A Victory for Human Rights in Canada

[SirJosephPorter]

He's not in Canada is he?

Lone Wolf, and what has that got to do with anything?

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

Depends upon how dangerous he is .If it is determined that he may pose a danger to other prisoners, he could be confined to solitary prison, as long as is necessary (for life if needed).

 

[lone wolf]

He's not in Canada is he?

Lone Wolf, and what has that got to do with anything?

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

Depends upon how dangerous he is .If it is determined that he may pose a danger to other prisoners, he could be confined to solitary prison, as long as is necessary (for life if needed).

8O Solitary prison? Gasp! Isn't that like ... cruel and unusual punishment?

How did he happen to be tried and convicted outside Canada? We have extradition.

 

[Francis2004]

Supreme Court just handed a major victory to opponents of death penalty.

Robert Smith is a convicted murderer from Alberta, given the death penalty in Montana. When Liberals were in power, they did all they could to help Mr. Smith appeal the death sentence and try to get it commuted to life without parole.

However, then the Messiah (Harper) came to power. Messiah enthusiastically supports death penalty, as do many Conservatives. But of course he knew he could not dig up the issue here in Canada. The issue was settled long time ago, and he would be committing political suicide if he tried to dig it up.

However, abroad is a different matter. If he could not promote the death penalty in Canada, the Messiah (and his bloodthirsty crew) would try to promote it aboard, wherever possible. The obvious place is of course, the USA, where they are in love with the death penalty.

So one of the first things Messiah did when he came to power was to stop aiding Robert Smith in any way in his appeal of the death sentence. I think that was a sop to religious right. Religious right enthusiastically supports the death penalty, more deaths the better, because the Bible supposedly mandates the death penalty (on this reasonable Christians disagree). Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, that kind of thing.

While Harper does not belong to religious right, he has to keep the religious right happy. So he stopped helping Smith in his appeal to get the death penalty commuted.

Well, now the courts have weight in against the Messiah. The federal government must help an Alberta man convicted of murder in the United States seek clemency from his death sentence, the Federal Court of Canada has ruled.

Court orders Ottawa to help Canadian on death row

Chalk up another victory for human rights, another blow against death penalty.

SJP, from what I understand the US also protects it citizen abroad. Why would Canada not do the same and continue to do so ?

Protection of American Citizens Abroad: Information from Answers.com

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Quite right, Sir Francis, USA goes to extraordinary lengths to protect its citizens abroad. The Berenson case is very instructive. She was arrested along with 21 Peruvian terrorists. She was tried and convicted as a terrorist in Peru. She was sentenced to life imprisonment. How did USA respond? Let me quote from the website given by you.

Berenson, like other Americans on foreign soil, is subject to overlapping jurisdictions of two nations. The United States has defended her because she is one of its citizens

In any event, the Department of State was not surprised by her conviction and sentencing on 11 January 1996. On that day the State Department issued a sharply worded note to the Peruvian government. The United States, the note said, deeply regretted that "Ms. Berenson was not tried in an open civilian court with full rights of legal defense, in accordance with international juridical norms."

The note went on: "The United States remains concerned that Ms. Berenson receive due process…. We call upon the Peruvian Government to take the necessary steps in the appeals process to accord Ms. Berenson an open judicial proceeding in a civilian court."

When President Alberto Fujimori visited the White House in May 1996, demonstrators outside chanted, "Fujimori, free Lori." Inside, President Bill Clinton urged that Peru grant Berenson a fair trial in a civilian court. In August, Representative Bill Richardson, a Democrat from New Mexico and the Clintontroubleshooter, went to Peru. He and Fujimori discussed several possible solutions, including the exchange of Berenson for a Peruvian jailed in the United States.


Meanwhile, the congresswoman representing the Berenson family's district was collecting letters in both the House and the Senate calling for the young woman's release. Former President Jimmy Carter joined the cause. Human rights groups on a number of college campuses sent letters to the World Bank asking that body to block loans to Peru, and to American corporations urging them not to invest in that country. Operating out of their apartment in New York City, Berenson's parents set up a web site encouraging such protests and drawing media attention to their daughter's imprisonment. By the autumn of 1996, an unidentified Peruvian official described the case as "a stone under everybody's foot." The government wanted to rid itself of this source of tension with the United States, but officials also had to satisfy a public that believed Berenson was guilty.

All this was done when she wasn’t even given a death penalty, she was give life imprisonment. It is quite admirable on the part of USA that she shows such zeal in trying to protect her citizens abroad. I only wish Canada would show half the zeal. Especially when it is the question of death penalty, a question of human rights.

 

[shadowshiv]

But guys, it's the Canadian way. We have to save the life of this scumbag.

CDNBear, we have to save the life of a Canadian. If he has committed crimes (and he has), he should be punished for it, in this instance I think life without parole should fit the bill.

But we don’t put Canadians to death in this country, and it is the obligation of the government to try to save lives of Canadians anywhere in the world, to do everything it can, employ all the legitimate means.

Why? Why should we save his life? He has been convicted of murdering two young men who's only mistake was to offer this scumbag a ride, an act of generosity that cost them their lives. Did he show them any mercy? No, he didn't. So why the hell should he be shown any?

And I sure as hell don't want him anywhere near Canada, whether it is in one of our prisons or not. Our prisons are already quite filled and I, as a taxpayer, do NOT want to foot the bill of keeping him well-fed and content in a Canadian prison. He can stay where he is...until his time of reckoning is upon him.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why? Why should we save his life? He has been convicted of murdering two young men who's only mistake was to offer this scumbag a ride, an act of generosity that cost them their lives. Did he show them any mercy? No, he didn't. So why the hell should he be shown any?

It is a matter of principle, Shadowshiv. Canada does not have death penalty, we do not approve of governments killing private citizens.

The fact that he is the scumbag makes it all the more important that the principle be observed. It is like freedom of expression. If I am going to say something with which most of the people agree, I don’t need freedom of expression to protect me, nobody is going to attack me. But if I say something controversial, something that will anger most of the people (like publishing the cartoons about Mohammed), that is when it is all the more important that I be allowed to exercise my right of free speech and my right should be protected

It is the same principle here. It is easy to be for human rights, for sanctity of life when a pretty young thing is sentenced to death by stoning in Saudi Arabia for adultery. Then the principles, concern for human rights comes cheap.

But the real test as to whether a country cares for human rights is when it has to protect the basic, fundamental rights (such as right to life) for the most repugnant, most odious, most repulsive of individuals. As are all entitled to certain basic rights (right to life being among them), regardless of our actions.

So Canadian government should do all it can to try to get the sentence commuted to life without parole.

 

[shadowshiv]

While I respect your opinion, I disagree with it. If there is NO DOUBT that a person committed the crimes(which isn't always the case, so then I am fine with life in prison) then I feel that they deserve death. Clifford Olsen gets to torment the families of his victims every few years because of the idiotic "faint hope" clause. Putting him to death(as there is no doubt that he murdered those children) would put a stop to this.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

While I respect your opinion, I disagree with it. If there is NO DOUBT that a person committed the crimes(which isn't always the case, so then I am fine with life in prison) then I feel that they deserve death.

We have a basic disagreement here, Shadowshiv. You support death penalty, I don’t.