Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[Wilber]

Just because it isn't YOUR morality (or that of the liberal governments of past decades) doesn't make it wrong.

Just to clarify one thing. The second free vote confirming the abolition of the death penalty was held in 1987. A Conservative majority under Mulroney was in power.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Wilber

[JerrySeinfeld]

Has nothing to do with the sovereignty rights of other countries. They can tell us to pound sand if they wish. No hard feelings. It has everything to do with our governments obligations to its own people.

No, the death penalty was outlawed by Parliament by a free vote and confirmed eleven years later by another free vote. It is the law of the land for our citizens. What self respecting country wouldn't at least make an effort to have that respected for its citizens in another country? Even if Canada had capital punishment it is the responsibility of government to try and intervene on behalf of its citizens.

Our law as confirmed by two free votes in Parliament says it is wrong.

I don't subscribe to group think. I do not respect governments of any stripe who try to do end runs around our laws.

It is the Harper government and you who are trying to impose your morality on the country in spite of its laws.

Please show me where it is written that lobbying to save murderers from death row is the obligation and resposibility of the sitting government.

[Wilber]

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%.

Let's see em.

[Smallc]

So you are backtracking? Because you said that you didn't support capital punishment because there was a chance a mistake could be made.

And you are wrong again, we DO have a right to hold murderers in for the full length of their sentence. That is indisputable.

I never said that as the only reason I didn't support it. I have said several times that we have no right to take a life. As for holding murderers, we do have a right to hold them for the whole sentence, but rarely do if they have been rehabilitated.

[Wilber]

Please show me where it is written that lobbying to save murderers from death row is the obligation and resposibility of the sitting government.

Show me where a sitting government gets to chose when it has to act for it's citizens.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Let's see em.

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.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Show me where a sitting government gets to chose when it has to act for it's citizens.

So you can't show me. In other words, it's NOT their resposibility nor are they obliged to do anything with respect to lobbying foreign governments to commute death sentences for convicted murderers.

It is the policy of this government not to do so. Since you are asking them to reinstate the lobbying policy, the onus is upon you to demonstrate why they should.

[Wilber]

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.

I am only expecting the government to act for its citizens according to the laws of our country. If you wish a government that only respects our laws in Canada but has no respect for them when it comes to Canadian citizens when they are in other countries, you are a fool.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Wilber

[JerrySeinfeld]

Show me where a sitting government gets to chose when it has to act for it's citizens.

OK - you asked for it:

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

Now please answer my question. Show me where they are obgliged, required or resposible to lobby.

[jdobbin]

Ironically, the only blanket policy is the former one. The new policy will be protest based on merit, done on a case by case basis. Based on this, the Sun endorses the new policy, they're just not smart enough to realize it.

I have never heard that it a case by case merit system. I heard it is a blanket policy for the U.S.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I am only expecting the government to act for its citizens according to the laws of our country. If you wish a government that only respects our laws in Canada but has no respect for them when it comes to Canadian citizens when they are in other countries, you are a fool.

Canada's laws are not absolute. If you break the law in another country, you are subject to that country's laws.

Er...I did get a speeding ticket in the U.S. once. I tried telling the officer that I was abiding by the Canadian speed limits. My next course of action is to lobby Stephen Harper to lobby the U.S. government to annul the ticket.

[trex]

"My personal view is that in the case of serial killers and murderers of police officers, for instance, that it would be appropriate in those circumstances". -- Tony Clement

(Regarding Capital Punishment)

Edited November 9, 2007 by trex

[JerrySeinfeld]

"My personal view is that in the case of serial killers and murderers of police officers, for instance, that it would be appropriate in those circumstances". -- Tony Clement

(Regarding Capital Punishment)

And this is bad why?

[bk59]

It was just a little while ago that prisoners at Kingston penitenery threatened violence because the cable tv was droppign a show they all wanted to see. I knwo from my own experience visiting someone, that Ottawa Inneis road Jail has pool tables, and cable tv. Most prisons have exercise yards and well as indoor gyms, Some of the low security federal prisons even have golf driving ranges. They have conjucal visits from wifes and even paid lovers. Yes, here in Canada, our worst of the worst prisons are thousands of times better then live of freedom in third world countries.

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.

Canada is not the one who should be footing the bill for rehabilitaing any foreign offenders period. Just as we make foreign offenders serve their time here, we should also understand that same need when it comes to our own. In most cases the family can travel to see there family member where he is and never should it be a determining issue in placing a prisoner, as for family visits. It should come down to security risk and level of dentention to address that risk.

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.

Anyway it is done each and every day here in Canada with the act of pallitive care. So do you want thta to also stop and let this people suffer all the way to death comes to take them? We put down a vicious dog without even trying to rehabilitate him, and I like dogs. But we try to make vicious killers into normal people, when all the stats show that the largest majority of those we release and say they are rehabilitated, reoffend and usually take more lives in doing so. I would rathe try to rehab the dog and dput down the person to tell you the truth. But we do not do that now do we?

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.

But you will want the government to make sure all you travel papers and passport are reissued, and emergency money loaned to you, so you can pay for food and lodgings. Me I draw the line after they make sure I am treated fairly and secure my travels. I do not expect them to be like a big brother who will pull me out of trouble I willingly get involved in.

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.

No that is left sided govrenment thinking.

...

Fight over it all you like, it is just what the people asked for in the last election and is exactly what they are getting.

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.

[capricorn]

I am only expecting the government to act for its citizens according to the laws of our country.

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?

[JerrySeinfeld]

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.

[trex]

And this is bad why?

I am not pointing it out because its bad, but to show it is very much on their agenda. And not only Tony Clement-

"the media pressed Stephen Harper to answer questions about social issues including abortion, the definition of marriage, and the death penalty. Harper's response in respect of each issue appears to be that although a Harper government would not introduce a bill on those issues, Harper would allow a free vote on a private members bill on each of those issues."

http://www.mondopolitico.com/elections/can...onservative.htm

[JerrySeinfeld]

I am not pointing it out because its bad, but to show it is very much on their agenda. And not only Tony Clement-

"the media pressed Stephen Harper to answer questions about social issues including abortion, the definition of marriage, and the death penalty. Harper's response in respect of each issue appears to be that although a Harper government would not introduce a bill on those issues, Harper would allow a free vote on a private members bill on each of those issues."

http://www.mondopolitico.com/elections/can...onservative.htm

You mean democracy? heaven forbid!

[bk59]

Just because the Liberla left has been doing things like asking for all death penalties to be commuted, it is not there fore a tradition as it has alway been a political issue and the Charter of Rights only apply to people here in Canada, not in foreign lands.

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

But the Govenor of Montana has said that he does not wish to commute the sentence and if he did he would not agree to have the prisoner sent to Canada, as here we would reallease him on parole and in Montana Life sentences mean life with no parole and you die in jail.

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.

We must not be seen as doing this everytime as then we are seen as bleeding hearts and that weakens our case. I think Harpers approach is the right one and it does say that when we do intervene it is because we have valid reason to do so. As to the old we always intervene because we always think that you are wrong to kill a living being no matter what he has done. I know which one I would give more support to.

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.

[Higgly]

You mean democracy? heaven forbid!

Thanks for giving us your Hollywood perspective. Don't you have an appointment with Dr. Phil?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Thanks for giving us your Hollywood perspective. Don't you have an appointment with Dr. Phil?

Yes - democracy - what a dated and crude fantstical concept!

[Higgly]

Yes - democracy - what a dated and crude fantstical concept!

How you spell is like how you dress. Good spelling, like proper dress, is a sign of respect for those you engage.

[JerrySeinfeld]

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

God I love whats going on in this world right now - France and Australia too (more to do with cultural integration mind you).

Your statement above is a good microcosm. The vast new religion of "progressivism" is so deeply ingrained as the logical reductio that anything contrary to it is viewed with disdain, shock and outrage. In other words, new ideas like this new Harper policy is actually the fresh thinking, and the progressives are the ones begging for things to stay the same.

Are progressives the new conservatives and vise versa? Interesting.

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?

[myata]

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%.

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!

[bk59]

Isn't lobbying to commute a sentence also in accordance with the "morality of particular government members"?

Just because it isn't YOUR morality (or that of the liberal governments of past decades) doesn't make it wrong.

Your maknig the mistake of equating Liberal government policy with "Canadian morality" - which is something the Libs have (somewhat successfully) indoctrinated for years.

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.