Who needs the Supreme Court of Canada, when we have the Canadian Press?
What has the Supreme Court of Canada had to say about the death penalty in the Charter era? Helpfully, in the Kindler case, they decided to tell us. Here’s the answer: extraditing a convicted multiple murderer to face the death penalty in the United States does not violate the Charter. The only pronouncement that “the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment” under Canadian law came from the dissent in that case – in other words, the written decision which a majority of the court disagreed with and which does not represent the law in Canada. Not that the Canadian Press will let that stand in their way…
Liberals claim that the death penalty is no deterant well one thing for sure CHARLIE STARKWEATHER and TED BUNDY will neven murder anyone again
Nothing stops the press anywhere from making false claims, like the death penalty is “unconstitutional” or that abortion and SSM are “constitutional rights”.
They keep saying such things and keep getting away with it. Therefore the people will assume that it must be true, otherwise they wouldn’t say it.
So guillible are most folks.
The Canadian Press is largely comprised of lazy journalists. Their bureaus regurgitate Liberal talking points and press releases as news and consider access to information requests (which they spin to create controversy) to be real investigative journalism.
And why are the Liberals wasting their time trying to protect this scumbag in Montana? He admitted to the murders, and even explained why he did it. Open and shut. The only crime now would be wasting more taxpayer dollars on his behalf.
Well just read the CP daily releases …. this is absolutely the norm in their reporting.
Here’s some links:
E-mail = editorial@cp.org
Shaw ISP uses CP as the home page news = CP News On Shaw
The Recorder CP News
Canadian Press News Page
Because like most Canadians reporters dont know Canadian history, dont know where to look for it and dont care about it.
Thanks for posting that one. While I oppose the death penalty on other grounds, dont like the state holding that much power, I would have thought that court would have ruled that.
Now if another state chooses that punishment in a free and democratic manner with appropriate judicial oversight and respect for rule of law. I dont think it is Canada’s place to push them on this issue.
We should ensure that all rules were respected for our citizen and that if there were ANY grounds for appeal that they be followed and respected. However, if one of our citizens committs a crime of that seriousness that a death is a penalty that, while we woulnt choose it, is a reasonable one that a reasonable citizenry can make then our work protecting our citizens is complete.
Death for selling alcohol in Saudi Arabia is a different story. Punishment doenst fit the crime in our eyes, questions over the judicial system and not clear that rule of law is being followed.
Just to make a point.
Thanks again for pointing it out, I honestly would have thought our courts had ruled otherwise.
The aloofness of the general public is exactly why the press has taken the tack away from objectivity and towards op-ed masquerading as objective news. They are focused on creating or influencing public opinion; no longer are they satisfied to present objective fact so that the receiver can form his or her own opinion.
Tarantino’s post highlights yet again that elements of the major media in Canada are no longer operating as the fourth estate, rather a fifth column with a markedly Left-liberal agenda. The extent to which they attack/defend government is proportional to its ideological lean; the government that espouses a liberal agenda gets a much easier ride in the media than one that aligns itself Center-Right. The same applies to laws or social more, which, again, Tarantino points toward.
I hate to use the Liberal mantra, but it points back to trust. The general public indeed trusts that the media are going to deliver straight goods, sans editorial filtering and spin. Media who abuse that trust deserve are pond scum.
the government that espouses a liberal agenda gets a much easier ride in the media than one that aligns itself Center-Right
What a croc. Just ask the Martin government, especially during the last election when it really mattered. Or the Chretien government. It wasn’t the Opposition parties who first raised Shawinigate or Adscam, and they certainly didn’t fall into line when Chretien started cutting spending and eliminated the deficit. Heck, until John Tory self-destructed, as was apparent to all, it was clear the media was not behind McGuinty at all and even after that the editorial support for him was tepid at the very best.
The media like to play opposition. They like the drama of being critical. Harper is in government now and so he gets the brunt of it. So quit yer incessant whining and whining about The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy.
No, ted, you can’t divert reality by saying that what we perceive as fact, is merely the result of our own psychological neurosis of whining.
The Canadian Press is biased; it is predominantly socialist in ideology and Liberal/NDP in political support.
They are not critical, which means to base your conclusions on fact and logic. If that were the case, the majority of conclusions would have to support Harper and the CPC. Instead, it’s the opposite. They oppose Harper and the CPC in almost every comment.
They ignore all that this govt is doing and has done, and focus on hyperbole, hysteria and speculation. Their screech-topics include the cult of Kyotoism, the Liberal agenda of smearing Harper by smearing Mulroney, and so on.
All you have to do is do a content-review of print and televised articles and commentary in the MSM and you can come to only one conclusion – the MSM are biased towards the Liberals. AND, the MSM are unprofessional in their approach to facts and reason, ie, they reject both.
You, as a die-hard Liberal, refuse to acknowledge this. That’s you.
“Cotler said the new policy flies in the face of Canadian law and the Supreme Court of Canada, which has ruled – in a multiple murder case, no less – that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.”
Again we see Cotler misrepresent the law and the course of Canadian Jurice prudence to the public. Since this man has become a Librano mouth piece he has lied consistently as to the “meaning” of the charter and the rendered decisions of the SCC.
I have listened to him on numerous occasions propagate his myth that SCC decisions prior to 1982 are no longer relevant precedent.
Personally I think the man is an uncivil statist thug…in love with the autocratic arcane justice (or more accurately, the star chamber control systems) of the soviet state.
Cotler is a text book example of everything that is wrong with the Canadian jurocracy….there is no concrete legal standards we can rely on …the law is made on the fly with reinterpretations of precedent ….obviously under such a system no one can truly KNOW what the law states or means…only a jurocrat can tell you what it means…and it means whatever they want it to at that particular time which serves their activist agenda.
Cotler (and his sycophants in the MSM) support a justice system which is driven by political expediency and fully controlled by a small elite of politically appointed social engineers.
Canada has no justice system…just a legal system and that system cannot be depended upon for any consistency of interpretation or equitable application.
On a less critical front, I have always been under the impression that it was a matter of formal government policy not to extradite when the possible punishment was execution, and not because of the Supreme Court. I certainly do support this policy but as it is a matter of policy I also support the ability of the government of the day, through proper Parliamentary process, to change its own policies. So if the Conservatives want to ship out foreign criminals to be executed elsewhere and they follow our democratic policies, I don’t have an issue with that. We get to decide as voters whether to accept that or reject it in the next election.
What I think confuses people in Canada is that the Supreme Court did find capital punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment and in violation of the Constitution. Only it was not our Supreme Court, and not our Constitution. The US Supreme Court in 1972 looked at several cases all at once and found the imposition of the death penalty to be unconstitutional on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment. It was not so much the fact of capital punishment but largely based on process concerns (such as not bi-furcating jury decisions on guilt and punishment), which 37 states fixed in re-implementing capital punishment.
__________________
A total of 64 countries still kill criminals, some even kill insane and juvenile criminals. China is by far the worst with performing 3,000 to 4,000 executions each year (that we know of), about 90% of worldwide executions. Iran performed 159 executions in 2004. By comparison, the US executed 59 prisoners that year with Texas killing most of those (Texas has killed 400 between 1976 and 2007, and (for the obligatory liberal slam on Bush, Junior was in charge over 131 of those or 32% in his five years as governor). Singapore has the highest execution rate per capita.
Ted demonstrates the willing suspension of critical thinking.
Completely incapable of differentiating between his political leanings and the behaviour of the media.
Arguing that (pertaining to the LIbs) because the media actually did present some critical evidence well after the overwhelming extent of malfeasance was evident to all in some way absolves them from the constant failure to apply any standard of integrity or accuracy or context or to stem incessant drip of anti-conservative sentiment is a far reach and nothing more than a desperate grasp to defend his own bias.
Show some examples of reports that specifically demonstrate your assertions Ted.
Just wondering, has Dion written a letter to Saudi Arabia protesting the lashes for the victim of rape, or Sudan, for the possible lashing of a teacher for naming a teddy bear mohamed.
Everyone seems to conveniently forget that the guy in Montana ASKED FOR THE DEATH PENALTY FOR HIMSELF.
OMMAG:
It isn’t too hard. Just pick up any paper on any day and you are sure to find lots of support for Harper.
From today’s Post, for example:
[…] Based on the much more measured language contained in the group’s final environmental statement, we’d say Mr. Harper has the stronger case [regarding the hard emissions caps]. Rather than blaming the whole global warming problem on developed countries, and calling on them to shoulder most of the emission reductions and associated cost, the amended document directs member countries to work “individually and collectively” on binding emission reductions that “have respect for different national circumstances.” It’s hard to believe Mr. Harper could have forced such a change on the other four dozen leaders by himself.
But even assuming our prime minister had stopped the initial communique on his own, he did the right thing. What Mr. Dion would have had him agree to was a document that required Canada and other developed nations to pay the multi-trillion-dollar bill for Kyoto and whatever comes after it, while developing nations — including booming, energy-hungry powerhouses like China –face no limits whatsoever. […]
The Prime Minister should be proud of his performance in Uganda. By refusing to get caught up in unrealistic climate solutions, Mr. Harper and his Cabinet are doing a laudable job of preserving the country’s jobs and economic competitiveness in the face of misguided green hysteria.”
———–
Not just praise for Harper, but praise for Harper’s environmental stand! Not just praise for Harper’s environmental stand but a criticism of Dion’s environmental stand.
With “enemies” like the Canadian media, Harper needs no other friends.
And OMMAG, here’s another piece of “evidence”: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071123.eClimate24/BNStory/specialComment/home
The Globe was as strongly supportive of Harper’s environmental stand as other Canadian media and explicity states that “Canada was right to balk”.
(Link to Post editorial which I neglected to include is here: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=125269)
Folks, there is no point arguing with Partisan “Non-Partisan” Ted. He refuses to acknowledge any possibility of bias…despite the independent studies that confirm it and despite the very word of Canadian newspaper editors themselves.
At least he’s consistent.
Ted will always trot out a sample of the 10% of the media content that ISN’T negative towards the conservative movement as proof of their objectivity…ignoring the other 90% that is.
OMMAG:
Here’s a simple CP report on a deal reached between the feds and First Nations. (www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071127/land_claims_071127/20071127?hub=Canada)
—————
Bill would give land-claims process $250M a year
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA — The federal government has announced legislation to help ease tensions and speed settlement of more than 800 native land claims.
If passed, the legislation would create an independent tribunal of six Superior Court judges to help resolve specific claims. The government would commit $250 million a year in funding for 10 years to the process.
Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl and Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, were also signing a political agreement to deal with specific claims outside the scope of the proposed bill.
The legislation would deal with claims worth under $150 million only, while the political accord would address specific, sweeping land claims over $150 million, such as those affecting huge swaths of Ontario and British Columbia.
Resolution of claims currently averages 13 years, with Ottawa acting as both judge and defendant.
Frustration has boiled over in several ugly clashes in recent months amid lengthy native occupations and protracted negotiations.
The federal government has itself estimated it owes First Nations billions of dollars for breached or unfulfilled treaties. Basic funding for settlements is set at about $159 million this fiscal year.
Federal officials say that only about 120 of 800 unresolved claims have made it to the active negotiation stage.
——————-
One would think that a deal with natives would have been a great opportunity for a non-pliant or adversarial press to attack the government, especially if there was any foundation for a silly claim like “They oppose Harper and the CPC in almost every comment” (which I acknowledge you did not make). But, not only do they make the government look good, they don’t bother to interview anyone who might be critical like other native leaders or any opposition MPs.
Good reporting? Sure. But the point I raise is that most articles about the government are like this, i.e. not critical.
Most editorials are neutral or in favour of the Conservatives, especially in the only two national newspapers (Globe and Post) and the only national chain (Sun). Ironically, I think the only way to assert a “media bias” claim against is by being too Toronto centric and reading only the Star and watching only the nightly evening news on CBC.
Eeyore:
What independent studies have their been about Canadian media?
Independent studies of the last election (I recall two or three) indicated a slight favouring of the Conservatives overall. But those reports gave equal weight to a neutral article reporting about some new policy and an editorial stance that said vote Harper, which most did.
Ted – as pointed out, you can’t trot out a few examples of pro-Harper comments, and ignore the rest. Just take a look, for example, at the articles posted today on National Newswatch; most of them are highly critical of Harper.
Listen to Newman, Duffy, CBC; most of their talk is highly critical of Harper.
Your two articles are not proof that ‘MOST editorials are neutral or in favour of the Conservatives’. Also, kindly remember that the MSM can’t be reduced to ‘editorials’. The MSM includes all the opinion-pundits, such as Weston, Travers, Taber, Galloway, Riley et al, who are consistently, daily, anti-Harper and anti-Conservative.
The MSM includes Newman and Duffy, with their endless stream of Opposition speakers (Liberal, NDP, Bloc) against the lone Conservative, and their endless ‘Press Gallery’ made up of die-hard Liberals like Jim Travers and Taber and Galloway.
By the way, Ted, was the Montana guy on Death Row extradicted from Canada? Or were his deeds committed in the USA, and he was captured in the USA?
Oh- and he’s been on death row for 20 years. The Liberals did NOTHING during those years. Why not? Why are they suddenly upset now? You don’t think that it might be indifference to the man and eagerness to make political points, do you?
You are flipping my argument around, ET.
You are the one claiming “The Media” controls everything and is critical of the government in almost every report. That is clearly not the case.
There is obviously a spectrum. On the one side, you have those over at rabble.ca and true socialists and the NDP who claim the media is corporate controlled and biased against them and a Vast Rightwing Corporate Media Conspiracy. Offered as evidence by them is the fact that taxes, business news often dominates the news but poverty and anti-capitalist news doesn’t. I don’t buy their claims of bias either, although I concede that the NDP does not get nearly the same press as the Liberals or the Bloc (nor frankly should they with their levels of voter support).
On the opposite end of the spectrum are the ETs and OMMAGs of the world that claim a Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy where “The Media” is out to get the Conservatives at every chance. As ET ridiculously claims they are “critical in almost every comment” (which is a modification of her earlier claims of being biased in every comment) and Eeyore that 90% of all media is negative of the Conservatives.
Both treat The Media as though it was a single entity. Read any single paper on any single day and you will see that even the critics of the government don’t agree. Read any two or three papers over any medium period of time, and the lie of The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy crumbles pretty quickly, as does The Vast Rightwing Corporate Media Conspiracy.
I’ve easily shown enough to show that The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy claims are ridiculous. Does that mean there is NO bias? I’ve never claimed that you can’t find bias in the media. I just think on balance the national news media – and most certainly the national print media (the Globe, the Post, the Sun Chain) – is indiscernably imbalanced. I read the Globe every day and the Post almost every day and I’d have to say that Harper is not getting a bad ride, lots of negative coverage (like over the huge spending increases and the nation resolution, hardly “lefty” criticisms) and lots of praise (like his environmental policies, like his recent tax promises, like his support for Afghanistan and military spending, like his anti-car racing laws). More papers endorsed Harper in the last election than Martin. None endorsed Layton as far as I’m aware. Further, for such an allegedly single-minded biased beast and best friend of the Liberals, they sure have made Dion’s life miserable. Which is not to say he deserves better but if they were as biased as claimed, then they would have found a way to support him, especially on his central policy plank like the environment.
We’ve pulled this thread way off course though and I apologize to Kate for that.
Want the death penalty back? Well, let’s make it honest then. If someone is found to be wrongfully convicted and put to death, then the jury, judge and prosecutor draw straws. The shortest one gets put to death, too. Let’s consider it deterrence from handing out bad convictions. After all, if we start killing criminals as a punishment for causing the death of another, then no one is above the law, and we should punish (eye for an eye) the people who put an innocent to death…whether or not they acted for the state.
A previous post alleges that CP employs journalists – while CP is a great source of fiction, we expect more from comments on a blog.
The people of Montana have the moral courage to defend their society by exacting the ultimate price from those who would destroy it, many other people are not so sure if their society is really worthwhile, so they’ll give those who would destroy it the benefit of the doubt.
No, ted, as usual, you slither and change meanings.
I didn’t say that “the media controls everything”. I never said that. I say that the MSM is predominantly biased towards the left.
Rabble.ca is not MSM.
Nor is this a conspiracy; bias is not conspiracy; it’s a ‘my mind is made up’ perspective.
Because YOU say that the MSM is not biased against the Conservatives, does not make it true. Do a content analysis – and a ‘pundit’ analysis, and you’ll find that the majority of columns and opinions are pro-socialist, pro-Liberal/NDP and anti-conservative.
The fact that the MSM are predominantly against Dion doesn’t mean that they are pro-Conservative or pro-Harper! That’s a fallacious example, ted. The MSM are against Dion because they fear that he is unable to return their party, the Liberal Party, to its natural role in Power.
They DO support his Kyotoism; read the papers, for heaven’s sake! They don’t support Dion because their agenda is Liberals-in-Power!
Now, how about answering my comments about death row.
I commend Ted for offering his examples.
The argument that these are representative of the general reporting from CP is false however.
In general you will find that CP promotes negative news to the top of their list and will allow any neutral or non-controversial stories to fall down.
As a result the “Hit Parade” of items that editors and copy rooms will grab from the newswire is slanted. Another little trick that CP plays is to tack a headline that promotes a controversial interpretation or even a completely baseless implication to the story being presented.
I have posted on no less than 9 of the most egregious examples this month alone. That is me ignoring numerous other samples.
In addition we have the habit displayed by the Media Retailers in TV and print who will take the CP wire stories and re-iterate them thus creating an amplifying effect. Also there are the numerous examples of the Media Retailers taking simple and innocuous releases and adding their own spin.
Apparently some people are also unaware or have already forgotten (chosen to?) the recent polls of media members and their organizations where these same people have admitted their bias.
Other recent studies that have gathered and published evidence in support of the LIberal Media Bias that were not challenged by the Media themselves.
If it were simply a matter of individual perceptions and prejudices from individuals like you and I it would not be reflected in these results. Are there contradictory results?
Not that I’ve seen.
I view this as not a partisan problem but rather a fundamental weakness in our society. Bias is only one aspect of the ills that our media suffer from but when they fail to uphold what would be seen as professional standards we all suffer no matter what the individual political persuasion.
Honest and consistently factual reporting is an obligation that the media has to the public and as a member of the public I am not satisfied with their efforts.
Now consider that this is JUST Canadian Press.
we don’t have the time or space to begin to cover AP, Reuters and others.
You’d think if someone murdered another human being, they’d figure they’d at least deserve the same fate, but they don’t – go figure.
I can only wonder why anyone would stand up for the rights of a multi-murderer, who has admitted guilt, to not face the death penalty. The only thing cruel and unusual about the death penalty is that it isn’t used more often as a form of justice for the victims.
ET, can I ask you an honest question?
How do you read something like this:
“I’d have to say that Harper is not getting a bad ride, lots of negative coverage (like over the huge spending increases and the nation resolution, hardly “lefty” criticisms) and lots of praise (like his environmental policies, like his recent tax promises, like his support for Afghanistan and military spending, like his anti-car racing laws).”
… and conclude that I said that “The Media” is pro-Conservative or pro-Harper?
What is going through your mind as you convert what I actually say to what you interpret I say when they are so opposite. I’m really honestly curious about this because you do it a lot.
And while you are at it, where did I claim that rabble.ca is the MSM? Quite the opposite, again as usual. I said they whine about media bias as much as you do, but from a leftward slant. Their claims of media conspiracy are as easily refuted as yours.
Not having the death penalty is a violation of Charter right 7 to keep us safe.
There were fewer murders pre 1962 when we last used the Deterrent, then there are now. MSM’s don’t want to talk about that.
Course some will proudly let a few hundred innocent people be murdered each year in case one innocent person is hung every decade or so.
Canada has no justice system…just a legal system and that system cannot be depended upon for any consistency of interpretation or equitable application.
WL Mackenzie
Too true, We’re a pre hammurabi Civilization nothing is yet carved in stone we have living trees and such which the SCOC is proud of.
“Everyone seems to conveniently forget that the guy in Montana ASKED FOR THE DEATH PENALTY FOR HIMSELF.”
MaryT,
Exactly.
Our press,in their pandering to an often bleeding-heart consumer,have neglected to mention many more apt points about this cold-blooded murderer.
The absolute heinousness of his crimes,for example.
He’s already had many,many more years on the face of this planet than his victims.
Some ‘humans’ have simply earned the right to die.
This’waste of skin’is definitely one of them.
OMMAG:
Will you at least accept that “The Media” doesn’t support the Liberals position on Kyoto? If the two national newspapers support Harper and oppose Dion, it is hard to maintain as ET tries to that they support Dion’s Kyotoism.
ted – if I’m talking about the MSM, that doesn’t include rabble. You brought it in, immediately, as an example of the left. But it isn’t the Left MSM. So, you are slithering. Again.
I didn’t say that the Media controls everything. You are slithering. Again. How about sticking to what I say and not slithering?
Your examples of ‘lots of praise for his environmental policies, his Afghan, his taxes…etc’. Yikes, Ted, what MSM are you reading or listening to? Is sure isn’t the Toronto Star, Travers, Tabers, Galloway, Weston, G&M, Duffy, Newman, CBC, CTV, Canada Press….These people sure aren’t filled with praise.
And, have you read the pundits in the MSM who support Kyotoism?
Again, you have ignored my comments about Montana’s death row Canadian. I repeat; he’s been on death row for 20 years. The Liberals never said a word about him. I ask you again, was he ‘shipped out to be executed’? Weren’t his murders carried out in the US, and he was caught in the US? How about answering?
ET, can I ask you an honest question?
How do you read something like this:
“I’d have to say that Harper is not getting a bad ride, lots of negative coverage (like over the huge spending increases and the nation resolution, hardly “lefty” criticisms) and lots of praise (like his environmental policies, like his recent tax promises, like his support for Afghanistan and military spending, like his anti-car racing laws).”
… and conclude that I said that “The Media” is pro-Conservative or pro-Harper?
What is going through your mind as you convert what I actually say to what you interpret I say when they are so opposite. I’m really honestly curious about this because you do it a lot.
And while you are at it, ET, where did I claim that rabble.ca is the MSM or a left version of the MSM? Quite the opposite of what I actually said, again as usual. They are examples of people on the left who whine about media bias as much as you do, but from a leftward slant. Their claims of media conspiracy are as easily refuted as yours.
As for the Liberals position on this Montana case… go ask the Liberals. I don’t speak for the Liberals and the Liberals don’t speak for me.
Uh-h-h, Ted, as far as that supposed anti-Liberal critical slant you mentioned, you should try filling in the blanks just below, as the answer will explain why:
Rule of Law is a relative thing…
if you are a ‘progressive’.
Something to be quoted and followed…
if you agree with it
Something to moulded and nuanced…
if it doesn’t fit your little pigeon-hole
Something to be subverted and ignored…
if all the above don’t work
” …Will you at least accept that “The Media” doesn’t support the Liberals position on Kyoto? If the two national newspapers support Harper and oppose Dion, it is hard to maintain as ET tries to that they support Dion’s Kyotoism.
Posted by: Ted at November 27, 2007 2:06 PM ”
Ted … I’m not sure about that! I do not see the “opposition” to Dion that you speak of rather that Dion is making so little sense these days that there is nothing to support. But I’ll grant you for the sake of argument that We seem to be in a cycle where CP and others are not commenting on the LIberals Policy but rather on their Hyperbole and Histrionics.
I can say that in the past CP has followed a line that the Liberals and Dion were in fact champions of the only “Good” policy …ie; Kyoto Accord Compliance.
I believe that for now they (CP) are relatively neutral on Kyoto itself and Not Overtly critical of Harper’s policy stand. However the page changes frequently and later today or tomorrow we will have still more examples to critique or parse.
Who knows? Perhaps even these self admitted liberal biased organisations will come around!
Off topic – anyone see the parallels between Dion’s situation and Queeg in the Caine Mutiny ??
ted, we were talking about MSM. You introduced rabble.ca as an example of ..what? Our only topic of communcation mode was the MSM. YOU, YOU, Ted, introduced rabble.ca as an example of ‘a spectrum’. Why did you introduce rabble, a blog, when the topic was leftist bias in the MSM??
So far, you state that you can ‘easily refute’ (that’s a common phrase you use) but you haven’t refuted a thing.
As for Smith and death row, YOU, YOU, Ted, introduced the issue of ‘extradition’, YOU talked about Canada rejecting extraditing Canadians to countries with the death rule.
What was your point about bringing this up. I asked you if Smith had been extradited. Otherwise, why did you bring this issue up?
You, as a Liberal, don’t care about Liberal positions? Heh – then why are you always denigrating Harper and the Conservatives and promoting the Liberal ideology?
I’m point out to you the hypocrisy of your beloved Liberals. Now, they are foaming to get Smith released to Canada. But they did nothing for 20 years. Yet, you have no criticism of this stance. None. That’s Tedism; acceptance of whatever the Liberals do, without critique.
ET, rabble.ca is not a blog. You really do have to get out from your bubble a little more. It is a discussion board among avowed leftists who routinely claim there is a deep-rooted right-wing bias in the media. They, like you, have no idea what they are talking about.
And here you are again foaming at the mouth trying to invent things I believe in or have said. My “beloved Liberals”? I don’t care about Liberal positions? I am somehow obliged to comment on every Liberal Party position or policy? I accept everything the Liberals do without critique? Where on earth do you get this stuff? You obviously don’t read much of what I write here so there really is no point in discussing things with you. You routinely invent comments on my behalf and you really should desist in this.
I managed to keep my vow to ignore your silliness and reading comprehension problems for a while and need to re-assert that promise to myself. Why have an argument with a brick wall. Good night, Edwina.
OMMAG (since you at least seem to be interested in having a reasonable debate and not simply throwing empty rhetorical platitudes around):
I think Kyoto is held up by many as a sort of statement of objectives and principles which I’m sure even most here would agree with, but they either don’t realize or prefer to ignore is that Kyoto actually is more because it did mandate certain specific tangible commitments. And those that do acknowledge that the commitments are there completely ignore the fact that we have the highest commitments and we have them ONLY because Chretien insisted that we go higher than the US (who ended up never committing) for bragging rights only.
I also think many in the media are lazy and don’t like to distinguish between a rejection of Kyoto mandated standards and goals, and rejection of Kyoto principles. This is why I think the Conservatives are probably not being too inconsistent when they say they reject Kyoto but they won’t reject Kyoto.
At the same time, as 2012 gets closer, a certain recognition of reality or rubbing off of the government’s position is settling in. Whether you thought the Kyoto goals were a good thing or not, whether you thought they were ever truly achievable or not, with catastrophic economic results or not, the reality is that there is no way to reach those Kyoto goals anymore so why bicker about it.
Which is why the Post editorial finds in favour of Harper and is critical of Dion:
“[Harper] did the right thing. What Mr. Dion would have had him agree to was a document that required Canada and other developed nations to pay the multi-trillion-dollar bill for Kyoto and whatever comes after it, while developing nations — including booming, energy-hungry powerhouses like China –face no limits whatsoever. […]
The Prime Minister should be proud of his performance in Uganda. By refusing to get caught up in unrealistic climate solutions, Mr. Harper and his Cabinet are doing a laudable job of preserving the country’s jobs and economic competitiveness in the face of misguided green hysteria.”
Of course, if you really want to stick with The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy theory and had to rationalize all of the good press he gets, I suppose another way to look at it all if you want, is that as Harper becomes more like a traditional LIEberal (string of broken promises, spending billions of dollars to win votes, spending like a drunken sailor to get Quebec votes, putting politics and the next days headlines above good policy, etc. etc.)… with all of that, it becomes easier for “The Media” to like him.
Eh?
😉
Ted – rabble.ca is a blog, ie, a web-log. It’s online, for discussion. Blog. Stop slithering.
You have a tactic that when your errors are pointed out to you, you switch and focus on a trivial issue and attempt to divert attention to that. I’m sure that is Legal Tactics 101. But, it’s not a good argumentative tactic if you want to deal with the truth.
Again, whether you want to call rabble.ca a blog or a discussion board (yeah, sure; where do they meet?) is utterly irrelevant, Ted. Don’t slither.
The point is, it is not MSM. We were discussing MSM approaches to Harper and the Conservatives. YOU brought up rabble.ca. OK? Why did you do this? It doesn’t represent the MSM!!!! Slithering again, Ted?
YOU brought up Smith. Why? What was your point with that loooong post about extradition and the Conservatives? WHY? You refuse to answer. Yet, you brought it up.
“So if the Conservatives want to ship out foreign criminals to be executed elsewhere and they follow our democratic policies,”..what’s your point? Smith isn’t foreign; he’s Canadian. The Conservatives didn’t ship him anywhere; he wasn’t extradited. What the heck are you talking about?
Oh, and two National Post articles don’t represent the Canadian MSM, Ted. Nice try.
ET, sorry but blogs may have evolved out of message boards but they are not the same thing at all. And rabble.ca is a message board. So I think Ted’s point is just that some on the left (for eg those commenting at rabble) and some on the right (for eg people commenting here) think there is bias against them. Whether that’s true or not I’ll let you guys figure out.
=====================
Blogs (online diaries)[www.bbc.co.uk/chatguide/glossary/blogs.shtml]
Web logs are online diaries which can contain images, sounds and video clips. Many people write a page every day and some blogs have become very well-known. News organisations may offer blogs written by either staff reporters or the public themselves.
Some blogs are overseen and hosted by organisations whereas others are ‘freeform’ and created by members of the public who may or may not set standards for quality.
=======================
Message boards [www.bbc.co.uk/chatguide/glossary/messageboards.shtml]
Message boards, or forums as they are sometimes known, are like an automated notice board to which anyone can ‘post’ a message. If you leave a message, someone may reply to it later. Some message boards receive hundreds of messages a day and they cover every subject and interest you can think of.
To Et I’m on your side etc ….That’s not the point! who cares whether rabble.ca is a blog or a message board or a whatever. The point is, it isn’t part of the MSM. And we were discussing the leftist bias of the MSM!
Therefore, ted, with his usual irrelevant slithering, was introducing a topic that diverted from the issue, and yet, seemed to support his own bias.
See United States v. Burns, that elusive case that overrules Kindler and Miller.
Thanks, ET I’m on your side usually but today, but she obviously doesn’t get it and is not going to get it. So let’s leave it be.
Okay, everybody, take a valium. In defence of Canada’s working journalists, and of Irwin Cotler, I respectfully draw your attention to Bob’s ommission of error, thus:
“UPDATE: Well, this is embarrassing. Who’s the dumbass? Bob’s the dumbass – because I completely missed a Supreme Court case, and thereby failed to present a full analysis. As helpfully pointed out in the comments, the Supreme Court of Canada, in 2001, in U.S. v Burns, ruled that extraditing an accused to face a trial for murder, without seeking assurances that the death penalty would not be sought by the prosecution, did violate the Charter (specifically, section 7), in those particular circumstances.”
Cheers,
TG
Stephen,
Your points are good ones…I have wrestled with this myself; being from California where we had
extremely liberal judges who were finally recalled by the liberal people because of the
spitting on the rule of law. The death penalty was reinstated in California as a means of getting back law and order. The most recent
execution was Tookie Williams.
Having the death penalty doesn’t mean that it is enforced. Most convicted of murder (airtight and so forth) end up as lifers; even the state is reluctant to take life. In Utah, those who make up the firing squad don’t know who gets the blank bullets. I don’t even know what Georgia’s statute
is regarding capital punishment.
But I do know this: If a state is willing to
take the risk of using it as a deterrent and only
uses it rarely and when the appropriate oversights
are met, then it DOES send a message and it does
work as a deterrent.
What works even better is armed citizenry.