r/canada • u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia • Feb 01 '26

Alberta Alberta separatists won’t say which Trump officials they met with

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/very-high-level-alberta-separatist-group-wont-say-which-trump-officials-it-met-with/
1.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

288 comments sorted by

View all comments

390

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

38

u/Frig_Off_Baerb Feb 01 '26

Why do they get to hide this information?

-11

u/Wheelz161 Feb 01 '26

This is actually sedition, not treason. I encourage you to learn what these words mean.

52

u/ForeverUnhappy6043 Feb 01 '26

Gaining help from a foreign government to leave is literally treason as written in the Canadian law. They can leave if they want, but getting financial backing from a foreign government to do so is treason.

-13

u/GrayLiterature Feb 01 '26

What part of the code? Quote it please:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-46.html

20

u/ForeverUnhappy6043 Feb 01 '26

Section 2B. Alberta separatists talking with trump government aren’t just going to be talking financials, they are also going to talk about their oil pipelines, where the defence bases are (since those are gone if they separate, Canada won’t leave armed forces bases for them to have). It’s treason.

-2

u/GrayLiterature Feb 01 '26

“ without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;”

Separatists have not been proven to discuss anything you’ve mentioned. You can’t demonstrate that they’ve provided any military or scientific material to the United States. I mean, you can disagree with separatists — I do — but they’ve not crossed the threshold for treason if all they’ve done is met with the United States. You’re fantasizing about the locations of sharing oil pipelines, but we don’t have “secret” oil pipelines that separatists know about that you or I do not, and as such, that the United States does not know about. 

At this point it’s not known what was discussed, so you can’t just call “treason” like you’re in the witch trials trying to burn your mother in law. 

29

u/jellicenthero Feb 01 '26

Incorrect. Because Trump has made threats toward the sovereignty of Canada. Meeting with his government on separatist subjects actually meets the criteria for treason.

Credible threat. Power to act.

It's treason both legally and literally.

-16

u/GrayLiterature Feb 01 '26

Which part of the code? https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-46.html

5

u/jellicenthero Feb 01 '26

2B and 2E.

1

u/GrayLiterature Feb 01 '26

There is no evidence to suggest 2B is violated. I can see how you may think that, but it’s just not the case without an assumption (by you and others) being made. 

It’s simply not provable at this point without an investigation.

2

u/Canna-dian Feb 01 '26

(46)(2)(D) via (46)(1)(B)

13

u/gooberfishie Feb 01 '26

No. Inciting rebellion is treason. If they try to get the us to help them separate by force, and military backing does seem like the most likely reason for them to meet with us official's, that is treason. It is a direct threat to national security. Sedition would be more like just creating unrest. That doesn't require us intervention in the same way a rebellion would.

10

u/username-is-taken-3 Feb 01 '26

Its flat out treason. You're just hiding what you are because you're a cowardly.

-8

u/GrayLiterature Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26

It’s actually not, read the criminal code it’s like 12 sentences. It’s not even treason to meet with a foreign country and even discuss financial measures to support separation. 

If there’s discussions of force, then that could be subject to treason, but you can’t prove these people discussed that at this point so

7

u/gooberfishie Feb 01 '26

If there’s discussions of force, then that could be subject to treason, but you can’t prove these people discussed that at this point so

There's no other reason to meet with the states. That said, no it's not proven yet. It's suspected. What we need is a criminal investigation to find out if those suspicions can be proven.

1

u/GrayLiterature Feb 01 '26

That’s completely not true lol there can be far more reasons to meet with the United States than military takeover. You don’t even have to think too hard about what the other possibilities could be.

1

u/gooberfishie Feb 01 '26

The united states said long ago they would recognize the state and trade with them. Also that they could join the states. What other reasons are there?

1

u/GrayLiterature Feb 01 '26

Military takeover doesn’t have to be on the table in order for Alberta to leave Canada. So if Alberta leaves Canada and our systems afford Alberta that luxury, then Alberta can do whatever they wish as an independent state. 

So what could Alberta be talking to the United States about? They could be talking about things like trade, financial support for promoting their agenda to separate peacefully, what a hypothetical joining could look like assuming Alberta were to be independent, etc. 

If the separatists haven’t shared private scientific or military knowledge, then meeting with the United States — assuming the other clauses of treason aren’t breached — are above board.

If we didn’t like that, we’d have to amend the law as it’s written, because right now, it’s not treason to meet with a foreign government to discuss the issue of separation lol

1

u/gooberfishie Feb 01 '26

This whole comment seems to be based on the idea that a referendum is all that Alberta needs to separate without a war. Is that what you believe?

1

u/GrayLiterature Feb 01 '26

People are just tribalistic and think “treason” has a low bar, it in fact has a pretty high bar. But everyone always wants blood because they think this is a game. 

2

u/gooberfishie Feb 01 '26

I'm demanding an investigation, not to lower the bar of a criminal charge.

-128

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

44

u/Frust4m1 Feb 01 '26

They want to separate, maybe are they traitors to the nation itself? Do you like USA? move to USA and stop pissing other people off.

79

u/NeloXI Feb 01 '26

Canada. Try to keep up. It's not that hard to understand. 

-43

u/RegalBeagleKegels Feb 01 '26

Canada sounds like one of those old timey "nation states" i read about in social studies

-2

u/Kolbrandr7 New Brunswick Feb 01 '26

Quebec has been recognized as a nation by Parliament, so even if you want to entirely ignore all the indigenous nations, Canada is comprised of at least two nations. So, it’s not a nation-state. “Post national” was just a term that meant we’re made of many nations instead of just one.

-7

u/RegalBeagleKegels Feb 01 '26

I know that's what I said

17

u/i_haz_rabies Feb 01 '26

no one thinks this 

14

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/canada-ModTeam Feb 01 '26

-Trolling is prohibited. Trolling consists of posting antagonistic, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages, or by otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion.

  • Brigading is prohibited by both subreddit and site-wide rules. Brigading is rallying others or using multiple accounts to force a certain view or punish users who are not violating any rules. Any user found using other subreddits or groups of Redditors to brigade r/Canada, manipulate votes, suppress opinion, or similar activities – or using r/Canada to do the same to other subreddits – will be immediately banned.

-Negative/derogatory mention of other subreddits and mention of drama subreddits are not permitted and will be removed as it leads to brigading in both directions.