centre of the universe - the dreaming: Good Countries Don't

11/05/2007: "Good Countries Don't" With homage to Robert Munsch's Good Families Don't (incidentally, Mr. Munsch, you are waaaaaay sexier with the beard) in the title up there, I want to talk about Prime Minister Stephen Harper's declaration that he's not going to do anything about Canadians facing the death penalty in democratic countries.

Backgrounder, in case you haven't heard about this: there's a fellow convicted of a double murder in Montana. He is Canadian. Montana has the death penalty. A Canadian is on death row. Prime Minister Harper says he doesn't want to "open the debate on capital punishment", so he's not going to do anything. He's not going to ask for clemency. He's not going to ask to have the sentence commuted to a life sentence.

Now, it's my understanding that most forward-thinking first-world countries have foreign policies that also somehow reflect their domestic policies. That is to say, if Canadians have outlawed capital punishment, they should also protest capital punishment in other countries. Because it's a little silly to stand up here in the North and point down south and say, "We don't do that up here, but whatev. If you catch one of our guys, you can just have him and do whatever you want". Canada should be against capital punishment all over the world. If it's domestic policy that our government's penal system doesn't kill people, then it should be foreign policy as well that we don't support systems that do.

Stephen Harper has made a big mistake here. I'm not saying you let these folks go. If they're convicted of crime, chances are really good they actually committed the crime, at least in other democratic countries. I'm not talking about a Turkish prison. Or even a Mexican prison. I'm not saying we should apply to extradite this yahoo back to his native soil. Honestly, I don't want him back. But the fact is, he's a Canadian Citizen. He should be protected by Canadian law, even if he committed his crime in another country.

It's a slippery slope, I think, from this to "do whatever you want with our citizens; our county won't interfere".

It's reprehensible, actually, that Harper has taken this stand. Maybe he personally doesn't oppose capital punishment, but most Canadians do. And, in my opinion (which is what the centre of the universe is all about, after all), it's good that they do. Capital punishment is wrong. The state has no right to kill people as "punishment". As a matter of fact, murder isn't punishment at all. It's murder.

From Justice Canada's website:
Capital Punishment in Canada

The Death Penalty

In 1976, capital punishment was removed from Canada's Criminal Code. After years of debate, Parliament decided that capital punishment was not an appropriate penalty. The reasons for this decision were due to the possibility of wrongful convictions, concerns about the state taking the lives of individuals, and uncertainty as to the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent.

Parliament replaced the death penalty for murder with a mandatory life sentence with no eligibility for parole for 25 years in the case of first-degree murder, and between 10 and 25 years for second-degree murder.

History of the Death Penalty in Canada

* The only method of execution ever used in Canada was hanging.
* In 1859, offences punishable by death in Canada included: murder, rape, treason, administering poison or wounding with intent to commit murder, unlawfully abusing a girl under ten, buggery with man or beast, robbery with wounding, burglary with assault, arson, casting away a ship, and exhibiting a false signal endangering a ship.
* By 1869, only three crimes were punishable by death: murder, rape and treason.
* In 1961, legislation was passed which reclassified murder into capital and non-capital offences. Capital murder referred to planned or deliberate murder, murder that occurred during the course of other violent crimes, or the murder of a police officer or prison guard. At this time, only capital murder was punishable by death.
* On December 10, 1962, Arthur Lucas and Robert Turpin were the last people to be executed in Canada.
* In 1967, a bill was passed that placed a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, except in cases involving the murder of a police officer or corrections officer.
* On July 14, 1976, with the exception of certain offences under the National Defence Act, the death penalty was abolished in Canada. The bill, C-84, passed by a narrow margin on a free vote.
* In 1987, a free vote regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty was held in the House of Commons. The result of the vote was in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty, 148 to127.
* In 1998, Parliament removed the death penalty with the passing of An Act to Amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 1998 c. 35.
* Before the death penalty was abolished in Canada, 1481 people were sentenced to death, and 710 of these were executed. Of the 710 executed, 697 were men, and 13 were women.
* In Canada, the abolition of the death penalty is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice. Canada has played a key role in denouncing the use of capital punishment at the international level.
* The Supreme Court of Canada has held that prior to extraditing an individual for a capital crime, Canada must seek assurances, save in exceptional circumstances from the requesting state that the death penalty will not be applied.

The really important bit here is, I think, that last bullet. "Prior to extraditing an individual for a capital crime, Canada must seek assurances, save in exceptional circumstances from the requesting state that the death penalty will not be applied". The Supreme Court should step in and correct Harper, if they can. I don't know where their judicial powers end and begin, but if Canada must get assurances that criminals will not face the death penalty before they're extradited, does that not also imply that anyone currently facing the death penalty will also be protected? It should.

I admire Harper's balls; I admire his no-nonsense attitude and, a certain part of me gets a giggle out of his dictatorial style. It's unfortunate that he's our Prime Minister, though. Personally, I'd like to kick him in the balls at this point. He doesn't speak for me, and he doesn't speak for the majority of Canadians who, as recently as 20 years ago, voted to maintain Canada's abolition of the death penalty. Canadian citizens deserve protection from torture and protection from capital murder.

And what's really really unfortunate, is that none of the other opposition parties are taking him to task over this. This is a prime opportunity for the Liberals or the NDP to stand up for human rights, and back the government into a corner, and rake them over the coals. So far, no-one's even lit a match, and that's just bloody scary.

Write to your MP. Ask whether s/he is a supporter of capital murder, and why Canada isn't protecting her citizens. All Canadians should be protected by the Canadian criminal code, not just the ones convicted at home and in countries where human rights are respected and upheld.

"Dear Universe:" "There aren't enough esses in slick"

9 Comments

Greg , on Monday, 5th November:

I like it when Melissa H sends me the highlights from your blog....

I really strongly agreed with the first one of your pieces that I read, however, this one is lacking in a few areas. First, Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale commented that the newest government policy seems like something concocted on the back of an envelope. He further questioned how the Conservative government will define 'democratic' countries and 'fair trials'. In my mind, this represents his attempt to rake the Conservative government over the coals without going so far as to force an election (which his party would lose).

Second, I am in no way a supporter of the death penalty. However, I also believe that if you go on a major drug binge in a foreign country and kill two of that country's citizens, you deserve to be treated just like a citizen of THAT country.

Here is the problem with your assertion. Let's say that a Muslim woman committed adultery in Canada. There are four male (or eight female) eyewitnesses to what she did. What if her community takes her out and stones her. Should these people be punished under Canadian law? Technically, they behaved correctly according to the Sharia so should we let them go?

cenobyte , on Monday, 5th November:

Hi Greg! Welcome to the centre of the universe!

1) Good point about "King Ralph", and good point about the Liberals forcing the election and then losing. That's part of my point. They should be more on the ball, and ready for an election at any time (isn't that one of the jobs of the Opposition?)

2) Not if you're a Canadian Citizen. It's one of the privileges we have *as* Canadian Citizens. Or it should be. It's why, if you get in trouble in a foreign country, your first call should be to your Canadian Embassy; they will ensure (or should ensure) that your rights *as a Canadian Citizen* are upheld - that's part of the reason why there's so much hullabaloo about the kid imprisoned down in Guantanamo Bay right now.

3) First, you are talking about a religious law, and there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim women all over the world who are protected against religious laws by the laws of the governments in the countries in which they live. For those women who *aren't* protected by civil/state law, there are people fighting wars so that their rights *are* protected.

Second, the example you cite isn't quite the same. If the woman in your example is a Canadian citizen who commits adultery in Canada, she is protected by Canadian law against being stoned to death. If she is a Canadian woman in a foreign, democratic country with similar legal systems to ours, she is protected as a Canadian citizen against being stoned to death. If she is not a Canadian citizen, and has committed adultery in Canada, she is still protected by Canadian law against being stoned to death (luckily, in Canada, being stoned to death is still against the law, whatever the reason). If she is not a Canadian citizen, and she has committed adultery in a foreign country, she can appeal to Canada for refugee status because she faces persecution in her own country.

If she is stoned in Canada (not THAT kind of stoned; it's not illegal to be THAT kind of stoned in Canada...maybe lets just say 'assaulted by rocks'), her persecutors are prosecutable under Canadian law, regardless of whether they are Canadian citizens or not. They would be arrested, and would stand trial. If they are Canadian citizens, the same law that applies to all Canadian citizens also applies to them. It's not legal to assault someone with rocks in Canada, regardless of your country of origin.

If the people who stoned her are *not* Canadian citizens, Canada can enter in to discussions with the country of their citizenship to have them extradited, or they can prosecute them under Canadian law, depending on the nature of the crime (I'm not sure about the specifics of criminal offenses in this case).

If the offense occurred in another country, and the 'stoners' (snigger) are Canadian, they would be prosecuted according to the legal system in the country they are in. But as Canadian citizens, they would have the same rights as any other Canadian citizen; that they should be protected from the death penalty and that the Canadian government should ask for clemency on their behalf from the government and courts of the foreign country.

I did not say, Greg, that the fellow in Montana should be extradited to Canada. I did not say he should be let go. I said the Canadian government should absolutely request and fight for clemency in his sentence, and ask that it be commuted to a life sentence, since it is not the policy in Canada to condone capital punishment. And should not be.

I'm sorry, but your example doesn't fit in this case.

In countries that permit its citizens to stone adulterers, I highly doubt there has been abolition of the death penalty. Those who committed the crime of stoning a woman would not be arrested at all, because it is still legal to do those kinds of things. The woman's rights were violated in this example, and she deserves to be protected. Canada's role in that example should be to protect the rights of the woman, and to work to eradicate laws that *do* permit human rights abuses, like stoning adulterers and capital punishment.

GH , on Monday, 5th November:

The example fits - you just don't understand the intricacy I'm trying to put forward. I apologize.

First, in regards to the hullabaloo surrounding the Canadian in Guantanamo, that is related to the issue of fairness. Guantanamo is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention.

Second, at the end of the day, you would be happy if the Canadian government imposed Canadian law upon a foreign power. While Canadians do not believe in Capital punishment, one of our citizens went down to a country where they do. Should he receive special treatment under the law because he is a piss poor example of a Canadian?

I want to return to my Muslim woman example. It wasn't clear enough for you and I apologize. Let's say that this woman lives in Canada, but is a citizen of Saudi Arabia, a nation which generally adheres to the Sharia. She commits adultery and is convicted in absentia, taken out back and stoned by a group of Saudi Arabian citizens. In their home country, what they did was 100% acceptable.

(Please note that I am far from an expert in the Sharia and am therefore not convinced that one can be convicted in absentia).

Should the Canadian government let the perpetrators go?

In my mind, the Canadian government can not let the perpetrators go. These people willingly violated Canadian law and should be punished as Canadians. In their home country, they would be fine to act as they did, however, they are not in their home country. They are in our country.

So, let's say they are convicted of murder in a Canadian court and sentenced to 'life'. What if the Saudi Arabian government says, "But Canada, these guys wouldn't get jail time in Saudi Arabia. Our country thinks it is mortally wrong NOT to stone an adulterer. Please punish them according to our laws."

This is what you are asking Canada to do. "In our country, the death penalty is not permissible, therefore, please punish him according to Canadian law."

The same goes for Mr. Smith. The man went on a drug binge and killed two aboriginal men. He was in a country that had the death penalty and thus he should have reasonably expected to be killed for what he did. Should he receive special treatment because he is a piss poor example of a Canadian?
How does that quench the American thirst for Justice? The United States convicted him and sentenced him to die - is it our place to say, "You were wrong".

Asking for special treatment amounts to saying, "You are wrong" and I'm not sure that any civilized nation has the right to say that to another nation. Fact is, Canada is often wrong. Should foreign countries stop trading with us because our treaties are absolute garbage?

Here is another example for you - Marc Emery. I am a big fan of Mr. Emery's, but I have to admit that I'm not standing behind him in his fight to avoid extradition. He is an intelligent man who broke an American law and had to be expected to be punished by that same law. Granted, the American response is way overboard (a drug kingpin designation and forty years of Federal time for selling seeds???), but again, under international law, we don't have the right to say that a punishment is 'wrong'....

cenobyte , on Monday, 5th November:

In answer to your first question, Should he receive special treatment under the law because he is a piss poor example of a Canadian?

Yes. He should. Canada protects (or SHOULD protect) all of her citizens.

In your Muslim woman example, you must further declare whether a) the woman is a Canadian citizen (not "living in Canada", but an actual Canadian citizen) and whether the men who stone her are Canadian citizens. It's all about jurisdiction. If the woman who is an adulterer is a Canadian citizen, it *doesn't matter* if she's Muslim or adheres to Sharia or anything. She is protected by Canadian law because she is Canadian. If she is not a Canadian citizen but the crime occurs in Canada, she is protected by Canadian law (to a certain extent), and her persecutors have commited a chargeable offense (regardless of whether they are Canadian citizens or not). If she is a Canadian citizen and she is 'taken back' and stoned in Saudi Arabia, she is still protected by Candian law, and the Canadian government can make a diplomatic plea to bring her persecutors to justice, and, in my opinion, we must. Whether the Saudi officials do that or not, is not up to Canadian diplomacy.

But I'm going to assume the following:
1) There is a Muslim woman. She is a dual citizen of Canada and of Saudi Arabia.
2) The woman commits adultery in Canada, which is not a criminal offense in Canada (but is grounds for divorce).
3) A group of other people, who may or may not be Saudi-Canadians take her "out back" and stone her for her offense, according to Sharia law.
4) This group of people commit this crime on Canadian soil.

What should happen?
1) The people who assaulted her must be arrested.
2) The people who assaulted her must stand trial.
3) The people who assaulted her must either, if convicted, be sentenced in Canada, or extradited to their home country, where they hold citizenship (if they face the death penalty in their home country, Canada should only extradite them after securing assurances the death penalty will not be applied).

I didn't say anywhere they should be let go. It's a different situation.

If the Saudi government calls Canada and says "But Canada, these guys wouldn't get jail time in Saudi Arabia. Our country thinks it is mortally wrong NOT to stone an adulterer. Please punish them according to our laws.", Canada should reply with:
"I'm sorry, Saudi government, but in Canada our laws are X. We can extradite these folks to your country, and deny them entry back into Canada until the terms of their sentences are served in Canada, but we will not let them go as they have been convicted in a criminal court in this country. We assure you their human rights will not be violated in any way."

I am asking Canada to do this: "In our country, the death penalty is not permissible, and we do not condone it in any other democratic country, either. We ask that you commute his sentence from death to life in prison."

I'm certainly not saying the US would DO that, but Canada MUST ask them to. Canada MUST act on behalf of his human rights.

We're not telling the US they were wrong in convicting Mr. Smith. We're telling the US they are wrong in using capital punishment, which they are. Capital punishment (court-sanctioned murder) is wrong. It's ALWAYS wrong. In any country. And Canada has the balls to stand up for what it believes in at home, so it should also stand up for what it believes in around the world.

Marc Emery is not facing the death penalty. If he were, I would be saying the same thing about him.

I am NOT advocating that Canada try to change the US legal/court/justice system. I am not saying our government has the right to attempt to ask for special treatment. I am saying that Canada should (and MUST) uphold its stance on human rights abuses, one of which is capital punishment. ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where the death penalty is still in use, the Canadian government MUST stand up for its citizens.

People who break laws should be punished. But not to the exclusion of human rights.

Here's an example for you:

You are traveling in the US. You are arrested for murder, a crime you didn't commit, and you are convicted of that murder, in a state that still applies the death penalty. You appeal the decision and are denied hearing. You're going to die at the hands of the Governor of the state you were convicted in, even though you are innocent.

People make mistakes. This is the least convincing argument against capital punishment, but probably one of the easiest to make.

Here's another example:

You are on holiday in Mexico. You are arrested for *something*, but you don't speak Spanish, so you're not sure what the charges are. You ask for an English-speaking translator and an attorney. You're granted these things. While you're sitting in a Mexican prison waiting for your trial, you hear that Mexico has just voted in favour of reinstating the death penalty for capital crimes. Treason is a capital crime, and you find out you're charged with selling state secrets (whether or not you actually were). You are a Canadian citizen, and you deserve at the very least for your country to do as much as they can to commute your sentence from death to life in prison.

Even if the person in prison actually *is* guilty of committing murder, of the offenses s/he has been charged with, Canada cannot say "we do not support capital punishment" on one hand and then turn around and say "unless it's someone else's problem". That's silly.

If you're going to stand up for what you believe in, you have to stand up for it *all the time*. If Canadians voted in favour of the abolishment of the death penalty (which we did, twice), then we must be against its use all the time, everywhere.

This is my point:

Capital punishment is wrong, all the time, everywhere, and in every circumstance. The state does not have the right to commit murder, particularly premeditated murder. Canada has proclaimed its opposition to capital punishment, and has a duty to every Canadian (innocent and guilty alike) to uphold that opposition in every instance and in every jurisdiction. We don't get to pick and choose with this one.

I suspect what it boils down to is a question of how much one human life is worth. It's cheaper to murder Mr. Smith in a Montana prison than it is to keep him incarcerated for life. The American citizens don't want to have to pay his 'keeping fee'. Canada certainly doesn't want to. So if we just let the State of Montana murder him, the situation is solved.

It's not right. Capital punishment is never justified, and the government of Canada must uphold its opposition.

platypusnboots , on Monday, 5th November:

When you are travelling abroad you are responsible for knowing the laws of the country you are travelling in. If you break the laws of the country you are traveling in, I believe that *they* have the right to hold you responsible for your actions in that country.

That being said, the country of your origin also has a "right" to you as one of its citizens and does have the ability to request that you be handed back. This can take several different forms; having you tried in the country that you allegedly commited the crime, having you tried in Canada under the other countries' laws, having to tried in Canada under Canada's laws, or simply have you returned to Canada. As for sentencing, again you can run a gauntlet of options and then start coming up with permutations of the combinations of trial and sentencing options. *Usually* this is negotiated between embassies + lawyers + advocates and +++.

I agree that Canada, as it is a country that opposes capital punishment, should ask that this person be returned. Further, since we are the ones who oppose the punishment determined by the other country, we *should* be the ones responsible for the associated expenses.

This, sadly, is not a first by any stretch of the imagination. And there have been times when Canada has apprehended an American allegedly for commiting a crime that is (potentially) is a life sentence in Canada and a death sentence in the USA. To my knowledge, one of 3 things have happens; Canada refuses to deport and takes on the expense OR Canada deports on the condition that the individual serves out the Canadian sentence in an American jail OR the Americans commit to waiving the death penalty in favour of life sentence as that person is deported for trial in the States.

Does anyone else remember the controvery respecting the American kid who went on a vandalism spree in China (on tape; no question the kid did it)? And the outrage when China was going to have the kid caned in accordance with its laws??
Anyone?

cenobyte , on Monday, 5th November:

I remember that. I also remember a guy I knew in high school who was arrested in Africa on charges of murder, and was kept in a prison there for a very long time without proper representation (either legal or embassadorial, if that's even a word). He eventually returned to Canada, and I haven't seen him since, but it was a very, very sad and frightening time for him.

I just want to be clear: I don't think that a prisoner sentenced to death row should necessarily be *returned to Canada*. I think Canada does have the responsibility, though, to do everything in its power to plead for and to advocate for commuting the sentence to life in prison rather than death. *I* don't want the guy back....

I am not saying that I think Canada should intervene and attempt to change other countries' laws or judicial systems. I'm not saying that Canada should attempt to foist or enforce its own legal system on other governments. All I am saying is that in the cases of Canadian citizens facing the death penalty in other countries (ANY other country), the Canadian government has a duty and a responsibility to all Canadian peoples (including the 'piss poor examples') to do everything within its power to ensure that no Canadian faces the death penalty.

And by working on that, we can begin to work on standing up for the abolishment of the death penalty all over the world.

And by doing *that*, we can begin to stand up for the eradication of all human rights abuses, all over the world.

Canada needs to be a leader here, not a sad and confused hypocrite.

Fucktard , on Monday, 5th November:

guy fawkes day goddamn
its true i never told you
its my dads birthday

Deon , on Tuesday, 6th November:

We're on a slippery slope. Considering it was the Public Safety minister, Stockwell Day, making the announcement, my thoughts go towards what it is leading up to. If we are unwilling to defend Canadians in other countries from receiving the death penalty, wouldn't the next logical step be to ship non-citizens back to countries where they might be executed? With the statement of current government, Canadians aren't protected, so why should we provide asylum to people not from Canada?

Slippery slope.

Fucktard , on Thursday, 8th November:

this was the defining point of sask politics

distractions