feasibly be made before January 8, 2010, when Emery’s lawyer made his submissions about Emery’s extradition. But enough time has passed. The right move for Nicholson, for the Conservative Party, for respect for administration of justice in Canada, and for Canadians as a whole, is to announce – tomorrow – that the request to surrender Marc Emery to the USA is refused. It would be a mistake, and a needless tragedy, to prolong this Liberal-sponsored abuse of the legal system in Canada.

Closing Note: The complete history of Marc Emery’s numerous (most not marijuana-related) political campaigns can be watched for free on Paul McKeever’s youtube channel: www.youtube.com/paulmckeever. Part 1 of “The Principle of Pot” covers Emery’s the period 1975 through 1990, a period in which none of Emery’s campaigns related to cannabis. Part 2 of “The Principle of Pot covers the period 1990 to present. The final segment of Part 2 provides in-depth analysis of the political dynamics involved in Justice Minister Nicholson’s decision regarding Emery’s extradition.

A majority of Canadians, when polled, say they believe alcohol should be illegal, just like marijuana. Why don’t you start a war on alcohol and focus on non-violent criminals?

Here is Harper’s answer:

Well, it’s a good question. I’m not sure I’ve seen this particular poll. There are different polls on this subject that show different things, but you know, I have two young children, I guess they’re now…Ben and Rachel are now getting pretty close to 14 and 11, but maybe they’re not that young, but they are at the age where, you know, they will increasingly come into contact with alcohol use, and I guess as a parent, you know, this is the thing I most want to see for my kids and everyone else’s children.

You know, I understand that people oppose the use of alcohol, but that said, I don’t think…I think I’ve been very fortunate to drink alcohol recreationally, and I don’t meet many people who’ve led an alcoholic life who regret it. Met a lot of people who haven’t, who’ve regretted it. So this is something that we want to encourage obviously for our children, for everybody’s children.

Now, I also want people to understand what we’re really talking about here when we’re talking about the alcohol trade. You know, when people say focus on non-violent crimes such as the drinking of alcohol, and yeah, you know, there’s lots of pastimes a lot less violent than, you know, that related to casual alcohol consumption, you know, with its wife beatings, bar room brawls, drunk driving fatalities et cetera. But when people are buying from the liquor trade, they are buying from their neighbour. They are not buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe all across the world. All across the world. You know, and I just wish people would understand that, and not just on alcohol. Even when people buy, you know, a legal carton of cigarettes and they pay tax, that they really understand the kind of quite legal and well-regulated businesses that they are supporting, and the good they do.

Now, you know, I know some people say if you just prohibited it, you know, you’d stop getting the tax money and all would be well. But I think that rests on the assumption that somehow alcohol is bad because it’s legal. It’s not that. The reason alcohol is legal is because it’s good. And even if it was prohibited, I can predict with a lot of confidence that it would remain a respectable business run by respectable people. Because the very nature of the dependency it creates, the damage it does, the social upheaval and catastrophe it creates, particularly in first world countries…I mean, you look now, you look at North America, some of the countries to the south of us, and the good the alcohol trade is doing, not just to people’s lives as alcohol users. Look at the violence it’s creating in neighbourhoods, the destruction of social systems, of families, of governmental institutions, the resulting increases to police force budgets. All of it, good, respectable stuff.

I mean, these are great, benevolent organizations, and while I know people, you know, have different views, I must admit myself sometimes I’m delighted by how much governments have been able to facilitate the alcohol trade internationally. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we somehow started trying to prohibit it, it would suddenly turn into a mean, unwholesome industry. It will never be that. And I think we all need to understand that, and we all need to make sure our kids understand, not just that our kids…hopefully not just understand the good alcohol can do to them, but they understand as well the cool social disaster they are contributing to if they, through use of their money, fund organizations that produce and deliver alcohol. So drink up! Cheers Canada.

Well okay, that was not exactly the question put to him, and his answer was marginally different from that set out above (see below for the actual question and his actual response, which is no less idiotic or intellectually dishonest than the one above).

Alcohol is not legal because it is good, and marijuana is not illegal because it is bad (in fact, in case the PM had not noticed: marijuana is recognized, used, and prescribed by physicians as a legal medicine in Canada and in several U.S. states). The Prime Minister was either being dishonest about why recreational cannabis is illegal – too dishonest to govern – or he is unable to reason well enough to govern. Alcohol is not prohibited for the simple reason that: the purpose of government is to defend your freedom of choice, not to restrict it; to ensure that nobody takes your life, restricts your liberty or obtains any of your property without your consent. Its job is to protect you from those who would force/coerce you into drinking it, or who would use force/coercion to stop you from drinking it. Its job is not to engage in such force/coercion itself: that’s the job of an armed, violent, criminal gang.

In short: we, the voters, are adults, not children, and the Prime Minister and Queen are not our parents. They are our servants; our security guards. And just as you are free to drink gasoline (there’s no law against it), or sniff glue until you are brain dead (there’s no law against that either, as should be obvious if you have a look at the results of most elections), or eat so much sugar that you destroy your pancreas and become diabetic; and just as you are free to drink crystal clean water, or sniff roses, or eat balanced meals that prolong your life; it is morally right and politically right that you should be free – for the exact same reason – to grow, sell, gift, and consume cannabis…or not to do so. It’s your body, it’s your life, it’s your money, and – so long as your decision does not involve taking another individual’s life, liberty or property without his/her consent – it’s your choice.

Here is the actual question and Harper’s actual response (click here to see the video):

Question:

A majority of Canadians, when polled, say they believe marijuana should be legal for adults, just like alcohol. Why don’t you end the war on drugs and focus on violent criminals?

Here is what he actually said in response to the question…please, do compare the following answer with the one above re alcohol:

Well, it’s a good question. I’m not sure I’ve seen this particular poll. There are different polls on this subject that show different things, but you know, I have two young children, I guess they’re now…Ben and Rachel are now getting pretty close to 14 and 11, but maybe they’re not that young, but they are at the age where, you know, they will increasingly come into contact with drug use, and I guess as a parent, you know, this is the last thing I want to see for my kids or anyone else’s children.

You know, I understand that people defend the use of drugs, but that said, I don’t think…I think I’ve been very fortunate to live a drug-free life, and I don’t meet many people who’ve led a drug-free life who regret it. Met a lot of people who haven’t, who’ve regretted it. So this is something that we want to encourage obviously for our children, for everybody’s children.

Now, I also want people to understand what we’re really talking about here when we’re talking about the drug trade. You know, when people say focus on violent crime instead of drugs, and yeah, you know, there’s lots of crimes a lot worse than, you know, casual use of marijuana. But when people are buying from the drug trade, they are not buying from their neighbour. They are buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe all across the world. All across the world. You know, and I just wish people would understand that, and not just on drugs. Even when people buy, you know, an illegal carton of cigarettes and they avoid tax, that they really understand the kind of criminal networks that they are supporting, and the damage they do.

Now, you know, I know some people say if you just legalized it, you know, you’d get the money and all would be well. But I think that rests on the assumption that somehow drugs are bad because they’re illegal. The reason drugs…it’s not that. The reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad. And even if these things were legalized, I can predict with a lot of confidence that these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people. Because the very nature of the dependency they create, the damage they create, the social upheaval and catastrophe they create, particularly in third world countries…I mean, you look now, you look at Latin America, some of the countries to the south of us, and the damage the drug trade is doing, not just to people’s lives as drug users. Look at the violence it’s creating in neighbourhoods, the destruction of social systems, of families, of governmental institutions, the corruption of police forces.

I mean, these are terrible, terrible organizations, and while I know people, you know, have different views, I must admit myself sometimes I’m frustrated by how little impact governments have been able to have on the drug trade internationally. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we somehow stopped trying to deal with it, it would suddenly turn into a nice, wholesome industry. It will never be that. And I think we all need to understand that, and we all need to make sure our kids understand, not just that our kids…hopefully not just understand the damage drugs can do to them, but they understand as well the wider social disaster they are contributing to if they, through use of their money, fund organizations that produce and deliver elicit narcotics.

It has been reported that Liberal opposition leader Michael Ignatieff this week told students in St. Johns, Newfoundland that “legalizing marijuana would create problems in dealings with the U.S. because the drug would remain illegal there” (note: that’s the reporter being quoted, not Ignatieff himself).

So, on at least that one issue, Ignatieff is at least being honest with people about why Canada continues to prohibit cannabis: it remains prohibited because those elected to defend our sovereignty – political party leaders in Ottawa – lack the gonadal fortitude to do something that the U.S.A. would not like. In short: they are in dereliction of duty with respect to defending Canada’s sovereignty. At that point, one must ask oneself:

“Well, if our elected officials in Canada are just rubber stamping U.S. demands, who needs them? Why not just be a 51st state and be done with it? Why give either of Harper or Ignatieff a salary for being nothing but secretaries to the U.S. government?”

(Not that I’m in favour of such a thing).

MONDAY: The Petitions – History

In 1994, the sale of cannabis-related written materials and paraphernalia (pipes, bongs, etc) was a criminal offense. Emery opened a store in Vancouver that year, selling not only banned books, magazines, pipes etc, but also viable cannabis seeds. Between 1994 and 2005, Emery peacefully sold seeds (not plants) to those Canadians and Americans who chose to buy them, mostly via mail order. Over those years, Canada Post delivered the seeds for Emery, who did not step foot in the U.S.A.. Each year, the Canadian Revenue Agency gladly collected hundreds of thousands of dollars of income taxes from Emery, who identified himself as a cannabis seed seller on his tax return, and who regularly met with CRA officials, who well knew that his income was from cannabis seed sales. Emery used the vast majority of the after-tax profits to finance marijuana legalization campaigns (including various ballot initiatives in the U.S.A.), marijuana-related court battles (see, for example, the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in R. v. Clay, and R. v. Malmo-Levine), political parties and candidates (e.g., Canada’s only pro-legalization party, the NDP) and Canada’s only clinic to help people recover from addictions to such things as crack and heroine with just a dose or two of Ibogaine (Emery paid each patient’s full cost: approximately $2000.00 per patient).

In 2002, Emery bought a table at a Vancouver Board of Trade event in which George W. Bush’s drug Czar, John Walters, was giving a speech to warn against lifting Canada’s criminal prohibition of cannabis (legalization had just been recommended by Canada’s senate). Emery and his guests at the table heckled the drug Czar, which gave rise to national and international news coverage. Thereafter, the Vancouver police took Walters on a tour of Emery’s “pot block”, and started an investigation into Emery’s then 8-year-old seed-selling operation.

In July of 2003, following a decision by an Ontario appeals court that Canada had no law against the possession of 30g or more of marijuana, the Vancouver police brought their Emery file to the crown, which – presumably given the absence of a pot law – decided against prosecuting Emery. Evidence collected by the Vancouver police was then shared with the DEA, which commenced its own investigation of Emery. What Canada’s crowns would not do, the U.S.A.’s prosecutors presumably would.

Pursuant to the first stage of Canada’s extradition process, the U.S.A.’s warrant for the arrest of Marc Emery and his colleagues was approved by the Canadian Justice Department (largely a rubber-stamping carried out by government lawyers to whom the Minister of Justice delegates that first phase of the extradition process). Pursuant to said rubber stamping, on July 29, 2005, RCMP officers arrested Emery in Halifax, where he had been attending a cannabis-related event. Emery also being the publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and founder/leader of the BC Marijuana Party, his political party offices were searched by Canadian police on behalf of the DEA in a concurrent Vancouver raid (shades of Watergate?). Upon his arrest, DEA spokesperson Karen Tandy issued the following media release:

“Today’s DEA arrest of Marc Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture Magazine, and the founder of a marijuana legalization group — is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement….Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery’s illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on.”

It should be noted that Emery is described not at “cannabis seed seller” but as “publisher” and as the founder of a “legalization group”.

Emery was released on bail within days, and remained out on bail until submitting himself to the Vancouver court house for processing in September of 2009. He thereafter spent 52 days in a BC prison before being granted leave again due to the illness of his lawyer, who finally made written submissions to the Justice Minister on January 8, 2010, concerning the Minister’s pending decision on Emery’s extradition (i.e., “surrender”).

Section 44 of Canada’s Extradition Act states that:

44. (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) the surrender would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances; or
(b) the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of their …political opinion…or that the person’s position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons.

Section 46 of the same statute states:

 46. (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
[…]
(c) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a political offence or an offence of a political character.

In each case, “shall” in this context means “has no choice but to”. As one might expect, given the wide and negative public reaction that has resulted from Tandy’s media release, the DEA and U.S. prosecutors have tried to deny that Emery’s political efforts had anything to do with their purpose in arresting Emery (who is but one of many, many Canadian seed sellers that neither Canadian nor American governments are attempting to charge). However, at the very least, this author finds it impossible to believe that anyone with a pedigree of political activism as long and as broad as Emery’s would not be prejudiced by his peaceful but anti-government libertarian political views and long history of somewhat-successful anti-drug-war financing.

By law, the Justice Minister must issue his decision about a person’s surrender not later than 90 days (or 150 days, if the Justice Minister requests an extension) after the court issues a committal Order. Emery attended court, then prison, on September 28, 2009, presumably pursuant to a committal order. Normally, a person’s submissions to the Justice Minister, concerning whether or not the Minister should surrender the person, are to be delivered within the period given to the Justice Minister to make a decision concerning the person’s surrender. In Emery’s case, a November 2009 order of the court gave Emery’s lawyer until January 8, 2010 to make his submissions to the Justice Minister. Emery was released on bail pending the Justice Minister’s decision on surrender. More than 150 days has passed since September 28, 2009, so this author can only assume that either (a) the court did not issue a committal Order in September 2009 (which seems unlikely), (b) the 150 day maximum period over which the Justice Minister has the authority to surrender Emery has passed, or (c) the court somehow extended the time given to the Justice Minister to make a decision regarding Emery’s surrender. If the last is the case, it would appear most likely that the judge gave the Justice Minister at most 90 (April 8, 2010) or 150 days (June 7, 2010) to make a decision about Emery’s surrender.

TUESDAY: The YouTube Questions

As reported on this blog last Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has agreed to answer YouTubers’ top questions (the period for submitting questions ends today, Sunday). YouTubers gave an early lead to cannabis legalization questions that, on Thursday, were the top three most popular questions for the PM. As of 3:00 PM (EST) Sunday, pro-cannabis legalization questions are – by very wide margins – the four most popular questions being put to the PM. At present, the tenth concerns the extradition of Marc Emery.

My analysis of how the PM might respond to this situation is set out in last Thursday’s post to this blog.

Here are the 10 most popular questions put to the PM by YouTubers as of 3:00 PM on Sunday, March 14th:

“A majority of Canadians when polled say they believe marijuana should be legal for adults and taxes like alcohol. Why don’t you end the war on drugs and focus on violent criminals.”
Dan Grice, Langley (Voters For: 1759, Voters Against: 246)

“When over 45% of Canadians admit to smoking cannabis at least once in their lives, as well as 14% using it monthly, isn’t it time to stop putting people in jail for victimless crimes and start to take the drug trade away from the black market?”
Francais McKellan, Edmonton, Alberta (Voters For: 1548, Voters Against: 246)

“Why do you keep lying about the dangers of cannabis and giving countless millions of dollars to the police to enforce the worst laws in Canada? Why do you ignore the majority of adults who want this plant legalized?”
Greg W., Vancouver (Voters For: 1005, Voters Against: 341)

“Cannabis is proven not physically addictive and less harmful than almost every legal drug. Since before Christ cannabis has been used without a single death, it is even openly used as a medical substance in Canada. Why isn’t it legal for recreation?”
Ryan, Guelph (Voters For: 718, Voters Against: 195)

“Sir, the US Government much larger yet they disclose much more information about contracts, grants and lobbyists. When will the Government of Canada disclosure more information to the taxpayers of Canada?”
Rad, Toronto (Voters For: 647, Voters Against: 303)

“Crime has been dropping for almost 30 years. Why are you trying to impose a US-style, for-profit prison industry onto Canada with Bill C-15?”
RussLBarth, Nepean, ON(Voters For: 590, Voters Against: 116)

“When will your stance on crime shift from putting poor people in jail to incarcerating some of the white collar criminals who steal hundreds of millions of dollars from Canadians every year?”
Steve, Vancouver (Voters For: 570, Voters Against: 213)

“Since research has shown that mandatory minimum sentencing does not deter future crime, what makes you believe this is still an effective way of prosecuting criminals?”
Chris, Waterloo (Voters For: 534, Voters Against: 157)

“Oil prices are again skyrocketing. When will your government build more commuter trains and allow low speed electric vehicles to go 50km/hr (they currently aren’t allowed to go faster than 40km.hr) which keeps them off roads.”
Dan Grice, Langley (Voters For: 585, Voters Against: 230)

“It’s been a couple of months since the US asked Canada to deport Marc Emery, the prince of pot. This decision seems politically motivated. Will you hand him over to the US, even if you’re not allowed to deport someone for political opinion?”
Joseph, Winnipeg (Voters For: 522, Voters Against: 152)

Until Sunday, March 14th, the public will have the ability both to submit a question and to rank all of the questions submitted. The questions are not edited, so the whole process lacks the protection usually afforded by the mainstream media: Harper faces questions that concern the public, rather than questions designed to highlight the concerns or agendas of media interests.

The most shocking result, so far: all three of the three most popular questions so far – by a landslide – all deal with…cannabis legalization. I reproduce, below, the top three questions and their rankings (as of 6:05 PM on March 11, 2010), together with the fourth, which is not cannabis related.

“A majority of Canadians when polled say they believe marijuana should be legal for adults and taxes like alcohol. Why don’t you end the war on drugs and focus on violent criminals.”
Dan Grice, Langley
Like: 731
Dislike:95

“When over 45% of Canadians admit to smoking cannabis at least once in their lives, as well as 14% using it monthly, isn’t it time to stop putting people in jail for victimless crimes and start to take the drug trade away from the black market?”
Francais McKellan, Edmonton, Alberta
Like: 651
Dislike: 114

“PM Harper, marijuana is one of BC’s largest exports.This rumored $B. industry goes untaxed. Why not legalize, & tax the drug that statistically is less harmful than Tobacco and Alcohol? Has your gov. discussed controlled legalization? What can we do?”
Mark Radford, Toronto
Like: 281
Dislike:63

Fourth most popular question:

Why is the government not more open about the Afghan detainee issue? Every time a legitimate question is asked, the response is that we should “support our troops” and look the other way.”
Like: 300
Dislike: 114

If this rather overwhelming popularity of cannabis legalization questions continues until voting ends on Sunday, the Prime Minister will be facing a very significant dilemma. Specifically, marijuana legalization collides head-on with the Conservative government’s bill C-15 from last session; a bill that would impose oppressive mandatory minimum imprisonment sentences for various cannabis offenses, including growing six cannabis plants for personal consumption.

All signs are beginning to point to the probability that C-15 was the predominant reason for proroguing Parliament. Shortly prior to proroguing, the then Liberal-dominated Senated made changes to C-15 that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson regarded as a “gutting” of the bill. Of particular note, the Senate removed mandatory minimums for those growing 5 to 200 cannabis plants. Nicholson flipped.

Following the alleged gutting, the Prime Minister had Parliament prorogued, then appointed enough Senators to overwhelm Liberal opposition to C-15. The Justice Minister has recently stated that, of all of the crime bills that got tossed in the garbage due to the prorogation of Parliament, C-15 is the one bill that is certain to be re-introduced. And he intends to re-introduce it in its original form. This time, a newly Conservative-friendly Senate may be able to get C-15 passed without amendments.

However, now, the Prime Minister is facing a culture – a younger, pro-cannabis legalization culture – from which the mainstream media have, arguably unintentionally, been protecting him (by focusing on issues such as the treatment of Afghani detainees instead of on such things as the possible extradition to the USA of Canadian cannabis seed seller Marc Emery). He has three main choices (which means, I suppose, he faces a trilemma…but that doesn’t make for a very catchy headline):

1. Don’t answer any of the cannabis legalization questions. This is certain to be a mistake; a mistake upon which the Liberal and NDP parties could easily pounce (especially the latter, which has been openly pro-legalization since NDP party leader Jack Layton appeared on Marc Emery’s pot.tv internet television station in the fall of 2003). There are just so many ways for the opposition parties to spin it (see various ways, listed below)

2. Answer the cannabis legalization question(s), but use one of the off-the-shelf, red-herring, lame responses. There are a predictable handful of those. Any opposition party leader worthy of having his job will easily be able to damage the Prime Minister’s credibility and honesty by simply showing that such answers are always red-herrings intended to hide the real reason for cannabis prohibition: fear of trade sanctions by the USA. See below for a list of typical pro-prohibition arguments, together with how the use of each demonstrates the dishonesty and untrustworthiness of those who use them.
3. Defend cannabis prohibition, but do it by using the actual and truthful reason for which Canada continues to prohibit it. The real reason – one already admitted by the Prime Minster when he was opposition leader earlier in the decade, is that the U.S. federal government (under the Presidency of George W. Bush) has threatened to slow border crossings if Canada legalizes cannabis. In other words, the U.S. has threatened actions that, in theory, could reduce the profits of Canadian companies. The obvious responses for opposition parties who are awake at the switch: that Harper and the Conservatives are willing to expropriate, fine and imprison peaceful Canadians – to sacrifice them – so that a handful of Canadians owning companies can make bigger profits. Another: that the Conservatives care about sovereignty when it comes to defending various companies’ potential oil and gas profits in the artic, but that they care not a smidgen about sovereignty when it comes to the life, liberty and property of Canadian individuals.

In short: unless there is a drastic change in the rankings of questions posed and ranked by YouTubers, it is safe to say that the Prime Minister’s attempt to be hip, cool, forthcoming, and warm may unavoidably have achieved the exact opposite. On the other hand, a wise politician should never be afraid to reverse his policies – to change his mind – when, after a good consultation with the electorate, he has had a chance to reconsider and find his earlier position to have been wrong for the country.

The best move for Harper: say he has reconsidered, having consulted directly with Canadians and heard several novel and good comments about cannabis prohibition, and that he has changed his mind; say that regime change in the U.S. (Obama admits to having inhaled pot “frequently…that was the point”) has been another of his considerations. In short: turf C-15, and “Free Marc Emery” (i.e., decide against extraditing him to the U.S.). It will be a chronic badge of coolness for Harper and the Conservative camp, and a chance for Conservatives to undermine ever-present assertions that Conservatives don’t love Canada (or love America: often regarded as the same thing).

Interpretations of a Decision, by Harper, Not to Answer Cannabis Legalization Questions.

• That Harper is afraid of disappointing the religious right backbone of the Conservative Party;
• That Harper is a lapdog to the US government and fears saying anything that would cause the US to slow border-crossings (as was threatened by George W. Bush’s drug Czar, John Walters, in 2002-04 when the Senate was recommending legalization and the governing Liberals were openly proposing cannabis decriminalization). This argument has the double-impact of undermining Conservative rhetoric about being strong on sovereignty, and suggests that Conservatives care about sovereignty when it comes to some Canadian companies getting rich off of oil and gas reserves in the Arctic, but not when Canadians face extradition to an American system that punishes cannabis offenses more harshly than murder and rape offenses (for example, even though, under Canadian law, the few seed sellers who have been charged generally have received nothing but a small fine for their “crime”, Emery’s seed sales would give rise to the death penalty under U.S. federal law…Emery is protected from that fate only by Canada’s extradition laws, that prevent a Justice Minister from extraditing a person to a possible death sentence until guarantees are obtained that capital punishment will not be imposed upon the Canadian so extradited);
• That Harper – or Conservatives in general – are just plain uncool, too drunk to smoke cannabis yet somehow sober enough to govern, and more than a little cruel.

Ways to Rebut Any Red-herring Answers that Harper Gives to Cannabis Legalization Questions.

• Lame Response #1: that smoking cannabis is bad for you, so it is prohibited. This excuse is more than lame. It’s patronizing. Our government is our servant, not our nanny. Why does the government ban cannabis because of its alleged harmfulness, while not banning much more destructive and addictive substances, including alcohol and tobacco? Answer: the harmfulness of cannabis is a red herring; it is not, honestly, the the government’s true reason for banning cannabis.
• Lame Response #2: that cannabis is banned because, otherwise, children might smoke it. Equally lame: children smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, but we do not prohibit those substances, even though they are much more harmful to children, and they are addictive. Why? Answer: preventing children from smoking an allegedly harmful substance is not genuinely the government’s reason for banning cannabis.
• Lame Response #3: that we must prevent people from driving while under the influence of cannabis. Perhaps, but, as compared to the numerous drunks who have killed people with their cars, how often does anyone ever read of a driver killing someone with his car because he had been smoking marijuana? If dangerous driving is a basis for prohibition, why is alcohol not prohibited while cannabis is prohibited? Answer: driving while under the influence of cannabis is not genuinely the government’s reason for banning cannabis.

Any attempt to tell marijuana smokers that the above are reasons for prohibiting cannabis can only undermine Harper’s credibility, and undermine respect for the government in general. Any half-witted opposition leader should be able to use any such responses, by Harper, as:

• a general attack on the Prime Minister’s credibility;
• a basis for arguing that his real reasons for continuing to prohibit cannabis are based upon appealing to a clique of religious, or racist, or old-fashioned party loyalists;
• as a basis for arguing that the Harper government will make up any excuse in order to avoid appearing spineless in the face pressures from U.S. politicians serving the intellectually endarkened, banjo-playing, bible-thumping, constituencies of political forces in the states whose biggest fear remains the possibility that marijuana will be used to turn their good little lily-white daughters in to rap-loving mothers of children of “mixed race” (which racist fears were the origin of U.S. laws prohibiting marijuana…well, that and Jazz – music introduced to humanity chiefly by wonderfully talented “black” Americans in a time when “whites” expected “blacks” not to even glance at “white” women). [For the record: I don't subscribe to the idea of dividing humanity into phenotypically-defined "races". I'm a "one race: the human race" fella....and I don't smoke the herb.]

It has been reported that three MPs in Canada’s Parliament – one from each of the Conservative, NDP, and Liberal parties (the only other party holding seats in Parliament is a Quebec-based secessionist party) – will be presenting petitions to Parliament demanding that Canada’s Justice Minister decide against allowing Marc Emery, a Canadian whose Canada-based mail order cannabis seed selling business was closed in July of 1995 pursuant to a U.S. warrant for the arrest of Emery and two of his colleagues, which was executed on Canadian soil by Canada’s RCMP. He paid his taxes, operated his business blatantly, was often featured on major Canadian national news programs as a cannabis seed seller, and was known by Canadian tax authorities to be deriving his $300k+ annual income tax payments from cannabis seed sales around the world, including the USA. Emery ran his seed selling business continuously from 1994 through 1995, with Canadian legislative, enforcement, and judicial branches knowingly leaving him to do so. He remains in Canada, awaiting a political decision by Canada’s Justice Minister – Rob Nicholson – as to whether or not to grant the USA’s request to have Emery extradited to the USA.

Emery is not charged with anything in Canada. Seed sellers in Canada – on the few occasions they have been charged – have received small fines rather than prison terms. Had Emery been on US soil when arrested, his activities – under US law – would permit the judiciary in the US to sentence him to the death penalty, or to spending the rest of his life in prison. Emery has claimed that there is a deal in place whereby, if extradited, he will serve 5 years in U.S. prisons. However, U.S. authorities will make no comment about whether such a deal exists.

For Harper, the timing of the petitions could not come at a worse time (assuming the cannabis legalization question remains the #1 question posed by YouTubers). On the heels of hearings about the abuse of Afghani detainees – hearings that effectively were ended by the Harper government’s decision to prorogue Parliament – not answering questions about cannabis legalization only one day after these three petitions have been supported by MPs from all three parties could lead to further accusations that the Harper government regards itself as above the law, and as being both afraid of and exempt from public accountability.

Stay tuned. Tuesday promises to be interesting.

Ultimately, Toronto’s bid to host the games was chosen in November of 2009. Not much has been heard from either side of the Pan Am Games debate since then.

However, the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver have made the 2015 Pan Am Games newsworthy again, especially because of the cost overruns of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic games. The Vancouver bid committee’s bid was for a budget of $874M. Some after-the-fact estimates – estimates not coming from elected politicians – peg the actual cost of the games at $6B. As just one example of how utterly dishonest the bid budgets are, the Vancouver Olympic bid budgeted approximately $1.5M for “security”. When all was said and done, security costs came in at $900M: higher that the total budget set out in the Vancouver Olympic bid book.

Toronto Sun editor Rob Granatstein admits that the Pan Am Games in Toronto will not be as grand as the Olympic spectacle was this year. Yet the budget set out in the Toronto Pan Am bid book budget posts costs at $1.4B: almost double the budgeted cost of the Olympics.

Each of these games bids requires that someone take on the financial burden of paying for any expenditures exceeding the budget. BC is on the hook for the massive Olympic cost overruns. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty – with the full support not only of his Liberal MPPs, but of the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party – has agreed that Ontario will shoulder the full burden of any over-budget spending of the 2015 Pan Am Games. This is an agreement made by a government that is currently borrowing about $23B per annum. Accordingly, Ontario will have to borrow to pay any overage.

Even Granatstein agrees that games always cost more than the amount budgeted, and that the 2015 Pan Am Games will go over-budget. How much over-budget? That’s anyone’s guess, because the budgets set out in games bids are always 1 part fact and 9 parts BS. However, if we assume that bid committees under-represent (or err in computing) the actual costs of games by roughly the same percentage then, because an $875M budget turned into an actual cost of $6B for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, it is not unfair to estimate that the $1.4B Toronto Pan Am Games budget indicates an actual cost of about $11.6B (note: the Pan Am Games bid committee originally admitted a budget of $1.7B).

Prompted by a column written a few days ago by Granatstein, he and I were on the John Oakley Show in Toronto this morning (AM 640) to debate the 2015 Pan Am Games. Here’s a recording of it. It should be noted that AM640 is, first and foremost, a sports channel, so the reader might not be too surprised to discover that the two people who called into the show (at least, the only two aired by the show) were in favour of pumping tax revenues into the 2015 Pan Am Games bid. However, my read on things in the general population is that a very healthy percentage – perhaps a majority – of Ontarians do not want the Ontario government to borrow and spend billions of dollars on bailing out the 2015 Pan Am Games. And that’s a hopeful sign in respect of the ethics of Ontario taxpayers: a good percentage of them agree that it is morally wrong to have a party in which everyone raids the neighbour’s beer fridge without his consent.

I expect that the cost of the 2015 Pan Am Games will loom large in Ontario’s 2015 fall General election. At that point, will the Liberal, Progressive Conservative, and NDP parties all admit that they agreed to this immoral use of governmental borrowing, taxing and spending power? Or will they conspire to remain mute about the coming boondoggle? Rest assured, no matter what they do, I, and Freedom Party of Ontario, will be a constant reminder that there were many Torontonians, Ontarians, and Canadians in general who opposed the use of tax revenues for the games, and that only Freedom Party and the No Tax for Pan Am Games 2015 campaign fought to oppose such an elaborate misuse of governmental power. Oh: and keep an eye on which land developers and builders contribute to those parties over the next 5 years, because they will be the chief beneficiaries of the money taken out of your child’s university/college savings account.

Your comments on this issue are welcome, as always.

Addendum

The above blog post yesterday caught the interest of Toronto talk radio personality Ryan Doyle (1010 CFRB – Toronto, evenings). At 7:30 PM last night, he had me on his program to discuss the possible cost of the 2015 Pan Am Games. You can listen to it here. Just one note: the $11.6B figure is based not upon the $1.4B number set out in the final bid book of the Toronto Pan Am Games committee, but upon their earlier estimate of $1.7B.