Gregor Samsa wrote: I think you’re being unduly broad with the definition there. Treason is usually regarded in most legal systems as being one of the most serious of all crimes. It’s therefore not something to casually accuse people of. It would also be disingenuous to claim that one actually means a much broader and less serious definition of it, without being explicit about that up front.
holyhead wrote: » You could argue they have a legal right to challenge Government either on the grounds of its actions or legislation. We are after all a democracy. The problem with such freedom is, that it is abused as is the case here. Waters has always been anti establishment. I don't know much about O'Doherty. I do think in taking this case they are 1. Acting recklessly. 2. Wasting court time. 3. Costing the state money at the most inopportune time. 4. Showing disregard for the health of their fellow citizen both in taking this case and drawing a crowd. While the dynamic duo claim the state is unlawfully curtailing our freedom, these wizards are abusing our democracy by taking this case.
brightspark wrote: » This is THE definition of treason.
brightspark wrote: » This is THE definition of treason. "Treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by this Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt."
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » "Abusing democracy by taking this case?" Fruit loop stuff. Have you actually read the legislation they're challenging?
eleventh wrote: » I would say that's not a clear definition. Then again, covid19 has been described as a war situation necessitating emergency laws and powers. I don't know if the term "war" has been used by anyone in the government. I have definitely heard phrases like "war against covid" used in the media.
Risteard81 wrote: » ... an act of treason and aggression against the population.
Brightspark wrote: Most words do have fairly clear definitions, if everyone just made up their own definitions of words then life is going to be very confusing.
eleventh wrote: » Yet every country has its own definition, which you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason Some have lengthy definitions giving several points where treason can be said to occur.
eleventh wrote: » Yet every country has its own definition.
Balf wrote: » Calling it treason is unnecessary ranting. It may simply be Government exceeding it's powers to direct us. That's the point missed by many folk criticising the Court challenge. Ranting about treason doesn't illuminate the issue for them. We don't live in a feudal society, only allowed to do whatever our God-appointed rulers permit. Although that seems to be what some believe. We live in a State where the Government draws its legitimacy from the consent of the people, as defined in the Constitution. In other words, it is the Government that is only allowed to do whatever the Constitution allows. We can do whatever we like, unless it is specifically agreed that we can't. It is absolutely our right to move, assemble and earn a living. Its the Government that's on the back foot, because they have to demonstrate that a proportionate response to the risk of spreading Covid is to stop perfectly healthy people from doing what they want. Not easy, I'd suggest, in a context where its apparently fine for fruit pickers to enter the country from abroad, but absolutely not right for people from Finglas to walk around the Hill of Howth.
brightspark wrote: It's not relevant what other countries define it as, we are talking about in Ireland.
brightspark wrote: Most words do have fairly clear definitions, if everyone just made up their own definitions of words then life is going to be very confusing.
eleventh wrote: » To those who don't want legislation to be questioned you really don't have to do much to get your wish. Totalitarianism is on the way. Most here want to speed it up by the sounds of it. The government must be glad to have such support. All they have to do is pay people 350/week to sit on social media posting on how much they dislike people who disagree with the government and how much they want lockdowns to continue(or escalate). It is sad that so many are almost begging for their own demise, seemingly unaware that that is what they're doing.
eleventh wrote: » My reply was to your idea that the same definition of treason applies everywhere - obviously not true. I did quote what you said when replying. Here it is again for you:
eleventh wrote: » My reply was to your idea that the same definition of treason applies everywhere - obviously not true.
brightspark wrote: No you are actually proving my point by extending the definition beyond it's actual meaning here in Ireland.
kippy wrote: » In this instance, what is/was the alternative?
eleventh wrote: » It's not a legal forum so I did not give a text book definition. People who are interested in the longer definition can look it up easily enough.
eleventh wrote: » 1) What point are you referring to? Quote it. "if everyone just made up their own definitions of words then life is going to be very confusing." 2) Where did I "extend the definition beyond it's actual meaning here in Ireland". Quote that as well.
Gregor Samsa wrote: You’re confusing “dictionary definition” with “legal definition”. The dictionary definition of treason. - The crime of betrayal of one’s country, is universal. The legal definition of what specifically constitutes such a betrayal is dependent on the laws of the given country.
eleventh wrote: » I am not confusing them because it wasn't a legal discussion in the first place. If I intended the discuss the constitutional definition specifically, I would have mentioned it. Since I did not, it should be taken that I meant treason, as you say, in the general English language sense of "the crime of betrayal of one’s country". And that is serious enough in my mind, I don't know about anyone else.
brightspark wrote: A betrayal of trust may be treasonous, but treason isn't always a betrayal of trust.
Treason has an accepted definition in Ireland, you seem to be trying to extend it's meaning beyond that.
brightspark wrote: So in a thread about a challenge to legislation based on it's constitutionality you want to ignore the definitions used in that constitution?
eleventh wrote: » I said the definition in the constitution is unclear. That's actually all I said on it.
Gregor Samsa wrote: No, you gave a specific definition that allows you to claim that what you mean isn’t what everyone else understands. That’s an example of using “weasel words”, which is another linguistic technique, and a particularly underhand one at that.
eleventh wrote: » That is not the reality of the situation we are in though. The Irish government's whole policy has been based on what happened in other countries. Almost every measure they have taken has been copying what other countries did. How does any of that have relevance to the discussion, of either a) people in Ireland protesting or not b) people challenging the legality of the emergency laws
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b866050111185697984c86572569f0ea.svg)