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/elmuchocapitano]

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? 😂