This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Treason Felony Act 1848

The Treason Felony Act 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 12) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Act is still in force. It is a law which protects the Queen and the Crown. The penalty is life imprisonment

It is treason felony to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend":

-to deprive the Queen of her crown,
-to levy war against the Queen, or
-to "move or stir" any foreigner to invade the United Kingdom or any other country belonging to the Queen.

[MODEDIT]

I intend for us to have a discussion on the Act. Whether it is right or wrong.

So, let's discuss it...

Reply 1

Teveth

OP

17

In my opinion, it's an absolute farce that in this day and age such a law can exist. Even though it is unenforceable by the courts because in contravenes the Human Rights Act, free speech is still affected by it, as demonstarted by the mod who deleted my thread encouraging people to break the law.

Reply 2

Quady

20

So you want to completely change the basis of the constitution?

Reply 3

Teveth

OP

17

Quady

So you want to completely change the basis of the constitution?

Sorry..what? How would getting rid of this Act completely change the basis of the constitution? What is the basis of the constitution?

If the basis of the constitution is to protect the Crown by supressing free speech and thought, then yes, I want to change that. Any reasonable person would.

Reply 4

Prince Rhyus

15

See if you can make sense of:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030626/rus-1.htm

Reply 5

Prince Rhyus

15

Ditto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom#Final_abolition

Reply 6

mabrookes

14

Its law by technicality, and all laws after it supercede it - and as there are plenty of these laws that stop this act having any chance of affecting anyone, I dont know why you're concerned (basically its not possible to get prosecuted succesfully with this act, because any part of it that can be used can also be defended by newer laws that stop it)

I like it.
Good law.

Teveth

In my opinion, it's an absolute farce that in this day and age such a law can exist. Even though it is unenforceable by the courts because in contravenes the Human Rights Act

Contravening the Human Rights Act certainly does not make a law unenforceable.

Treason legislation is an odd one. It assumes allegiance to the state from the citizen. I'm not sure that should be naturally given. If it is, then I see no problems with the Treason-Felony Act.

mabrookes

Its law by technicality, and all laws after it supercede it - and as there are plenty of these laws that stop this act having any chance of affecting anyone, I dont know why you're concerned (basically its not possible to get prosecuted succesfully with this act, because any part of it that can be used can also be defended by newer laws that stop it)

And what laws do you think these are?

Reply 9

Ancestor

Teveth

In my opinion, it's an absolute farce that in this day and age such a law can exist. Even though it is unenforceable by the courts because in contravenes the Human Rights Act, free speech is still affected by it, as demonstarted by the mod who deleted my thread encouraging people to break the law.

So, you're emitting a knee-jerk, outraged response (with a clear republican agenda) to a law which has already been confirmed as unable to survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act?

There are plenty of anachronistic laws which are still in existence.

Do you see people crying over the fact, in England, all men over the age of 14 must carry out two hours of longbow practice a day?

For procedural purposes, perhaps they should be repealed. But, their practical application is so implausible that time could be better spent elsewhere.

Reply 10

mabrookes

14

L i b

Contravening the Human Rights Act certainly does not make a law unenforceable.

Treason legislation is an odd one. It assumes allegiance to the state from the citizen. I'm not sure that should be naturally given. If it is, then I see no problems with the Treason-Felony Act.

And what laws do you think these are?

Well the guardian had an unsuccesful challenge to the act, but only because the judges felt they couldnt act on a hypothetical situation. And these judges agreed with the idea that "the part of section 3 of the 1848 Act which appears to criminalise the advocacy of republicanism is a relic of a bygone age and does not fit into the fabric of our modern legal system. The idea that section 3 could survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act is unreal."

There are other precedents that someone argued against me with (I thought this was still enforcable, but I have lived with 3 law students who like to prove people wrong), and the ones they mentioned certainly showed it is very unlikely.