Thanks to tuvor for making it simple by posting in the Canada forum. ;)
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n110539ATORONTO (CP) - U.S. President George W. Bush has trumpeted it as a victory for "Iraq's young democracy," but Canadian leaders are declining to weigh in just yet on the death sentence handed down Sunday to ousted Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein.
Echoing the words of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said he'll reserve passing judgment on the matter until the appeals process is complete.
"They've had an open and transparent trial where evidence was heard, but at this point, my understanding is there is an appeal process to follow, so given that fact, I think it would be pre-emptive to be passing any judgments or making any firm public declarations until all of those avenues have been exhausted," he said.
"Obviously there is an impact on the ground that we have to be very cognizant of, but I suspect as with most processes, this will delay the inevitable."
That seems to be a reasonably appropriate response at this stage, although a general policy statement opposing the death penalty in any circumstances would have been nice.
A problem that world governments have is that international law does not condemn the death penalty, and expressly provides for non-interference in the application of the death penalty where it is applied in accordance with the rules:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(Iraq ratified the Covenant in 1971)
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htmArticle 6
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.
3. ...
4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
5. ...
6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.
This is not to say that a foreign government is not entitled to call on any country not to apply the death penalty, as the European Union nations have done.
Tony Blair does seem to have been forced to speak for his own country rather than for the Bush administration, eventually and grudgingly:
Blair opposes death penalty for 'Saddam or anybody else'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2440171,00.htmlTony Blair today said he was opposed to the death penalty for Saddam Hussein but backed Iraq’s right to decide the deposed dictator's fate, saying that his trial served as a reminder to the world of his "barbaric brutality".
In a heated exchange with reporters at his monthly press conference, an increasingly irritated Prime Minister refused to be drawn on whether he personally supported yesterday’s Iraqi court verdict that the former leader should be executed, insisting that the issue had already been answered by Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary.
Asked repeatedly about his own position, he retorted, clearly annoyed: "That is just enough, thank you very much. I happen to want to express myself in my own way if you don’t mind."
But he eventually conceded: "We are against the death penalty, whether it’s Saddam or anybody else."
May I add that I hope that anyone not planning to oppose the death penalty in this case, because of the identity of the individual it is being applied to, won't be heard in future to be, oh, fighting to the death for the right to free speech of inciters of hatred, just f'r instance.
Being against the death penalty only when it is being applied to people we like makes considerably less sense than being in favour of free speech only when people we like are talking. People we like seldom get executed.