CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) – More than 100 protesters chanted “war criminal” and flung shoes in Calgary on Tuesday, angry that former U.S. President George W. Bush was in the Canadian city to give his first speech since leaving the White House.

At least two demonstrators were hauled away by police after brief skirmishes, as 1,500 business people in the oil patch city waited outside a convention center for an hour to pass through tight security and enter the C$400-a-plate ($315) luncheon.

Media were barred from covering the invitation-only event, during which Bush had been expected to reflect on his eight years as president.

According to sources who attended, he conceded that his administration spent its final days “bailing water” to keep the U.S. economy afloat.

However, the Obama administration should not let government become a substitute for the free market, and it should also avoid becoming more protectionist on trade matters, he was said to have remarked.

Although he was not Bush’s first choice as president, Barack Obama has his full support, he said.

The luncheon crowd was friendlier than the one outside.

“He is a war criminal who fought an illegal war, and there are some who say he was never elected democratically, so there are some who say he should be arrested as soon as he comes here,” said a woman dressed as a Guantanamo Bay prisoner, who called herself Ivana Nomobush.

She had brought with her a makeshift “shoe cannon” that catapulted footwear, but complained that security personnel were not letting her use it.

The shoe theme is an homage to Iraqi reporter Muntazer al-Zaidi, who was sentenced last week to three years in prison for hurling his shoes at Bush in December.

The reaction was in stark contrast to President Barack Obama’s first official visit to Canada last month, when he was fawned on by citizens and politicians alike.

A handful of demonstrators came out in support of the former president, who left office in January, having suffered plummeting popularity due to more than five years at war in Iraq and an economic meltdown.

“We wanted to welcome George W. Bush and let him know that everyone’s not opposed to his presidency,” said Jeff Willerton, who held up a pro-Bush placard. “I think under the circumstances he was one of the better presidents we could have asked for.”

As center of Canada’s oil industry, Calgary is known as one of the country’s most conservative cities.

By the turnout among its business community for the speech, it is clear that Bush can still draw a crowd, city councilor Joe Ceci said.

“But it’s this crowd that gratifies me even more,” Ceci said of the demonstrators. “Just to see Calgarians interested, aware, and just kind of speaking up, and speaking up for things anti-war.”

Source

Originally posted 2009-03-18 09:56:24.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers should not be targeted for federal prosecution in states that allow medical marijuana, prosecutors were told Monday in a new policy memo issued by the Justice Department.

Under the policy spelled out in a three-page legal memo, federal prosecutors are being told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

The guidelines issued by the department do, however, make it clear that federal agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes.

The memo advises prosecutors they “should not focus federal resources in your states on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

“It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

By the government’s count, 14 states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Some medical marijuana advocates say Maryland shouldn’t be included in that group, because the law there only allows for reduced penalties for medical marijuana usage.

California stands out among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries — businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.

Advocates say marijuana is effective in treating chronic pain and nausea, among other ailments.

Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.

The memo spelling out the policy was sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.

The memo written by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.

“This is a major step forward,” said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. “This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality.”

At the same time, officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity.

In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or involvement in other crimes.

And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.

Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama’s repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.

Soon after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government’s plans.

Source

Originally posted 2009-10-19 10:20:51.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Antigaming legislation has been struck yet another blow today. The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision that declared as unconstitutional California’s law preventing the sale of violent video games to minors. According to the appeals-court ruling, bill AB1179, signed into California law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

“We hold that the Act, as presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the ‘variable obscenity’ standard from Ginsberg v. New York,” the US Court of Appeals ruling read. “Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment because the State has not demonstrated a compelling interest, has not tailored the restriction to its alleged compelling interest, and there exist less-restrictive means that would further the State’s expressed interest.”

Originally penned by California Senator Leland Yee, the bill sought to ban the sale or rental of “violent video games” to children. A “violent” game was defined as a “game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” Under the law, retailers that sold such games would be subject to a $1,000 fine.

The bill would also have required “violent” video games to bear a two-inch-by-two-inch sticker with a “solid white ‘18′ outlined in black” on their front covers. That’s more than twice the size of the labels that currently adorn game-box covers and display the familiar Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) rating.

“We are extremely gratified by the court’s rejection of video game censorship by the state of California,” said Entertainment Merchants Association president and CEO Bo Andersen in a statement. “The ruling vindicates what we have said since the bill that became this law was introduced: Ratings education, retailer ratings enforcement, and control of game play by parents are the appropriate responses to concerns about video game content.”

Andersen also challenged proponents of the legislation to not pursue further legal recourse with the US Supreme Court. “The state should not acquiesce in this demand, particularly in light of its budget difficulties,” said Andersen. “The state has already wasted too many tax dollars, at least $283,000 at last count, on this ill-advised, and ultimately doomed, attempt at state-sponsored nannyism.”

In 2008, California was ordered to reimburse the Entertainment Software Association $282,794 for legal fees associated with the case. The state is currently facing a crushing budget crisis, thanks to a mounting deficit that some state officials say could hit $42 billion by 2010.

For his part, Yee was undeterred by the Appeals Court ruling. Reiterating sentiments expressed to GameSpot in November, California Senator Leland Yee issued a statement bemoaning the court’s decision and voicing optimism over the case’s prospects were it to be escalated to the US’ top court.

“California’s violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games,” said Yee. “While I am deeply disappointed in today’s ruling, we should not stop our efforts to assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. I believe this law will inevitably be upheld as Constitutional by the US Supreme Court.”

Source

Originally posted 2009-02-21 17:51:34.

Popularity: 1% [?]