I am glad to see that Master Flea has continued his quite correct call for the charges of treason to fall upon the heads of those who would vapourize us in small groups for curious ill-defined polio-religio-cultural ends or conspire or assist or abet in the same...except I am shattered that he did not get my Jesus Christ Superstar reference - the whole "rocks and trees" image as to the strength of democracy despite the worst these cowardly thuggish fools can muster.
But Flea Esq. uses the word sedition in his posts which ties into David's request (always a wise and educational request) for examples. We have to be wary of what we are and what treason and especially sedition was. Examples will illustrate this:
- Auntie Beeb has prepared a useful list of some who have been successfully charged with treason in the UK in the 20th century including the last man hanged for it, Lord Haw Haw and that unfortunate teen who shot a cap gun at HRH on a horse back when George Michaels and Wham was still a bar band called Wham.
- Mr Janes, however, wishes us to go farther back in time:
I suspect there'll be lots of stuff almost exactly analogous to what's happening today: religious groups (Catholics, Puritans) trying to overthrow the crown by use of violence.
Well, the charge against Riel in 1885 was high treason and he was hanged for it. Here is the denial of the leave to appeal to the House of Lords brought by the soon thereafter hanged man. Certainly he represented no state but did claim and was supported by the people. He is now considered something of a grandfather of the province of Manitoba. - Lord Lovat, Chieftan of Clan Fraser, was the last peer hanged for treason in 1747, simply because of his little disagreement with the English at Culloden. Certainly myself - and likely Mike, too - would have a hard time cheering along to the righteousness of that event at 260 years distant.
So while we can see antecedents in our past, contextualized they are not so savoury. Sedition is a concept best left in the past, a legacy of as yet unfree governance, before the entrenchment of the glory of opposition politics and the transfer of power not only from party to party but beyond that pesky graspy ruling class. To understand what treason must mean in today's context we may only be able to look to our own times and the recent past.
Comments
Flea - August 10, 2005 9:23 pm
I am all in favour of Wikipedia and think historical instances are interesting, perhaps especially those where we would take a different course some centuries later. As a question of Canadian law, however, sedition is as follows:<blockquote class="smalltext">59. (4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression "seditious intention", every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who<blockquote>
(a) teaches or advocates, or<br>
(b) 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.</blockquote></blockquote>This seems entirely straightforward to me and, more important, entirely reasonable. Please note the following critical exceptions:<blockquote class="smalltext">60. Notwithstanding subsection 59(4), no person shall be deemed to have a seditious intention by reason only that he intends, in good faith,<blockquote>
(a) to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken in her measures;<br>
(b) to point out errors or defects in<blockquote>
(i) the government or constitution of Canada or a province,<br>
(ii) Parliament or the legislature of a province, or<br>
(iii) the administration of justice in Canada;</blockquote>
(c) to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any matter of government in Canada; or<br>
(d) to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters that produce or tend to produce feelings of hostility and ill-will between different classes of persons in Canada.</blockquote></blockquote>So, anti-globalization demos are fine. Even anti-globalization riots are fine (though problematical for other reasons). Advocating Quebec or Alberta is also fine (if often unsavoury in the latter case). Sedition consists strictly of advocating the overthrow of the sovereign power by force. Again, if people think this is a reasonable thing for people to do then they should make their case and we should amend the law. In the meantime, the law should be enforced.<p>As for examples of seditious rhetoric and incitement on the part of the jihadis. They are too numerous to mention. A quick google of jihadi literature or review of public statements by their fellow travellers will find many specific cases.
Flea - August 10, 2005 9:24 pm
Sorry, that should have read "Quebec sovereignty or Alberta separation".