Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[JerrySeinfeld]

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?

Not a bad point. But the issue at hand right now is whether or not Canada, as a matter of policy, will lobby foreign governments to provide Canadian Citizens with preferential treatment before that countries law. Har[pers gov't says no. They have that perogative, they have used it and that's that.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

This is the post I was responding to:

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

So in other words, if something is illegal in Canada, Canadians should be exempt from it, even outside of Canada. How is that not about the USA when a Canadian commits murder IN the USA? Why should a Canadian in America be treated any differently from an American in America? Why should what's illegal in Canada be of any significance in the United States?

Edited November 10, 2007 by American Woman

[JerrySeinfeld]

Nobody is saying a Canadian (or anyone else for that matter) in the USA shouldn't abide by USA laws.

Not explicitly. But they are saying that Canadians should not be equal before the law in foreign lands and should not be held to the same standard that everyone else in that country is held to. And they are saying that it should be government policy to lobby for this preferential treatment. And they aren't providing any logical reasons for this, other than "this is how the liberals did it".

[bk59]

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?

That is not what I am saying. Please don't misunderstand. I have said repeatedly that Canadian laws do not apply in the US. This is much different than saying that Canada should not advocate for what it believes in when it comes to Canadian citizens.

Americans have no right to ask that US law be applied in Canada. But they can certainly advocate for their position. Look at what happened when Canada began discussing the decriminalization of certain drugs. The US made it very clear that they disapproved of any decriminalization. (In fact, I believe that the US implied there would be repercussions if Canada enacted such laws.) But the US has the right to speak its mind and ask the Canadian government to change its mind. Just as Canada has that right to ask when it comes to the US.

Countries have the right to advocate for whatever they want. And they have a responsibility towards their citizens. These are the issues at play here. No one is saying that Canada should invade the US and enforce Canadian laws in the US. No one is saying that Canada should boycott US products if the US continues to use the death penalty.

From this perspective, please look again at what I said:

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

[Higgly]

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

Nobody is saying they are. And I have not only read the pamphlet, I have lived it.

Wait until some poor bugger comes up here and gets railroaded like a number of men have been up here. What are you gonna say when it shows up on 60 Minites?

Edited November 10, 2007 by Higgly

[Fortunata]

This is the post I was responding to:

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

So in other words, if something is illegal in Canada, Canadians should be exempt from it, even outside of Canada. How is that not about the USA when a Canadian commits murder IN the USA? Why should a Canadian in America be treated any differently from an American in America?

This is only about our government ADVOCATING, LOBBYING for one of it's own citizens for something this country doesn't believe in. Something like the USA government advocated for an American citizen in Singapore when he was sentenced to public lashing. Because the USA does not believe in public lashing. Just like that.

[bk59]

This is the post I was responding to:

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

So in other words, if something is illegal in Canada, Canadians should be exempt from it, even outside of Canada. How is that not about the USA when a Canadian commits murder IN the USA? Why should a Canadian in America be treated any differently from an American in America? Why should what's illegal in Canada be of any significance in the United States?

No one said Canadians should be exempt from anything. My statement certainly does not say that. Both American and Canadian prisoners in the US have the same right to have their death sentences commuted. Given that this right exists for everyone, why shouldn't the Canadian government ask for it? Especially since the law in Canada states that the death penalty is illegal. No one is being treated differently.

Besides, I have already pointed out an example where the USA has in fact ensured that its citizens get special treatment (Order 17 in Iraq). But there are numerous other examples where the US has at the very least taken the position that its citizens should get differential treatment. Take the outcry in the US when an American teenager was caned, I think it was in Singapore. Or the outcry that arises when those who express religious beliefs in a place like China are subjected to state action.

[bk59]

This is only about our government ADVOCATING, LOBBYING for one of it's own citizens for something this country doesn't believe in. Something like the USA government advocated for an American citizen in Singapore when he was sentenced to public lashing. Because the USA does not believe in public lashing. Just like that.

Exactly. You beat me to it.

[Higgly]

Take the outcry in the US when an American teenager was caned, I think it was in Singapore. Or the outcry that arises when those who express religious beliefs in a place like China are subjected to state action.

I can see you are a student of history. There was indeed a big reaction in the US over this kid who was convicted of vandalizing cars. Good for you. Welcome to MapleLeafWeb.

[JerrySeinfeld]

That is not what I am saying. Please don't misunderstand. I have said repeatedly that Canadian laws do not apply in the US. This is much different than saying that Canada should not advocate for what it believes in when it comes to Canadian citizens.

Americans have no right to ask that US law be applied in Canada. But they can certainly advocate for their position. Look at what happened when Canada began discussing the decriminalization of certain drugs. The US made it very clear that they disapproved of any decriminalization. (In fact, I believe that the US implied there would be repercussions if Canada enacted such laws.) But the US has the right to speak its mind and ask the Canadian government to change its mind. Just as Canada has that right to ask when it comes to the US.

Countries have the right to advocate for whatever they want. And they have a responsibility towards their citizens. These are the issues at play here. No one is saying that Canada should invade the US and enforce Canadian laws in the US. No one is saying that Canada should boycott US products if the US continues to use the death penalty.

From this perspective, please look again at what I said:

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

Your point is well made. But keep in mind, while the Canadian government has the right to ask the US to change it's mind, so too does the Canadian government have the right NOT to ask the US government to change it's mind.

Many people would concede that to some extent the government has a "responsibility" towards it's citizens. However many reasonable people would also question where that responsibility begins or ends. Is it absolute? That's up for debate.

For those of us on the right, we place less emphasis on the government taking resposibility for our actions and more emphasis on taking personal resposibility for your actions, be that in the health care realm, economically, or in this case, law and order.

Many reasonable people, who, contrary to the broadbrushers out there like higgly, aren't raving lunatics, believe that by committing and becoming convicted of capital murder in a foreign land, with full knowledge of the adult consequences, the argument for your home government standing up for your benefit becomes significantly weaker.

The short version? Many reasonable people don't think killers deserve a break - even if the government has the right to ask for one their behalf.

[bk59]

Not explicitly. But they are saying that Canadians should not be equal before the law in foreign lands and should not be held to the same standard that everyone else in that country is held to. And they are saying that it should be government policy to lobby for this preferential treatment. And they aren't providing any logical reasons for this, other than "this is how the liberals did it".

I guess if you don't read any posts then you could come to that conclusion.

First there is no preferential treatment.

It has also been pointed out that this is something that had been done in the past by multiple governments, not just the Liberals. And it has been pointed out that this new policy is a hypocritical stance for Canada to take. It makes no sense that we now try to protect foreigners within our borders more than we try to protect Canadian citizens abroad. It weakens our position with other countries because we do not appear principled. It weakens our relations with other countries because it now involves a very public determination on what we consider to be acceptable democracies or acceptable forms of the rule of law. And it sends the message to Canadians that their government does not take its responsibilities seriously enough to even ASK that Canadian get treated according to the principles of Canadian law.

While the death penalty is outlawed in Canada, Canada should be advocating against it, especially where Canadian citizens are concerned.

[bk59]

Your point is well made. But keep in mind, while the Canadian government has the right to ask the US to change it's mind, so too does the Canadian government have the right NOT to ask the US government to change it's mind.

Many people would concede that to some extent the government has a "responsibility" towards it's citizens. However many reasonable people would also question where that responsibility begins or ends. Is it absolute? That's up for debate.

For those of us on the right, we place less emphasis on the government taking resposibility for our actions and more emphasis on taking personal resposibility for your actions, be that in the health care realm, economically, or in this case, law and order.

Many reasonable people, who, contrary to the broadbrushers out there like higgly, aren't raving lunatics, believe that by committing and becoming convicted of capital murder in a foreign land, with full knowledge of the adult consequences, the argument for your home government standing up for your benefit becomes significantly weaker.

The short version? Many reasonable people don't think killers deserve a break - even if the government has the right to ask for one their behalf.

I can appreciate your perspective. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on where the line gets drawn between state responsibility and personal responsibility.

It's just that in this case, the policy change does not make a lot of sense. All it can possibly do is weaken Canada's position both internationally and domestically. We are now a country that sort of supports a ban on capital punishment. Domestically it is illegal. Internationally, we now have backed away from co-sponsoring a resolution at the UN. This can only be seen as a retreat by other countries. To further confuse the matter, we will go out of our way to protect foreigners in our country from being extradited to face the death penalty. And yet we won't even ask to do the same for our citizens abroad. Canadians facing charges in other countries will now be left wondering, is this country democratic enough? Will my government just abandon me? (This is of more concern for those falsely accused, or railroaded through a system, but still applies to anyone faced with criminal charges in another country.) And to top it all off, whenever a Canadian citizen is facing criminal charges, Canada must make a public determination on how democratic that country is. Diplomacy and good international relations require more flexibility than this. Sometimes it is better to speak to a country privately, rather than this kind of messy public pronouncement.

This is a very poor decision. One that should have been better thought out, and, given the nature of the topic, debated in Parliament.

[Wilber]

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.

Where have you been the last 29 pages. That is what this is about. A government that has abandoned its own laws when it comes to its own citizens. If the Canadian government is going to just sit back and let its citizens be put to death by another country without a murmur when the practice is outlawed in Canada, why not let the Americans make all our 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.

It's the penalty not the law. When are you going to figure that out. If the US institutes the death penalty for speeding, don't bother calling your government.

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.

Gawd, who the hell said they are breaking the law. They are not representing their citizens according to their own laws. They are making value judgments as to which Canadian citizens they will represent according to their own prejudices, not the principals contained in our laws. Bet your ass I've told them.

"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."

But not when other countries execute Canadians. Convenient.

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

Horsepucky, asking a government to commute a death penalty shows no disrespect for their sovereignty. Invading them would. It is a request, not a demand.

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

I would agree about not committing a murder but its a good thing Truscot, Marshall, Moran and Milgaard didn't live in Texas or Florida but I guess they never make mistakes down there.

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?

AW, for about the four hundredth time, it's not about how you enforce your laws, it's about how a Canadian government represents its citizens.

This is only about our government ADVOCATING, LOBBYING for one of it's own citizens for something this country doesn't believe in. Something like the USA government advocated for an American citizen in Singapore when he was sentenced to public lashing. Because the USA does not believe in public lashing. Just like that.

Of course, all governments try and intervene when one of their citizens is subject to a punishment that is considered cruel or unusual (or flat out illegal) in their own country. Except the present Canadian government. Such things are not mere policy, they are a matter of trust between a government and it's citizens. Canadians can now only trust their government to act according to its own prejudices, whatever they happen to be on the day. Canada's laws be damned.

[Guest American Woman]

This is only about our government ADVOCATING, LOBBYING for one of it's own citizens for something this country doesn't believe in. Something like the USA government advocated for an American citizen in Singapore when he was sentenced to public lashing. Because the USA does not believe in public lashing. Just like that.

Just because it's "just like that" doesn't make it right. I hope you're not under the misconception that I agree with whatever my government does. Personally, I don't think that American kid deserved to be treated any differently than a kid from Singapore who committed the same crime-- and many Americans felt the same way. I don't agree with the caning, but I don't think an American deserves any different sentencing than a citizen of Singapore gets. I believe people who go to nations with tough laws and BREAK the laws are fools.

I've also posted in the past about our government putting pressure on Canada regarding decriminalizing pot, and my view is that we have no right to do that; we have no right to try to impose our will on Canada. I recall several Canadians felt the same way.

[Wilber]

I've also posted in the past about our government putting pressure on Canada regarding decriminalizing pot, and my view is that we have no right to do that; we have no right to try to impose our will on Canada. I recall several Canadians felt the same way.

Depends on what you mean by pressure and imposing your will. Your government has every right to voice it's opinion and make requests.

[capricorn]

Mr. Smith speaks out from prison. He is sounding positively hopeful he will be released. Not at all what you'd expect from a convicted double murderer on death row.

"While there is a very distinct possibility I'll hit the streets again," he said, "I have no intention of asking to get back out for at least five years. ... I have to prepare myself, so that's what I'm looking at."

Mr. Smith, who has been kept informed by his lawyers of the debate unfolding in Canada over his fate, spent an hour offering his views about the issues and trying to reassure Canadians that he would pose no threat if transferred to an Alberta prison -- and eventually released.

----

"The whole idea in Canada has been to try and rehabilitate prisoners if possible," Mr. Smith said during the interview, held in a prison meeting room. "Why shouldn't I have the opportunity -- just because I came down to the United States and killed somebody? What difference does it make? If anybody else deserves an opportunity, then I should as well -- I'm a Canadian citizen."

----

There's definitely, there's no way I would kill anybody again. I wouldn't guarantee I wouldn't punch somebody in the mouth, but that's a long way from killing somebody."

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...2388ad3&p=1

A very optimistic fellow to say the least.

[noahbody]

"Why shouldn't I have the opportunity -- just because I came down to the United States and killed somebody? What difference does it make? If anybody else deserves an opportunity, then I should as well -- I'm a Canadian citizen."[/b][/i]

Now there's someone full of remorse. Let's let him out!

[Guest American Woman]

Depends on what you mean by pressure and imposing your will. Your government has every right to voice it's opinion and make requests.

Do you think 'putting pressure on' is part of that right? Would you be ok with the U.S. putting pressure on Canada every time your lawmakers wanted something for Canada that the U.S. didn't approve of?

I think 'voicing one's opinion' and 'asking' are quite different from 'putting pressure on.' It's been over 20 years. It would appear that Canada 'asked' and Montona said 'no.' Someone asked the question 'who is Canada hurting by asking' and I showed that it's hurting the families of the murder victims. No one responded to that. No comments about that.

This is a difficult issue for me because I don't support the death penalty and my state doesn't have it. But I also don't support one democratic nation trying to force its will on another, because that's what I think "pressuring" boils down to. Once you start supporting that, you have to support it when it's the U.S. trying to force its will on Canada too.

As a side note, Smith sounds as scary to me as ever in his interview. "...just because I came down to the United States and killed somebody? What difference does it make?" He killed these people 'to see what it's like to kill someone' and I hear remnants of that attitude in his 'just because...what difference does it make' comments. Scary.

I'd like to ask you Canadians a serious question. How would you feel about having him back in your country and possibly out on the streets again? All I can say to that is I hope no border guards would slip up should he ever decide to head south again. Seems to me abolishing the death penalty is one thing, but not having 'life with no possiblilty of parole' is difficult to understand in some cases. Are you all against that too?

But it does sound as if Canada's present government is taking a different stand on the death penalty than Canada has in the past.

Amnesty International is lashing out at the Canadian government's decision not to co-sponsor a United Nations resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty.

The Conservatives said Tuesday that Canada will vote in favour of the resolution when it is brought forward in the General Assembly in December, but will not join the 74 countries who have agreed to sponsor it. Link

I can see where that would be upsetting. I would be much more concerned over that than over the Smith issue.

Edited November 10, 2007 by American Woman

[Michael Bluth]

"Why shouldn't I have the opportunity -- just because I came down to the United States and killed somebody? What difference does it make? If anybody else deserves an opportunity, then I should as well -- I'm a Canadian citizen."

----

There's definitely, there's no way I would kill anybody again. I wouldn't guarantee I wouldn't punch somebody in the mouth, but that's a long way from killing somebody."

The Government has changed its policy for all Canadian citizens. Not just this guy.

His motivation for committing the crimes? To see what it was like to kill. wtf? Why is anyone defending this guy?

If he's promised to limit himself to punchin' people in the mouth he is clearly ready for release into the general population.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Depends on what you mean by pressure and imposing your will. Your government has every right to voice it's opinion and make requests.

And it has every right now to as well.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I can appreciate your perspective. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on where the line gets drawn between state responsibility and personal responsibility.

It's just that in this case, the policy change does not make a lot of sense. All it can possibly do is weaken Canada's position both internationally and domestically. We are now a country that sort of supports a ban on capital punishment. Domestically it is illegal. Internationally, we now have backed away from co-sponsoring a resolution at the UN. This can only be seen as a retreat by other countries. To further confuse the matter, we will go out of our way to protect foreigners in our country from being extradited to face the death penalty. And yet we won't even ask to do the same for our citizens abroad. Canadians facing charges in other countries will now be left wondering, is this country democratic enough? Will my government just abandon me? (This is of more concern for those falsely accused, or railroaded through a system, but still applies to anyone faced with criminal charges in another country.) And to top it all off, whenever a Canadian citizen is facing criminal charges, Canada must make a public determination on how democratic that country is. Diplomacy and good international relations require more flexibility than this. Sometimes it is better to speak to a country privately, rather than this kind of messy public pronouncement.

This is a very poor decision. One that should have been better thought out, and, given the nature of the topic, debated in Parliament.

To me this issue is alot like "gay marriage" on a global scale, where nations symbolize individuals and their policy on capital punishment symbolizes sexual orientation.

The qustion is: ar nations free to have their own policy on capital punishment? yes. Should other nations try to impose their beliefs on those nations? You decide.

[Wilber]

Do you think 'putting pressure on' is part of that right? Would you be ok with the U.S. putting pressure on Canada every time your lawmakers wanted something for Canada that the U.S. didn't approve of?

Again, define "putting pressure on" The US has a responsibility to act for its citizens and Canada for its. I expect the US to go to bat for its people. I wouldn't expect Canada to comply if it went against its own principals.

Seems to me abolishing the death penalty is one thing, but not having 'life with no possiblilty of parole' is difficult to understand in some cases. Are you all against that too?

Wouldn't surprise me if a large number of people who oppose the death penalty would be fine with that when it comes to first degree murder. My problem is the morality of putting someone to death, not the length of their sentences. It is not necessary to kill someone in order to safeguard society. The death penalty is nothing more than legalized vengeance. If taking revenge for revenge's sake is not a moral or legal thing for private individuals, neither is it for governments.

It would appear that Canada 'asked' and Montona said 'no.' Someone asked the question 'who is Canada hurting by asking' and I showed that it's hurting the families of the murder victims. No one responded to that. No comments about that.

The Canadian governments duty is to its own citizens as the US governments duty is to its citizens when one of them is subject to a punishment that is considered cruel and unusual in the US. There is a big difference between hurting someones feelings and putting them to death. You say you don't support the death penalty. Should a defense council not ask for clemency because it would hurt someones feelings?

I can see where that would be upsetting. I would be much more concerned over that than over the Smith issue.

Exactly, Smith himself is not the issue here. His crime speaks for itself and his guilt is not in question. Our government has decided to change its policy with regard to all Canadians facing the death penalty. Smith is just being used to rationalize that policy change. One has to wonder what the reaction will be when it happens to someone who is more sympathetic and the circumstances surrounding their conviction are questionable.

[noahbody]

The Canadian governments duty is to its own citizens as the US governments duty is to its citizens when one of them is subject to a punishment that is considered cruel and unusual in the US.

Is it considered cruel and unusual? I believe currently the answer is no.

[Wilber]

Is it considered cruel and unusual? I believe currently the answer is no.

According to our law, according to the US Supreme Court and according to the great majority of civilized countries on this planet, the answer is yes.

You are better off being convicted of murder in Mexico than in many US states.

[Guest American Woman]

Again, define "putting pressure on" The US has a responsibility to act for its citizens and Canada for its. I expect the US to go to bat for its people. I wouldn't expect Canada to comply if it went against its own principals.

The governor of Montana said Canada was putting pressure on him to release Smith to Canada. He said he was being approached about it before he was even sworn in.

Wouldn't surprise me if a large number of people who oppose the death penalty would be fine with that when it comes to first degree murder. My problem is the morality of putting someone to death, not the length of their sentences. It is not necessary to kill someone in order to safeguard society. The death penalty is nothing more than legalized vengeance. If taking revenge for revenge's sake is not a moral or legal thing for private individuals, neither is it for governments.

I've already given reasons other than revenge for supporting the death penalty. Some people insist that the death penalty is nothing more than revenge, but it's just not true. As I said before, when I did support the death penalty revenge had nothing to do with it.

The Canadian governments duty is to its own citizens as the US governments duty is to its citizens when one of them is subject to a punishment that is considered cruel and unusual in the US. There is a big difference between hurting someones feelings and putting them to death. You say you don't support the death penalty. Should a defense council not ask for clemency because it would hurt someones feelings?

The question was asked 'who is Canada hurting by asking for clemency?' and the answer is "the murder victims' families"-- and I think it goes a bit beyond "hurt feelings." Talk about minimizing what they are going through! If you had a child who was murdered because someone wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone, and someone was advocating putting the murderer in the situation where he might be free to walk the streets again, would your reaction be "hurt feelings??"

Exactly, Smith himself is not the issue here. His crime speaks for itself and his guilt is not in question. Our government has decided to change its policy with regard to all Canadians facing the death penalty. Smith is just being used to rationalize that policy change. One has to wonder what the reaction will be when it happens to someone who is more sympathetic and the circumstances surrounding their conviction are questionable.

No, your government has not decided to change its policy regarding all Canadians facing the death penalty-- only those facing the death penalty in stable democratic countries where the accused gets a fair trial. IE: the United States.