As I tried to emphasize, the definitions I'm working with using the Foreign Enlistment Act are taken from its British predecessor, which actually originates around 1812 and then was revamped around the 1870s, then was received in a Canadian law in 1936. So you're using the same terms and definitions from about the 1800s, which have very little to do with our modern legal systems and international norms. For example, when I say “foreign state”, I don't mean in the technical sense recognized in international law at present, which is incorporated into Canadian law under the Anti-terrorism Act. So essentially we are dealing with different legal timing and different legal language according to that timing.
Yes, it sounds very schizophrenic, and possibly it is, but it is contained within the act itself and doesn't move outside in terms of the definitions, whereas the definitions presented by Ms. Crummey and Sean Richmond.... It is entirely consistent.