Let’s start with some good old English law. Some of you may remember it passing through Parliament.
Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 created the offence of treason felony, which is separate from (though related to) the older offence of high treason.
Yes, those glorious oppressive and archaic traditions of treason. How many lost their heads for that little beauty. Rhetorical!
In simple terms, it makes it a serious criminal offence for a person to:
- Intend to remove the monarch from the throne.
- Wage war against the monarch within the UK to force the government to change its policies.
- Use force or intimidation against Parliament.
- Encourage or assist a foreign power to invade the UK or other territories under the Crown.
The Act also requires that these intentions be expressed or demonstrated, for example, through published writings or an overt act, not merely kept as private thoughts.
Modern interpretation
Although the Act remains in force, it is interpreted in light of modern human rights law. Peacefully advocating constitutional change, such as campaigning to abolish the monarchy through democratic means, is not regarded as an offence. The law is aimed at violent or coercive attempts to overthrow the constitutional order, not lawful political debate or praxis.
Current penalty?
The original punishment of transportation to Australia or Canada for life has long been replaced for obvious reasons. (Principally because the idea of a punishment is not supposed to lead to a person becoming overwhelmed in ecstasy.) Today, a person convicted of a treason felony is liable to life imprisonment. (This is much less enjoyable and is widely accepted as more like a punishment).
Now we have the 180-year-old legislation sorted; herewith the massive cockwomble who believes that any immigrant who enters the country and is then supported by those who reside here should be guilty of treason. Don’t take my word for it. Here is the massive cockwomble himself.
For the benefit of this cockwomble and any other cockwomble, here is why the 1848 Act cannot be interpreted in this way:
Those who support or do not oppose immigration into the UK should not be prosecuted under Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 because their views do not satisfy the legal elements of the offence.
The offence is concerned with using force or unlawful means to undermine the constitutional order, not with expressing opinions or praxis regarding public policy. Immigration is a matter for Parliament and the government to determine through democratic processes. Supporting higher immigration, lower immigration, or maintaining current immigration levels are all legitimate political positions.
There are several reasons why the Act would not apply:
- Political opinion is protected. Freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to advocate for changes in government policy, including immigration policy.
- Immigration is not treason. Supporting immigration does not amount to intending to depose the monarch, wage war against the Crown, or compel Parliament by force.
- No use of force or coercion. Section 3 targets conduct involving force, violence, intimidation, or assistance to an invading force. Simply believing that immigration benefits the UK, or opposing restrictions on immigration, involves none of these elements.
- Democratic debate is lawful. The UK constitutional system depends on people being free to argue for different policies. Governments have changed immigration rules repeatedly over the decades through legislation and elections, demonstrating that immigration policy is an ordinary subject of democratic disagreement.
In short, a person who supports immigration into the UK, or who does not oppose it, is exercising a political opinion. Unless they also engage in conduct that falls within the specific elements of the offence, such as using force against Parliament or assisting a hostile invasion, there is no basis for prosecution under the Treason Felony Act 1848.
The Act is directed at protecting the constitutional order from violent or coercive attacks, not at criminalising disagreement over public policy.
Thus, what we have is a person who knows less about UK law than bacteria on Halley’s Comet marching into a police station and demanding a crime number for behaviour that has absolutely nothing to do with anything outside of his bigoted imagination.
The moral of this story: DO NOT BE A MASSIVE COCKWOMBLE!! And film it.
