We should abolish the crime of treason in Canada

First of all, before I start with my arguments and rebuttals, i would like to clarify a few things. Artur, instead of attacking the argument itself, attacked the example. Especially as it was used to illustrate how a leader's death can affect the followers. Obviously, I was not linking the Queen of England's death to Canada. A convoluted and closed definition? As we are arguing about the crime of treason in Canada, I hardly think that a direct quote from the Canadian Code about the crime of treason is a big leap to make, as it is the very crime we are talking about. This debate is not closed whatsoever and I do not know why my opponent decided to spend a few lines attacking the definition. Artur attacked me about not making the crime necessary and immediate. As I did not say that the crime must stay on sake of it being immediate, I believe that artur's basis is not really directly against mine, as it would necessarily mean he did not have to disagree with me on how treason is a bad thing and we need a crime to rectify it. With these three points in mind, I am going to first, rebuild my points, delve into two other points, then rebut the opposition's two points. 1.) My point about the crime of treason and that from a legal perspective, the law must be there to adequately punish treason. I gave an example of how a leader's death, Queen of England, can affect the citizenry, England. I gave examples of how it could, going into economic downturn and social chaos. Obviously, I was not referring to the Queen's affect on Canada. My opponent attacked this example and supposedly, because the example is destroyed, the conclusion is flawed. "It is difficult to discern what has been said in his one and only argument. His only example is in regards to the killing of the Queen. However, I would like to point out that the Queen of England has very little political influence and hold over the Canadian government & society. Certainly to take treasonous action against the Queen would have an impact on not only Canada but the whole world - however, this is of no special nature to the governing body at all. The Queen's life, reputation & authority has no relation in the progress of our nation. My opponent has done very little to illustrate this and I will point out that the only way the Queen of England has any impact on Canadian society at all is through the representation of a Governor General. I would like to ultimately summarize that what my opponent has said is mute, irrelevant and has not made a substantial case for the crime of treason." As we can all see in this rebuttal, he has spent his whole point on his misconstruing the example and its applicability to Canada. Then let me give another example to illustrate this point that hopefully the opposition cannot misconstrue: Some kills the Prime Minister. As due to this death, just like as in previous examples of assassinations in the United States, the society is severely disturbed by it. Due to this, the very security of the nation is at stake. With this instability, the economy is hurt with people saving money. Just as in my first example, we can see that the leader's assassination affects more than just himself and the assassin. The law must fit the crime, and my opponent has not argued why this argument, not the example, is wrong. Thus, it still stands. I would like to go into two points: The Immediacy of Treason and National Ties a.) This point talks about how treason is an immediate danger and how it affects Canada detrimentally. As we all know, Canada is involved in a conflict in Afghanistan. With the advent of WikiLeaks and it's treasonous actions against Canada, there is a problem of treasonous activity. Furthermore, where these leaks or breaches of security happen, they compromise the safety of the government. For example, with the leak about the comment against Iran, the international stage has been harmed. Even with this small leak about a Saudi Arabian comment to the U.S., Iran is now legitimizing its paranoia with the comment and in turn, boosting wartime preparation. Obviously, this compromises the safety of the world and of Canada, with rogue states having more precedent in which to attack our nation. As I based the case of "what is best for the government", treason is no small matter. As we now know treason is an immediate threat, the government cannot suddenly abolish a pertinent law. Arturo talked about the conflict of identities; and it is exactly for that reason that treason should be considered a crime. With a multi-cultural society, there is less emphasis put on being a Canadian; on loyalty towards our government. Thus, treason also acts as a safety net; as a governmental support of national identity, on focusing on what binds us together as opposed to what separates us. If there is a conflict of national loyalties (or between religion; I will address this fallacious example in my rebuttal) then obviously, as the government of Canada, we want loyalty to ourselves and NOT towards another governing body. Why? I think it pretty simple. Less loyalty and less obedience towards us, means less authority over everyone. That is not good for our power and security as a government. Thus, treason is a way to unify and secure an importance of national identity. REBUTTAL Artur gave me a plethora of information to deal with in his arguments, and most (sad enough) rhetoric around the same point. Thus, I am going to skim off all the excess fat and go straight to rebut his main points. In his first point, Artur enlightened us about the lack of national loyalty in today's age. We, again as the central government, want national loyalty, a trust in our ability to conduct the society's affairs. 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. Using a hypothetical, Artur then brought forth a "potential" conflict of interests, citing the Charter of Rights, guaranteeing the right to religion. Then he talked about Islam. First of all, Islam is not a political ideology, and a conflict in the Middle East that galvanized this person to support the Middle East would show loyalty to the Arab world. Besides that, his example again just brings up the question, not answering it. This side will answer it; for the charter to guarantee those rights to an individual, the country must first be there to give it. Now, if treason was allowed, I have proven in my points that it would severely hinder or even destroy that nation. Without the nation, there is no freedom. Again, he has not proven his position, merely raised an issue without firm analysis into WHY it supports his side. Hence, I think it is safe to say that the government would think that loyalty to itself it better than loyalty to some nationalist movement. That point falls. In his second point, which I believe is much more substantial than his first, Artur talks about the moral decision of a person or group, like WikiLeaks, to spread information about the government. 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. They released all the documents to media outlets as opposed to, for example, engaging in prosecuting the government. If Artur really believes in justice, then at least permit a fair jury to find them guilty and not a media-biased perspective of what really happened. Second, the international backlash against these countries hurts their image and their authority (as explained in my second point with Iran). Really, the opp has to explain WHY this is bad for Canada's government. As he has not, vote for the winner.