ValueSubtracted

I'm describing Eby's use of the word casual, as I don't think he, as an elected official, should be accusing people of crimes - especially those with an extraordinarily high bar.

Do I think the Alberta separatists are wrong? Yes.

Do I consider it a betrayal? Yes.

Am I fine with the average person on the street using the word "treason" to describe it. Sure.

Do I think elected officials should do the same? No.

is as threating if not more than military buildup.

I really don't think that would hold up in court, and in any case it is irrelevant to whether the Alberta separatists are sharing military secrets, or doing anything that would meet Canada's legal definition of treason.

As was pointed out when that was discussed earlier this week, no they aren't. They're trying to convince us that our military will be weaker if we don't buy their planes, and that they will have to pick up the slack.

The administration isn't that bright. When they threaten military force, it won't be subtle.

Legally speaking? Almost certainly not.

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, 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 that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.