1. They're not "Canada's New Government" any more.
2. While you state a good principle in most cases (I'd substitute "the limit" for "a limit" though), I'm not convinced that it should apply to all case of the death penalty or other cases of government-sponsored termination of life (e.g. war, abortion, etc.). If the principle was applied that broadly, it effectively would remove these issues from the political sphere. I think that contentious issues _must_ remain in the political sphere in deference to democracy and to ensuring the impartiality of non-political institutions (e.g. the justice system).
3. What I do think is unfortunate is the arguement by Harper that this move is somehow a statement of the government's committment to being tough on crime. That is against the spirit of Canadian law (that we'll use the death penalty to fight crime). Stockwell Day's reasoning, which I suspect is the true principle at play here, is a much more defensible argument.
I'm prepared to say that the Canadian government should, in all cases, do what it can to protect Canadian citizens facing the death penalty abroad. If the death penalty is something that needs to be in the political realm, then let the House of Commons reject its re-introduction again, and then get on with the business of trying to protect Canadians from its implementation.
I also agree that Harper's argument is unfortunate - indeed, that's where the "playing politics" part of my post comes from.
2 comments:
1. They're not "Canada's New Government" any more.
2. While you state a good principle in most cases (I'd substitute "the limit" for "a limit" though), I'm not convinced that it should apply to all case of the death penalty or other cases of government-sponsored termination of life (e.g. war, abortion, etc.). If the principle was applied that broadly, it effectively would remove these issues from the political sphere. I think that contentious issues _must_ remain in the political sphere in deference to democracy and to ensuring the impartiality of non-political institutions (e.g. the justice system).
3. What I do think is unfortunate is the arguement by Harper that this move is somehow a statement of the government's committment to being tough on crime. That is against the spirit of Canadian law (that we'll use the death penalty to fight crime). Stockwell Day's reasoning, which I suspect is the true principle at play here, is a much more defensible argument.
- Mustafa Hirji
I'm prepared to say that the Canadian government should, in all cases, do what it can to protect Canadian citizens facing the death penalty abroad. If the death penalty is something that needs to be in the political realm, then let the House of Commons reject its re-introduction again, and then get on with the business of trying to protect Canadians from its implementation.
I also agree that Harper's argument is unfortunate - indeed, that's where the "playing politics" part of my post comes from.
Post a Comment