You gonna actually lay out your case for that? Because I’m pretty sure you’re wrong, but it’s hard to say when you haven’t even offered any justification for your argument.
The regime has made overt commentary and motions of hostility toward Canada, and has vociferously stated a desire for lebensraum in Canada, Greenland, and other neighboring countries. When they talk about neo-Monroe doctrine, they’re really talking about neocolonialism. They’re “joking” until they’re not. It’s an established pattern and practice with the regime, now as well as in the first stint they had.
Hi there, you seem to be confused about how laws work in Canada. See, unlike our neighbours to the south, we have this crazy notion that civil rights do in fact matter.
That includes the right not to be subject to investigation without reasonable suspicion of a crime. There being no evidence that someone has not committed a crime is not a reasonable basis for an investigation.
Do you drive? Prove you haven’t ever committed vehicular manslaughter. Do you own bolt cutters? Prove you’ve never used them to break and enter. Do you have alcohol or weed in your home? Prove you’ve never sold them to minors. Have you ever been near a school? Prove you’re not a child rapist.
See how this works? Saying that someone was in a situation where they could have a comitted a crime cannot be the basis for a criminal investigation, or else we’d be investigating everyone, all the time.
The Alberta separatists are pathetic scumbags, but they’re not automatically criminals just because you don’t like what they did. That’s toddler logic.
I think you’re mistaking “investigation” with “prosecution” or something else. The cops can investigate literally anyone. You can hire a PI to investigate anyone.
There are limits however on what investigative actions can be legally taken by cops based on the evidence they have. Even with no evidence, they can still do things like interview people who know the POI, even follow them around in public. They can’t, for example, detain them and beat a confession out of them, or search their house willy nilly.
It’s unlikely that these dorks are leakng military info, but they should definitely be investigated. I think the real question is whether the US are using “force or violence”, which would fall under C) and A)
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.
Criminal charges are federal in Canada, but charges are laid by crown prosecutors in that particular province (never by the government itself)
I do actually think 2b-e are all applicable here.
You gonna actually lay out your case for that? Because I’m pretty sure you’re wrong, but it’s hard to say when you haven’t even offered any justification for your argument.
The regime has made overt commentary and motions of hostility toward Canada, and has vociferously stated a desire for lebensraum in Canada, Greenland, and other neighboring countries. When they talk about neo-Monroe doctrine, they’re really talking about neocolonialism. They’re “joking” until they’re not. It’s an established pattern and practice with the regime, now as well as in the first stint they had.
This is why a full investigation must take place. Until then we have no proof that the meeting did not violate paragraph b.
Paragraph B is the kicker, because we do know they met with a foreign power that has stated it wants to expand into Canada.
Hi there, you seem to be confused about how laws work in Canada. See, unlike our neighbours to the south, we have this crazy notion that civil rights do in fact matter.
That includes the right not to be subject to investigation without reasonable suspicion of a crime. There being no evidence that someone has not committed a crime is not a reasonable basis for an investigation.
Do you drive? Prove you haven’t ever committed vehicular manslaughter. Do you own bolt cutters? Prove you’ve never used them to break and enter. Do you have alcohol or weed in your home? Prove you’ve never sold them to minors. Have you ever been near a school? Prove you’re not a child rapist.
See how this works? Saying that someone was in a situation where they could have a comitted a crime cannot be the basis for a criminal investigation, or else we’d be investigating everyone, all the time.
The Alberta separatists are pathetic scumbags, but they’re not automatically criminals just because you don’t like what they did. That’s toddler logic.
I think you’re mistaking “investigation” with “prosecution” or something else. The cops can investigate literally anyone. You can hire a PI to investigate anyone.
There are limits however on what investigative actions can be legally taken by cops based on the evidence they have. Even with no evidence, they can still do things like interview people who know the POI, even follow them around in public. They can’t, for example, detain them and beat a confession out of them, or search their house willy nilly.
It’s unlikely that these dorks are leakng military info, but they should definitely be investigated. I think the real question is whether the US are using “force or violence”, which would fall under C) and A)
I’m getting real sick of people ignoring 3/4 of the shit they’re supposedly quoting.
For some reason a lot of y’all wanna bend over backwards to defend this shit.
🙄
Pray tell, what would these dumbfucks even know about science enough that it’s worth leaking?
Bent so far back you’re crowning.
“anything I don’t like is treason”
No you’re just ignorant of history and have your head up your ass.
© and (d) are circular, unless “high treason” is defined elsewhere. According to this, high treason is treason on its own.
High treason is defined in the previous section;
High treason