When does free speech become treason

[Patton74]

Define " Home grown Terrorists"

For some it could be the First Nations blocking roads for a protest. Perhaps the PQ for their endless demands.

What is the line?

I despise any form of racism but am guilty of it as I feel we all are.

I personally don't care about your colour or religious beliefs but I do feel that if you think its ok to stone or behead women for adultery after they have been raped or molested than I think I am a more civilized human being. I don't hate those that believe it is right I despise the crime but I think these people are of the same mind as the prosecutors of the Salem witch trails or the Spanish inquisition.

As to the treason question. Protesting a government is a right. Preaching a different opinion is called a free society.

Plotting to blow up innocent people in the name of a cause is terrorism and yes treason.

[jacee]

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.

Ah ... so is treason acts against government (only) or can it be acts against citizens?

How about government acts against citizens?

Can that be trreason?

[Argus]

Still waiting.

Nice necro.

I am a strong advocate of free speech, but I have no issue with criminalizing incitement to violence. You can say whatever you like about the government of the day, or even the institution of government, but a serious effort at advocating violence should be illegal. Granted, in our present times we don't see much danger in such speech. But less stable times (the unemployment rate in Spain is now 27% as an example) that kind of rabble rousing could cause a lot of destruction and death.

[g_bambino]

Ah ... so is treason acts against government (only) or can it be acts against citizens?

It is a bit of both (plus, acts meant to topple government through violence tend to negatively affect the citizenry, too).

Section 46 of the Criminal Code:

High treason

(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

( levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

© assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

( without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

© conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( and manifests that intention by an overt act."

How about government acts against citizens?

Can that be trreason?

That depends.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited April 28, 2013 by g_bambino

[jacee]

It is a bit of both (plus, acts meant to topple government through violence tend to negatively affect the citizenry, too).

Section 46 of the Criminal Code:

High treason

(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

( levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

© assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

( without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

© conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( and manifests that intention by an overt act."

That depends.

[ed.: c/e]

I don't see anything there that protects citizens against tyrannical governments. Just curious ...

[g_bambino]

I don't see anything there that protects citizens against tyrannical governments. Just curious ...

Well, treason is a charge laid after the fact; it deters, but doesn't prevent any treasonous act from happening.

Regardless, you asked whether or not a charge of treason could be laid on a government acting against citizens. Well, every act laid out in those clauses would, if carried out, negatively affect citizens; the severity depending on specifics. If a government committed any of them, some or all in that government could be found guilty of one or the other forms of treason.

[jacee]

Well, treason is a charge laid after the fact; it deters, but doesn't prevent any treasonous act from happening.

Regardless, you asked whether or not a charge of treason could be laid on a government acting against citizens. Well, every act laid out in those clauses would, if carried out, negatively affect citizens; the severity depending on specifics. If a government committed any of them, some or all in that government could be found guilty of one or the other forms of treason.

And who's going to lay those charges? Police?

Who's going to prosecute?

I think I made my point.

[Guest]

I don't see anything there that protects citizens against tyrannical governments. Just curious ...

For that you need a second amendment...

[jbg]

Ah ... so is treason acts against government (only) or can it be acts against citizens?

How about government acts against citizens?

Can that be trreason? (fixed that for you)

Here is the definition of "treason" (link) in the U.S.:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Edited April 29, 2013 by jbg

[jbg]

Nice necro.

I was looking for something I had previously written. I did correctly remember it.

And I'm still waiting for that reasoned discussion.

[g_bambino]

And who's going to lay those charges? Police?

Who's going to prosecute?

The police, sure, acting at the direction of the new government installed by the governor general. Prosecutions would happen in court.

I think I made my point.

You evidently think a lot of things.

[jacee]

The police, sure, acting at the direction of the new government installed by the governor general. Prosecutions would happen in court.

How would we get rid of the tyrant government first?

And the GG, military, police and courts that allowed them to gain power and kept them there?

Not that simple.

The 'checks and balances' built into our system have been rendered useless: The big one is that the GG is Commander in Chief of the military ... but can't act independently any more because the PM can just fire him/her.

We have very little protection from tyrants who manipulate the election process: They can gain absolute power.

Edited April 29, 2013 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

How would we get rid of the tyrant government first?

Clearly vote them out during the next election.

[jacee]

Clearly vote them out during the next election.

Those who gain from colluding with them can keep them in, esp if elections are manipulated without consequence as we see now.

Obviously I'm not as concerned about a person speaking treasonous thoughts as I am about our governments committing treason against the people, selling out our resources to fill their own pockets and those who support them, importing cheap foreign labour while stripping middle class Canadian workers of livlihoods and power.

And I think we are already there.

Edited April 29, 2013 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

Those who gain from colluding with them can keep them in, esp if elections are manipulated without consequence as we see now.

Well I guess you're shit out of luck then.

[jacee]

Well I guess you're shit out of luck then.

That's apparent.

Sometimes ya gotta speak your mind against treasonous tyrants.

Of course, they'll call that kind of patriotism "treason".

[jacee]

That's what I was just thinking.......

Ya it's hard to put those things in words sometimes.

[g_bambino]

How would we get rid of the tyrant government first?

And the GG, military, police and courts that allowed them to gain power and kept them there?

Not that simple.

The 'checks and balances' built into our system have been rendered useless: The big one is that the GG is Commander in Chief of the military ... but can't act independently any more because the PM can just fire him/her.

We have very little protection from tyrants who manipulate the election process: They can gain absolute power.

This is incomprehensible gibberish.

We were talking about whether or not a government could be charged with treason. Tyranny is something altogether different. As is manipulation of the election process.

What happens to a government that commits an act that could be treasonous depends on specifics: What was the act or were the acts? Were the police and/or military and/or factions of either or both involved? What is the majority of the House of Commons saying? In one possible scenario, parliament withdraws its confidence in the prime minister (rendering his advice to either the governor general or the Queen optional, at best), leading the governor general to dismiss him or her and appoint a new prime minister, who then, through the Governor General-in-Council, has the Crown seek an arrest warrant or warrants from a court for the suspects and the RCMP execute it or those. But, there are other ways it could play out.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited April 29, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Those who gain from colluding with them can keep them in, esp if elections are manipulated without consequence as we see now.

Obviously I'm not as concerned about a person speaking treasonous thoughts as I am about our governments committing treason against the people, selling out our resources to fill their own pockets and those who support them, importing cheap foreign labour while stripping middle class Canadian workers of livlihoods and power.

And I think we are already there.

I provided you with the exact definition of what treason is. The above makes it clear you didn't read any of it.

[cybercoma]

I know the GG in theory does these things, but I really don't see it happening. Nope. He/she doesn't owe the PM anything, but I have a really hard time seeing them wrapping up parliament, calling an election, and bringing charges against a PM when it is the PM that appoints him/her.

[jacee]

I provided you with the exact definition of what treason is. The above makes it clear you didn't read any of it.

I read it to see if there's any protection for us against tyrant - ie, treasonous - governments. There isn't.

[jacee]

I know the GG in theory does these things, but I really don't see it happening. Nope. He/she doesn't owe the PM anything, but I have a really hard time seeing them wrapping up parliament, calling an election, and bringing charges against a PM when it is the PM that appoints him/her.

I agree, and it means we don't have any protection against tyrants.

Our parliamentary system was never intended to operate with all power in the PM's hands and all MP's in lockstep with leaders the way it has evolved.

Treason via free speech is the least of our problems.

[g_bambino]

I know the GG in theory does these things, but I really don't see it happening. Nope. He/she doesn't owe the PM anything, but I have a really hard time seeing them wrapping up parliament, calling an election, and bringing charges against a PM when it is the PM that appoints him/her.

There's a cognitive dissonance in this statement; the governor general can't do anything because the prime minister appoints him/her [sic], but the governor general owes the prime minister nothing.

Regardless, as I said, what takes place in the case of a government making possibly treasonous actions depends entirely on the specifics of the situation. It is possible in many for the governor general to replace the prime minister and the rest of cabinet.

[g_bambino]

I read it to see if there's any protection for us against tyrant - ie, treasonous - governments. There isn't.

One more time: tyranny and treason are not the same. And, also one more time, the Criminal Code doesn't protect you from treasonous acts; it explains what acts meet the definition of treason and makes them a crime.

[ed.: +]

Edited April 29, 2013 by g_bambino

[jacee]

One more time: tyranny and treason are not the same. And, also one more time, the Criminal Code doesn't protect you from treasonous acts; it explains what acts meet the definition of treason and makes them a crime.

[ed.: +]

So ... I guess the discussion has moved on from that, because there isn't much there to discuss. Edited April 29, 2013 by jacee