Who does Canada think it is?

I agree with the Canadians for sending a man to his death. I don't believe in 'an eye for an eye'

And yes family is the victim of murder, and I still don;t agree with the death penalty.

The relevance of the point is that draft dodgers were given 'Landed Immigrant' status here, while Mr. Hintzman's request is for 'Refugee' status. In order to obtain 'Refugee' status, you must be able to prove that the government of your country of origin is persecuting you unfairly, or that your life is in certain danger. 'Nam vets did not have to do so.

Immigrants claiming refugee status also, I believe, may apply for more benefits from our government.

Who does Canada think it is?

I can tell you who I think Canada is: America's hat.

Oh, and a country full of people who don't mind harboring an American murderer.

For someone I'd always considered intelligent, that's a viewpoint more aligned with that more typically espoused by LPSG's more ... medicated members, than evidence of a cogent critique of Canadian extradition law.

Just sayin'.

Who's criticizing Canada?

I've always called it America's hat.

I love America's hat. Always have. I was raised in northern New England... I can relate to the maple syrupy goodness.

And it is harboring an American murderer. And the Canadians in this thread, at least, seem to be fine with that.

So I'd say I made a pretty fair statement here, bub!

If you want me to actually critique Canadian extradition law, you'll have to educate me on what it is first, by the way. It's not in my field of knowledge.

What I can criticize is the people who compared extraditing a murderer back to America with extraditing a homosexual back to Iran. Laughably irrelevant comparison, ladies and gents.

Homosexuality is not comparable to murder by our moral standards, be us American or Canadian. These kinds of straw man arguments are not only ridiculous, but a bit disrespectful. It's why I find myself less inclined to get involved with such a discussion in the first place.

Argue the merits of your point: You disagree with capitol punishment. Don't set up a straw man.

Unsurprisingly, I am not in favor of capitol punishment myself. It accomplishes nothing, and therefore I see no logic behind it. I can understand a desire for vengeance on the part of the victims of a crime, but part of our duty as a people is to help temper those feelings and bring order to the chaos it inspires.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree with ridiculous, disrespectful arguments put forth here, right?

Not me, and I deliberately didn't cite the hat part, mostly because it was irrelevant to my point.

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'.

What Canada is doing is honouring Canadian extradition law, would you have it do otherwise? 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? 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?

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.

So no, I don't believe your assessment in this instance was either fair, or accurate, bub!

Nor me, and I don't, neither is it necessary. As you know well enough.

Yes you can, and I'd agree from a moral stance, however this is a legal issue, a perspective from which such a comparison is valid.

I don't know if the straw man reference was aimed at me, if so I'm perplexed because I only raised it (Iran) in response to your reply to my post, which you could not have read at the time as it wasn't (at that time) yet posted and I certainly didn't do so in a straw man type argument.

I agree, on all counts.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Do you now?

It wasn't. I was referring to an earlier reply. You've been genial in your responses, which I appreciate!

America does and has done the same thing. Please learn a little about international policies between allies before rambling off at the mouth against Canada.

Jesus. What is it with some Americans who always talk shit about any country that doesn't do what we want it to do. This is why so many civilized countries hate us.

Respect international law, respect international relationships, respect international connections.

With America's current fucked up place in the world, we need as many allies as we can get. Is it a necessity for us to scare the Canadians off to??!!

Who supplies your talking-points?

I wasn't rambling about anything for your information. I was simply wanting others opinions on the subject. Also, I do believe I have a right to my opinion as you do yours.

As far as other countries hating us, I couldn't give a shit what they think, they're going to hate us regardless.

I stand by my belief that the fugitive should have been turned over to the U.S. without stipulation. If that pisses you off, that's your problem.

I would be all for the death penalty if it was infallible. But it isn't, and it can't be. There have been too many cases of people being put to death and being found out later to be innocent.

I agree with my government's stand to not send this guy over the border to be killed.

Heads up; see penultimate paragraph before posting any angry response which will go unanswered for a while (time zone incompatibilities).

Well, I disagree (Not on the dictionary meaning which I believe I posted but the contextual one). Harbouring a fugitive is a criminal offence in many jurisdictions, but regardless, hiding behind a dictionary definition is unworthy of you, it was clear what you meant - and you use the word in said context throughout your reply - so how about cutting the semantics game, it doesn't help. Actually, by way of correction it wasn't the word murderer I focussed on. I would also add that he is, at this point only accused of murder. I think, if we insist on being anal about this, then we might as well be thorough too!

No, I did. Aside from the accused status (remember, he's not yet a murderer), knowingly was implicit, there's no need for condescension as I'm not a child.

And you accuse others of straw man arguments???

No, of course I would not be 'alright' about it, but if the US is so bent on vengence (execution or nothing) that it would see a fugitive go free rather than abide by the sovereign law of a nation that does not support capital punishment then it has a tenuous claim to being truly interested in justice.

Yes you did. But then you did so in reference to someone else's argument, posited in a very different context, not mine. I made no such comparison to them in a moral sense, I used it as a means of illustrating a flaw in your reasoning with regard to different interpretations of criminality.

Your throwing this back at me at this point is disingenuous, if that is you read my preceding post explaining my reasoning, otherwise it merely illustrates questionable comprehension.

There's no need, I can grasp the concept unaided, thank you. I'd support you on the former, but not on the latter. This is because I believe capital punishment to be wrong. In the light of my earlier comment, that shouldn't need further explanaion. However as one does of sarcasm deserves another, should you require a diagram, please do ask.

I won't respond to a question with such a moronic premise, other than to say it's a moronic premise. The premise is moronic ...

I also disagree with it. My personal opinion is that it's wrong, ineffective and delivers 'justice' of a sort unworthy of a 'civilised' nation. I'm entitled to voice said opinion in a thread such as this. That doesn't constitute dictating US policy on the issue by any intelligent interpretation of the word. Besides, you're doing the same with regard to Canada, aren't you?

I'm not barring the US, Canada is, by virtue of Canadian law, which simply overrides US law in this matter. In a world that respects the concept of the rule of law that's how it should be, right? Please, stop addressing me as I have difficulty understanding simple concepts. I really don't, and sometimes I can grasp difficult ones too.

I don't do that I believe, certainly I try not to. So I'd be grateful if you would respond to what I wrote, as opposed to what others wrote, or what you feel like responding to. Yes we agree on that, and that LPSG is the adopted home of sweeping generalisations, but you'll notice I also injected a little sarcasm into the mix in this reply. It seemed only fair in the circumstances.

Yes, yes I do.