myata

Well one thing I'm pretty certain of. We should not be fighting in the other people's wars. It never works - for us, nor for them.

No - rather the role our, Canadian government plays in it.

Hey, jbg: did you know that you can save considerable time and effort by using standardized "I'm right you're wrong" package of arguments (SPA - already presented in another thread)? This particular one can be easily classified as "I'm better than you" (#5 in SPA if memory serves me well?) and basically can be translated as "I believe that you're inferior and this entitles me to do things to you, which, if done by you to me, I'd would classify as bad bad bad". Wtih SPA, long posts a la OP of this thread can be presented in a nice and elegant way (also greatly improving the interpretation by readers) like e.g.: "# 5 ! (optional link)" The trial is free. Enjoy!

Liberals and Conservatives are now neck to neck, at 32% each: CTV story Paying the price for Harpers policy attics and Mulroney affair?

They are in, but they can't do much of their liking with other parties keeping them in check. Can use these little slimy tricks here and there, but not much else. What I mean is the real power, when they could create and change laws to their liking. That should never happen.

Maybe not overly humanistic, but nothing unusial I can assure. It always hits harder closer to home.

Harper cons made sure to stir up the emotions by making the change coincidental with that notorious case. No doubt to make the max bang our of hot heated emotions as opposed to rational discussion. Even then, the majority didn't go with them. Another proof that they won't be too picky about the means as long as it gets them to power. Another reason that this crowd should never get it.

True, I don't agree with the role Canada is taking in Afghanistan. There can be no excuse for going to other people and taking part in their wars. It makes us complicit in the killing no matter the intentions. It would make me even more concerned if we started to accept the same happening on this country's soil.

There's no statistical argument for death penalty. Great majority of democratic countries in the West do not have it, and their crime rate is much lower than that of those few which do. It's more of whatever makes us feel good question. Like our long time ancestors who thought that walking around the fire three times while shaking a stick would bring luck in tomorrow's hunt. Whether rational connection between the two acts exists or not, is irrelevant. They believed that it needed to be done. Was the right thing to do. Personally, I'd be uneasy living in a society that accepts that killing a human being (against their will and outside of emergency situation where they pose immediate danger to others) can be a right thing to do.

We discussed this in another thread, and it was pointed out that the problem is complex and throwing in general catchy words and slogans will do little address it (ie. actually achieve some positive change). First, using a common word like "poverty" is not the best way to approach the issue. "Poverty" in the common use may mean "someone on a (much) lower income scale" or "somebody who cannot satisfy their most basic needs". Obviously, the first problem requires completely different solutions than the second one. I agree with somebody here who said that those in the "income challeged" group require less of direct government assistance, and particularly, handout, because it does very little to set them on the path to prosperity. What they need more is access to social services, such as education; childcare; affordable housing; job orientation. Does it mean that there's no issue? Not at all - one does note that the cost of college and university education is raising and access to reasonably priced childcare is becoming more and more limited. These are the real brakes on the people who want to improve their prosperity. Also, as already mentioned, some kind of assistance bootstrap system, in which it actually makes sense to try to earn more income, without losing all of the assistance, as far as it makes sense. The point is that each one is a complicated problem often in the shared or even another (provincial) jurisdiction, and will require its own specific solution. Same goes for the other two groups that are often bundled into the "poor" category. Temporarily "income challenged" arriving to settle in this country need orienation, training, help in identification and recognition of their skills. Not a handout. One can go on and on. But the point should be clear. Tackling this issue should be a set of approaches and policies coordinated between all governments and implemented with consistency over time.

Just FYI - according to an program on CBC I was listening to couple of days back - the complaint was not about the poster per ce, but the omission of that persons ideas with respect to french heritage community of the Lower Canada (or Upper ?). According to NCC, the poster is coming back up in two weeks with added information. I guess they had to explain their intent more clearly, but other than that I don't see an issue here. As someone in the program commented, they were complex people living within a context of a different time, and it's hard to summarize that in a matter of a few paragraphs that would suit everybody.

I.e this means that the government will now protect our rights "on a case by case" right? I wish the government that decides that for itself, first asked us what we think about such a significant change in interpretation of its role. What next? Application of law "on a case by case"? I see, Harper cons now consider government responsibility to protect the rights of Canadians as unnecessary luxiry? Somehow I thought so. Why didn't they say it in public though? What's wrong? Canadian people will certainly support that idea, will they? Why run and hide with "no comments"? Why forget mentioning these interesting policy changes in the electoral campaing? That would certainly give them (and you) some ground to mention Canadian people in this context.

Sorry, it's not like I believe you, but this is not the thread to discuss death penalty in general.

... presuming that death penalty can be humane?

What if crossing a street on a wrong light, and failing to show appropriate respects (or bribe) to local policeman gets one in a foreign jail for couple of years? Should the government also stay above these triffle matters? And then, surely, we can always trust in the infallability of foregn justice. Like that case, in Mexico, where two were accused of murder. Fortunately, they were already here. But what if their trip was a bit longer? What you are saying is that government should abandon responsibility to help its citizens abroad, as a principle. If that's another of Harper cons novel ideas, again, I'll like them to present it openly to the public. Not via backdoor policy changes. Again, without our government asking, how would the foreign government become aware of our wish to spare Canadians the sentence they'll never (unless so cons get their wish) be given here? For all it looks like, Canada is (now) OK with its citizens being executed? Or was that the idea in the first place?

I'm trying to understand, why, over and again, some people (starting with Harper) keep bringing up specfics of the case? Really. In our everyday encounters with the law we can't say "OK this guy is very nice - don't write him ticket." That one, on other hand, is really, really bad - make him pay three times over. Just as in this case, maybe, Harperite crowd, despite mutiple and loud claims otherwise, has problems grasping the notions of "rights" and "law". For them, a right is conditional on the one's standing in their framework of merits. E.g. a pedofile priest deserves gentle pat on the shoulder and a transfer to another diocese. A regular pedofile must rot in jail or even more. When me, goody, goes abroad and bad things happen to me, the government must be on its toes to get me out of trouble. He, the baddy, should ... and so on. If we accept this theory, the rationale for Harper's action becomes clear like water. Really, my government isn't there to help "them". And my government knows best who deseves to be helped.

You got it - almost right! The only difference is, last time, it wasn't the government that eliminated the death penalty, but the Parliament - democratically elected by people - in a free vote. This decision, on the other hand, is made solely by representatives of one party - and a minority one, at that.

Sorry Gerry, that must be either another place or another time (or both). Harper cons own poll showed only some 20% support for the death penalty (17% Quebec/Atlantics, 21% Ontario, Ottawa Metro, Nov.5). On the other hand, it must be the question. If only they thought of asking those pros who came up with the question for the Quebec referendum. Something e..g like: "would you support a new kind of punishment applied only to most evil offenders, that is kind of permanent, except in special cases when it can be revoked ... with luck ...... posthumously". With a question like that, your dreams could even come close to reality one day!

Oh sorry, on that... I thought more about the policy change... Sure, it's quite common for some countries to press others into voting certain way in the UN (recall e.g Iraq). But if it'd come out - big splash. No, on the balance of things, I think it must be their own initiative. The plan could have been, e.g. next time - to obstain. Too many vote for anyways, why not show some fairness and support the weaker side? Those voters, they'll swallow anything, if accompanied by a nice tax cut.

I can't seriously think that anybody actually pressed Harper to do that. He maybe showing some initiative. Especially if it goes along with the deep desire of the heart...

But not the Canadian government's responsibility to protect our rights, even in the foreign lands. Is it another matter Harpers cons understand differently from the rest of us? Slow, slow please. How does one relate to another? Who would bring them here to serve and why? Governor of Montana is not responsible to Canadians. Canadian government is. It refused to intervene of behalf of its citizen. I want to know why and who has decided so, and on what grounds. OK, here's what you're saying: we'll let other countries to execute some of our citizens (without our asking them for clemency, who and how would even know we care?) in the hope (justified or not) that they'll spare the others. This is exactly what has been said all over: that Harper's cons are quietly pulling through a slight change in the attitude toward death penalty: from "it's inacceptable, period" to "maybe it's acceptable for some (canadians)". Let me also remind that they're pulling it through behind public's back, without any discussion or parliamentary debate. Why are they pulling it through? Anybody's guess, as they just won't make their position public (out of extreme love for openness and transparency I guess). One possibility however, which seems to becoming a greater possibility when considered in the light of their other actions, is that they may have a longer term plan. They now have two options: come clear and explain their actions, what they mean and their intent. Explain publicly in open discussion. Or, keep trying to brush it under the table. In that case, everybody who cares would be justified to at least suspect a hidden agenda here.

One more time and slowly, please: why are we (starting with Mr Harper) suddenly talking about bringing back criminals to Canada. I thought at issue was Harpers refusal to ask for clemency for Canadians sentenced to death penalty? Which is not a lawful sentence in Canada, and possibly (I have to study Charter on the subject more closely) violates one of the fundamental rights of Canadians (to be alive). Why sudden change of topic? Is it another transparency measure? Like "no comments"?

I think they should have pretty good idea (at least on the level of a possible direction of their long term policy). Otherwise, would it worth the trouble? In this particular precarious moment? It would be lot safer, and make lot more sense to wait till majority, then test the ground. Unless of course, someone was thinking of death penalty as a majority winner. Which in itself would be quite a revelation of their peculiar way of thinking.

Are you dreaming? Or smoking? What? One in five Canadians supports death penalty according to Tories own opinion poll. But indeed, the move appears, so to say, unwise and counterproductive, that even some analysts sympathetic to Harpers conservatives find it undesirable. Really, why bother (Don Martin, CBC): it's all pain and no gain. Better leave sleeping dogs lie. The problem with that thinking is that it assumes that Harpercons are like us. Great majority of Canadians who firmly believe that the time of death penalty in this country is over. If that were to be the case, none of these moves would make much sense - indeed, why waste all the energy and risk losing favour with part of population, especially urban population in Ontario and Quebec, for something you don't even believe in? No, makes no sense whatsoever. Now look at it from another angle. What's losing a few points in the polls and having to answer (or not answer) a few inconvenient questions, if it could make the goal a little closer to attain? Public, a little more familiar with the coveted prize. A little more used to it - one tiny step at a time. So that, with patience and time, the deeply desired goal - death penalty in Canada - may one day become a reality? Admit it, it's lot easier to interpret Harper's action from this angle. They now appear to make some sense and even become logical. Of course, it's a long road with many steps (basically, reversing the path covered so far - from making death penalty acceptable in some cases, maybe abroad - to perhaps restoring it as extereme measure never to be used - then less extreme measure, still not to be used - then, when a reasonably appealing case comes about - as in good old times - first execution - public servants going to work to perform executions - managers having to sub for the unionized employees - wise and compassionate leader stopping a pending execution of an innocent, on inspiration from above - good and truthful prison guard, torn between the call of duty (that is, to execute) and subtle unclear concern from within, and so on). All those little things that a good so conservative soul can enjoy just a short drive south, but is so brutally deprived of here. Of course, social and psycho analysis is not my domain. But from purely logical perspective, the second possiblity looks real enough to make me worry. And I hope it worries enough people so that it never becomes reality.

Agreed. But what if the nature - calls?