When does free speech become treason

[Hazeleyes]

The question has been raised whether "home grown terriorists" should be tried for treason and if found guilty, punished accordingly. It is interesting to note that the last attempt to enforce the sedition laws took place in 1951 against the Jehovah Witnesses and was unsuccessful. Some jurists argue that the sedition laws are antiquated and now longer useful. In Canada we value free speech to the point where some would argue that its scope should be limitless. It seems to me that this attitude makes enforcing any sedition laws difficult if not impossible. Canada does have laws against sedition:

Part II of the Canadian Criminal Code deals with 'Offences against Public Order'. It includes sedition (ss. 59-61), treason (ss. 46-50), sabotage (s. 52), incitement to mutiny (s. 53) and an offence of intimidating Parliament or the legislature of a province by an act of violence (s. 51).

Seditious intention encompasses everyone who

a) teaches or advocates, or

publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,

the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.

I would be interested in a reasoned discussion of this topic.

[Hazeleyes]

And here is a link to an article on free speech in Canada

In the preview mode this link seems not to have taken if someone can fix it I would be grateful.

new link

Edited September 5, 2010 by Hazeleyes

[William Ashley]

And here is a link to an article on free speech in Canada

In the preview mode this link seems not to have taken if someone can fix it I would be grateful.

new link

Yeah I geuss the government doesn't like the whole violent insurrection stuff.

Otherwise you can say whatever you want about stuff as long as you arn't talking about a person.

PS canada did some weird stuff and now corporations (that is legal entitites) can also be seen as persons.

So to rephrase people can say whatever you want about stuff as long as you arn't talking about a legal entity.

OH and some people don't like the use of stuff they dont like. Like vulgarity, or obscenity, or profanity.

see this for more information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_entities

oh and anything they can somehow own under IP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Also talking about something they OWN might also be offensive or an indirect attack. See personal property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property

oh and anything religious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

oh and anything that could cause someone harm or may be false, or may cause alarm. this might include scareing them or intimidating them, make them look bad

oh and race or ethnicity, or sex or age

or about some figures such as royalty or heads of state even if not refering to them personally.

using a strong voice is a no no too, so one should only talk in a delicate voice.

just pretend as if you are trying to speak to mice, for some effect without scaring them off, and you have free speech until the cat arrives.

niether work but here is the link

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bZweHWyWDsEJ:www.uottawa.ca/constitutional-law/expression.html+free+speech+in+Canada+university+of+ottawa+http://www.uottawa.ca/constitutional-law/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

uottawa is blocking direct linking or someone inbetween is blocking it it looks like it is getting sent out weird. and rehashing.

Edited September 6, 2010 by William Ashley

[Hazeleyes]

Yeah I geuss the government doesn't like the whole violent insurrection stuff.

Otherwise you can say whatever you want about stuff as long as you arn't talking about a person.

PS canada did some weird stuff and now corporations (that is legal entitites) can also be seen as persons.

So to rephrase people can say whatever you want about stuff as long as you arn't talking about a legal entity.

OH and some people don't like the use of stuff they dont like. Like vulgarity, or obscenity, or profanity.

see this for more information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_entities

oh and anything they can somehow own under IP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Also talking about something they OWN might also be offensive or an indirect attack. See personal property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property

oh and anything religious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

oh and anything that could cause someone harm or may be false, or may cause alarm. this might include scareing them or intimidating them, make them look bad

oh and race or ethnicity, or sex or age

or about some figures such as royalty or heads of state even if not refering to them personally.

using a strong voice is a no no too, so one should only talk in a delicate voice.

just pretend as if you are trying to speak to mice, for some effect without scaring them off, and you have free speech until the cat arrives.

niether work but here is the link

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bZweHWyWDsEJ:www.uottawa.ca/constitutional-law/expression.html+free+speech+in+Canada+university+of+ottawa+http://www.uottawa.ca/constitutional-law/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

uottawa is blocking direct linking or someone inbetween is blocking it it looks like it is getting sent out weird. and rehashing.

Because I'm new to this forum I'm not sure if your post is meant to be sarcastic - The purpose of my post was to discuss the connection between free speech and sedition. I have always felt their needs to be boundaries to free speech that unlike the Americans where free speech is sacrosanct I think their must be limits. One of those would be people preaching the overthrow of the state by violent means.

[betsy]

The question has been raised whether "home grown terriorists" should be tried for treason and if found guilty, punished accordingly. It is interesting to note that the last attempt to enforce the sedition laws took place in 1951 against the Jehovah Witnesses and was unsuccessful. Some jurists argue that the sedition laws are antiquated and now longer useful. In Canada we value free speech to the point where some would argue that its scope should be limitless. It seems to me that this attitude makes enforcing any sedition laws difficult if not impossible. Canada does have laws against sedition:

Part II of the Canadian Criminal Code deals with 'Offences against Public Order'. It includes sedition (ss. 59-61), treason (ss. 46-50), sabotage (s. 52), incitement to mutiny (s. 53) and an offence of intimidating Parliament or the legislature of a province by an act of violence (s. 51).

Seditious intention encompasses everyone who

a) teaches or advocates, or

publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,

the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.

I would be interested in a reasoned discussion of this topic.

It looks like the definition of freedom of speech depends on the sitting judge. There is no consistency. Expressing your opinion...a religious opinion at that like saying "Homosexuality is a sin" ...or saying that you believe it is abnormal....can land you in hot water. Those could fall under the category of our improved hate crime now.

Yet, preaching "Death to infidels" or "Death to Jews"...even though they definitely incite, passes for freedom of speech....and freedom of religion.

Edited September 6, 2010 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Yet, preaching "Death to infidels" or "Death to Jews"...even though they definitely incite, passes for freedom of speech....and freedom of religion.

What are you referring to? I'm not aware of it passing for freedom of speech in Canada.

[ToadBrother]

Because I'm new to this forum I'm not sure if your post is meant to be sarcastic - The purpose of my post was to discuss the connection between free speech and sedition. I have always felt their needs to be boundaries to free speech that unlike the Americans where free speech is sacrosanct I think their must be limits. One of those would be people preaching the overthrow of the state by violent means.

Sedition is still a crime in the United States. The First Amendment does not protect criminal conduct. There are many limitations on free speech in the US. You can be sued for libel and slander, for instance. The First Amendment does not protect you from these sorts of civil suits (this also includes violating non-disclosure agreements as another example).

[ToadBrother]

It looks like the definition of freedom of speech depends on the sitting judge. There is no consistency. Expressing your opinion...a religious opinion at that like saying "Homosexuality is a sin" ...or saying that you believe it is abnormal....can land you in hot water. Those could fall under the category of our improved hate crime now.

I am unaware of anyone being prosecuted in Canada for saying "homosexuality is wrong".

Yet, preaching "Death to infidels" or "Death to Jews"...even though they definitely incite, passes for freedom of speech....and freedom of religion.

Oh, I see. You just don't like Muslims. I can't wait for December, when you'll doubtless start telling us about the atheistic war on Christmas.

[Guest American Woman]

What are you referring to? I'm not aware of it passing for freedom of speech in Canada.

Perhaps she's referring to Salman Hossain. And then of course there's the Khadrs.

[BubberMiley]

Perhaps she's referring to Salman Hossain. And then of course there's the Khadrs.

Oh, you mean the guy who's on the run from the OPP and the guy who's in Guantanamo. Yep. Good argument that being an extremist muslim is safe under freedom of speech laws.

Interesting snippets, nonetheless.

Edited September 7, 2010 by BubberMiley

[William Ashley]

Because I'm new to this forum I'm not sure if your post is meant to be sarcastic - The purpose of my post was to discuss the connection between free speech and sedition.

Case law anyone?

I have always felt their needs to be boundaries to free speech that unlike the Americans where free speech is sacrosanct I think their must be limits. One of those would be people preaching the overthrow of the state by violent means.

I think the problem of free speech is that some people are twisted (and highly uphold their majesty) as such simple words can turn into missing teeth, bloody noses, and missing persons.

Thats the real reason for limits.

Personally though I think censoring stuff is only required because of a stupid populus and wrong minded people who can't draw the line on what is appropriate and what isn't to listen to or say.

Many many many people have different views on where that line is - when communicating you need to draw the line.

The line is when communicating it causes harm. harm is the thing you have to bring into perspective in what one upholds as values. The problem with sedition is that things like the legal bar essentially say disrepute even if the truth of what has occured or is occuring is sedition and equates non good standing. As such it is rather unfortunate that honesty has nothing to do with sedition but with the effect of speech on the given organization - in terms of... its image and the way others and those within the organization itself view the organization.

It is a way of saying we beat people up who tarnish our fantasy or tarnish an actual sheen.

The whole let it be... of course just letting it happen is virtuous and great. That is idealism.. free speech who cares just respond do what you'd like you know.

Well some people decide to be militant at some point or cut you off from association - excommunication what have you.

You don't like them... don't interact with them -- even to the extreme that you won't be interacting for long if you are now. There have been wars stemming from this stuff. THATS WHY.

Heads are control freaks clearly. Do you want caca smeared all over your clothes NO. probably not.

Then the field is covered because it protects one persons values ---- then other people are covered because their values are like others peoples values --

or the whole court of support -- that is win the support of those you need by ruling in favour of maintanence of state etc...

the difference is some things people maintain stuff with other stuff people don't recognize as being signifigant to their needs.

The state and thus justice system is status quo ante - although one must also question the currency of law from time to time, to recognize that some elements of maintainence are no longer recognizable or influential.

People fight over both intangible and tangible things because SOCIETY is not wholely a material society but also a society of cultural recognition - and the image of self is a form of projection and reception of meaning - housed in artifacts.

That is humans do not solely interact based on objects sensory stimulus but also on conjectured and abjured learned interactions that translate into concepts of communication and manipulation of meaning.

Change of meaning changes the values of interaction with the tanglible world. And I would think humans draw a lot of the meaningfulness of existence based upon intangible concepts not solely objective capacities. We can think without material, thoughts alone are tangible in the mind although not material. An attack of material is still an attack of the person even without their personal property being taken or damaged. The mind becomes altered negatively by seditious occurence.

The question remains though what causes negative occurence? What is valued enough.. and these things differ based upon cultural values.

Edited September 7, 2010 by William Ashley

[Shwa]

The question has been raised whether "home grown terriorists" should be tried for treason and if found guilty, punished accordingly. ... Some jurists argue that the sedition laws are antiquated and now longer useful. ... I would be interested in a reasoned discussion of this topic.

"Just watch me." Pierre Elliot Trudeau, October 13th, 1970

I think for high treason or treason convictions against any "home grown terrorist," the Crown would have to prove direct links between intention, act and result (or intended result). That might be difficult:

"No person shall be convicted of high treason or treason on the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused." (CC, 47(3) Corroboration)

One of the chief difficulties I see is the word 'war.' You would have to prove that the person charged is involved with an enemy engaged in war against Canada. If you can't, then off to the rest of the CC you go to find something suitable that will stick.

Here is an interesting viewpoint from James Bisset, whatever you may think of his personal politics (or that of C2C), he does present one side of the argument:

The Rise of Treason and the Decline of Canadian-Based Terror Threats

Essentially he is saying that an incessant politically correct interpretation of the Charter is to blame for our hands being tied when it comes to treason charges. Familiar refrain yes? But it being a familiar refrain should not deter us from having a good, honest look at this aspect nonetheless.

So rather than only ask if we can charge "home grown terrorists" with treason, it might also be useful to ask what would happen in their "home grown" community if we did?

Edited September 7, 2010 by Shwa

[ToadBrother]

"Just watch me." Pierre Elliot Trudeau, October 13th, 1970

I think for high treason or treason convictions against any "home grown terrorist," the Crown would have to prove direct links between intention, act and result (or intended result). That might be difficult:

"No person shall be convicted of high treason or treason on the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused." (CC, 47(3) Corroboration)

One of the chief difficulties I see is the word 'war.' You would have to prove that the person charged is involved with an enemy engaged in war against Canada. If you can't, then off to the rest of the CC you go to find something suitable that will stick.

Here is an interesting viewpoint from James Bisset, whatever you may think of his personal politics (or that of C2C), he does present one side of the argument:

The Rise of Treason and the Decline of Canadian-Based Terror Threats

Essentially he is saying that an incessant politically correct interpretation of the Charter is to blame for our hands being tied when it comes to treason charges. Familiar refrain yes? But it being a familiar refrain should not deter us from having a good, honest look at this aspect nonetheless.

So rather than only ask if we can charge "home grown terrorists" with treason, it might also be useful to ask what would happen in their "home grown" community if we did?

I don't think it has anything to do with the Charter, and rather to do with the fact that treason has a fairly narrow set of definitions, and because it is such a serious charge (let's face it, it has the sentencing equivalent to a first degree murder conviction) the requirements are necessarily high. It makes a successful prosecution very difficult, and you simply don't see a lot of treason convictions anywhere in the Western world any more.

Let's take a home-grown terrorist, an Islamist planning a bombing campaign. For it to be treason, he would have to essentially be an operative of a foreign power. Al Qaeda doesn't really fall into that definition at all, any more than the IRA or ETA or any terrorist organization with some international activities.

Now if that home-grown terrorist were to, say, plan the bombing of Rideau Hall, then that would likely make a possible treason charge; as I would imagine it wouldn't be much of an argument for the Crown to say an attack on the Governor General is, in effect, an attack on the Queen, and attacking the Sovereign is by definition high treason.

Another example might be a Canadian fighting for the Taliban, and attacking Canadian forces. It's not a perfect fit, but it is fighting for an enemy force. The chief problem is that while we're for all intents and purposes at war with the Taliban, we're not in a state of war with them.

This is what I mean about treason. It has been narrowed down over the last couple of centuries considerably. It's hard to justify the charge.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, you mean the guy who's on the run from the OPP and the guy who's in Guantanamo. Yep. Good argument that being an extremist muslim is safe under freedom of speech laws.

Interesting snippets, nonetheless.

It is interesting considering the guy got away with it for over three years. And the Khadrs are still living in Canada. In case that's escaped you.

[BubberMiley]

It is interesting considering the guy got away with it for over three years. And the Khadrs are still living in Canada. In case that's escaped you.

If by "got away with it", you mean "is wanted by the OPP", I guess that's correct.

But the Khadrs have tried to incite violence against other Canadians and gotten away with it? You'd think someone would have registered a human rights complaint by now. I's not that familiar with them (because I couldn't care less), but I'm surprised that they are scorning the laws against inciting hatred. Can you provide some links? Perhaps I should inform myself better.

[Guest American Woman]

If by "got away with it", you mean "is wanted by the OPP", I guess that's correct.

By "got away with it for three years" I mean "got away with it for three years."

The charges were only made in July of this year.

From my first link:

Over the past three years, Salman Hossain has openly called for terrorist attacks in Canada, cheered the killing of Canadian troops in Afghanistan and urged fellow Muslims to "exterminate" Canada's Jewish population.

From the National Post, July 9, 2010:

A Canadian extremist who has allegedly called for the “extermination” of Jews has been charged with promoting genocide, marking the first time such a case has been filed in Canada.

link

I's not that familiar with them (because I couldn't care less), but I'm surprised that they are scorning the laws against inciting hatred. Can you provide some links? Perhaps I should inform myself better.

I don't waste my time providing information for someone who "couldn't care less." But I agree. You should inform yourself better.

[BubberMiley]

By "got away with it for three years" I mean "got away with it for three years."

The charges were only made in July of this year.

So he didn't get away with it, did he?

I don't waste my time providing information for someone who "couldn't care less." But I agree. You should inform yourself better.

You would not really providing information for me. You'd be providing it to make your post credible.

[Peter F]

ILet's take a home-grown terrorist, an Islamist planning a bombing campaign. For it to be treason, he would have to essentially be an operative of a foreign power. Al Qaeda doesn't really fall into that definition at all, any more than the IRA or ETA or any terrorist organization with some international activities.

Now if that home-grown terrorist were to, say, plan the bombing of Rideau Hall, then that would likely make a possible treason charge; as I would imagine it wouldn't be much of an argument for the Crown to say an attack on the Governor General is, in effect, an attack on the Queen, and attacking the Sovereign is by definition high treason.

Another example might be a Canadian fighting for the Taliban, and attacking Canadian forces. It's not a perfect fit, but it is fighting for an enemy force. The chief problem is that while we're for all intents and purposes at war with the Taliban, we're not in a state of war with them.

This is what I mean about treason. It has been narrowed down over the last couple of centuries considerably. It's hard to justify the charge.

I agree. I would add that a Treason charge would also be kinda redundant if a murder charge or conspiracy to murder charge would do the job quite nicely.

[William Ashley]

I agree. I would add that a Treason charge would also be kinda redundant if a murder charge or conspiracy to murder charge would do the job quite nicely.

What evidence have you seen to be judging already? Have you been in the courtroom watching the case? Or is this another secret trial that people can't even monitor?

As for the khadr's how did the khadr's incite you to violence?

Let me guess you are a total media zombie that is oblivious to the fact that the media has often followed political agenda even to the level of outright propaganda, and canada is in a war.

Why not save your bias until you hear the facts from the court hearing.

Both cops and the prosecution are known to lie, even judges.

Edited September 8, 2010 by William Ashley

[Peter F]

What evidence have you seen to be judging already? Have you been in the courtroom watching the case? Or is this another secret trial that people can't even monitor?

Huh? Judging what? Watching what case? What secret trial?

As for the khadr's how did the khadr's incite you to violence?

They didn't. Did I claim such somewhere?

Let me guess you are a total media zombie that is oblivious to the fact that the media has often followed political agenda even to the level of outright propaganda, and canada is in a war.

Why not save your bias until you hear the facts from the court hearing.

Both cops and the prosecution are known to lie, even judges.

Brains...glglglgl....kill.....glglglg

[Shwa]

I don't think it has anything to do with the Charter, and rather to do with the fact that treason has a fairly narrow set of definitions, and because it is such a serious charge (let's face it, it has the sentencing equivalent to a first degree murder conviction) the requirements are necessarily high. It makes a successful prosecution very difficult, and you simply don't see a lot of treason convictions anywhere in the Western world any more.

Let's take a home-grown terrorist, an Islamist planning a bombing campaign. For it to be treason, he would have to essentially be an operative of a foreign power. Al Qaeda doesn't really fall into that definition at all, any more than the IRA or ETA or any terrorist organization with some international activities.

Now if that home-grown terrorist were to, say, plan the bombing of Rideau Hall, then that would likely make a possible treason charge; as I would imagine it wouldn't be much of an argument for the Crown to say an attack on the Governor General is, in effect, an attack on the Queen, and attacking the Sovereign is by definition high treason.

Another example might be a Canadian fighting for the Taliban, and attacking Canadian forces. It's not a perfect fit, but it is fighting for an enemy force. The chief problem is that while we're for all intents and purposes at war with the Taliban, we're not in a state of war with them.

This is what I mean about treason. It has been narrowed down over the last couple of centuries considerably. It's hard to justify the charge.

I agree fully. But even if there were a convinction of treason it would be challenged against the Charter, no doubt. Even the pre-charter FLQ weren't charged or convicted of treason though CC 46(2)a is clear that they should have.

The problem with the laws on the books is that they refer to a state or a state of war. The new order 'war on terror' appears to bypass that.

But what if - I think as Bisset's comments suggest - a person was charged with treason for one thing or another that fit the CC? What would the reaction be in that person's community. Bisset seems to think there would be this PC outrage backlash in that community and at large and I just don't think so. However that is all redundant now since we have the terrorism laws which, one would think, cover the bases that treason can't.

[Guest American Woman]

So he didn't get away with it, did he?

He got away with it for over three years, which is what I claimed.

You would not really providing information for me. You'd be providing it to make your post credible.

My post is already credible.

Edited September 8, 2010 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

He got away with it for over three years, which is what I claimed.

But considering he ultimately didn't get away with it, I don't see your point.

My post is already credible.

If it were, you would be able to back it up with some sort of citation.

[jbg]

I would be interested in a reasoned discussion of this topic.

In New York, the Feds prosecuted some Islamists for "seditious conspiracy. They planned to blow up the Queens Midtown Tunnel and other key transportation and public facilities.

I do not see even our more total freedom of speech as being a suicide pact. If someone takes overt action to bring down the government I see no reason not to prosecute and even execute them.

[jbg]

The question has been raised whether "home grown terriorists" should be tried for treason and if found guilty, punished accordingly.**************

I would be interested in a reasoned discussion of this topic.

Still waiting.