We have legal constraints--laws protecting people from being libelled and slandered and the state from sedition ...
The context was the human rights bill in Canada, "protecting" people from "hate talk". The one up in arms is called Haroon Sidiqui, who says Muslims are being targeted. Yawn. There are too many real problems at the moment to worry about, without going into that.
Scaramouche was saying, I think, that the law of the country as it stands can take care of "hate talk" without setting up a multi-billion dollar Human Rights Commission under the control of certain pressure groups. Now, in the middle of all that I saw one word - "sedition".
Sedition
Let's look at changes to British law:
First, the RIP Act. You can be spied upon by your government for what, on the face of it, are good reasons (you're a criminal etc.) but there are some appalling reasons there too. Section 22 sets out the reasons you can be spied upon by your own government:
Section 22 says:It is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection to obtain communications data if it is necessary-Now section (h) here requires both Houses of Parliament to review the draft order, but what the hell does (c) mean if it's not the same as (b)?
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d) in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;
(g) for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or any damage to a person's physical or mental health, or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person's physical or mental health; or
(h) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.
The UK situation with sedition
Legislation under George III for example made it an offence to use any words to excite hatred and contempt of the king, government or constitution, particularly speech that might have a "tendency" to cause disloyalty in the armed forces.
Look at this post and this one. That's sedition, James and James, even though you were pointing out how the government has sold its armed forces down the drain.
You may not criticize the government.
The Treason Felony Act 1848 made it a serious offence, punishable by transportation, to call in print or writing for the establishment of a republic, even by peaceful means. As of 2004 it remained in force (athough last used in 1883), with life imprisonment as the maximum penalty.
You may not criticize the form of government, its composition or advocate ways to make it more responsive to public opinion. If you take up the invitation to write to N10's suggestion box, you are now on file.
They, of course, are allowed to destroy the Lords and stack it with Labour peers, they are allowed to sell Britain out to the EU [which still does not legitimately exist until post-Lisbon 2], they are allowed to sell off Britain's gold reserves for a song but if you start talking proportional representation or doing away with the monarchy, that's sedition, boy!
Now here are two I adore:
# violates the King's wife or the Sovereign's eldest daughter unmarried or the wife of the Sovereign's eldest son and heir", with or without the consent of those women
That's choice. I'll have to try it with the second daughter then.
# "slays the chancellor, treasurer, or the king's justices" while carrying out their duties.
Duties? Er ... like selling out Britain?
Applicability
Of course, this is all largely ceremonial at this time but it is still a useful little arrow to have in the quiver. Let me give a possible scenario:
Lisbon 2 is passed by Ireland. The EU, poised, swoops and officially assumes the organs of power in what was once the UK. The blogosphere erupts and the major bloggers are rounded up and shut down. Remember they're allowed to be waterboarded. How long was the detention for these days?
All of it silently, inexorably put in place - the legal right to snuff out dissent. Who will actually do all this? Well the traitors in Common Purpose, of course, the socialists who've now been trained to "lead beyond authority" and take over the functions of state during the turmoil.
America
America is a little different - FEMA's your problem there. What it comes down to, quite simply, is this - when American troops, even acting for FEMA, are asked to round up or shoot their own citizens, they have a big problem in their heads.
Many American armed personnel have gone online to say that their loyalty is to the Constitution and the Country, not to Obama or anyone else in Washington. It happened in Vietnam, it happened elsewhere - they'll shoot the officer who gave the order to fire on his own people.
The complication is if he's told, 'If you don't do this, your family gets it.' Then it gets a bit tricky. Yessir, it's a bit tricky in the U.S.A. at this time and the people ain't happy. Not only that but do they really think anyone's going to surrender his gun in the amnesty?
.
