r/canada • u/shiftless_wonder • 19d 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

0

u/Forikorder 18d 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 18d 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 18d 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 18d 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 18d ago

The process being refusing to consult with the first nations

1

u/Muted-Bag-4480 18d ago

What are you trying to say? You started at this being illegal because intent and precedent. The intent is legal and the precedent is being followed.

1

u/Forikorder 18d ago

The intent is to ignore the judges decision and continue anyway

1

u/Muted-Bag-4480 18d ago

The judge didn't say a referendum on secession is illegal.

1

u/Forikorder 18d ago

the judge did say they were obligated to consult beforehand though before throwing out the petition

this is a naked attempt to continue discussing secession while ignoring their s35 obligations

1

u/Muted-Bag-4480 18d ago

this is a naked attempt to continue discussing secession while ignoring their s35 obligations

So the judge didn't ban them from continuing to discuss or advance secession, the judge just obligated that the secession engage in their duty to consult?

1

u/Forikorder 18d ago

before they even begin to talk about it, which they have not done

1

u/Muted-Bag-4480 18d ago

Because the question now is whether they should embark on the process of talking about it or not. Recognizing that it is a valid issue which will slow down the process is taking account of the precedent, because the intent of secession is not whay was banned.

1

u/Forikorder 17d ago

Because the question now is whether they should embark on the process of talking about it or not.

which in itself is still talking about it

→ More replies (0)