A Victory for Human Rights in Canada

[SirJosephPorter]

Ah, excuse me? exactly which Fundamentalist Churches would they be, that support the death penalty......and that are so numerous in followers that Harper has to play up to them?

Colpy, I don’t have the names of the Churches. However, I remember reading somewhere that religious right comprises of 10 to 15% of Canada’s population. While that is considerably less than 30 to 35% of US population which belongs to religious right, it is still a substantial number.

Religious right is an important constituency of Conservative party. So Harper always ahs to keep them in mind, in everything he does. Thus the vote he held on same sex marriage, after he came to office, was to placate the religious right. Harper dropped the issue after that vote, but he had to do it for the sake of religious right.

So yes, Harper has to keep religious right happy.

What, you think the anti-capital punishment folks in Montana aren't already there? You think the Governor of Montana will not consider clemency without Canada's involvement?

He probably will. However, the appeal will carry considerably more weight if Canadian government supports it.

Or do you seriously think a foreign country will weigh heavily on the Governors scale of decision?

Yes, it will. Whether it will or not, government at least should try.


Were I the governor of Montana, I'd say to the Canadian gov't, on a point of principle file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif....."OK, I'll pardon him, and escort him to the Canadian border to be set free in Canada.....or not. Your choice."

I have already responded in my previous post. In that case, Canadian government should bring him back to Canada and lock him up for life.

And, BTW, the SOB to be executed requested the death penalty.....I can find no tears to spare for him.

Point: Do you believe in the right to die?

What has that got to do with anything? If he wants to die, let him commit suicide, state has no business killing him.

Yes, I believe in right to die, but not in right to kill. Smith has the right to take his own life, but government has no right to take his life, and when his life is in danger, government should do everything it can to save his life.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It is the obligation of the Canadian Government to advocate equally for all its citizens based on domestic principles of justice. It is irrelevant whether the citizens are virtuous or scumbags. Equality is a cornerstone of democracy.

Equally true is that that US is within its rights to ignore our request.

Quite right, Spade, Canadian government should do its best to save the life of Smith, but there is no guarantee of success.

 

[Spade]

This is referred to as 'the pissing into the wind' defense.

Yep, it is. But, I'd rather piss into the wind than be too timid or reluctant based on petty predjudices to pull down my zipper.

 

[Colpy]

SirJosephPorter;1060865]Ah, excuse me? exactly which Fundamentalist Churches would they be, that support the death penalty......and that are so numerous in followers that Harper has to play up to them?

Colpy, I don’t have the names of the Churches. However, I remember reading somewhere that religious right comprises of 10 to 15% of Canada’s population. While that is considerably less than 30 to 35% of US population which belongs to religious right, it is still a substantial number.

Religious right is an important constituency of Conservative party. So Harper always ahs to keep them in mind, in everything he does. Thus the vote he held on same sex marriage, after he came to office, was to placate the religious right. Harper dropped the issue after that vote, but he had to do it for the sake of religious right.

So yes, Harper has to keep religious right happy.

you miss my point.........you ASSUME the so-called "religious right" support the death penalty. Wrong. There would be a wide variety of opinion in the mainstream fundamentalist Churches, and I believe that the final count would surprise you by supporting abolition. My entire family were bible thumping Baptists......and against Capital punishment. Most Christians are.



Were I the governor of Montana, I'd say to the Canadian gov't, on a point of principle ."OK, I'll pardon him, and escort him to the Canadian border to be set free in Canada.....or not. Your choice."

I have already responded in my previous post. In that case, Canadian government should bring him back to Canada and lock him up for life.

You missed my point....if the Montana Governor pardoned him......we would have no legal reason or right to lock him up.

Admittedly, just making a silly point....I'll focus instead.

IMHO we have no real right to question the decision of a death sentence set out against a guilty man, tried by a jury of his peers in the best traditions of English Common Law. He killed in a jurisdiction that does have capital punishment, he was tried in a manner consistent with our legal principles, he was guilty of a heinous crime. we have no duty to interfere.

And, BTW, the SOB to be executed requested the death penalty.....I can find no tears to spare for him.

Point: Do you believe in the right to die?

What has that got to do with anything? If he wants to die, let him commit suicide, state has no business killing him.

Yes, I believe in right to die, but not in right to kill. Smith has the right to take his own life, but government has no right to take his life, and when his life is in danger, government should do everything it can to save his life

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Obviously it doesn't matter what you think the punsihment should be. How does it follow that because you don't have capital punishment in Canada that Canadians can roam the world immune to capital punishment anywhere,

I never said that Canadians should be immune from capital punishment, RanchHand. Really, I don’t understand why people don’t read the posts properly. What I said is that Canadian government should try its best to save the life of Canadians world over.

Since we don’t put our citizens to death, it is the duty of government to see to it that other countries don’t as well. All Canadian government can do is make an effort, it may succeed or fail. I never said that Canadians should be immune to capital punishment.

Thus I never said that Americans should not sentence Canadians to death. What I said is that Canadian government should try its best to save the lives of Canadians, there is a big difference.

but a Haitian, for example, might not be given a get out of jail card

What Haitian government does is its own business, and nothing to do with Canada (unless they sentence a Canadian citizen to death).

More countries than not have capital punishment. How could you possibly think Canadians are exempt from the law of the land in the majority of countries?

More countries may have capital punishment, but they are all third world countries. Among developed countries, USA is the only one to have death penalty (with the possible exception of Japan).

So the fact that a majority of third world countries such as Haiti, Saudi Arabia, China or North Korea have death penalty does not mean that it is a humane punishment, it is still barbaric.

 

[RanchHand]

If the Canadian government succeeded in what you advocate, then the effect would be just what I said.... Canadians are immune to the death penalty.

"What Haitian government does is its own business"
Again, if that government doesn't have the leverage of the Canadian government, then it's murderer's meet their maker while Canadians lift weights and play chess. Not Fair.

Now I would request you put on an athletic cup for my last point.
"it is still barbaric. "
So is killing baby seals

 

[SirJosephPorter]

IMHO we have no real right to question the decision of a death sentence set out against a guilty man, tried by a jury of his peers in the best traditions of English Common Law. He killed in a jurisdiction that does have capital punishment, he was tried in a manner consistent with our legal principles, he was guilty of a heinous crime. we have no duty to interfere.

We have every right to petition the Governor for clemency. We are not questioning the decision of death sentence; the trial is over and done with. But after the sentence, there is always the avenue open for petitioning the Governor.

It is a perfectly legal, legitimate means, and Canadian government should use it to try to save the life of Mr. Smith. Death penalty is a violation of human rights, and Canada should do everything she can to safeguard the human rights of Canadians.

 

[Colpy]

Here's a problem with your concept of "human rights":

Charles Ng

Charles Ng - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mr. Ng was arrested in Canada. This is a guy that murdered several people in an orgy of sexual depravity, and allegedly tortured a baby boy to death in front of its mother.

California sought extradition while Mr. Ng was in a Canadian prison for shoplifting, assault, and weapons charges. Canada insisted that Mr. Ng not be put at risk for Capital Punishment. California, considering the nature of Mr. Ng's crimes, refused to be blackmailed or dictated to, and requested extradition without precondition..........the debate in Canada continued, as Mr. Ng's release date neared...

Finally, even that drooling moron Alan Rock realized he had a REAL problem if he was forced to release Ng because he had served all his Canadian sentence......and put him on a midnight plane to California.

He got death. Richly deserved.

Now the idiots of our Supreme Court have ruled what Rock did was NOT correct; in effect ruling that any future creature of evil must be released to prey on Canadian people.........rather than subjected to justice south of the border.

Insanity.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If the Canadian government succeeded in what you advocate, then the effect would be just what I said.... Canadians are immune to the death penalty.

It means nothing of the sort. All it means is that Canadian government intervened on behalf of its citizen and in this instance was successful in saving the life of that citizen. It does not mean that Canadians are immune to the death penalty. The next time Canadian government may well fail in its efforts and the criminal maybe executed.

Now I would request you put on an athletic cup for my last point.
"it is still barbaric. "
So is killing baby seals

Yeah? Well, barbaric as killing of baby seals may be, I make a slight distinction between killing seals and killing human beings.

 

[Cannuck]

Yeah? Well, barbaric as killing of baby seals may be, I make a slight distinction between killing seals and killing human beings.

Baby seals are cuter than most people I know and, come to think of it, they're smarter than most people I know. I support killing people over seals.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Finally, even that drooling moron Alan Rock realized he had a REAL problem if he was forced to release Ng because he had served all his Canadian sentence......and put him on a midnight plane to California.

He got death. Richly deserved.

Now the idiots of our Supreme Court have ruled what Rock did was NOT correct; in effect ruling that any future creature of evil must be released to prey on Canadian people.........rather than subjected to justice south of the border.

Colpy, why do you assume that the alternatives are death penalty or letting him go free? If California was not ready to waive the death penalty, Rock should have tried him in Canada. If found guilty (as I assume he would have been), he should have been given life without parole.

 

[lone wolf]

Inflicting death is a violation of human rights. How many Canadians' rights to life might be protected by stretching this person's neck? Two already paid the price so he could breathe. If there is no shadow of a doubt of his guilt, why waste any more air?

 

[Colpy]

Finally, even that drooling moron Alan Rock realized he had a REAL problem if he was forced to release Ng because he had served all his Canadian sentence......and put him on a midnight plane to California.

He got death. Richly deserved.

Now the idiots of our Supreme Court have ruled what Rock did was NOT correct; in effect ruling that any future creature of evil must be released to prey on Canadian people.........rather than subjected to justice south of the border.

Colpy, why do you assume that the alternatives are death penalty or letting him go free? If California was not ready to waive the death penalty, Rock should have tried him in Canada. If found guilty (as I assume he would have been), he should have been given life without parole.

Trying him in Canada would be problematic on a number of points.....he commited no crime here. I'm not sure you, or I, want to see a world were you are tried in one country for acts commited in another country......the penalty for adultery in many Islamic nations is death.....for theft, the removal of your left hand....see my point? Such a thing is a violation of sovereignty, of the rights of the accused, etc.

All the evidence was held by the State of California.....and I'm damned sure they would not have released it.....they wanted him.

The choice is send him south to be tried under US law, or set him free in Canada, as he had served his time for the crime commited in our jurisdiction.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Inflicting death is a violation of human rights. How many Canadians' rights to life might be protected by stretching this person's neck? Two already paid the price so he could breathe. If there is no shadow of a doubt of his guilt, why waste any more air?

If he is locked up for life, how can he kill another human being? Life without parole is a humane alternative to death penalty, and just as effective.

If there is no shadow of a doubt of his guilt, why waste any more air?

It is question of principle, Lone Wolf. Death penalty is violation of right to life. Every Canadians has a right to life. The fact that one of them takes that right away from a few other citizens does not mean that he loses his right to life.

The state, the government killing its own citizens (or even being complicit in killing its own citizens, by not trying to save them) is always wrong, it is never justified.

 

[Cannuck]

If there is no shadow of a doubt of his guilt, why waste any more air?

Because governments prove time and time again that they are incompetent. Why would anybody want to give an organization the right to take people's lives that can't manage to run an effective police force or send a letter from Vancouver to Victoria in under 2 days on a consistent basis.

 

[Colpy]

Because governments prove time and time again that they are incompetent. Why would anybody want to give an organization the right to take people's lives that can't manage to run an effective police force or send a letter from Vancouver to Victoria in under 2 days on a consistent basis.

Good point, actually......and the basis of my stance against CP for single incidents of murder is all based on the Ms.....Milgaard, Morin, Marshal.........

However, serial killers?

Three trials.

Three seperate murders.

Three different juries.

Three different judges and prosecuters.

Three convictions?

Hang'em within three days.

 

[Colpy]

If he is locked up for life, how can he kill another human being? Life without parole is a humane alternative to death penalty, and just as effective.

If there is no shadow of a doubt of his guilt, why waste any more air?

It is question of principle, Lone Wolf. Death penalty is violation of right to life. Every Canadians has a right to life. The fact that one of them takes that right away from a few other citizens does not mean that he loses his right to life.

The state, the government killing its own citizens (or even being complicit in killing its own citizens, by not trying to save them) is always wrong, it is never justified.

IMHO, there are those that is is the duty of the state, as a matter of principle, to do away with.

Serial killers.

The polity must on occassion simply make clear: we will not tolerate the existence of such evil.

They must be sure: triple jeoporady in reverse, as it were, but the Clifford Olsens should die at the hands of the people.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Trying him in Canada would be problematic on a number of points.....he commited no crime here.

Colpy, he could voluntarily give up his rights and be tried in Canada. He has to make a choice, be extradited back to California and risk the death penalty, or be tried in Canada and risk life without parole. It is obvious which he would choose. Why, he may even give a signed confession, if he knows that the alternative is certain death in California.

As to California not releasing evidence, I don’t think California would want to see him go free. And if California is so stubborn that she would rather see a dangerous criminal go free than to see him get life without parole, there are other ways and means to keep him locked up, such as declaring him a dangerous criminal and lock him up under the security certificate.

 

[lone wolf]

If he is locked up for life, how can he kill another human being? Life without parole is a humane alternative to death penalty, and just as effective.

If there is no shadow of a doubt of his guilt, why waste any more air?

It is question of principle, Lone Wolf. Death penalty is violation of right to life. Every Canadians has a right to life. The fact that one of them takes that right away from a few other citizens does not mean that he loses his right to life.

The state, the government killing its own citizens (or even being complicit in killing its own citizens, by not trying to save them) is always wrong, it is never justified.

He's not in Canada is he?

How can he kill another human being in prison? Ever heard of a shank? Zipgun? Death comes easier in house than on the streets.

If he's asked for the death penalty and/or confessed to the crime, government incompetence has little to do with it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

IMHO, there are those that is is the duty of the state, as a matter of principle, to do away with.

Serial killers.

The polity must on occassion simply make clear: we will not tolerate the existence of such evil.

They must be sure: triple jeoporady in reverse, as it were, but the Clifford Olsens should die at the hands of the people.

We have a difference of opinion here, Colpy. You apparently support death penalty (I assume for only the most extreme cases), I am opposed to death penalty under all circumstances. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.