Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
betsy

Defining "Sympathisers"

Recommended Posts

The old wars had seen acts of treason and sedition promptlyy met with punishment. I've heard horrific stories from old folks how the populace reacted towards the enemy sympathisers/ collaborators after World War 2 in the Philippines. The descriptions of how the mob dipped the collaborators in boiling asphalt was enough to cause anyone nightmares.

The anger towards collaborators and symphatisers was even more felt than those of the actual enemies. The betrayal by someone whom you would naturally think to be with you is more painful I guess.

But times had changed. Just look at Hanoi Jane, the Dixie Chicks and the Alec Baldwins of Hollywood....the sentiments expressed on these various threads in our forum.

So where is the fine line drawn?

When does an act or statement fall under the category of Treason and Sedition?

When does one actually be deemed as an enemy sympathiser....and collaborator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear betsy,

When does one actually be deemed as an enemy sympathiser....and collaborator?
On this forum, it seems all you have to do is question US foreign policy, or suggest taxes are necessary. :P

Otherwise, those terms are generally used (but not always) only in times of an actual 'War'.

One must either be 'working for the enemy', or be trying to topple the gov't on behalf of another power.

from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

The Canadian Criminal Code has two degrees of treason, called "high treason" and "treason." However both of these belong to the historical category of high treason, as opposed to petty treason which does not exist in Canadian law.

"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;

B 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;

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;

© 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."[2]

It is also illegal for a Canadian citizen to do any of the above outside Canada.

The penalty for high treason is life imprisonment. The penalty for treason is imprisonemt up to a maximum of life, or up to 14 years for conduct under subsection (2)(B) or (e) in peacetime.

To date, it seems only 2 people have been tried and convicted for treason in Canada.

from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl...cted_of_treason

Canada

Louis Riel, Métis leader who opposed Canada's expansion into the west.

Andrew Westbrook, for fighting for the United States during the War of 1812

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear betsy,
When does one actually be deemed as an enemy sympathiser....and collaborator?
On this forum, it seems all you have to do is question US foreign policy, or suggest taxes are necessary. :P

Otherwise, those terms are generally used (but not always) only in times of an actual 'War'.

One must either be 'working for the enemy', or be trying to topple the gov't on behalf of another power.

from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

The Canadian Criminal Code has two degrees of treason, called "high treason" and "treason." However both of these belong to the historical category of high treason, as opposed to petty treason which does not exist in Canadian law.

"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;

B 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;

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;

© 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."[2]

It is also illegal for a Canadian citizen to do any of the above outside Canada.

The penalty for high treason is life imprisonment. The penalty for treason is imprisonemt up to a maximum of life, or up to 14 years for conduct under subsection (2)(B) or (e) in peacetime.

To date, it seems only 2 people have been tried and convicted for treason in Canada.

from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl...cted_of_treason

Canada

Louis Riel, Métis leader who opposed Canada's expansion into the west.

Andrew Westbrook, for fighting for the United States during the War of 1812

And for sedition? What is sedition exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it only becomes treasonous or crosses the line to the criminal code, if

it condones and promotes hatred or violence. Even then we have to tread carefully because you know how fine the line is between freedom of speech and trying to

prevent hate mongering and or a crime from being committed as a result of incitement from words or speeches. All democracies struggle with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear betsy,

And for sedition? What is sedition exactly?
I should think that you would have access to a dictionary...

from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition

Sedition is a term of law to refer to covert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.

Usually, it is coupled with the term 'preaching' (sedition).

Also, please do not quote entire posts, a line or two will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But times had changed. Just look at Hanoi Jane, the Dixie Chicks and the Alec Baldwins of Hollywood....the sentiments expressed on these various threads in our forum.

I am trying to decipher what you're saying here. Are you saying that times have changed and we no longer dip those who commit treason in boiling asphalt and that if we still did this that Jane Fonda, the Dixie Chicks and Alec Baldwin would be candidates for this treatment?

I'm not going to get into the weeds of the Jane Fonda thing since there are many better informed people about that topic than I am. But to insinuate that the Dixie Chicks and Alec Baldwin have committed treason or have given comfort to the enemy by speaking their minds, whether or not you agree with their opinions, indicates to me that perhaps you (and those who routinely criticize them) had better sharpen your understanding of the difference between freedom of speech and treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But times had changed. Just look at Hanoi Jane, the Dixie Chicks and the Alec Baldwins of Hollywood....the sentiments expressed on these various threads in our forum.

How ridiculous to include the Dixie Chicks and Baldwins with Jane Fonda. The former spoke their opinion and received death threats, so they had no choice but to withdraw their comments. They stand by them now tho. When the time comes when I can't criticise my Prime Minister, 1984 will have arrived. As for sentiments expressed on this forum, I have probably said more than my share of my contempt for the illegal Iraq invasion and the U.S.' incompetent leader. So what is your point Betsy? Cancel free speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liam and Newbie, when the Dixie Chicks and Alec Baldwin spoke out against their president, their country was in a state of war. Whether he approve of this war or not, is not enough to have a citizen casting doubts and inflammatory sentiments directed to the leader of his nation. It is then that the saying fits: "either you're with us or against us."

Free speech is one thing. But using your popularity or status to influence the people to go against your leader is another thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liam and Newbie, when the Dixie Chicks and Alec Baldwin spoke out against their president, their country was in a state of war. Whether he approve of this war or not, is not enough to have a citizen casting doubts and inflammatory sentiments directed to the leader of his nation. It is then that the saying fits: "either you're with us or against us."

Free speech is one thing. But using your popularity or status to influence the people to go against your leader is another thing.

Actually, you're wrong. Unless they are inciting rebellion against the authority of a state or actively working to betray the states, everything falls under the umbrella of free speech. Sedtion is different from free speech, but you've not cited any seditious or treasonous acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The old wars had seen acts of treason and sedition promptlyy met with punishment. I've heard horrific stories from old folks how the populace reacted towards the enemy sympathisers/ collaborators after World War 2 in the Philippines. The descriptions of how the mob dipped the collaborators in boiling asphalt was enough to cause anyone nightmares.

Betsy, I see a difference between a collaborator in France in 1943 who informed the Nazis about fellow citizens and a conscientious objector in England in 1917 who opposed the way the war was being fought. This isn't a fine line; it's called a moral compass.

And Betsy, would you please learn how to reply without duplicating the entire previous post? Otherwise, the thread will quickly become unmanageable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liam and Newbie, when the Dixie Chicks and Alec Baldwin spoke out against their president, their country was in a state of war. Whether he approve of this war or not, is not enough to have a citizen casting doubts and inflammatory sentiments directed to the leader of his nation. It is then that the saying fits: "either you're with us or against us."

Free speech is one thing. But using your popularity or status to influence the people to go against your leader is another thing.

I could not disagree more. If someone cannot express himself or herself when a leader is about to commit the nation to what the speaker believes is a debacle in the making, it would be treason for him to not speak out nor to ask questions. Again, I am not going down the Jane Fonda path because I don't know enough about the chronology of events, her intent, the manipulation of film footage on both sides of the argument, but Alec Baldwin's and the Dixie Chicks' statements are contemporary and available to us here and now.

What, exactly, did Natalie Maines say? While addressing a London audience, Maines stated that she, as a native Texan, was embarrassed that the president comes from Texas. Did she advocate harm to the man? Did she attempt to incite criminal behavior? Did she announce her allegience to an enemy of the US's? Did she offer aid or comfort to those waging terror against our shores? Did she undermine the security of the homefront or endanger the lives of soldiers in the field? Did she even ask people to stand up against Bush or start a boycott or even encourage people to join the anti-war protests (none of which would qualify for treason even if she had)? Did she even say anything about domestic or foreign policy positions, whether generally or specifically? No. She expressed embarrassment that she and Bush come from the same state. String her up! That'll learn anyun who dares speak out agin'st a great Amurican.

Alec Baldwin? You mean saying that he'll move to Canada if Bush gets re-elected is treasonous? So not only should people not speak out against a politician they dislike, but if they express dismay at the prospect of his re-election, they commit treason?

That's one heck of a free society you want us all to live in, Betsy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To date, it seems only 2 people have been tried and convicted for treason in Canada.

from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl...cted_of_treason

Louis Riel, Métis leader who opposed Canada's expansion into the west.

Andrew Westbrook, for fighting for the United States during the War of 1812

We have been much too reticent in charging people properly. I don't think even Nicholas Ribich, that Edmonton guy who flew to Yugoslavia and put on a Serbian military uniform, then took part in an attack on Canadian soldiers in which they were held hostage was ever charged with treason. He should have been. I doubt any of these alleged terrorists will be charged with treason either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...