The invasion begins...

[I Miss Trudeau]

Oh boy, is this thread ever dumb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've always been a fan of self-referential statements.

Imagine the following: You go to New York City, pay for a night at the Pierre Hotel with your American Express credit card and in the morning return to Canada.  Then, you refuse to pay the bill because you are in Canada and argue that an American cannot sue you here.

Your analogy is perfect, except for that fact that it is utterly non-anlogous to the topic being discussed, as has been pointed out several times in this thread already.

If it were a strictly criminal case, the US government would be asking for extradition.

Extradition of land?

Since for us this amounts to a civil case, the US government will presumably ask for standing before a Canadian court and a judgment against this guy - just as any other plaintiff could or would.

Except they have no valid claim on the land in Canadian law.

Would the supporters of this land grab be as supporitve if, say, Saudi Arabia decided that it was going to seize the land of any woman, regardless of nationality, who failed to wear a burka in public?

[August1991]

Except they have no valid claim on the land in Canadian law.

What "Canadian" law are you referring to?

All kinds of civil judgments are taken every day involving people in different jurisdictions. To execute the judgment is another matter entirely, and usually depends on local courts.

Miss Trudeau, I think what is significant (from the US perspective) about this case is that it involves controversial criminal forfeiture law, and then its civil application abroad. From the Canadian perspective, there is nothing significant about this case. It is just another civil case.

As I say though, I don't know this case well so I'll stand corrected.

----

I have avoided this thread but having been drawn in, I must make a comment on an earlier post.

The US feels that it can seize a portion of Canada. I'm not sure that you've considered the implications of such a position.

Isn't that how the Jews got a hold of Palestine? Or did they just buy the land? Come to think of it, should we allow Americans to buy property in Canada? Should we permit the sale of Canadian land, soil?

[cybercoma]

It seems that we are overlooking that the Americans will attempt to seize land as the result of a conviction under American Law in an American court.

They are claiming a prior right to this Canadian property regardless of the claims of Canadian interests as a product of their laws. They are not content to join the queue under Canadian practise.

This is an invasion of Canadian sovereignty and cannot be tolerated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, did you read this part of the article...

We have to request assistance of foreign jurisdiction, in order to enforce that order

I'm just checking because it would look as though the United States is saying, "Canada needs to give us permission". Which would hardly suggest an affront to our sovereignty.

[cybercoma]

Except they have no valid claim on the land in Canadian law.

Would the supporters of this land grab be as supporitve if, say, Saudi Arabia decided that it was going to seize the land of any woman, regardless of nationality, who failed to wear a burka in public?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is she selling drugs to Saudi Arabians with a shop she has setup in Canada?

[kimmy]

Would the supporters of this land grab be as supporitve if, say, Saudi Arabia decided that it was going to seize the land of any woman, regardless of nationality, who failed to wear a burka in public?

Assuming you're serious and expect an answer...

No, I would not be supportive of that.

-forcing women to sear burqas in public is not consistent with Canadian values.

-seizure of property in response to a hajib infraction is not an appropriate or sensible punishment (and is not considered as such even in Saudi Arabia, incidently.)

-there's no benefit to Canada in assisting such a request.

In short, I would fully expect such a nonsensical request to be met with a polite "Sorry, we can't help you."

If you're going to tell me that the same arguments could be made in response to the US request for the seizure of Francis Raj's drug farm, I disagree.

-punishing people for smuggling drugs and circumventing Canada Customs is consistent with Canadian values.

-seizure of the assets of people who have made their money through drug trafficking is a fair and logical punishment that fits the crime.

-Canada does benefit from assisting in this request.

How does Canada benefit from seizing Frank's property in Langley?

-it will help deter drug criminals from coming to Canada. If we cooperate with the Americans on this, it will send the message that these people can not protect their assets by "hiding" them in Canada.

-it will maintain a spirit of cooperation between law enforcement officials on both sides of the border. They caught him, they're going to pay the cost of the trial, they're going to pay the costs of keeping him in prison, but we benefit from his capture too. Three members of organized crime are off Canadian streets. That's pretty good, isn't it? If turning over Raj's assets in Canada is all it costs us, I'd say it's a bargain.

Should our government cooperate with the US request for seizure, if Mr Raj is convicted?  I think so. I think we ought to auction the property, use the proceeds to pay off the expenses Langley incurred in filling in this tunnel, and hand over the remainder, if there is any, to the US. To me, that seems logical and fair.

And if the seizure of the property ends up costing more in terms of legal costs than it nets at auction, do we submit a bill to the US for the difference? You seem to believe that Canada ought to incur a cost, just so we can hand over money to the US.

As I've said a few times already, we ought to pay Langley's expenses from the proceeds of the seizure before turning any money over to the Americans. If we incur legal expenses in applying a seizure, then those legal expenses should also come out of the proceeds. Anyway, at this point it goes from talking about "The Invasion!!" to haggling over court costs and legal fees, so in the big picture it's pretty minor.

-k

[I Miss Trudeau]

No, I would not be supportive of that.

-forcing women to sear burqas in public is not consistent with Canadian values.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look at the number of marijuana users in Canada. Suggesting that marijuana prohibition (and everything that goes with it) is consistent with Canadian values is quite a stretch.

-seizure of property in response to a hajib infraction is not an appropriate or sensible punishment (and is not considered as such even in Saudi Arabia, incidently.)

Seizure of property for trafficking an almost harmless plant is appropriate, however?

-there's no benefit to Canada in assisting such a request.

Likewise with this case.

If you're going to tell me that the same arguments could be made in response to the US request for the seizure of Francis Raj's drug farm, I disagree.

-punishing people for smuggling drugs and circumventing Canada Customs is consistent with Canadian values.

How about if we change the phraseology, and go with "Punishing people for transporting an almost harmless plant is consistent with Canadian values." Once you strip down the rhetoric and get to the meat of the matter, its not quite as simple as you'd like it to be.

-seizure of the assets of people who have made their money through drug trafficking is a fair and logical punishment that fits the crime.

Sure, if there was a compelling case to be made for prohibiting such activities. Sadly, there is not.

How does Canada benefit from seizing Frank's property in Langley?

-it will help deter drug criminals from coming to Canada. If we cooperate with the Americans on this, it will send the message that these people can not protect their assets by "hiding" them in Canada.

I think its safe to say that anyone big enough to do a meaningful level of trafficking doesn't really care if his or her official assets are at risk.

-it will maintain a spirit of cooperation between law enforcement officials on both sides of the border. They caught him, they're going to pay the cost of the trial, they're going to pay the costs of keeping him in prison, but we benefit from his capture too. Three members of organized crime are off Canadian streets. That's pretty good, isn't it? If turning over Raj's assets in Canada is all it costs us, I'd say it's a bargain.

"Three members of organized crime" are going to be off of Canadian streets regardless. The US isn't going to just let them out to resume their activities because we won't give them some land in Langley. It need not cost us anything, and especially not the precedent of permitting foreign jurisdictions to enforce seizure laws in Canada.

Ultimatly, the burka example and this case come down to the same thing: seizing property because someone doesn't comply with arbitrary moralizing that has been codified in law. Somehow that "complies with Canadian values," though.

[kimmy]

Look at the number of marijuana users in Canada. Suggesting that marijuana prohibition (and everything that goes with it) is consistent with Canadian values is quite a stretch.

While people are increasingly tolerant of possession of small quantities of marijuana for personal use, I see no evidence to suggest that Canadians are tolerant of organized crime, of smuggling, or of large-scale drug trafficking operations.

If you want to get into the logic of marijuana legalization, that's outside the scope of this discussion. For the record, I support the idea of legalizing marijuana, at least in principle.

-seizure of property in response to a hajib infraction is not an appropriate or sensible punishment (and is not considered as such even in Saudi Arabia, incidently.)

Seizure of property for trafficking an almost harmless plant is appropriate, however?

Seizing assets accumulated through and/or used in criminal enterprise is appropriate and logical.

How about if we change the phraseology, and go with "Punishing people for transporting an almost harmless plant is consistent with Canadian values." Once you strip down the rhetoric and get to the meat of the matter, its not quite as simple as you'd like it to be.

It's still a large-scale criminal enterprise. The merits of the product being smuggled are beside the point.

-seizure of the assets of people who have made their money through drug trafficking is a fair and logical punishment that fits the crime.

Sure, if there was a compelling case to be made for prohibiting such activities. Sadly, there is not.

We don't even tolerate smuggling of legal products such as (tobacco) cigarettes.

How does Canada benefit from seizing Frank's property in Langley?

-it will help deter drug criminals from coming to Canada. If we cooperate with the Americans on this, it will send the message that these people can not protect their assets by "hiding" them in Canada.

I think its safe to say that anyone big enough to do a meaningful level of trafficking doesn't really care if his or her official assets are at risk.

Why would that be?

Also note that as we are most often talking about organized criminal ventures, seizing assets is not just punitive, but also prevents those same assets from being turned over to associates to allow the continuation of criminal activities.

"Three members of organized crime" are going to be off of Canadian streets regardless. The US isn't going to just let them out to resume their activities because we won't give them some land in Langley.    It need not cost us anything, and especially not the precedent of permitting foreign jurisdictions to enforce seizure laws in Canada.

As has been mentioned repeatedly, there will be no precident set.

If the situation were reversed-- if American criminals had been apprehended in Canada breaking Canadian law, and we were the ones going to be stuck with the tab of incarcerating them for a long stretch of time, I think it would be a perfectly reasonable thing to request that the criminals' US assets be sold to pay some of the costs that will be borne by Canadian taxpayers. I have no problem with the reverse being done, either.

Ultimatly, the burka example and this case come down to the same thing: seizing property because someone doesn't comply with arbitrary moralizing that has been codified in law. Somehow that "complies with Canadian values," though.

As expressed in our laws, and by our elected officials, yes. Polls showing increasing support for decriminalization or legalization don't change that, though they might eventually. In the meantime our elected officials and law enforcement agencies continue to take marijuana grow-ops and smuggling operations seriously.

If it were legalized, the marijuana industry could be run by friendly, easy-going entrepreneurs instead of by hard criminals. But for the time being, it's still run by hard criminals. There have been literally dozens of murders in the Vancouver region in connection with the drug trade in recent years. And while selling marijuana to Americans sounds harmless enough, I have read recently that Vancouver dealers are swapping marijuana for hard drugs to sell in Canada.

I agree that a modernization of our drug-laws is needed, but until that happens this is still an industry of criminals that are causing harm in our communities, and should be dealt with accordingly.

-k

[crazymf]

This whole thread is irrelevant. The Americans already control Canada in every way. We are like an ant colony on the presidents desk trying to assert ourselves.

Get real. The saying is true; If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[August1991]

This whole thread is irrelevant. The Americans already control Canada in every way. We are like an ant colony on the presidents desk trying to assert ourselves.

Get real. The saying is true; If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

crazymf, your post deserves a link.

[masterkush]

That is a good idea. Some people tend to forget, just because the Government of Canada is lax on justice, and because it seems cheaper to not enforce our existing drug laws, it doesn't make it right. This asshole not only broke the laws of Canada, but he exported an illegal drug into another country, therefore he should face the laws of tha country, and if I were the Governor of that State when this idiot get's convicted, I would not allow any transfer to a Canadian prison until that sentence is complete, because once in Canada are justice system might just send him home on house-arrest so he can resume his illegal activities.

Canadian law is getting so lax that the former Mayor of Vancouver suggested that the city's Methadone clinic be also used to hand out fresh mouthpieces for crack-pipes at this facility, and to allow these poor crack addicts to smoke their Crack at the clinic. what an idiot. HIs rationale seems to be that if a law costs money to enforce, then lets just not enforce it, and then we don't need as many police personnel. Tell you what, why don't we just legalize all illegal drugs, and allow those who are addicted to consume at will. In a very short while we won't have to fund long-term medical services for these addicts, because maybe they will overdose, and kill themselves. THat way we can not only save the money it cost to enforce the laws of this land, but we can also save the healthcare budget all kinds of money. Do I feel sorry for addicts? Not in this lifetime, because nobody forced these assholes to get high in the first place, nobody forced them to continue down that path, so I could care less about these useless human beings. Maybe we should send Emery to Saudi Arabia and see how they deal with his penchant for dealing in drugs. Tell you what the trial will be real quick, and the punishment will be meted out real quick as well. There will be languishing in a cell for years before he is put to death, because the appeal process is real quick as well, and of very short duration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Canda's lax on justice ,as you put it, saved the tax payers from having to build

500 prisons to hold all the potheads.

what does pot smoking have to do with justice

cigarette smoking is next lock all nic addits up

booze too lock them up while your at it

people that make statements like jail the pot heads are lucky we have some rational people in the govt.

otherwise you would be screaming taxes taxes taxes