I will certainly cry out loud and with force if the USA successfully extradites him, unless he cuts a deal. That would be by choice and thus from his own advice to let people do what they want. I would fight tooth and nail if the fascist of the south came to drag me away from my land. I reiterate that the breach of American law in Canada cannot be prosecuted under a freedom derived from the constitution of Canada.
A Supreme Court of Canada ruling {R. v. Malmo‑Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74} declares the currant marijuana law contrary to the constitution of Canada, thus how can a man be extradited for a law the highest court of the land has declared invalid?
I prove the point with the following supreme court conclusion and link to the whole decision if you wish to read it. We will see if my country follows through with this extradition contrary to the laws of the land it represents to defend.
R. v. Malmo‑Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74The questions before the Court are issues of law, not policy, namely whether the prohibition, including the availability of imprisonment for simple possession, is not valid legislation, either because it does not properly fall within Parliaments legislative competence, or because the prohibition, and in particular the availability of imprisonment, violate the guarantees of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
..The inclusion of cannabis in the schedule to the Narcotic Control Act infringes the accuseds right to liberty without regard for the principles of fundamental justice. For the state to be able to justify limiting an individuals liberty, the legislation upon which it bases its actions must not be arbitrary. In this case, the legislation is arbitrary. First, it seems doubtful that it is appropriate to classify marihuana consumption as conduct giving rise to a legitimate use of the criminal law in light of the Charter, since, apart from the risks related to the operation of vehicles and the impact on public health care and social assistance systems, the moderate use of marihuana is on the whole harmless. Second, in view of the availability of more tailored methods, the choice of the criminal law for controlling conduct that causes little harm to moderate users or to control high‑risk groups for whom the effectiveness of deterrence or correction is highly dubious is out of keeping with Canadian societys standards of justice. Third, the harm caused by prohibiting marihuana is fundamentally disproportionate to the problems that the state seeks to suppress. This harm far outweighs the benefits that the prohibition can bring. Since the Crown did not attempt to justify the prohibition under s. 1 of the Charter, it has not satisfied its burden.
By the way there has not been any law passed to replace the current law that has been struck down by the highest court of the land. In other words, and ask any Canadian lawyer, there is currently no marijuana law in effect today. The Govt has 1 year to re-write the law from the date of the court decision and it has not. If Marc has not struck a deal I would recommend he does not and he fights this all the way to the office of the Justice Minister, who can overrule the extradition order.
Peace to all
