So I ask, what is or defines a Canadian?

[Benz]

Are Québécois that define themselves first as French -Québécois really implying they aren't Canadians?

Are First Nations, that reside (now, some historically apparently never did), in Canada on their own territory or reserve Canadians in their mind?

the first question to ask is, what is a canadian. If we ask it to an english canadian, the definition will be significantly different from a Québécois or a native. French and natives are different nations from the english canada and their vision of what Canada should be is much more like the actual Europe. A union of several sovereign nations. As opposed to the english canadian, they want their country to be one nation that has total domination among the other ones, like in UK.

If the english canadians would eventually accept their different mates as they are, and define the canadian nation as a union of 3 main cultural groups (enligh, french and native), the two others would be very glad to identify themselve as canadians as well. Just like the german, the french, the spannish, the polish and so on, are all proud to be europeans.

Are those that would leave Canada and ally themselves with Somali causes or to fight our NATO allies really Canadians?

That's another topic.

Are those that immigrate or claim and receive refugee status then return to visit or live for years on end in their former country of 'threat' Canadians?

I guess no. We are very permissive for that specific case and there will always be someone to benefit from a weakness, whatever that is. It's up to us to restrict or monitor this. Some countries do not allow double citizenship, so, I don't think we would be that severe to expect a new citizen based on its refugee status to no go back to the oppressors, or could lose its citizenship. However, this need to be debated. We do not want to become facists either.

Are those (immigrants -what ever),that only live in Canada frequently enough to gain benefits,,health care, rescue etc. really Canadians?

I think the criteria should be examined and possibly tightened up.

Yes, but I may not totally agree with you about what needs to be tightened up tho. I find it quiet odd that you include me (french), in the same bag of the natives, the refugees going back home and other immigrants that stay here long enough to benefit from our system. What makes you think you fit in the ideal canadian definition.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Benz

[Signals.Cpl]

No actually theres only a small handfull of capital criminals, and implement the DP to deal with them would be a complete and utter waste of time and money. The DP is a complete failure as public policy and you might as well just forget about it.

Care to share the criteria? To me the death penalty is a way to get rid of people who have surrendered the right to live, Russell Williams, Paul Bernardo, Michael Rafferty, the Shafia pieces of garbage and there are many, many others.

[Signals.Cpl]

your comment and way of thinking does not define being a canadian.

Meaning? Should I be racist like you to be considered Canadian?

Edited May 22, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[madmax]

Care to share the criteria? To me the death penalty is a way to get rid of people who have surrendered the right to live, Russell Williams, Paul Bernardo, Michael Rafferty, the Shafia pieces of garbage and there are many, many others.

Just doing M for MONSTER, these people where all convicted, found guilty of henious crimes. Many at the time would have suggested they too had forfeited their right to live. These are from the top of my head in my recent memory, I can only imagine what I would find if I looked.

Milgard, Morin, Marshall Donald, Marshall Simon, Mullins....

[Signals.Cpl]

Just doing M for MONSTER, these people where all convicted, found guilty of henious crimes. Many at the time would have suggested they too had forfeited their right to live. These are from the top of my head in my recent memory, I can only imagine what I would find if I looked.

Milgard, Morin, Marshall Donald, Marshall Simon, Mullins....

So? Are we to treat every and all criminals like victims because there are some innocent amongst them? We should strive to do a better job to avoid innocent people in jail rather then making jail nicer.

[The_Squid]

So? Are we to treat every and all criminals like victims because there are some innocent amongst them? We should strive to do a better job to avoid innocent people in jail rather then making jail nicer.

You really missed that point? Unless we can guarantee no innocent people will go to jail there should be no death penalty.

[Signals.Cpl]

You really missed that point? Unless we can guarantee no innocent people will go to jail there should be no death penalty.

Death penalty should be as a last resort for people who are found guilty beyond a doubt. And to solve the problem we have to make sure police forces throughout Canada are well trained, equipped and properly manned, Having top notch prosecutors and have enough of them goes a long way, plus having proper punishment for any caught doing substandard work intentionally or otherwise.

[wyly]

Death penalty should be as a last resort for people who are found guilty beyond a doubt.

an impossibility...everyone lies...the police lie, prosecutors lie, witnesses lie and then there's human error to consider as well...the state killing/murdering one innocent person undoes the entire process of our judicial system...

[Michael Hardner]

Death penalty should be as a last resort for people who are found guilty beyond a doubt.

People are *only* supposed to be convicted when they're found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and yet here we are today with false convictions.

And to solve the problem we have to make sure police forces throughout Canada are well trained, equipped and properly manned, Having top notch prosecutors and have enough of them goes a long way, plus having proper punishment for any caught doing substandard work intentionally or otherwise.

Do you think the government is well-managed ? Better managed than any other organization ? After all security services are and arm of the government, and you'd better think so if you're going to trust it with killing people.

[Signals.Cpl]

People are *only* supposed to be convicted when they're found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and yet here we are today with false convictions.

Do you think the government is well-managed ? Better managed than any other organization ? After all security services are and arm of the government, and you'd better think so if you're going to trust it with killing people.

I believe that the government has the potential to be better managed, the problem is that security services never get enough money or a consistent strategy. When a country has essentially a revolving door justice system where police arrest someone and the judge sets him free we get to where we are, a nation with relatively lax punishment for brutal crimes. I believe that should we increase budget and oversight for all branches law enforcement we can eliminate innocent convictions.

an impossibility...everyone lies...the police lie, prosecutors lie, witnesses lie and then there's human error to consider as well...the state killing/murdering one innocent person undoes the entire process of our judicial system...

Well we will always have innocent people in jail if we see our justice system as the way you describe it. Work on competence, make it easier to fire incompetent people from the police departments throughout the country as well as the crowns prosecutors.

I am personally for death penalty, but many Canadians do not agree, and sadly the reason our current system is such a joke is because of people who make tougher on criminals a an all or nothing deal. I realize that without the will to fix the problems with our justice system we will be sending innocent people to long prison sentences, but this argument of tougher sentences does not have to be "either you are satisfied with the status quo or you want the death penalty.

But to me the death penalty is and should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes and those where there is no doubt about the perpetrator. We need the satisfaction of knowing that someone will never under any circumstances walk the streets again and thus be given the chance to hurt another human being, wether that is the death penalty or a punishment that fits the crime is irrelevant, because people like Michael Rafferty have a chance to be out after they serve the 25 years in jail, we need the assurance that if you serve the time but are deemed violent and high risk to reoffend you will not be released until such a time that you are deemed ready to reenter society.

[August1991]

I don't know if I have posted above in this thread, or what I posted above, but a quick glance through this thread reminds me of something.

There is a city in western Ukraine, Lvov/Lemberg, where before 1940, many Ukrainians, Poles and Jews lived. Like often in central Europe in the 1800s, it was a multilingual and multireligious city.

Nowadays, Lemberg is Lviv. There is a Jewish hospital, but sadly no Jews. And Polish children/grandchildren visit "Lwow", a city where everyone now speaks Ukrainian.

-----

Canada? Google Lemberg.

I hope that Canada -however defined- remains a multicultural, multilingual Lemberg, Lvov, Lviv, Львів, Львов: A federal state where different people get along.

Edited May 22, 2012 by August1991

[Argus]

I hope that Canada -however defined- remains a multicultural, multilingual Lemberg, Lvov, Lviv, Львів, Львов: A federal state where different people get along.

Ahhh, how sweet. Of course, this is coming from a guy who feels no attachment to Canada, and doesn't particularly like Canada. It's also coming from a guy who is stalwart in defense of Quebec's right to protect its culture at any and all cost, including minimal immigration, and only of French speakers.

[Argus]

the first question to ask is, what is a canadian. If we ask it to an english canadian, the definition will be significantly different from a Québécois or a native. French and natives are different nations from the english canada and their vision of what Canada should be is much more like the actual Europe. A union of several sovereign nations. As opposed to the english canadian, they want their country to be one nation that has total domination among the other ones, like in UK.

If the english canadians would eventually accept their different mates as they are, and define the canadian nation as a union of 3 main cultural groups (enligh, french and native), the two others would be very glad to identify themselve as canadians as well.

I seem to recall that in all the fuss about Quebec wanting to separate, while the great majority of Quebec people felt that Quebec should have that right should they so decide, that same great majority of Quebecers were aghast at the thought natives might enjoy that right. Apparently it's okay to qualify natives as a nation when dealing with English Canada, but if they decide they're distinct from you, well, that's another thing entirely!

[Canuckistani]

I hope that Canada would acknowledge it's European heritage which is what made Canada the decent place to live it is today. It's great for us to have people from all over the world live here, but most come because the place they are leaving isn't so decent. So while I'm no fan of the CPC, I think they are at least on the right track in this regard.

Natives of course might have a different view, but even Natives seem to want the lifestyle that came from our Western European heritage.

[Argus]

Care to share the criteria? To me the death penalty is a way to get rid of people who have surrendered the right to live, Russell Williams, Paul Bernardo, Michael Rafferty, the Shafia pieces of garbage and there are many, many others.

While I agree, emotionally, intellectually I can't escape the fallibility (incompetence) of our judicial system. I don't want it making final decisions on people's executions. And yes, I know the evidence against these people is overwhelming, but the standard is already "beyond a reasonable doubt" and they still get it wrong. Life without parole would be fine.

To my mind, there are a lot of other people who have demonstrated their inability to live among civilized people, however. These would be the repeat criminals with long records who are incapable of anything other than commiting crimes. These people should be kept away from the rest of us permanently. I don't mean death, and I don't even mean prisons, or at least, today's prisons, but some sort of prison farm/town where they'd be required to work to earn their keep. I see no reason to pay vast sums to keep these people imprisoned. They ought to work every day for their food and board.

[Canuckistani]

We've just seen the first case where an executed man was shown to be innocent. (Mistaken identity). I think the danger of executing the innocent will always be with us - the justice system is far from perfect. At least if we've just incarcerated someone, and they are found innocent, we can at least let them out and try to make it up to them. The recidivism rate is very low for murder. And the true beasts that we get, which are very few, they never get out. Bernardo will die in prison, Olsen just did (didn't he?) etc.

The Shafia killers were certainly convicted on less than 100% no doubt evidence. And quite frankly, when they get out (the son and mother will for sure) they won't be killing again - they weren't serial murderers. So then the death penalty becomes about revenge rather than prevention.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Signals.Cpl]

We've just seen the first case where an executed man was shown to be innocent. (Mistaken identity). I think the danger of executing the innocent will always be with us - the justice system is far from perfect. At least if we've just incarcerated someone, and they are found innocent, we can at least let them out and try to make it up to them. The recidivism rate is very low for murder. And the true beasts that we get, which are very few, they never get out. Bernardo will die in prison, Olsen just did (didn't he?) etc.

The Shafia killers were certainly convicted on less than 100% no doubt evidence. And quite frankly, when they get out (the son and mother will for sure) they won't be killing again - they weren't serial murderers. So then the death penalty becomes about revenge rather than prevention.

I don’t see executions as only preventative, to me executions mean that people who have given up the right to life because they so brutally took it from someone else. Again we will always have innocent people in prison if our attitude is that we cannot help it, if we don’t invest more in to police and give the police forces across Canada the tools and manpower to solve the crimes properly and the Crown Prosecutors to convict the guilty party then we are doing nothing but a disservice to the Canadian People.

And you cannot for certain say that Bernardo will die in prison because there is always someone who can come along and claim he is rehabilitated. I am making an assumption that he will die in prison but that cannot be taken for granted.

Also, the death penalty is not a necessity to strengthen the justice system. Toughening up the justice system does not necessarily mean death penalty, saying that punishment in Canada is not enough does not necessarily mean we need to go to the other extreme.

[Signals.Cpl]

While I agree, emotionally, intellectually I can't escape the fallibility (incompetence) of our judicial system. I don't want it making final decisions on people's executions. And yes, I know the evidence against these people is overwhelming, but the standard is already "beyond a reasonable doubt" and they still get it wrong. Life without parole would be fine.

To my mind, there are a lot of other people who have demonstrated their inability to live among civilized people, however. These would be the repeat criminals with long records who are incapable of anything other than commiting crimes. These people should be kept away from the rest of us permanently. I don't mean death, and I don't even mean prisons, or at least, today's prisons, but some sort of prison farm/town where they'd be required to work to earn their keep. I see no reason to pay vast sums to keep these people imprisoned. They ought to work every day for their food and board.

Well that’s the thing, there are some root causes that we can look in to in order to cut down on career criminals but mostly, once a person has proven that they cannot handle civilization they should be incarcerated until such a time as they are deemed rehabilitated. Another thing is in my opinion we need to take a page from the American justice system and have life mean life, no parole no chance of seeing the outside at all, ever. At the end of the day hardlabour means that prisoners earn their keep and are productive members of society ignoring the fact that they are being forced to do so.

[Canuckistani]

I don’t see executions as only preventative, to me executions mean that people who have given up the right to life because they so brutally took it from someone else. Again we will always have innocent people in prison if our attitude is that we cannot help it, if we don’t invest more in to police and give the police forces across Canada the tools and manpower to solve the crimes properly and the Crown Prosecutors to convict the guilty party then we are doing nothing but a disservice to the Canadian People.

And you cannot for certain say that Bernardo will die in prison because there is always someone who can come along and claim he is rehabilitated. I am making an assumption that he will die in prison but that cannot be taken for granted.

Also, the death penalty is not a necessity to strengthen the justice system. Toughening up the justice system does not necessarily mean death penalty, saying that punishment in Canada is not enough does not necessarily mean we need to go to the other extreme.

The police and justice system will never be infallible, no matter what resources we throw at it. So with the death penalty, you will always execute a number of innocent people. Quite a number if the US system is anything to go by. I don't think that's worth it, when an alternative exists that keeps society just as safe, ie prison.

No, I can't be 100% certain Bernardo won't get out. But if we're crazy enough to let him out, we deserve what we get. Tightening up the parole system is something I have no problem with. That is where more resources should be allocated, so people who do get out on parole are properly supervised.

I'm not clear what you mean in your last paragraph?

So you know where I'm coming from: I'm against the death penalty. Main reason is moral - you don't condemn murder by killing. It just brutalizes society. But also, killing innocents discredits the whole system, IMO, even if you do believe in an eye for an eye.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Boges]

Tim Hortons and High Taxes

Edited May 22, 2012 by Boges

[bud]

Meaning? Should I be racist like you to be considered Canadian?

you have a lot of hot air that you need to release.

without citing where i have shown racism, your accusation is nothing but proof of you being a failure.

Some people are just unfit to live in a civilized society, and can never be rehabilitated, execution for those individuals is the way to go.

the above comment is also a failure.

[guyser]

Seems to me that the criminal has a lot more rights then the victim.

Lots of people make this mistake. But no, they do not, just have the same rights until conviction.

[bud]

Tim Hortons and High Taxes

haha

[Guest Peeves]

[quote name='Canuckistani'

The Shafia killers were certainly convicted on less than 100% no doubt evidence. And quite frankly, when they get out (the son and mother will for sure) they won't be killing again - they weren't serial murderers. So then the death penalty becomes about revenge rather than prevention.

"less than 100%" No they weren't. There was ample, conclusive and clear cut evidence that could only arrive at a guilty finding.. I've read the case pretty thoroughly and there is no doubt whatsoever to any reasonable person that would conclude other than that, on the body of evidence it is conclusive that they are guilty.

Certainly 'they' may never kill again, but other convicts do as a matter of fact.

[Guest Peeves]

Lots of people make this mistake. But no, they do not, just have the same rights until conviction.

Actually I wonder. The defense can go after the victim in many ways while the defendant need not even take the stand.

The victim's character, history, medical condition and finances can be used to discredit them on the stand. If they refuse to testify they can go to jail, yet the defendant need not take the stand and often much of the evidence that would attest to their past behavior is denied to the prosecution.

Not to belabor the point,but,the convicted criminal may then pursue a path of harassing the victim-victims by means of the Internet or phone or letter. The victim gets no protection from that and often can't prove the harassment.

Then the criminal gets hearings where there is a recurring reminder of the crime to the victims.

There are probably more examples, but why bother. The victim is dead te murderer lives and the victim's families never recover while the convict might go on for decades. See Richard Speck case maybe.

http://serialkillercentral.blogspot.ca/2010/07/richard-speck_16.html

Edited May 22, 2012 by Peeves