Canada extraditates blasphemer to afghanistan!

[EnlightenmentHK]

The "crime" was committed by the American citizens acquiring the seeds, not the foreigner selling them.

A drug trafficker is a drug trafficker. The crime is very much being committed by the dealer. You don't have to set foot into the damned country, if you're shipping illegal narcotics there, your actions are a criminal assault on the laws of that nation. And worse, an assault on the citizens of that nation. We try to dismiss this, cause hey, its pot. Pot is harmless. Laws against it are silly.

And I'd agree. But they remain illegal. And the principle...whether we're talking pot, cocaine, heroine, or poison...remains the same. Whether large scale or small scale, you are attempting to flood America with illegal drugs. That constitutes a criminal assault upon this country. If we accept the premise that drugs harm, than you are directly attempting to harm our citizens as well. That sounds pretty extraditable to me. And not remotely similar to your 'offending our Islamic sensibilities in Afghanistan' complaint.

A drug dealer got arrested. Somehow I'm not shedding a fricken tear over this.

 

[Leonel]

I think in most nations, breaking the law is illegal...

...Yeah, pretty believable.

Oh but don't you know? All laws are immoral!

 

[Sims2789]

He shouldn't've done any business in American jurisdiction.

He was in Canada, though.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

He was in Canada, though.

Doing business in America with Americans.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I don't think the guy should be extradited though I do think the export aspect business should be shut down and he should be obliged to respect American laws. This situation highlights the danger in de facto decriminalising something but leaving the law on the books. He was doing something that in Canada is essentially ok and really shouldn't be expected to face harsh American laws for something that the Canadian government has basically given him the go ahead to do based on it's implementation of Canadian law. It's not fair.

The comparison is valid, but perhaps this one is more helpful. Should I be allowed to export sex toys to India? And if I do, should I be extradited?

I'd say no to both.

 

[Berzerker]

A drug trafficker is a drug trafficker. The crime is very much being committed by the dealer. You don't have to set foot into the damned country, if you're shipping illegal narcotics there, your actions are a criminal assault on the laws of that nation.

It aint the responsibility of Canadian citizens to enforce US laws. If my neighbor is selling booze online to Saudis, I'm sure as hell not gonna put him in jail and send him off to Saudi Arabia because they ban booze. And yes, it does matter if the "drug trafficker" set foot on US soil. US jurisdiction applies to the material as it enters and travels about the US and to the American citizen who is buying it.

And the principle...whether we're talking pot, cocaine, heroine, or poison...remains the same. Whether large scale or small scale, you are attempting to flood America with illegal drugs. That constitutes a criminal assault upon this country.

Go right ahead and identify the actual victim of this criminal assault. The Canadian sold seeds to someone here - where is the victim? This country aint a person.

If we accept the premise that drugs harm, than you are directly attempting to harm our citizens as well.

What you say is true for damn everything entering the country, we produce and import processed sugar and that has a far worse impact than pot. Btw, I dont accept your premise, people harm themselves and when they hurt others thats already a legal matter. And I sure as hell dont want a ******* nanny state banning everything it decides aint good for me. Totalitarianism is not very enlightened...

That sounds pretty extraditable to me. And not remotely similar to your 'offending our Islamic sensibilities in Afghanistan' complaint.

They ban booze and we sell booze. Do you wanna put every booze maker in the country in a cage and send them off to Saudi Arabia if they sell to Saudis online?

A drug dealer got arrested. Somehow I'm not shedding a fricken tear over this.

How many Founding Fathers would you put in prison? Some of them grew and sold pot in addition to being the biggest booze dealers in the western hemisphere. You really have a screwy way of looking at responsibility, a dangerous illogic that makes us all victims of our own behavior.

 

[Berzerker]

Doing business in America with Americans.

Then they should have busted him when he was IN America doing business with Americans

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

He was doing something that in Canada is essentially ok and really shouldn't be expected to face harsh American laws for something that the Canadian government has basically given him the go ahead to do based on it's implementation of Canadian law. It's not fair.

He was directly doing business with America in a manner that violated our laws, Canada's laws (even if decriminalized...its still effectively against the law), and the laws of almost every other nation in the world. Now countries typically take different stances against drugs, some harsher than others, but almost all of them do have laws against drugs. And most include Marijuana in that list of 'illegal drugs'. It is nearly universal, these laws have existed in these many nations for a long time, such nations engage in cooperative efforts to stem international trafficking, the fact is there is enough here to say that his drug sales were against customary international law, as well US and Canadian law. The reason drugs typically are illegal is because they harm and sometimes destroy lives. And by selling them in America, he is directly attempting to do just that. It might be hyperbolic, considering we're just talking about marijuana, but its not too unfair to describe this as an attack on American citizens. Any country would react negatively to that.

And the comparisons to sex toys or free speech simply don't measure up. I've never heard of a dildo destroying someone's life. Nor does anyone anywhere have the right to not be offended. The fact is if this was cocaine and the quantities were larger, almost noone would have a problem with this. But its still a drug. And he is still an international drug trafficker. In just about every nation under the sun, that makes you a criminal.

 

[jessiecat]

Extradition laws and their enforcement vary between countries and different
crimes. Britain requested that the guy involved in the killing of the
KGB man in London be extradicted to face trial in the U.K. Russia refused.
During the Vietnam War, America asked Canada to send back thousands of
draft-dodgers who had sought political asylum. Canada refused.
The onus is on the country that gets the request, not the one making it.
If Canada felt the request was reasonable, why shouldn't they agree to
send the guy to the U.S. to face trial for breaking U.S. laws?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

He was directly doing business with America in a manner that violated our laws, Canada's laws (even if decriminalized...its still effectively against the law)

This is the crux. As I understand it, it is absolutely NOT effectively against the law in Canada. The authorities effectively gave him the ok to do this by not implementing the law on the books. It's the fact that it is still technically against the law that's led to this extradition. I think that if Canada thinks this kind of activity is acceptable, which would seem to be the case, they should uphold their principle and refuse the extradition.

And the comparisons to sex toys or free speech simply don't measure up. I've never heard of a dildo destroying someone's life. Nor does anyone anywhere have the right to not be offended. The fact is if this was cocaine and the quantities were larger, almost noone would have a problem with this. But its still a drug. And he is still an international drug trafficker. In just about every nation under the sun, that makes you a criminal.

If it was cocaine I wouldn't have a problem with the arrest, though it would seem to make more sense for the guy to be tried in Canada. I don't think sex toys are harmful, just like Canada doesn't appear to consider pot harmful. India does consider sex toys harmful, just as America disagrees with Canada. It's a perfectly valid comparison, the only difference being that Canada has moved to decriminalise pot without actually striking the law from the books. Your attitude betrays an unwillingness to consider other opinions. You can't just decide that a particular drug is harmful and dismiss Canada's right to come to another conclusion.

I do agree however that the comparison to free speech fails because it's legitimate to refuse to tolerate the suppression of free speech across borders. When it comes to sex toys and pot however, you have to give your neighbours the right to make up their own mind. They should also respect your decision and I don't think that exports should be permitted, but you can't expect an extradition for a what in the guys home country is considered perfectly acceptable.

 

[Berzerker]

You're making the crime his "intent" to destroy lives and thats just ridiculous. The people who made my car aint responsible for my lead foot and they sure aint responsible if my lead foot gets me into an accident. The people who sell me Mt Dew dont want me to get diabetes, but thats what I'll get if I use their product too much...and I do

Lets see, I'm guilty of criminal assault against my neighbors if I decide what to put in my body? Thats like accusing slaves of criminal assault if they runaway...

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

If Canada felt the request was reasonable, why shouldn't they agree to
send the guy to the U.S. to face trial for breaking U.S. laws?

Because when they stopped enforcing this law they gave this guy the go ahead to do what he did. Then they turned around and not only enforced the law, but dumped him with the American authorities who'll do their whole hysterical anti-drug thing on him. It's disingenuous. Either enforce the law consistently or strike it down.

 

[Berzerker]

oh, free speech? How about religious freedom? Thats also in the 1st Amendment and there are people who practice religions that involve pot.

 

[mdwh]

That's simple to answer, because from a legal point of view it's the same thing: can someone be extradited for violating another nation's laws, without ever having set foot on that nation? In particular if the law violated doesn't even exist on the country that person resides, or is very different from that of the "offended" country?

As for the false title, it was meant to draw attention to the absurdity of states relinquishing their sovereignty on legal matters. Legally, if the rule is to always extradite on request regardless of the laws and territory involved, Canada could end up with a silly situation such as honoring laws it didn't have or even approved. If it isn't then someone is granted discretionary powers to decide on whether to extradite or not, which also doesn't seem to be a good idea - isn't that the whole point of the US opposition to international courts?

Well in that case, my questions are:

* Is what he did illegal in Canada, and with a prison sentence? (Note, I don't mean "it's illegal, but they've got bored of prosecuting" as the article suggests.)
* Did he simply put up a website that happened to be accessible in the US, or did he arrange to sell to someone there?

The article doesn't contain these rather important points AFAICT, so I couldn't comment.

The reason why being extradited for blasphemy for the death sentence is mad is because most people view blasphemy being illegal, let alone a death sentence, as mad. Extradition makes it madder because it suggests that Canada agrees with this idea, but there's nothing inherently wrong with extradition. (I think drug laws are mad, but that's nothing specific to extradition or this case.)

Now there certainly are issues with extradition. For example, the UK has a one way extradition one way "agreement" with the US whereby now anyone in the UK can be extradited on a suspicion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 ). The problems are not so much that people shouldn't be extradited, but that people can be held in a foreign country whilst they are still trying to defend themselves against a charge. Examples include the Natwest Three (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three#Campaign_of_support_in_Britain for criticisms of this law), Gary McKinnon (that British cracker), and Alex Stone (a blind man held without evidence for six months in a US jail, before charges were dropped).

So I do agree there are problems with extradition laws, but that doesn't mean extradition is inherently wrong, nor do I yet see evidence that it applies in this case.

 

[sysyphus]

And the comparisons to sex toys or free speech simply don't measure up. I've never heard of a dildo destroying someone's life. Nor does anyone anywhere have the right to not be offended. The fact is if this was cocaine and the quantities were larger, almost noone would have a problem with this. But its still a drug. And he is still an international drug trafficker. In just about every nation under the sun, that makes you a criminal.

You still haven't made any real distinction between the two cases from a legal point of view. Marijuana destroys no more lives (and probably considerably fewer) than does alcohol, which is perfectly legal. So your argument as to impact of the drug is irrelevant.

Sending blasphemous material to Afganistan could result in an outbreak of violence under which perfectly innocent people could be seriously injured or killed. Such violence is not warranted, but it's reasonable to believe it will happen.

I still have yet to see a credible legal argument for extradition in one case but not the other.

For the record, I would not support extradition in either case.

 

[Mango]

This is a terrible comparison by a terrible poster.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889