NO JUSTICE IN MINISTER'S POT MANTRA

Irwin Cotler Dodges And Weaves On The Issue Of Marc Emery's Extradition
Proceedings

Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler played the Artful Dodger with me
Monday on marijuana law reform and whether it was right to allow the
Americans to begin extradition proceedings against Marc Emery for selling
pot seeds.

After he skirted questions from the audience on the issues at the Canadian
Bar Association's meeting at the Trade and Convention Centre, I tried to
pin him down on why the Yanks were allowed to grab Emery when the health
ministry of his own government was quietly referring licensed medical
patients to him.

I came away with the feeling that Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Anne McLellan, an American hawk
and rabid anti-pot crusader, is writing his responses.

Cotler all but disavowed the bill soon to be debated in the Commons that
will change the range of sentences judges can impose for marijuana offences
- -- giving them a kind of ticketing option for simple possession charges and
lifetime prison terms for distribution and production offences. He fobbed
responsibility onto the parliamentary committee that produced it, as if it
were a bad smell. "As for the matter of medical marijuana, that's the
jurisdiction of the health minister."

Anyone who thought this former law professor was going to usher in an era
of reform in the criminal prohibition against pot should read the writing
on the wall.

Cotler repeated the mantra of the U.S. anti-drug warriors that marijuana is
far from harmless and he mentioned it in the same breath as crystal meth --
twice.

The new bill isn't being sold any more as drug policy change, it's about an
"alternate penalty framework so we don't unduly criminalize a younger
generation and have more uniform law enforcement."

Adopting the hardliners' talk about "the scourge of grow-ops," he said he
favours exercising executive privilege by making regulatory changes behind
the scenes rather than proceeding by public debate and reform.

And Cotler hid behind legalisms on the Emery question, saying he was not
permitted as a matter of law to comment on the proceedings lest he
prejudice the case.

He expressed "surprise" that people were even approaching him on
extradition matters while they were before the courts.

"The matter will not come before me until the courts commit somebody for
extradition -- so why a minister of justice and attorney-general should
have representations made to them not to extradite X when we don't even
know if X is going to be extradited because the court process has not yet
taken place seems to me to be both premature and to almost presuppose the
court will extradite, which we don't know," he said.

I heard his best soft-shoe.

"I'm not going to dodge anything," he quickly added as skepticism fleeted
across many faces, "because you can then say to me, 'Okay well, I'll accept
that, but you gave that authority to proceed to begin with, that's how that
matter got before the courts.' That's right and I'll tell you about that."

He then went on to claim the Mutual Assistance Treaty compelled the
government to act on the U.S. request that Emery be arrested and said,
"These things are multi-layered processes . . . I will say that with
respect to the authority to proceed that is a decision that is taken by the
International Assistance Group in the Department of Justice, it is a
delegated power."

That means he wants you to believe the bureaucrats did it, not him.

Balderdash, say I.

What bothers me is that I feel Cotler is being disingenuous. He and the
government are not precluded from acting. He is a lawmaker and occupies a
particularly privileged and powerful position. And Ottawa can most
definitely step in -- that's what being sovereign means.

Three ordinary Canadians -- operating a business they have run openly for a
decade in downtown Vancouver -- were chained and shackled, imprisoned for
at least a day without trial, their business shut down, their financial
livelihoods and their freedom jeopardized on the say so of Washington.

It could take years and a large fortune for Emery and his staff to beat
back this U.S. attempt to jail them for between 10 years and life.

I cut to the chase with Cotler: When domestic prosecutors and judges won't
deal with Emery as a criminal, is it fair to allow him to be ruined and
possibly imprisoned by a foreign power?

"How can that be justice?" I asked. "It's about the issue of justice and is
it fair?"

"I've read your reports on this," he said, "and I answered the question. I
thought I gave a rather detailed and frank answer. I don't know what it is
I can add to it . . . I have to deal with the nature of international
treaties, I have to deal with the nature of the extradition processes. As I
said, I can't comment on any particular case if it is before the courts,
and I don't want to dodge the issue by saying that."

But you get his drift; in my opinion he was ducking and weaving as fast as
he could.

"So you think it's fair?" I persisted.

"No, that's your extrapolation from what I said."

Indeed it is.