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.

(Truths now lie in parentheses).

Erroneous praise versus thoughtless condemnation or avoidance. The latter alone is inexcusable.

Music to the Hegelians: one hand clapping.

***Media Advisory***

Attention: News/Assignment Editors, Reporters

Marc Emery / Prince of Pot – Extradition

International Release of “THE PRINCIPLE OF POT” Documentary
To Precede Extradition Decision by Canadian Justice Minister

Movie to be released on YouTube.com at
12:01 AM (EST) on Monday, January 18, 2010

Just after midnight tonight, Ontario lawyer Paul McKeever will release Part 1 of “The Principle of Pot”, his new two-part documentary about the nature and motives of Marc Emery, the media-dubbed Prince of Pot. Part 1 runs 1 hour and 39 minutes. Part 2 will be released at a later date.

The launch is timed to precede a decision by Canada’s federal justice minister, Rob Nicholson, about whether or not to approve the extradition of Emery to the United States, where he faces years of imprisonment for having sold cannabis seeds, in Vancouver, Canada, via mail order. The Minister’s decision is expected within the next 81 days.

Emery’s opponents, and the U.S. authorities who demanded his arrest in Halifax, have attempted to portray Emery as a profit-motivated drug dealer. Part 1 of McKeever’s documentary will cover the period up to 1990; a period during which Emery was equally active as an advocate of individual freedom, but whose advocacy of individual freedom did not include campaigns concerning the issue of cannabis prohibition.

Being the result of countless hours of research, interviews, writing and editing, the video includes audio, video and textual information that has never been seen in any profile of Emery. Much of the audio and video having been drawn from the archives of Freedom Party of Ontario (with which Emery was active until 1990), it has never before been seen by the general public or media.

What: “The Principle of Pot” (Part 1) – divided into four segments (a playlist will be available)

When: approximately 12:01 AM (EST), Monday, January 18, 2010 (i.e., just after midnight on Sunday)

Where: http://www.youtube.com/paulmckeever (a playlist URL will be made available, and can be embedded on any web site without seeking permission from Paul McKeever to do so)

For further information, contact:

Paul McKeever

Confidential Cell Phone: ***-***-****
e-mail: pm@paulmckeever.ca

Part 1-1: Emery’s birth; early political activity; Ayn Rand and Howard Roark (1979); the Libertarian Party (1980); three publications (1980-1983); Unparty (1981-83); the birth of Freedom Party (1984).

Part 1-2: The No Tax for Pan Am Games campaign (1984); the London garbage strike (1987).

Part 1-3: The campaign against the ban on Sunday retailing 1986-1990); jail (1988).

Part 1-4: The Calendars for Individual Freedom (1987-1989); no to elections / yes to erections (anti-censorship campaigns 1984 and 1989-90); leaving Freedom Party (1990); a new strategy (1990).

This media advisory is being copied to Canada’s government, including Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, to Canada’s Members of Parliament
and to other governmental and non-governmental organizations interested in the matter of Marc Emery, and his possible extradition.

First, Apple told me that they had a problem with my credit card billing address. They said they had two different addresses. The representative said that the matter would have to go to a special department within Apple that deals with verification. Then he mumbled something in the form of: “Hmmm, this one says 459 Johnstone Avenue, Apartment 566, and this other one says 566-459 Johnstone Avenue…that couldn’t be it, could it?”. He wasn’t asking me, he was talking to himself. He then said he would be transferring me to the verification department and that I must leave all of my information or else they won’t do anything and I’ll be “put to the back of the line” or queue or what have you. I left my message and awaited my call-back. I didn’t get one. Instead, I got a cryptic message:

Thank you for your recent order with the Apple Online Store. We appreciate your business.

Action has been taken on your order and we will be shipping to
you at the earliest opportunity. Any prior communications requiring
action can now be disregarded.

Sincerely,
Apple Online Store

Now, this message was entirely ambiguous. I had already received other parts of the order (software and a mouse). And I had spoken with the Apple store probably 3 or 4 times already, and received numerous e-mails from Apple about the order. Which “prior communications” were they referring to? What “action” were they taking. Sure, it might be the verification issue, but the e-mail did not say so. Back on the phone to Apple I went. They confirmed that they had sorted out the verification issue on their end. My bet: yup, the issue was an inability to recognize that 459 Johnstone Avenue, Apartment 566, means the same thing as 566-459 Johnstone Avenue. It wasn’t a big deal, I suppose, but I have a low tolerance for such time-wasting idiocy: I normally bill $200 per hour for my time and I’ll never get that $150 to $300 of my time back from Apple.

Next up: the failure to ship on time. From the beginning, I made it clear to the sales person, and to every rep I’ve spoken with since first contact with Apple, that the Order was time sensitive and urgent. I’m trying to put the final touches on a movie about Marc Emery, a Canadian freedom advocate who is now perhaps hours away from a decision by Canada’s Justice Minister about whether to extradite him to the United States where he would face hard time for selling cannabis seeds…an “offence” that, in Canada, usually is met with a $200 fine. A person selling the quantity of seeds that Emery has sold could face the death penalty, for the exact same botanical offence, in the USA, home of the War on Drugs. I’m trying to get this movie out before it is a done deal, and delays by Apple are not only disappointing, but stressful.

Have a look at the screen grab above (I’ve covered up the order number and moved the Apple Store button into view so that you can see it as well as the Order. My Mac was to have been SHIPPED not later than yesterday, if we allow for the U.S. Thanksgiving as a non-business day. When I called yesterday, I was told that “Well, it is to ARRIVE not later than December 9th, and that still might happen”.

Might? You do know I’ve spent nearly $7,000.00 on this order (including software) right Apple?

An friend of mine in the U.K. suggested that Microsoft might want to make a commercial. He said he wondered if their ordering and inventory system runs on a Mac. Good point, good question, and good campaign idea.

I’ve even got the punchline: iLate.

“why free markets are not to blame”…isn’t that the same reason that fairies are not to blame? A is A.

My initial response was misguided, as was Epstein’s. Like me, he argued that the free market was not to blame because the U.S. market is not a free market.

The host then inquired of Brook “What do we need to do to turn [the economy] around?” I was surprised by Brook’s response.

Brook answered that, with respect to the short term:

“We need to establish some sort of stability right now. Stabilizing the housing market, stabilizing the banking industry, stabilize – ultimately – the stock market. And that is a difficult task, there’s no doubt about it. I’d like to do that in a way that increases freedom; in a way that gets government out of our lives more.”

Brook went on to explain that, to stabilize the housing market, the government could allow more immigration: immigrants would bring in money and buy houses, thereby stabilizing the housing market. To stabilize the banking industry, he proposed eliminating capital gains taxes and dropping the heavy regulation of banks (ownership regulations, etc.), which, he said, would bring more capital into the banking system and thereby stabilize it.

I think Yaron Brook is an excellent Executive Director, and that his advocacy work is a value to people living in and around the world. However, in my view, his argument on this show could have been much better. Indeed, the one he offered might actually work to undermine his intended purpose.

First, it is a mistake to argue about whether a regulated vs. a free market caused an economic downturn/”meltdown”. Economists – even those who, like Milton Friedman, believe they are advocating individual freedom – love to talk about “markets”. They love measuring the success of an economy; they deal with the aggregated and collective data that describes or measures “the economy”. They focus on how using or not using force might or will change economic figures. In contrast, those who are actually advocating individual freedom, are not speaking about economics and figures. They are talking about individuals.

“Markets” talk is a mistake for an advocate of individual freedom. Markets are neither regulated nor free: markets are merely places in which individuals attempt to trade. The so-called “free market” is not a place where the market (i.e., the place) is free: it is a place where individuals are free.

Blaming a “free market” or the “over-regulated market” on the economic meltdown is like blaming an unlocked door for the fact that a burglar entered your house. Yell “stupid door” at the door, after the burglary, and people will realize you’re being irrational; they’ll know that you should be blaming yourself for leaving the door unlocked. Yet collectivists do the same thing when they blame the “market” (a place) for the economic downturn. They are doing the equivalent of yelling “Stupid door!”: in terms of explicit language, they are blaming a place, not individuals. And – almost without exception – “free market” advocates fail to dismiss the collectivists’ argument by simply pointing out that places don’t cause economic downturns, individuals do.

At this point, you might think I’m being silly. “Oh, come on McKeever, we all know that a free market is a place where people are free to trade, you’re making distinctions without differences”. Not so.

Consider who benefits by replacing talk of “free individuals” with talk of “free markets”. Consider what collectivists do not have to say so long as nobody is talking about individuals. For the purposes of winning over the people listening to the debate, consider how advantageous it is to the collectivist not to have to come out and say what he means.

The collectivist is not opposing “free markets”, per se. He is not trying to control “markets”, per se. He is trying to enslave and expropriate individuals. Period. When the collectivist asks “is the free market to blame for the economic downturn?” he means “is the failure to enslave and expropriate individuals to blame for the economic downturn”. For the love of life: call him on it! Make the true nature of his question explicit. If the collectivist truly wants to have that debate – the one about whether the economic downturn is due to a failure to enslave and expropriate people more than the government already does – good. Let him take and defend – explicitly – the side advocating, per se, the enslavement and expropriation of the listener/watcher. For the freedom advocate to allow the collectivist to depersonalize the discussion – to discuss “regulation of the market” instead of “enslavement and expropriation of individuals” – is a huge and self-defeating concession to the collectivist. The freedom advocate must keep the focus on individuals, not on markets.

Second, I disagree with the idea of advocating the “stabilization” of the economy. There is a debating tactic – called “cross-dressing” – in which one assumes the lingo of ones opponent, and makes ones argument in terms of that lingo. A freedom advocate asked “what can be done to turn the economy around” might well believe that people desire economic “stability” of some sort, and he might therefore speak of deregulation as a means of achieving “stability” (as Brook did). However, that is an error. By holding up stability as a priority, Brook implicitly held up stability as (a) the essential goal, and (b) an intrinsically valuable goal. By holding up stability as the intended consequence of de-regulation, Brook allowed his listener to infer, logically, that his intended purpose in advocating deregulation is to achieve an economic outcome of one sort or another. Doing so actually bolsters the case for tyranny and collectivism, and sets up capitalism for a fall.

What does “stability” mean? That prices do not change much? If so, and if stability is what is essential and “needed”, then we are bolstering the case for wage and price controls: for slavery and expropriation.

A given deregulation is good if it achieves economic stability? Well, what if some sort of deregulation achieves economic instability, but improves individual freedom? For example, the law profession is comprised of self-governing guilds. It is extremely “stable”, and – with competition limited by guild-admission limits – legal fees never seem to suffer a melt-down. Ending the guilds – deregulating – would probably result in an influx of legal practitioners and cause a “melt-down” in the price of legal services. Does that mean that we should keep laws and regulations that prohibit the practice of law by those who are not guild members?

What if things are deregulated, but stability does not result? Does that mean deregulation is a failed idea? Even if the deregulation did result in less slavery and expropriation?

A free individual can trade or not trade without facing as much as a threat that the government will take his life, liberty or property without his consent. So far, most regulations in the USA and Canada do not force a person to trade. Instead, they normally penalize certain instances of production (e.g., hemp farming) or trade (e.g., fixing a car engine without a license to do so). To trade a value, one must create a value. When individuals create and trade values, the “economy” is said to grow. So, when debating a collectivist, do not ask the collectivist to explain how “free markets caused the economic melt-down”. Rather – if you must talk of the economy, rather than of the essential issue, which is reason – ask the collectivist to explain how restricting individuals’ freedom to produce values or to trade them grows an economy.

As I have said before, it was Bill Clinton whose desk bore the sign which read “It’s the economy, stupid”. In reality, for the advocate of individual freedom, “It’s never the economy”.

I close simply by wishing Yaron and Alex the very best in all of their continuing, admirable, advocacy efforts.

Incidentally, moments ago, it was announced on Marc Emery’s facebook page that he today got bail and will be released as early as tomorrow while he awaits extradition to the USA for his ‘horrific’ crime: selling cannabis seeds…a crime punishable by death in the USA.

7:45 AM, November 14, 2009. e-mail from wim_rooijakkers@hetnet.nl:

Hello Dear,

Compliments of the day to you.I am Miss Happy sam ,28 years old single.I am 5ft.8inches,my weight is 60kg,black hair with brown eyes and fair in complexion.

I am an African decent,originally from Liberia, but presently located in another country known as Senegal in the West Coast of Africa.I am living as political assylum due to the political situations in my country which resulted to the death of my parents and living nobody behind me.

I am the only one left,living in the refugee camp here in senegal.i am seeking for partner.if you are interested kindly contact me with your details about you

E-mail h_happy12@yahoo.ca

Happy

11:36 PM, November 15, 2009. e-mail from wim_rooijakkers@hetnet.nl:

Complement of the day,

Thank you for reading my mail. i am Mrs. Yonghong Wan a staff of Standard Chartered Bank attached in Private Banking services here in Hong Kong. I am contacting you concerning a customer and, an investment placed under our banks management 4 years ago, I contacted you independently of our investigation and no one is informed of this communication and I would like to intimate you with certain facts that I believe would be of interest to you.

My proposal;

I am prepared to place you in a position to instruct the finance firm to release the deposit to you as the closest surviving relation. Upon receipt of the deposit, I am prepared to share the money with you 50/50. But on the other hand, you as a foreigner and also with all the necessary legal and official documentations from me and the presiding attorney and also with the authority vested upon me by the original depositor. If you find yourself able to work with me, contact me through this email: yonghongwan211@yahoo.com.hk Please note that, I am a happily married with two kids. Do not betray my confidence. If we can be of one accord, we should plan a meeting, soon.

I await your response.

Sincerely,

Yonghong Wan.