Tories' death-penalty stance

[jdobbin]

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...ed-988a64722f74

The widely expected mid-October federal election would see one of the Conservative government's most controversial decisions - its refusal to seek clemency for a Canadian on death row in the United States - put on trial at the height of the campaign.

The Federal Court of Canada has scheduled a two-day judicial review of Canada's new policy on the death penalty to begin Sept. 29 in Toronto.

A legal team representing Alberta-born murderer Ronald Smith and government lawyers will present opposing arguments about the October 2007 policy change, which ended a long-standing federal practice of automatically seeking clemency for any Canadian facing execution in a foreign country.

I guess it is as good a time as any to expose the policy stance on the death penalty that the Tories tried to enact unilaterally.

Edited August 29, 2008 by jdobbin

[AngusThermopyle]

I guess it is as good a time as any to expose the policy stance on the death penalty that the Tories tried to enact unilaterally.

What stance? When have they ever said they favour the death penalty?

Just another childish attempt at demonization from the usual one trick pony.

Oh yeah. As for the scumbag, let him fry. He broke the laws of the USA therefore he should be subject to the penalty they lawfully impose upon him. Simple really.

Edited August 29, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[capricorn]

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...ed-988a64722f74

I guess it is as good a time as any to expose the policy stance on the death penalty that the Tories tried to enact unilaterally.

Dobbin, it was the Liberal party that first stopped advocating for Canadians facing the death penalty. The Conservatives merely continued in the same vein. There is no change of stance on the death penalty by the Conservatives.

[jdobbin]

What stance? When have they ever said they favour the death penalty?

Just another childish attempt at demonization from the usual one trick pony.

Just another personal attack from a Conservative supporter.

The Tories unilaterally changed the policy on the death penalty for Canadians by telling its diplomats to stop seeking clemency for those on death row. If the government is against the death penalty for Canadians, it is against it for Canadians everywhere that Canadians face it.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, it was the Liberal party that first stopped advocating for Canadians facing the death penalty. The Conservatives merely continued in the same vein. There is no change of stance on the death penalty by the Conservatives.

That really doesn't fly. Canadian diplomats were carrying on with standard policy of seeking clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty in the U.S. when the Tories put a stop to it.

[AngusThermopyle]

If the government is against the death penalty for Canadians, it is against it for Canadians everywhere that Canadians face it.

Nonsense! Who told you that pile of crap!

You go to another country and break their laws you are subject to their penalties. Simple, not rocket science.

Why should a Canadian be able to go to another country, murder some one (or more than one) and not be subject to the laws of the land in which they commited the crime? Harper is doing the right thing, he's not exhibiting that peculiar conceit that many Canadians have. You know, the one that makes them think they're special, so special that the laws of another country shouldn't apply to them. He's using a realistic approach as opposed to an idealistic one.

As for the Conservative supporter thing, sure I voted for Harper. They were the only ones worth voting for. If the Liberals got their sh*t together and actually came up with some workable ideas as opposed to their usual tax and steal to build a Utopian world approach I might vote for them. I don't give a damn about any party, its what they do that concerns me, what ideas and plans they have that will affect my world in a meaningfull and positive way.

This is why I see your rabid partisanship as being childish, not because I'm a Conservative, NDP or any other "supporter" but because I believe the actions and workable ideas of a particular government are more important than blind "party support".

Oh hey! Before I go, would you mind explaining why you think Canadians should not be subject to the laws of other countries they happen to be in? I'm really curious about that one.

[Smallc]

You go to another country and break their laws you are subject to their penalties. Simple, not rocket science.

All countrys? Or do we pick and choose? Which countries should we allow to execute our citizens? Is

[jdobbin]

Nonsense! Who told you that pile of crap!

You go to another country and break their laws you are subject to their penalties. Simple, not rocket science.

True. And Canada has advocated clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty. The Tories changed that policy without even going to Parliament.

The courts are now involved in that change in policy.

Why should a Canadian be able to go to another country, murder some one (or more than one) and not be subject to the laws of the land in which they commited the crime? Harper is doing the right thing, he's not exhibiting that peculiar conceit that many Canadians have. You know, the one that makes them think they're special, so special that the laws of another country shouldn't apply to them. He's using a realistic approach as opposed to an idealistic one.

As for the Conservative supporter thing, sure I voted for Harper. They were the only ones worth voting for. If the Liberals got their sh*t together and actually came up with some workable ideas as opposed to their usual tax and steal to build a Utopian world approach I might vote for them. I don't give a damn about any party, its what they do that concerns me, what ideas and plans they have that will affect my world in a meaningfull and positive way.

Canadian citizens need to know that their country will advocate for them in nations around the world. The Tories decided that the death penalty was going to be one area where that advocacy stopped.

They made the decision unilaterally with no debate in policy in the House.

This is why I see your rabid partisanship as being childish, not because I'm a Conservative, NDP or any other "supporter" but because I believe the actions and workable ideas of a particular government are more important than blind "party support".

I wish people would refrain from the insults and namecalling. There is no reason for personalizing. If you don't like my posts, you can put them on ignore. I am not insulting you personally so I don't see a reason for hostility.

Oh hey! Before I go, would you mind explaining why you think Canadians should not be subject to the laws of other countries they happen to be in? I'm really curious about that one.

Canadians should be subject to the laws of other countries. However, according to protocol, Canada should be informed when their citizens are arrested and traditionally, the government has advocated for clemency when the death penalty is involved.

[AngusThermopyle]

All countrys?

Yes, all countries.

All countries have their laws, they may seem unreasonable to us but they are their laws. If you don't agree with those laws then don't go there, its that simple. If you choose to go there then obey the laws of that country, its that simple. If you break the laws of that country then you should expect to face the judicial system of that country and its penalties, its that simple.

As I said they may be unpalatable to us but they are the laws of the land. In this case its very clear cut. The guy is a murderer, he's not some guy who got drunk in an Islamic country. He's not a woman who will be stoned because he was raped and got pregnant out of wedlock. He's a murderer, and if I remember correctly he's actually a double murderer.

I'm pretty sure that when he went down to the States he knew that many of those States have the death penalty for murder. Still he decided to murder two people, so why should he now avoid the penalty lawfully imposed upon him by the country in which he commited his crimes? Just because he's a Canadian scumbag and we don't have the death penalty?

Sorry, I don't buy that line, I spent most of my life travelling to so many countries that I'm starting to forget them. Never once did I place myself in a position even remotely resembling the one this guy is in.

He broke the law beyond any shadow of doubt and as such he should face the consequences of his actions.

In this matter I do support the stance that Harper is takeing.

I am not insulting you personally

You certainly are! You called me a Conservative supporter.

Canadians should be subject to the laws of other countries. However, according to protocol, Canada should be informed when their citizens are arrested and traditionally, the government has advocated for clemency when the death penalty is involved.

Sure, can't disagree with most of that, except the traditionally part. Just because traditionally our government has done that does that make it unassailably right? Granted, in those countries where you can be sentenced to death for what appear to be innocuous acts or behaviours then our government should step in. However this is not such a case. This is clear and proven multiple murder aforethought.

Do you really believe that this guy, after going to a place where they have the death penalty for murder should be allowed to murder and then escape the clearly proscribed punishment for this act just because he's Canadian?

Edited August 30, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[jdobbin]

You certainly are! You called me a Conservative supporter.

Sorry, I didn't know you support another party.

Sure, can't disagree with most of that, except the traditionally part. Just because traditionally our government has done that does that make it unassailably right? Granted, in those countries where you can be sentenced to death for what appear to be innocuous acts or behaviours then our government should step in. However this is not such a case. This is clear and proven multiple murder aforethought.

I believe that the death penalty is wrong. Too often it has has been the sentence for those who were later exonerated or acquitted. Clear and proven has been used too many times when it comes to someone's life. I prefer a life imprisonment sentence for a Canadian convicted of a capital crime.

Do you really believe that this guy, after going to a place where they have the death penalty for murder should be allowed to murder and then escape the clearly proscribed punishment for this act just because he's Canadian?

I think he should serve a life sentence. That sentence should be served in Canada if the U.S. agrees to it.

[AngusThermopyle]

Sorry, I didn't know you support another party.

When will you get it? I don't support any party. I support ideas and initiatives that are beneficial to myself and the majority of Canadians.

Get it yet?

[Wild Bill]

That really doesn't fly. Canadian diplomats were carrying on with standard policy of seeking clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty in the U.S. when the Tories put a stop to it.

This thread reminded me that you once asked for a link or two when I told you I distinctly remember how Mulroney had coerced his own MP's on a supposedly "free" Commons vote on the death penalty. Here's a few:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art...roneycancon.htm

This paragraph is at the very end of the page:

"Mulroney's political problems emerged in the fact that he had no clear and coherent value-system, apart from the belief in pure self-aggrandizement and "power-in-itself", as well as a left-liberal sentiment and instinct more appropriate to the Liberal and NDP. (As on the capital punishment issue where, according to polls, over 80% of Canadians were at that time in favour of the death penalty. It is an open secret that Mulroney arm-twisted his Quebec MPs and generally did his best to undermine the parliamentary vote taken at that time, in regard to restoring capital punishment.)"

Here's another:

http://netk.net.au/Death/Death43.asp

"Source: 13 October 2007 Stanley Tromp The Globe and Mail “How Mulroney buried the move to reinstate capital punishment”. "

The above was the last line on the page.

This one is the most fun! Page 7 of the file gets into the nitty gritty:

http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/ub..._1987_07_15.pdf

The above link is a .pdf file of newspaper clippings that won't let me cut and paste an excerpt but suffice to say it tells how Mulroney realized that the overwhelming majority of Canadians wanted a return to capital punishment, at least in some extreme cases. (I also remember at the time how opponents would try to make it look like it would mean capital punishment for almost EVERY crime, right down to parking tickets, it seemed!) Mulroney was personally against it but wanted the popular support so the author paints a case as to how Mulroney set up a "free" vote but then rigged it to lose!

Hope these links are what you wanted.

[jdobbin]

When will you get it? I don't support any party. I support ideas and initiatives that are beneficial to myself and the majority of Canadians.

Get it yet?

No need to get upset. If want to say something, there's no need to put an exclamation point on it or resort to rejoinders.

[jdobbin]

This thread reminded me that you once asked for a link or two when I told you I distinctly remember how Mulroney had coerced his own MP's on a supposedly "free" Commons vote on the death penalty. Here's a few:

Hope these links are what you wanted.

I have no doubt that Mulroney made his case to many of his MPs but I have never seen any indication that he threatened anyone. Nor have I heard anything years later from former MPs that they were forced to vote a certain way.

Even the cabinet notes indicate that the cabinet was in a majority against reinstatement even if the caucus was in support.

I still think it was a free vote and although I have no love for Mulroney, he kept his promise on the vote and I think we are better for it.

[Bryan]

You commit a crime in another country, you get punished according to their laws. Interfering in that process is not something I want our government involved in.

Unless they have evidence that the person is falsely accused, staying out of it is the correct action to take.

[Wild Bill]

I have no doubt that Mulroney made his case to many of his MPs but I have never seen any indication that he threatened anyone. Nor have I heard anything years later from former MPs that they were forced to vote a certain way.

Even the cabinet notes indicate that the cabinet was in a majority against reinstatement even if the caucus was in support.

I still think it was a free vote and although I have no love for Mulroney, he kept his promise on the vote and I think we are better for it.

So you give no credence to my links or the history that I witnessed.

Well, that's your right, I suppose.

I guess I'm free to to the same.

[Oleg Bach]

Any one who supports the death penalty is capable of murder...or waging a silly war some where where dupes called soldiers die needlessly - so why are we molesting the people of Afghanistan anyway - I still have not figured it out - is there really a stone leaping barbaric goat herder stoned on opium really going to attack the CN Tower with a truck full of sharp horned goats? I don't get this death thing - maybe we should focus on life.

[jdobbin]

So you give no credence to my links or the history that I witnessed.

Well, that's your right, I suppose.

I guess I'm free to to the same.

I certainly read everything that you posted. I'm certainly no expert on the inner workings of the Mulroney government and I know he can be manipulative but I have not heard too many revelations from the parties involved. It is generally third party information.

I think it was about as free a vote as one can expect in Parliament. I never heard that there was repercussions for PCs who didn't vote with Mulroney.

[Wild Bill]

I certainly read everything that you posted. I'm certainly no expert on the inner workings of the Mulroney government and I know he can be manipulative but I have not heard too many revelations from the parties involved. It is generally third party information.

I think it was about as free a vote as one can expect in Parliament. I never heard that there was repercussions for PCs who didn't vote with Mulroney.

There didn't have to be. That's how these things work! The whip counts noses to be sure that the result will be the desired outcome. At that point you can allow some dissenters to give the appearance of a free vote.

It's very easy to do and sadly, is done all the time.

[lukin]

Any one who supports the death penalty is capable of murder...or waging a silly war some where where dupes called soldiers die needlessly - so why are we molesting the people of Afghanistan anyway - I still have not figured it out - is there really a stone leaping barbaric goat herder stoned on opium really going to attack the CN Tower with a truck full of sharp horned goats? I don't get this death thing - maybe we should focus on life.

I recently spoke to a soldier back from Afghanistan. He told me he hopes he goes back because Canadian (NATO)soldiers are the only hope millions of Afghans have for a better life. The strife caused by the Taliban is unbearable. Thisisn't something you'll hear on the CBC.

The media in Canada is in the tank for Liberals, and anyone who doesn't dig for the real truth is just a all believing puppet of the media.

[jdobbin]

There didn't have to be. That's how these things work! The whip counts noses to be sure that the result will be the desired outcome. At that point you can allow some dissenters to give the appearance of a free vote.

It's very easy to do and sadly, is done all the time.

Just the same I haven't heard long since retired MPs says they were manipulated or that the vote was whipped in any way.

[MontyBurns]

Sorry, I didn't know you support another party.

I believe that the death penalty is wrong. Too often it has has been the sentence for those who were later exonerated or acquitted. Clear and proven has been used too many times when it comes to someone's life. I prefer a life imprisonment sentence for a Canadian convicted of a capital crime.

I think he should serve a life sentence. That sentence should be served in Canada if the U.S. agrees to it.

Going to bat for murderers I see.

Let em face the consequences I say!

[jdobbin]

Going to bat for murderers I see.

Let em face the consequences I say!

Actually, I am speaking up for the innocent as well. Many times in the last years, we have seen people convicted where the evidence either exonerated the or raises the serious question of whether that person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, let the innocent face the consequences, I suppose.

[MontyBurns]

Actually, I am speaking up for the innocent as well. Many times in the last years, we have seen people convicted where the evidence either exonerated the or raises the serious question of whether that person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, let the innocent face the consequences, I suppose.

Fry em all and let Jesus sort em out.

[jdobbin]

Fry em all and let Jesus sort em out.

Yes, I expected that sort of answer.