Freeman on the Land?

[Eaglelord17]

I know they're ... original in their interpretation of how they fit into the existing legal frameworks, but I haven't seen/heard any of them call for violence/use of force to change government. Sounds like they figure they're outside of ANY government.

If not understanding how the legal system (or choosing to ignore it for your own "what colour is the sky in your world?" legal set-up) was a crime, 1) they wouldn't be alone in being guilty, and 2) FAFO.

Declaring yourself sovereign and the monarch of a country no matter how wrong you are is sedition.

Just the declaration that they are sovereign without a democratic process is a forcible government change even if they didn’t directly attack someone.

 

[ModlrMike]

Declaring yourself sovereign and the monarch of a country no matter how wrong you are is sedition.

Just the declaration that they are sovereign without a democratic process is a forcible government change even if they didn’t directly attack someone.

It appears that according to the CCC, force is a fundamental component of sedition:

Seditious words

• 59 (1) Seditious words are words that express a seditious intention.
• Marginal note:Seditious libel
  
  (2) A seditious libel is a libel that expresses a seditious intention.
• Marginal note:Seditious conspiracy
  
  (3) A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out a seditious intention.
• Marginal note:Seditious intention
  
  (4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression seditious intention, every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who
  
  • (a) teaches or advocates, or
  • (b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,
  • the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.

• R.S., c. C-34, s. 60