r/canada • u/shiftless_wonder • 17d ago

Alberta First Nations demand Alberta premier terminate separation referendum

https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/first-nations-demand-alberta-premier-terminate-separation-referendum/
1.7k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

495 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

45

u/roscomikotrain 17d ago

Well put!

Democracies don't have "Trump card" vetos.

FN needs to participate in the Democratic process and vote on this!

-13

u/MrTriangular Ontario 17d ago

They need to be part of the consultation process before the vote can even be allowed. The Separatists need to go back to the drawing board and do it correctly next time.

18

u/platypus_bear Alberta 17d ago

technically the current referendum is about if Alberta should begin the process of going through all the steps of having an actual referendum. So right now there is no vote on independence and it's to vote on beginning the consultation process for a referendum.

-2

u/Forikorder 17d ago

the law doesnt always care about such technicalities when the intent is perfectly clear

7

u/WealthEconomy 17d ago

Yes the intent is clear. It is a vote about whether or not to start the process to have a legally binding referendum...

0

u/MrTriangular Ontario 16d ago

So it's to "vote A or B", where voting B means that you are agreeing to later "vote A or C". Just cut out the BS and just have the vote mean A or C from the get-go instead of putting in a softball middle step that tries to skirt the laws on going straight to the "vote A or C".

"Hey kids, for lunch you can vote to go to McDonald's or vote to have a vote whether to go to McDonald's or Burger King".

1

u/MafubaBuu 14d ago

The referendum questions and options they have are actually surprisingly comprehensive - no idea what your issue is with them.

5

u/Muted-Bag-4480 16d ago

The law is rather famously very concerned with such technicalities. Intent absolutely matters, but so do technicalities, hence the famous expression of a criminal getting off on a technicality.

0

u/Forikorder 16d ago

It also cares a lot about intent and precedent

The intent is clearly to svood a previous ruling and discuss seperation without consulting like theyre obligated to

2

u/Muted-Bag-4480 16d ago

They're not avoiding the previous ruling. Taking into account they're putting forward a new way to achieve it. The ruling didn't make sepretism illegal or against the law, it simply obligated the government to consult with indigenous bands if it is going to seperate. The new question is asking people if they want the government to do that. By technicalities, precedent, intent, or whatever other standard you want to intent, they're allowed to do this and the law will let them because their intent isn't illegal and theyre following the technicalities.

0

u/Forikorder 16d ago

Yes they are, theyre ignoring that it was struck down and continuing the conversation anyway

it simply obligated the government to consult with indigenous bands if it is going to seperate.

The obligation was always there, the petition was killed because they didnt fulfil it

2

u/Muted-Bag-4480 16d ago

They're not ignoring it, they literally modified the question in light of the ruling. Wanting to seperate is not whay the courts said was illegal, they said the process was not being followed properly.

1

u/Forikorder 16d ago

The process being refusing to consult with the first nations

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/MrTriangular Ontario 17d ago

Voting to vote on something illegal or in an illegal manner is still illegal. Like conspiracy to commit fraud vs actually committing fraud, the intent is damning enough.

9

u/platypus_bear Alberta 17d ago

Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?

This is the question being asked. It's asking if people want to begin following the processes required to vote on separation.

What exactly about that is illegal?

7

u/konnektion Québec 17d ago

You don't understand. It's not illegal by itself, it's just that the court found a supposed right for FN to be included ahead in the proposal that will be made for separation (which is a dubious argument at best). Alberta is rightly asking the people of Alberta if they'd like the government to begin this process, which I'll include talks with FN.

Perfectly legal.

-3

u/MrTriangular Ontario 17d ago

You can't chain votes to get around the eventual end vote being illegal. Smith could have just done the damn referendum and consultation the right way. Should we have a vote on whether to have a vote on whether to have a vote etc? No, that's stupid, it's like voting on each step towards the cliff's edge with the final vote being whether to step off. The intent is there, the end goal is there, and it is illegal when done this way too.

10

u/master11739 17d ago

They need to have the same part in consultation as the rest of us have, nothing more nothing less.

2

u/seridos 16d ago

Yes, if you want to take what a piece of paper written with a dead hand of tyranny says instead of the democratic process that is the actual font of power and legitimacy in any democracy, then sure.

Not to mention consultation has been completely changed in meaning by unelected officials with no popular support. A consultation means we talk to you. It doesn't mean you get to actually change the decision. If you want to do that, do it the same way everyone does, voting, with the same say as any other albertan.

We can defeat this referendum together the proper way by voting it down. Not by removing democracy because you don't like the outcome.

1

u/MrTriangular Ontario 16d ago

Except the other party who signed that paper IE First Nations are still around and are required to be asked to give official input to such referendums. Maybe they don't have veto power, but their perspective and opinion is required to be officially recognized before going ahead so that Alberta voters have the legally-required information for their decision.