If he was advocating the overthrow of the Saudi or Iranian entities he would not be committing an act of sedition against the British Crown. The Crown, it should be added, that has apparently provided him with safe-harbour. Is this meant to be a trick question?

What Flea said.

But...but...ok - I implied to me the duplicity of presence of the British troops supporting the regime and speaking against the regime. If the act of the Crown was to prop up regime X and put troops on the group there, does advocating the overthrow of that government constitute sedition. That is the potential Saudi example. The Iranian example was mere <i>contra punctillio</i>, a red herring...except if we think of where it was in 1978 perhaps. Or perhaps Ronny Ray-gun and unpleasant Central American proppery.<p>Back to your answer sheets, heads down, no talking! Do not speak to the ethics of the circumstances - just the application of sedition to such a context.

Well, let's take an even more unambiguous situation -- a British citizen, say, who advocates the violent overthrow of the American government.

Not guilty, my Lord! The Crown, unthreatened, is safe and secure.

Wait, though, if British troops were propping up said government... h'm. Then it gets more murky.

I think it would only be sedition if the British troops were mentioned. But the waters are gettting deeper here...

Let's think back to imperial history. There were times when British troops were helping out the Ottomans and whatnot. And yet I know very well that there were all sorts of international revolutionaries running around Victorian London, and that London would refuse to touch a hair on their little heads.

Still say not guilty. It's the mention of the British forces themselves that makes the difference, I say.

Hah! See! Me not so dumb.

But then, you know, the issue of the state of war would be there. Because, if the person were advocating on behalf of forces with whom the Crown were at war, then...

I think state of war is a treason issue but not so much a sedition issue.

"But...but...ok - I implied to me the duplicity of presence of the British troops supporting the regime and speaking against the regime."

Prince Sultan Air Base has closed. Is there another British armed forces presence in Saudi of which I am unaware? It seems to me the UK government has done as much to prop up the mullahs in Iran. For the record, I believe the governments of Iran and Arabia should both be overthrown but I doubt expressing this opinion places me in any risk of prosecution either as a citizen of the United Kingdom or Canada.

The closest case in British law I can find to your hypothetical is that of Sir Roger Casement vis a vis the Easter Uprising. But he was advocating war on the Crown not on an ally of the Crown. The same was the case for William Joyce while the more recent treason conviction of Marcus Sarjeant was for taking a pot-shot directly at Her Majesty and Michael Bettaney for spying for the Soviets. I see no precedent for your hypothetical.

Finally, considering this is a British context you are arguing it might be best to refer to UK rather than Canadian law. Some links for your consideration. It is interesting to note that our right to trial by jury stems from the Fox Libel Act (1792) in response to perceived government abuse of ancient seditious libel laws. See here, here, and here.

Fab. I will link up all those URLs, but a late in the day admission - I am pretty confident that see this as pure sedition rather than treason, ie a general call against the interest of the Crown. I actually did not think that I would see one. It is very close to Lord Haw Haw. My post was primarily an exercise in examining the extent of the circle in which sedition might hold.

If one said, however:<blockquote class="smalltext">For the record, I believe the governments of Iran and Arabia should both be overthrown and if that means taking on British and Canadian Forces and Crown interests located there or supporting them in the region to do so, so be it.</blockquote>I think that is sedition, is it not?

Not a legal professional as you know but that would appear to be seditious. I suppose it would depend on what the speaker meant by "taking on" and what a "Crown interest" might be and where the limits of "the region" might be found. I am still not certain what your point is. When I have called for the laws on treason and sedition to be enforced in the case of those calling for war with Britain or Canada it is with the thought such prosecutions would be consistent with past practice. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I can find no instance of anyone being charged with either offense in calling for the overthrow of a country allied with the Crown. Perhaps there are historical precedents to which you could point me that would lend a context to something you apparently see as a potential risk.

Will do. I am interested in this idea of taking the new media of communication and the precedents often are in the pre-Revolutionary US printing press operators being brought up before the colonial governors.

Ha! You beat me to my follow-up. I wanted to add a comment to the effect that I hope I am not seeming to make light of your concerns. Then I realized the comment I was thinking of was turning into a post and that I should write it for the Flea rather than continuing to spam your comments section...

Not at all. We are some of the few bloggers about who can see the difference in the form and usefulness of genial discussion rather than accusatory debate. Never spam.