a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
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.
Hi there, you seem to be confused about how laws work in Canada. See, unlike our neighbours to the south, we have this crazy notion that civil rights do in fact matter.
That includes the right not to be subject to investigation without reasonable suspicion of a crime. There being no evidence that someone has not committed a crime is not a reasonable basis for an investigation.
Do you drive? Prove you haven’t ever committed vehicular manslaughter. Do you own bolt cutters? Prove you’ve never used them to break and enter. Do you have alcohol or weed in your home? Prove you’ve never sold them to minors. Have you ever been near a school? Prove you’re not a child rapist.
See how this works? Saying that someone was in a situation where they could have a comitted a crime cannot be the basis for a criminal investigation, or else we’d be investigating everyone, all the time.
The Alberta separatists are pathetic scumbags, but they’re not automatically criminals just because you don’t like what they did. That’s toddler logic.
I think you’re mistaking “investigation” with “prosecution” or something else. The cops can investigate literally anyone. You can hire a PI to investigate anyone.
There are limits however on what investigative actions can be legally taken by cops based on the evidence they have. Even with no evidence, they can still do things like interview people who know the POI, even follow them around in public. They can’t, for example, detain them and beat a confession out of them, or search their house willy nilly.
If we’re going to get technical, yes, there are extremely limited forms of investigative action that could be taken based on a broad suspicion. But without “reasonable grounds” the police are forbidden from interviewing suspects, detaining people, or performing any form of search or seizure. That’s not an investigation, that’s walking up to a guy in the street and going “Yo, did this guy do any crimes?” What on earth do you imagine would come out of that beyond wasting police time?
As for your comparison with private detectives, do I really have to explain that constraints on state power only apply to state actors? Private detectives are, by definition, private individuals. And they’re still basically constrained in all the same ways anyway, because you can’t just break into someone’s house or hack their computer. I know PIs in Canada. 100% of what they investigate falls into exactly two camps; infidelity, and insurance fraud. That’s it. They’re not Sherlock Holmes.
It’s unlikely that these dorks are leaking military info (and why would the US even care?), but they should definitely be investigated. I think the real question is whether the US are using “force or violence”, which would fall under C) and A)
You gonna actually lay out your case for that? Because I’m pretty sure you’re wrong (no shade, I just disagree with your assessment), but it’s hard to say when you haven’t even offered any justification for your argument.
The regime has made overt commentary and motions of hostility toward Canada, and has vociferously stated a desire for lebensraum in Canada, Greenland, and other neighboring countries. When they talk about neo-Monroe doctrine, they’re really talking about neocolonialism. They’re “joking” until they’re not. It’s an established pattern and practice with the regime, now as well as in the first stint they had.
Right, but you have to make a case for what the people in Alberta did that’s treason. Not what the US did. We all know what the US did.
Simply interacting with a potentially hostile foreign power isn’t treason. If I have a coffee with a guy who works for the Iranian government, I’m not automatically a traitor.
What are the specific, treasonous actions that you’re alleging here?
46 (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;
(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.
I agree… but the person calling them traitors does not have the authority to do that.
I believe it has to come from the gov of Alberta (traitors all as well) or the Federal gov.
I do expect some form of movement on this, strategically this is too dangerous to go unpunished
Criminal charges are federal in Canada, but charges are laid by crown prosecutors in that particular province (never by the government itself)
I don’t think this actually meets the definition of treason, as they aren’t using violence and are going the legislative/referendum route: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-46.html
This is why a full investigation must take place. Until then we have no proof that the meeting did not violate paragraph b.
Paragraph B is the kicker, because we do know they met with a foreign power that has stated it wants to expand into Canada.
Hi there, you seem to be confused about how laws work in Canada. See, unlike our neighbours to the south, we have this crazy notion that civil rights do in fact matter.
That includes the right not to be subject to investigation without reasonable suspicion of a crime. There being no evidence that someone has not committed a crime is not a reasonable basis for an investigation.
Do you drive? Prove you haven’t ever committed vehicular manslaughter. Do you own bolt cutters? Prove you’ve never used them to break and enter. Do you have alcohol or weed in your home? Prove you’ve never sold them to minors. Have you ever been near a school? Prove you’re not a child rapist.
See how this works? Saying that someone was in a situation where they could have a comitted a crime cannot be the basis for a criminal investigation, or else we’d be investigating everyone, all the time.
The Alberta separatists are pathetic scumbags, but they’re not automatically criminals just because you don’t like what they did. That’s toddler logic.
I think you’re mistaking “investigation” with “prosecution” or something else. The cops can investigate literally anyone. You can hire a PI to investigate anyone.
There are limits however on what investigative actions can be legally taken by cops based on the evidence they have. Even with no evidence, they can still do things like interview people who know the POI, even follow them around in public. They can’t, for example, detain them and beat a confession out of them, or search their house willy nilly.
If we’re going to get technical, yes, there are extremely limited forms of investigative action that could be taken based on a broad suspicion. But without “reasonable grounds” the police are forbidden from interviewing suspects, detaining people, or performing any form of search or seizure. That’s not an investigation, that’s walking up to a guy in the street and going “Yo, did this guy do any crimes?” What on earth do you imagine would come out of that beyond wasting police time?
As for your comparison with private detectives, do I really have to explain that constraints on state power only apply to state actors? Private detectives are, by definition, private individuals. And they’re still basically constrained in all the same ways anyway, because you can’t just break into someone’s house or hack their computer. I know PIs in Canada. 100% of what they investigate falls into exactly two camps; infidelity, and insurance fraud. That’s it. They’re not Sherlock Holmes.
It’s unlikely that these dorks are leaking military info (and why would the US even care?), but they should definitely be investigated. I think the real question is whether the US are using “force or violence”, which would fall under C) and A)
I’m getting real sick of people ignoring 3/4 of the shit they’re supposedly quoting.
For some reason a lot of y’all wanna bend over backwards to defend this shit.
🙄
Pray tell, what would these dumbfucks even know about science that it’s worth leaking?
Bent so far back you’re crowning.
“anything I don’t like is treason”
No, you’re just ignorant of history and have your head up your ass.
I do actually think 2b-e are all applicable here.
You gonna actually lay out your case for that? Because I’m pretty sure you’re wrong (no shade, I just disagree with your assessment), but it’s hard to say when you haven’t even offered any justification for your argument.
The regime has made overt commentary and motions of hostility toward Canada, and has vociferously stated a desire for lebensraum in Canada, Greenland, and other neighboring countries. When they talk about neo-Monroe doctrine, they’re really talking about neocolonialism. They’re “joking” until they’re not. It’s an established pattern and practice with the regime, now as well as in the first stint they had.
Right, but you have to make a case for what the people in Alberta did that’s treason. Not what the US did. We all know what the US did.
Simply interacting with a potentially hostile foreign power isn’t treason. If I have a coffee with a guy who works for the Iranian government, I’m not automatically a traitor.
What are the specific, treasonous actions that you’re alleging here?
© and (d) are circular, unless “high treason” is defined elsewhere. According to this, high treason is treason on its own.
High treason is defined in the previous section;
High treason