Would You Call THIS Treason?

[starroute]

18. It's technically subversion, not treason

Subversion is easy to describe but it's almost impossible to define legally because it's difficult to separate it from free speech and legitimate political activity. In the few places where there are laws against subversion, like China, they've often been turned against dissidents. So the activities listed in the OP are definitely a problem, but calling them treason when they aren't only confuses the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversion

Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place, are contradicted or reversed. More specifically, subversion can be described as an attack on the public morale and, "the will to resist intervention are the products of combined political and social or class loyalties which are usually attached to national symbols. Following penetration, and parallel with the forced disintegration of political and social institutions of the state, these loyalties may be detached and transferred to the political or ideological cause of the aggressor". . . .

The problem with defining the term subversion is that there is not a single definition that is universally accepted.[9] Charles Townshend described subversion as a term, "so elastic as to be virtually devoid of meaning, and its use does little more than convey the enlarged sense of the vulnerability of modern systems to all kinds of covert assaults". . . .

Subversive actions can generally be grouped into three interrelated categories:

* Establishing front groups and penetrating and manipulating existing political parties
* Infiltrating the armed forces, the police, and other institutions of the state, as well as important non-government organizations
* Generating civil unrest through demonstrations, strikes, and boycotts