We should abolish the crime of treason in Canada

Hello everyone, to my knowledge I recognize that the only time law of treason was actually used in North America was in the U. S. in the mid 20th century. My opponent has failed to argue for the immediate necessity for the crime of treason in Canada and I will be taking the angle - that the crime of treason is no longer relevant to Canadian society - to oppose the resolution set before us today. I would like to make a note of two things first of all before I begin 1) My opponent has given a convoluted and closed definition for the debate. Certainly I realize that the case before us whether not treason ought to be abolished in CANADA but I don't understand why 80% of my opponents point is to define treason in every single matter possible. 2) My opponent has given us a particular argument for treason. Nor has he shown any relevant examples of treason today. My opponent produced the hypothetical of the Queen of England assassination in 2012 and deduced an obscure conclusion from this. To ensure an honest and interesting debate, I will do my best to take what I can from this point and rebuttal it in full. And so to begin, for my part of the debate I will examine the definition my opponent has put forth. I will then be introducing 2 points of my own: 1) I PLEDGE ALLEGIENCE TO (examining the decline in national patriotism and the growth in allegiences to other communal bodies - ie religion - which are in direct conflict with nations) 2) SILENT NO MORE (examining the benefits of treason in modern cases) To close off, I will examine what my opponent has said and we will see whether or not this still supports his case. And so to begin - to examine what my opponent has said in regards to the crime of treason. 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. Now on to my two points ================================ 1) I PLEDGE ALLIEGENCE TO ================================ What this point is really trying to get at is where our allegiences TODAY lie. Do we have that same national fervor that exists decades ago or is it slowly fading away in a world of increasing globalization and fading between national cultures. Especially in a society as multicultural as Canada, it's difficult to see a strong Canadian patriotism. Canada prides itself on its citizens having their own particular cultural fervor as opposed to the melting pot of the USA. What does this mean for treason? Well, in the interesting case of modern times (and the current war in Afghanistan), many Canadian citizens are Muslim citizens. They have a full right to be as mandated by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, there is a potential cross between the two. One the one hand, these citizens are Canadian, on the other hand, their religious allegiances are to Islam. If Canada and the Middle East were to go into direct conflict, would it be just to commit treason against an Islamic individual whose religious allegience is granted by the very government trying to put the individual on trial? If the Canadian government gives religious rights to these individuals but decides to take them away at her will in order to pursue a cause that ultimately benefits the Canadian government & not the individual then this is a poor outlook on justice. Thus, this point fleshes out the current weakness of the crime of treason. In modern times, there is little evidence for a strong patriotic allegience to Canada (much less to the Queen of ENGLAND). However, our own Charter of Rights & Freedoms grants us our ability to practice and pledge our own allegience to our religion. If these two come at a cross, who is really the one committing the treason (or betrayal)? ================================ 2) SILENT NO MORE ================================ There are several modern cases where treason is a force for good in the world. The purpose of this point is to illustrate how "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" can be used as a force for truth & justice at the expense of betrayal and treason. When Wikileaks published the Afghan war video of a U. S. Apache Helicopter shooting innocent civilians - it not only exposed the modus operandi of how the US operated in the Middle East but also exposed the truth about what happened to those reporters. Is this a treasonous example? By my opponents definition, the whistleblower revealed to the enemy (and the rest of the world) sensitive military information - thus it is in accordance with the definition. Should the whistleblower be tried for the crime? What is the purpose of trial - to serve justice. However, had it not been for the whistleblower who revealed to us these videos, the families who suffered for the deaths of these reporters would not have been able to serve justice on those responsible - namely the US government. Whistleblowing as an example of treason really puts the crime of treason at odds with serving justice. If the purpose of our courts is to be just, then for the individuals who do use treason as a force for good (whistleblowing truth rather than allowing our States to propagandize the war to be in our favor and under our control) then why try them for it? Thus, for this point, because treason can be used as a force for good - to show truth & to serve real justice - treason shouldn't be considered a crime. ================================ SUMMARY ================================ For this round, I have substantially rebutted my opponent's one and only point. I have also brought forth two arguments that undermine the validity of the crime of treason (which in turn support the motion to abolish it as a form of law). These two arguments involved the observation of a growing globalization in the world and an apparent multiculturalism in Canada. I thus concluded that if a culture were at odds with Canada (a culture permitted to exist by the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms) then who is committing the treason - is it not Canada who is betraying the citizens right to allegience to their religion/culture? I've also brought forth a case (Wikileaks Afghan War video of a US Apache helicopter shooting down innocent reporters - whose families couldn't take the US Gov. to court due to lack of evidence prior to this release) where treason (via whistle-blowing) is a force for good & therefore shouldn't be considered a crime. It is with these points in mind that I proudly propose to abolish the crime of treason in Canada.