Sudan does not have a democratically elected government .
The U.S. does.
Capital punishment if supported in a democracy is their choice.
There is no moral high ground available unless you appeal to a religious doctrine.
That is my understanding of the basis for differentiation.
The “crime” is considerably different as well and doesn’t involve a Canadian citizen.

In both cases individuals left their home country, entered a foreign country, broke a law in that foreign country, and are being punished, according to the laws of that country, for the crime, as defined by that country, that they committed while there.

Those are the facts.

Are we going to have national picking and choosing about what laws, and where, people are, or are not, allowed to break before they are, or are not, eligible for public support?

In Spain personal consumption and cultivation of cannabis is not a criminal offence, in Hong Kong it’s a serious one - should we entertain plea’s for leniency from the Spanish if the police bust one of their’s growing a backyard full of weed during his or her summer vacation in Canada while acceding to Chinese pressure for a $100,000 fine and a 10 year prison sentence if the grower is one of theirs?

Mike

I guess your right with the caveat that it only applies to societies that have the ability to choose what the appropriate punishment for a crime is through some sort of democratic process.

stageleft

I think there is a huge difference in the details of the two cases
One guy is a murdering scum bag and the other a teacher with an inappropriately named teddy bear.
This is not a good example to test conservative party policy on
but if she were a Canadian citizen facing a death sentence then I assume the government would feel free to intervene because as I said Sudan is not a democratic state.
We will have to wait and see if they are consistent in other more applicable instances.

For the pot growing example the correct answer, if I follow the logic, is that neither country should expect us to change our laws to suit their idea of what constitutes a suitable punishment for offenses committed in our country since the applicable law(s) represents our democratically expressed will.

“In both cases individuals left their home country, entered a foreign country, broke a law in that foreign country, and are being punished, according to the laws of that country, for the crime, as defined by that country, that they committed while there.

Those are the facts.”

You’re absolutely right, SL.

I think, though, what’s raising the hackles of people who want the teacher released without further action being taken is that we here in North America do not consider “religious insult” to be an offense of any kind. Despite the fervent wishful thinking of some fundy types, we don’t entertain the thought of punishing anyone for what is called “heresy.”

I wonder — if the teacher is flogged for this “offense” — will that make other buttinskies think twice about going to other countries and trying to change their social and governmental structures just because they happen to disagree with the ones that are already there?

“One of the things we voluntarily agree to when we cross the border into any country is that we will follow their laws - “..with the exception of working for Blackwater in Iraq.

Either way Doug, SL’s point in this thread is difficult to challenge. In one example, many on the right agree with the Canadian government’s position on the death row inmate in Montana while very loudly opposing the case of the British school teacher in Sudan. It is moral relativism to a “T”. Given that the only supporting argument that the former clings to is that Smith committed a crime in a country (and state) where the penalty is death. This is a goose and gander thing.

I haven’t said that I do, or do not, agree with our current overlords position on Ronald Smith. All I’ve said is that I find it humourous that the very same people who are cheering Harper on for his stance on Smith getting iced think civilized governments should get involved in the Gibbons teddy bear lashing.

Based on the discussion I heard yesterday this is simply a convenient excuse for some Muslim bashing while completely abandoning the hold him responsible for his actions line used in the Smith discussion.

It is hypocritical.

I don’t like some of them either but they are laws that theoretically represent the majority will of our society which is all that decides what is right or wrong, moral or immoral in a democratic secular state

Really? Nobody asked me what I thought of any of them, I don’t personally know anyone who was asked, and I don’t recall any sort of democratic discussion on any of them.

Is the distinction that our government is making between intervention in free societies and dictatorships hypocritical or nuanced?

It’s hypocritical. If Canada is opposed to things like the death penalty it should use whatever influence it has to try and get this practice abolished.

If Canada is, for example, opposed to giving school teachers 40 lashes for naming a teddy bear Mohammad then the government should use whatever influence it has to try and get this practice abolished.

– and it should not matter who, or where, the government enacting those laws is, or how it came to power.

If you want to discuss Canada and dictatorships, or repressive regimes, we can talk about our relations with China, Saudi Arabia, and Columbia.

I dunno. I mean, what when you have laws made by a popular despot who enjoys massive support after having overthrown the technically democratically elected but hated by the people and only elected as a result of corruption previous government. What do we acknowledge as the laws of that land? The ones that the people all support, but which were created by an unelected leader? The ones that no one supported, but were put in place by a democratically elected leader? (Because if Bush is democratically elected, we’re setting the bar pretty low for that.)

In the end, all of this wrangling over the morality of it is silly. The decision to take such actions is never a moral one. Like all things in foreign policy, it is a political decision. None of the people making this decision care about either of the condemned. It’s all about scoring political points, shaping public discourse, and a thousand other entirely practical things that have no connection to the question of whether either of these people deserves to die, or whether those who would kill them have the moral standing to make that decision, etc.

The facts: two people in foreign countries broke the law in those countries and are suffering the consequences of their actions under the laws of those countries.

How many people here knew that it was against the law to called a Teddy ‘Mohammed’ and that punishment was 40 lashes and prison.,I bet that teacher didnt’ ,the kids did not apparently know either., it was trumped up charge by a mob.

If you think that is oK fine, but I don’t

In one example, many on the right agree with the Canadian government’s position on the death row inmate in Montana while very loudly opposing the case of the British school teacher in Sudan. It is moral relativism to a “T”.

Only if you believe that governments define what morality is.

If someone believes that capital punishment is an appropriate punishment for double murder, while believing that flogging and jail is an inappropriate punishment for naming a teddy bear, then they are being entirely consistent by opposing one and not the other.

A person is not expected to know everything about a country’s laws when they visit or work there, that would be impossible…

Well considering this woman was going to the Sudan, you know, a nutcase of a place where there is a genocide occurring and they have a corrupt fundamentalist government, one would think that you would take the time before you got there to ensure that you knew the laws of the land. Ignorance of the law is not a defence.

Now, I think what happened to this lady is laughable. But most fundamentalist states are. But come on, she should have known where she was. Considering where she was and the state of Islamic extremism in the world, the last thing I would do is name a teddy bear after their messiah. Because we are talking about a corrupt despot of a government (if you can even call it that), she should have been even more careful.

I found no Sudanese law that states that it is a crime to name a teddy bear Mohamed.
http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/sudan.htm#_D._Formal_Laws Even if there was such a law, the teacher didn’t break it, the students were the ones who named the bear.
You have to be a moron to equate those facts with the case of a double murdering cretin. The fact that you do indicates that you would probably fit in much better in Sudan than remain here. I’ll help fund your one way ticket.

As a individual I have my own opinions. My individual opinion has nothing to do with that of any collective, religious, political or any other form for that matter. I may not like a law but I accept them. Accepting them does not, nor should it conclude that I not state my opinion regarding said laws, for or against.

I do not agree with the death penalty as in Mr. Smiths case. I also do not agree with our own laws in regards to murder. A sentence of 25 years regardless of how many people you have killed is in my opinion, a farce. I do not agree with punishing anyone for what name they gave a toy. This all being said, I accept these rulings as these are the laws of each land, whether I like them or not. This does not change my opinion though now does it? Freedom of thought, comes with such a heavy price….

Are you seriously asserting that Sudan (Freedom House Rule of Law rating - zero) is governed by the Rule of Law, that the purported law against naming a teddy bear Mohammed is reasonably knowable, and that the law is consistently applied?

You probably know as much as we do Bruce., you you have any basis for refering to this as a “purported law”? If it was drummed up on a whim there there are obvious issues.