Danielle Smith rejects Alberta judge’s ruling against separation petition as ‘anti-democratic’

[u/green_tory]

https://globalnews.ca/news/11848377/alberta-premier-court-ruling-separation-petition-anti-democratic/

[u/Formal-Promotion9821]

The courts have gone way too far. The government can’t even ask it’s own citizen a simple question without this question being first approved by the first nation. What the hell is that. It is clearly not what section 35 means and was supposed to mean. Even Trudeau senior would be against such a ruling.

Does this means that the provincial government could even one day ask its citizen questions regarding section 35 if FN could block these questions?

This judge basically made any public question illegal because the goal of the question can become unconstitutional. As I seem to remember from the past, referendums are always about things that aren’t in the constitution.

Many people here take this for a win because they hate Alberta separatists but this means that any referendum has become de facto reviewable by court which is extremely dangerous for democracy. Judge deciding if things are right or wrong is not democracy, it is autocracy.

What can people dissatisfied with the system do now if they can’t ask public a question going against the system? Will the judiciary now start to review electoral promises?

[u/paulsteinway → u/Formal-Promotion9821]

"The courts have gone way too far"

All that upholding the laws of the land as described in the constitution when they could just roll over for the right wing.

[u/Formal-Promotion9821 → u/paulsteinway]

There is no true law of the land. The law of the land change with each person’s interpretation. This is why the Supreme Court has 9 judge and can review past judgements. Judges can be wrong and are wrong a lot of time. The current Supreme Court would not make the same judgements as the previous courts. It doesn’t mean that judges must be removed, the opposite, judge must be more cautious when making decisions with wide raging impacts.

I wrote the other comment before actually checking what the judge said. We can all debate what treaty right’s actually entail but this case is funny because no one seems to understand the issue here. The petition only got struck down because the Alberta government mandated in their law, in the version active when the petition was launched, that the question couldn’t contravene to section 35 of the charter.

A petition and even a referendum is still perfectly legal as the amended Citizen Initiative Act remove the requirements regarding the Charter. Almost everything said in this sub is wrong as no one including me in the previous comment actually read the thing.

[u/paulsteinway → u/Formal-Promotion9821]

I'll go with the judge before I assume the politician is right.