Who does Canada think it is?

Don't worry, I'm not one to become angered over an Internet discussion.

My point wasn't that you focused on the word "murderer", it's that the word "murderer" is what makes the word "harboring" seem to have a negative connotation. If I said "Canada is harboring the last of the majestic polar bears", it would have a positive connotation. So it isn't the word "harboring" that's at issue here.

And please don't patronize me by going on about "cutting the semantics game". You were the one who brought it up by claiming my use of the word "harboring" implied some kind of negative act on the part of the Canadian government.

I am done with semantics if you are. If you're not, I'd be happy to continue, though.

I'm not trying to be condescending, and if I'm coming across that way, I'm sorry.

Those are not straw man arguments any more than the questions you asked in your previous reply were (and your questions also weren't, by the way). A straw man argument is when one characterizes the opponents argument as something other than what it is, and then demonstrates how that second argument is invalid without actually addressing the first argument. What I pose are merely questions to be answered to demonstrate to you why I hold my stance in a light that you might be able to relate to more.

Well, that's a major difference of opinion, then. You believe that Canada has moral authority over America. I do not believe one civilized country has moral authority over another.

This exemplifies why the argument about Iran is invalid and silly. Blind bigotry is something we in the civilized world have attempted to eliminate and, at least in word and law, try to avoid completely. In contrast, numerous first world nations still use and allow capitol punishment. While the jury, therefore, is still out on the moral implications of capitol punishment in regards to the first world as a whole, the moral implications of bigotry are not.

That is why I find the comparison laughable.

I hope what I said just now clarifies my point. It is not merely that bigotry and murder are on different moral levels, but that it is evident that in our overarching Western culture, the moral acceptability of capitol punishment is not yet decided, while that of bigotry has been.

I am not being disingenuous. I am not characterizing your argument in such a light, either. If I seem to be condescending, then I apologize again and simply state I'm not trying to be. I'd ask you to do the same. Thanks!

I wasn't being sarcastic. And that statement was not just for your benefit. As an open forum, I want to be as clear as possible in case someone else wants to join in on the discussion.

As for your statement in this quote, I agree that capitol punishment is wrong. That is not our disagreement. Our disagreement is that you feel your nation has moral authority over other countries. I disagree. I do not believe my morality is or should be enforced on others when it comes to many issues.

I dare say you won't answer because your answer would be contradictory to your stance on the issue at hand. It's exactly the same scenario turned around on you. You don't want American morality forced on you; Americans don't want Canadian morality forced on them either. More to the point, I do not think it is within the rights of one country to force its morality on another in regards to capitol punishment of a murderer.

Certainly you ought to voice your opinion as I have. And I am not doing the same with regards to Canada. Were a Canadian murderer to come to America, I would not want the American government to hold the criminal until the Canadian government agrees to specific terms in regards to his treatment. I do not believe American morality ought to be forced on Canadians. And vice versa. You are presenting the double-standard here, sourced at the fact that you do believe your moral stance on this issue is correct and ought to be forced on the American government in this case.

I'm not addressing you in that manner. I am avoiding any possibility of misunderstanding to the best of my ability. It is not intended to belittle you. It is intended to avoid misunderstandings, which are very easy to have over the Internet.

That said, you do agree with the Canadian government holding this man until the American government agrees to terms regarding his potential penalty for his possible crime. I do not believe you are versed enough in international law to actually know whether what Canada is doing is legal. Nor am I.

Well, my first post was not in response to you, it was in response to the thread as a whole. I was not pin-pointing you at all when I said that.

And I do appreciate the sarcasm. I realize this post is a bit dry, but I don't want to hurt any feelings!

'Atta boy!

Dong never said that.

There's a near consensus on capital punishment. The U.S.'s use of capital punishment is often held up as one element of a list that suggests the country is not very civilized.
As you know, many Americans agree.

Dong, who is Brit and not Canadian, is not saying his nation has moral authority over other countries. In saying that Canada is within its rights not to extradite someone to a country that would put him/her to death, he is accepting Canada's right to claim moral authority over its own extradition process.

And that, I presume, is why the U.S. doesn't complain too much when Canada acts as it does.

This has been done for a number of years without, to my knowledge, any objection made under international law.

Whatever.

To me, it came off as haughty, arrogant, politically uneducated American trying to shit on Canada for exercising their political power in extradition.

The United States has done it PLENTY of times. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we can do it, they should have the right to do it as well.

The end.

And truth be told most countries WOULDN'T hate us regardless as you say. Most countries would love us if we as an American people weren't so arrogant, prideful, rude, and uncultured towards our international neighbors.

Americans always perceive that we should be the only ones entitled to flex our international muscle, but when other countries do it, we wanna wipe them off the math or insult them.Canada is one of the few major countries we have left whose on our side. We really need to keep it that way. Maintaining good relationships with them is KEY. This is why the United States followed their will in the matter. We do NOT need political problems with the independent country that's not only next door but shares a border.

And hell, if the other superpowers in the world ever get tired of us, we're going to need somewhere to run to. And Mexico's water sucks.

Actually, that's precisely what he said here, in the quote that I wrote that in response to:

" 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."

He quite directly said that the United States should do what Canadian law says it should with a criminal, not what American law says it should, otherwise it has no right to get the criminal back.

Since this law is, in itself, based in morality, namely whether capitol punishment is moral or immoral, he is saying very clearly that he agrees that Canada's moral judgment should be forced on the American justice system because he thinks America's system is "unjust".

Even if there is a "consensus", and there isn't, that does not give one country a right to take an individual and try to force the other country to do what they desire with the criminal.

International pressure to end the death penalty would be one thing. I'd be in favor of that. Using a potential murderer as a poker chip is not moral in itself, in my opinion. If the Canadian government feels this strongly about it, put pressure on the US government, put an embargo on states that have the death penalty, etc. That's how this kind of thing should be done. Not harboring a suspected murderer who fled to their country to avoid prosecution.



Thank you for bolding this as if I am blind or stupid. I'm glad I've earned that level of respect from you, Mr. Timberlake. I did a decent job of defining when I was talking about Canada and stating his alignment with the Canadian government's position. If I slipped up and called him Canadian once or twice, I apologize. The truth is, since he doesn't have his location listed, I didn't know where he was from.

I don't feel that makes me worthy of scorn or disrespect here.

It isn't that difficult to have a cordial discussion with someone with whom you disagree, even about an emotional issue. I'd appreciate it if you not talk down to me like this again. Thanks.

To the content of this part of your post: The issue I have isn't with Canada's right to control its own extradition process. My problem is that by giving the American government an ultimatum, namely that they have to commit to not using the death penalty if this individual is convicted, they are trying to force their moral opinion on the United States.

If the consensus in the United States becomes that the death penalty is no longer desired, it will be voted into non-existence. It is not within Canada's rights to tell the United States what it can do with a potential murderer, just as it's not within the rights of the United States to do the same.

Like I implied earlier, it's basically setting a precedent: Murder someone in the United States and flee to Canada to save yourself. Instead of using the understood and accepted means of pressuring other countries to change their social systems, it's all right to use suspected criminals as bargaining chips. I'm not okay with that.

The victim's family probably doesn't agree, and would probably like to see justice served, be it that this individual is found innocent or guilty. I'm fairly compassionate for family of victims in these cases. I think it's likely that they're very upset that the man they think has murdered their family-member is being held in limbo. I'm just guessing, of course. But using a murderer as a bargaining chip to try to force another country into not potentially using capitol punishment on him seems in itself to be cruel to me.

Throw up some references. I'm not saying you're wrong, but since you're taking that stance, burden of proof is on you.

how did i miss this AWESOME thread?

HA. you fucking wish. ^biggest lie of the thread.

That was sooooooooooooooooooooo stolen from me!

LMFAO!!! See!!! This is why they don't like us. LOL!!!

Alaska is then Canada's ____________.

As the American government barely represents it majority the Canadian government doesn't always represent its peoples choices while I have no problem with the thought of severe crimes delt capital punishment I do think the states tosses that choice all to easy. But we do value human rights and that does include living. I understand what they are trying to do but it probably is inappropriate. Besides its not like the American government ever interjects its beliefs on other governments...

1

How is it immoral to put an immoral murderer to death?

How is it moral to put an immoral murderer to death?