Yet another question for Stockwell Day

Is there an inherent right of our citizens who, through willful folly and malice, go to another country and ignore their laws in order to take another human life? Are we so morally righteous that our laws supersede those of other democratic nations? Do we have an obligation to protect every citizen of Canada, even if that citizen willfully endangers that protection by committing acts of murder on foreign soil? Would you be willing to personally foot the bill for his lifetime incarceration in Canada after extradition?

So many questions, but I suspect your answers would not pertain to the actual cost of the moral dilemma. Many leftists, and I use the term loosely as I do not want to pigeonhole you with a rhetorical term that may not apply, simply don't understand that every decision they make has a ripple effect on their own lives. If you really want the government to spend their time, energy, and money, saving a convicted murderer from execution, it will have microeconomic consequences in our own country. That citizen of Canada, who has betrayed his fellow countrymen by choosing to act violently in another country, would cause further disadvantage and burden to us if he were extradited here in order to spend his life in prison.

You advocate so strongly for a person who cares not a whit for you or his country, nor for the people he killed in 1982. He has lived 25 years already on the generosity of the American taxpayer. It's time to put an end to his malicious existence, and Canadians should support this decision. We want our government to protect citizens who have been wrongfully imprisoned or convicted, not interfering in some kind of philosophical and moral argument with every murderer apprehended outside our country.

Don't leave out that several states have thrown out death penalty convictions because of systematic abuses in the justice system and widespread judicial incompetence. And recently the Supreme Court has raised questions over whether the method of administering the death penalty constitute cruel and unusual punishment. These are serious issues about the judicial system in the US that shouldn't be ignored.

Finally it has been well documented that it actually costs more to administer the death penalty than it is to keep a convicted prisoner in jail for life.

Raphael sez:

Are we so morally righteous that our laws supersede those of other democratic nations?
and then
We want our government to protect citizens who have been wrongfully imprisoned or convicted, not interfering in some kind of philosophical and moral argument with every murderer apprehended outside our country.

Ahem-
(from pogge's original post):
"In Day's words, Canada will refrain from opposing executions of Canadian citizens only in stable "democratic countries that support the rule of law."

That means that every time a Canadian faces the death penalty abroad, the Canadian government will now need to pass public judgment on whether that country is a stable democracy, which opens the door to bitter diplomatic disputes."

Apparently, we're now so righteous that we literally are going to *pass judgement* on whether or not these other nations are democratic. How's THAT for a philosophical and moral argument?
This effectively means that, unless the Conservatives really intend to get into diplomatic disputes with other countries everytime a Canadian is put on death row *anywhere*, that the Canadian government will no longer attempt to intervene when one of its citizens is sentenced to death.

If you really want the government to spend their time, energy, and money, saving a convicted murderer from execution, it will have microeconomic consequences in our own country.

Uh..no it won't, since up until this new announcement from the Cons, trying to "save a convicted murderer from execution" was standard practice for the Canadian government. Last time I checked, the feds had a pretty substantial surplus to work with, despite this. What "microeconomic consequences" are you referring to?

Excerpt from newspaper in Montana:

“…Smith said at the time that he shot Running Rabbit, 20, and Harvey Mad Man, 23, in the back of their heads because he wanted to know what it would be like to kill someone, said Ed Corrigan, Flathead county attorney, who was also at Wednesday’s meeting. Smith later testified that killing the men was “no big deal.”

Running Rabbit, who had three small children, and Mad Man, were playing pool in East Glacier in August of 1982 when Smith and two other Canadians hitchhiked into town and came into the pool hall, Corrigan said. The Canadians eventually left and began hitchhiking toward Kalispell. The two Blackfeet cousins later drove up on the trio and decided to give them a ride because they recognized them.

Just over Marias Pass in Flathead County, the group stopped so Running Rabbit and Mad Man could go to the bathroom. Smith followed them into the woods and shot both at close range with a .22 rifle, Corrigan said. The Canadians then drove off in the cousins’ car and were eventually arrested in California.

Local searchers found the men’s bodies after two months of looking. They were “desecrated,” said Thomas Running Rabbit, Sr., who was with the searchers when his son’s body was found.

Smith, 50, of Red Deer, Alberta, initially pleaded guilty to the murders and asked for execution. Later, he changed his mind and has been fighting for years against his death sentence.”

Personally, I'm having difficulty mustering up much sympathy for Smith's situation...

Many leftists ... simply don't understand that every decision they make has a ripple effect on their own lives.

Translation: people who don't agree with you are stupid. I love it when people use polite language to be insulting.

If you really want the government to spend their time, energy, and money, saving a convicted murderer from execution, it will have microeconomic consequences in our own country.

See above from Scott Shepherd. You think we should keep a financial ledger on the costs of the state living up to its obligations? Because if we as a nation have decided against the death penalty, we're talking about an obligation.

You advocate so strongly for a person who cares not a whit for you or his country, nor for the people he killed in 1982.

This is for you and for Bruce directly above. The thing about principles is that they apply to people you don't like as much to people you do. If not, they're not principles, they're just slogans.

I oppose capital punishment and as far as I can tell so do a majority of Canadians. You'll notice that the Harper government didn't consult with us or with parliament before reversing a policy that's been in place for decades and I don't recall any mention in their campaign platform about the death penalty. I wonder why that is.

Translation: people who don't agree with you are stupid. I love it when people use polite language to be insulting.

I'm not trying to be rude. I'm trying to say it's a characteristic of the liberal left. Note the volume of complaints on the Progessive Bloggers, but as far as I can tell I am the only blogger from the Blogging Tories to weigh in [please correct me if I am wrong].

See above from Scott Shepherd. You think we should keep a financial ledger on the costs of the state living up to its obligations? Because if we as a nation have decided against the death penalty, we're talking about an obligation.

Yes I do think we should be mindful of the financial costs. By arguing to the U.S. that we should take custodianship of this citizen and seek his extradition in order to serve the remainder of his sentence here, we are undertaking a financial sacrifice for a principle which, you believe, resonates with Canadians.

But does it resonate with Canadians? Or is it just something we've never really thought about since the majority of us on the blogosphere weren't around when 1962 was the turning point for execution in Canada? Canadians weren't always such anti-war extremists, or socialized medicine advocates either.

Socialized medicine is a perfect example of a population unwilling to lift the blinders on a broken system. We all scream about changes to the system because we believe in socialized medicine to give care to those disadvantaged. But the left ignore the horrible problems with the system, going as far as to wait 8 hours in a hospital for their "principles" instead of allowing a flexible and helpful two-tiered system.

In a similar vein, we should be mindful and respectful of the rule of law in America, and they are quite capable to carrying out the will and justice of the American people according the rule of law in their nation. Why we should interfere is beyond me.

This is for you and for Bruce directly above. The thing about principles is that they apply to people you don't like as much to people you do. If not, they're not principles, they're just slogans.

You want hard and fast rules, but each case requires a different approach. Yes, Candadians have been wrongly imprisoned abroad, such as William Sampson, and we need to ensure a fair trial has been done. But in the case of the callous murder of two natives in the U.S., Ronald Allen Smith deserves to die. And if you don't agree with that, it's still not our business to interfere in the rule of law of a foreign nation.

You oppose capital punishment in the same myopic leftist way most people do. You consider the ethical consequences, but not the economic. Why pay for the upkeep of Paul Bernardo who raped and tortured and forced two teenagers to beg for their life on camera before he strangled them? Why are you standing up for Paul Bernardo? Why are you standing up for Ronald Smith? Why are you standing up for rapists and murderers?

I respect your principles and your opinion about capital punishment. I tend to be neither strongly opposed nor strongly in favour. But I do reject many of the arguments that those in favour of it raise from time to time.

Deterrence? I don't believe that it is a factor, many criminals are idiots and don't believe that they will caught, so why would they fear punishment?

Expense of incarceration? Last time I looked (and it was several years ago), in the US the appeal process for the average capital case took 12 years and expended $7 million in state-funded defence counsel. So that's not really a factor.

Biblical "command" eg "eye for an "eye"? I'll subscribe to that when someone can convince me that the stories about Noah's Ark and Jonah and the Whale are factual.

About the only legitimate arguments concerning capital punishment that I personally can accept as having any valid attributes are punishment and straight retribution (the human kind, not the biblical kind.) And I tend to be ambivalent about both.

I'm not trying to be rude.

And yet people who oppose the war (which war by the way?) are extremists. Our health care system is socialism* and people who support single-payer health care are wearing blinders.

Why are you standing up for rapists and murderers?

Apparently you can't see the difference between standing up for a principle and standing up for an individual. But I'm the one who's myopic? Here's a hot flash for you, sparky. You are being insulting. I'm not surprised you're a Blogging Tory.

* When I got out of the hospital in May after getting clobbered in a car accident, the physiotherapist who came to seem me for four weeks was employed by a for-profit company. The assistive devices I needed for a while were supplied by another for-profit company. And the devices and physiotherapy I've relied on since four weeks after my discharge are being paid for by a for-profit insurance company. It's single payer health care, not "socialized medicine".

Call things what they are and cut out the passive-aggressive crap or go elsewhere.

I'm sorry you think I'm being rude. You are entitled to your opinions, and I don't mean any offense.

Canada decided against the death penalty many years ago. We must not support any country which continues to use the death penalty. Shame on the Conservatives who lick every American boot they can find.

And shame on that liar Harper; wasn't his motto "Stand up for Canada"? Or did he jettison that one when the Israeli Defence Force was bombing innnnocent civilians including Canadian citizens in Lebanon, and when the IDF murdered four UN observers including a Canadian. The coward Harper did not stand up for them; he even blamed the UN observers for being there.

So now that Pharisee Stockwell Day who pretends to be a Christian wants to suck up to the Americans again. Not surprising; remember that he advocated murder himself some years ago, suggesting that certain offenders be placed in the general prison population so the other prisoners could take care of them.

These rightwingers become more repulsive every day. We've got to get these monsters out of our government.

I'm sorry you think I'm being rude.

Classic non-apology apology. Review your own posts and count up the straw men, stereotypes and ad hominems. Then ask yourself why you're not sorry for what you've written, but only for what I think.

But wait ahold it, folks, who says the USA is a "stable democracy?" Isn't it seriously failing?

I am willing to argue the issues here. It is you who is maintaining a hostile attitude and lumping me in with your stereotypical vision of what you think a conservative is.

Here's my argument for your refutation:

The man is question was tried and convicted in the United States and sentenced to death 25 years ago. For many people that's longer than they've been alive, and longer than their personal interest in politics. Can you honestly speak for all Canadians, and say we have a consistency of opinion on the death penalty? Or was capital punishment abolition borne out of the leftist peace movement of the 1960's?

The man in question is a murderer, of this there is no doubt. Our government does have a history of intervening in the affairs of other countries, but not interfering in this case does not imply a change in policy toward the United States or capital punishment. They are respecting the rule of law of another country seeking their own form of justice.

Your post speaks more to a greater fear of a loss of civil liberties and a "hidden agenda" of the conservative party, than it does any basis in what is actually going on, or the personal rights of Ronald Smith. Your negation of my questioning why you are standing up for the rights of a murderer was noted. You evaded, and said it was based on principles.

But the problem with principles is that often somebody has to pay for them. We all expect our government to protect our rights as citizens, and we expect our government to lobby on our behalf if we are imprisoned abroad, but we do not expect immunity from the crimes we commit while under the jurisdiction of another country and that is something you cannot seem to reconcile.

You can continue to write me off, defer, and ignore, using excuses like the ones you've used. Or you can debate me honestly. I've linked your blog, and the blogs of many Liberals, NDP's, and Leftists who I feel are intelligent and thoughtful. I have an open mind, and I'm not here to ridicule anyone. If you have something to say, say it. But don't accuse me of not coming to the table honestly when you don't have an argument to present.

For many people that's longer than they've been alive, and longer than their personal interest in politics.

Dude! I was born in 1951.

What you're arguing here is that while Canadians were once opposed to capital punishment, they may have changed their minds. That's speculation that you haven't proven. I don't see how that puts you on ground that's more solid than mine. And I'll repeat: notice that Harper didn't consult with the people or with parliament.

Our government does have a history of intervening in the affairs of other countries...

Requesting clemency or extradition is not "intervening" in the affairs of other countries. That's a straw man -- a caricature of the other person's position. Were we to insist -- and find a way to make it stick -- that the United States stop executing its own citizens, you could talk about "intervening."

not interfering in this case does not imply a change in policy toward the United States or capital punishment

It most certainly is a change in policy.

Your negation of my questioning why you are standing up for the rights of a murderer was noted. You evaded, and said it was based on principles.

Basing my position on principles is an evasion? Wow. Just wow.

But the problem with principles is that often somebody has to pay for them.

Yeah, that's kind of what I mean by saying something is a principle -- it shouldn't be subject to a cost-benefit analysis.

we do not expect immunity from the crimes we commit while under the jurisdiction of another country and that is something you cannot seem to reconcile.

Maybe you just can't help yourself because there's another straw man. Who's talking about immunity? No one that I know of has suggested the perp should be set free, only that his death sentence should be commuted.

don't accuse me of not coming to the table honestly when you don't have an argument to present.

Don't accuse me of not having an argument to present when all I'd be arguing against is speculation, straw men and a statement that doesn't even make sense.

If anyone is anxiously awaiting Raphael's response to the above, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint. I just banned him for a comment in another thread. There's some stuff I just don't have time for any more.

"What you're arguing here is that while Canadians were once opposed to capital punishment, they may have changed their minds. That's speculation that you haven't proven. I don't see how that puts you on ground that's more solid than mine. And I'll repeat: notice that Harper didn't consult with the people or with parliament."

I've seen other bloggers saying pretty much the same thing all over the blogosphere.

The first thing I'd say is that no, Harper did not consult anyone when he changed policies. He never does. And neither did the party-in-power at the time the Canadian government's official stance became one of opposing capital punishment. [Do you remember that, pogge? We are the same age, you and I, and I for one remember being outraged at not being consulted.] These are government policies. They are not the policies of all -- and lots of times not even many -- Canadians.

Smith's fate should be left up to Montana. It was two of their citizens he tortured and killed, and admitted to it. Let them deal with him. And if he's executed, let it be a warning to anyone else who wants to commit crimes in a place where the laws and penalties are much more stringent than they are in Canada.

If there were any doubt as to his guilt, I might be persuaded otherwise.

Oops...forgot to mention a wee bit of bio-info:

I'm not a leftist. I'm not a rightist. I'm not a centrist. I'm not an ist. Period.

I'm just an individual with opinions, one topic at a time.

Americans have made it perfectly clear that they expect immunity from the crimes they commit under the jurisdiction of other countries. They have made that exceptionally clear -- it is their reason for not joining the ICC.

So, Mr Harper. Does your government have plans for Canada's (most honourable) membership in the ICC?

No serious democrat in the Western world has supported the death penalty since the eighteenth century.

I for one remember being outraged at not being consulted.

You don't specifically say it but can I leap wildly to the conclusion that you favour capital punishment in general terms? Obviously I don't agree but that would at least make your position consistent and understandable without a lot of detours and straw men.

I really doubt that a majority of Canadians would favour a return to capital punishment. And on reflection, I have to wonder if any attempt to return to it would run into a Charter challenge. Again, that works for me. And again, I think we need to be consistent. If we're going to stand up on behalf of our citizens then we stand up for all of them. Even the ones we don't like.

I don't agree to capital punishment on general terms, no. I think each case should be judged on its own. I think in the cases of the sexual torture and murder of children, especially, we should maybe re-think our stand.

You're probably right that most Canadians wouldn't want to bring it back wholesale. But I meet and talk to people every day who get more and more frustrated with killers who spend a few months behind bars and then they're free to walk the streets again. I think if the government doesn't do something pretty soon, vigilanism might become a reality and not just some people's fantasy.

And I'm always outraged when a group of people who don't know me and have never consulted me have the temerity to claim to speak for me. If you're guessing that I spend a fair amount of time being outraged, you're not far off...;)

Standing up for our citizens is one thing. Trying to help them weasel their way around the laws of another country/state just because they're Canadian, and "we" don't believe in capital punishment, though -- that's something else.

My position on this has nothing to do with liking or not liking Smith, though. I have no opinion of him as a person. My whole stand on this is that he should be treated equally under the law as anyone else in the same jurisdiction.

Hands up: who was outraged at not being consulted on our government's position on slavery?

I think that pogge's point about principle is that there are some principles that are foundational to democracy. They are necessary. Democracy means a lot more than just voting and then letting the winners of an election tiptoe through the tulips for the next however many years.

The constitution matters. The Charter matters. They are for the ages because they are for the people, and they are based on centuries-old understanding of what it takes to build democracies, to avoid the horrors of earlier ages, the many basic principles and structures we must defend in order to defend the liberty of the citizen.

There is no one, no one, in Harper's government who grasps or cares about those principles. We have ringside seats right now, watching the worst tyrant of our times, maybe about to topple, maybe about to triumph, and there is nothing we can do about it except to keep protesting Canada's part in advancing tyranny.

We can learn a lot from what is happening in the U.S. right now. It's depressing, but it is instructive. The advance of the tyrants is terrible, but the resistance of the people is inspiring. We must figure out how to do that ourselves.

"There is no one, no one, in Harper's government who grasps or cares about those principles. We have ringside seats right now, watching the worst tyrant of our times, maybe about to topple, maybe about to triumph, and there is nothing we can do about it except to keep protesting Canada's part in advancing tyranny."

Who are you referring to?

POGGE, I respect that this is your blog after all, and I sympathize with your positions, but I respectfully believe you overreacted in Raphael's case. He is a good man, as are you.

It's always possible I over-reacted but it's a possibility I'm prepared to live with since Raphael has his own blog and lots of other places where he can converse. Being barred from this one site is hardly a major hardship for him even though I've noted that he regards it as censorship (which displays a profound misunderstanding of the nature of censorship).

His rhetoric and tactics come straight out of the movement conservative handbook. He makes my spidey sense tingle and while it may not always be right, it quite often is.

James Bow:

I have to side with POGGE on this, while it may not have been how I would have chosen to deal with it if it had been me in POGGE's position, given what I have seen of the relevant material and how I was introduced to this by a comment RA left at RT's I have to say it strikes me as a reasonable response. I did read through what RA was saying because I had a hard time believing his claim at RT's that he was banned because POGGE cannot bear criticism of Layton since I have not been banned from here and I have had some rather withering comments about what I see as Layton's expediency driven politics. So I came here to read the threads in which this all happened after leaving a comment at RT's that I found his claim hard to swallow, and you know what? What I found was RA putting words and beliefs into his mouth that the actual writings of POGGE did not support when I read through them.

I have no love for what I see Layton doing nor have for over two years now, and I have made no secret of it. So I have no partisan axe to grind in this matter on that account in my agreement with POGGE's position, I agreed for the reasons I have already listed in the Paging Peter MacKay thread's comments. I do not deal well myself with those that are so comfortable with their certainties about what they are dealing with that they blatantly and grossly overlook what is actually in front of them, and I really do not appreciate being told by others what my principles and beliefs truly are and why those "true" beliefs of mine are wrong when they are rarely if ever actually accurate to what I do think and write.

I know I am something of a tedious long winded sort in the blogosphere, but one of the things I like to think I have established through my actions is that I stay consistent in what I think and believe, that I tend to avoid flame wars and simply going overboard in a fit of anger by saying truly indefensible things simply because of the anonymity/psuedonymity of the blogging world. One of the most disturbing things I have seen enter our political discourse from the US is this constant revisionist reality approach of the movement conservative/GOP and that the modern CPCer/Harperite have claimed is "true" conservativism for Canadians. This despite it not being rooted in anything Canadian, which is one of my objections to it but far from the only or most serious.

The problem is with the way they corrupt not just the language and discourse of political/social discourse, but the very principles of free speech, an open liberal (in the political theory and not party sense) rule of law with equality for all under that law governance, and an informed citizenry able to make informed decisions (if they so choose, no one is required by law to vote as an informed voter despite the idea sounding superficially appealing if not truly problematic in reality) to elect the representatives to run our Constitutionally grounded representative democracy.

We have seen where this takes a democracy with our American cousins and I see that as more than sufficient object lesson to not give much benefit of the doubt or fairness for fairness’s sake alone when used domestically as the CPC has been doing and too many of its supporters being accomplices to be it wittingly or not in terms of actually understanding/recognizing that they are treating fallacies and myths as proven fact when they do so. RA in many ways does seem reasonable to read to me too, but POGGE's fundamental objection to him and his behaviour is one that has merits too, and it is his blog and RA not only has his own blog but also has many other blogs that welcome his comments.

One of the things I as the long winded writer that I am have always understood and appreciated about the blogging world is that the only space where you have a right to be seen is your own place, period. That we all get to leave our comments at the blogs of others on their sufferance since they are under no requirement to do so, even if many of us think it is something that carries a moral/ethical imperative to it. That despite all the times I have written really long winded comments no blog owner has asked me to leave or stop doing so, likely in no small part because I generate unique writings each time to each blog, the extremely rare time I ever copy/paste a comment I have always made formal note of doing exactly that. It is not censorship to be banned as RA was from here, censorship is something those with power as in governments do to restrict information, not private individuals acting in private lives as the vast majority of we bloggers are doing. For RA to portray it as such to others is more than a little dishonest in fact, the question is whether RA is aware that he is seriously misconstruing the meaning of what censorship is or not when he does so when he states what happened to him and given how much of a slur that can be in the online/blogging world (especially the progressive side of it) what else does that tell us as well about whether this is really warrented or not? It is also in the Canadian guide to manners I was raised in only polite to be respectful of others in their own homes and places of belong to, and I see every reason to think that should apply in the online world as I do in the offline world, possibly even more so.

Sorry about this tedious response to a short comment you aimed at another, I know I am sticking my nose in a bit, but I think the point and basis POGGE acted under is important enough to do so over. I have nothing against RA personally, I find him far more readable than the vast majority of his fellow travelers in the Conservative world these days, and he is generally speaking reasonably polite in his approach in my experience, although that is limited primarily to his comments at progressive blogs and not his own blog. The points POGGE brings up though about the dangers the mindset he has displayed and the tools/tactics within his writings do appear to me to have a basis in fact and I happen to agree wholeheartedly with him as to how dangerous this is to tolerate without acting strongly against it. On that note this is goodnight because this damned storm is kicking up some serious lightening around here and is supposed to get worse through the night.