Government's pro-capital punishment leanings

The Conservative federal government has given us another glimpse of its true colours this past week, with two shocking announcements related to Canada's commitment to abolishing capital punishment worldwide.Last week, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced that Canada would no longer attempt to save Canadians in line to receive the death penalty abroad. This policy will apply to Canadians who were put on trial in the United States or in any other democratic nations.

A week later, another right-wing bombshell was dropped: Canada would withdraw its sponsorship from a United Nations anti-death-penalty resolution.

Canada will vote for the resolution, but has declined from being a co-sponsor with seventy four other countries, including Britain, Australia, and France.

This brings an end to Canada's admirable tradition of being a co-sponsor on every UN anti-capital punishment resolution in the past decade.

By neglecting to prevent the execution of Canadian citizens abroad, the Conservative government is hinting at their true leanings in the capital punishment debate. If the government truly felt that it was morally wrong to take the life of another human being, even someone convicted of a particularly terrible crime, they would not feel comfortable letting their citizens be subjected to this brutal and degrading practice under any circumstances.

The obvious inference to be made is that the federal Conservatives have pro-capital punishment leanings, but are wary of making them known to the Canadian public, a socially progressive bunch in general.

According to Amnesty International Canada, our country will now be the only nation to have abolished capital punishment which does not work to prevent the execution of its citizens abroad.

This is not only tremendously embarrassing, but completely contrasts the national image we have prided ourselves on for so long. Canada has gained the international reputation of being a country with a strong commitment to social justice and basic human rights.

Will the Harper government's new policies begin to degrade this admirable status?

The reason why this new practice is to be limited to Canadians on death row within other democratic countries is that the federal government presumes that they will have received a fair trial. But how can they make such a broad and unproven generalization?

Unless the government intends to make a thorough audit of every foreign democracy's legal system, they cannot make this kind of assumption about their fairness. In particular, how confident are we about the fairness of the American legal system under the current administration?

Regarding the withdrawal of Canada's sponsorship from the UN resolution, it raises the question of what kind of statement the government is trying to make by doing so.

It is true that we are still voting in favour of the resolution, and that there are more than enough other countries to sponsor it. But why choose to opt out of sponsoring a resolution that so clearly reflects our Canadian values, particularly when we have sponsored every previous resolution of its kind?

Is it because we are trying to impress the United States, one of the few democratic nations not intending to vote for the resolution? Are we gearing up to a reopening of the capital punishment debate in Canada?

These questions may not be answered anytime soon, but in the meantime, we must hope that the federal government remembers that it is their job to represent the values of the entire Canadian public, not to advance their own ultra-right-wing agenda.