Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[old_bold&cold]

To all those sppewing the garbage about Canada and the death penalty. Wake up and smell the roses. Canada does not have the death penalty, does it? Since we can only make laws for ourselves and not those of other countries, why would it be our government duty to intervene in all cases where one or more of our citizens went to another country and broke the law? We can only ask that we consider that here we do not have the death penalty and we would never extradite anyone to a country where that is on the table. This is all we can do as we do not have the right to interfere in foreign countries politics or especially their justice systems.

Flap your gums and throw tantrums all you like and it only shows that you are impotent and have no reason to be given any standing, as you cna not see where we here have seperation of politics and justice, and you then want us to go into other lands and do what we would never stand for here in Canada? Shame on you and all who think this way.

Canada has a very good reputation abroad and we are seen as being fair in our deallings with foreign countries, but if we start trying to push our justice over the justice of these foreign lands, it will not be long before we are seen as interfering, and from there hatred will follow. Canadians when they travel are pretty much informed of the things that they need to watch out for legal wise, at least that has been the case with my wife and I when we book trips with travel agencies. Now if we decide to break any laws while we are in foreign lands we know that will face a justice system that may be far different from our own. That is something we have to agree to, or we just do not travel to that country. In the case of the USA, they have pretty much the same laws as we do, but they definitely have different punishments. What we must not forget is that is guy everyone is talking about, is not saying he was tried and things were wrong. He admits to killing these two people and his only issue is that the state where he did this is going to put him to death. The state definitely does not want to send this guy back to Canada because we will let him out after a few more years, and that is not what the state would even commute the sentence to. There he will serve time until he dies in prison. If they could make him do twice that they would as he killed two people. The state has a reasonable position in this and I can see why they do not trust the Canadian authorities to do what they feel is right. It really should end right there, as for us to go any further then we are forcing our political will on to a foreign justice system. As I sid earlier we would not stand for political intervention into our courts, so why is it that people want us to do so here?

[Wilber]

To all those sppewing the garbage about Canada and the death penalty. Wake up and smell the roses. Canada does not have the death penalty, does it? Since we can only make laws for ourselves and not those of other countries, why would it be our government duty to intervene in all cases where one or more of our citizens went to another country and broke the law?

Because it is a government's fundamental duty to intervene on behalf of its citizens. It's a very simple concept.

[Guest American Woman]

The holes are there. I didn't poke them. You wouldn't be at war if your nation didn't believe "there are things worth killing for." In this case, the lives lost on 9-11.

I dont think this is a valid arguement.

War by its very nature is kill or be killed. I think on that there is consensus. But with war and the assignment of a nations men and women to that arena comes some responsibilities. I am suggesting that our soldiers (and yours) are given a sort of carte blanche (ROE applies) to be judge and jury and executioner all in one. IOW, when engaged by the enemy, soldiers are allowed to take life as theirs is in jeopardy should they not. I have no problem with that and likely neither do others.

So, to that end our soldiers are not allowed to kill surrendered enemies. They must safeguard them and transport them to a secure place. Assumingly they are kept captive until the end of the war . I know of none that are summarily killed while captive. (ok we know it has happened but lets leave that out as the killers were prosecuted)

So, the murderers in our countries are captured and transported to jail for prosecution. Upon conviction they should not be murdered by the state.

The same applies to ones own self. I do not support capital punishment . IIRC neither do you. But I certainly would not hesitate to kill someone in my own defence since that is exactly what they were trying to do to me.

So yes, some things are worth killing for. My life is one. My family is another , of course on the assumption that they were being threatened with imminent death.

But as a state sanctioned rule , not a chance.

And that is why war cannot be put in the same context as capital punishment.

You make really good points, but the line of thought, the emotion behind it, etc.-- that some things are worth killing for (ie: the lives lost on 9-11)-- is the same. People heard about the loss of lives and the reaction was to go to war, which is to say, go kill people. It didn't matter that these people weren't even the ones who did the killing on 9-11. We wanted them dead because to us they posed the threat of killing us; yet but for the fact that we were over there shooting at them, they would not have been shooting at us. Not one person we killed in Afghanistan killed anyone in either of our countries. So it's not even self defense in the truest sense. It's only self defense in that we think they pose a threat to us, so we went over there to kill them first. And our countries both supported this, even though we knew innocent people would be killed too. Babies, children, grandparents.

By the same token, some support the death penalty because they don't want a murderer to be free to kill again. And what about people who testify against a murderer? I wouldn't feel real safe knowing they could be back on the streets again one day. These are the reasons I used to support the death penalty. An eye-for-an-eye had absolutely nothing to do with it.

So even though I don't support the death penalty myself, I don't see it as hypocritical that Harper would respect that Montana does have it and respect where the families of the murder victims are coming from in that regard. I see his decision as respect for the fact that the governor of Montana is going to look out for the people in Montana first and foremost-- as Harper continues to look out for people in Canada first and foremost.

So if Canada refuses to extradite someone who is in Canada to the States that's a completely different situation than asking us to abide by Canada's laws in the States just because the murderer is Canadian.

Continue to work with the UN, world court, or whatever in encouraging all nations to abolish the death penalty. That's the route to take.

The U.S., unlike all the other nations people are mentioning in this thread where hands are cut off, etc., is a stable democracy, with laws similar to Canada's, where one gets as fair a trial as one would get in Canada. I think that's what Harper is respecting (and I'm no fan of Harper). If I'm wrong, and the majority of Canadians feel strongly about this, from what I understand, a vote of confidence (non-confidence?) could get him out before he could start making any major changes within Canada. So recognizing the fact that going to bat for Smith would in reality accomplish nothing, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[myata]

To all those sppewing the garbage about Canada and the death penalty. Wake up and smell the roses. Canada does not have the death penalty, does it?

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.

[old_bold&cold]

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.

You again are not seeing what is right in front of you. We do not have the death penalty in Canada. It is not even open for arguement, accept by those who think they know something that everyone else does not. Have you heard Harper say he is willing to reopen the death penalty issue? No, because he said directly that he does not want to revisit that. Snce Harper is known for doing as he says he would, why is it that you think this is some underhanded method of revisitting the policy. If anything it is the alarmists like you who are reopening this issue.

As for it being a fundamental duty for a government to intervene on behalf of all its citizens go, where do you get this? It is not written in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why do you think that it is the goverments duty to intervene on your behalf if you break laws while outside of the country? They only duty is to see that you are treated fairly and humanly, that is it. It does not say that you get to break laws and then not be punished. The are there to first see if there is evidence of what you are charged with, and then to see that you have support at trial and the trial is fair according to the justice of the land you are in. That it it for government duty goes. You travelled and you broke the laws, that would be the facts.

This is what happens when people think that the government is their keeper and will be all things to all people. To start with the government can not do much of anything if you break the laws in fooreign lands. They can make pleadings for leniency, but if the courts dismiss them then that is it. You are responsible for your own actions in foreign lands, just as you are responsible for laws you break here. The only difference is that courts and customs of the foreign countries are probably not the same as they are here, but you should have made yourself aware of these things before travelling.

[M.Dancer]

Snce Harper is known for doing as he says he would, why is it that you think this is some underhanded method of revisitting the policy.

As much as I think most canadians hope you are right .....

INCOME TRUSTS

...thank you

[Fortunata]

Have you heard Harper say he is willing to reopen the death penalty issue? No, because he said directly that he does not want to revisit that. Snce Harper is known for doing as he says he would, why is it that you think this is some underhanded method of revisitting the policy.

Harper double-speaks on a regular basis. He says one thing while doing exactly the opposite. Kyoto, capital murder by a state.

Once again, you either believe in capital punishment or you don't. Those who say they don't, don't anywhere. Those who do hedge their criteria.

[Smallc]

As much as I think most canadians hope you are right .....

INCOME TRUSTS

...thank you

What was the other one....oh yeah, I will drop the gst if gas goes over 80 cents. funny how things change when your in power.

[old_bold&cold]

The whole income trusts issue was one where time and events made it so he did have to reverse himself on that issue, and the same with any other reverses he made. In all you will see that it was first examined and then decisions made in the benefit to the public at large. It is not like the Liberals who reversed every time they thought they could score points or make under handed deals.

Harper is a saint compared to those of the Liberal ranks, and the voters can see that. The one way to get the issue of the detah penalty to again come forward is to stir up the people. That last time it was voted on it wasa whipped vote because it would have never passed otherwise. Those who have any brains will see that it is very stupid to again bring this issue up, as today there are just too many people that would side on the pro death penalty with certain conditions. Harper and the CPC in general would not want this again to be brought back to be revisited, even though today it would probably play against abolishing the death penalty. Too many events and upcoming trials that would be high profile for this issue. So it is better left alone and it will stay that way.

[myata]

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.

[Smallc]

The whole income trusts issue was one where time and events made it so he did have to reverse himself on that issue, and the same with any other reverses he made. In all you will see that it was first examined and then decisions made in the benefit to the public at large. It is not like the Liberals who reversed every time they thought they could score points or make under handed deals.

Harper is a saint compared to those of the Liberal ranks, and the voters can see that. The one way to get the issue of the detah penalty to again come forward is to stir up the people. That last time it was voted on it wasa whipped vote because it would have never passed otherwise. Those who have any brains will see that it is very stupid to again bring this issue up, as today there are just too many people that would side on the pro death penalty with certain conditions. Harper and the CPC in general would not want this again to be brought back to be revisited, even though today it would probably play against abolishing the death penalty. Too many events and upcoming trials that would be high profile for this issue. So it is better left alone and it will stay that way.

But, he should not be making promises so easily.

[noahbody]

All three incidents (policy change, not signing the convention, and the opinion poll) indeed indicate that Harpers cons do support death penalty

I would agree with you if they didn't sign the convention. Only problem is you're basing your opinion on false information. The government is signing he convention.

[Wilber]

As for it being a fundamental duty for a government to intervene on behalf of all its citizens go, where do you get this?

History, the way nations have always taken responsibility for and acted on behalf their citizens. That is a governments job. That's why governments exist, or are supposed to. What does having "Canada" on the front of your passport mean if your government is not willing to take any action for you. Where did you get the idea that it isn't.

You are right we do not have the death penalty in Canada. We have decided that we do not put Canadians to death. Our government has decided that it is OK if other governments do.

Because this issue fits your prejudices, it seems you are OK with the idea that our government can chose to represent it's citizens according to its own prejudices or the flavour of the day, without regard for our own country's laws, its own surveys, Parliament or anyone else.

They only duty is to see that you are treated fairly and humanly, that is it.

\

Exactly, capital punishment is not considered humane in Canada. Why would we consider it humane somewhere else and not do what we can to prevent it happening to one of our citizens? It has also been declared "cruel and unusual punishment" by the US Supreme Court.

Don't get hung up on Smith, as far as I am concerned he is a scumbag who can rot in hell but I am a private individual and am allowed to feel that way. Our government is not. Its duty is to uphold the country's principals as defined in our laws and represent all its citizens according to those principals, scumbags or saints.

[myata]

I would agree with you if they didn't sign the convention. Only problem is you're basing your opinion on false information. The government is signing he convention.

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.

[Wilber]

That last time it was voted on it wasa whipped vote because it would have never passed otherwise.

Check your facts, both votes taken on capital punishment 1976 and 1987 were free votes.

[noahbody]

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.

Mine is coming from the second sentence of the article you quoted. If you don't go past the first sentence, I can see why you are misinformed.

[myata]

Mine is coming from the second sentence of the article you quoted. If you don't go past the first sentence, I can see why you are misinformed.

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"?

[noahbody]

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".

No, that doesn't change the fact that your statement of Canada not signing was 100% false.

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?

It means, in his personal opinion, Canada is no longer taking a leadership role because they aren't giving money along with their support. How you interpret that as "Canada is now less certain..." I have no idea.

And who is "misinformed"?

Are you denying your statement that Canada is not signing was false?

[old_bold&cold]

Check your facts, both votes taken on capital punishment 1976 and 1987 were free votes.

You are wrong I lived thru both and the party's all voted the party line and it never would have passed other wise. The people were not for abolishing the death penalty but rather wanted it limited. It was the political party's that made the decision. The time was right for a meeting of the minds with the party's and it was past. But if you look at all the polling you will find that the majority of the people were still not so willing to abolish it, and rather limit its use. But it does not matter any way. Since you and others are so confident that the people would vote that way again, it would be stuoid for the government to even try changing it now. So whay all the garbage out this. It is only a problem to those whe see plots and ghosts in ever thing that gets done.

Harper said he and his party do not want to revisit the death penalty issue and that is that. As for policy where we do not take every avenue to stop other countries from using the death penalty goes, that is not our problem, and yes if a Canadian citizen is given the death penalty, that is not unhumane behaviour, get a brain man. If they slow tortured him to death then yes atht would be unhumane, but there are few places that do the death penalty in unhumane ways.

[myata]

No, that doesn't change the fact that your statement of Canada not signing was 100% false.

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.

[Wilber]

You are wrong I lived thru both and the party's all voted the party line and it never would have passed other wise.

I was around then as well.

Link

Link

Show us some links to your polls that show a majority of Canadians want some form of capital punishment restored.

Yes it is stupid for the government to make it an issue again.

[myata]

Yes it is stupid for the government to make it an issue again.

Agreed. But what if the nature - calls?

[Fortunata]

But if you look at all the polling you will find that the majority of the people were still not so willing to abolish it, and rather limit its use. But it does not matter any way. Since you and others are so confident that the people would vote that way again, it would be stuoid for the government to even try changing it now. So whay all the garbage out this. It is only a problem to those whe see plots and ghosts in ever thing that gets done.

I don't know where you are getting this polling information since this summer the Conservative government took it's own survey and found only 1 in 5 supported the death penalty. ONE in FIVE. Then they go pull this horse shit. And pull it is since they already know that the vast majority of Canadians don't believe in the death penalty. How's that for going against people's wishes - that's your plots and ghosts?

Harper said he and his party do not want to revisit the death penalty issue and that is that.

You do not seem like a stupid person unless being so partisan makes one so. He already has revisited the death penalty issue and decided that it should be changed and so he did. How can you not see that?

[old_bold&cold]

I don't know where you are getting this polling information since this summer the Conservative government took it's own survey and found only 1 in 5 supported the death penalty. ONE in FIVE. Then they go pull this horse shit. And pull it is since they already know that the vast majority of Canadians don't believe in the death penalty. How's that for going against people's wishes - that's your plots and ghosts?

I was talking about the polls back when the first vote on the Death Penalty tok place. We know that today there is a split in this if it were limited, but majority would not go for unlimited death penalties.

You do not seem like a stupid person unless being so partisan makes one so. He already has revisited the death penalty issue and decided that it should be changed and so he did. How can you not see that?

I am wondering just where you say Harper has revisited this, as it is only you and several others who have said anything about this. Harper made a policy change and that is all it was, and he explained why and how that came about. He said nothing about the death penalty at all. In fact it has only been here that most of this is being talked about, as the media ran this up the pole and let it die as really there is no issue here at all. As I said we here in Canada do not have the death penalty, and here in Canada is the only place where we really have influence. So any talk outside of Canada, really has nothing to do with our government. We will in fact act to intervene where justice seems unfair and the courts one sided, but that is a case by case thing as it should be. Our embassies will always be there to assist people to find lawyers and help defend against unwarranted charges, but that is where it has to end. I also do not want any Canadian sentenced to prison in a foreign country brought back here to serve his time.

[bk59]

Since we can only make laws for ourselves and not those of other countries, why would it be our government duty to intervene in all cases where one or more of our citizens went to another country and broke the law? ... we do not have the right to interfere in foreign countries politics or especially their justice systems.

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.

Canada has a very good reputation abroad and we are seen as being fair in our deallings with foreign countries, but if we start trying to push our justice over the justice of these foreign lands, it will not be long before we are seen as interfering, and from there hatred will follow.

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?

It really should end right there, as for us to go any further then we are forcing our political will on to a foreign justice system. As I sid earlier we would not stand for political intervention into our courts, so why is it that people want us to do so here?

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.

It does not say that you get to break laws and then not be punished. The are there to first see if there is evidence of what you are charged with, and then to see that you have support at trial and the trial is fair according to the justice of the land you are in. That it it for government duty goes. You travelled and you broke the laws, that would be the facts.

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.

We will in fact act to intervene where justice seems unfair and the courts one sided, but that is a case by case thing as it should be. Our embassies will always be there to assist people to find lawyers and help defend against unwarranted charges, but that is where it has to end. I also do not want any Canadian sentenced to prison in a foreign country brought back here to serve his time.

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?