Quote:
Originally Posted by dong20  Well firstly, 'harbouring' suggests a motivation I don't believe reflects Canadian intent - i.e. to seek to provide shelter of safety, of refuge or in this context; to actively and illegally frustrate justice. Canada is not actively and illegally aiding a fugitive to evade US justice in the sense one could reasonably infer from 'harbouring a murderer'. |
Go check your dictionary. The word "harboring" has no such connotation. It means, quite simply, "to give shelter or refuge to". It's actually possibly the most accurate term for what is going on there, synonymous with saying "giving refuge to" or "giving shelter to". Would you rather I used the terms, "Canada gives refuge to a murderer," or "Canada gives shelter to a murderer"? It isn't the verb that makes the statements sound negative. It's the word
murderer. But that's what the person in question apparently is, no? So any negative connotation is there not because I infused it into the statement but because the very topic of the statement itself is negative.
Quote:
|
What Canada is doing is honouring Canadian extradition law, would you have it do otherwise?
|
I never said anything about honoring Canadian extradition law. What I said was very clear: Canada is harboring an American murderer. Want me to take it the next step for you?
Knowingly.
Let me propose a question to you: Are you alright with American murderers using your country as a safe-haven? Are you alright with American murderers coming to Canada and not being subject to penalty for murder? Would you be okay with Canadian murderers going unpenalized?
Quote:
|
Would you advocate that the US consent to an adhoc subversion of its own extradition laws, perhaps (to use a previous example) to send a homosexual to his death in Iran?
|
Didn't I just state that the comparison of homosexuality to murdering is invalid and laughable?
Let me make it more clear for you:
I'd be alright with giving refuge to a homosexual who's going to get killed for being a homosexual if he goes back to his home country.
I'd not be alright with giving refuge to a murderer who's going to get killed for being a murderer if he goes back to his home country.
Quote:
All the US need do to have him extradited, is agree not to execute him, if he's found guilty.
In fact, I'd say when viewed objectively, and legally (in the context of extant legislation) the party actively frustrating justice in this case is the US and it's doing so for what reason?
|
Turn the issue around. A Canadian murders someone in Canada, comes to America and America decides it's not going to return him unless Canada agrees to put him to death. Would
you agree to
that?
Didn't think so.
I may not agree with the death penelty. But that doesn't mean it's my right to dictate what other countries can and can't do in regards to it. I will vote against it whenever it comes up, speak out against it when it's being used. I will not bar other civilized countries from using it if those are their laws. I will not
look down upon others for having differing opinions than me on the issue.
Quote:
|
Secondly, there a far more Canadians in Canada than posted in this thread, so concluding that all Canadians who 'fill' the country would concur with the opinion of those who did is a stretch.
|
Absolutely. And you'll excuse me if I took liberty to add that sarcastic point to my first post. I see a lot of "Americans this" and "Americans that" in this thread, and I went ahead and returned the favor once to drive the point home: It's not appreciated, it's not accurate, and people should stop doing it. Glad you agree with me.
Quote:
So no, I don't believe your assessment in this instance was either fair, or accurate, bub! |
Do you now?