Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[betsy]

That statement says to me that if you are convicted of a murder and sentenced do death, whether you are an obvious mass murder or you were railroaded, your government is writing you off. If that is not what he means, he should make if very clear what he does mean.

"We will not actively pursue bringing back to Canada murderers who have been tried in a democratic country that supports the rule of law," Day told the House of Commons on Thursday."

This statement does not mean you are being "written off" by the government.

Again, I state that in almost, if not every democratic countries....we do have consul offices.

I am sure that if there is any evidence that the Canadian had been railroaded, our government would act upon it.

Anyway, why should we ACTIVELY PURSUE BRINGING BACK TO CANADA murderers who had been tried in democratic countries?

If a Canadian committed crime in another democratic country, why shouldn't he serve his time there?

Why should that country, and this murderer's victim, not have the satisfaction of seeing punishment for said crime be meted out and served in that country?

And why should we shoulder the expenses of this murderer's upkeep in our prison?

Edited November 3, 2007 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

....Claim that as a strike if you want. But it doesn't change the fact that you had to come up with a ridiculous scenario that in all likelihood will never happen. Canada does not extradite people to face the death penalty. Not anymore. And not in the foreseeable future.

"Not anymore".....thank you...that was all I really needed to demonstrate that this sanctimonious charade hasn't been going on since 1967, for both ruling parties. So to suddenly seek a political advantage is exactly that.

Canada may request whatever it wants from any nation, perhaps even barter something away for a murderer's life, because Canadian murderers are indeed special.

[capricorn]

trex, I precede my comments by saying I am against Canada re-instituting the death penalty.

First of all, the US knows it is in the interest of their own citizens abroad to be cooperative to such request at certain times.

Makes sense.

But if we can't change their minds on their internal policy, we can at least try and do so for Canadian citizens.

Canada has little influence in causing a change of mind of countries when it comes to crime and punishment. Using diplomatic channels to voice our opposition is pretty well all there is open to us. In the case of Canadian citizens we also have consular offices to speak for them.

And this move by the cons, if anything, has re-started the debate on capital punishment in our society. As we are talking about it now, and it inevitably moves toward a discussion of the validity of capital punishment in general, bringing this issue into question in the minds of Canadians.

All this talk about the Conservatives condoning the death penalty is an attempt by the Liberals to revive the "scary" Harper strategy. So, what's the big deal if the issue moves into the minds of Canadians. It means they're paying attention. The Conservatives have said there is no plan to debate the death penalty. Canadians will make up their minds on this matter for themselves.

It also shows that the Cons attitude towards capital punishment is permissive, these god-loving bible thumping conservatives don't seem to mind putting people to death with the stroke of a pen, as a form of vengeance.

The phraseology you use to describe the Conservatives is boring and old hat, and doesn't phase or scare too many of us anymore. Can you think of more current negative connotations you could use to denigrate them?

Strange too, if we look at a map of the world to see where capital punishment is still being used, it shows that it's only in the middle east, asia, parts of africa and the United States. In other words, the harsh dictatorships of the world, and the United States.

That map is misleading. It shows countries that have not applied the death penalty in the last 10 years, such as Russia. What it doesn't reflect is that the death penalty is still law in those countries meaning they are at liberty to use the death penalty should they wish. For a better picture, I prefer a listing by country name such as this:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

But even in that case I doubt Stockwell Day would want to intervene, if a Canadian homosexual was going to be executed. So he is just being selective based on his own personal value judgements, not according to the ideals of our free society. While it yet exists.

You're entitled to your opinion on this count. Looks like you bought into the "scary, scary" bugaboo big time. Oh, well.

[Wilber]

"We will not actively pursue bringing back to Canada murderers who have been tried in a democratic country that supports the rule of law," Day told the House of Commons on Thursday."

This statement does not mean you are being "written off" by the government.

Again, I state that in almost, if not every democratic countries....we do have consul offices.

I am sure that if there is any evidence that the Canadian had been railroaded, our government would act upon it.

Anyway, why should we ACTIVELY PURSUE BRINGING BACK TO CANADA murderers who had been tried in democratic countries?

If a Canadian committed crime in another democratic country, why shouldn't he serve his time there?

Why should that country, and this murderer's victim, not have the satisfaction of seeing punishment for said crime be meted out and served in that country?

And why should we shoulder the expenses of this murderer's upkeep in our prison?

Betsy, there are plenty of examples in the US and Canada where people have been railroaded or convicted on false or incorrect evidence. That is one reason we stopped the death penalty. You can't correct your mistakes.

I am certainly not saying this particular person isn't guilty or was railroaded but Day is saying Canada will no longer intervene for any Canadian who is convicted of a capital crime in another country that "supports the rule of law". What law would that be? Do they have specific guidelines or are they just going to make it up as they go along? Poor consolation when you leave this country. You will have no idea what to expect from your government.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but the issue here is our government's responsibility to act for its own citizens, not whether a foreign country has the right to enforce its own laws on its own soil.

[Guest trex]

The phraseology you use to describe the Conservatives is boring and old hat, and doesn't phase or scare too many of us anymore. Can you think of more current negative connotations you could use to denigrate them?

You're entitled to your opinion on this count. Looks like you bought into the "scary, scary" bugaboo big time. Oh, well.

I am not fear-mongering, just trying to discuss the issues and what it means. Since Stockwell Day has stated he will no longer discuss the matter, it leaves unanswered questions for us to try and second-guess. That's his fault, for not being open and clear.

Canada has little influence in causing a change of mind of countries when it comes to crime and punishment. Using diplomatic channels to voice our opposition is pretty well all there is open to us. In the case of Canadian citizens we also have consular offices to speak for them.

True, and they have tried to use economic influence as well, by tieing issues of human rights to negotiations on big business contracts. It doesn't always work, nor should we expect it to, but it does have some influence. However in the end, I'm sorry to say, "Economics Trumps Virtue".

It's not the only time the issue of capital punishment has been raised in CPC discussions.-

"January 25, 2004

Ontario PC Policy convention

I hear that the Ontario PC policy convention this weekend was quite busy. While Ontario Tory policy was discussed, the convention provided a showcase for the three candidates vying for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. Tony Clement, Belinda Stronach and Stephen Harper all put on hospitality suites to woo the attending members of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

Some putative policies were underlined by the three leadership hopefuls. Tony Clement declared that he believes that capital punishment should be an option for extreme cases.

"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

On the same issue, Belinda Stronach declared "I'm against the death penalty".

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/2004_01.html

Was it the beginning of the separation for Belinda, perhaps?

"Arguably, the biggest differences between the Liberal and Conservative philosophies, at present, relate to social issues, not economic issues. The Conservatives promise to give Parliament the final say on things such as the definition of marriage: this would require invocation of the rarely-used "notwithstanding clause" (s. 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), which exempts laws from the applicability of the Charter. Also, in the second week of the 2004 election period, 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

So, even if this is not on the table NOW, here we see the beginning of it, an introduction to their attitude and possibly future policy towards the death penalty. It's what I would call the thin end of the wedge.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know how many times I have to say this but the issue here is our government's responsibility to act for its own citizens, not whether a foreign country has the right to enforce its own laws on its own soil.

OK..great...now how many times has Canada actually repatriated a condemned Canuck in the USA ?

Isn't this all just a bit of political drama?

[Wilber]

OK..great...now how many times has Canada actually repatriated a condemned Canuck in the USA ?

Isn't this all just a bit of political drama?

Don't know offhand but this is about our government's responsibilities to its own citizens. Nothing to do with your government.

It may be political drama to you but it represents a fundamental change in what a Canadian citizen might expect from his government. One can only wonder what other changes they may have in mind. My comment about making it up as they go a long was serious because I think this is exactly what they are doing. This is coming from a person who has voted PC/Reform/Alliance/CPC all his life.

[bk59]

You mention the word "negotiation." What kind of negotiation do you have in mind?

I use the word negotiation in its more general sense. They aren't sitting down to negotiate a treaty or anything. But in a situation like this there would certainly be a discussion along the lines of what happens to the prisoner when he returns to Canada. Canada wants to ensure that he does not face the penalty. The US wants to ensure he is still punished. I'm sure this would involve setting terms like which prison he goes to, etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't know offhand but this is about our government's responsibilities to its own citizens. Nothing to do with your government.

So are really talking about something that has never happened? Has any condemned US prisoner been sent home to Canada for a lifetime of bad TV?

It may be political drama to you but it represents a fundamental change in what a Canadian citizen might expect from his government. One can only wonder what other changes they may have in mind. My comment about making it up as they go a long was serious because I think this is exactly what they are doing. This is coming from a person who has voted PC/Reform/Alliance/CPC all his life.

Might expect is right....since the policy is not very old at all and hardly reflects poorly on one party or administration. BTW, the US Supreme Court actually banned capital punishment for criminal cases years before Canada, but I don't think we worried about the American murderers on death row in Canada. Your point is taken...this tempest in a teapot has nothing to do with the USA, which can continue to fry perps without regard to nationality.

Edited November 3, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

So are really talking about something that has never happened? Has any condemned US prisoner been sent home to Canada for a lifetime of bad TV?

Might expect is right....since the policy is not very old at all and hardly reflects poorly on one party or administration. BTW, the US Supreme Court actually banned capital punishment for criminal cases years before Canada, but I don't think we worried about the American murderers on death row in Canada. Your point is taken...this tempest in a teapot has nothing to do with the USA, which can continue to fry perps without regard to nationality.

In this paricular case, yes the US but Days comment 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,"

He does not specify what he considers to be the "rule of law" (pretty vague concept if you ask me) or what he considers to be a democracy (another loosely interpreted term). I think the US would take a very keen interest in its citizens who are under the threat of execution in a foreign country. They should.

[bk59]

"Not anymore".....thank you...that was all I really needed to demonstrate that this sanctimonious charade hasn't been going on since 1967, for both ruling parties. So to suddenly seek a political advantage is exactly that.

Canada may request whatever it wants from any nation, perhaps even barter something away for a murderer's life, because Canadian murderers are indeed special.

The only sanctimonious charade going on here is by people like you. What political advantage is being obtained here? None. Canada is looking out for its citizens and isn't trying to force anything on anyone. No one was proposing sanctions for the US if they did not agree to Canada's request. Most countries do the exact same thing. Nothing special is going on here.

If you want to talk about citizens who "are indeed special" you may want to look at the US itself. Particularly something like Order 17 that was in effect after turning over power to the new Iraqi government and yet gave US citizens complete immunity for everything. From murder right on down to paying customs fees and road tolls.

[bk59]

Might expect is right....since the policy is not very old at all and hardly reflects poorly on one party or administration. BTW, the US Supreme Court actually banned capital punishment for criminal cases years before Canada, but I don't think we worried about the American murderers on death row in Canada. Your point is taken...this tempest in a teapot has nothing to do with the USA, which can continue to fry perps without regard to nationality.

The responsibility that a government has towards its citizens is extremely old. And that is what the problem is here. Canadian law may change over time, but the government should be looking out for its citizens based on what is currently the law.

What sort of ban are you talking about? I'd be curious to see some information on that. But that doesn't change the fact that many states still have capital punishment for criminal cases. I believe that some individual states had abolished capital punishment before Canada as well. Again though, that doesn't matter. We're not talking history here, we are talking about what is currently the law.

[Wilber]

So are really talking about something that has never happened? Has any condemned US prisoner been sent home to Canada for a lifetime of bad TV?

Perhaps they should also clarify this. It seems we will not even ask for death sentences to be commuted any more or they will also make that up as they go along. Perhaps a poll to get a feel for the country's mood on each case. Kind of like the modern equivalent of the old Roman thumbs up or down at the old Coliseum.

"Having simply assumed that Canada's policy would continue, employees at Foreign Affairs indicated last week that they would seek to have Smith's sentence commuted.

But they were publicly corrected by their new political bosses on Thursday."

[Guest American Woman]

I'm curious about something. What difference would it make if Canada does or doesn't go 'up to bat' for a Canadian on death row if it will make no difference? What comfort would a Canadian get out of knowing its nation would object to their receiving the death penalty if they knew it would make no difference at all on the U.S.'s end?

According to the information I can find, one Canadian has been executed in the U.S. since Canada abolished the death penalty, in spite of Canada's request to send him back the Canada; and Smith is the only Canadian presently on Death Row.

Still, I can see where this would be a major change in Canada's line of thought, and I'm assuming that's the scary part for Canadians who oppose the death penalty.

[capricorn]

I am not fear-mongering, just trying to discuss the issues and what it means. Since Stockwell Day has stated he will no longer discuss the matter, it leaves unanswered questions for us to try and second-guess. That's his fault, for not being open and clear.

Could you provide a link to Day's statement?

"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

Politicians are human and, surprise, they do have personal opinions. For example, in 2005 when the Liberals were still in power, 32 Liberals voted against same-sex marriage. I take it they had a personal opinion on the issue and voted their conscience. So what is so earth shattering about Conservatives making their personal opinions known on this issue or any issue for that matter. Liberals have expressed their personal opinion on many issues, to the extent their personal opinions are recorded in a vote.

As expected, about three dozen Liberal MPs voted against the bill. Martin declared it a free vote for backbench MPs, but cabinet ministers were under orders to vote in favour of the bill.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

So, even if this is not on the table NOW, here we see the beginning of it, an introduction to their attitude and possibly future policy towards the death penalty. It's what I would call the thin end of the wedge.

Harper said there will be no debate on the death penalty. Since he is seen as a control freak by the opposition and the media, who could dispute his words?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/11...4623212-cp.html

[capricorn]

According to the information I can find, one Canadian has been executed in the U.S. since Canada abolished the death penalty, in spite of Canada's request to send him back the Canada; and Smith is the only Canadian presently on Death Row.

Still, I can see where this would be a major change in Canada's line of thought, and I'm assuming that's the scary part for Canadians who oppose the death penalty.

AW, Smith's case is coming in real handy for the opposition parties at this time.

[Guest trex]

Could you provide a link to Day's statement?

Certainly.-

"A spokesperson for Day said he would not be commenting further on the announcement.

"The answer is clear, no matter if you agree or not, but his answer in the House today answers all the questions," the public safety minister's spokesperson Melissa Leclerc told CTV.ca Thursday.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I think the answer is NOT clear, it DOES matter if we disagree, and it certainly does NOT answer all the questions. And those links I gave before, prove to me that they wish to bring in an American style of "justice", along with a DEA-style drug war.

The other question is the extradition of Canadians to the United States where they might face a death penalty... will they now permit it? Don't see why they wouldn't. In essence then, they can use the United States to do their killing for them, for select individuals who they want to get rid of that can't be done here (yet).

[bush_cheney2004]

The only sanctimonious charade going on here is by people like you. What political advantage is being obtained here? None. Canada is looking out for its citizens and isn't trying to force anything on anyone. No one was proposing sanctions for the US if they did not agree to Canada's request. Most countries do the exact same thing. Nothing special is going on here.

I agree...absolutely nothing special is going on here, because it has no practical impact whatsoever until somebody can demonstrate that condemned Canadians have been "liberated" from the evil Americans. Hell, just give all Canadian murderers in the US a "get out of jail free card" if it matters so much....same practical impact. This is pure domestic political drama.

If you want to talk about citizens who "are indeed special" you may want to look at the US itself. Particularly something like Order 17 that was in effect after turning over power to the new Iraqi government and yet gave US citizens complete immunity for everything. From murder right on down to paying customs fees and road tolls.

Then why were US marines tried for alleged crimes in Iraq (Haditha)?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6198947.stm

Edited November 3, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Then why were US marines tried for alleged crimes in Iraq (Haditha)?

And who would be trying those marines?

[Wilber]

Still, I can see where this would be a major change in Canada's line of thought, and I'm assuming that's the scary part for Canadians who oppose the death penalty.

Not because I oppose the death penalty (which I do) but because a Canadian citizen can no longer count on his country to act in a consistent manner when he is in another country.

[capricorn]

I think the answer is NOT clear, ...

Day's comments are very clear to me. From my understanding Canada will not act to repatriate murderers convicted in democratic countries who exercise the rule of law, it would be the wrong message to send and no request for clemency in Smith's case will be made. I totally agree with that position as expressed by Day.

..it DOES matter if we disagree, and it certainly does NOT answer all the questions.

Well trex, I'm afraid you won't find the answer or clarification you're looking (or hoping) for here.

And those links I gave before, prove to me that they wish to bring in an American style of "justice", along with a DEA-style drug war.

You sure have the leftist rhetoric down pat, up to and including an anti-American dig.

The other question is the extradition of Canadians to the United States where they might face a death penalty... will they now permit it? Don't see why they wouldn't.

In fact, the last Canadian to have been extradited to the US on a murder charge was Shirley Turner by...get ready for this trex....by the Liberal government. So it seems extradition of Canadians for murder was permitted before the Conservatives were elected. Imagine that!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/11/14/...tion021114.html

We'll never know the outcome since Turner killed her son in a murder-suicide before the extradition took place. A very sad story for little Zaccary Turner and his family.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labr...ner-report.html

[Wilber]

Day's comments are very clear to me. From my understanding Canada will not act to repatriate murderers convicted in democratic countries who exercise the rule of law, it would be the wrong message to send and no request for clemency in Smith's case will be made. I totally agree with that position as expressed by Day.

What is a democracy then and what is rule of law? Not your opinion. What exactly is it? What can we count on from our country? Day won't be commenting further because I don't believe he can answer any of those questions.

[luvacuppajoe]

What concerns me on this issue is that for most Canadians who probably do not follow the story of Ronald Allen Smith, the dead-horse topic of capital punishment has seemingly come out of nowhere, and for no apparent reason.

It's further disconcerting that it was raised with no parliamentary debate whatsoever, that Stock Day didn't appear to welcome any questioning of his statements and that it is fundamentally inconsistent with other policies of the canadian government, such as its current support of a UN resolution on the matter.

I'm more concerned about the way in which this has been handled than about the issue itself. It's played right into the waiting hands of the Opposition that we are secretive, inconsistent and untrustworthy lapdogs for the US. There was absolutely no need for it.

The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves when their mishandling of this blows up in their face come election time.

[noahbody]

The chances of Smith being sent to Canada are absolute zero. This is reality. All Canada accomplishes by trying to bring Smith 'home' is creating further pain and sorrow for the victims' families.

We owe Smith nothing. He deserves no one's support.

[bush_cheney2004]

And who would be trying those marines?

US military courts martial, per the UCMJ, as is customary and according to law. Point is that bk59's assertion was false.