myata

Sorry, admit my mistake. Withdrawing sponsorship but still signing. Another change of policy. BTW are you aware that "sponsoring" a resolution means putting it forward? Nothing to do with "giving money". So, indeed, the conclusion of any rational individual from this change of policy would be that "Canada is now less certain..." The explanation given by Harpers conservatives is so ridiculous it merits inclusion into the GWB citations book: "we'll sponsor other resolution that need support". As if there is a limit to the number of initiatives a country can sponsor. I wonder if they indeed hold us for complete idiots who'd swallow any crap when served on a toast with a tax cut.

What about fourth paragraph of the article (Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International Canada): " Canada is taking a step backwards with its decision, becoming nothing more than an "active bystander" in the global death on capital punishment". What's that supposed to mean? Canada is now less certain that death penalty should be abolished? When did we discuss that? Who and how and why has decided so? And who is "misinformed"?

This CBC link is of yesterday: Resolution to call global moratorium on death penalty. Where's yours coming from? You see, Harpers government, that has no wish to reopen the debate, quietly decided to not co-sponsor the UN resolution calling to abandon death penalty. Canada has been sponsoring this resolution for near a decade. You see, again: they say that they won't. But they act as if they would.

I'm less worried about issues of practical governance (such as e.g. taxation) than those of the principles of democracy and rights. There're some things which are quite hard if not impossible to foresee from outside; it's OK if government would need to correct its course once in a while, as long as it's reasonable and for the good of the country. I have zero tolerance for any government that would attempt to change or otherwise influence our rights outside of open democratic process. This goes to the very foundations of democracy. Give government the right to apply laws and interpret rights on a case by case basis, and we'll be on the way to a quite different country.

As of now. In case you didn't notice, one of the main issues of concern is, will it remain that way if Harpers' conservatives get full rein in the parliament? Another concern, of no smaller importance is their interpretation of democracy, which apparently translates into aversity to public debate, and preference to talk directly to the public - through attack ads and controlled statements.

Move on from what? The responsibility of the government to protect one of the most fundamental rights of canadians? The importance of democratic process and public debate? And to where exactly? What issues would be of such a major importance to make these triffle matters unworthy of our attention ? Maybe, Dion's accent? Or the latest inspirational speech on how this government is clean and transparent? Couple of cents one'll routinely save on GST? BTW to comment with substance it'd do you good to do just that: i.e. wade through the whole thread or at least most of it.

So, our rights should be protected by the government on a case by case basis? Whenever the PM of day may judge us worthy of help? All three incidents (policy change, not signing the convention, and the opinion poll) indeed indicate that Harpers cons do support death penalty, and as somebody pointed out, are taking deliberate incremental steps to bringing it here. And on top of all that, their now completely unmasked contempt for public debate and democratic process. These are indeed the issues an election can be held on. Not Mr Dion's accents.

I don't know what to say. If they don't jump on this, they're less than useless. This is a principle matter, not point of GST nor somebody's accent or the manner to express themselves. They have to make a stand on this or I won't have any sympathy for them if they become laughing stock.

It's their understanding of democracy. US style. Along with other cool things they aspire to borrow from the south.

I accept that some people may support death penalty. In a democratic society it's their right. What I'm having problems with is that this Conservative party is not being open and honest about what its position is and future intentions are. Policy change, refusal to sign the convention, this obscure opinion poll - it's pretty clear where all this is pointing to. Should we trust our own eyes or Mr Day's assurances? This is quickly becoming Con's signature politics - instead of debating and winning issues (such as Kyoto or death penalty), they'll pay a verbal homage to the majority's position and then do the opposite behind the doors with policies and actions. No they aren't open or transparent. They're simply doing what they could to lay their hands on power.

Good questions. Where does our security come from? Can security be "given" to a society from outside? Would such a society be ever able to survive on its own? Or are we creating an artificial environment, sort of like for people with extremely weak immune system, in which the country will never develop adequate tools and mechanisms to deal with reality. Meaning that in all likelihood, it'll have to go through another shock once we eventually leave.

Another piece of the puzzle: from Ottawa Metro, front page, "Support for death penalty slim", Nov.5th: "The Conservative government found just one in five Canadians supported the death penalty as a criminal deterrent in a survey it commissioned this summer in support of its justice policies". Survey commissioned by the Conservative government, in which they remembered to ask about death penalty. Here, in Canada. Just in case? Or hoping for a better result? Despite all the policies designed to hide their real views they are finally coming into the open. It's quite a telling also that they'll never dare to bring it into the open discussion, instead devising ways to pull it in behind the public's back. No it won't go away. Everybody who cares to see, will now have a pretty good picture of what would be at question should Harpers' people ever gain a majority.

It may be a common opinion in America (don"t know how common) that a person can be put to death to bring consolation to those affected by the crime (eye for an eye principle). This is not the opinion of a great majority of people in this country, or for that matter, most, if not all but a few, other advanced democracies. Government of Canada is asking to spare its citizens death penalty because is the position that citizens of this country have expressed via democratic process. Doing otherwise is no less than saying that death penalty for canadians is OK, at least in some cases. Nobody has authorised Harper to say that on behalf Canada. He is in contempt of the democratic process, period. Finally, do we have rights on principle, as an expression of our common understanding of what being a citizen of this country means, or because someone in the government holds us worthy of it (or not)? Does our government protect our rights because it"s one of the main reasons for which it exists, or because somebody judges that some of us deserve it (while others maybe not)? The answer is everybody"s. Just remember that most of those who we consider the least free or democratic, would have no problem with any rights - as long as they"re applied on the case by case basis.

No, rather someone decided that maybe it's a good opportunity to throw this in with the tax cuts, to check public's response to deeply so con ideas. Just in case, of course. And if one considers it in the long perspective it may still pay off. There're many areas which went out of control of late and where good conservative practice could be applied. Like abortion (some backbenchers were making noises about it before they were silenced); gay rights; non existing crime problem.

Depends on terminology. British were building enlightened empire colony, Russians were trying to build communist paradise. Now we're building democracy. Shall I point out that neither of the above has any historical roots in the country? How can you be so sure, that in their eyes we, with our free elections, responsible government, etc won't appear as foreign and strange as e.g. Russians with their communism? Good to hear that. The only question I have then is why is it that Afghani people seeing so many good things happening around, aren't rushing to protect and defend them? We, ourselves are saying - how true is it in your view BTW - that were we to leave now, the country would fall back to Taleban? Is it a little scare to get our less willing partners more involved, or more or less true evaluation of situation? And if it's more or less true then why? Why Afghanis would be more willing, foreign troops removed, to join hated Taleban and not the gentle and democratic government that's doing so much for them? While it's so much harder for the insurgents to recruit undercover while government can go free and easily wherever it wants? Good questions. I wish they were broght up at the time this mission was first evaluated. I.e why are we going, what are we trying to accomplish and for how long. If we don't really know what was promised, it makes it quite hard to deliver. Just "being there" does not solve any problems. In some situations (and I'm not saying it's necessarily the case in Afghanistan, but potential for that does exist) foreign involvement can make things worse, in the long run.

What this is saying is that Harper decided that Canada has to change its position from, before, "we do not support death penalty in any situation" to, now, "we may support it (tacitly - by refusing to act) on a case by case basis". Or by the way the death penalty itself is applied on case by case basis very rarely - nothing to worry about, as per geoffrey, unless you murder. Or find yourself in a really rare case when you're wrongfully accused - and convicted. Or in one of those democratic countries with strange customs and laws, on the wrong side of the law (intentionally or perhaps not). In which cases, good luck to you (in your future life). Also note that while the first position is based on votes in parliament and public support, the only foundation for the new one is Harpers (and fellow so-con) private opinions and beliefs. They never held any public consultation or debate on it and now are avoiding the issues with open and transparent "no comments" statements. This is what I call "contempt of democracy". Period. These are no funny things. If they do it now when they are in a deep minority, one could only guess what projects they're envisioning for the time when they get (god forbid) full control.

Did you forget to mention carrying small amounts of drugs in some death penalty jurisdictions? Including those that could have been planted? Or simply allegations proven guilty in some democratic courts? What about other situations though? Like that guy that had his cell stolen and after an argument with a local ended up in a jail. Surely he should have known local customs and so on. Nothing to do with can government. What about two women in ontario who were declared murder suspects in democratic Mexico?

Gee, is it so hard to understand, really? It's not about making the other government to behave ..., it's about Canadian government, which we elect, doing the absolute minimum to attempt to spare our citizens the fate they would never (fingers crossed) experience in this country. One more time, slow and clear: death penalty is not a legal practice in Canada (yet). It's the responsibility of the Canadian government to try to spare its citizens the sentence they wouldn't have gotten in this country. I agree with Ralph Goodale who said that now we're getting a "sneak preview of what's actually going on in their minds". First, take us off guard by tax cuts promises. Then, throw in this test ballon, to see how the public will react to so-con ideas. Everybody who disagrees with death penalty and other so con "ideas" should make a big bug fuss about this now, unless we want to see it coming to our communities.

Others - like already mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan, our new etalons of democracy? Kudos. I'm a bit doubtful though if this country should aspire to get into the club.

According to Ottawa Metro today, the max for death penalty is in Alberta with around 30%. Ontario 20%, Quebec and east coast 17%. I agree with you though that the honest thing would be to start a public debate. It doesn't appear that their transparency stretches as far as bringing their views into the open and defending them in a public debate. It falls into opposition's lap now to not let them off the hook. This is a matter of principle not gaining point by some trick.

That's a hypothetical situation and they could have easily brought the repatriation issue at the time. It's got nothing to do whatsoever with the issue in question. That's another thing I don't like about them Harper people - loading a pile of BS and pretending nobody sees it.

The previous policy was based on Canadian law (no death penalty) and responsibility of government to protect its citizens. Now explain what is this change of policy is based on? Mr Harpers understanding of morality? Call from above? Divine inspiration, who should deserve mercy and who to fry? Deep respect for the American / Iraqi (it's a democracy after all, as proclaimed) and so on, justice system?

Exactly. Canadians elect their government (including PM) to support and defend the laws of this country. Not their own (PM or his party or else) personal beliefs. Not even their understanding of universal justice. And if they aren't doing that - to the extent of possible of course - they are in contempt of democracy. Which is a very serious matter.

OK, I'll take that back. What I think about death penalty isn't relevant to this topic. What is, and directly, is that it's a law in Canada. The honest thing for somebody who does not agree with it would be to bring it up for a public debate and try to change the law. Not to sneak it in hush hush with "refuse to comment" thereafter. P.S. It's not the first time Harper is trying to deceive and confuse instead of bringing his policies and/or ideas into the open for an open discussion. I'd watch him very closely now.

Specifics of the case have nothing to do with the policy. It is there because our state at this time does not believe in death penalty. It is not applied to anybody here, whether Paul Bernardo, or wrongfully accused 14 year old. So there's nothing wrong with asking others (no obligation, these requests are routinely ignored not just by US but countries like Vietnam, Singapore etc) to not use it to our citizens. The policy is a manifestation of Canada's attitude toward death penalty. Not of PM's personal views and beliefs; not even policies of the governing party (until they translate into law). Harper is doing no less than hijacking democratic process. He should either bring the issue up for a democratic debate, or leave it alone. But it's not a secret to anybody anymore that democratic debate just isn't something this very open and transparent party / government is particularly fond about.