The legal concept of treason began as a statute in the 1300s under the reign of King Edward III of England. It was specifically directed at the crimes of waging war against the throne, aiding enemies of the King or contemplating his death. About 100 years later, the law of treason was expanded to include almost any act that went against the King’s will and naturally was used to silence any opposition to the throne.
But a sovereign state does have the right and obligation to protect itself from those that would do it harm directly or indirectly by acts of espionage and subversion. Mildred Gillars, a US citizen who became known as Axis Sally, was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a Nazi radio station during World War II. The problem has always been to limit the definition of “treason” to avoid its use as a political tool.
However, in usage by ordinary people, we usually substitute the word “betrayal” for the legal term “treason.” We speak of being betrayed in a relationship. The consensus among major Islamic schools is that apostasy (leaving Islam) is considered treason against the state and a betrayal of the faith.
Sixteenth-century English author and Courtier Sir John Harington wrote, “Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prospers, none dare call it treason.” In other words, acts of treason are rarely if ever completely successful because espionage, sedition and the like are eventually discovered and punished. But it is those actions that undermine the state—not the government—and society that are not called treasonous that are successful and do the damage.
US Sen. and Civil War Gen. Carl Schurz wrote, “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” Some have twisted his words to justify blind allegiance to the state and the government, which was the farthest thing from Schurz’s mind. He was speaking of correcting the failures of a nation when he spearheaded the political movement to end US slavery. Schurz was German-born and deemed a “radical revolutionary” by the Kingdom of Prussia.
Constructive criticism to the end of “setting the country right” is critically important. But constant criticisms that do not offer any solutions to problems are a different story and may even be destructive. Could this destructive criticism be considered a form of treason?
Freedom of opinion and speech is vital and should never be tempered or restricted. However, the people have a right and obligation to protect their nation and society from those that would undermine and damage the country. We can do this by recognizing those that are hurting not helping make the nation better by calling them out. While we may not call it treason, maybe, in a sense, we should. In the biblical book of Matthew it is written, “Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves.”
****
E-mail me at mangun@gmail.com. Visit my web site at www.mangunonmarkets.com. Follow me on Twitter @mangunonmarkets. PSE stock-market information and technical analysis tools provided by the COL Financial Group Inc.