12. ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A "TRAITOR" - A Student Struggles With Forced Obligation To A Country

I have been thinking, as people often do, about the idea of treachery for a while now. In principle it is a simple idea, like asking someone out, but is in reality a tangled web of logic and confusion, like asking someone out.

This idea first arose when comparing my own personal sovereign identity to that of my father’s. Specifically, my father is a proud Jamaican citizen by birth, a fact which he rarely fails to mention, as well as a British citizen by immigration. And for myself, however, I am a British citizen by birth and nothing else, just like my mother. Because of this, me and my parents (as well as my brothers, sisters and almost all of my extended family) have to abide by all of the laws of Great Britain, from “don’t use a handheld microphone while driving” to “pretty please don’t kill anyone”. My father, as well as his siblings and his parents, explicitly agreed to these rules when they emigrated, although this may not be considered a choice since my father was nine at the time and didn’t really have a choice (more on this idea later). However, me, my siblings and my mother didn’t explicitly agree to these rules. We just had to take what we had and deal with it. Admittedly, the United Kingdom has some pretty good rules and laws, so this mostly isn’t as issue. However, if the country decides to do something that I deem immoral or irresponsible, and I act actively in opposition to this idea, the U.K can, if they so choose, label me as a traitor to the nation and therefore morally corrupt. Here, in this article, I wish to look at how well this idea holds up to scrutiny, and present my own personal conclusion, although this needs not be the opinion you take with you into the real world (although if it is it would really help my self-esteem).

Specifically, what I mean is that the current government of the U.K can label me as a traitor, which is viewed as a morally corrupt position, if I act directly against their views. The main problem that I find with this argument is that I (as well as almost every person in the world and throughout the history of the world) did not choosewhere we were born. In another situation, say a super-secret club, this problem wouldn’t arise. If I said “I wish to join this super-duper double triple secret club, and will adhere to all of its rules” and then acted against it, the other members of the club would rightfully say I was a traitor to the club, as I was a member who had acted against it (this doesn’t necessarily make me immoral in this scenario, it just makes me a traitor), then the other members could comfortably call out “ah-ha! Ben (me) is a traitor to this organisation and should therefore be humiliated/killed/made to eat a bowl of spider webs”. From this point onwards, let’s make this club an Ed Sheeran fan club, as that’s what I’m currently listening to as I write this. However, instead imagine that from the moment of birth, I was declared to be an Ed Sheeran fan from now until my death. I must appreciate all Ed Sheeran songs, recognise his talent, and respect him as a person. Now, in principle, this may not be so bad. One could argue, as I personally would, that Ed Sheeran is a very skilled musician, and I would like what he makes regardless of whether I had to or not. But let’s imagine I said something incredibly controversial, such as “actually, ‘Galway Girl’ is a bit annoying, to be honest, and I’m going to tell other people this”. Now, the reasonable and logical response would be “well, we didn’t ask you to be here, so if you don’t like certain aspects of this club, that’s morally fine of you”. However, instead, in the disgusting real world, with its filthy humans and their filthy human fingers, a country would respond with “how dare you even thinkof mocking the great and powerful Ed Sheeran. He’s the only thing we have left after Emeli Sandé stepped down”. This, as you hopefully see, makes no sense. As in the same way someone didn’t have the choice to be in the Ed Sheeran fan club, one doesn’t have the choice of their country of origin. So if they don’t have the choice, then what right doesn’t the country have to label them a traitor?

There are two immediate responses to this. The first is that if they disagree with the country, then they should just leave, and the second being that immigrants (such as my aforementioned father) explicitly agree to these rules as so should still be labelled a traitor if they act against the country. In response to this first point, we have the idea of false implicit agreement. Essentially, the argument, for instance, is that I, as a British Citizen, have implicitly agreed to all the rules of the nation because I have enjoyed all of the benefits, such as free healthcare and the right to vote at eighteen years of age. The reason this is a false implicit agreement as opposed to a true one is that I didn’t actually have a choice as to whether I wanted to accept these benefits or not. Some of these benefits, such as free healthcare, I agreed to as a baby before I had even developed long-term memory because if didn’t, I literally would’ve died. So I only really “chose” the United Kingdom in the same way someone with a gun pointed at them “chooses” to hand over their wallet. In other words, it isn’t really a choice. And if I didn’t choose to obey these rules, who can really call me a traitor?

In response to the second point, namely that immigrants like my father have a choice and therefore can be logically be labelled traitors if they betray the country, even this point can be contested. Using specifics, my father only emigrated because his family was also emigrating to try and build better lives for themselves. Given the choice, they would have happily stayed in Jamaica. Even if you remove this factor and look specifically look at immigrants who emigrated on a “I feel like it” policy, this doesn’t mean the idea of being a traitor is still viable. This is because when you agree to become a citizen of country, you are not necessarily agreeing that everything that the country does from now until the end of time is fine and agreeable. So, even if you explicitly state “I like this country and I want to be a part of it right now”, by, say, signing an immigration form. However, in the future the country could change in a drastic way, such as allowing ‘The Purge’ to happen, or leaving the European Union. If you sign up to something and then it changes in a drastic way, should you really be labelled morally wrong if you then act against said country?

To summarise, the idea of a traitor makes no sense because you either had no choice or the country has changed enough since you explicitly agreed to be a part of it that it makes no sense to say you betrayed it. 

It is because of all of the sentences that you hopefully just read that you realise why the idea of being a traitor to a country is outdated as should be disregarded. Sovereign citizens often don’t have a choice. Even when they do, countries change. Holding on to their ideas just because it’s what we’ve always done is like requesting we contract smallpox jusT because our ancestors had it. Even if it feels strange, we need to move on and try and build better idea about what it means to be a citizen of a country. 

Or don’t. I’m an article, not a cop. 

Author: Benjamin Allen, student at King Edward VI Aston (A.K.A. the only guy who has both dreadlocks and a fidget spinner)