Is It Time to Bring Back Treason?

Her Majesty’s Government is being advised to revive the laws against treason, according to The Guardian:

Renew treason laws to jail enemies of the state for life, says thinktank content

Ancient treason laws should be renewed to allow enemies of the state to be jailed for life, a right-leaning thinktank has recommended.

Britons who betray the country through acts of terror or by aiding hostile nations should be dealt with as traitors, according to a Policy Exchange report.

It warned a wave of terrorists was coming up for release and claimed the country would be safer if they had been jailed for betrayal.

Treason laws dating back to 1351 are now unworkable, according to the report; the authors of which included Conservative and Labour MPs.

It was backed by the former home secretary, Amber Rudd, told the Daily Telegraph “the time has come for us to consider additional measures, such as those set out in this report, that we need to deal with those who betray this country”.

Jonathan Evans, the former head of MI5, said the report was “timely and balanced” and Richard Walton, Scotland Yard’s former head of counter-terrorism, said its recommendations were “appropriate” for jihadists, the paper reported.

In a foreword to the report, the former lord chief justice of England and Wales, Igor Judge, wrote: “If a citizen of this country chooses to fight with the Taliban in Afghanistan against British forces, his crime is more than terrorism. It is treason, and should be prosecuted accordingly.”

The last person to be convicted under the act was William Joyce, more commonly known as Lord Haw-Haw, who was hanged in 1946 for assisting Nazi Germany.

Policy Exchange and Ms. Rudd seem to be taking the advice of ECAW’s blog. The following article was posted by ECAW a year and a half ago (visit the original to find the links):

But what should Mrs May do?

I recently tried to encourage an English friend to inform herself about Islam. She said “Never mind that. What should Mrs May do tomorrow morning?” It’s a fair question isn’t it? So here goes…

Unfortunately the very first thing Mrs May needs to do is to inform herself about Islam. Anyone who can say “The actions of ISIS have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Quran” has clearly never read it.

It should only take her a month or so to get a basic understanding, if she is a quick learner. Without it the measures proposed below will just appear senseless or worse.

So, first thing tomorrow morning Mrs May should order some books on Islam. I recommend anything by Robert Spencer, whom she banned from Britain for having said that “Islam has doctrines involving violence against unbelievers” (it has).

But she also needs to go to the source. That means studying the Koran (especially the first nine blood-curdling suras) and the earliest biography of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq. She should also sample the Hadiths (traditions about Mohammed), the mediaeval commentaries by Islamic scholars (such as the one by Ibn Kathir ) and a manual of Sharia law (only a few sections really concern non-Muslims). [NB unfortunately the manual in question, The Reliance of the Traveller, is no longer accessible online since the translator has since used copyright law to get all the various versions taken down. Mrs May will have to buy a copy.]

She should then acquaint herself with Islam’s history of relentless warfare against non-Muslims, only interrupted by an interlude of European colonisation, and look at a map and notice the current insurgencies on most of the borders of the Islamic heartlands.

She should come to understand Islam’s dual nature, on the one hand a religion and on the other a totalitarian political ideology. No one gives a damn about flying donkeys and parading round a meteorite in Mecca, but the legal system which claims authority over non-Muslims and mandates jihad until the entire world is converted or subjugated is quite another matter.

In particular, she should come to a view on two questions:

“Is Islam inherently and unavoidably supremacist?”
“Are we already in a war, that of global jihad, whether we like it or not?”

If her answers are no and no, as they would be for the great majority of the population who have not enquired into Islam, then the following measures will make no sense. They will merely look like persecuting a particular minority, which they would actually be if applied to Sikhs or Jews.

If her answers are yes and yes then these measures will follow naturally, to attempt to put a brake on the Islamisation of Britain. So, what should she do on the first day after her period of study?


1. The most important single thing Mrs May should do, of course, is to press on with taking us out of Europe, which she appears to be doing… after a fashion. Britain will never be able to properly control its borders within it.

2. Mrs May should declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation and start investigations into its many offshoots in Britain, the two most prominent being the Muslim Association of Britain and the Muslim Council of Britain, with a view to banning them.

3. Mrs May should start the process of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights along with its European Court of Human Rights which consistently puts the rights of enemies of Britain before the protection of British citizens.

She should also set about replacing the Human Rights Act with the once-promised British Bill of Rights.

4. Mrs May should sack the advisers who persuaded her that many people “benefit a great deal” from practices such as Sharia Law.

She should call a halt to the inquiry into Sharia courts which she set up as Home Secretary. It is led by an Islamic theologian and starts from the assumption that “Sharia ideas are being ‘misused or exploited’”. This could charitably be called naïve. She should reconstitute it, led by a representative of British law with the theologian balanced by someone from Sharia Watch or One Law for All who will be able to point out where problems are arising precisely from the correct application of Sharia.

Or perhaps there’s a simpler explanation for her attitude:

A wily politician called May
Was overheard one day to say
“I’ll whitewash Sharia
If it helps my career.
Your grandkids will just have to pay.”

5. Mrs May should revisit the government’s anti-radicalisation Prevent Strategy and ask whether there is something missing from its causes of radicalisation. The answer is yes, Islamic theology itself. For instance the Prevent Strategy (section 5.25) states that one of the drivers of radicalisation is “an ideology that sets Muslim against non-Muslim, highlights the alleged oppression of the global Muslim community and which both obliges and legitimises violence in its defence”.

With her new understanding of Islamic scriptures Mrs May will realise that all of the above is to be found in the Koran except that the original (and supposedly oppressed) Muslim community was only local to the Mecca/Medina area. In fact the Koran goes further than legitimising violence in its defence and obliges and legitimises offensive violence for the expansion of Islam. It also depicts Mohammed as an excellent example to follow… and who could be more radicalised than Mohammed?

By focussing on secondary factors such as peer groups, internet propagandists, personal vulnerabilities and grievances, the Prevent Strategy is avoiding the profoundly disturbing question of whether jihadi groups have authentic theological justification for their actions (they have).

6. Mrs May should set in train the scrapping of the ill-judged Hate Speech legislation. By suppressing free speech about Islam the government has effectively instituted a de facto Sharia blasphemy law.

Alternatively she should make religious texts also subject to that same legislation. We would soon find that there is so much hatred for non-Muslims in the Koran that any imam would be hard put to preach a sermon legally.

As a matter of fact, here is the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. I can see no exemption in it for religions themselves. Perhaps someone can explain why no test case has been yet been brought against any imam preaching any Friday sermon in any mosque in Britain.

7. Mrs May should reinstitute the sedition law. Mosques in which sedition is preached — and certain parts of Sharia Law are necessarily seditious — should be closed down.

Fighters for ISIS, and other designated hostile entities, should face a charge of treason if they return. [Emphasis added — BB]

8. Mrs May should pass the word out through the Ministry of Justice that cultural differences are no longer to be considered as mitigating (or aggravating) factors in criminal cases, and all central and local government officials who turn a blind eye to crimes out of “cultural sensitivity” or fear of being called racist, will be prosecuted (think Police and Social Services of Rotherham).

9. Mrs May should allow the Royal Navy to take part in Frontex rescue operations in the Mediterranean only on condition that migrants are returned to Africa rather than transported to Italy.


10. Mrs May should do what she can to move toward a rational response to illegal immigration from outside the EU. Illegal immigrants should be securely held, preferably offshore, until they can be returned to the last safe country they came through, their homeland or any other country willing to take them.

All benefits should be restricted to EU citizens and, after we have extricated ourselves from the EU, to British citizens.


11. Mrs May should read Dame Louise Casey’s recent report about the woeful state of ethnic and religious integration in Britain. Along with the various social and cultural factors put forward by Prof. Casey to account for the isolation of Muslim communities, Mrs May will now be in a position to add a rather intractable scriptural one:

“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them” (Koran 5:51)

Even Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has accepted that ‘Muslim communities are not like others in Britain and the country should accept they will never integrate”.

12. Mrs May should ban burqas and niqabs in public, and not just for security reasons. They are a studied affront to Western values and a declaration of permanent separation.

13. Mrs May should make it clear that all responsible for FGM, polygamy and forced or under-age marriage will be prosecuted, that is really, actually prosecuted, not just a noise made about it. All these years, all those girls, and not one successful prosecution for FGM!

14. Mrs May should ban all foreign funding for mosques and Islamic religious programmes. They are not set up for the purpose of promoting interfaith relations based on mutual respect and equality. When Saudi Arabia allows the building of churches in Riyadh it could be reconsidered.

15. Mrs May should ban any slaughter methods involving unnecessary suffering. That includes the Jewish Shechita (kosher) as well as Islamic Dhabihah (halal).

16. Mrs May should instruct the Department for Education to conduct a thorough review of information about Islam in text books and curricula since it appears that children are being given a whitewashed version. For instance, Mohammed is routinely presented as a prophet and benign lawgiver but children are left unaware of his criminal beginnings in Medina and his rise to power using assassination, torture and genocide, not to mention his proclivity for child rape and sex-slavery of non-Muslim women.

There are plenty more proposed measures to be found on the internet intended to halt and reverse the process of Islamisation, but these are enough to keep her busy for one day.

The following day Mrs May should start thinking about how to prepare for the inevitable conflict, and struggle for dominance, which will arise when Muslims form a large enough percentage of the population. France, with a Muslim percentage of 10% as opposed to Britain’s 5%, is currently entering that phase. Britain could learn from the French experience and take preventive measures if it could develop the political will. If you think that is fanciful, consider the thousands of French troops now permanently deployed on the streets defending one section of the population from another, and what the head of French Intelligence, Patrick Calvar, recently told a parliamentary inquiry, that France is just one sexual outrage like Cologne or one more mass atrocity away from civil war.

31 thoughts on “Is It Time to Bring Back Treason?

  1. Excellent article, Barron. I have been (shouting in deaf ear-holes) to folks for years that extant treason, sedition and hate speech laws are more than applicable and adequate to cope with treacherous political hacks, islam and, frankly, marxist-leninism.
    To no avail. I am now quite certain that the aural and cranial cavities in 99% of political animals are blocked with well-cured hydraulic concrete.
    Politicians, however, were just bright enough to fix the system so they’d never have any skin in the game. I am certain that even the Labour party is bright enough not to stick their necks into that noose.
    But the thought of, say, Commissar Corbyn, being dragged backwards to Tyburn Cross
    always puts a smile.

  2. Superb. Theresa May will not take any of these steps as she is a coward and appeaser, like Cameron and Blair. Someone will though. Let us hope it is before the civil war begins so that the effects of the inevitable war might be mitigated a little.

  3. It is treason felony to “compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend”:

    – to “move or stir” any foreigner to invade the United Kingdom or any other country belonging to the Queen.

    Treason felony is an indictable-only offence.[3] It is punishable with imprisonment for life or any shorter term.[4]

  4. Treason May and those of her ilk across the West have imported the Moslem hordes as a means of wrecking the West from within. I don’t accept that these politicians are ignorant of the horrors of Islam. They know, but other than welcoming Islam’s throttling powers, just don’t care.

    • I believe they very well may be ignorant, for they are just puppets, and actually stand for nothing. The powers that brought this invasion about are much bigger than puppet prime ministers.

  5. The article suggests a number of commonsense steps PM May could take, but nothing of the kind will happen. Why? Because May has defected to the enemy, and is now siding with the Muslims who are rapidly taking over British society. She is nothing less than a 21st-century Quisling. The odds are actually quite good that Teresa May has said the shahada and converted to the one true faith – and is already a Muslim. At the very least, she is a dhimmi – one who is subservient to Islam – which isn’t materially different from being a Muslim herself.

  6. For the outright refusal to acquire this knowledge, Mrs May herself should be convicted for treason. And everybody in power that follows this path of willful ignorance.

  7. Despite our jokes, the senior politicians are not stupid. They would not have got where they are if they were.
    No, they know exactly what Islam is, and choose their stance. The question is why? Petrodollars? The threat to shut the cocks on the oil pipes? Even a 20% reduction in our oil would have a significant impact.
    Maybe they have to chose between allowing the Muslim domination of the West, albeit not being fully operative in their lifetime, or presiding over an economic meltdown as we revert to the 4th century.
    I am not supporting what they are doing, I myself would take a 4th Century Christian England over a 22nd Century Islamic England, I’m just trying to understand the motivation of the people leading us into the abyss.

  8. None of your excellent proposals will be considered by UK politicians for the foreseeable future. Why should they be? I believe that all our politicians and senior civil servants have been paid off with petro-dollars and their predecessors have been bought and paid for with arab funds since the 1973 arab-Israeli war. Any changes in the UK will have to be fought for.

  9. Western politicians have a very shrewd idea of what would happen if any legislation viewed as antiIslamic were passed and the attitude is “not on my watch”.

  10. I suspect that a good number of British politicians oppose Brexit because the EU makes their lives easier. Joining the EU put national politicians one step removed from power – the EU became a higher authority and thus relieved national politicians of some of their responsibilities.

    Imagine how the relationship between British politicians and the voting population will change post Brexit, when national politicians can no longer point the finger at the EU – as in, “…there’s nothing we can do about immigration, that’s down to EU rules…”

    Who’s going to get the blame for the dire state of Britain if not the EU?

    • This is very true, and you find exactly the same going on in other European countries. In UK the public have blame focused on EU. In Europe, where EU is less contested, it is just EU agenda and local politicians are simply given a pass by the public by claiming responsibility on various topics is not theirs.

  11. I think there is one more action to consider. She should immediately stop all welfare for non-british Citizens, including payments, child support, food assistance, rent assistance, subsidized housing, or any other assistance from the treasury. She should also begin a phase out of all welfare for British citizens, limiting assistance to people with physical or mental disabilities, and then to be extended only on the condition of permanent sterilization.

    It is the existence of a welfare state, including unearned money, that acts as a powerful magnet to outside immigrants, including but not limited to, Muslims.

    • Paying people to get sterilised is perverse, and even more so as national policy.

      You talk of citizens and non-citizens without knowing who they are, the same shallow logic currently in play by government via naturalisation and nationality solely by birth in the UK.

      You won’t find stats (or at least in much searching I have not found any) of UK citizenship by ancestry. Once you can answer how long in the UK or how many previous generations a person must hold for you to consider them British, then you can talk of citizenship as a parameter.

      Nationality by place of birth means near nothing in terms of origin nowadays, so must by the descent of those solely by place of birth also. Then there are also naturalisations, another controversy.

  12. The Baron calls for “15. Mrs May should ban any slaughter methods involving unnecessary suffering,” including kosher slaughtering. I regret that shehitah (kosher slaughtering) is getting caught in the crossfire over Islam and is being categorically condemned. Shehitah, done properly, is more humane than normal industrial slaughter. Unfortunately, experience dictates that both shehitah and non-industrial slaughter must be policed.

    • The Baron doesn’t call for any such thing. If you look closely, you’ll notice that the post in question was written by ECAW. I mentioned that fact before I quoted it, and indented the quoted text, in the futile hope that the authorship would be clear to our readers.

    • Roland – We hear competing claims about this, for instance Muslims claim that dhabihah is more humane because it at least allows for stunning (of particular kinds) which schechita doesn’t.

      I say a pox on both their houses in this regard. Unfortunately nature made me a carnivore (or at least an omnivore) – the length of my gut attests to this – but I am concerned that animals should suffer as little as possible for my Sunday roast, and that means stunning as far as I understand. The fact that Jews and Muslims both wrap the whole business up in their obsessional superstitions does not endear me to either of their religions.

      I am with the Farm Animal Welfare Council who call for the banning of both shechita and dhabihah. Here is a section from Wikipedia on the subject:

      ‘The practices of handling, restraining, and unstunned slaughter have been criticized by, among others, animal welfare organizations such as Compassion in World Farming. The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council said that the method by which Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes “significant pain and distress” to animals and should be banned. According to FAWC it can take up to two minutes after the incision for cattle to become insensible. Compassion in World Farming also supported the recommendation saying “We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter.” The UK government opted not to follow FAWC’s recommendations after pressure from religious leaders. The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe has issued a position paper on slaughter without prior stunning, calling it “unacceptable.” ‘

      I do note though that further down in that section Temple Grandin is quoted as saying “the way animals are handled and restrained prior to slaughter likely has a greater impact on their welfare than whether or not they are stunned”.

      I also note “that the UK government opted not to follow FAWC’s recommendations after pressure from religious leaders”. In fact I’m sure I read somewhere that David Cameron made a point of bringing dhabihah slaughtermen to Britain for the greater Islamisation of the country….the weasel!

      • Satanists terrify animals before sacrificing them so that the blood, which they then consume, being flooded with adrenaline is more ‘stimulating’ than it would be otherwise.

        Remind you of anyone?

  13. I would imagine that revised treason laws would target the likes of Tommy Robinson and normal, patriotic Brits.

    • The irony of the Guardian story is that the use of treason law is being suggested to try two (ex) UK IS nationals captured in Syria instead of passing them to US hands where they may be executed.

      So here the UK has shown it can arbitrarily strip nationality off a citizen leaving them stateless and give rendition of them to US justice from a foreign territory where they were captured by US/UK alliance, in this case Sajid Javid saying he will waive uk demands for assurance on no execution.

      Poor show, but what UK nationals are now taken for by own government – pawns. A reason – to try them in UK would just be too embarrassing for government.

    • @Paul

      Absolutely right. I think it was Lauren Southern whose entry in the UK was blocked using anti-terror legislation.

      The problem is not insufficient laws. The problem is insufficient will.

    • Tommy Robinson came to immediate mind before I was half-dozen words into the write up. Think tank folks best pitch the tin-foil and get a real thinking cap. It appears that multiple levels of HMG, including Justice, are on board with such a law. Tommy Robinson may be the first to get life under such doctrine, but there will surely be “Tommy this and Tommy that” following.
      Meanwhile….I await US sedition laws being applied to more than a prosecutor’s choice of eligible and deserving candidates.

  14. Baron- kudos on another excellent essay. I am so glad that I discovered Gates of Vienna awhile back and look forward to reading it every day. Wonderful and insightful writing.

  15. Must see video!!!

    Very interesting video, predicting the end game, of sjws and leftys and what lays ahead,

    Great insight, seems like mad max, movie is in right direction!

    I saw mad max movie, in 1981 when i lived in sydney australia,

    It wzs it seems now, like orwell, showing us our future

Comments are closed.