Murderers - Welcome to Canada

[Figleaf]

Can anybody make sense of this? "Speechless" is the only thing that came to mind.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007...pf-3698485.html

March 5, 2007

Fugitive killer won't be deported

By TOM GODFREY, SUN MEDIA

A Bangladeshi fugitive convicted of killing his country's prime minister in a bloody coup won't be deported from Canada because he faces a death sentence in his native land, an immigration board has ruled.

Two things:

First, Canada's stance on capital punishment wouldn't mean very much if if didn't apply to people likely to be subject to capital punishment.

Second, who's to say it was such a bad thing carrying out a coup in Bangladesh? Would you complain if he'd done it to Saddam?

[Figleaf]

They're the rules made by unelected judges following the perculiar political ideology of the elitist, ivory tower liberal.

Just one more thing for all of us to ponder.

Who was PM in 1961 ? Diefenbaker

What Party was in power in 1961? The Progressive Conservatives.

So what does this mean?..."rules made by unelected judges following the perculiar political ideology of the elitist, ivory tower liberal."

It means exactly what we all know quite well. Argus and most of his rightwing pals are just so full of it.

[Wilber]

Second, who's to say it was such a bad thing carrying out a coup in Bangladesh? Would you complain if he'd done it to Saddam?

Nice of you to make that judgment for them. This country has no moral authority to decide which heads of state it is OK to assassinate. That is one thing that Canadians love to throw in the face of Americans every time they involve themselves in the affairs of foreign governments.

[Wilber]

Show me where he was convicted in a Canadian court? So under CDN law he is not a murderer.

So Geoffrey Dahmer wasn't a murderer because he wasn't convicted in a Canadian court. Seems like kind of an arrogant position to take.

[Canuck E Stan]

Rather than worrying about kicking these assassins out, I'd worry about preventing them from getting in in the first place.

Just Assassins? what about thinking about the other 40,000(2004 number) that are here and not kicked out?Including a lot of war criminals....and not talking about Nazi war criminals,but criminals like the assassin mentioned.

War thugs find haven in Canada/National Post

The National Post(March 6, 2004) has obtained a secret government list that names

dozens of people wanted by Canadian authorities for their suspected

involvement in war crimes. They were supposed to be deported, but

never were.

But the federal government(Liberal back then) will not let Canadians know who they are.

The list of lost war criminals is such a closely guarded secret that

police say even they did not have it until last summer. When the Post

asked the immigration department to release it, officials took more

than a year to decide the names could not be made public for privacy

reasons.

Those caught in the immigration screening system are supposed to be

swiftly deported, but it does not always work that way. Documents

released under the Access to Information Act show the immigration

department has lost track of 40,000 migrants who were supposed to be

deported and never were. But perhaps most troubling are the war

criminals. They range from hardened torturers to senior members of

repressive regimes responsible for grave abuses.

But hey, they have rights too, don't they?

[na85]

But hey, they have rights too, don't they?

Nice attempt at twisting my words. I harbor no love of war criminals. Despite that fact, however, if they are Canadian citizens then yes, yes they do have rights as laid out in the Charter.

If, as your quoted sources state, those 40000 were slated to be deported but never were, then that is a different issue.

Chowdhury was never slated for deportation.

[na85]

Your own quote furthers my point.

Those caught in the immigration screening system are supposed to be

swiftly deported, but it does not always work that way. Documents

released under the Access to Information Act show the immigration

department has lost track of 40,000 migrants who were supposed to be

deported and never were. But perhaps most troubling are the war

criminals. They range from hardened torturers to senior members of

repressive regimes responsible for grave abuses.

If they were SUPPOSED to be deported when they failed an immigration criterion, but never were, that is a failure in the system.

[Alexandra]

It means exactly what we all know quite well. Argus and most of his rightwing pals are just so full of it.

It appears Argus [don't know about his rightwing pals] is quite right and, you may have missed the following;

".....But a quartet of Supreme Court of Canada rulings, known collectively as the Ortega ruling, quickly derailed the "rubber stamp" approach.

The Court said judges had a duty to protect the Charter rights of fugitives by questioning foreign evidence. It allows lawyers to put up all sorts of objections....."

`

[Figleaf]

It means exactly what we all know quite well. Argus and most of his rightwing pals are just so full of it.

It appears Argus [don't know about his rightwing pals] is quite right and, you may have missed the following;

".....But a quartet of Supreme Court of Canada rulings, known collectively as the Ortega ruling, quickly derailed the "rubber stamp" approach.

The Court said judges had a duty to protect the Charter rights of fugitives by questioning foreign evidence. It allows lawyers to put up all sorts of objections....."

`

Guyser's point, that the laws the judges are interpreting are made by the legislature (including Deifenbaker's government) refutes Argus' contention that judges have made this all up.

[myata]

Was / will his citizenship be stripped? (Not to ask how he's gotten it, with a murder conviction - but from the stories I hear from time to time, any miracles are possible in this country's immigration wonderland, so a big long sigh here).

If anyone was really interested in immigration system that would give genuine refugees a chance to get out of the hell, we would have negotiated deportation agreements with several safe third world countries, Canada paying for each individual deported. Each claimant would get a hearing, and, possibly, and if warranted, one review by a panel, then if it's denied, get on the plane to the "safe haven" next day. That may well be the money best spent by this country - not to mention that it would go to help many more real refugees as opposed to a few abusers who go round in circles trying (often, successfully) to dope the system.

[guyser]

It appears Argus [don't know about his rightwing pals] is quite right and, `

Did it in fact change the entire extradition treaty?

I am sure that if he had a leg to stand on he would be here touting it.

[Argus]

They're not MY rules. They're not the rules the Canadian people want. They're not even the rules the Canadian government wants. They're the rules made by unelected judges following the perculiar political ideology of the elitist, ivory tower liberal.

You are wrong, they are your rules. They were not made from unelected judges (read=Liberal) In fact you could not be more wrong, and if my writing style were like yours here is where I would insert a bon mot to try and humiliate the poster. But I wont. Hows them apples?

Death penalty was abolished in 1961. Death penalty was removed from the Military court years later ( I think in the 1970's) It was put to a free vote in 1976.... 'scuse me did someone mention Liberal judges?...and was defeated.

The death penalty has always been supported by a substantial majority of the Canadian people. Virtually every poll taken over thirty or forty years has said as much. When the death penalty was abolished (in 1976 not 1961)) the great majority of Canadians were opposed, and the great majority continue to want it returned. However, the elites, insulated from care or concern about crime or justice, are steadfast in opposition. There were no conservatives parties when the death penalty was formally abolished, and the liberal leaders of the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties twisted arms to make sure that the bill passed against the wishes of the electorate.

Japan, Germany, France, China and Austria do not extradite period.Most European nations, and Mexico as well as Canada do not extradite if the death penalty is called for.

The written law gives the minister of justice the option to seek assurances that the death penalty will not be used at his discretion. The unelected judges removed this discretion in 2001 after that notorious neo-con Allan Rock sought to allow extradition of two Canadian murderers facing the death penalty without seeking such assurances.

In the case of Charles Ng I agreed we should not send him back to the US.....unless the US was willing to not execute him. (They got him, they didnt execute him)

Funny. I would have paid to put a bullet in his face, or preferably, several in the groin. Ng deserved to die, and to die painfully and over time. I think that in cases like this we should house Ng and people like him with families of people like you who are so concerned over their fate.

[Argus]

They're the rules made by unelected judges following the perculiar political ideology of the elitist, ivory tower liberal.

Just one more thing for all of us to ponder.

Who was PM in 1961 ? Diefenbaker

What Party was in power in 1961? The Progressive Conservatives.

That's real exciting news there, Guyser. But as it happens, the last execution took place in Canada in December of 1962.

The death penalty was restricted to first degree murder, ie police and prison guards, in 1966, and then abolished altogether in 1976. Both by Liberal governments. The ban on extradition of murderers was put in place by judges, not politicians, in 2001

So what does this mean?..."rules made by unelected judges following the perculiar political ideology of the elitist, ivory tower liberal."

It means that if you're going to act like a pompous ass you ought to at least have your facts in order.

[Wilber]

But hey, they have rights too, don't they?

Nice attempt at twisting my words. I harbor no love of war criminals. Despite that fact, however, if they are Canadian citizens then yes, yes they do have rights as laid out in the Charter.

If, as your quoted sources state, those 40000 were slated to be deported but never were, then that is a different issue.

Chowdhury was never slated for deportation.

d

That's the problem with this whole scenario. If you commit a crime heinous enough to get the death penalty in another country, that makes you good enough to be a Canadian citizen. Boy, does that make me proud to be a Canadian.

[Wilber]

In this case not just any heinous crime but the murder of the country's head of state. Should get you the order of Canada next.

[Argus]

Look at this more simply. We have a murderer running around on our streets scott free. we don't have to drop him off at the airport, we can just boot him out of a plane with a parachute. The point is we cannot have murderers running around our streets in Canada.

Show me where he was convicted in a Canadian court? So under CDN law he is not a murderer.

So you'd have no problem with us establishing a kind of residence for people like this, Charles Ng, etc., on your street where they could live out the remainder of their days - since, after all, they have never been convicted under Canadian law.

[na85]

In this case not just any heinous crime but the murder of the country's head of state. Should get you the order of Canada next.

By that logic then, what if someone had murdered Saddam Hussein and also faced the death penalty?

[Wilber]

In this case not just any heinous crime but the murder of the country's head of state. Should get you the order of Canada next.

By that logic then, what if someone had murdered Saddam Hussein and also faced the death penalty?

Like I said, Canada has no moral authority to decide which heads of state it is OK to assassinate and which aren't. I seems you do and would make that someone a Canadian citizen. If we can make that judgment, so can others in return.

We've sure put the word out about where these people should run to. Canada will take anyone.

[na85]

I seems you do and would make that someone a Canadian citizen.

Not so much.

[Hydraboss]

Since "the bad element" is already aware that they can commit their crimes as long as they make it to Canada before they're caught (as kids we played tag and called it "homefree"), what would you say if someone were to do away with the President of the United States and then hightail it for Canada? Are you prepared to tell the US "we're not giving him to you unless you promise not to execute him"? Would you hand him over?

I sure as hell would.

As for all the people who believe that it is okay to harbor criminals to protect them, this is a perfect example of NIMBY. In Alberta, Edmonton has become the preferred nesting place of the not-so-elusive Child Rapist (refer to Hinterland Who's-Who for description). The bleeding hearts say "he may have done something wrong, but he has rights you know!" How many of these same people will offer their basement suite to these creatures? Not a one I'll bet.

I notice that Argus has received absolutely no response to his questions in this regards. What's the matter, no snappy comebacks people?

[guyser]

The death penalty has always been supported by a substantial majority of the Canadian people. Virtually every poll taken over thirty or forty years has said as much. When the death penalty was abolished (in 1976 not 1961)) the great majority of Canadians were opposed, and the great majority continue to want it returned. However, the elites, insulated from care or concern about crime or justice, are steadfast in opposition. There were no conservatives parties when the death penalty was formally abolished, and the liberal leaders of the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties twisted arms to make sure that the bill passed against the wishes of the electorate.

Except for the last poll which showed that 48% for, 46%against and 6% unsure.(1998)

Funny. I would have paid to put a bullet in his face, or preferably, several in the groin. Ng deserved to die, and to die painfully and over time. I think that in cases like this we should house Ng and people like him with families of people like you who are so concerned over their fate.

Well...considering he was in jail the whole time in Canada...no wait after getting picked up by the police that is. So I guess that makes your thoughts about housing him near me moot.

Before I forget, thanks for the correction on the time of abolishment. I meant to say Dief started the ball rolling .

But I wonder why murder rates seem to have gone down? And I find the fact that juries have increased first degree murder convictions from 10% to 20% following abolition interesting.

Since abolition 6 Canadians previously convicted of 1st degree murder have been exonerated .You know I would think most Canadians would rather one live than 6 die without merit.

[guyser]

It means that if you're going to act like a pompous ass you ought to at least have your facts in order.

Coming from you that is funny.

[Hydraboss]

Since abolition 6 Canadians previously convicted of 1st degree murder have been exonerated .You know I would think most Canadians would rather one live than 6 die without merit.

Possibly. What if you changed the question to "would you rather 1000 lived than 6 die without merit?" I think you would have a much different response.

And what if the question were "would you rather one live and be able to kill one child than 6 die without merit?"

[guyser]

Since abolition 6 Canadians previously convicted of 1st degree murder have been exonerated .You know I would think most Canadians would rather one live than 6 die without merit.

Possibly. What if you changed the question to "would you rather 1000 lived than 6 die without merit?" I think you would have a much different response.

And what if the question were "would you rather one live and be able to kill one child than 6 die without merit?"

The question that pollsters used was changed on the last poll. It was changed from capital punishment to execution by state (IIRC) That alone made a huge downward change in the answers. It was even moreso after the media started writing about and people learned the truth about executions.

Even the Chiefs of Police Canada said that it would be ridiculous to have it re-instated since murder has remained static or falling since repeal of capital punishment.

Everyone has the capabilities to kill a child. We "may have" put 6 innocents to death. With the advent of DNA there have been numerous wrongful convictions. I do not feel we are anywhere near getting it right and thus I will not support CAP PUN.

[blueblood]

Or this scenario, 11 serial killers were caught, judging by their psych patterns they would do it again. They were all executed. 1 turned out to be just an accomplice and didn't kill anyone. Was it worth it to execute the accomplice when at the time there was sufficient evidence to get the guilty verdict?