Bark!
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=d8d9aad609356969dbaa0cd0ef84833f&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is \"flexible\" on the death penalty. Just a coincidence I am sure.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=43eff13179cd30a07c14c8703a738810&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Hi Greg - They are flexible on a lot of things. As a self-identified Catholic commenter said here a couple of weeks ago, being a Catholic means living with a lot of contradictions.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=85695ebba0768b4601360136134923bb&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Chet said (in the linked post): \"The most basic function of any government is securing its citizens' rights, at home and abroad.\"
That's a nice sentiment, but I have a problem with the \"abroad\" part of it. Since when does the government of one nation tell the government of another nation which of its laws it may enforce upon whom?
There are no surprises in the world anymore with regards to crime and punishment. Everybody has access to the information about which countries (or states) will execute you for murder. Nobody can claim ignorance, even if ignorance were allowed as an excuse.
Should we be able to reasonably expect that Canadians have to be exempt from the consequences of their actions in another country?
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=df44420c4c3e23b39be546444bcdc286&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Should we be able to reasonably expect that Canadians have to be exempt from the consequences of their actions in another country?
No, but we should expect that our government would advocate for us, and in this fashion, represent the ideal that Canadians advocate for each other.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=55b314843dbdec62064ce9ddd5657287&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Ti-Guy, why should the federal government advocate on behalf of a person guilty of capital crimes in another nation where the rule of law is very clear and democratic?
Ronald Smith deserves to die. Canada's opinion has less weight than the opinions of the victims, the American Natives who he murdered. Justice cannot be denied.
The only time a government should be advocating for its citizens abroad is when the foreign government is committing an illegal act.
I'm Canadian, and I would not advocate for Smith. He committed the crime and he should pay the penalty as stated under the law in that venue.
Now, if he were sitting on death row for jaywalking, that would be different. But the state of Montana is clearly within its own law on this.
Chimera, perfectly said.
Chimera - Since Canada is opposed to the death penalty, it's our government's duty to advocate for citizens abroad who are thusly sentenced.
I have no sympathy for the guy in question -- throw him in the slam and toss away the key. My concern is that allowing the DP to proceed against one of our own citizens is tacit approval of the sentence. The DP was long ago determined to be primitive and demeaning to our society -- allowing another state to carry it out on one of our citizens doesn't make it any less so.
Ti-Guy - Exactly, it's not a matter of being exempt from anything, it's a matter of the gov't standing up for one of its citizens against a penalty we're opposed to.
Ti-Guy, why should the federal government advocate on behalf of a person guilty of capital crimes in another nation where the rule of law is very clear and democratic?
Very clear and democratic? By what criteria is that determined?
Ronald Smith deserves to die. Canada's opinion has less weight than the opinions of the victims, the American Natives who he murdered. Justice cannot be denied.
This is opinion and sentimental twaddle. You're capable of better, RA.
...Or, you should realise that your own personal beliefs are of no value to anyone but yourself.
RA - \"Ronald Smith deserves to die.\" Really. You're a bloodthirsty little bugger, aren't ya?![\"\"](\"http://www.haloscan.com/images/smileys/clin_oeil.gif\")
It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks -- when a Canadian is facing a penalty we've long ago discarded (with good reason), it's his gov't's duty to advocate against that sentence.
It has nothing to do with having any sympathy for Smith himself, and everything to do with our gov't standing up for a Canadian principle. If they don't, they're approving the sentence.
How does it impact the victims whether Smith spends the rest of his life in the can or is executed? It doesn't. Either way he's off the street. Ask someone who's done a long prison sentence -- sometimes there are worse things than dying. And we don't have to become animals in the process of making it happen.
The only time a government should be advocating for its citizens abroad is when the foreign government is committing an illegal act.
Huh? Illegal according to what legal system? Ours?...Theirs?
You really haven't thought this out very well.
Let me be clear. Defending Canadians from capital punishment is a moral obligation for most Canadians, and a legal one, since Canada does not have the death penalty. It is therefore a coherent position to take. Those of you who don't agree with that need to make better arguments.
The assertion that Canadians should be subject to the legal systems of other states when they leave Canada is a given, and I don't think anyone is refuting that. But it does come down to the administration of a particular form of penalty...the ultimate penalty...the death penalty...that concerns us here.
Ti-Guy - Exactly, it's not a matter of being exempt from anything, it's a matter of the gov't standing up for one of its citizens against a penalty we're opposed to.
JJ: Well, the problem is with the word \"we're.\" Apparently some Canadians are opposed to the death penalty...in Canada...but are fine with it somewhere else.
...and they call liberals \"moral relitavists.\"
Ti-Guy - \"But it does come down to the administration of a particular form of penalty...the ultimate penalty...the death penalty...that concerns us here.\"
Thanks, Ti-Guy, this cold's got my brain in neutral, but that is exactly what I was trying to say.
...er...\"relativists.\"
I'm coming down with something too, JJ. I thinks its \"wingnut fatigue.\"
\"Huh? Illegal according to what legal system? Ours?...Theirs?\"
Theirs. In their own country/state.
\"You really haven't thought this out very well.\"
Wrong. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I haven't thought long and hard. All it means is that I don't agree with you. Surprise! It's allowed!
\"Let me be clear. Defending Canadians from capital punishment is a moral obligation for most Canadians, and a legal one, since Canada does not have the death penalty.\"
Okay, now let me clear. Nobody gets to tell me what is moral for me. Morality is subjective, and I'm fully capable of making up my own mind, thankyouverymuch.
And Canada might not have the death penalty, but Montana does. And since Smith committed -- and confessed to -- the crime of murder in Montana, not Canada, then he broke Montana's law and Montana should have the final say in what happens to him, not Canada.
ti-guy, I've been banned at POGGE for speaking my mind. Good old progressives, eh?
Oh and it's not about personal beliefs. The bottom line is that we should not be interfering in the rule of law of democratic nations, whether or not we agree with the punishments handed out. It would be like objecting to every country who opposed abortion.
Wrong. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I haven't thought long and hard. All it means is that I don't agree with you. Surprise! It's allowed!
Yeah, that's great. But you didn't answer my question...whose legal system? Ours?..Theirs?
Okay, now let me clear. Nobody gets to tell me what is moral for me. Morality is subjective, and I'm fully capable of making up my own mind, thankyouverymuch.
I'm sure you are. Morality is not subjective, by the way. Morality is contextual and symbolic. But that doesn't mean it's subjective.
ti-guy, I've been banned at POGGE for speaking my mind. Good old progressives, eh?
Yeah, well I've been banned at POGGE's before, so don't let it get to you.
Woops, sorry, Chimera...You did answer my question:
Theirs. In their own country/state.
But doesn't that contradict what you said above:
Now, if he were sitting on death row for jaywalking, that would be different.
Presumably, the charge of jaywalking here would be under their legal system, since otherwise, no charge would exist. Right?
As I said...present better arguments. And try not to be incoherent.
...sorry to drag this here, JJ. I won't indulge it much futher...
Raphael: You accused POGGE of defending rapist and murderers. You deserved to be banned.
\"Presumably, the charge of jaywalking here would be under their legal system, since otherwise, no charge would exist. Right?\"
Aw, damn. Proofreading glitch. I did not make that clear enough. And yeah, I can understand now why you think I was contradicting myself. My apologies, and I shall elucidate.
Clearly, jaywalking is not a capital offense in Montana. So, if Smith were on death row for jaywalking, he would be there illegally under Montana law. At that point, I would expect the Canadian government to barge in demand that they return our citizen.
But by the same measuring stick, if he ever does go jaywalking in a country where jaywalking is a capital offense, once again, he's on his own.
Morality may be contextual and symbolic. But it's also subjective. Lots of people think homosexuality (just as a f'rinstance, not as a basis for argument) is immoral. Lots of people think it's perfectly moral. Personally, I don't think it's immoral to execute a murderer. Especially one who has confessed to torturing his victims before he killed them.
Rhetorical afterthought: Does Dubya fit that profile?
I wasn't banned over that. I was banned over stating Jack Layton cares more for politics than our military.
But while we're on the subject, how about it?
How many of you put your principles that \"killing is wrong\" above all else, including the deserved justice of executing people like Paul Bernardo? A man who tortured and taunted two teenage girls before strangling them? What about the murderer of Holly Jones, a man who raped a 10 year-old, cut her up in his apartment, and then went to work like nothing happened and was only convicted on DNA evidence? Do we abide our tax dollars to their continued existence?
Aren't we taking this 1960's vision thing that \"killing is wrong\" to it's greatest extreme? Allowing murderers to live healthy and happy lives until they die of old age in a prison?
Chimera - Our personal morality is subjective, but our laws are not. There's no controversy over whether capital punishment is the law in Canada, it's clearly not.
A criminal doesn't revoke his Canadian citizenship when he commits a crime. Nor does he revoke said citizenship if he commits the crime in another jurisdiction. He's still a Canadian. The government owes it not just him, but the rest of us, to advocate against a punishment that we've determined is heinous.
Also -- I'm not quite so trusting in teh authorities... is the police apparatus in Montana so much better than it is everywhere else that they couldn't make a mistake? Or coerce someone into a confession? As long as there are questions like that, the death penalty should be off the table.
RA - \"It would be like objecting to every country who opposed abortion.\"
Um, not quite. Not at all, actually. There's no controversy as to whether the convict is a \"person\" as defined by law and science/medicine.
You're an honest person, Chimera, and I appreciate your candour.
...*ahem*...However...
But by the same measuring stick, if he ever does go jaywalking in a country where jaywalking is a capital offense, once again, he's on his own.
Argumentum ad absurdum, Chimera.
Morality may be contextual and symbolic. But it's also subjective.
How's about you look into the meaning of \"contextual,\" \"symbolic,\" and \"subjective.\"
JJ: No argument on whether or not our laws are subjective/objective. They're there. But whether or not we all agree with them is still in dispute and always has been. I have never agreed with the outright banning of capital punishment. Neither do I agree with it across the board. Each individual case should be judged strictly on its own merits.
The laws in Montana are also not subjective/objective. Capital crimes get capital sentences. They have not inserted a rider saying, \"unless you're Canadian, because the government of Canada does not condone execution.\"
If he had killed those two in Canada, we'd be looking at a different case. But he killed them in Montana. He is therefore subject to Montana law. His citizenship has nothing to do with it. There are no exemptions for Canadians down there.
It's also not a matter of trusting the authorities not to make a mistake. He's admitted to killing those men. Torturing them first, then killing them. What more do they need to know in Montana?
\"How's about you look into the meaning of \"contextual,\" \"symbolic,\" and \"subjective.\"\"
I'm not sure I take your meaning, here. Are you saying that there is a mutual exclusivity among these adjectives?
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=d3c978e357853ddfcd4f79c705060161&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Oh lordy, I see the fun’s happening here tonight. I’m with JJ on this one, the guy may be an asshole but I don’t believe in capital punishment. There is no justification for killing for any reason, plain and simple. If murder is such a horrible crime then it doesn’t make sense to murder someone for it. Lock the dude up and throw away the key, death can’t be anywhere near the punishment that a life behind bars is.
RA - \"Aren't we taking this 1960's vision thing that \"killing is wrong\" to it's greatest extreme?\"
I'm not that kind of hippie![\"\"](\"http://www.haloscan.com/images/smileys/soleil.gif\")
Rest assured, I'd gladly put a slug between Bernardo's beady eyes myself.
But that doesn't mean I trust the state to have the ongoing responsibility of deciding who lives & dies. Donald Marshall, David Milgard, Steven Truscott etc etc, I know people personally who were wrongly convicted and would be dead if we had the DP. The legal system is far too corrupt and incompetent to have that kind of power.
The cost argument is a non-starter, since appellate courts mean the death penalty almost always ends up being more expensive than life in prison.
I'm not that kind of hippie Rest assured, I'd gladly put a slug between Bernardo's beady eyes myself.
I love finding something I agree with the left on.
The legal system is far too corrupt and incompetent to have that kind of power.
I support the execution of people convicted on incontrovertible evidence, not circumstantial. There's little doubt that Kimveer Gill could be convicted and executed had he not taken his life.
The cost argument is a non-starter, since appellate courts mean the death penalty almost always ends up being more expensive than life in prison.
Allright, at least you've offered a valid argument [unlike POGGE]. I respect that.
I'm still retaining my primary argument that we should respect the rule of law of a country who upholds their own version of punishment and justice. Mr.Smith surrendered his rights as a Canadian citizen when he killed the two Americans.
Chimera - I'm not doubting the guy's scum cred. I don't think he's some innocent accountant who accidentally strayed onto the scene of a crime and was fed LSD and coerced into confessing for it.
The argument here is getting a little sidetracked -- it's not about whether this guy's guilty or not, in all likelihood he is. It's about whether we, who oppose capital punishment, should take a stand on it when one of our citizens (whether we want him or not) gets that sentence, a sentence we oppose, in another country. I say Yes, we should. If we don't, we are tacitly condoning the sentence.
Also - Not that it makes any difference, but a defendent seldom knows what their punishment will be until late in the trial. One of many reasons why the DP isn't a deterrent.
I'm not sure I take your meaning, here. Are you saying that there is a mutual exclusivity among these adjectives?
No. I didn't mention \"mutual exclusivity.\" Terms that have different meanings don't have to represent concepts that are mutually exclusive.
..feh. I have had enough of this shite.
The cost argument is a non-starter, since appellate courts mean the death penalty almost always ends up being more expensive than life in prison.
We're really also talking about the fiscal deficiency of the legal system to produce affordable justice for people. That it costs millions of dollars to try a murderer is absurd. Bloated salaries for lawyers and legal teams and judges is the primary reason that many deals are cut before trials. When Americans seek the death penalty they do so out of principle, as they understand the cost will be substantial.
Bruce - Yeah, it's kind of like the old \"bombing for peace\" meme.
Locking him up and tossing the key is sufficient. We as a society shouldn't descend to killing each other on a routine basis. Especially when it's likely that the thicker a defendent's wallet is, the more insulated he'll be from such punishment.
Too many inequities for the state to have this power.
Ti-Guy said \"Defending Canadians from capital punishment is a moral obligation for most Canadians, and a legal one, since Canada does not have the death penalty. It is therefore a coherent position to take.\" Exactly.
Ti-Guy gets to what I think is the heart of the matter with that statement. It doesn't matter where the punishment is being exacted, we should stand up for what we as a country believe.
RA - \"I support the execution of people convicted on incontrovertible evidence\"
Fair enough. I disagree, one reason being because the definition of incontrovertibility may vary... and I don't trust the state to decide.
IMO until the justice system is perfect, it shouldn't be capable of rendering such irreversible decisions as the DP. Even if that means guys like Bernardo get to stay alive, it also means that wrongly convicted guys like Marshall etc get to stay alive too. A hundred Bernardos is worth one Marshall, IMO.
Furthermore, there are far too many inequities in sentencing. It's very seldom rich white killers that get the DP.
\"When Americans seek the death penalty they do so out of principle, as they understand the cost will be substantial.\" There's something creepy about a society that allows itself to slide into a primitive \"eye for an eye\" mentality and calls it a \"principle\".
It doesn't matter where the punishment is being exacted, we should stand up for what we as a country believe.
It's this kind of grandiose notion which perpetuates the paradoxes of our society. We say one thing, do another, and then criticize other countries for not standing on principle.
If only we cared as much about child poverty in Canada as we do about convicted felons in foreign countries, or terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, or Taliban detainees. Why, we might not have a one in four rate.
RA - You got banned from POGGE??![\"\"](\"http://www.haloscan.com/images/smileys/lol.gif\")
WTF did you do??
RA - Child poverty is a huge issue. It's possible to care about several issues simultaneously, none of them are mutually-exclusive
\"It's about whether we, who oppose capital punishment, should take a stand on it when one of our citizens (whether we want him or not) gets that sentence, a sentence we oppose, in another country.\"
But I don't oppose it. And I am taking a stand. I think Montana has every right to administer its own laws without exception or interference from us. This is not about whether or not he is scum. This is about equal \"justice\" (I have to admit to a bad taste in my mouth from that word in its present-day usage) for everyone, regardless of citizenship.
\"...we should stand up for what we as a country believe.\"
But I don't believe the same as \"the country.\" And I'm not alone. We do not all speak with one voice, here.
If he had committed the murder in Canada, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because our laws are definite on it -- we don't do it. But he went to a death penalty state and broke their death penalty law. He pays their price, not ours.
Chimera - \"But I don't oppose it.\"
Yeah but Canada's official position isn't consistent with your personal position, and that's the issue. If it's our official position, we should be advocating as a DP-opposed country when one of our citizens gets that sentence in another country.
\"We do not all speak with one voice, here\"
When it comes to our official position on an issue versus that of another country, yes we do speak with one voice, the voice of the majority who elect the people who make the laws governing that issue. The majority clearly rejects the DP, and our law reflects that.
OK Chimera, using your logic then it wouldn’t be a big deal if I went to Iran and was hanged because I’m gay. The mere fact of who I am is illegal there, you can’t cherry pick justice. It’s either right or wrong, everywhere, and we expect our government to uphold our ideals for our citizens worldwide, yes, even the assholes.
Bruce: I've never said it wasn't a big deal. And there's a helluva difference between being persecuted for simply being who you are and being prosecuted for deliberately committing a capital crime.
You could be hanged in Iran for being gay. And I can be stoned and then roasted on a spit for being a Witch. Knowing this in advance, why on earth would either one of us voluntarily go there?
This isn't about cherry-picking, either. It's about dealing in the here and now with the reality of laws as they stand in whatever jurisdiction. Montana is a death penalty state. Smith committed a death penalty crime. His citizenship should not be an issue if \"justice\" (there's that word again) is to be seen to be equal.
JJ, I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I disagreed with the wholesale dismissal of the death penalty in 1976, and I haven't changed my mind.
Bruce - Good point. Being gay is a capital crime in Iran, so by this logic our gov't would have nothing to say if a Canadian were sentenced to hang there? Harper is making the grave mistake of introducing relativism to a Canadian principle.
I wonder how much of this is a test to guage the public's approval of the DP.
Fair enough. I disagree, one reason being because the definition of incontrovertibility may vary... and I don't trust the state to decide.
Some murders are caught on tape. Some are witnessed by many people. Some are candid and obvious. There should be opportunity to punish the most wicked.
I mention again: Holly Jones was murdered by a wicked and evil villain. When he was finally confronted with the evidence he confessed completely to police and then pleaded guilty in trial. He told his entire story to police which was published in the papers about how he abducted her, raped her, strangled her, and cut her body into small pieces, all in the span of a few hours. By nightfall she was in Lake Ontario.
Are you sure you believe it's better to allow Michael Briere to lie in bed at night, and fantasize about those moments in his mind?
Furthermore, there are far too many inequities in sentencing. It's very seldom rich white killers that get the DP.
I don't see how race is relevant in the death penalty argument.
There's something creepy about a society that allows itself to slide into a primitive \"eye for an eye\" mentality and calls it a \"principle\".
Let me tell you a story. When I was a kid I was talking with my grandfather and somehow the topic came up. I said I would never support the death penalty. He asked me what I would think if somebody walked in there and butchered everybody in front of my eyes, and then went to prison where he received three square meals, all the books he could read, television, exercise, and sanctuary and clothing.
Not much of a punishment when most of us have to spend the rest of our lives working 40 hours a week.
You got banned from POGGE?? WTF did you do??
I told POGGE that I felt Jack Layton was a political opportunist and always rushes to defend the Taliban.
Bruce - Good point. Being gay is a capital crime in Iran, so by this logic our gov't would have nothing to say if a Canadian were sentenced to hang there? Harper is making the grave mistake of introducing relativism to a Canadian principle.
That's not moral relativism. Executing someone for being a homosexual is not even a matter for debate. It's like saying that capital punishment is invalid because the Serbians would also have a right to kill the Bosnians under moral relativism.
That's not what anyone is saying. We're saying that when a man commits murder in another country, we support the rule of law in that country to dole out punishment. Being homosexual is not a recognized crime.
I’m a little shocked that for all your love of kittens all things cute that you would think death is an appropriate penalty for anything. That’s real cute.
The point you seem to making is that we have to respect the laws of other jurisdictions and that’s fine to a point, yes we have to do that while we’re there but if one of our sons or daughters gets into trouble abroad where penalties are not what we would do here then we try to get them back.
And don’t forget that this whole conversation started because the Harper government has decided to absolve itself of international responsibilities to its citizens, is what you are supporting?
Chimera - You have much more faith in the authorities than I do, I'm afraid Until the justice system is infallible, it has no business deciding who lives and dies.
And really, I'd rather be a citizen of a country that's progressed beyond the primitive concept of bloodthirsty revenge. Get them off the street and keep them off the street, that's good enough for me.
Bruce: Kittens and other cutenesses don't go around preying on their own species, then \"finding god\" when it looks like they're gonna get punished for it. And next to humans, all other animals are pretty much innocent bystanders.
I think if we as a nation actually teach our children to obey the laws or take full responsibility when they do not, we wouldn't have to worry so much about their getting caught in someone else's system. Or even our own system. Some would refuse to learn, true. But it wouldn't be for lack of trying to get them to take responsibility.
I shudder to think that by taking the stand I have, I'm actually philosophically in line with Harper about anything. So I'm gonna look at it as if he were supporting me on this.
But again, it's not across-the-board about refusing to stand behind our citizens abroad. It's about whether or not Smith's citizenship should allow him to evade the penalty that he would have to face if he were not Canadian.
And I say no.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=9f8e55ea5a18a560cbe1e371f5410b9a&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Damn I missed a good convo. Good points against capital punishment guys.
Honestly, societies should not be able to decide who lives or dies. It's ethically wrong and should be called out as such.
My last post was directed at Chimera, I don’t know if RA loves kittens or not.
The point is do we afford our citizens the same protection abroad that we afford them here? Sure, being gay isn’t the same as killing someone but it carries the same punishment in many places. And, as JJ pointed out before, how many people were wrongfully convicted of in THIS country? We can trust that other nations will do a better job?
Common, murder is murder whether it is sanctioned by a government or committed by a mad man, it’s still murder.
JJ, it's not about \"having faith,\" either. I don't trust the \"authorities\" any more than you do.
But Smith admitted to torturing and killing those men. Admitted it.
RA - I think we're talking past each other a bit. Briere is another one I'd gladly take out myself (quickly running out of ammo here).
I oppose the death penalty for a few reasons, but primarily because the state can't be trusted to decide who lives and who doesn't. The judicial system is simply too corrupt and inept to have this kind of responsibility. If saving the life of one wrongly convicted person means letting 100 Briere's get life in prison instead of the DP, I'm OK with that. (Trust me, prison guards have ways of making life pretty uncomfortable for these guys.) Additionally, most Canadians agree that the DP is primitive and demeaning to our society.
Having said that, the issue isn't whether you or I or anyone agrees with the DP -- as a nation we are opposed to it in principle and policy. So if another country is going against our principles in its treatment of a Canadian citizen, do we say \"Hey, that's wrong\" or do we let Harper say \"Oh, I guess it's okay sometimes\". Because then it's not a principle anymore, it's an empty meaningless slogan, and not representative of Canadian values.
Bruce, protecting our citizens abroad is one thing. Teaching them that they can have carte blanche in another country to go kill someone, and we'll rescue them from having to pay for it under the law in that country, that's something else.
Carte blanche? Oh common, even you can't believe that.
I think that you're misunderstanding Chimera, the Canadian government is only petitioning to have the death penalty overturned. Not for him to escape punishment.
That's what we've always done, so why are we having this conversation? I don't think anybody expects the guy to escape punishment.
JJ, you do make a good point. My point, however, is that if we interfere with this situation in Montana, where there is absolutely no question of his guilt, then we are setting up some possible really bad situations.
Montana (or other states...or even the entire country) might refuse to allow Canadians to go there under any circumstances.
Canadians who have a thirst for blood might decide to take that urge down to the States, secure in the knowledge that we will yank them away from the penalties they face when they get caught. We could, as a nation, become the ultimate bad neighbors!
(*Whoa...this is like becoming a chat room or sumthin'*)
RA - \"We're saying that when a man commits murder in another country, we support the rule of law in that country to dole out punishment.\"
Even if that law runs directly counter to our principles? Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me it seems fairly straightforward -- if a sentence against one of our citizens is contradictory to our principles, specifically the principle that state-sanctioned murder is wrong, we have to stand up to it. It's got nothing to do with defending the criminal, just defending our Canadian principles and the gov't doing its job to make sure those principles apply to all citizens, even those abroad, and yes, even douchebags.
Chimera - Maher Arar admitted to being an al qaeda operative. We know how that worked out.
\"...the Canadian government is only petitioning to have the death penalty overturned. Not for him to escape punishment.\"
Interference with Montana's legal system on the basis of \"we don't agree with capital punishment, so please let our citizen have special treatment\" is still interference. In this country, our judges just don't take it seriously when one man kills another. A slap on the wrist, a few months in jail, and hey...he walks out. You call that punishment?
My last post was directed at Chimera, I don’t know if RA loves kittens or not.
I'm impartial to kittens ![\"\"](\"http://www.haloscan.com/images/smileys/content.gif\")
Well, I guess I kind of like kittens in moderation.
By the way don't ever use the acronym DP to search for capital punishment on the internet. It... er... leads to some rather nasty business.
I guess you can believe that. I don't know what makes you think that we somehow give permission to our people to commit crimes with impunity in other nations but it doesn't work that way, never has, never will.
RA: I see what you mean! Dr. Pepper is gross!
Bruce - Yeah, good point -- the guy's not getting away with his crime. He's just, as a Canadian citizen, hopefully not getting the DP. Lock him up forever, I don't care. But Harper shouldn't be acting contradictory to Canadian values.
I think that you're misunderstanding Chimera, the Canadian government is only petitioning to have the death penalty overturned. Not for him to escape punishment.
With respect, Paladiea, I think you misunderstand. The death penalty is the punishment. Not being executed is escaping the punishment. If you do not agree with the punishment of the legal system in the United States, it invalidates all law in the United States.
Even if that law runs directly counter to our principles?
Yes. Because then it would lead to the kind of moral relativism that everybody here is accusing the conservatives of. If we don't agree with a single principle of the Americans, it invalidates our trust and faith in their entire system. Should we extradite every Canadian imprisoned abroad?
We agree that U.S. law is similar in constitutional freedoms as Canada. We agree that U.S. law is evolved from the same British legal system we use. We agree that U.S. law is capable of finding people guilty in a fair trial. But we don't agree with their right to dole punishment as decided upon by a majority of their people. This is selective law based on subjective morality.
Maher Arar admitted to being an al qaeda operative. We know how that worked out.
Invalid. R.Smith was never under duress or torture. Such things are in contravention of international law.
Like it or not, Iraq also has capital punishment, and they executed Saddam Hussein. We can't impose our moral subjectivity on his case either.
Chimera - \"A slap on the wrist, a few months in jail, and hey...he walks out.\" A few months in jail? I don't think so. Young offenders might get off lightly with a few years, but generally for serious crimes (murder) you're looking at an extended visit. Which is as it should be.
Taking the guy up to the green room and running 2000 volts through him ... not so much.
With respect, Paladiea, I think you misunderstand. The death penalty is the punishment. Not being executed is escaping the punishment. If you do not agree with the punishment of the legal system in the United States, it invalidates all law in the United States.
And that punishment is wrong, and should be commuted to life in prison, which is another punishment.
As I told you on Scott's site, disagreeing with a specific law does not invalidate the entire system otherwise no law would be struck down.
The death penalty is wrong no matter how vile the person is, and it's well within Canada's rights to express that opinion.
By the way hippe, your arguments are worthy of insight and admiration. What party are you affiliated with for my blog list, or are you non-partisan?
The most worrying aspect of this whole is thing is the way Harper is showing his trademark impatience again. He isn’t waiting for an election, he is going to pass any legislation and change whatever rules he can while he knows there is no chance of a fair vote, he would never get away with it otherwise. Our loyal opposition is letting us down.
Pleae JJ, I want to hear your reply hippie
Paladiea says on another blog:
That’s not true, we never lose the right to life. Just like we never lose the right to expression and thought.
We do lose the right to life, when a majority of our peers agree to it. Capital Punishment is a democratic right in the United States which supersedes the rights of the convicted murderers.
No government or society should have the right to say who lives or dies.
Why not? Governments decide on rights all the time. That's the purpose of democracy. You are arguing for an absolute moral statement. I am saying that such things are in a state of flux based on the democratic decisions of man.
Is murder immoral? Yes. That is an absolute statement I agree with.
Is immoral murder necessary to provide punishment? Yes, I think it is.
Fine, but all we were doing is petitioning to have the death penalty overturned, hardly an egregious violation of US sovereignty.
If your subjective views on the matter befit an objection of the U.S. laws, then perhaps you should object. I see that as a personal freedom. But to expect a conservative government who likely sees the shaky ground that capital abolition rests on to lobby on behalf of clemency is a liberty Stephen Harper also upholds.
I’m frankly disturbed at your abhorrence to dissent. I can disagree with any specific law that I want to, and in extreme cases, ignore it in civil disobedience. But openly disagreeing with said law is never a denial of the system as a whole.
It is when you displace your own morals onto another country which has democratically decided upon a punishment.
RA - \"Invalid. R.Smith was never under duress or torture. Such things are in contravention of international law.\" Probably quite right in this situation. I just tend to look askance when people say \"But he confessed!\" as a good reason for the DP.
Don't you think it's relativism not to stand up for what is supposed to be a Canadian principle, though? And another point of interest: which countries are they talking about when they say \"a democratic country that supports the rule of law\"? Iraq? Who makes that determination? Stockie? Egads.
Paladiea - \"disagreeing with a specific law does not invalidate the entire system otherwise no law would be struck down.\" Exactly. I have no problem with him getting life, hard time, and in a US prison any time is hard time.
We do lose the right to life, when a majority of our peers agree to it. Capital Punishment is a democratic right in the United States which supersedes the rights of the convicted murderers.
Newsflash, we're not in the States. In Canada, the right to life is preserved regardless.
Why not? Governments decide on rights all the time. That's the purpose of democracy. You are arguing for an absolute moral statement. I am saying that such things are in a state of flux based on the democratic decisions of man.
Actually no, in Canada, the rights of the people are enshrined in our Charter. And in the States, in the Bill of Rights, and interpreted by judges. And interpretation of rights does not happen all the time.
Is murder immoral? Yes. That is an absolute statement I agree with.
Is immoral murder necessary to provide punishment? Yes, I think it is.
We do lose the right to life, when a majority of our peers agree to it. Capital Punishment is a democratic right in the United States which supersedes the rights of the convicted murderers.
Newsflash, we're not in the States. In Canada, the right to life is preserved regardless.
Why not? Governments decide on rights all the time. That's the purpose of democracy. You are arguing for an absolute moral statement. I am saying that such things are in a state of flux based on the democratic decisions of man.
Actually no, in Canada, the rights of the people are enshrined in our Charter. And in the States, in the Bill of Rights, and interpreted by judges. And interpretation of rights does not happen all the time.
Is murder immoral? Yes. That is an absolute statement I agree with.
Is immoral murder necessary to provide punishment? Yes, I think it is.
And I think that the ends don't justify the means.
But to expect a conservative government who likely sees the shaky ground that capital abolition rests on to lobby on behalf of clemency is a liberty Stephen Harper also upholds.
Except he doesn't. As PM he's obligated to promote our interests abroad. And it's in our interests to see that Capital Punishment be stopped.
It is when you displace your own morals onto another country which has democratically decided upon a punishment.
Hmm I'll remember that the next time someone throws a fit over some law in Iran.
Since I saw you arguing that the murder of gay people in Iran is wrong, but why is that so? Isn't it the laws of a democratic society? Who are we to judge?
You want the government to speak on behalf of Canadians who you feel believe that capital punishment is wrong. Firstly, is this a known fact?
The Canadian Alliance sought election based on a pledge to reinstate the death penalty. Some of the elements of the party are retained in the new conservative government. Do you seriously expect a conservative government to advocate on a position they don't personally endorse?
It would be like Stephen Harper being forced to call upon the abolition of pregnancy laws in other nations. He and members of his party feel differently.
Now, I'll make it clear on one issue. The current party does not reflect the opinion of all conservatives, particularly progressives like Brian Mulroney, who opposed the death penalty. So it's important to consider that not all conservatives support the death penalty, but it is important to put into perspective the party we have in power.
While they don't have the power to enact the end of abolition, they do have the power to abstain from helping Ronald Smith, and this is a decision I feel they are legally free to make.
RA - Thanks, I don't often get conservative voices in here (well, at least none with measurable IQs), and it's always cool when one of them drops in.
I'm not really affiliated with any party, I'm sort of a quasi-libertarian lefty I guess. Political compass: lower left quadrant of the lower left quadrant.
You can call me JJ.
Or maybe, \"Miss\" JJ for now.
Now, I'll make it clear on one issue. The current party does not reflect the opinion of all conservatives, particularly progressives like Brian Mulroney, who opposed the death penalty. So it's important to consider that not all conservatives support the death penalty, but it is important to put into perspective the party we have in power.
Indeed. I'm sure things will change once this idiotic government is out of power.
JJ, I'm willing to bet this is longest comment thread you ever had except for that unfortunate flying monkey episode. You've got people talking dear. How are you feeling with that cold?
RA - \"Do you seriously expect a conservative government to advocate on a position they don't personally endorse?\"
Yes. Because they're the Conservative government, not the \"Conservative Party government\". As much as they might like to think they only need to represent Conservatives (see the Skeena Bulkley Valley debacle last August), once they became the government, they started representing all Canadians. That changes the rules.
Newsflash, we're not in the States. In Canada, the right to life is preserved regardless.
Right. But Ronald Smith did not commit his crimes in Canada, nor is he here to be offered our sanctuary.
Actually no, in Canada, the rights of the people are enshrined in our Charter
Show me in the Charter where it says the government of Canada is obligated by law to seek clemency for a citizen being executed for capital crimes abroad.
And I think that the ends don't justify the means.
I don't understand. What are you saying here? The ends of punishment? Americans have decided that they do justify the means.
Hmm I'll remember that the next time someone throws a fit over some law in Iran.
Iran is not a democracy. It's a fundamentalist theocracy in contravention of international law and flagrant human rights violations. You cannot in any seriousness whatsoever mount a credible comparison. [Well, you can try I suppose]
Well said JJ.
\"Newsflash, we're not in the States. In Canada, the right to life is preserved regardless.\"
But Smith is in the States. In a death penalty state, to be precise. And their law says that he gave up his right to his own life when he took the lives of others.
Paladiea - \"I'm sure things will change once this idiotic government is out of power.\" I've got my fingers crossed
Political compass: lower left quadrant of the lower left quadrant.
I took that compass last night. It doesn't make any sense because it says I'm left wing, but it placed me a hair left of the centre and a hair south of centre. Which means I'm pretty much centrist, which I thought anyway... but I really don't agree with being placed in the left column. A strange quiz.
once they became the government, they started representing all Canadians. That changes the rules.
An interesting volley. Here's the return serve:
Show me exactly where it says the government is required, by law, to intervene in matters where a foreign government seeks to execute a Canadian for crimes of a capital nature?
\"I'm sure things will change once this idiotic government is out of power.\"
Absolutely NO argument from me on that point. And it can't happen fast enough to suit me, either.
Bruce - this comment thread is longer than the dreaded SDA thread -- I only let that one go to 47 comments before I turned them off.
But this one is just a little more civil In the SDA thread even I had succumbed to my animal side and was starting to give rebuttals like \"Oh, shut the fuck up, moron.\"
My cold is still raging, but not as bad as it was. I can talk at least.
Show me in the Charter where it says the government of Canada is obligated by law to seek clemency for a citizen being executed for capital crimes abroad.
You're moving the goalposts. That sentence was a response to you saying that rights are democratically chosen. They're not. They're enshrined in the country's fabric at conception or in amendments.
I don't understand. What are you saying here? The ends of punishment? Americans have decided that they do justify the means.
To kill someone to punish them. Punishment indeed, but not justifiable by murder.
Iran is not a democracy. It's a fundamentalist theocracy in contravention of international law and flagrant human rights violations. You cannot in any seriousness whatsoever mount a credible comparison. [Well, you can try I suppose]
Alright, how about the deaths of gay men in India. That's a democracy, and homosexuality and sodomy is illegal there too. But I guess it's wrong for our government to argue for equal rights for all, especially since they don't believe in that concept.
Bruce: Flying monkey episode? Yoicks, wha'd I miss?
Show me exactly where it says the government is required, by law, to intervene in matters where a foreign government seeks to execute a Canadian for crimes of a capital nature?
It doesn't. It doesn't say that we should advocate for human rights abroad either, or give foreign aid, but we do anyway. Because it's the right thing to do.
I gotta go, too much time spent laying out magazine spreads this week, the Brucie is pooped. You guys have fun with this if you dare.
'Night, Bruce. Chimera, too, is looking for a place to take a long, cozy nap. it's 'way past my bedtime.
JJ: Great thread. No blood. Is that a record?
I have to retire myself. I've long given up my bloodthirst civil exchange is more rewarding.
RA - \"Show me exactly where it says the government is required, by law, to intervene in matters where a foreign government seeks to execute a Canadian for crimes of a capital nature?\" Good question.
After we ditched the DP, a precedent for our government's response to this situation was set at some point and it's become standard policy. I have no idea how \"enshrined\" the policy is, but it makes sense that we'd respond to protect our citizens from punishment we know to be cruel & unusual, which is pretty much our position on the DP.
It would be interesting to find out what the precedent case was, and track the other cases.
Yeah, I'm calling it a day too, I'm baffed.
But I'll return tomorrow to address anything I missed.
Good convo, guys *high-fives*
You're moving the goalposts. That sentence was a response to you saying that rights are democratically chosen. They're not. They're enshrined in the country's fabric at conception or in amendments.
Canadians have a right to life by citizenship, provided they remain in the jurisdiction of Canada. How can we guarantee their rights if they interfere in the rights of foreign nationals?
Again, show me where the rights of a murderer abroad are enshrined in the Charter.
To kill someone to punish them. Punishment indeed, but not justifiable by murder.
Which is your opinion. It's not necessarily \"Canada's\" opinion.
Alright, how about the deaths of gay men in India. That's a democracy, and homosexuality and sodomy is illegal there too. But I guess it's wrong for our government to argue for equal rights for all, especially since they don't believe in that concept.
We're talking about apples and oranges. Murder is a universally understood immorality. Sometimes the state must sanction execution to serve punishment. Homosexuality is not a crime in any justifiable argument. It is a religious taboo brought on by theocracies.
It doesn't. It doesn't say that we should advocate for human rights abroad either, or give foreign aid, but we do anyway. Because it's the right thing to do.
That's it's the right thing to do is your opinion. There's no obligation for Canada to do so.
According to the Canadian International Human Rights Policy:
There are Six principal human rights treaties:
The second treaty is:
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The subsection of the covenant states and I quote \"Second Optional Protocol (aiming at abolishing the death penalty)\"
Article 1
1. No one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed.
2. Each State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.
Ronald Smith is not within our jurisdiction.
Article 4
With respect to the States Parties to the Covenant that have made a declaration under article 41, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications when a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations shall extend to the provisions of the present Protocol, unless the State Party concerned has made a statement to the contrary at the moment of ratification or accession.
The United States is not a State party nor is bound by the protocol.
I find that Canada is in not in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by abstaining from objection.
But I will allow that Canada is taking a precedent step in ignoring to fulfill it's ratified obligations to the belief of the protocol that \"[...]abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of hu
--- cut off ---
But I will allow that Canada is taking a precedent step in ignoring to fulfill it's ratified obligations to the belief of the protocol that \"[...]abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.\"
The conservatives will likely need to address this issue in the near future.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=acfb59f54a2e0e10c4b2aef74997dd69&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
wow. great thread jj. i'm reminded of an incident a few years ago where an american youth was busted for vandalism in singapore (i think that's where it was). anyway, he was chucked in the clink and sentenced to caning with a switch soaked in brine. the american media and public went bananas and the state department put all kinds of pressure on that jursidiction to commute that sentence. the bottom line was that the punishment was seen as cruel and inhuman and under american juris prudence the state had an obligation to object.
that kid got the caning. but the important thing was that the principle was upheld, the protest was registered. in this instance harper and his pet dimwit stockwell are unilaterally defying canadian principle. regardless of the response to the protest by the state of montana, the protest needs to be lodged. there are many years of precedence in this matter. we are not dictating to another state, we are advocating for one of our citizens. canadian law as it stands, indicates that capital punishment is a barbaric practice. until that law changes, our government is beholden to advance that position. it in no way diminshes the crime, it does not ask that the convicted party be freed from punishment. it simply registers that our nation holds that punishment to be cruel and inhuman and requests that the sentence be commuted. life in prison isn't a get out of jail free card.
i would expect that our government would make every effort to advance the principles of our nation in such matters. harper is replacing his own ideals for those of the nation. he is not the president or emperor, it behooves him and lickspittle day to take the canadian position and follow precedence.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=ef2818967c5fb85dc3118f822c991a59&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Sanctity of human life ends once you exit the mother. It's well known that a large number of convicted criminals are innocent and in countries still barbaric enough to have the death penalty, the chances of a mistake are even greater. Killing our citizens I guess is ok in for a pea-brain conservative hack like Stockwell Day.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=6a47c2f541057c2912f20fdf994b6c27&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
here's a chance to prove your so-called \"pro-life\" cred. Mobilize Catholic opposition to the Harper government's decision to allow Canadian citizens to be executed in death penalty countries rather than fighting for commutation of death sentences:
Is anyone else mobilizing on this? If there's a petition out there, I'll sign it. If there's protest being organized, I'll see if I can make it. Etc.
and it's not unreasonable to expect Canadian Catholics to ask the big cheeses at the Vatican to make the same threats of excommunication, denial of communion etc. that they've been making against pro-choice and pro-gay marriage politicians.
No, because the permissibility of the death penalty is based on circumstances. Sometimes it is allowed in the name of social protection, whereas abortion and gay marriage is never permitted.
Plus Harper and Day aren't Catholic. Pretty useless to call for excommunication. I don't know what Jason Kenney thinks of all this. He's probably the \"top\" Catholic in the government. I'd be interested to see what some other Catholic MP's have to say about this.
TESTING.
Hi SUZANNE - Point taken As you can see if you read through these comments at all, not even all progs agree on this.
As for Conservative RC politicians, Jason Kenney was the first one that came to my mind, but there are others as well. It would be interesting to find out what they think of this, but I doubt if any of them would offer an opinion if it dissents from the PM.
RA -
\"But I will allow that Canada is taking a precedent step in ignoring to fulfill it's ratified obligations to the belief of the protocol that \"[...]abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.\"
Definitely a precedent, a bad one. It makes me wonder what other principles they're willing to dilute.
Thanks for the info, BTW. Most interesting
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=9eef73d4e4e6c61836dcc394ce6df482&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Holy shit, JJ - when did your pad become a chatroom for the Bloodthirsty Tories?
PSA - Well said, good analogy.
IIRC we're one of a consortium of countries that signed onto a UN resolution to abolish the death penalty worldwide. Allowing other states to execute our citizens without a word of objection makes that commitment look a little hollow.
MB - Just RA -- now he has an alternate handle, \"Bloodthirsty Tory\"
hi waterboy - Actually the Catholic church is vehemently opposed to the death penalty and even most war (unless a so-called \"just war\", which I think Afghanistan counts as). My tongue wasn't completely in cheek when I wrote this post -- it's an issue that one would think would concern them.
But like my other conservative commenter said, apparently being a Catholic means living with contradictions. Some lives aren't as important as others![\"\"](\"http://www.haloscan.com/images/smileys/pascontent.gif\")
... gays, women in Nicaragua, just to name a couple of examples.
\"Some lives aren't as important as others ... gays, women in Nicaragua, just to name a couple of examples.\"
Yep - fair game once they're out of the womb.
(BTW, I'm totally trademarking Bloodthirsty Tories™. )
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=357a20e8c56e69d6f9734d23ef9517e8&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Hi JJ
Here I am, late to the party as usual.
I have read all the comments - PSA finally brought up my first thought - the American who got sentenced to a caning in Singapore.
No one has brought up the fact that we don't extradite people who face the death penalty. Is Harper planning to change that policy too?
I read all the comments over at the CBC discussion and this was an argument that made sense to me:
1)Caitlin
Winnipeg
It's really unfortunate that Canada is giving up its responsibility to her citizens abroad.
Canada does not support the death penalty. As that is the case, I don't think we can abandon our citizens who face that fate. Perhaps murderers deserve to die, but we don't deserve to kill them, and by abandoning our people abroad, rather than doing all in our power to bring them to the kind of justice Canadians have shown that they want, we tacitly become accomplices to a practice that we stopped over thirty years ago.
Also, all foreigners now have no rights in the US, and in fact can be detained without reason at the pleasure of the US if you're just changing planes, so to take away one more diplomatic duty seems to me to be premature.
The US does not support the rule of law where non-citizens are concerned, they don't even allow that non-citizens have the right to remain silent, or have a lawyer, or reasons for detainment, so this move is without merit, as far as I am concerned.
Posted November 2, 2007 09:22 AM
Link to all the comments here:
GAB
Just thought I'd throw this out since it's on topc, and timely...
ZE07103108 - 2007-10-31
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-208...20888?l=english
Cardinal: Christians Called to Fight Torture
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 31, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Christians are called to defend human rights, and particularly work for the abolition of the death penalty, says the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
Cardinal Renato Martino affirmed this during a Friday meeting with the president of the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, Sylvie Bukhari-de Pontual, a communiqué from the Vatican dicastery reported.
The cardinal said: \"Christians are called to cooperate for the defense of human rights and for the abolition of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment against the human person in time of peace and in case of war.\"
\"These practices are grave crimes against the human person, created in the image of God, and a scandal for the human family in the 21st century.\"
Thanks GAB, interesting thread at CBC. Arrgh. I'm surprised how many people think commuting this guy's death sentence is tantamount to a Get Out Of Jail Free card -- nobody is suggesting he shouldn't be punished; he should most definitely be punished. But let's try not to descend into a Lord Of The Flies mentality in the process.
If opposition to the DP is Canada's position, our gov't should do all it can to ensure that Canadian citizens aren't punished that way. Otherwise, our commitment to that principle means nothing.
SUZANNE - thanks for the link, that's timely indeed. Now let's see if our RC Conservative politicians will step up to the plate,
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=1938437d97bc46cfa4a50b6d46f28b54&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
I hope the Church works to stop the execution. As I think I have said here, i am against the death penalty, but still have difficulty exerting the effort to defend death penalty victims. Maybe I am a hypocrite but it is more visceral than anything.
\"Some lives aren't as important as others ... gays in Cuba (imprisoned for having AIDS), women in Iran (stoned to death after being raped), just to name a couple of examples.\"
women in Iran (stoned to death after being raped), just to name a couple of examples.
Yes, that's entirely correct. We leftists/feminazis dun shore r teh REAL hypocrites! (\"Objective support\" is, like, so 2002, peaches.)
For fucks sake please stop opportunistically appropriating the circumstances some real live Muslim women are forced to deal with on a day to day basis by once again using said circumstances as a convenient (and, in this case, passive aggressive) political cudgel to pummel your partisan opposition with.
To continually do so is demeaning to their struggle--and entirely disingenuous, considering your idea of 'help' is, apparently, to bomb the fuck out of 'em (\"more rubble, less trouble\", as Glenn Reynolds infamously put it).
Consistently 'pro-life' my baby-eating black ass; fuck you and the right-wing hobby horse you rode in on.
Moulon - I don't think anybody has any sympathy for the convict, he sounds like a real asshole. But Canadians know that state-sanctioned revenge killing is wrong and our gov't usually stands up against it.
You're right, the Catholic church is by far not the worst offender when it comes to some lives being worth less than others. But when they're so right on in some respects (war, death penalty) it's frustrating that their more medieval policies let women die and incite the spread of AIDS.
MB - \"my baby-eating black ass\"
Mattbastard missed church this morning Tsktsk.
\"Mattbastard missed church this morning Tsktsk.\"
Yeah, my throwing arm just isn't what it used to be.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=579c01146ae07af3c2a5ac775f0ce790&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
\"But Smith is in the States. In a death penalty state, to be precise. And their law says that he gave up his right to his own life when he took the lives of others.\"
And Canada takes a principled stance such a punishment and says that a person cannot give up their right to life except explicitly.
But the point of this is to have the Canadian government, based on that moral absolute and principle, use the same legal means available in Montana to US citizens in the same position - to appeal for clemency and have the sentence commuted to an equally legal punishment (life in prison) allowed under Montana law.
The Government would not be interfering in the internal affairs or another state or attempting to force our version of justice on the state of Montana, but utilizing the processes and rules that exist within Montana's legal system to press for an equally harsh but alternate sentence, as any American could.
This is a matter of our government acting on principle, even for the most heinous citizen. And yes, to do otherwise is moral relativism. This is not about Smith, but about the principle.
And to not stand up for that principle is to accept the sentence.
Smith's sentence may not have got commuted, but the government should try. Because of the principle that no person have their life taken from them without their explicit consent.
Mike - *applause* Well said.
I'm having trouble understanding why people don't get that this isn't about Smith at all, but only about the principle of opposing capital punishment. If Canada's gov't doesn't at least make an effort to get the sentence commuted, they're tacitly condoning it.
We're either against the DP or we're not. There's no being *sort of* against it.
Boy Matt, so much latent hostility, which is all-too-unlatent. Dont know whatever I have said that makes you think I want to bomb the fuck out of 'them' but that is your meme and you are ignorant, so I will let it go. I am more paleo, was against the war in Iraq, but think that since we have done what he have done, we do need to do the best to clean up the mess. I am anti-sharia, but for some reason that draws your ire. Sorry to offend. I would think a liberal thinking 7th Century tard like yourself would agree. Ohhh, sorry, you are a liberal 7th Century thinking tard. Why blame murderers when there are neocons out there?
I have done much to highlight the plight of Muslim women in Islamic countries, and dont really care if you think otherwise.
It is the left that gives a forum to Achmejinhidad (sp) but prevents conservatives from speaking. So call off your lil Nazi pissants and we can have a debate.
jj, I call bs when you accuse the church that \"their more medieval policies let women die and incite the spread of AIDS.\" That is silly melodrama.
Moulon, JJ may have a soft spot in her heart for a dipshit troll like yourself. Me, I don't play the Bushspeak game, no matter how much passive aggressive politeness you choose to ooze.
In other words, take your wounded faux-innocence and your strawliberal bullshit and shove 'em both up your ass sideways.
God, pogge has the right fucking idea.
JJ, is this your idea of \"reasonable\":
\"It is the left that gives a forum to Achmejinhidad (sp) but prevents conservatives from speaking. So call off your lil Nazi pissants and we can have a debate.\"
Jesus wept.
Moulon - Don't make me invoke Godwin's Law. If you want to have a serious debate, you can't be tossing around troll-speak like \"Nazi\" and expect to be taken seriously. Take that over to DKos or wherever you go to shit-disturb. I'm giving you a pretty wide berth here because I'd like to see the discourse between right & left evolve past the gutter level it's sunk into the last few years, even if it's just in this little venue. \"Nazi\" isn't helpful.
Ahmadinejad was given a forum to speak primarily to show people that he's not just an image on the TV screen, there really are holocaust-deniers, gay-bashers etc that run entire countries. The students were pretty shell-shocked afterwards -- so obviously that hadn't really sunk in until they actually got to see him speak in person. Mission accomplished. Too many people look at the world as a big video game, and the reality doesn't sink in until they've seen it right in front of them. Anyway, free speech -- even for douchebags. I thought you were a big Free Speech guy?
Silly melodrama, I think not. Almost 90 women in Nicaragua have died because they couldn't get abortions, because of church teachings. Doctors won't perform even the abortions that the church is OK with (ectopic pregnancies etc) because the policy is unclear and the church doesn't go out of its way to clarify things. All doctors know for sure is that the church says abortion is wrong, so they err on the side of caution and don't perform any. And women die.
The AIDS crisis in Africa has been exacerbated by the church's position on condoms, no question. Things like this don't help either.
The church is enormously influential in some areas of the world, it can make or break health care. And does.
MB - OK, you're right, that was out of line for him to say so I gave him some shit for it.
I'm really loathe to censor/ban people -- we can police ourselves without having to resort to censorship. (Unless it's the SDA crew, then sometimes there's no other choice.) When there's a disagreement, we should be able to talk about it and even if it gets into a heated argument, at some point agree to disagree. But when the ad hominems (nazi) start flying, that's not reasonable discussion, that's someone jacking around and trying to get an angry response (moulon are you listening?).
Go for it, respond in whatever way you feel is appropriate. Just because I give Moulon an easy time doesn't mean the rest of you have to. When he acts like a troll, treat him like one.
Meh. My troll policy is either ignore or subject 'em to ridicule; depends on my mood. ::
Shall refrain from passing final judgment on this (possible) billy-goat gobbler until a response to your inconvenient facts (ZOMG! LINKS!!11 FLEE!!!1) is tendered. Will be pleasantly suprised if the goalposts aren't moved several yards down the field--but am still exhaling.
I would contend that, based on the evidence thus far, Moulon's goal isn't to sincerely engage in debate but rather to distract from the initial matter at hand--in this case, the hypocrisy of some Catholics with regards to being consistent in their pro-life advocacy.
Hell, Moulon even admitted that s/he had \"difficulty exerting the effort to defend death penalty victims\", despite purportedly being against the death penalty. I should have jumped on that admission, rather than allow myself to be distracted by the ham-fisted tu quoque re: faux liberal hypocrisy (something that, it should be noted, is just as fallacious--and as much if not more of an ad hom--as calling someone a Nazi).
In other words, no more tidbits from yours truly unless I am given reason to believe that doing so won't be a wasted effort.
jj,
I think you lose all moral authority to invoke Godwin's law after the following exchange:
jj: \"Mattbastard missed church this morning Tsktsk.\"
mattbastard: \"Yeah, my throwing arm just isn't what it used to be.
matttbastard\"
jj: chuckling emoticon
I guess, the Catholics need a nice Kristallnacht too. Maybe you should be more aware of Nazi-like parallels before you dance with Matty.
And Matty,
jj and I cross heads. She certainly has the right to squelch me, with a few keystrokes. If that is what you want so be it. I enjoy engaging her in debate. We have civil debates with very disparate opinions. Sorry if that offends, but what do you want?
We dont talk to the 'other' people? Funny, many of those I disagree with in my neighborhood, have varied opinions and are much more open minded. You just hide behind the wimpy - TROLL moniker as if it is dispositive. Talk about a lame fallback.
Moulon - The reference to Godwin's Law was somewhat tongue-in-cheek... it's just that the word \"Nazi\" tends to escalate the ad hominems, not helpful to the discourse.
But still, that was a \"gotcha\". Touche! (Damn)
![](\"http://www.haloscan.com/images/jskit-ad-banner-small.png\")
Commenting by HaloScan