Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[old_bold&cold]

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.

Are you out of your mind. I still will use that jail as an example as it is modern comapred to many and it is generic in the type of things available. It does not matter it be over crowded as of course with all the ammenities it is a betetr life then many free people have.

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.

Just what do you think they are doing. We can not force any inmate into any of the work programs and we do pay them a pitence for when they do, but yes prisonser if they choose can watch tv and play pool for most of the daytime hours, or hours out of they cells. Just as they have small stores where they buy goodies etc when they want to. Say popcorn for that movie tonight. No need to google anything just look up Kinston Penitenery and get the info from there.

it is a dam site better then many things that free people get. Or depending on your area go to any federal prison and take a tour, that will open you eyes.

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.

Again you are wrong, I said that when we sntence a foreign er to jail they wnat to serve their time here in Canada because our jails are like hotels. They figh any attempt to be transferred home. That being the case I feel then that Canadian citizens should serve the time in the country where they offend, and it is not Canada's duty to bring them home at all. We did not sentence him, so we should not be responsible for him.

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.

I just watched my father die of prostrate cancer last May and yes in pallative care they euthanise people every day. They do not talk about it, but it is done each and ever day of the year. Go to any pallative care facility and see for your self but get ready to be waken up and it will not be a slow waking. Foolish people like you need to go see this fro your self.

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.

Wrong again. I said earlier if I was cought steallin in Saudi Arabia and was guilty, I would assume that I would be one limb less on my return. I do not steal but that is also why I do not travel to Saudi Arabia.

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.

First off I think you very uninformed in much of everything in life and you do nothave any experiece to draw from. You live in a google world and that is not life. You are by far verey ignorant about much of what you speak of. So first go to that pallative care unit near you and get an eye full.

[noahbody]

All Canadian governments have been doing this since the death penalty was abolished in the 1970's. Up until now, it was the tradition.

Faulder (1999) was the first Canadian to be executed in the US in 46 years. How many times since 76 has this policy/tradition been acted upon?

[JerrySeinfeld]

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!

It is the question - and the media climate of the day.

However, even if your stats are right, wouldn't it be wonderfully ironic if the government adopted capital punishment at a time when the majority of Canadians oppose it, just as the government years ago eliniminated capital punishment at a time when most Canadians supported it?

I would love that - if only to see Jack Layton's head explode.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I'll say it again:

The lesson from all of this?

Next time you're in Texas, don't kill someone. Not only kill, but capital murder. If you can restrain yourself in this one specific area, you will be ok. If you can't, sorry bub - you're gonna die.

[myata]

.. it, just as the government years ago eliniminated capital punishment at a time when most Canadians supported it?

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.

[Higgly]

I'll say it again:

The lesson from all of this?

Next time you're in Texas, don't kill someone. Not only kill, but capital murder. If you can restrain yourself in this one specific area, you will be ok. If you can't, sorry bub - you're gonna die.

No. The Lesson from all of this is that the next time you're in Texas, don't let somebody who is important think that you can lighten their case load by looking like you might have committed murder.

[JerrySeinfeld]

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.

The opposition has had multiple opportunities to topple this government on any number of issues and has not - which means the majority of parlaiment indeed supoprts this government.

But you're skirting the issue. This is not about abolishing capital punishment. It's about respecting sovereign law of foreign states.

[bk59]

This is statement contrary to most surveys or polls, in which supoprt fo the death penalty hovers around 70% and has never droppped below 50%.

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.

Before gonig to the effort, I would rather point out that since you are calling on the government to do something (ie. lobby other governments), the onus is upon you to show us why.

You quoted the stats, therefore the onus would be on you to show them. Nevertheless, as shown above, you are wrong on those stats.

Here is where a sitting government gets to choose when it has to act for it's citizens.

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:

That means that every time a Canadian faces the death penalty abroad, the Canadian government will now need to pass public judgment on whether that country is a stable democracy - which opens the door to bitter diplomatic disputes.

This is perhaps not the best way to continue good relations with other countries.

So then, my friendly progressives - how does it feel to be on the "but this is the way thing have always been done, we CAN'T chang now!" side of the argument?

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.

[JerrySeinfeld]

No. The Lesson from all of this is that the next time you're in Texas, don't let somebody who is important think that you can lighten their case load by looking like you might have committed murder.

Ya - that too.

...or Flordia too. They execute fairly frequently down there too.

Basically don't commit capital murder in a state that has the death penatly. Then you won't have to worry about this darned policy.

[bk59]

Wilber I fully agree where laws are concerned. But here, we are talking about a policy. A vast difference IMO.

By not lobbying to have Smith's death sentence commuted the Conservatives are not breaking any law. All it is a change of policy. Anyone in disagreement should contact their MP to voice their objection. I would bet that very few posting here that this is a travesty have not taken that simple step. It would be interesting to know.

Now if you are saying the Conservatives broke a Canadian law, what is that law?

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.

[Higgly]

Ya - that too.

...or Flordia too. They execute fairly frequently down there too.

Basically don't commit capital murder in a state that has the death penatly. Then you won't have to worry about this darned policy.

Well no. The lesson is don't be accused of murder down there. In the cracker states, to be accused is pretty much to be guilty.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Higgly

[bk59]

Faulder (1999) was the first Canadian to be executed in the US in 46 years. How many times since 76 has this policy/tradition been acted upon?

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.

[bk59]

But you're skirting the issue. This is not about abolishing capital punishment. It's about respecting sovereign law of foreign states.

No, you've got the issue wrong. Canada always respected the law of the USA. It's not like we were invading or anything.

This is about the Canadian government advocating for its citizens when they face actions that would be illegal in Canada.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Well no. The lesson is don't be accused of murder down there. In the cracker states, to be accused is pretty much to be guilty.

ohhhh - I see what your doing now. Forgive me - I mistakenly thought you were making a point about the topic at hand - ie. the Canadian Government's "outlandish" policy to allow host countries to apply the law of the land to all capital murderers equally.

Forgive me - now I see you're making a stilted broad brush generalization about an entire society! Gee I thought lefty lib wingnuts were above such non-progressive improprieties.

[Guest American Woman]

This is about the Canadian government advocating for its citizens when they face actions that would be illegal in Canada.

But when they're not in Canada, Canadian laws don't apply. That's the bottom line. Some of our laws differ. Should Americans go to Canada and abide by Canadian laws-- or by American laws?

[Higgly]

ohhhh - I see what your doing now. Forgive me - I mistakenly thought you were making a point about the topic at hand - ie. the Canadian Government's "outlandish" policy to allow host countries to apply the law of the land to all capital murderers equally.

Forgive me - now I see you're making a stilted broad brush generalization about an entire society! Gee I thought lefty lib wingnuts were above such non-progressive improprieties.

The fool leads unto rocky ground and then shouts, "Why are you walking on rocky ground?.

[JerrySeinfeld]

But when they're not in Canada, Canadian laws don't apply. That's the bottom line. Some of our laws differ. Should Americans go to Canada and abide by Canadian laws-- or by American laws?

Exactly, AW. It's a simple as that. The left wingnuts will try to bamboozle and morally tap dance their way into thinking they MUST be right (after all, it's the evil Stephen Harper!).

But the law of the land is the law of the land - you gotta live by it.

Most importantly, though, it is the perogative of the government not to lobby for commutation of a death sentence - and the sitting government of the day has that perogative.

If you disagree - too bad. Get elected and change it.

[Higgly]

I agree. I think that we need to do is enact in Canada a law which says that Americans who come to Canada and get accused of murder should be subject to the death penalty and everybody else should be treated as per Canadian law. How's that sound?

Edited November 9, 2007 by Higgly

[JerrySeinfeld]

I agree. I think that we need to do is enact in Canada a law which says that Americans who come to Canada and get accused of murder should be subject to the death penalty and everybody else should be treated as per Canadian law. How's that sound?

Sounds like garden variety raving anti americanism

[Higgly]

Sounds like garden variety raving anti americanism

I see. So you see a down side to the death penalty, do you?

[JerrySeinfeld]

I see. So you see a down side to the death penalty, do you?

no - but I do see an attempt at setting up a straw man.

[Guest coot]

Why they wouldn't make reinstating the death penalty part of their platform, rather than acting passive-aggressively in favour of it by not contesting other countries' use of it on Canadian citizens? Most CPCers on this board seem to be in favour of it. Why not come clean and make it a matter of policy?

[Guest American Woman]

I agree. I think that we need to do is enact in Canada a law which says that Americans who come to Canada and get accused of murder should be subject to the death penalty and everybody else should be treated as per Canadian law. How's that sound?

Fine by me, even though Canadians aren't being singled out for the death penalty in America.

You might want to check out what "Voyage.gc.ca-- Essential Information for Canadians Abroad" says about travel to the U.S. (emphasis not mine):

LOCAL LAWS AND CUSTOMS

A serious violation may lead to a jail sentence or, in some states, a death sentence. The jail sentence will be served in local prisons. Canada and the United States do however have a treaty which permits a Canadian imprisoned in the United States to request a transfer to Canada to complete the sentence in a Canadian prison. The transfer requires the agreement of both Canadian and American authorities. Canadian citizenship confers no immunity, special protection or rights to preferential treatment.

Link

[bk59]

It does not matter it be over crowded as of course with all the ammenities it is a betetr life then many free people have.

Just what do you think they are doing. We can not force any inmate into any of the work programs and we do pay them a pitence for when they do, but yes prisonser if they choose can watch tv and play pool for most of the daytime hours, or hours out of they cells. Just as they have small stores where they buy goodies etc when they want to. Say popcorn for that movie tonight. No need to google anything just look up Kinston Penitenery and get the info from there.

it is a dam site better then many things that free people get. Or depending on your area go to any federal prison and take a tour, that will open you eyes.

This is really stupid logic. So because there are people in this world who live in slums, we should turn our prisons into slums? Prisoners should not live in luxury, but I have yet to see where they do. Just people like you with your anecdotes and "look how soft Canada is on crime" statements. Is the system perfect? No. Do prisoners live in luxury? No.

Again you are wrong, I said that when we sntence a foreign er to jail they wnat to serve their time here in Canada because our jails are like hotels. They figh any attempt to be transferred home. That being the case I feel then that Canadian citizens should serve the time in the country where they offend, and it is not Canada's duty to bring them home at all. We did not sentence him, so we should not be responsible for him.

Actually, what you said was: "Just as we make foreign offenders serve their time here". That is much different than saying that they want to stay here and that they fight attempts to move them. Canada's responsibility towards its citizens has nothing to do with who sentences the citizen. That responsibility comes simply from the fact that the person is a Canadian citizen.

I just watched my father die of prostrate cancer last May and yes in pallative care they euthanise people every day. They do not talk about it, but it is done each and ever day of the year. Go to any pallative care facility and see for your self but get ready to be waken up and it will not be a slow waking. Foolish people like you need to go see this fro your self.

You over exaggerate. It is true, this is done. But hardly every day. Many people refuse to do this, some because it is illegal, others because they are morally against it.

That also does not change the fact that this argument of yours has no relevance to the topic. Even if it is done in Canada with terminally ill patients, that is not the same as killing a healthy person. Especially since those actions are considered illegal.

Wrong again. I said earlier if I was cought steallin in Saudi Arabia and was guilty, I would assume that I would be one limb less on my return. I do not steal but that is also why I do not travel to Saudi Arabia.

Well I do appreciate your willingness to be subjected to treatment that would be illegal in Canada. I suppose you think that Canada should never speak out about behaviour that we find unacceptable. After all, why should we advocate for human rights in China when it's all their business anyway? I prefer a country that stands for something myself. And a country that is particularly willing to take that stand when it comes to their own citizens.

First off I think you very uninformed in much of everything in life and you do nothave any experiece to draw from. You live in a google world and that is not life. You are by far verey ignorant about much of what you speak of. So first go to that pallative care unit near you and get an eye full.

Of course you do. I mean, it's much easier to judge me as uninformed than face the fact that this new policy is a hypocritical stance for Canada to take. You don't know me at all. The fact that I use google does not somehow limit the experience I have. You have no idea whether I have ever been to a palliative care unit or not.

These attempts at diversion do not change the main issue in this topic: Canada has become a less principled player on the world stage because of recent actions taken by our government. We now think less of our citizens than we do of foreigners within our borders. Ironically, this perhaps does seem very Canadian.

[Fortunata]

But when they're not in Canada, Canadian laws don't apply. That's the bottom line. Some of our laws differ. Should Americans go to Canada and abide by Canadian laws-- or by American laws?

Nobody is saying a Canadian (or anyone else for that matter) in the USA shouldn't abide by USA laws. In fact this isn't really about the USA at all; it's only all about the Canadian government.