High treason, treason, treasonous conspiracy
https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-46.html
High treason
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.
Marginal note:Treason
(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.
Marginal note:Canadian citizen
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,
(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or
(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).
Marginal note:Overt act
(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 461974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2
FOR EMPHASIS
(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto
FOR EMPHASIS
(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
FOR EMPHASIS
(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph
FOR EMPHASIS
(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.
Does this apply to politicians who hold office? Yes, of course.
To build the case, demand from elected reps the evidence that would make rock solid the accusations that have formed the basis of the PM's declaration of emergency.
Empty assertions do not suffice. A vote in the HOUSE is probably protected, however, if there is a conspiracy to wage war on Canada, on Canadians, then, the case can be made POLITICALLY, at the very least, that a baseless declaration of emergency, without an actual emergency in evidence, is to partake in a conspiracy that is treasonous.
There may be a legal case, as well, but first and foremost call your reps and collect the evidence that THEY do not have evidence to support the asserted emergency. If they refuse to share the basis, then, they are acting in secret even when casting a vote in HOUSE. That should not stand.
Each Canadian, whether in favour or against mandates, is entitled to see the direct evidence that would support, make rock solid, the currently empty assertions of unlawfulness and so forth.
The declaration, if it were to go into effect with various orders proposed by PM, might then make unlawful what has been lawful. Please note that the PM in his news converence said that 'the protests are no longer legal'.
FOR EMPHASIS - no longer legal. Meaning the protests were legal all all along BEFORE the faulty premise of the decree of emergency. The real question at THIS MOMENT is whether or not the decree is lawfully supported by evidence. If not, it does not meet the basic criteria for enactment.