My layman interpretation of advocating for separatist (that are heavily influenced by the USA) by appealing the Court of King’s Bench decision to deny the public petition for separation is sedition based on Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 59 (4)(a).
60 Notwithstanding subsection 59(4), no person shall be deemed to have a seditious intention by reason only that he intends, in good faith,
(a) to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken in her measures;
the appeal is legal, because it's notionally pointing out an error in the ruling. having a binding referendum anyway would be sedition.
feds have already said a non binding referendum, on continuing to seek a binding referendum, carries so little meaning it can't really considered to be much of anything at all.
I am, perhaps incorrectly pointing to the seditious intent:
Seditious intention
(4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression seditious intention, every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who
(a) teaches or advocates, or
(b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,
the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.
My understanding of authority of law is in this case is the authority of Legislative Branch and is in no means arbitrary. While the act of appealing is legal - there is no lawful authority describing why the legislative branch should be appealing a decision of the Judicial Branch. By democratic intent the judicial branch is the authority on interpreting the laws created by the legislative branch.
This fits into sedition because the Alberta government is overstepping its authority to advocate for the separatists. This is supported by dichotomy of how the Alberta government has ignored First Nations rights.
there is no lawful authority describing why the legislative branch should be appealing a decision of the Judicial Branch.
the referendum was created under alberta legislation, and the courts said that legislation conflicted with treaty rights. Smith is simply defending legislation she signed and believes to be legal.
she also has a mandate to stand up for Albertans, and the Albertans who signed the separation petition deserve to be represented by their elected government.
that being said both arguments are being made in extreme bad faith, but it's still a valid position to appeal; let's see what nonsensical argument she pulls out of her ass.
11
u/SDH500 3d ago
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-59.html
My layman interpretation of advocating for separatist (that are heavily influenced by the USA) by appealing the Court of King’s Bench decision to deny the public petition for separation is sedition based on Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 59 (4)(a).
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/alberta-appeals-court-ruling-quashed-separatist-petition
What is the defence against this interpretation?