The good Flea makes an empassioned plea for the use of the charge of treason against those who would bomb we citizens in a twisted and pointless efforts to over-throw democracy. They do not know that the very rocks and trees of the Canadian Shield would vote somewhere between 12 and 18% for NPD every 3.5 to 4.5 years if we were all blown to bits taking mass trans of a morning.
But there is still reason to review our law and...did you know...there is still both high and also regular ethanol treason here in the law of the Great White North:
46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,So even though we have newish post-9/11 trendy terrorism crimes set out in Part II.1 of the Act, there is some pretty beefy good old Victorian things to think about in the sweet section of the Criminal Code of Canada pasted above. Sadly, while we may bicker about "what is war," high treason is perhaps beyond the scope of your average un-nationed freelance early 21st century jihadista - unless they go for the Queen - but it is nice to note, personally at least, that conspiring for the violent over-throw of Saskatchewan whether one is at home or away is treason nonetheless.(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;(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(c) 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.(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,
(b) 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;
(c) 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 (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.
(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).
And it is a nice touch that the minimum sentence for high treason is life under 47(4).
Comments
David Janes - August 9, 2005 8:20 am
Grab some precidents. I assume these will be mostly English stuff. 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.
Flea - August 9, 2005 10:38 am
When I was looking at this stuff the other week one passage stood out. A person can commit treason when s/he "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."
So, we do not need everyone to agree a state of war, let alone assault the person of Her Majesty, for an act of treason. The tricky bit is that "country whose forces they are" that has lead the Americans into their Civil War era "enemy combatant" category. Something most people have yet to twig to is that barring the Saudi entity and the UAE (unless I am missing anybody else) nobody on Earth could declare war on the Taliban because, excepting the two aforementioned states, nobody recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan. Still less so does anyone accept an NGO like al-Qaeda as a state actor. It is difficult to see how anyone fighting under bin Laden's "banner" could be defined in law as fighting for a country.
Though maybe a country does not need to be a state... though this still presents a problem given al-Qaeda is a thoroughly globalized, trans-national NGO.
So. What to do? My post called for treason rather than deportation in those cases when an act of treachery is involved. But I am just as happy to make use of existing statutes on piracy for those non-state actors who levy war on the sovereign power.
Alan - August 9, 2005 10:45 am
Yes, that phrase "any armed forces" is very interesting and that is for high treason...something very plummy about <i>high</i> treason. <p>A person who assists "any armed force" where Canada is involved in hostilities commits high treason. Canada is engaged in hostilites in Afghanistan against Al Queda and a terrorist here who could be tied to Afghanistan would risk high treason. Otherwise, I have no doubt that run of the mill treason applies to Al Queda. And as you say, deportation is not only cowardly but useless.