bk59

That's a good question. One that I do not have the answer to. In fact, I'm not even sure where you would get that answer. I do not think the government publishes statistics of this type - that is to say, statistics dealing with the types of requests made to foreign governments at that level. Then again, how many times it has been used is not the point. The fact is, the policy has existed in this form for a long time.

There is clearly a difference between law and policy. But that does not change the fact that this is a hypocritical stance to take. And while the jurisdiction is different, this is a stance that clearly goes against the law of Canada.

Wow, you cannot be more wrong. Perhaps you should have read the posts in this thread. Let me provide you with a link: see here. It confirms the numbers above. You quoted the stats, therefore the onus would be on you to show them. Nevertheless, as shown above, you are wrong on those stats. That does not show that a sitting government has this authority. It just shows that they made the decision. It would not surprise me if this was challenged. Your article even gives a good reason why this policy is bad: This is perhaps not the best way to continue good relations with other countries. That was a nice rant that completely missed the point. The statement was made that this policy was a Liberal party policy. That is wrong. The policy has been around throughout multiple governments and parties. If you had read this thread you would have noticed that no one is arguing from the position that the only reason the government should be advocating in these cases is because that was how it used to be done.

No. The law in Canada is that we never execute criminals. That law is not enforced based on the morality of particular government members. The policy of asking for clemency was based on that law. Canada's international position was based on that law. It is now hypocritical to change that view in certain situations. If someone wants to change the policy, then they need to address the law itself. This means going through Parliament. Not only that, but this has nothing to do with Liberal policy. This policy has been in place since the 1970's. Every government up until now, no matter their personal views, has had a consistent policy based in Canadian law. The same cannot be said about the new policy.

All Canadian governments have been doing this since the death penalty was abolished in the 1970's. Up until now, it was the tradition. As was said in an article that someone posted in this thread, even in Canada he would have been locked away for life with no chance of parole. This whole "Canada is so lax we let our prisoners run around the streets without supervision" type of argument is getting tiresome. It does not matter which one you support. The law in Canada is that we do not execute prisoners. Period. We must not be seen to be bleeding hearts? How about being seen to stand up for what we believe in? And what we believe in can be found in our laws - where we have abolished the death penalty. How about being seen as a country of principle, not a country of hypocrisy where we will say one thing in some circumstances, but the exact opposite when we find it convenient to do so.

A quick google search for the Ottawa Innis Road Jail led to a number of articles about human rights violations at the jail. Overcrowding, etc. Perhaps not the best example you could use. Likewise, low security federal prisons are not to my knowledge used to house murderers. Exercise yards are pretty standard everywhere, so they can't be considered special. Which leaves us with only your statement that inmates were upset about cable tv dropping a show. A quick google search did not give me much. Perhaps you have a link to this story? Either way, it seems a bit of an exaggeration to say that murderers are watching tv and playing pool all day. They are not foreign offenders. They are Canadian citizens serving time in a foreign country. There is a huge difference. If being close to family and friends can help rehabilitate the prisoner, then that is in society's best interest. In many cases, no, the family cannot travel. The "security risk" is only one factor that should be considered. While there is a punishment aspect to justice, the end goal is to have someone who can be released as a productive member of society. Anything that can help reach that goal should be considered. I think euthanasia is illegal in Canada. So no, it is not done every day. Comparing people to dogs is ridiculous and says quite a bit about how you look at human life. I can only hope you never encounter someone who would treat you in that way. By all means feel free to show us "all the stats" that you are talking about. Of course I will expect the government to help me with my passport. They are the only organization that can issue a passport. That's a meaningless statement. You don't want the government to take care of you, but you want them to secure your travels? That seems a bit contradictory. I also notice that you have avoided the scenario where a Canadian would face a punishment that is totally unacceptable here in Canada, or considered far too extreme for the crime. Blah blah, the rest of your post does not say anything. You say it is "left thinking", but how exactly is it left thinking? Governments advocate for their citizens all the time. The USA does so constantly. In fact, the USA will actively interfere in the sovereignty of other nations to protect their citizens from what they do not think is right. And no one is accusing George W. Bush of being too leftist. You may agree with the decision in this case, but that does not change the fact that Canada is now being hypocritical about what it believes in. And no, as far as I can remember, there was no discussion of the death penalty in the last election.

And yet mysteriously, you have not given a link to a court case that shows a corrupt judge. You haven't given any proof at all of corrupt judges. Should we be expecting some proof anytime soon? Of course no one is happy about going to court and losing. That does not mean the judge or the system is corrupt, and it does not mean that the case was predetermined. And why would there even be a case if the government agrees with you? If they agreed with you they would not have brought you to court.

I was unaware that murderers sat around watching TV and playing pool all day. What prison is that at? There are several reasons why someone might be brought back to serve time in Canada. You have to remember that a justice system is not there solely to punish. It is also there to rehabilitate. Compassion and a respect for someone's humanity can play a role. For someone who is old or sick, bringing them to a prison close to their family can be good, not just for the prisoner, but also for the family. It's not just about money or punishment. Of course they cannot compel. But that is a lot different than they should not try. Saying that the US laws only differ slightly from our laws is no excuse. The point is, there is a difference. And when it comes to killing someone, that difference is arguably a big one. If the only difference between Canada's laws and the laws of country X is in how to punish jay walking, would it be OK that country X executed people for jay walking? Would Canada let its citizens be executed without ever trying to intervene? Also, the way the US executes people may not be as humane as previously thought. In fact, I believe a case is before the US Supreme Court with evidence showing that lethal injection could in fact be considered cruel & unusual. It has to do with untrained prison staff administering the drugs where the drug that causes unconsciousness wears off before the drugs that kill the person take affect. They do not have to be all protecting. If someone steals my wallet while I am traveling the government does not have to pay me back the money I lost. But if something is against the law in Canada, then when someone tries to do that something to a Canadian citizen abroad, when that something involves the citizen's liberty or life, then the government should be getting involved. That's not "very far left" thinking. That is a government trying to protect its citizens. Governments do it all the time. Canada's decision to reverse on this is not a good thing.

Who said that? Not me. I said that continually repeating the phrase "Man-boy-love is a common and celebrated occurence in the gay community" does not make that phrase true. You have yet to show any proof to support that statement. I did not say that. Not even close. Moxie said in post #283, "There is no direct link between pedophiles and homosexuals". You said in post #293, "Yes there is". I said in my last post (#295), "There is no direct link. Again, try to show any shred of proof that there is a link." By the way, please feel free to produce that proof. You said, "The only people you should be offended by are the homosexuals who engage in pedophelic behaviour." I was just pointing out that maybe you should also be offended by the heterosexuals who engage in that behaviour. There is no connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. There is no greater tendency of homosexuals to engage in that behaviour. This was proven in a link earlier in this topic. You have yet to provide anything that would prove otherwise. Simply repeating that the assertion is fallacious does not make it so.

Prove that the majority of judges in this country are corrupt. I have already given examples of when courts struck down some legislation. So maybe they are not the corrupt yes-men that you think they are.

[sarcasm]Someone left court unhappy? Well then, I guess that proves the entire system is corrupt.[/sarcasm] At least try to use some common sense before posting.

I quoted the Constitution, how is that not showing you? Fine, read it yourself. See s. 91(3). So show me. In this case, show me how the system is corrupt. Typing it does not make it true. They are NOT just statutes. They are the Constitution of Canada. See s. 52(2)? The people of those provinces elected those premiers. Seems that they might represent them. If you think legislative rule equals dictatorship then you are a bit crazy. It's a bit of a stretch to think that members elected by the people is the same as dictatorship. I think it's safe to say that the legislative branch in EVERY country that has one is NOT independent from the political parties. In fact, that's the point of the legislative branch. No party anywhere should compete for control of the judiciary. In Canada there is much less political wrangling with respect to the judiciary than there is in, for example, the USA. You are entitled to your dark ages thinking all you want. But most people, of every political stripe, will say that all human beings are created equal. Slackers and the disadvantaged have the same rights to freedom of speech, association, thought and belief that everyone else has. Choose whatever definition you like. This definition would be accurate and describes Canada. You made the claim that judges were corrupt. So prove it. You made the claim, you show the proof. Saying that I did not prove the opposite only shows that you have nothing to back up your statement with. I ask you what you think a majority right is, and this is your response? There is something to answer. And that something is a very simple question. You talk about majority rights. What is a majority right? Actually no. I have the right to be free. It does not matter if the majority agrees or not.

How many have you attended? Has that attendance somehow helped you to understand that the Constitution Act, 1867 DOES apply, and that even a simple reading of its provisions gives the federal government the authority to create an income tax? Unanimous consent? Are you kidding? That is such an unrealistic goal. Nothing would ever get done.

If a Canadian citizen is facing charges for a crime that does not exist in Canada, a procedure (e.g. trial) that would not be considered acceptable in Canada, or a punishment that would not be considered acceptable in Canada, then the government should be advocating for that citizen. The Canadian government should do this because these are things we believe are unacceptable and because the Canadian government has a responsibility to its citizens to protect them from unacceptable actions by a foreign government. This does not mean interfering in their justice system, as Canada cannot force anything. But Canada should be doing all that it can, and that includes talking to people within the country who do have the power to affect the justice system. This policy of asking for death sentences to be commuted has been going on for thirty years. Where exactly is that hatred you were talking about? As you point out, Canada has a good reputation. Canada has that reputation in part because we stand up for what we believe in, and we do it through diplomatic channels (not forcing things on people). This includes asking state governors to commute death sentences and includes sponsoring resolutions internationally. What sort of reputation will we have if we do not stand up for what we believe in? What sort of reputation will we have if we say one thing domestically, but something else internationally? In another post, and in this post, I have said that there are three things the government should object to when its citizens face criminal charges abroad. One of those is punishment. From what you posted it seems that you think punishment should be left to the foreign country with no objections. So let's say a Canadian citizen is charged with theft, the trial is fair and he is found guilty. Do you think it is appropriate that he get his hand cut off? Why would the Canadian government sit by without any objections at all and allow a citizen to be maimed when we find that behaviour unacceptable? There is no intervention in any court. Canada was lobbying someone in the US who has the authority to do something. That is no different than anyone else lobbying the governor to commute a sentence. As I said earlier in this post, that is not as far as the government's duty goes. The Canadian government would not sit by and do nothing (I hope) if a Canadian was facing the death penalty for chewing gum in public. When it comes to trying to protect your citizens, an unacceptable punishment is just as valid a reason as an unacceptable crime, or an unacceptable (i.e. unfair) trial. In Canada we believe it is unfair for justice to require that someone be murdered. Why would you be opposed to bringing back a Canadian to serve his time in Canada?

As I said, there was obviously some confusion. Then again, other people on this board were able to figure it out, so perhaps not as much confusion as you would like to believe. Begging someone to enforce the law is not the same as having the right to enforce it yourself. Would you be happy if someone from country X murdered a US citizen, in the US, but then the US had to ask someone from country X to please arrest that person? And then try that person under country X's law, with country X's punishment?

Allow me to clarify since bush_cheney2004 seems to be unclear about what I am saying. The complaint has been made that somehow Canadians on death row in the US get special treatment by having the Canadian government advocate for clemency. I pointed out that if you want to see special treatment, look at some examples of how the US will actually take away the sovereignty of another state to ensure that its citizens get special treatment. Order 17 is a perfect example. This order meant that Iraq had no jurisdiction over any US citizens for anything. bush_cheney2004, your example of the soldiers being charged is actually a good example of what I am saying. The murders took place in Iraq, against Iraqi citizens, but Iraq is totally unable to do anything about it. Wilber is right that the US would not allow Iraq to exercise its own sovereignty.

The Supreme Court has said that Canada cannot extradite anyone to the US without an assurance that the death penalty will not be used. I think I put a link to the case, United States v. Burns, somewhere in this topic. I think you missed the point though. trex was talking about extradition to face the death penalty, not simply being extradited for murder. And if you look at the link you provided you will find this:

The responsibility that a government has towards its citizens is extremely old. And that is what the problem is here. Canadian law may change over time, but the government should be looking out for its citizens based on what is currently the law. What sort of ban are you talking about? I'd be curious to see some information on that. But that doesn't change the fact that many states still have capital punishment for criminal cases. I believe that some individual states had abolished capital punishment before Canada as well. Again though, that doesn't matter. We're not talking history here, we are talking about what is currently the law.

The only sanctimonious charade going on here is by people like you. What political advantage is being obtained here? None. Canada is looking out for its citizens and isn't trying to force anything on anyone. No one was proposing sanctions for the US if they did not agree to Canada's request. Most countries do the exact same thing. Nothing special is going on here. If you want to talk about citizens who "are indeed special" you may want to look at the US itself. Particularly something like Order 17 that was in effect after turning over power to the new Iraqi government and yet gave US citizens complete immunity for everything. From murder right on down to paying customs fees and road tolls.

I use the word negotiation in its more general sense. They aren't sitting down to negotiate a treaty or anything. But in a situation like this there would certainly be a discussion along the lines of what happens to the prisoner when he returns to Canada. Canada wants to ensure that he does not face the penalty. The US wants to ensure he is still punished. I'm sure this would involve setting terms like which prison he goes to, etc.

Repeating the same statement over and over again does not prove anything. Certainly not the ridiculous statement that homosexuality somehow leads to pedophilia. Try having some proof next time instead of just copying & pasting your previous posts. There is no direct link. Again, try to show any shred of proof that there is a link. But heterosexuals who engage in pedophilia are OK? Maybe next time you should include them in your list.

I find the approach that some people are taking in this topic to be very interesting. There have been a number of comments indicating that Canada should stay out because this is US sovereign jurisdiction. And yet, the US has an interesting history of ignoring the sovereignty of other nations. And this in a much more direct manner than just asking or negotiating for something. Take for instance the Helms-Burton Act passed by the US in 1996. It says that any company that does business in Cuba, no matter who they are or where they are in the world, can be charged. What right does the US have to interfere not just in one country's sovereignty, but the sovereignty of two countries? Especially when that business relationship has absolutely nothing to do with the US. My point is, stop complaining that Canada is asking for something that is America's sovereign right to govern. Countries do this all the time. Canada was just trying to negotiate for its citizens. At least Canada is not taking direct action against the sovereignty of other nations when Canada is not even being harmed.

People should be thinking twice before committing crimes anywhere. But the nature of the country should not be the issue (unless we are talking about procedural things like whether or not the trial is fair). The issue should be whether or not the Canadian citizen is facing a crime that we do not believe is a crime or facing a punishment that we do not think is just. Well, it would help to start by trying to talk to that country. Writing the citizen off before even trying is what I have a problem with. Even if a country is unwilling to listen, that does not mean you just give up and stop trying to negotiate. If we did that every time we were in a negotiation then we'd be pretty screwed as a country.

The issue is not whether they succeed or fail. The issue is that the Canadian government should be going to bat for Canadian citizens. That is their job.

I am pointing out that the time line regarding capital punishment in Canada is not as simple as you seem to think. For a murder of the kind we are discussing in this thread, there has been no death penalty in Canada since 1967. So you cannot say that for this type of crime we were able to execute someone up until 1998. That sounds convincing enough to me. But even if you want to distort this crime and say 1998... that doesn't change the fact that right now there is absolutely no death penalty in Canada. It could happen. But it doesn't. And the conditions set out have such a high threshold that no one really expects it to happen. It could happen that the US decides to up and burn its Constitution and ask to become a colony of the UK again. That doesn't mean that I'm going to accuse the US of right now wanting to be a colony of the UK. Yours was a nice try... but a miss. Yes, I happen to think that he does deserve to live. He deserves to live the rest of his life in a prison cell somewhere. I would have said the same about Saddam, because I do not happen to believe in the death penalty for anyone. But be realistic, if the US threatened to go to war with Canada and nuke our cities because we were holding bin Laden, then I think we would probably give him up. Because quite frankly, it's hard to convince people that the death penalty is wrong when your entire society is dead. You can get on your soap box all you like and claim that is not a principled position. But at some level you can find a ridiculous example where pragmatism steps in. And when it comes to the absolute sanctity of life, if you have to choose between someone killing a whole bunch of innocents and someone killing one person... sometimes you choose the lesser evil because both choices involve people dying. That does not change the fact that life is sacred and no one should be committing murder whether your are just some guy, or whether you are the government of a country. Claim that as a strike if you want. But it doesn't change the fact that you had to come up with a ridiculous scenario that in all likelihood will never happen. Canada does not extradite people to face the death penalty. Not anymore. And not in the foreseeable future.