Talk:Ronald Turpin

message: "Canada" did not appear out of the blue in 1867. The British colonial authorities did sentence people to be hanged, drawn and quartered after the rebellion of 1837, but this sentence was always commuted to hanging. Research shows that about 3/4 of the people executed in the French regime were hanged, but a substantial number were killed in less humane ways (see http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/008004/f2/H-60_en.pdf ) I hope that my edits are not changed again to return to the error that hanging was the only form of execution used in Canada. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Canada isn't just a geographic location. I agree that other forms of torture occurred in what is now Canada, but at the time it was New France, a completely different socio-political entity. Geographic Alaska once belonged to the USSR, but I wouldn't attribute anything that Russians did there to the present USA. Or the French in Louisiana, or the Spanish in Texas. --JeffJ (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Maybe not the USSR, but it did belong to the Russian Empire. And the French called what is now Quebec (more or less) New France and did not cede the territory to the British until 1763. And Canada did not get its name until it was declared the "Dominion of Canada" by the Constitution Act in 1867. So Canada, the country, did not exist prior to 1867. If other forms of execution were used in New France, then it happened in New France, not Canada. Would you argue that those living in New France were Canadians? If Russians or Inuits committed acts on the landmass now known as Alaska prior to 1867, would you argue that these acts had taken place in the United States? Would they be Americans? No, they're not Canadians or Americans in that context, because those territories weren't Canada or the United States prior to 1867. --JeffJ (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Wow! Way to turn an intelligent debate into simple name-calling and insults. "Straw men"? You'll have to explain that one to me. I mean, I know what a Straw Man is, but you'll have to explain how it applies here. Sloppy thinking? Sure. I've been guilty of that in the past... A lot. As for "bad history"; I just went by what I found here on Wikipedia and your Act of Union 1840 argument would have stood nicely on its own in this debate without you being a dick. Anyway, your Act of Union argument does have merit, but I would argue that this only establishes the Province of Canada and not the Country or Dominion of Canada in the context of the Turpin article. To elaborate: When the term "Canada" is used, it normally means the existing Dominion of Canada, the present-day country, not the former province, nor the original village the native pointed at when the word was first used. It certainly doesn't mean the colony of New France. Having said that, you have mentioned drawing and quartering in 1837, which is very close to the Act of Union in 1840. Do you have references? Seriously, I'd like to be enlightened. If you can cite reliable sources that prove that executions other than hanging occurred, even in the Province of Canada, then I will concede that there should be some qualifiers added to the Turpin article.--JeffJ (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay, I went and read the article on Act of Union 1840 and there's no mention of New France. The Act of the Union "passed in July 1840 and proclaimed February 10, 1841, abolished the legislatures of Lower Canada and Upper Canada and established a new political entity, the Province of Canada to replace them." New France was not "interchangeable with Canada" (at least not as a socio-political entity) as it comprised land stretching from northern Quebec to New Orleans. In fact, at the time that the term Canada was being used in place of New France, you can see here that there is no similarity to Canada today. And although the term Canada was often used colloquially to express New France, Canada was actually just one of four colonies within New France. The other three were Acadia, Louisiana and Newfoundland. As for the transition of parts of New France to what is modern-day Canada, the article says "The portions of the former New France that remained under British rule were administered as Upper Canada and Lower Canada, from 1791-1841, and then as the Province of Canada from 1841-1867, when the passage of the British North America Act of 1867 instituted home rule for most of British North America and established French-speaking Quebec (the former Lower Canada) as one of the original provinces of the Confederation of Canada." So for to simply say that New France equals the country of Canada (which is what the modern usage of "Canada" implies) is a massive leap in logic. --JeffJ (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Let me offer another perspective: Would you argue that Canada's first Prime Minister (although a different title would have applied at the time) was Donnacona? --JeffJ (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you argue that on June 30, 1867, there were no people living north of the St. Lawrence River? Give it up. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where do you get that from? --JeffJ (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other modes of Execution in Canada