Quote:
Originally posted by hannukah harry
and unless it's to keep some from being executed or mistreated, you're on shaky ethical ground to ignore a treaty you approved and signed. (not you, smooth, you in the general sense).
|
My point is that in Kentucky (where the offender was residing before being sent to Canada), punishment in any way, monetarily or corporal,
is mistreatment when the offense is exercising one's political voice.
I don't understand how you are drawing a distinction when the offense is murder, which is a more severe offense in all nations, even Germany, than hate speech.
I won't keep hammering this point. I just wanted to make clear my stance on the logical inconsistency between arguing to harbor a murderer because the penalty is too severe (as was the case when Canada refused to send a murderer to the states to face death; similar when Germany refused to send a terrorist suspect to the states to face trial until we promised not to seek death) and arguing that we don't have a similar moral right or obligation to harbor someone when we think the punishment is too severe (as is the case when someone makes political speech, which to our culture, can not be punished or curtailed in any way, shape, or form).