WHAT?! That's keeping "human rights" in mind? Gosh, governments are so messed up, we may just HAVE to have another protest. shucks!

WEll it is a difficult one.  If we believe in one of the basic precepts of international relations, the ability and right of nations to make their own choices, there is a point where we have to keep our noses out of their business.  ANd Canadians insist that folks from other countries have to abide by Canadian law when in Canada.  So how do we get off insisting that other nations have to check with us how to apply their laws???

OTOH, Harper is not dim enough to give in to the voices on the extreme edge of the party and re-open the debate on capital punishment in Canada.  HE would lose, both in and out of the party.  Also, the question we are supposed to ask is not WWJD.  That is rather irrelevant since JEsus was a first-cnetury Palestinian Jew not a 21st century north american.  THe question of faith is WWJHUD--What WOuld Jesus Have Us Do?

I find it interesting that Richard Cleroux is the only one in the article that raises the possibility of reinstating the death penalty, but Mo5 in her thread title shifts the blame to Harper.

Harper has made absolutely no indication of such a move, nor has Cannon.

Mo5, your thread title is very misleading. 

Alta - I agree.  Also I want to mention that the article is about how if Canadians are in democratic, sovereign countries that have the death penalty, such as the USA, and are convicted of a crime, the government will not try to stop it.  So, if you kill someone in Texas, don't expect Canada to try to save you.

As GordW pointed out, we would expect to be able to charge, convict, and sentence an American who killed in Canada.  This statement is about respecting other countries ability to do the same.

This has nothing to do with Canadian national laws.  I would be amazed if this minority conservative government would try to bring back the death penalty, one because the majority of people don't seem to want it, and more so, that would almost guarantee another election.

Let me get this straight. If you were traveling in the Middle East and you were accused of murder, you would not want the Canadian government to help you? Since guilty or not if the Canadian government advocated for you it would imply Canada is insisting the country (let`s say Saudi Arabia, where you could be beheaded) check with us before applying there laws?Or that Canada would be sticking it`s nose into another countries affairs?

Well Alex as I said it is difficult to say.

One of the principles in Wilson's 14 points during WW1 was the role of self-determination in nation building (something the rest of the world has wholesale ignored whenever it got in the way ever since).  Actually I think there are standards that should be covered by international law around these issues.  But then I find myself fairly close to one world government on some issues. 

Do we believe in self-determination or not or only when convenient?  Same thing about whether a sovereign nation applies laws which we don't approve of (Sharia law, women's rights, orientation rights...)

Short of some agreement on enforceable international standards the way through this is very convoluted.  My choice would be the federal government advocate that any Canadian convicted of any crime in a foreign country serve their time in a Canadian institution.  Any crime, any country. 

A Canadian has been sentenced to die in Saudi Arabia. I understand Ottawa is making representations. It would certainly raise objections if a Canadian were to be executed in, say, Iran or Cuba. It never objects to an execution of a Canadian in the US. I guess we respect national rights depending on who the nation is.

I remember a case when bush was governor of texas. A Canadian was sentenced to death - and Bush never commuted such a sentence. The Canadian was quite clearly severely retarded and mentally disturbed. The US had also failed to follow international agreements that required consultation with Canada. It didn't matter. The man was executed, and the Canadian government (Chretien, I think) never made a peep.

graeme

People have rights and we have to oppose killing people no matter where or why.

"

As GordW pointed out, we would expect to be able to charge, convict, and sentence an American who killed in Canada.  This statement is about respecting other countries ability to do the same."

This is different.  It's not a matter of giving someone 10 years where in Canada we'd give them 7, and eligibility for parole after 5.  Of course sentences will differ in proportion and intent in each country.  The death penalty goes beyond any kind of juridical proportion because it involves taking another person's life.  That's why we consider it cruel and unusual, and that's why if we oppose it being used against fellow citizens here, we have to oppose it everywhere. 

"Do we believe in self-determination or not or only when convenient?  Same thing about whether a sovereign nation applies laws which we don't approve of (Sharia law, women's rights, orientation rights...)"

I'm not a cultural relativist.  Harming flesh-and-blood human beings for the requirements of an abstraction called 'culture' - as defined by a sect of reactionaries - is abhorrent.  Nations are man-made, man isn't; the latter should never be sacrificed for the 'determination' of the latter. However, let's for the sake of argument assume that this wasn't the case, and that every country had a right to do whatever it wanted to its own citizens.  It would still be wrong for them to do things that we consider inhuman to our own citizens. 

1.       I used a question mark in the thread’s title...this is not a statement of fact or belief but a question. How is asking a question misleading? Besides, “Do you agree with the author of this article that Harper could be moving toward re-instating the death penalty?” is far too long for a thread title.

2.       In governments, oftentimes a Minister will hint at a plan to make changes to policy or legislation to test public opinion in that area. This is what’s known as “floating a trial balloon” and it protects the PM from any flak that may be caused if the “trail balloon” is shot down.

3.       It’s common practice for any country’s government to approach another, through official channels, on behalf of its citizens – that is, it’s common practice for most governments, except, it seems, for ours. Our government, under Harper’s leadership, has been particularly egregious in this regard. It’s true that countries need to respect each other’s systems of law and it is also true that these kinds of negotiations go on all the time. There is also the “small” matter of international treaties and agreements that various nations are subject to...so these, too, weigh in.

4.       Any Canadian abroad, could presently at any time be in the wrong place at the wrong time and the way things are now, they are abandoned. Travellers to foreign countries, beware.

5.       We’re not really against the death penalty, if we don’t at least make some statement against our citizens abroad being executed.

I like this question, GordW. I can't picture that it includes the death penalty, by commission or ommission.

Absolutely excellent point, Free_thinker.

Right now America is the only country in the first world with the death penalty and one of a shrinking number overall. I can't imagine Canada joining us. Even here it seems to be losing popularity. In 2007 New Jersey abolished the death penalty and earlier this year New Mexico did as well. Fifteen states don't have the death penalty and Kansas and New Hampshire have not used it since the death penalty was reinstated in America in 1976 (it was declared unconstitutional in 1972 and then that decision was essentially overturned). The trend is away from it's use, not towards it.

What New Jersey does in terms of the death penalty will be fairly negligible as long as Texas keeps executing at the present rate.  Over half of executions in the US every year take place in Texas.  It's so bad that they've created 2 State Supreme Courts, one criminal, one civil, to speed up death row cases, the criminal court of course being stacked with former prosecutors. 

I so hope it happens, it will truly prove he is a man that wants some change.

Im tired of paying for the housing, food and education of these child molesters, rapists and murders. What does the victim get... Forgotten!!!

Its time for the death penality or vigilante justice well be showing its face very soon.

After all, if the GOV cant protect its people... then why do the people need them.

First, one cannot assume that those abroad who are convicted are actually guilty since their court systems do not have appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the best possible defense is available (neither does our country anymore, with the decrease in legal aid).

Second, "it takes a village" as the saying goes, to raise a child...those who actually commit crimes of this nature are the product of our communities -- there is a demonstrable link between deep poverty, substance abuse in the home, abuse of a child and criminal behaviour. Let's not forget a number of other risk factors that include a high degree of learning disabilities and mental illness among prison inmates. They are people who fall between the cracks in our society and then, run into massive problems.

Third, the rate of high violence crimes is actually decreasing, in spite of what one sees on the nightly news. The way the crimes that are committed is focussed upon whips people up into emotional fervor that results in threats of vigilante action. Please be aware of this manipulation -- it's in the interest of media outlets to do so to attract viewership but isn't balanced or accurate coverage of these issues in our country or of our citizens abroad.

Hmmm...  'Two-edged sword' springs to mind.  If it's 'wrong' for other countries to do things that we consider inhuman to our own citizens in that country, I'd trust that reciprocity would mean it's 'wrong' for Canada to do things that other contries consider inhuman to their citizens in Canada (after all, having one's cake and eating it too seldom works).

So without naming countries or verifying that these scenarios are completely accurate as opposed to representative of the types of things that might end up happening on Canadian soil... would you be prepared to never punish (any punishment could be consider 'inhumane' to countries that do not punish) acts such as:

- Repeated and overt spousal rape, possibly of a minor (by our standards)?

- Punishment of the woman raped, rather than or in addition to, the rapist?

- Rape of unchaste women (not considered rape in some countries, I gather)?

- Cock-fighting, bull-fighting or other lethal animal "contests"?

- So-called "honour killings"?

- (probably a thousand other acts which we consider unacceptable).

Again, if these aren't completely accurate, I likely could research and find like things legal elsewhere that are accurate.  But I don't think we want anything close to this and I believe it would be untenable to suggest it's 'wrong' to 'inhumanly punish' Canadians overseas while still punishing oversea residents contraveneing Canadian law while here.  The only reasonable solution at this time in my opinion is the status quo... if you're traveling to another country you must abide by their laws or be ready to accept their punishments.  That's not to say one country can't petition another for leniency, but whereever you are, if ya do the crime, ya gotta be prepared to do the time.

All points were bang on the money, in my opinion, but particularly this above.

As an aside it is far more expensive to maintain a death penalty form of justice than one without - the additional expense of appeals goes far beyond the prison maintenance.  Unless of course one is going to advocate a no appeal form of justice and therefore comfortable with the idea of an innocent individual being put to death - a situation both Guy Paul Morin and David Milgaard, to name just two, will be able to provide ample testimony regarding that particular error of justice.

LB

Late breaking story on the CBC,
         A nation whispers "we always knew he'd go free"
        Tragically Hip, Wheat Kings

I'm going to be an arrogant imperialist and assert that punishing women for being raped or mutilating their genitals without their consent is a barbaric practice that is wrong regardless of where it's done.  I'm tired of such dehumanizing practices being excused just because a bunch of (male) reactionaries say it's their culture.  What if someone from Germany argued that anti-Semitism was their culture and therefore irreproachable?  The well-being of a woman in the Swat Valley is no less than that of one in Toronto.  So yes, when fellow human beings are seeing their rights waived in the name of an abstraction called 'culture' (what is culture, after all, other than the sum of its parts?), the Canadian government has a duty to oppose it, for all human beings, but particularly for its own citizens. 

"  The only reasonable solution at this time in my opinion is the status quo... if you're traveling to another country you must abide by their laws or be ready to accept their punishments."

This is simply wrong.  The rights that are afforded to Canadian citizens aren't just a cultural particularity; we value them because we believe that all human beings ought to be treated this way.  What happens if an innocent Canadian traveling abroad is charged with a crime they did not commit, not given any due process and then handed down a draconian sentence they do not deserve?  Is that just tough luck, wrong place, wrong time?  Are we supposed to stop traveling overseas because some government somewhere might on a whim waive our rights, with no objection on the part of our government? 

"Canadians overseas while still punishing oversea residents contraveneing Canadian law while here. "

We don't treat them in a way they wouldn't be treated in their own country, and we usually treat them a whole lot better.  Someone charged here can expect due process (unless you're Maher Arar, of course, in which you don't even get charged), and a sentence that offers a chance at rehabilitation and doesn't involve torture or execution.  That's a start. 

" if ya do the crime, ya gotta be prepared to do the time."

That's funny, I think Mike Harris might have said something similar. 

I agree Free_thinker.

Our society has moral values, including sexual equality. This overrides the customs and prejudices of some minorities when they go against these core values.

You're right! There are problems with our system. You can't bring the DP back with the way our system sits.

Example: Millgard, is a tragic example of the police abusing their power and silencing witnesses in what could of freed him, supressing evidence from the courts.

Had he, been given the death penality it would of been murder, you have no arguement from me there.

But had the system done its job, not only would millgard have been found innocent they would of also caught the person that did the crime, before he had a chance to do more crime.

Buttom line is, regardless of the age of these dectives, they're the ones that should be brought into court and charged for suppressing evidence and should be held accountable for the wrongful guilty plea against millgard.

As it stand right now with our system the way that it is, we don't need the dealth penality. If these people where held accountable and our system was a " justice" system and a not a legal system for the rich, the death penality would be applicable. It would of saved other people from being a victim as the real criminal (sorry his name has got me at a blank) but raped 3-4 more people after millgards arrest.

Mo5, yes you used a question mark.  That way you can place the impression in some that this is what is happening (see Freundly-Giant's post) while maintaing plausible deniability if you get called on it.  Such tactics are quite common around here and far from honest.

This was not a trial balloon floated by anyone except perhaps by yourself and Richard Cleroux.  There was no indication in the article that Cannon was even asked about the death penalty reurning to Canada, just that he didn't say it wouldn't.  Again it leaves an impression that the auther wanted while he maintains deniability.  As graeme pointed out, this does not even represent a change in position from previous governments, but I guess you and Mr. Cleroux would rather not mention that.

alta, this morning, by googling "Canadians death penalthy abroad", I found a number of hits that reflect concern around this area, aside from Mr. Cleroux and me.

Click here for an article from the Centre for Constitutional Studies.

Reading this article from Embassy - Canada's Foreign Policy Newspaper will show that these decisions by the Conservative government is indeed a change in policy from other governments.

Here is a good explanation of the issue from a blog called Impolitical with more of the background included.

So, those are 3 examples of others who share this concern and yes, it is something that we need to be aware of and question. Since this is a change in policy, Canadians need to know about it and grant their support before their government should move ahead -- especially in a minority government, it shouldn't be the other way around.

The context of my post was not about what's wrong in other countries, nor did it deal with what we should or should not do about the atrocious violations happening overseas.  I am in complete agreement with most of this.

Right.  We 'value' the law permitting alcohol because we believe that all humans ought to be allowed this marvelous elixir and we abhor pot because it's a despicable, disgusting, nasty, terrible, horrible, filthy, repulsive drug - everyone in Canada thinks exactly like this.  Yeah, FT... you'd better stop travelling overseas to say, Saudi, and get nine sheets to the wind, 'cause you'd be knowingly breaking a law as arbitrary as our laws against smoking pot, but still breaking them.  There's a good chance that your government will be able to do nothing at all (but please go and give it a try).  Being charged with a crime one didn't commit is also outside anything I discussed and yes, we should do everything possible to help there.  Of course we did squat for William Sampson who was released because of British efforts, not ours (so he moved there in disgust and we lost talent).  Arar, Abdelrazik, Sampson... perhaps if the Government concentrated on real issues like these and didn't worry about those who knowingly break foreign laws, things would be better all around.  

"Canadians overseas while still punishing oversea residents contravening Canadian law while here. "

We don't treat them in a way they wouldn't be treated in their own country, and we usually treat them a whole lot better.  Someone charged here can expect due process (unless you're Maher Arar, of course, in which you don't even get charged), and a sentence that offers a chance at rehabilitation and doesn't involve torture or execution.  That's a start. [/quote]

My point was only related to cases where we would be treating them worse than they would be in their own country... nothing about this at all.

I have no idea what you're trying to say or imply here.  Pfffft!   Oh, did I mention...  "If ya do the crime (one while on foreign soil), ya gotta be prepared to do the time (in a foreign prison)."  Good luck if you think otherwise.

Abject apologies about the above posts - there is no 'edit' button so I can neither delete the posts nor remove the content.  If Admin could delete the above 2 posts, it'd be greatly appreciated.

The context of my post was not about what's wrong in other countries, nor did it deal with what we should or should not do about the atrocious violations happening overseas.  I am in complete agreement with most of this. 

Right.  We 'value' the law permitting alcohol because we believe that all humans ought to be allowed this marvelous elixir and we abhor pot because it's a despicable, disgusting, nasty, terrible, horrible, filthy, repulsive drug - everyone in Canada thinks exactly like this.   And we are outraged to the last man and woman that the poor people of some countries cannot attain the benefits of alcohol... perhaps trade sanctions - maybe even a decalation of war? - is due to right this travesty.

Yeah, FT... you'd better stop travelling overseas to say, Saudi, and get nine sheets to the wind, 'cause you'd be knowingly breaking a law as arbitrary as our laws against smoking pot, but still breaking them.  There's a good chance that your government will be able to do nothing at all (but please go and give it a try).  Being charged with a crime one didn't commit is also outside anything I discussed and yes, we should do everything possible to help there.  Of course we did squat for William Sampson who was released because of British efforts, not ours (so he moved there in disgust and we lost talent).  Arar, Abdelrazik, Sampson... perhaps if the Government concentrated on real issues like these and didn't worry about those who knowingly break foreign laws, things would be better all around.  

Heck, I wouldn't even want my tax money spent to get someone out of a Saudi prison just 'cause they couldn't wait to get home for a drink (well, maybe a letter or similar).  I'd want my government to work on real problems.

My point was only related to cases where we would be treating them worse than they would be in their own country... nothing about this at all.

I have no idea what you're trying to say or imply here.  Pfffft!   Oh, did I mention...  "If ya do the crime (one while on foreign soil), ya gotta be prepared to do the time (in a foreign prison)."  Good luck if you think otherwise.

Brett, at the bottom of your own posts there should be three words in orange, edit  reply  quote, click on edit then select all your post and press delete.   If you want you can type in something witty or perhaps a clever quote and then hit save.  Voila your old post is now gone!

LB - I live to serve

Uninstall does not delete quotes | drupal.org

Yes, I get that "should be"... but while the three words in orange, edit  reply  quote are all there on my last post, only two words in orange,  reply  quote  are visible on the first two posts (where I need to edit). 

"The universe is a big place. Perhaps the biggest." -- Kilgore Trout

Ah, then what is written remains

Gumperson's Law
The probability of anything happening is in inverse ratio to its desirability.

"We 'value' the law permitting alcohol because we believe that all humans ought to be allowed this marvelous elixir and we abhor pot because it's a despicable, disgusting, nasty, terrible, horrible, filthy, repulsive drug - everyone in Canada thinks exactly like this.   And we are outraged to the last man and woman that the poor people of some countries cannot attain the benefits of alcohol... perhaps trade sanctions - maybe even a decalation of war? - is due to right this travesty."

With those kinds of laws, I agree, we make compromises and expect our citizens to respect them.  There still ought to be due process, and the sentence handed down should not be draconian.  That's where the government ought to step in.  The death penalty is, by definition, a draconian sentence. 

"Being charged with a crime one didn't commit is also outside anything I discussed and yes, we should do everything possible to help there. "

It is at the heart of what I'm saying, namley that we don't waive our demands to have our citizens treated with some minimum standard of decency just because they're in a foreign country.  Nowhere is this more so the case than the death penalty. 

So glad you agree and yes, the governemt can petition, as I stated.  But if a Canadian murders a Texan family of five in cold blood in their Dallas area mansion, (s)he better be prepared to accept the very real possibility of a death sentence...  'being prepared' for a less Draconian sentence is likely being extraordinarily naive, no?   If ya do the crime, ya gotta be prepared to do the time or whatever punishment applies in that foreign jurisdiction.  Or did I say sumptin' like that already?

Methinks that either I missed something or you're not playing nice and are changing your own arguments to suit, based on what I say... for I don't recall you pointing out that false charges were on the plate when I came in.  Where is this 'heart' of yours that specifies a Canadian being charged with a crime that he/she didn't commit is within the parameters of your thesis, much less a central part, please?

You are presuming guilt based on media reports and convictions obtained under sketchy circumstances but, we all know that many people who have been convicted of a particular crime are not actually guilty of that crime. This is true in our country where we have a reasonably good judicial system and even more true for other countries where they don't. 

i don't think i would cry if Robert Pickton got the death penalty. 

I would, trishcuit -- in my opinion, it is state-sanctioned murder and sets a rather poor example. This doesn't even address the issue of whether it is actually him that killed those many women or what kind of life he was subjected to that brought him to that place.

I used to have a button that read: "why kill people to show that killing people is wrong".

That pretty much remains my opinion on the subject.

Unlike many of my evangelical brothers and sisters, I do not support the death penalty. Human justice is not perfect, and I think it a terrible thing if even one innocent person is condemned to death for a crime they have not committed. Having said that, I do think that the Canadian justice system is, in many cases, much too lenient. Those who murder should have to spend the remainder of their lifetimes in prison. In my honest opinion, anyway.

This is hardly surprising coming from the same government that is against climate change initiatives and talks about economic recovery while purposely holding back individual tax refunds in order to pad the books.