bk59

I agree that your posts have never even heard of reality let alone come close enough to pass as reality.

You couldn't answer a single question of mine in a post on an internet forum. What do you expect to do with 30 minutes on TV?

I would do my own photocopying. If you would just show a link to this mythical file of yours. Or even tell anyone what it is about. Harper didn't respond? That's surprising. Then again, I don't respond to junk mail either.

You said federal income tax was unconstitutional. I showed you it was. Now you decide to ask something else. Fine. When you ask "and do what?" my answer is... whatever we elect them to do. If you don't like what the current people are doing, elect someone else. That is democracy. The Constitution is not a statute. No statute is ratified by the people of Canada in the way that you are talking about. And there are many Constitutions in the world that were not ratified by the people of the country in the way that you are talking about. If there are examples then please feel free to list them here (with links proving your point please). I said the PM cannot revoke it unilaterally (which is what you were saying). But as long as you follow the amending formula then you can change the Constitution. There is no other way to do that. Sorry. Look, you're the one who claimed it was "Trudeau's law". I just pointed out you were wrong. I personally don't think it has anything to do with anything, but it was your point. So the idea that all men are created equal is BS now? Canada clearly has a strong common law tradition which has not changed since Canada was formed. What exactly am I to inform myself of? You rambled on for a paragraph and said nothing. I am aware that there was a referendum in Ontario about changing the electoral system. So what? That has nothing to do with your claims about the Magna Carta, and in fact does not prove much of anything. Right... of course. You cannot prove that they are corrupt, so instead you paint them all as Liberals and then call them corrupt and hope no one notices. As an example, just last February the Supreme Court told the government that they must change one of their laws. The case was Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration). So I guess the government can't do whatever it likes, as you claimed. You didn't answer my question. What is a majority right? Rights are not something that we determine by national referendum. Rights should never be subject to a simple vote like that. I have the right not to be a slave and treated like property. That right exists even if everyone else in Canada votes to say that I am a slave & should be treated like property. Luckily Canada is one of those societies.

That sums up your posts quite nicely I think.

You have a partial point here. First though, you are not quite right about the time line. See here. The death penalty was abolished for most crimes in 1967 and in 1976 for all crimes except a few military crimes. Capital punishment for those last few crimes was abolished in 1998. So 1967, or even 1976 is the more appropriate date to quote. (Unless you are talking about very specific military crimes.) Your info with respect to extraditing to face the death penalty is also out of date. Charles Ng was extradited in 1985. But you need to see a case called United States v. Burns from 2001. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that Canada cannot extradite without an assurance that there will be no death penalty. They say that there will be an exception in "exceptional circumstances". These circumstances are not explicitly defined, but in other cases the term has been used to allude to things like war or other national emergencies. So barring a national emergency, Canada does not extradite people if they will face the death penalty. And aside from someone like Osama bin Laden, I do not see a case where refusing to extradite someone will lead to a national emergency.

Hydraboss, the other aspect to this thread is that we are talking solely about punishment. In this case, I expect that Canada is making the argument that since we do not believe in capital punishment, we will take over his punishment and put him in prison. Canada would not be arguing to get rid of all punishment. It would be more like a trade - we take over his punishment in exchange for the US not executing him. Or at least, that was probably the argument until the policy was changed.

Not quite. Canada should try that man for murder and lock him away as this is what our laws require. If he is a Canadian citizen, or even has dual citizenship where one of them is Canada, then that is the end of the story. If this person is not Canadian then I would fully expect his home country to talk to the Canadian government. And I fully expect the Canadian government to say, thank you, now piss off. Do not mistake my previous statements: Canada has an obligation to stand up for its citizens, but that does not mean that the other country has an obligation to do anything. This is the discussion we already had earlier about sovereignty. You also mention extradition here & below... Extradition does not work that way. Extradition laws come into effect when one country is seeking to prosecute a crime, but the fugitive has fled to another country. In your example above there would be no extradition because the man is in Canada and the crime was committed in Canada. As an example: If the man committed the "crime" of being of a certain religion in country X and then fled to Canada it is conceivable that country X would request that the man be extradited to face trial and punishment. Canada would examine the request, but because being of a certain religion is not a crime in Canada we would not extradite him to country X. The opposite side of the coin is that if a man stoned his wife in Canada and then fled to country X, country X may refuse to extradite him to Canada because they would not see it as a crime. And Canada would not be able to force the issue unless they brought other diplomatic pressure to bear.

I believe in the rule of law. I pointed out where the law gives the federal government the power to tax income. You making up the idea that I believe in a dictatorship does not change that fact. Nevertheless, anyone wishing to change the Constitution must follow the amending formula as it is laid out in the Constitution. No PM, or for that matter nobody at all, can unilaterally change the Constitution. As for the rest of your post... 1. The idea that all men are created equal was around long before Trudeau. 2. You say that natural equality / rights lead to some form of majority rule democracy and then claim that the Charter favours natural rights over majority rights. If one leads to the other, then how can it favour one and not the other? 3. How was it that Trudeau "reneged on Magna Carta"? 4. The government is restricted in what it can do quite a lot actually. Laws are challenged in court and the government is prevented from doing certain things that are against the Constitution. 5. What constitutes a majority right?

Name the case. Explain how it proves that the system is corrupt. Link to the decision. Only a dictator and those people who can read the Constitution. It is very clear and straightforward. Show how the system is corrupt. Show how the politicians are corrupt. Show how the judges are corrupt. And try to do that with actual facts, not with misstatements like "the BNA Act does not apply" or "the Queen tells our politicians what to do".

Sorry, I should clarify. In this case the issue is not the crime itself. Just the punishment. But right now I see three areas where the Canadian government should stand up for its citizens abroad when they are facing criminal charges: 1) Where the crime is not a crime in Canada 2) Where the procedural guarantees are lacking (e.g. no fair trial, no legal representation, etc.) 3) Where the punishment is not legal in Canada or (as you say) disproportionate to the crime These are things that the government should stand up for, no matter what their personal beliefs. No matter who the individual is (so long as they are a Canadian citizen). I do think #1 is still an issue. I just posted an example of what I mean. We do not believe that being a member of a certain religion is a crime. So why would we sit idly by and say nothing when one of our citizens is punished for that "crime"?

That is not particularly effective. You may not care about where that criminal goes, but what happens when it is Canada asking for someone else to return a criminal? Why would we spend all those extra resources unnecessarily hunting down people around the globe when we could reach agreements with various countries about how to extradite fugitives? It is more efficient and allows justice to be served. I can't believe I have to say this, but fighting crime is a good goal. It is a goal that we should care about no matter where the crime takes place. An effective extradition process is a good thing. The Canadian government has a duty to protect its citizens. If (for example) you are falsely accused of a crime in a strange country then you should be able to expect at least some help from the Canadian government. If someone is accused of a crime that is not a crime in Canada, say for example being a member of a certain religion in a country that has banned that religion, then Canada should be trying to help that person. Is the person stupid for going there? Probably. But if we believe in freedom of religion then we need to stand up for that value. Particularly when Canadian citizens are being persecuted for that belief. Even if they are stupid citizens. Likewise, we need to stand up against punishments that we believe are wrong. Even if the individual we end up defending is a scumbag murderer.

You are not responsible. Our government is responsible. It is responsible for protecting its citizens. If you ever go abroad and need the Canadian government's help you may see the necessity for it. Even more importantly, Canada has a duty to protect its citizens. Whether they are within Canada or abroad. And that's the problem with your argument. If you go to a country where you get arrested for something that we do not believe is a crime, or found guilty and sentenced to something that we do not believe is an acceptable punishment, then Canada should get involved. If Canadian values are going to mean anything then we need to stick up for those values. All the time, no matter who it is we are addressing (China or the US). In the case of unacceptable punishments, it is perfectly legitimate for the Canadian government to offer to punish the criminal ourselves in a way that we find acceptable rather than let the person suffer a punishment that we do not believe in.

The Canadian government has a responsibility to stand up for its citizens when they go abroad. That is why Canada is officially involved. And no, Canadian prisoners do not deserve a different sentence than American prisoners simply based on nationality. In fact, Canada believes that neither American nor Canadian prisoners should be executed. It is why when extraditing Americans for crimes that could be punished by capital punishment we always ask for assurances that the death penalty will not be used. And it is why when a Canadian ends up on death row Canada should ask for clemency. Up until now the approach was consistent. Now we apply a double standard. Ironically a double standard that is favourable to non-Canadians. That is exactly the point. Some opposition to capital punishment is exactly because it is the same as the government performing a premeditated murder. If planning to kill someone is wrong, then why is the government involved in planning to kill people? As I mention above, Canada will not extradite anyone to any country if there is the possibility that they will face capital punishment unless they first receive assurances that the death penalty will not be used. That includes Americans (and more often than not involves Americans because we are neighbours).

Constitutional monarchies and republics are two different forms of democracies. One would use oaths to the monarch. The other would not. That does not mean that one is a democracy and the other is not. Swearing an oath to a monarch does not indicate that the oath taker belongs to a colony.

What I meant was, if anyone can file a request for clemency, then it does not matter who does the filing. All prisoners are able to make the request. Given that the person in the article was still on death row, it seems unlikely that Canadian prisoners get any leverage or deal. The Canadian government makes the request because the prisoner is a Canadian citizen and Canada does not have the death penalty. We essentially offer to take the prisoner because we do not believe in killing convicts.

What are the protocols? Are certain prisoners prevented from asking for clemency? Because if not, then what does it matter who is asking for clemency? Whether it be a Canadian government official, or a murderer's wife?

With regard to taxation, that is an incorrect interpretation of sections 91 and 92. Provinces have the right to "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes." That does not mean they have exclusive rights to all forms of direct taxation. Only direct taxation within the province to raise revenue for provincial purposes. Under section 91 the federal government has this power: "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation." This would include direct taxation for federal purposes. So there is no problem with federal / provincial jurisdiction there. No PM can revoke the Charter. It is part of the Constitution. Any changes must be made according to the amending formula. The PM cannot declare a part of the Constitution unconstitutional. How can you justify saying that the Constitution should not include social rights, but then say that the Constitution should preserve and pass on cultural values? Those two statements contradict each other. What do you mean by " It belongs to the country, and it is there that the citizens of our country will find the protection of their rights"? Where will people find the protection of their rights?

I don't think Canada is all of a sudden exporting murderers to the US. I mean, let's face it. If they want to commit murder without fear of execution then they would stay at home in Canada. And it doesn't raise anyone's worth. Anyone on death row can ask for clemency. That does not mean that they will get it, but they can ask. Just like Canada was asking.

That's a fair assessment. If there are communication problems then yes, that does need to be addressed.

I guess the problem that I have with that attitude is the classic case of the wrongly convicted. It is one thing to release someone from 10 years in jail after it has been shown that they were wrongly convicted. It is quite another to have to go to that person's family and admit that the state killed him or her for no good reason.

Sure Canada can ask. In fact, that's exactly what Canada was doing... requesting clemency. Nations are allowed to talk with one another and make requests of one another. What does Bernardo have to do with this?

I don't know. But it also does not matter. Canada has no death penalty. The government is responsible for its citizens. The government should be at the very least asking for clemency. If the Conservative party wants to bring back the death penalty then let them try. And we'll see what happens in an election. But while the death penalty is off the books then Canada should be attempting to protect its citizens from the death penalty. There is a difference between the government of Canada and the Conservative party. (And to be fair, that distinction goes for every party when they are in power.)

First, we are not imposing our laws on the US in this case. We are asking them for clemency because the person in question is a Canadian citizen and Canada has abolished the death penalty. No one is going in there to physically prevent this person from being executed. Also, Canada and many other countries do impose their laws all the time. When a country asks Canada to extradite someone, Canada first makes sure that the crime the person is charged with is actually a crime in Canada. So if a country demands that John Doe be extradited for committing the crime of whistling while walking down the street, Canada is not going to extradite him. While it is nice to take this stand of "we don't have the right to impose on anyone else" the fact is we do this. Constantly. Because no (or at least very few) Canadians are going to let people be shipped off to serve jail time or worse for actions that we don't even believe are criminal. Even if those "crimes" were committed outside of Canada. And other countries do the same.

In this case, given that capital punishment has been abolished in Canada, I think it is safe to say that Canadians do not support capital punishment. The majority of Canadians may not sympathize with a murderer. But I think Canadians should be concerned when their government says that they will selectively choose which of our citizens they will fight for. Or when they selectively decide which values deserve to be promoted on the world stage. Particularly when it seems hypocritical to take that position.