EMERY CASE ABOUT RULE OF LAW AND NOT SOVEREIGNTY

Re: 'We should not abdicate right to protect citizens' (Daily News, Nov. 3)

In rebuttal to Ethan Erkiletian's specious argument that Marc Emery's
case does have to do with Canada's sovereignty it is abundantly clear
that Erkiletian and those who share his view choose to ignore the
simple facts.

They are that Emery committed an extradictable offence that does not
involve the death penalty.

Therefore, as I plainly said before, Canada was obliged to extradite
Emery.

If Canada were to start cherry-picking crimes to ignore in the face of
existing extradition treaties it would lead to chaos.

If Erkiletian, et al, don't like that then it is they who must
convince a lawmakers to change Canada's extradition laws not the other
way around as Erkiletian suggests.

That Emery is some kind of hero for "not backing down from his
convictions" ignores the fact that he was only brave in his
convictions so long as he could stand on the other side of the
proverbial fence and shout at them from the safety of home plate, or
so he thought.

When confronted with the prospect of extradition for violating
American law, he then looked to the his home state, which he also
openly defied, to protect him.

Not illegal but a tad hypocritical I would say particularly for a
hero.

If he were a man of conviction, why didn't he simply step across the
border to mouth his convictions and conduct his business in the U.S.?

The answer is because he knew what he was doing was illegal and a
violation of U.S. law yet he continued to violate U.S. law with a
sense of impunity.

I maintain my position that Emery is nothing more than a
self-promoting businessman who is the author of his own misery.

Connor Whelan

Ladysmith