Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[myata]

I wouldn't confuse this thread with the other one, on the merits (and otherwise) of death penalty, which is running in the Moral issues. I would have less issues if Harper cons have openly debated their position, and if they could gather majority behind it, so be it - even if it meant return of death penalty.

The way they are trying to sneak in their little "moral" preferences behind the door and without any respect for democratic process speaks volumes about this crowd. It's utterly disgusting. There's no excuse. These people are plain and simple after power and they must be stopped.

[noahbody]

The way they are trying to sneak in their little "moral" preferences behind the door and without any respect for democratic process speaks volumes about this crowd. It's utterly disgusting. There's no excuse. These people are plain and simple after power and they must be stopped.

I'd characterize it as a knee jerk reaction to the media story in Montana of the bureaucrat floating the idea of bringing Smith back to Canada. In my opinion, they were trying to counter that message with tough on crime press. Realistically, it's only posturing. The Smith case had already been lobbied. He's the only one on death row.

[myata]

You call "only posturing" a backdoor reversal of one of a key principles of Canadian law? Right. Just shows the attitude of this crowd to the law and democracy: pay lip service, do as we please. Oh wait, isn't that what they do in our new gems of democracy of Afganistan, Iraq, and such (like till very recently, Pakistan, maybe)?

[Wilber]

I'd characterize it as a knee jerk reaction to the media story in Montana of the bureaucrat floating the idea of bringing Smith back to Canada. In my opinion, they were trying to counter that message with tough on crime press. Realistically, it's only posturing. The Smith case had already been lobbied. He's the only one on death row.

I'd characterize it as a major change in policy. Smith is just the convenient cover. The statement was, "We will not actively pursue bringing back to Canada murderers who have been tried in a democratic country that supports the rule of law". No clarification of which countries those might be. Obviously the US is one they have in mind but are there others and if so, which? No explanation of why they just specified murderers. It is idealogical to the core.

[myata]

Ideological and contemptuous to democracy to the core. Add to this word games with Kyoto, inherent dislike of the media, attack ads with no election and the picture (of the Harper's bunch) becomes quite clear.

[capricorn]

A Canadian double-murderer facing execution in Montana has taken the Conservative government to court over its sudden change of policy on the death penalty.

-----

On Wednesday, a team of high-profile Canadian lawyers filed an application on Smith's behalf at the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review of the government's new policy.

They say the government's reversal of its long-standing position on the use of the death penalty abroad constitutes a "tacit approval" of Smith's execution.

The application argues that Smith's constitutional rights and international law are being violated. It calls on the judge to declare the policy invalid and unlawful, restart efforts to have Smith's sentence commuted and award him court costs.

-----

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/11...4674086-cp.html

Of course, there's no guarantee the Federal Court will accept or dismiss this application. If accepted, it seems to me it would establish a precedent and we could expect future similar applications by Canadians sentenced in other countries. This could get expensive for Canadian taxpayers.

We still don't know whether the Governor of Montana will stay the execution. There is a move afoot to abolish the death penalty in that State but it is stalled. IMO there's a good chance there will be a stay of execution.

Would it be wise for our Federal Court to wait for a move by the Governor or should the court accept the application now?

[Fortunata]

This could get expensive for Canadian taxpayers.

Steve and his merry band should have thought of that first before changing the policy. Had they kept it as it was there would be no reason to have to go through extra hoops. Funny how the right only gets worried when there is money at stake.

The article also says:

Government statements on the policy have also changed over the weeks. On November 2nd, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day referred to "murderers who have been found guilty in a democratic country." Last Tuesday, Nicholson specified that "multiple or mass murderers" could not count on government support while on death row.

One hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing which is becoming normal for this government.

Also:

The government underlines, meanwhile, that it has no intention of reopening the domestic debate on capital punishment, and supports a global moratorium on its use.

Again, the mouth speaks as the actions do exactly what they say they aren't. (Pay attention to what we say and not what we do) And they think people don't see through their smoke screens?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Of course, there's no guarantee the Federal Court will accept or dismiss this application. If accepted, it seems to me it would establish a precedent and we could expect future similar applications by Canadians sentenced in other countries. This could get expensive for Canadian taxpayers.

Let's hope not...and hope that Montana executes this convicted Canadian murderer ASAP.

[myata]

That's our boys. The only way this so con bunch can be kept in check is by watching their every step. They just don't believe in democracy. They think that they know better than us what's good for us. Even if we told and keep telling them otherwise (as with death penalty; as with Kyoto; as with Afghanistan), they'll just keep pushing their line, mostly quietly and behind the doors. This time it came out though, and I fully appreciate that somebody finally makes the effort take the merry to task, if court is the only option, so be it.

[noahbody]

That's our boys. The only way this so con bunch can be kept in check is by watching their every step. They just don't believe in democracy. They think that they know better than us what's good for us. Even if we told and keep telling them otherwise (as with death penalty; as with Kyoto; as with Afghanistan), they'll just keep pushing their line, mostly quietly and behind the doors. This time it came out though, and I fully appreciate that somebody finally makes the effort take the merry to task, if court is the only option, so be it.

This is about lawyers scheming to make money by launching a frivolous suit against the government to take your money. Nothing more.

Government policy and rights are separate issues. No constitutional or international laws have been broken.

Regardless, the policy change was made after Smith's life was lobbied for unsuccessfully.

[capricorn]

Funny how the right only gets worried when there is money at stake.

What a refreshing change from past administrations.

Again, the mouth speaks as the actions do exactly what they say they aren't. (Pay attention to what we say and not what we do) And they think people don't see through their smoke screens?

What smoke screens? Everything was done out in the open. The proof is the resulting constant whining of the opposition parties. The Conservatives have said repeatedly there are no plans to open a debate on bringing back the death penalty. It just seems some people are deaf and then trot out the partisan crap.

[Fortunata]

What a refreshing change from past administrations.

Not administrations ... people.

What smoke screens? Everything was done out in the open. The proof is the resulting constant whining of the opposition parties. The Conservatives have said repeatedly there are no plans to open a debate on bringing back the death penalty. It just seems some people are deaf and then trot out the partisan crap.

It seems some people don't see through the smoke screens. I have been proven wrong.

[trex]

The Conservatives have said repeatedly there are no plans to open a debate on bringing back the death penalty. It just seems some people are deaf and then trot out the partisan crap.

The CPC is the only party that wants to allow this change. The others oppose it. How is that not a partisan issue?

And what they say changes, depending on who you want to quote, and when they said it. Forget what they say, it's obvious the way they're handling things they can't really be trusted. Their actions speak louder than words.

Edited November 28, 2007 by trex

[guyser]

.

What smoke screens? Everything was done out in the open.

Was the change debated in Parliament?

[capricorn]

Was the change debated in Parliament?

guyser, we're talking about a policy not legislation or an amendment to legislation. There are enough obstacles right now for Parliament to deal with the legislative agenda without having to debate policy changes.

[guyser]

guyser, we're talking about a policy not legislation or an amendment to legislation. There are enough obstacles right now for Parliament to deal with the legislative agenda without having to debate policy changes.

Do you feel that excuses the fact that for the last thirty+ years we have done something, and then someone comes along and changes it without so much as a whisper?

I am aware that it is not legislation. As a country we always do certain things, and now that changed.

I have no problem should the PC once elected told us.."hey we aint doing this or this" . Consider that fair warning , not after the fact saying..." Oh yeah, we dont do that anymore"

[capricorn]

The CPC is the only party that wants to allow this change. The others oppose it. How is that not a partisan issue?

Not to worry, the opposition parties took matters in their own hands and wrote to the Governor of Montana asking for clemency for Smith regardless of the policy change. It's a partisan issue because the Conservatives amended a policy close to the hearts of Liberals.

And what they say changes, depending on who you want to quote, and when they said it. Forget what they say, it's obvious the way they're handling things they can't really be trusted. Their actions speak louder than words.

Well, just don't trust them then. That's your right.

[capricorn]

I have no problem should the PC once elected told us.."hey we aint doing this or this" . Consider that fair warning , not after the fact saying..." Oh yeah, we dont do that anymore"

I grant you that. There was no heads up given by the Conservatives. The opposition can make it an election issue and we'll see where that takes us.

[myata]

The previous policy was based on Canadian law. The law that does not allow executions of people in this country. That does not allow death penatly as a valid sentence.

Harper cons did not challenge the law. Would not have a debate in the parliment. Tried to sneak it in behind doors as a "policy change". And got caught red handed.

Does it speak about their (lack of) respect for democracy? About their values, which they're trying to sneak in around open democractic process? About their hidden agenda? Volumes!

[jawapunk]

Basically I think Harper shoudl have brought this issue to parliament and had a vote on it as it changes previous Canadian actions on the matter and will affect any future cases when they come up.

I don't think it should have been such a rash decision as this was not Canadian policy in the past.

[Wilber]

Basically I think Harper shoudl have brought this issue to parliament and had a vote on it as it changes previous Canadian actions on the matter and will affect any future cases when they come up.

I don't think it should have been such a rash decision as this was not Canadian policy in the past.

Spot on.

[myata]

Contempt to open democratic process is quickly becoming a trademark of this government. Take their games with environment and Kyoto, which most Canadians consider a priority while Harper's bunch quietly torpedo whenever they can; dislike of media; controlled statements; attack ads; sudden changes of policy. All fits very well together.