overview
studies
Australia
elsewhere
cases
online
landmarks
related
Guides:
Free speech & censorship
Hatespeech
& politics
Governance
Security
& InfoCrime
related
Profiles:
Flag burning
Surveillance
|
elsewhere
This page discusses other sedition regimes
It covers -
As
with the preceding page it supplements the discussion
elsewhere on this site of censorship
and hatespeech.
 Canada
The Canadian regime derives from the UK.
Part II of the Canadian Criminal Code deals with 'Offences
against Public Order'. It includes sedition (ss. 59-61),
treason (ss. 46-50), sabotage (s. 52), incitement to mutiny
(s. 53) and an offence of intimidating Parliament or the
legislature of a province by an act of violence (s. 51).
Seditious intention encompasses everyone 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.
In
1951 the Supreme Court of Canada - in Boucher v The King
- held that although a leaflet by a Jehovah's Witness
was intended to engender protest and indignation against
the government (including the courts), that alone was
insufficient for a conviction -
An
intention to bring the administration of justice into
hatred and contempt or exert disaffection against it
is not sedition unless there is also the intention to
incite people to violence against it
UK
UK sedition law crystallised under the Tudors and Stuarts
(eg the offence of was first created in 1606 by the Star
Chamber's 1606 de Libellis Famosis decision on
seditious libel) after use of the more diffuse 1352 English
Statute of Treasons, with elaboration during
subsequent dynasties at times of crisis such as the Napoleonic
Wars and chartist agitation.
Legislation under George III for example made it an offence
to use any words to excite hatred and contempt of the
king, government or constitution, particularly speech
that might have a "tendency" to cause disloyalty
in the armed forces. The Old Bailey Proceedings
indicate that 50 people were tried for "seditious
words" in London from 1688 to 1794; a greater number
were sentenced and deported to destinations such as Australia
during the following 50 years under legislation such as
the 1819 'Six Acts' in England (including the Blasphemous
& Seditious Libel Act). The Treason Felony
Act 1848 made it a serious offence, punishable by
transportation, to call in print or writing for the establishment
of a republic, even by peaceful means. As of 2004 it remained
in force (athough last used in 1883), with life imprisonment
as the maximum penalty.
UK anti-sedition legislation was strengthened during 1917
and throughout the century, although there were few prosecutions.
The Terrorism Act 2000 outlaws certain UK and
international terrorist groups, gives police enhanced
powers to investigate terrorism (including wider stop
& search and detention powers), and creates new criminal
offences, including " inciting terrorist acts",
"seeking or providing training for terrorist purposes
at home or overseas" and
"providing instruction or training in the use of
firearms, explosives or chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons".
other European states
Other European states feature legislation restricting
sedition and incitement or endorsement of terrorism.
In 2006 for example Spain's High Court jailed Basque politician
Arnaldo Otegi, leader of the outlawed pro-separatist Batasuna
party, for 15 months for "glorifying terrorism"
by praising Eta leader Jose Miguel Benaran Ordenana at
a memorial service in 2003. He was also banned from standing
for political office or voting for seven years. Otegi
is thought to have played a decisive role in persuading
Eta armed separatists to declare a permanent ceasefire.
He denied that his homage amounted to glorification of
terrorism or Eta: "My message was only an act of
remembrance for a person murdered 25 years ago for political
reasons". He had been sentenced to a year's imprisonment
in 2005 for insulting Spain's monarch, whom he accused
of being "responsible for torturers", but the
term was waived as "a first offence".
US
The UK 'bad tendency' doctrine was retained in US law,
despite adoption of the First Amendment, with the 1798
federal Alien & Sedition Laws for example enabling
action against "false, scandalous, and malicious
writings" against the government, Congress or President
intended to defame,
excite hatred or "stir up sedition". Theodore
Roosevelt sought a treaty that would make advocacy of
killing an offence under international law. Congress more
modestly provided legislation to exclude entry into the
US of anyone "teaching disbelief in opposition to
all organised government".
The federal Espionage Act of 1917 updated 1861
legislation, identifying the offense of attempting to
cause "disloyalty" in the armed forces. The
1918 Sedition Act, attributable to political
opportunism and anti-Wobbly/Bolshevik hysteria, made it
a crime to
utter
or publish any disloyal language intended to cause contempt
for the American form of government, or the Constitution,
or the flag, or the uniform of the Army or Navy.
As
with defamation law it was defended on the basis that
citizens would otherwise take matters into their own hands.
It is estimated that over 300 people were jailed during
1919 and 1920 under state sedition legislation. E V Starr
was sentenced to hard labor in the Montana state penitentiary
for refusing a mob's demand that he kiss the flag
and then characterising it as "nothing but a piece
of cotton" with "a little bit of paint".
A reprise of the US Espionage and Sedition
Acts (repealed in 1921) was found in the 1940 federal
Alien Registration Act ('Smith Act'). That legislation
made it a criminal offense to
knowingly
or wilfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty,
necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing
the Government of the United States or of any State
by force or violence.
1920s
anxieties about corrupting the armed forces or more broadly
subverting the 'american way' were echoed in McCarthy
era tests and inquiries about "disloyal, subversive,
communist, or un-American" acts. They encompassed
investigation by bodies such as the Subversive Activities
Control Board and the House Un-American Activities Committee
and formal listings of subversive organisations.
Asia and Africa
States in Asia and Africa have recurrently deployed sedition
and security legislation that derives from their UK and
French colonial heritage. Those regimes but omits acontemporary
constraints.
Gambian law, for example, chills an independent press
through prison terms for reporters found guilty of sedition
- broadly defined - or libel and a requirement that newspaper
proprietors must sign a US$16,600 bond (with their houses
as guarantees) to be allowed to publish.
Malaysia and Singapore have both made active use of sedition/anti-terrorism
legislation to silence internal political dissent and
online expression. Chinese law and practice features substantial
restrictions against criticism of the Communist Party
and against statements by/for the Falun Gong sect.
Law in the Hong Kong SAR melds UK and PRC rigour. The
Crimes Ordinance for example deals with "acts done
with a seditious intent, the uttering of seditious words,
dealing with seditious publication or the possession of
such publications". Sedition encompasses an intent
to counsel disobedience to law or to any lawful order,
or to raise discontent or disaffection among Hong Kong
inhabitants. Substantive effects are not required for
prosecution, with courts instead considering the defendant's
words have a tendency to incite disobedience or discontent
rather than an intent to incite violence. A 'seditious
intent' is not required for prosecution of those
who deal with or possess seditious publications.
In Malaysia the 1948 Sedition Act, a relic of that era's
state of emergency, deals with anyone who, does or attempts
to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with
any person to do any act that has or would have a seditious
tendency, who utters any seditious words, or who prints,
publishes or imports any seditious publication. It is
a crime to possess without lawful excuse
any seditious publication. A seditious tendency includes
a tendency to "question any matter, right, status,
position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established
or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal
constitution".
Recent perspectives from China and Malaysia are the RSF
report
on Chinese censorship of chat rooms, the 2003 Information
Control and Self-Censorship in the PRC and the Spread
of SARS report (PDF)
by the US Congressional Executive Commission on China,
the 2003 Memorandum on the Malaysian Sedition Act
1948 (PDF)
by Article 19 and Davidson, Friesen & Jackson's 2001
'Lawyers and the Rule of Law on Trial: Sedition Prosecutions
in Malaysia 'in Criminal Law Forum 2001. A perspective
on practice in Singapore is provided by Chris Lydgate's
Lee's Law: How Singapore Crushes Dissent (Melbourne:
Scribe 2003)
Oceania
States in the Pacific have made increasing use of sedition
prosecutions to dampen criticism. In 1997 for example
Taimi 'o Tonga editor Filokalafi 'Akau'ola was
charged with sedition after criticising corruption in
the Tongan establishment. The newspaper subsequently moved
offshore. In 2003 the Tongan Supreme Court twice overturned
a government ban on its import based on claims that it
was seditious. Sedition prosecutions have elsewhere been
used in Fiji (particularly after the Rambuka coup), the
Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea and Solomons.
next page (cases)
|
|
