Separatism is High Treason

[#juan]

PART II
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER


Treason and other Offences against the Queen's Authority and Person

High treason


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.

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;

(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.

Canadian citizen


(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act


(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

Punishment for high treason


47. (1) Every one who commits high treason is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Punishment for treason


(2) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(a), (c) or (d);

(b) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while a state of war exists between Canada and another country; or

(c) to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while no state of war exists between Canada and another country.

Corroboration


(3) No person shall be convicted of high treason or treason on the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.

Minimum punishment


(4) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by subsection (1) is a minimum punishment.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 47; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

Limitation


48. (1) No proceedings for an offence of treason as defined by paragraph 46(2)(a) shall be commenced more than three years after the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed.

Information for treasonable words


(2) No proceedings shall be commenced under section 47 in respect of an overt act of treason expressed or declared by open and considered speech unless

(a) an information setting out the overt act and the words by which it was expressed or declared is laid under oath before a justice within six days after the time when the words are alleged to have been spoken; and

(b) a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued within ten days after the time when the information is laid.

Remember Pierre Laport. The bastard who killed Laport works for the Bloc. He and his group should have been charged with treason.

The leader of the Bloc wants Quebec to have an army, presumably to enforce their separatist cause.

A member of the PQ wrote letters to the Canadian military at the time of the last referendum, urging members from Quebec to help enforce the separatist cause.

Charges should have been laid.

 

[Colpy]

PART II
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER


Treason and other Offences against the Queen's Authority and Person

High treason


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.

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;

(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.

Canadian citizen


(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act


(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

Punishment for high treason


47. (1) Every one who commits high treason is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Punishment for treason


(2) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(a), (c) or (d);

(b) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while a state of war exists between Canada and another country; or

(c) to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while no state of war exists between Canada and another country.

Corroboration


(3) No person shall be convicted of high treason or treason on the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.

Minimum punishment


(4) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by subsection (1) is a minimum punishment.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 47; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

Limitation


48. (1) No proceedings for an offence of treason as defined by paragraph 46(2)(a) shall be commenced more than three years after the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed.

Information for treasonable words


(2) No proceedings shall be commenced under section 47 in respect of an overt act of treason expressed or declared by open and considered speech unless

(a) an information setting out the overt act and the words by which it was expressed or declared is laid under oath before a justice within six days after the time when the words are alleged to have been spoken; and

(b) a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued within ten days after the time when the information is laid.

Remember Pierre Laport. The bastard who killed Laport works for the Bloc. He and his group should have been charged with treason.

The leader of the Bloc wants Quebec to have an army, presumably to enforce their separatist cause.

A member of the PQ wrote letters to the Canadian military at the time of the last referendum, urging members from Quebec to help enforce the separatist cause.

Charges should have been laid.

Yep, I agree.

While we're at it, let's arrest the Khadr family as well. They are even more guilty than the Quebecois you mentioned.

I'm tired of the soft line with separatists. The elephant in the room no one will mention is the fact that a unilateral declaration of independence will result in a civil war..We could drift into disaster if the separatists get 53% and go to a UDI without fully considering the consequences. Somebody should actually bring that up in the next referendum campaign, don't you think?

 

[#juan]

Gilles Duceppe wants a Quebec army.

http://tinyurl.com/92tdg

 

[Colpy]

All you have to do is scan that article, and you see how UDI leads to civil war.

Two powers cannot rule in the same area. How would the Quebecois turf out the RCMP, for instance? To say nothing of the military. Would they attempt to seize armouries?

It would be really good if the Separatists were told of the dangerous game they are playing before the next vote. People in history have drifted unintentionally into disaster because they don't understand the full consequences of their actions.

World War One would be an example of that.

 

[Canucklehead]

RE: Separatism is High Tr

Canada should turn the tables on this one and offer a referendum as part of the next federal vote.
The people need to know, however, that regardless of what their politicians tell them there will be no sovereignty association and that a split is a split. If they decide to stay then STFU about seperation and bury it. If they decide to leave then All federal assets will be retained by the country and all federal departments will be closed post haste in the event of seperation. (that would also include the loss of pensions, benefits etc). And as far as I am concerned... Canada should dictate borders as well..if it came to seperation, which i honestly don't think it would if the people weren't having sunshine blown up ther collective ass by Duceppe and buddies.

 

[no1important]

RE: Separatism is High Tr

With the last vote due to it being a misleading and unclear question some people thought they would still have a form of association with Canada.

The next question should be a simple "Do you wish for Quebec to leave Canada and form our own seperate country".

So then people know, if they vote yes they are on their own and no longer apart of Canada period.

 

[Jay]

What are you going to do... Arrest them?

Let's not forget that there are at least three provinces in Canada with separation movements going on. Also don't forget that the largest of those movements was the official opposition not long ago....

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Separatism is High Tr

So then people know, if they vote yes they are on their own and no longer apart of Canada period.

Is this the positon of the Federal government?

 

[jimmoyer]

Most historians agree that if the North lost passion for resolving the American civil war, America would have subdivided into 4 or 5 countries, not just two.

The North itself would have split into New England, Mid Atlantic and Northwest Ordinance states and the West would have split off, leaving the South as the largest land mass as a country.

Who knows where separatism will lead, but we do know for sure, that separatism established as a precedent inevitably leads to more separatism.

 

[#juan]

Is this the positon of the Federal government?

Yes. The question has to be clear and there can be no doubt that a yes vote is just that, "Yes I want to separate from Canada..

Let's not forget that there are at least three provinces in Canada with separation movements going on.

Do you consider the Alberta separatist movement to be serious? What support do they have? About 15 - 17 percent.

Which other province wants to separate?

 

[Jay]

Is this the positon of the Federal government?

Yes. The question has to be clear and there can be no doubt that a yes vote is just that, "Yes I want to separate from Canada..

I'm was not aware that the Feds had outright declared an all or nothing approach to this.

Saying the question wasn't clear is like calling the people of Quebec stupid. They knew exactly what they were voting for.


Yes I think the separatist movement in Alberta is serious. The "alienation of the west" is fueling it. It may not be a huge movement, but it is there and it is growing and shows no sign of slow down. If the liberals get elected again, the numbers will grow even further IMO.

Newfoundland is the other place.

 

[#juan]

Newfoundland is the other place.

The amount of federal money and equalization payments that have been given to Newfoundland in the last thirty years is massive. Now with a lot of help they are exploiting their oil resources. Now they want to separate? On the other hand that is exactly what happened in Quebec. Quebec has somehow qualified as a "have not" province for years. Another funny thing is that Alberta was paid equalization payments for 8 or 10 years as well.

 

[no1important]

RE: Separatism is High Tr

Quebec divided on question of separation: poll

Ottawa's Clarity Act demands that the question of secession be unambiguous. Under the act, the House of Commons can override a referendum result -- if the results aren't supported by a clear majority, or if it deems the question to be unclear.

In fact, 66 per cent of Quebecers surveyed and 68 per cent of Canadians in the rest of the country said they would demand that the question of separation be presented clearly.

Since the 1995 referendum, the more favourable conditions for separation seem to have abated in Quebec.

So how is:

"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

a clear question? To me and others it is not. Like what the hell does it even mean?

 

[Jay]

It isn't as if it is written in French.....

 

[#juan]

It isn't as if it is written in French.

No, it is possibly Greek....

 

[annabattler]

The thing that irks me most is that we are PAYING the Bloc Quebecois members to sit in Ottawa....and just think of their pension benefits.
It's nuts.
If Quebec thinks they can go it on their own,then let them do so. They'll lose the northern most part of their province to the Cree,who have land rights there tied up. The Americans are part owner of the St lawrence Seaway...hmmm...that might pose a difficulty. I don't suppose Newfoundland will allow the continued use of their land for Quebec's taking of hydro electric power(and they earn big on this one).

I am losing patience with the whole separatism thing...and I'm tired of being held hostage to the threat.

 

[#juan]

I am losing patience with the whole separatism thing...and I'm tired of being held hostage to the threat.

I think everybody is tired of it. The new PQ leader just promised to take Quebec out of Canada if he was elected. It seems like we've been fighting this battle for years and it never stops. I think the rest of Canada should hold their own referendum and throw them out. We should take away all the land that was given to Quebec after they joined Canada and keep a clear corridor to the maritimes, and give them a bill for their share of the debt.

 

[I think not]

How is it high treason if Quebec never signed on the dotted line?

 

[PoisonPete2]

there is no 'high treason' involved in the seperatist cause. Read the definitions in this thread. A separation through democratic means is a noble thing. What was very sad was to see the Liberal government trying to undermine a democratic process through corrupt practices. That undermined the principles of this country and may well serve to further the seraratist cause. So, in this logic, isn't Cretien ultimately the seditionist?

 

[Jay]

"What was very sad was to see the Liberal government trying to undermine a democratic process through corrupt practices."

Let's hope our dissatisfaction with them is shown at voting time.