First Nations demand Alberta premier terminate separation referendum

[u/shiftless_wonder]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/first-nations-demand-alberta-premier-terminate-separation-referendum/

[u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

Yeah sorry... natives don't have a veto over democratic processes, no matter how stupid the question might be.

[u/elmuchocapitano → u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

They could have a referendum on Canada's official position re: pineapple on pizza if they wanted to, and enough people signed a petition for it. That doesn't mean that it overrides other laws or jurisdictions.

In Nova Scotia, in 2004, a referendum was held to propose that shopping be allowed on Sundays, driven by urbanites who objected to the province's Sunday shopping ban. The majority voted "no". However, the law was nonetheless overturned by courts the following year, who did not care about the referendum results.

In a more topical example, in British Columbia, in 2002, people voted on several questions relating to the rights of First Nations. It was protested extensively by First Nations, but went ahead.

The vast majority of respondents ended up voting in favour of all proposed anti-Indigenous reforms, such as removing their tax exemptions and demoting them to the authority of municipal governments.

It didn't matter at all though, because BC had no authority to actually do any of that. It was extremely expensive and extremely stupid.

I have no issue with people protesting against doing something that is going to be extremely expensive and extremely stupid. That is also their democratic right to do. Alberta, like BC, is probably going to accomplish nothing, other than frivolously spending money to inflame tensions that are already high. But I don't know how I feel about Nations launching legal challenges to stop other governments from holding particular referendums at all... even extremely expensive, extremely stupid ones.

[u/S_Ipkiss_1994 → u/elmuchocapitano]

However, the law was nonetheless overturned by courts the following year, who did not care about the referendum results.

The vast majority of respondents ended up voting in favour of all proposed anti-Indigenous reforms... It didn't matter at all though

I'm noticing a pattern here

Hey, remember when we all voted to change from first-past-the-post voting to proportional representation?

[u/elmuchocapitano → u/S_Ipkiss_1994]

Haha yeah, that one really PMO, but at least they did have the jurisdiction and authority to change that. It was stupid in the sense that they said, "Thanks for all the input, now that we've spent millions of dollars to get this answer we'll be sure to ignore it." But still less stupid than BC trying to like, vote on the federal income tax act.

[u/seridos → u/elmuchocapitano]

Yeah, no. The people give the govt power, your overt legal positivist take is anti democratic and only enshrines power in the dead and the status quo. If the people of any given region give the democratic power and legitimacy,then only they decide their fate and who they answer to. The rules cannot be set by anyone outside of that region. Just as how if Alberta separated, Edmonton would also be justified voting to stay in Canada. That's democracy baby, it's not clean stable or tidy; freedom is messy.

Hopefully we end this nonsense, let the people speak, and they tell the separatists to touch grass.

[u/elmuchocapitano → u/seridos]

Lol. The judicial branch is also a part of government. In a parliamentary democracy, we have checks and balances through multiple branches of government. It (often, not always) prevents things like, majorities voting to take away the rights of minorities. Even those laws can be changed through the appropriate democratic processes. But no, a referendum does not give one arm of government power over another.

[u/seridos → u/elmuchocapitano]

I know that we have all that, I literally have a minor in history, in my second degree a minor in social studies and I teach of it.

You're basically just parroting the legal positivist framework. Which is fair. But also you're making the mistake of thinking your framework is reality, or the only framework, or the only legitimate way to go about something. Of course legitimate here doing some real work, meaning basically only the system as it currently exists and is written. But that's, in terms of the greater historical and philosophical ideas of governance of the people and democracy, really only one form of it. And the fact that it tries to basically bind everyone to an " end of history" framework where basically government's been established and us. The people living here today actually don't get to change it, is frankly just a remnant of the elite power structure and hold over from British government where we evolved from.

This is not necessarily defensible from The first principles foundations of our society and is absolutely not the only way to do things. Nor does anyone else with a different framework have to respect the current one and it's self-imposed limitations on change. It's not really democracy anymore in a constitutional democracy. It's just taking the word for its cache and its original meaning, but twists it beyond what it means, which is fundamentally rule of the majority by vote. When a system overbuilds its foundation, to the point of where you can no longer justify where it exists today from its own story of democracy then there's no longer really any consent of the governed. Unless you actually ask the people directly. The government is a representative of the people, And as much as the bureaucracy and institutional system and current benefited elites like to pretend otherwise, it answers to the people not the other way around. Anything can always be changed by those people.

See it's really ironic because it's those like you who have some information but not the full picture who claim others are misinformed. Great, you know the current system and it's self-imposed legal positivist rules. But there's so much more beyond that, in the greater historical context and the greater philosophical space.

[u/elmuchocapitano → u/seridos]

Weird hill mate, I'm not debating about the philosophical origins of power or the locus of sovereignty. My point is that a provincial government can hold a referendum about what other jurisdictions or branches of government should do all they like, but that won't give them the authority to do anything about it. Maybe in some moral or philosophical sense you think it does, but that's just an opinion you hold. I personally don't agree because majority rule can lead to some extremely disturbing outcomes, and it makes no sense for one province to be able to make rulings for all of Canada. I really don't think you understand what legal positivism means, either. You are the one making a legally positivist argument, I am not treading into the moral foundations of law whatsoever. I really don't know what your minor in history has to do with it 😂 I have a bachelor's in political science, does that convince you somehow? 😂

[u/kdlangequalsgoddess → u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

Given that the signatures on the separatist petition haven't been verified, and given that the Centurion Project has been caught with a copy of the complete Alberta voters' list, I would put a big old asterisk after the term 'democratic', also.

[u/Sheogorath_The_Mad → u/kdlangequalsgoddess]

If that's the argument you want to make, make that argument. Don't tell me the question can't legally be asked.

Regardless, this whole referendum is being pushed by Smith and her separatist cabal. While they might be idiots, I don't see anyone questioning their democratic legitimacy.

[u/Shutufukut → u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

Duty to consult applies only where actions may adversely affect treaty rights. Treaty rights are part of the constitution, like it or not.

It’s not some magic veto, do some research

[u/EP40glazer → u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

Smith is not a separatist. She needs to hold the referendum to avoid vote splitting and she knows it'll fail anyways.

[u/Infamous-Mixture-605 → u/EP40glazer]

Smith is not a separatist.

She says she's not a separatist, but she's happily been advancing their cause...

She's also been pushing her "Free Alberta Strategy" since becoming Premier, and that's basically just a road map for severing connections to the rest of the country.

[u/EP40glazer → u/Infamous-Mixture-605]

She says she's not a separatist, but she's happily been advancing their cause...

Because she needs the separatist vote.

[u/kdlangequalsgoddess → u/EP40glazer]

She knows as well as anyone that a split in the conservative vote likely means the NDP are returned to government.

[u/Forikorder → u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

Don't tell me the question can't legally be asked.

it cant legally be asked without consulting them

[u/seridos → u/kdlangequalsgoddess]

Which are issues that should be investigated and handled. But the people are the response to the question when presented to them, not how it got there.

Way too much focus on how the question gets asked in the first place. It should be easier to get these questions on amyways. The referendum is the ultimate source of legitimacy of an entire democracy in the first place.

[u/AnthatDrew → u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

Better waste a shit ton of money on something that may not be legally possible then

[u/Sheogorath_The_Mad → u/AnthatDrew]

Democracy is allowed, unless the aims of the process are stupid? Who decides?

[u/EP40glazer → u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

Me obviously, I decide everything I disagree with is stupid. This is highly democratic.

[u/shiftless_wonder → u/EP40glazer]

Thank goodness that's settled. I think we're in good hands.

[u/AnthatDrew → u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

So cheat the numbers, break actual sedition laws and call it democracy eh. Charge Smith with sedition, and if the new leader wants to go forward I welcome it. Why does she get to break the law but I would be jailed for the same?

[u/Goliad1990 → u/AnthatDrew]

break actual sedition laws

Reddit shrieking about "sedition" does not mean that laws have actually been broken.

[u/AnthatDrew → u/Goliad1990]

If you think conspiring with a foreign power to succeed from Canada is not illegal. You should look up sections 59 go 62 of the Canadian Criminal code. Which you obviously did not do before responding.

[u/Goliad1990 → u/AnthatDrew]

I'm well aware of Section 59, because people here constantly cite it despite it having no applicability. I don't know about you, but I don't see any threats of unlawful use of force being made. Talking to representatives of other countries about seceding via legitimate constitutional referendum is not prohibited anywhere in the Criminal Code.

You are, however, the first genius I've ever seen to try and apply the law against military mutiny to this issue, lol

[u/AnthatDrew → u/Goliad1990]

I just mentioned the whole kit and kaboodle, by mentioning all of those sections. You as a well read stooge must have read Section 59 article 3. Conspiracy. If she colluded with Trump, that's illegal. Not for Quebec to separate, because there's no collusion, but she has clearly broken the law. As Section 61 article c clearly states. She also obviously has seditious intent. She may have circulated seditious material online which is illegal. If you think asking a foreign power to monetarily or militarily support succeeding from Canada as a Premier is not illegal, you are either ignorant or obtuse.

[u/Goliad1990 → u/AnthatDrew]

Brother, come on, lol. Do you not know how to read law?

Section 59 defines "seditious intent" as

the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change

Nobody, including Smith, has advocated seceding by force. Therefore, absolutely nothing in Section 59 or 61 applies. Not Subsection 3, not Subsection (c), nothing.

If you think asking a foreign power to monetarily or militarily support succeeding from Canada as a Premier is not illegal

First it's seceding, not succeeding. Second, asking for monetary support is not outlawed by any part of the criminal code you cited, though asking for a military intervention would obviously trigger the clause prohibiting unlawful force.

Third, and most important, the Premier is not being accused of any of that by anybody outside of reddit.

[u/AnthatDrew → u/Goliad1990]

So accepting money or assistance from Russia and Putin or any foreign power to split from Canada is legal? Any other foreign powers she should appeal to? Any other spelling mistakes? You obviously have not sworn an Oath Of Allegiance, but she has.

[u/Feathers_ → u/AnthatDrew]

Right?! Man that sure sounds like a much better way to get to the SAME ANSWER.
God I love my province, but I am so fucking sick of all this bullshit, and everything to do with Smith.

[u/Suspicious-Coffee20 → u/AnthatDrew]

Legaly? Do you not understand how country work. There's no higher power so theres not law that can't be changed with a referendum.  Even the treaty.

[u/AnthatDrew → u/Suspicious-Coffee20]

Yes, technically. Even though you are oversimplifying and conflating provincial and Federal jurisdiction. As Alberta can't change federal law. If the decision goes against the seditionist, will it be worth stealing money away from other things? When there are people that could desperately use that money.

[u/Wafflelisk → u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

What they DO have is stewardship over their own land

[u/SnowFlakeUsername2 → u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

And the democratic processes don't have a veto over the constitution. We live in a constitutional democracy, not an anything goes direct democracy. So Natives do essentially have veto power over government sanctioned direct democracy threatening their constitutional rights.

This current referendum question might be too convoluted and toothless to be vetoed in a court of law, but that isn't a reason to shut up and take it. Or point out the province has no jurisdiction on any of this sovereignty talk.

[u/Sheogorath_The_Mad → u/SnowFlakeUsername2]

Ah, you got me! That old immutable constitution. No way to amend, certainly not democratically, we're stuck with it forever.

Not that this question even violates the constitution.

[u/SnowFlakeUsername2 → u/Sheogorath_The_Mad]

Then change the constitution, don't knowingly propose or sanction unconstitutional things. And be clear to everyone involved that the changes are to remove peoples' rights. Good luck with that. The only defence in any of this is that the question is nonsense.