|
Post by franko on Mar 3, 2008 7:52:06 GMT -5
Actually, shouldn't we now hold the Tories to the same standard that we did Liberals. Most definitely. unproven voted buying ;D *shivers* I hope not!!! Reminds me a bit of Belinda and of others whio have crossed the floor -- we don't know what was promised. I don't like the floor-crossing -- sit as an independent; don't get yourself elected and cross for a cabinet post (hear me, David Emerson?). Nope. Let's see how the charges play out. Unhappy with the lack of leadership within all parties.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 3, 2008 7:52:39 GMT -5
As to equalization, it is a redistribution of the wealth. I don't see how a province can say "we have resources and want to keep the benefits . . . but keep on sending us the redistribution cheque". Once again ... not the arguement But the Tories will make damn well sure everyone thinks this is the arguement. Newfoundland will be a have province with or without the promise. So we won't be getting equalization. Period. There will be no "send us a redistribution" cheque. All we want is the money from the non-renewable resources that Haper promised. Heck, at this point, even half .... he ran on the platform, he wrote it on paper. He told us we'd get the $11 billion. No strings. Now, I may not do a good job of explaining it .... but I am certainly sure that no one on the mainland has taken the time to actually find out what the real arguements are. The Globe, The Star, whatever newspaper you read .... I can bet it is all anti-Newfoundland and talk about the Accord and equalization payments .... which has nothing to do with the chasm between Newfoundland and Ottawa. All we want is the money from the non-renewables as was promised by Harper - and as Harper said to us, Alberta had the benefit of it, so why not Newfoundland?
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Mar 3, 2008 8:25:40 GMT -5
We sound like the House of Commons....answering questions by pointing fingers at other parties' wrong-doings. Yes, politics and politicians are open to and, in many instances, rife with corruption and hypocrisy. No party is immune from or innocent of it. So on that level, mud-covered playing field, I like to look at each case in isolation, with no partisan slant. I had no problem with Martin and the Libs getting nailed for ADSCAM.....in fact it was too bad Chretien escaped final scrutiny. I want Mulroney to pay back the money he received from his lawsuit against the Government of Canada. Turns out he DID surreptitiously accept 3 cash payments from Schreiber...not only did he lie about that....but he neither claimed it as income nor paid tax on it. The very least he should have to do is pay back the "defamation of character" money he received from suing our country. And I want an investigation into the Cadman story. Gotta keep the politicians as honest as we can.......
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 3, 2008 9:19:38 GMT -5
We sound like the House of Commons....answering questions by pointing fingers at other parties' wrong-doings. Yes, politics and politicians are open to and, in many instances, rife with corruption and hypocrisy. No party is immune from or innocent of it. So on that level, mud-covered playing field, I like to look at each case in isolation, with no partisan slant. I had no problem with Martin and the Libs getting nailed for ADSCAM.....in fact it was too bad Chretien escaped final scrutiny. I want Mulroney to pay back the money he received from his lawsuit against the Government of Canada. Turns out he DID surreptitiously accept 3 cash payments from Schreiber...not only did he lie about that....but he neither claimed it as income nor paid tax on it. The very least he should have to do is pay back the "defamation of character" money he received from suing our country. And I want an investigation into the Cadman story. Gotta keep the politicians as honest as we can....... You're right, CH. As I was saying earlier they're all painted with the same brush. If the Tories are guilty of something then they should be held accountable for it and not be able to run behind the "in the name of politics" security blanket. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 3, 2008 10:00:49 GMT -5
We sound like the House of Commons....answering questions by pointing fingers at other parties' wrong-doings. Or by playing with words: I did not have sex with . . . ; I did not play footsies with . . . To be able to do that is amazing. He certainly ducked out at the right time. But I have no doubt he would have continued to "oh-gosh" the situation. I'd like to see that too. But he did eventually claim the money as income and pay it back. But it was a great day when he retired as PM. Was never a Joe Who supporter but certainly thought that BM (appropriate initials) was a backstabbing so-and-so and felt bad for Clark. Most definitely. I just don't like the "they're all guilty" condemnations before the investigation is finished.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 3, 2008 10:03:02 GMT -5
* the return of "quiet diplomacy" and little to no support for Canadians abroad. Dis, I don't know what you're referring to, but the Conservatives have refused to protest in any way the death sentence of a Canadian in the US, and, like the Liberals, have basically ignored the case of Omar Khadr (the Canadian citizen arrested at the age of 15 who is still being held in Guantanamo Bay). I'm not sure why you think the Liberals will be worse on this front. Is this the guy you're referring to, HacH? Ronald SmithCheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 3, 2008 10:10:34 GMT -5
I don't know the Canadian on death row, McH. But, if you have the story please post it. I'm always interested in this kind of story. From one of a number of sources: MONTANA----Canadian national/death row inmate loses another appeal
The only Canadian inmate on America's death row has lost another bid to avoid execution.
This week the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for review from Ronald Allen Smith, a 43-year-old native Albertan who shot and killed 2 cousins in a wooded area in Montana.
Smith has been fighting the death penalty since he pleaded guilty to 2 counts of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of deliberate homicide in 1983. Initially requesting the death sentence after shooting cousins Harvey Madman Jr. and Thomas Running Rabbit Jr., he later changed his mind.
"This is good news for the State of Montana, but not good news for Mr. Smith," said Flathead County prosecutor Tom Esch. "This is one more step forward in the process."
With all state appeal options now exhausted, Smith can pursue final options through the federal court of appeal or request clemency from Gov. Judy Martz.
"The state proceedings have officially ended," said assistant Attorney General Mark Fowler from his office in Helena, Mont.
But Smith's lawyer, Don Vernay, was not discouraged by the latest ruling, which he called "not unexpected."
"We're much more optimistic about our chances to be successful with appeal at the federal level," he said.
Vernay is also representing Nathaniel Bar-Jonah, who is charged with killing a boy and serving his remains to unsuspecting neighbors in stews and pot pies.
5 months ago Michael Roberts, a Pembroke native who sat for years on death row, won an appeal to Washington's Supreme Court, which overturned his aggravated 1st-degree murder conviction and lifted the death sentence. linkThis gist of this case is that Smith [as admitted in court] decided that he wanted to find out what it was like to kill someone, so he did. When caught he admitted it, pled guilty, asked to be put to death, then changed his mind. I have deleted the full version of my comments on the matter. Abridged: I think that if anyone deserves to be put to death he does because of his callousness. But I don't think that anyone, no matter how callous, should be. How's that for waffling?
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 3, 2008 12:23:33 GMT -5
Act II PM launches legal action against Dion
By KATHLEEN HARRIS -- Sun Media OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper is threatening to sue the Liberals over "false and devastatingly defamatory" statements in connection with the Chuck Cadman controversy.
A tersely worded letter from Ottawa lawyer Richard Dearden released this morning says the "malicious and reckless" remarks made on the website www.liberal.ca impugn the reputation of the Prime Minister, and demands the articles be removed from the website immediately. It also requires a public apology from Liberal Leader Stephane Dion in both official languages in the House of Commons.
"The defamatory statements are egregious," Dearden's letter reads. "The articles in issue are not a fair and accurate report of proceedings in the House of Commons and are not privileged. Further, the statements complained of were made maliciously and with a reckless disregard for the truth destroying any privilege that may have existed."
The notice of libel letter warns that a failure to fully apologize and pull the offending articles from the website will cause "aggravated and punitive damages."
A soon-to-be-published book has alleged Conservative Party officials offered Cadman a $1-million insurance policy for his vote to help topple the governing Liberals in May 2005. An audiotaped interview with Harper from the B.C. author suggests Harper had knowledge of a meeting between Cadman and party officials.
Here is the wording of the apology demanded by the Conservatives to be read in the House of Commons and posted on the Liberal Party website:
"Last week Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Goodale and I made defamatory statements falsely claiming that Prime Minister Stephen Harper acted illegally in matters concerning former British Columbia MP Chuck Cadman. Today, we acknowledge that the Prime Minister has acted ethically, morally and legally and retract the statements we made to the contrary. We apologize to the Prime Minister for the unfounded attacks made on his reputation." cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/03/4893551-cp.html
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 3, 2008 12:41:07 GMT -5
I don't know the Canadian on death row, McH. But, if you have the story please post it. I'm always interested in this kind of story. 5 months ago Michael Roberts, a Pembroke native who sat for years on death row, won an appeal to Washington's Supreme Court, which overturned his aggravated 1st-degree murder conviction and lifted the death sentence. [/i] link[/quote] I've tried finding links that would confirm whether or not the government had a hand in this but can't find it. I'm not a supporter of the death penalty. Even during my military service I was strongly against it. I found one link that suggested the evidence against Roberts was flimsy. But, I don't know if it's the same guy because the Roberts I read about, was finally executed. I think if there's flimsy evidence that shows reasonable doubt then our government has a responsibility to get involved. If murder has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt then I don't know what they can do about it. As another aside, our camp in the Golan Heights ('96) learned of two Canadian women being held for life in a Syrian prison for drug trafficking. Now if you're incarcerated in that country you'd better have family or friends looking after you because if you don't you can actually starve to death. Did they do it? Well, the Syrians seem to think so. But, in those countries your confession is usually extracted out of you by torture. We really don't know the whole story. From what we learned, one lady had already passed away in jail. The other was being supported twice a week by the Canadian Embassy in Damascus. A medical officer, a medic and a Christian minister asked for permission to see her but they were denied. If she didn't have the Embassy then she would almost certainly be on her own. And if she's still alive she would have been supported by both Liberals and Conservatives. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 3, 2008 12:46:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 3, 2008 13:20:56 GMT -5
I knew that the Conservatives would go on the attack but that's pretty lame. To demand an apology is one thing (and let's face it, expected in the game), but a lawsuit?
Time for an election, if just to stop the stupidity. That'll calm things down for a month of electioneering (when mud will be flung both -- or 5 -- ways), a month of consulting about the next parliament, a summer away to rethink why in the world there was an election anyway, and then a calm parliament while both the Conservatives and Liberals plan their conventions to find new leaders.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 3, 2008 13:34:18 GMT -5
I think if there's flimsy evidence that shows reasonable doubt then our government has a responsibility to get involved. If murder has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt then I don't know what they can do about it. I may be wrong on this ... but I think it is "common practice" (for lack of a better word) for American and Canadian governments to extradite their prisoners from each others countries. Also, the canadian government has a policy whereby we won't extradite a prisoner if they face the death penalty in the States. Typically, the US district court has to give the Canadian government assurances that the death penalty will be waived and then they will release the prisoner. One case here in Newfoundland revolved around a woman who killed her boyfriend (only in her mind, he broke up with her months prior) in the States (Pennsylvania), and she came back to Newfoundland. The government would not release her to the States because the wouldn't waive the death penalty. Worse still, they let her out on bail and she was basically a free woman. Eventually, it was learned that she was pregnant with the guys child, she used that againt the system so she could look after him and use it against the guy's family .... anyway after a year of this court room BS, she took her and the baby's life.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 3, 2008 13:41:41 GMT -5
I knew that the Conservatives would go on the attack but that's pretty lame. To demand an apology is one thing (and let's face it, expected in the game), but a lawsuit? Time for an election, if just to stop the stupidity. That'll calm things down for a month of electioneering (when mud will be flung both -- or 5 -- ways), a month of consulting about the next parliament, a summer away to rethink why in the world there was an election anyway, and then a calm parliament while both the Conservatives and Liberals plan their conventions to find new leaders. I had this in the original post but took it out before posting. Does this remind you of the Mulroney/Airbus affair? Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 3, 2008 14:45:16 GMT -5
Dis, I don't know what you're referring to, but the Conservatives have refused to protest in any way the death sentence of a Canadian in the US, and, like the Liberals, have basically ignored the case of Omar Khadr (the Canadian citizen arrested at the age of 15 who is still being held in Guantanamo Bay). I'm not sure why you think the Liberals will be worse on this front. Is this the guy you're referring to, HacH? Ronald SmithCheers. Yup. Not a sympathetic character to be sure, but that's beside the point; Canada claims to oppose the death penalty, and I assume that a majority of Canadians are opposed to it. Prior to this government it was official policy to seek clemency for Canadians sentenced to death abroad. Here's an article about a different case which talks about Smith too. It gives me the impression they actually intervened specifically in his case to avoid the bad press they might get for "supporting" this guy. Are they making it "policy" as a way of disguising that? Wouldn't surprise me, this government might be more terrified of bad press than any other government in the history of this country. I find it odd that they protect the life of an American killer, but not of a Canadian. Ottawa wins no-execution guarantee for American murder suspectRandy Boswell, Canwest News Service Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008 Despite its controversial refusal to seek clemency for a Canadian murderer on death row in Montana, the Conservative government has won a no-execution guarantee from U.S. authorities for an alleged American killer facing deportation from Quebec to South Carolina, Canwest News Service has learned.
Roger Eugene Shephard has been in Canadian custody since he was apprehended in June 2006 at a Montreal motel. The 23-year-old is accused of killing John Bruin, a 65-year-old pawn shop owner in Easley, S.C., and then fleeing into Canada to avoid being arrested in the U.S.
<snip>
Giroux welcomed Canada's move to seek a no-execution guarantee before deporting Shephard: "Good for us. This is what we are looking for."
But she said the government's decision to avoid any role in the potential execution of Shephard highlighted its "hypocritical" stance in the case of Ronald Smith, the Alberta-born killer facing a lethal injection at Montana State Prison.
Giroux said she believes that "not seeking clemency for Ronald Smith is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights. . . . I believe it is time that Canada strongly advertise its opposition to death penalty."
Until October, Canadian consular officials had been pressing Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer to grant clemency to Smith on "humanitarian grounds" because of Canada's abolition of the death penalty in 1976.
But the Conservative government halted those efforts after a Canwest News Service story described how Canadian officials were trying to have Smith's sentence commuted to life imprisonment.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and several top ministers have said the government will no longer automatically seek clemency for Canadians facing execution in democratic countries.
Smith and a high-profile team of Canadian defence lawyers are now suing the government, seeking a Federal Court review of the Conservatives' abrupt reversal on the clemency issue. Commons says government should seek clemency for Canadians on death rowFeb 6, 2008 OTTAWA - The House of Commons adopted a motion Wednesday saying the government should resume a policy of automatically seeking clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty abroad.
Opposition parties ganged up against the government in a non-binding vote to approve a motion from Liberal MP Judy Sgro.
Her motion was a response to the government's refusal last fall to seek clemency for Ronald Smith, an Albertan sentenced to death in Montana for two murders in 1982.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives said at the time that such appeals would be made case-by-case, adding they would not routinely ask for clemency in cases where people are convicted in fair trials in democratic countries.
Sgro said that was unacceptable, since Canadian governments for 40 years have always asked for clemency for Canadians sentenced to death in other countries.
During debate on the motion last week, opposition MPs said the policy change was evidence that the government secretly wanted to reopen the death penalty debate in Canada.
"This sends a message to Canadians that Harper - we always said he had a hidden agenda and ... that's exactly what's happening," Sgro said after the vote.
"We're now starting to see more and more what Harper's government is really all about and Canadians have to stop and think what a (Tory) majority would be (like)."
The government denied during the debate that the policy was some backdoor effort to bring back the noose.
Rob Moore, parliamentary secretary to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, called the motion "a cheap political trick and a feeble attempt by the Liberal opposition to draw debate where there is no debate."
The Conservatives, he said, have no intention of reopening the capital punishment question.
"This government is not changing the law in our country with respect to the death penalty."
New Democrat Thomas Mulcair said two Conservative backbenchers from Quebec, Denis Lebel and Steven Blaney, abstained on the vote.
"It's quite clear they were playing to their base. ... It's a ploy," said Mulcair. "This is part of the branding they want as they head into the next election."
Another Canadian sentenced to death, for allegedly killing his family: Opposition finds itself allied with accused multiple-murderer
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 3, 2008 15:20:18 GMT -5
Thanks MC H. Some good reads for sure.
As soon as I read the part where the Tories weren't going to automatically lobby for clemency as with previous governments, I thought about whether or not they'd reopen the capital punishment issue. Then, later, there it was.
These are good finds, MCH. I think what I read into them was that the Tories will review each case. They're still willing to fight for Canadians but it won't be a blanket request for clemency. If you're man enough to do the crime, you're man enough to do the time. I think I understand that but at the same time, like you suggest, it might just miff Canadians who simply don't/won't support any death penalty anywhere.
But, this is also laying the groundwork for reintroducing capital punishment here in Canada. If they do revisit this I'll swing my vote somewhere else, but it won't be with any of the three parties. I think you're right in that most Canadians detest the death penalty.
However, I also see another regional split coming if it is reopened. The West would probably vote for it, while the East would take the other extreme. I don't know if it would pass in parliament or not but they'd be wise to put it to a refererendum. If they were to pass it, lets say by only one vote, then I believe there'd be an uproar in the country big enough to throw the Tories out.
Just my opinion though.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 3, 2008 15:35:48 GMT -5
I also don't know about Khadr all that well. What I might take from your post is that this young man is innocent of any wrongdoings. Yet, two successive governments have chose to look the other way. I don't know about innocent, but usually, a 15 year old kid in that circumstance would be considered a child soldier and would therefore be treated differently. But Khadr has been held without trial for five years, in violation of international law, and it's come out recently that the US government/military was withholding evidence that shows he likely did not commit the "crime" they accused him of. In a nutshell, he's been denied the rights that we would expect him to have in a democratic country and there's absolutely no reason to believe he will receive a "fair trial." The Liberals did nothing about this when they were in power, and one of them recently admitted this was because the Canadian public wasn't interested in the story at the time. Now they're pressuring the Conservatives to take action.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 3, 2008 15:36:00 GMT -5
I assume that a majority of Canadians are opposed to it. About 50/50 actually. The funny thing is . . . [anecdotally] . . . it seems that more pro-lifers/anti-abortionists are pro-death penalty and more pro-choicers/[I'm not going to call them anti-lifers -- that's lame] pro-abortionists are anti-death penalty. Doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 3, 2008 15:37:28 GMT -5
The Liberals did nothing about this when they were in power, and one of them recently admitted this was because the Canadian public wasn't interested in the story at the time. Now they're pressuring the Conservatives to take action. Quite telling: politics at its worst. "the Canadian public wasn't interested ". How about doing what is right, Liberals? How about doing what is right, Conservatives? Bah.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 3, 2008 15:39:14 GMT -5
However, I also see another regional split coming if it is reopened. The West would probably vote for it, while the East would take the other extreme. The West that starts at the Rockies might. I'd be surprised if British Columbians supported the death penalty (we're too laid back to put people to death, what with all the pot smoking ).
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 3, 2008 15:45:20 GMT -5
I assume that a majority of Canadians are opposed to it. About 50/50 actually. The funny thing is . . . [anecdotally] . . . it seems that more pro-lifers/anti-abortionists are pro-death penalty and more pro-choicers/[I'm not going to call them anti-lifers -- that's lame] pro-abortionists are anti-death penalty. Doesn't make sense to me. I think calling them pro-abortionists is almost as lame. Pro-choicers (oh how I hate that term too - there are lot's of "choices" the law doesn't permit us to make; I am opposed to a ban on abortion but it's not because I believe in choice, IMO, you get pregnant as the result of a choice* [excepting rape]) don't necessarily like abortion. But the two issues are different. I don't think it's inconsistent to "support" abortion and oppose the death penalty, or vice versa. * EDIT: I should have said, "someone gets pregnant as the result of choices made by two people." The point being that both parties bear responsibility for their actions.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 3, 2008 17:15:30 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, I hadn't heard much about her story. You have to respect the dedication of her friends and family, but it doesn't look like there's going to be a happy ending.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 3, 2008 18:09:44 GMT -5
However, I also see another regional split coming if it is reopened. The West would probably vote for it, while the East would take the other extreme. The West that starts at the Rockies might. I'd be surprised if British Columbians supported the death penalty (we're too laid back to put people to death, what with all the pot smoking ). I originally had prairies instead of the west because I didn't want to single out a specific group (though the use of 'west' is singling out). With apologies to our Western community, this particular government is a direct reflection of the values and attitudes some of my western friends have shown. Some are rednecks, some not so extreme. But the attitudes are different nonetheless. I was born in New Westminster, BC. I left when I was very young but went back for a visit a few years ago. The attitude in BC is very different than the rest of the country let alone the Prairie Provinces. If I had been lucky enough to be posted there I probably would have stayed. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 3, 2008 20:38:37 GMT -5
In keeping with the thread. Act III Harper not aware of $1M offer: Cadman's widow
Mar 03, 2008 01:44 PM Bruce-Campion Smith Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA–Dona Cadman says she was personally assured by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he knew nothing about the $1 million life insurance policy reportedly offered to her husband days before a key Commons vote.
Cadman met with Harper, who was opposition leader, a few months after the May 19, 2005 vote and after her husband, Chuck, the Independent MP for Surrey North, had died of cancer.
"At that time, I recall specifically asking him if he was aware of a million-dollar insurance policy offer that upset Chuck so much," Cadman said in a statement today (read full statement).
"He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer. I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes," said Cadman, who is running as the Conservative candidate in the same riding held by her husband.
Cadman has made waves with her revelation, contained in an upcoming book, that two Conservative party officials offered her husband a $1 million life insurance policy to woo him back to the Tory caucus.
"They wanted him to vote against the government," she says in the book titled Like A Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story, by Vancouver journalist Tom Zytaruk.
Cadman refused that offer and two days later cast the vote that kept then-Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government in power.
In her discussion with Harper, Cadman says the party leader acknowledged that discussions had taken place to get her husband back into the Conservative Party.
"He said, yes he'd had some discussions with two individuals about asking Chuck to rejoin the party, but he'd told them they were wasting their time trying to convince Chuck," Cadman said in her statement.
"From that point forward ... I didn't regard it as a "Party" initiative, but rather the overzealous indiscretion of a couple of individuals ... whose identity, Chuck never revealed to me," she said.
"Chuck liked, respected and trusted Stephen Harper. I like, respect and trust Stephen Harper. If I didn't believe in my heart, that he was telling me the truth. ... I wouldn't be running as the Conservative candidate for Surrey North," she said.
The prime minister served notice Monday that he plans to sue the Liberals if they don't apologize for comments they made concerning the Chuck Cadman affair.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, the Liberal Party of Canada and MPs Ralph Goodale and Michael Ignatieff were all served letters over statements published on the party's website.
Those statements question Stephen Harper's alleged involvement in financial "offers" made to Cadman to sway his vote in a crucial 2005 Commons showdown.
Harper's lawyer, Richard Dearden, calls the statements "false and devastatingly defamatory."
"These malicious and reckless defamatory statements impugn the reputation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper," Dearden writes in a letter of notice.
The Liberals have asked Harper to "come clean" over allegations that the Conservatives, under then-Opposition leader Harper, offered a financial incentive to Cadman.
With files from The Canadian Presswww.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/308897
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 3, 2008 21:25:52 GMT -5
I think calling them pro-abortionists is almost as lame. Pro-choicers (oh how I hate that term too - there are lot's of "choices" the law doesn't permit us to make; I am opposed to a ban on abortion but it's not because I believe in choice, IMO, you get pregnant as the result of a choice* [excepting rape]) don't necessarily like abortion. Words can say anything [I guess that's what words do}. If I am pro-life does that mean I'm anti-choice? Well, like you said, I've already made a choice with my partner. Consequences be you-know-whated. Crank up the rhetoric!!! "If you believe life begins at conception . . . " some say as they "beg to differ". But that's about as far as I'm going to go with this line of reasoning because I don;t want this to deteriorate (and deteriorate it can) into a debate/discussion on abortion.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 3, 2008 21:28:20 GMT -5
I originally had prairies instead of the west because I didn't want to single out a specific group (though the use of 'west' is singling out). I would even narrow it to parts of Alberta. No government would be stupid enough to bring the issue back to life. It's dead, along with the abortion issue. [abortion because there will never be consensus on when[/] life begins]
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 3, 2008 22:43:14 GMT -5
"If you believe life begins at conception . . . " some say as they "beg to differ". But that's about as far as I'm going to go with this line of reasoning because I don;t want this to deteriorate (and deteriorate it can) into a debate/discussion on abortion. Going back to your original point, while it's not inconsistent IMO, it is a little odd that that correlation seemingly exists. I think there's a bunch of people who oppose abortion and support the death penalty based on religious convictions, but I'm not sure why people who don't oppose abortion seem to be more likely to oppose the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 4, 2008 6:53:26 GMT -5
Exactly, MC.
Funny thing about the religious conviction thing -- we are talkin gmostly about conservative/right-wing Christianity here carefully ignoring New Testament picking out Old Testament teachings on the subject.
But that is another debate matter.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 4, 2008 8:22:02 GMT -5
In keeping with the thread. Act III Harper not aware of $1M offer: Cadman's widow
Mar 03, 2008 01:44 PM Bruce-Campion Smith Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA–Dona Cadman says she was personally assured by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he knew nothing about the $1 million life insurance policy reportedly offered to her husband days before a key Commons vote.
Cadman met with Harper, who was opposition leader, a few months after the May 19, 2005 vote and after her husband, Chuck, the Independent MP for Surrey North, had died of cancer.
"At that time, I recall specifically asking him if he was aware of a million-dollar insurance policy offer that upset Chuck so much," Cadman said in a statement today (read full statement).
"He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer. I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes," said Cadman, who is running as the Conservative candidate in the same riding held by her husband.
Cadman has made waves with her revelation, contained in an upcoming book, that two Conservative party officials offered her husband a $1 million life insurance policy to woo him back to the Tory caucus.
"They wanted him to vote against the government," she says in the book titled Like A Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story, by Vancouver journalist Tom Zytaruk.
Cadman refused that offer and two days later cast the vote that kept then-Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government in power.
In her discussion with Harper, Cadman says the party leader acknowledged that discussions had taken place to get her husband back into the Conservative Party.
"He said, yes he'd had some discussions with two individuals about asking Chuck to rejoin the party, but he'd told them they were wasting their time trying to convince Chuck," Cadman said in her statement.
"From that point forward ... I didn't regard it as a "Party" initiative, but rather the overzealous indiscretion of a couple of individuals ... whose identity, Chuck never revealed to me," she said.
"Chuck liked, respected and trusted Stephen Harper. I like, respect and trust Stephen Harper. If I didn't believe in my heart, that he was telling me the truth. ... I wouldn't be running as the Conservative candidate for Surrey North," she said.
The prime minister served notice Monday that he plans to sue the Liberals if they don't apologize for comments they made concerning the Chuck Cadman affair.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, the Liberal Party of Canada and MPs Ralph Goodale and Michael Ignatieff were all served letters over statements published on the party's website.
Those statements question Stephen Harper's alleged involvement in financial "offers" made to Cadman to sway his vote in a crucial 2005 Commons showdown.
Harper's lawyer, Richard Dearden, calls the statements "false and devastatingly defamatory."
"These malicious and reckless defamatory statements impugn the reputation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper," Dearden writes in a letter of notice.
The Liberals have asked Harper to "come clean" over allegations that the Conservatives, under then-Opposition leader Harper, offered a financial incentive to Cadman.
With files from The Canadian Presswww.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/308897I wonder what Harper offered her for coming to his defense? hmmm? Can you say Cabinet position. Why if Harper DID NOT know about this, would she and her daughter bring it up in the first place? And what about those "tapes" (geezzz I certainly hope that guy with the Kovalev tapes dont have them now) that have Harper clearly talking about a financial incentive to Cadman. I'm really at a loss for her motives now ... this is really giving her late husband a bad name (as well as others). He was so mad about it she said, he was kicked out of the party, sat as an independent, voted against Harper .... so what does she do to honour her husband? Join forces with the guy he butted heads with ... yeah, thats what I would do too . I am sure her husband would approve.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 4, 2008 12:49:53 GMT -5
I also don't know about Khadr all that well. What I might take from your post is that this young man is innocent of any wrongdoings. Yet, two successive governments have chose to look the other way. I don't know about innocent, but usually, a 15 year old kid in that circumstance would be considered a child soldier and would therefore be treated differently. But Khadr has been held without trial for five years, in violation of international law, and it's come out recently that the US government/military was withholding evidence that shows he likely did not commit the "crime" they accused him of. In a nutshell, he's been denied the rights that we would expect him to have in a democratic country and there's absolutely no reason to believe he will receive a "fair trial." The Liberals did nothing about this when they were in power, and one of them recently admitted this was because the Canadian public wasn't interested in the story at the time. Now they're pressuring the Conservatives to take action. I once read a book by Jeffery Archer (not quite a literary giant, but bear with me) in which this up-and-coming politician discovers a British citizen is being held in some god-forsaken-prison, in some god-forsaken-country. So he gets up in front of parliment and in a thundering voice demands to know why the British government is not doing all it can to save this poor, wretched British citizen. That night - and I'm making up the details as I go, it's the sentiment that's important - a limousine pulls up in front of the up-and-coming-politician, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (or whatever) steps out. He hands the newbie a dossier, all about the poor, wretched British citizen being held in some god-forsaken-prison, in some god-forsaken-country. The guy is a complete scumbag. Total whacko, who if unleashed on the British population would almost certainly cause all kinds of misery. Omar Khadr is a scumbag. I have no love for Guantanomo, I think its an abomination and against everything a free and democratic society should stand for, but to demand the release of Omar Khadr would be tantamount to being an accomplice to murder. Not the one he may or may not have committed in Afghanistan, but the one he WILL commit in Canada. I understand that Khadr is a product of his up-bringing, that he can't be blamed for having a family that literally lived in the same house as Osama bin Laden but it is what it is. Khadr routinely hung out with bin Laden's kids, bin Laden attended all the family's functions - marriages, birthdays, funerals - and Khadr was totally and completely indoctrinated into that way of life. His family - living in Toronto and collecting welfare from the Canadian government - has pretty much said they are okay with terrorism and the killing of Canadian citizens. Quotes from his sister (again, living in Toronto): * We're not al-Qaeda. We respect them, we've had some interactions with them, we disagreed with them and we just wanted to go to live along side-by-side helping each other in whatever way we can. * If I was to choose for my daughter to live a life of no meaning or to die a martyr, I would choose for her to die a martyr.… I'd love to die a martyr. It's a desire that I believe that any Muslim would have or should have. From his brother: * Abdul Karim adds that Omar will get even with the Americans when he gets out of Guantánamo Bay: "When he's all right again he'll find them again ... and take his revenge."
* Asked if he looked up to Osama bin Laden, Abdurrahman Khadr tells Simon, "It was amazing to meet the person who was the most wanted person in the world. The minute he walked into the room and I was like, 'Wow, I just saw this person in the magazine and now he’s right here in front of me.' It was like a superstar, I think."Let me just let that one sink in for a little bit – the Khadr family hung out with Osama bin Laden AFTER the 9/11 attacks. The entire Western Intelligence Community (oxymoron?) cannot find the guy, but a family now living in Toronto is able to break bread with the guy. There are more, and CBS even has a video of Khadr undergoing training in an al Quaeda camp, planting mines, shooting guns, that sort of thing. The evidence that Khadr did NOT commit the murder he is accused of is flimsy; another member of al Quaeda was found alived in the compound where Khadr was, and thus it is conceivable that the second member could have thrown the grenade, but all witnesses say it was Khadr. His defense is circumstancial at best. I am not saying that he should be held indefinitely. Just that he should be tried, convicted, and then locked away forever. He is a danger to society. If he is released because of lobbying by the Canadian government I will hold each and every MP who went along, or encouraged his release personally responsible for the deaths of the innocent people that will occur in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 4, 2008 13:25:26 GMT -5
Well, here's another one. Imagine getting 9 appearances in court at 10 minutes an appearance when your life is on the line. Montrealer sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia
By Jonathan Montpetit and Nelson Wyatt
MONTREAL — Friends of a Canadian jailed in Saudi Arabia on murder charges lashed out at Saudi justice and demanded help from the Canadian government Monday upon learning that he was convicted and sentenced to a public beheading.
Mahmoud Al-Ken, a reporter for a Montreal Arabic radio station, says the family of Mohamed Kohail told him Monday that Kohail was found guilty of murder.
He says Kohail is to be beheaded in public but has 80 days to appeal the ruling.
Kohail “got nine court sessions, each court session lasted 10 minutes,” Al-Ken said.
A spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa confirmed Monday night that Kohail had been convicted and faces the death penalty.
“We are deeply disappointed at the verdict handed down by Saudi authorities,” said Bernard Nguyen, a Foreign Affairs spokesman.
Nguyen said Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier and Secretary of State Helena Guergis had been briefed on the situation and are following it closely.
“We are in close contact with the family and continue to provide consular services,” Nguyen said. “The family continues to explore other legal avenues including an appeal of this verdict.” He would not elaborate further, citing the family’s privacy.
A close friend of the family called on the Canadian government to take further steps to help Kohail.
“I want the government here to ask on what basis the Saudi government decided this was first-degree murder,” Mayada Jabri told Info690, a Montreal radio station.
“It was the influence of the other family which got a verdict that was not fair. I only want justice.”
A family friend who spoke with Kohail’s parents shortly after the verdict was handed down says they are livid at the Saudi justice system.
“They don’t believe by any means they got a fair trial,” he told The Canadian Press.
The friend, who lives in Montreal and asked that his name not be used, claimed the court ignored evidence that would have cleared Kohail.
He also said Kohail’s lawyers were repeatedly denied access to the courtroom.
Kohail was allegedly involved in a schoolyard brawl that left one person dead.
He was arrested along with his brother, Sultan, last spring and imprisoned in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The younger brother’s fate remains unclear.
Dan McTeague, the Liberal critic for consular services, said he hopes the federal government acts swiftly to secure Kohail’s release.
Ottawa must also investigate allegations that confessions were obtained under duress, McTeague said.
But he said the government is in an awkward position after a recent decision not to seek clemency in a death penalty case in the United States.
“It has already precluded the standard request for clemency to only request clemency in those cases where it disagrees with the judicial or legal system of another country,” he said.
“They are starting off from a position that is potentially difficult, not to mention potentially insulting.”
Those who knew Kohail are shocked that diplomatic efforts to lessen the charges failed.
“We originally felt he would not face the death penalty,” said Barry Gaiptman, a guidance counsellor at Kohail’s former school in Montreal who has been circulating a petition calling for his release.
Gaiptman believes Kohail received a rough shake from the Saudi justice system.
“He’s a young boy who is certainly not involved in anything more than schoolyard brawl,” he said.
The family spent several years in Montreal before recently returning to Saudi Arabia.
The two boys were involved in a fight that broke out after a girl’s male cousin accused Sultan of insulting her.
The brother demanded an apology, but Sultan refused.
Sultan, then 16, said he called for help from Mohamed when he was confronted by several boys over the insult.
According to the account of the Kohail brothers, Mohamed Kohail arrived at the school with a male friend to face about a dozen of the girl’s male relatives and friends. Some were armed with clubs and knives.
One of the attackers was punched, fell to the ground and died.
He has been identified as Munzer Haraki, a cousin of the girl who was supposedly insulted.
Ali Kohail, the brothers’ father, has said the family had only temporarily relocated to Saudi Arabia to attend a relative’s wedding — an Arab tradition says three ceremonies must be held.
They always intended to return to Canada, where they still own a home in Montreal.
A Foreign Affairs official has said the department was offering assistance to the Canadians who spent several months in jail before Monday’s verdict. cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/03/4897376-cp.htmlCheers.
|
|