Amnesty: Abolish the death penalty everywhere

16 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2008-12-16 23:23

[url=http://www.amnesty.org.au/adp/comments/17836/]Amnesty campaign to abolish the death penalty[/url]

Quote:
This year the focus is on Asia, which every year executes hundreds of people. In 2007 at least 664 executions were reported in Asia. The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty cite one study that estimates 85 per cent to 95 per cent of the world’s executions take place in Asia.

There is some good news in all this, because more Asian countries are also moving towards doing away with the death penalty. In Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, there is growing debate and pressure for abolition, and there's been unheard of discussion on the topic in Singapore and China.

Tue, 2008-12-16 23:41

Unionist

This opening link is quite fascinating. It says "the focus is on Asia", yet it doesn't mention Iraq or Afghanistan. And it is signed as follows:

Quote:
This blog entry was created by KimB and does not necessarily represent the position or opinion of Amnesty International Australia.

Wed, 2008-12-17 08:34

It's Me D

If we are now going to have a whole thread on the death penalty I hope FM doesn't mind my reposting this litany of instances where Canada has sentenced people to death (from the cuba thread, part II), to put the "death penalty" which we don't have, into perspective:

Frustrated Mess wrote:
hundreds (or more) killed in Afghanistan, dozens killed in
Haiti, supporting Columbian death squads with free trade, and killing
its own citizens with unknowable amounts of industrial chemicals,
pollution, and contributing to the demise of billions through climate
change and the industrialized plundering of the planet's resources

I agree with FM's interpretation, when the actions of a government result in deaths, the method used doesn't change the reality that a "death penalty" has been applied; the "crimes" for which this penalty is applied show our society for what it really is, the most heinous of crimes in our society is standing in the path of imperialist consumerist "progress".

Now thats not to say that you cannot oppose all forms of government imposed death, its just going to take a little more reflection.

Wed, 2008-12-17 09:32

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

And there's no reason for countries that have abolished the death penalty to feel smug and righteous.

[IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/1r9lpy.gif[/IMG]

Wed, 2008-12-17 12:35

The Bish

It's Me D wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:
hundreds (or more) killed in Afghanistan, dozens killed in
Haiti, supporting Columbian death squads with free trade, and killing
its own citizens with unknowable amounts of industrial chemicals,
pollution, and contributing to the demise of billions through climate
change and the industrialized plundering of the planet's resources

I agree with FM's interpretation, when the actions of a government result in deaths, the method used doesn't change the reality that a "death penalty" has been applied; the "crimes" for which this penalty is applied show our society for what it really is, the most heinous of crimes in our society is standing in the path of imperialist consumerist "progress".

All of those things are atrocious things for the government to do, but to say that they're the same or comparable to the death penalty is completely disingenuous. They are all wrong, but they are very different actions. The death penalty is a specific judicial response, period. If you're going to employ that kind of logic, you might as well argue that immigration laws and prison sentences are the same thing.

Wed, 2008-12-17 12:43

Unionist

The Bish wrote:

All of those things are atrocious things for the government to do, but to say that they're the same or comparable to the death penalty is completely disingenuous.

You're quite right. All those things are not the same as the death penalty. Because in all those cases, the persons who are killed are innocent.

Wed, 2008-12-17 13:35

Le T

"You're quite right. All those things are not the same as the death
penalty. Because in all those cases, the persons who are killed are
innocent."

Not to mention that under most constitutions peoples facing the death penalty have more "rights" than those who will die of racist immigration laws, wars of aggression, environmental degradation, and colonialism.

Wed, 2008-12-17 15:04

RosaL

I support murder under certain conditions: e.g., various attempts to kill Hitler, resistance to the armies that invaded Russia in 1917 in order to suppress the revolution, the guerilla forces in El Salvador in the 1980s , etc. That being the case, I don't see how I can with intellectual or moral consistency say that the death penalty is always wrong.

I know some people who hold this position (i.e., that the death penalty is always wrong) consistently. They're pacifists. And socialists (so they oppose murder by capitalism as well). And they've given the matter some thought. But I don't think I've seen any of those post here thus far.

Wed, 2008-12-17 16:02

Unionist

RosaL wrote:

I know some people who hold this position (i.e., that the death penalty is always wrong) consistently. They're pacifists. And socialists (so they oppose murder by capitalism as well). And they've given the matter some thought. But I don't think I've seen any of those post here thus far.

Well said, RosaL.

Wed, 2008-12-17 18:09

#10

Fidel

The Bish wrote:

All of those things are atrocious things for the government to do, but to say that they're the same or comparable to the death penalty is completely disingenuous. They are all wrong, but they are very different actions. The death penalty is a specific judicial response, period. If you're going to employ that kind of logic, you might as well argue that immigration laws and prison sentences are the same thing.

But the U.S.A. does have dangerous immigration laws and does foment terrorism and harbour terrorists.

The USA is the most prolific jailer and violator of human rights on the island of Cuba.

A country that large and influential does affect human rights in surrounding sovereign countries and U.S. client states. Socialist Cuba has been an object of the USA's special affection for several decades. To say that Cuba is not forced to react to a vicious nuclear-armed militarized state surrounding Cuba on all sides, and with the USA violating Cuban sovereignty and basic human rights on the island of Cuba itself for decades, would be ignoring certain realities of the situation highly politicized since 1959 by Canada's largest trade beneficiaries.

Thu, 2008-12-18 09:36

#11

The Bish

RosaL wrote:

I know some people who hold this position (i.e., that the death penalty is always wrong) consistently. They're pacifists. And socialists (so they oppose murder by capitalism as well). And they've given the matter some thought. But I don't think I've seen any of those post here thus far.

I don't consider myself a pacifist (see: the Congo thread), but I do hold that position. I think the government (or people in general, for that matter), is obligated to resolve problems in the manner which violates peoples' rights in as minimal a manner as possible. I believe it is acceptable to kill only in defence, and only when other reasonable options are not available. The death penalty does not, under any circumstances, fulfill those two requirements, so it is always wrong.

Thu, 2008-12-18 10:17

#12

It's Me D

RosaL wrote:
I support murder under certain conditions: e.g., various attempts to
kill Hitler, resistance to the armies that invaded Russia in 1917 in
order to suppress the revolution, the guerilla forces in El Salvador in
the 1980s , etc. That being the case, I don't see how I can with
intellectual or moral consistency say that the death penalty is always
wrong.

I know some people who hold this position (i.e., that the death
penalty is always wrong) consistently. They're pacifists. And
socialists (so they oppose murder by capitalism as well). And they've
given the matter some thought. But I don't think I've seen any of those
post here thus far.

Excellent post Rosa and I agree with your position.

The Bish wrote:
I don't consider myself a pacifist (see: the Congo thread), but I do hold that position.

No you don't. Re-read Rosa's post, the position she is referring to is full opposition to government imposed death in all cases which is not similar to your position at all:

The Bish wrote:
I believe it is acceptable to kill only in defence, and only when other reasonable options are not available.

In fact your position is remarkably similar to that of the US or Israeli governments... they to only kill in "defence" when "other reasonable options are not available".

As Rosa said in her post, pacifists who oppose the death penalty have engaged in reflection and thought on the subject, it wouldn't hurt you to do the same.

Thu, 2008-12-18 11:41

#13

lagatta

Except that the US and Israeli governments are lying through their teeth. And we know that.

RosaL's acceptable reasons for killing (I wouldn't call it "murder", which has a specific definition and usually entails premeditation, at least 1st degree) are all self-defence in wartime, with the very unusual exception of eliminating Hitler, with the idea that eliminating the head of that particular mass-murdering state would do much to throw the killing machine out of whack (which assassinating Bush would not have done).

One need not be a pacifist to advocate elimination of the death penalty.

All the other murderous or wanton practices of capitalism/militarism should be eliminated as well, but I think it is wrong to lump everything together. This was done back in the days of the anti-slavery movement, when apologists for the "peculiar institution" had the handy retort for abolitionists that industrial workers and even free farm labourers were often treated more harshly than slaves. And that was often true - as they were more expendable.

Thu, 2008-12-18 12:17

#14

The Bish

It's Me D wrote:

The Bish wrote:
I don't consider myself a pacifist (see: the Congo thread), but I do hold that position.

No you don't. Re-read Rosa's post, the position she is referring to is full opposition to government imposed death in all cases which is not similar to your position at all.

I am against the death penalty, which is the act of a state executing prisoners, in all cases. Nothing else is the death penalty.

Quote:

In fact your position is remarkably similar to that of the US or
Israeli governments... they to only kill in "defence" when "other
reasonable options are not available".

Except that, as the previous poster mentioned, they are both lying. If their actions were genuinely in self-defence, and they genuinely had no other options, then I would be fine with their actions. But they aren't acting in self-defence and they haven't exhausted other options.

Quote:
As Rosa said in her post, pacifists who oppose the death penalty
have engaged in reflection and thought on the subject, it wouldn't hurt
you to do the same.

Do you honestly think that I haven't given my position serious critical reflection? Or that I don't continue to review it? I think the least you could do is give me the benefit of the doubt. I'm not really sure what you think you gain by baselessly insulting me.

Thu, 2008-12-18 14:51

#15

I started the thread because the death penalty seemed worth a separate discussion from Cuba. True the OP does not link to an Amnesty opinion, but the campaign to abolish the death penalty everywhere is certainly Amnesty's. The AI press release is at http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/asia-time-move-toward... (sorry for long link, url tags not working for me today).

Iraq and Afghanistan are not mentioned in the Asia focus because AI regional divisions make the Middle East a region of its own. AI also distinguishes the death penalty from extra-judicial executions, like the massacres and mass brutalities and mass killings in Iraq and other places carried out by "our" side (also condemned).

Seems to me that the campaign isn't rooted in socialism, it's rooted in a liberal-inspired belief in defending the rights of the individual against the state, and religious-inspired teachings on how it's wrong to kill. Interesting that the UN has voted for a global moratorium, not that this will force governments like the US and China to change.

Sun, 2012-04-08 16:29

#16

Fidel

Canadian Sikhs Applaud MP Jasbir Sandhu and NDP Caucus

Quote:
Ottawa, Ontario (March 27, 2012) - Following a petition campaign organized by the Canadian Sikh Coalition, Jasbir Sandhu, NDP MP from Surrey North, addressed Canadian Parliament today with regards to the looming execution of Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana to which he received a standing ovation. Canadian Sikhs applaud this initiative of the NDP caucus.

Jasbir Sandhu stood in the Parliament today and exhorted the Prime Minister to urge India to abide by the United Nation's moratorium on the death penalty, and abolish the brutal and archaic practice, which allows the state to take a human's life. He went on to reaffirm Canada's unwavering commitment to human rights, especially against the death penalty.