Jeff Jedras: Harper government vetoes Marc Emery plea deal

Friday, March 28, 2008

Harper government vetoes Marc Emery plea deal

The Conservative government’s actions in this case, nixing a deal between Marc Emery and U.S. prosecutors that would have seen him serve five years behind bars on money-laundering and drug charges, is puzzling.

It was good enough for U.S. prosecutors, but not our government? With the way U.S. authorities have been hounding Emery you can't say they've been soft on crime. It also speaks to an troubling politicization of the justice system under the Conservatives, from “get-tough” policies that don’t work, stalling their own legislation for political advantage, and picking and choosing which death-row Canadians we’ll bother fighting for.

Prince of Pot's deal with U.S. shot down by Ottawa
Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun
Published: Friday, March 28, 2008

A tentative deal between Marc Emery, Vancouver's Prince of Pot, and the U.S. government over money-laundering and drug charges has been nixed by Ottawa.

Emery says the Conservative administration has refused to go along with a proposal that would have seen him spend five years behind bars for selling marijuana seeds through the mail.

Under the defunct pact, Emery was to plead guilty on both sides of the border and accept a sentence of 10 years imprisonment on the understanding he would serve half, mostly in Canada.

"All that was required for this deal was a rubber stamp from the federal government," Emery told me late Thursday. "They have, instead, rejected the deal without explanation . . . it is clearly political."
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

13 comments:

The Rat said...: There's a really interesting article today detailing the blatant lies, misrepresentations, and bizarre antics of Ms. Martin. Funny how one side of a story can be told, smears can be made, and only later is the truth told. I wonder if perhaps Marc Emery is telling the truth, if maybe he has an agenda? Hmmmm; 11:44 AM, March 28, 2008
Mike said...: The government produced a report backing up its own story...quelle surprise.

Sorry rat, when it comes to blatant lies, misrepresentations and bizarre antice, the CPC takes the cake.

Marc Emery has never done anything but tell the truth. This incident shows just how ideological driven and mean spirited this government is.

Now, instead of changing the subject, why don't you respond to what is actually being discussed here - Marc Emery.; 1:20 PM, March 28, 2008
The Rat said...: I have responded many times in the past: Emery sold seeds to the US in knowing violation of their law. Selling seeds in Canada is also illegal despite our apparent non-enforcement. We have treaty with the US, and many other countries, which allows extradition if the crime relevant to the request is a crime in Canada. Emery's crime is, indeed, a crime here as well, one he has been charged with in the past. he sounds like a slow learner (too much doobage, perhaps?)

So, are we going to do our duty under an international treaty or not? I know you guys are pretty strong on internantional law so what's up with this? And as for rejecting a plea deal, I'll wait for the other side as it just seems prudent given recent issues.

PS, Ms. Martin isn't denying the report, she just says it's a "violation of her privacy" to expose her self-serving lies. Quelle surprise indeed!; 2:41 PM, March 28, 2008
Gayle said...: Sorry rat - I think you should look at the comments sectionof that article you cited. It seems that consular officials cannot do a whole lot to assist someone in a foreign prison.

The Canadian government, however, can, and in Martin's case, have not done all they can do.

As for the topic at hand, I wish I could say I am surprised. What rat fails to appreciate is, if true, then the jurisdiction where the crime was commited - the "victims", accept a lower sentence. Funny how our government would not support that.; 4:55 PM, March 28, 2008
Barcs said...: Emery continued telling the truth today on the radio.

He talked about how he used to hold parties and invited guests from all the major political parties showed up. And not only that all parties took donations from him or his company.....

Then he asked why that didn't entitle him to better treatment....

He knowingly violated a law (in both this country and the US). Now he is whining because the US chose to enforce their law (while we are too cowardly to ourselves).

Is ideologically driven defined as respect for the law Mike? I would have described it as the left being ideologically driven to reduce punishment and explain away crime because it isn't really his fault that he made a conscious decision to contravene the law.

I agree we should ask that he be brought back to Canada (when his American sentence is done).... so that he can face similar charges here.; 6:23 PM, March 28, 2008
RuralSandi said...: So, Rat fell for Harper's smear campaign about Ms. Martin. She hasn't denied anything or lied - it's a matter of her right to privacy.

Rat - go eat some cheeze or something - better yet how about some fish - it may give you some brains.

BC'r - I was just wondering, since you are from BC - Joy McPhail, NDP was finance minister of BC - how did she do?

I see her screaming like nutbar on Mike Duffy - just wondered how well she performed as finance minister.; 6:33 PM, March 28, 2008
The Rat said...: "...then the jurisdiction where the crime was commited - the "victims", accept a lower sentence. Funny how our government would not support that."

I guess I have to wonder why we, as Canadians, should pay to imprison Emery for a crime we wouldn't give him prison time for here? If the Americans want prison time let them pay for it. We don't owe Emery a comfy prison term just because he is stupid enough to get American jail time. I guess that's just another difference between conservatives and Liberals; we expect criminals to accept punishment based on the laws of the country they have violated, Liberals don't think criminals should ever have to take responsibility for their own actions.; 8:57 PM, March 28, 2008
Gayle said...: "I guess that's just another difference between conservatives and Liberals; we expect criminals to accept punishment based on the laws of the country they have violated, Liberals don't think criminals should ever have to take responsibility for their own actions."

Yeah - I can see how that broad, generalized and patently false statement is justified by my post...or not.

But hey, if you cannot deal with the argument I guess this is the best you can do.; 9:21 PM, March 28, 2008
Barcs said...: ruralsandi... she did lie.

She said she had never received contact from the Canadian consulate. She did,... several times. Including such items as a list of lawyers (that she ignored), and a weekly phone call to her mother.

Brenda went public first on events between her and the government.

Her version.

Shouldn't the government be allowed to defend themselves when they are slandered?

(The Tolerant left; ruralsandi 6:33: "it may give you some brains."; 12:14 AM, March 29, 2008
Gayle said...: barcs - did she say the consulate or the government - because they are two different entities.

The consulate has limited powers to do anything. The government has no such restrictions.; 1:52 AM, March 29, 2008
The Rat said...: barcs - did she say the consulate or the government - because they are two different entities.

The consulate has limited powers to do anything. The government has no such restrictions.

And the hair-splitting justifications of the lies begin. What is the definition of "is"? Or more recently "sniper"? Consulate is not government? Really? You me an Foreign Affairs, Embassies, and Consulates are not the voice of Canada? You sure have a sharp knife, Gayle, to shave that pube of an argument so fine.; 11:49 AM, March 29, 2008
RuralSandi said...: She didn't lie - she refused to see them because they weren't going to do anything. She didn't want to see them until they had something concrete. There's a big difference here.; 1:55 PM, March 29, 2008
Gayle said...: rat - go to your link at the Globe and Mail article and read the comments. Then wander over to the National Post and read their article.

It is quite clear that the assistance that may be offered by the consulate is limited. The government of Canada has no such limitations.

I realize it does not assist your argument to recognize this reality, but ignoring it makes you look foolish.; 2:50 PM, March 29, 2008