We should abolish the crime of treason in Canada

Thanks everyone, I hope you've been enjoying the debate so far. I would like to first rebut what my opponent originally said, then I will look at his new arguments and rebut those, finally, I will post a new argument to support my side. Firstly, in regards to the rebuilding of his first and only point in Round 1: "As we can all see in this rebuttal, he has spent his whole point on his misconstruing the example and its applicability to Canada. ". This is completely untrue. The rebuttal of the Queen as an example is COMPLETELY RELEVANT because PART OF YOUR DEFINITION uses the Queen as a primary condition of treason, "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;". Her Majesty is not just some abstract political figure but a direct reference to the Queen. This is why I think that your definition was bloated, convulated and completely unnecessary to be referenced in its strict legal terms. My opponent concedes this point in the following statement, "The Queen's life, reputation & authority has no relation in the progress of our nation. ". That is one part of your definition already conceded to my portion of the debate. I'd also like to point out that treason is not murder as my partner defined. His examples primarily revolve around the assassination of a high-ranking official, "Some kills the Prime Minister.". This is NOT treason - therefore, these arguments do not apply. As my opponent said, "The law must fit the crime, and my opponent has not argued why this argument, not the example, is wrong." - however, the crime is NOT treason, it is MURDER - and if the individual is convincted of murder then the appropriate punishment for MURDER applies. I will now go into rebutting my opponents two new points: - The Immediacy of Treason My opponent talked about Wikileaks (like myself). He said that they released many documents recently which compromised the security of the government. 1) Because my opponent is being very Canada-centric, I believe it is appropriate to demand how these document releases are applicable to Canada. These are U.S. documents which affect U.S. national security. What does this have to do with Canada? If it has nothing to do with Canada (and my opponent clearly did not provide us with any information that it does - he referred to the compromise of US security only) then there is no immediate threat of international threat - no immediate threat of treason and therefore no NEED for treason. In short, no problem no need. 2) Increased wartime preparation - My opponent has provided no evidence for this. Issues concerning Iran's nuclear arms program have been going on for years now [1] long before the release of the Wikileaks articles as my opponent shows. - National Ties The fact that there is a conflict of identities (this means that he conceded the point that Canada both supports multi-culturalism and thus ideologies behind the culture and national allegiance - which as I mentioned can be in direct conflict with each other) - justifies treason. "With a multi-cultural society, there is less emphasis put on being a Canadian; on loyalty towards our government." - The fact that Canada is a multi-cultural society is a defining characteristic of what Canada is. My opponent did not rebut the fact that Canada supports multi-culturalism within the social fabric of society. He instead says that we should stop being multi-cultural and be completely nationalistic under the euphemism and rhetoric of "national identity". Rebuild - Lack of national loyalty "Without loyalty, there is a lack of security and unity in Canada. Artur has brought this problem, not answering the question of what is more important, the government or personal beliefs.". I think this is an odd way to phrase what I have said. It's not just personal beliefs - but beliefs supported in Canada's charter of rights and freedoms: "(d) freedom of association." [2]. This has nothing to do with personal beliefs. This has to do with the fact that by supporting the crime of treason against government, they are contradicting themselves by allowing individuals to associate with whoever they want. My opponent said that I didn't say why treason is wrong, I thought it was very clear, so I will restate - Why shouldn't we put these individuals to trial who refuse to commit treason against their allegiances? Because it contradicts our very Charter of Rights & Freedoms - the foundation to Canadian Law. - Treason through justice "He believes that the truth (and he makes a jump at justice) is more important than betrayal and treason. One problem: he believes that these whistleblowers are really there to serve justice. There are better avenues in which to propagate this, and second, this was not a fair attack." My opponent has made the most ridiculous attack to a point that he believes "is much more substantial than his first". First, he says that there are better avenues to propagate this, he mentions the court of law. But I will specifically reference Wikileaks and say that one of the most important releases, the Afghan War video that was made was one of the most integral pieces of evidence to serving justice for the families that suffered the death of their family members [3]. These individuals were falsely attacked, the people they were being attacked by were a democratic government. To release this video is treason (because it reveals tactical information of the location of Apache helicopters) but it was a key piece in delivering justice for these families. These families were rejected by court for lack of evidence. Two years later, the evidence (through whisteblowing) is given to them by the community - not the government - by people we would convict not by people we elect. He also said that it wasn't a "fair attack". I don't understand what this means at all - my opponent did not back this point up at all. How should it possibly be a fair attack if there is no fair way of dealing with the issue. The courts refused justice through these individuals - it seems like this was the only alternative. Treason was justified in this case & it did serve truth and justice. And of course it gives a bad image for these countries but is the serving of justice to these countries for barbarically murdering these reporters not worth it just for the image that is hurt by whisteblowing? Absolutely not. Governments are to serve and protect not to take power and abuse it. Treason defies government abuse and I'll go into that briefly next. Treason Defies Government Abuse As was shown in the Wikileaks example - treason can be used for the good. The purpose of law is for the good. A law that disallows something disallows it because it causes harm to society and individuals of society. If a prevention law can be demonstrated to cause good - it shouldn't be illegal to do it. If the government is abusing individuals, if democracy is refusing to acknowledge the issue and if your courts aren't serving you justice. If the people in power refuse to tell the truth - then treason is the only way. My partner just said betrayal, to go against government - this is treason. When should we go against government? When it goes against us, the people. The crime of treason is a "safety net" but for who? My opponent says the government, and I agree, but is it a safety net for the people? Absolutely not - especially when the people are refused the right to go against their government which they elect. // SUMMARY I have rebutted the opponents points, rebuilt my points & presented a new argument. In turn, I've effectively demonstrated why the crime of treason should be abolished. For this, I urge you to VOTE PRO // CITATION [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://laws.justice.gc.ca... [3] http://www.collateralmurder...