If Quebec can separate, then so can Alberta. We are all supposed to be equal under the laws in this democracy. If one set of rules only applies to Quebeckers, there is your primary evidence this country should fold.
Finaginsbud on
Here is the reality however on the ground folks, the government, courts and first nations can crow all they like about seperation being „illegal“ and at the end of the day if a clear majority of Albertans vote to secede from Canadas federation they will take a vast amount of territory with them. The Prime Minister of the day is highly unlikely to send in the military and even if they do it will come down to the reality that 2.5 to 3.5 million Albertans made a choice.
I personally dont think its a likely outcome, but you are absolutely kidding yourselves if you think for a moment Canada won’t respect the democratic will of a the majority voting for independence. There will definitely be territory disputes and debt/obligation disputes, but at the end of the Canada isn’t going to use military force to stop a province from democratically leaving. Frankly it would probably shatter the country further if the government tried that.
I don’t really have much of an opinion on if Alberta seperates myself, I would prefer they didnt, but like Quebec I can’t say I exactly blame people in Canada for being sick of how things are going here long term.
model-alice on
> First, as political scientist Emmett Macfarlane has recently written, as a matter of Canadian constitutional law, the Secession Reference is dated.
> In particular, it did not take into account a constitutional principle that looms large in 2026: the honour of the Crown in its dealings with our Indigenous Peoples. The Crown, in both its federal and provincial guises, has a duty to support Indigenous interests. This would have to include claims to Aboriginal title and the pre-existing sovereignty of Indigenous communities in Alberta.
Which is why FN peoples would be involved in any discussion on Albertan independence. (It’s also quite noble savage-y to imply that FN peoples would *never* consent to cede their land as some people do given that we have several examples of FN peoples consenting to resource extraction projects.)
> Second, to implement the Secession Reference, the federal government passed the Clarity Act, which clearly states that the House of Commons is the decision-maker here.
The Clarity Act is almost certainly a violation of the right to self-determination given that it allows the people theoretically doing the oppressing to decide whether the oppressed people have spoken loud enough. (Spoiler: the answer will always be „no.“)
> Section 2 of the act says the House must consider negotiating only if “there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada” (i.e., not just a majority of those who vote in a referendum).
This would violate *Reference Re Secession of Quebec*.
> Third, in the Secession Reference, the Supreme Court conducted a separate analysis of whether separation of a Canadian province would be lawful under international law. The short answer is a flat “no.”
A unilateral separation would be illegal, yes.
> possibly (the court correctly noted that international law is uncertain on this point) where the “people” are “denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part.”
By this reasoning, refusing to negotiate following an expression of a desire for independence would instantly qualify Alberta for self-determination. (That or this argument is tautological; you only get the right to self-determination if you have the right to self-determination.)
EDIT:
> It is. It is also a completely valid and legally coherent view on statehood in international politics.
It is not. The base case for this assertion is that *nobody* has the right to self-determination, since nobody has the right to self-determination.
[deleted] on
[removed]
AlbertaGengar on
I appreciate Canadian policy wonks opining on the Alberta separatism but I hope they’re speaking to each other. They’re not going to reason someone out of a position they used emotion to get to.
I find it exteenely hard to believe that Canada would block Alberta from seceding if Albertans showed a clear majority. The only question is how treaties would be administered. Which, if it got to that point, it’s more likely to me that Canada would transfer existing Indigeous rights and treaties to an independent Alberta.
HistoricalSand2505 on
Isn’t Emmet Macfarlane the professor that stated Congress should be burned to the ground before Trump could nominate a Supreme Court justice?
hunterstevebearman on
I don’t think the separatists care about legality. It would be a matter of voting, marching, and seizing all provincial and federal buildings by force. Who’s gonna stop them, the Liberals? They gonna march the army in to engage in a bloody street battle? Is the provincial NDP gonna strongly protest and give a very stern warning? It’s all the country kooks that have the rage, the firearms, the organization(and American support) and the will to separate. People need to get over legalities and realize this will be about violence and struggle, not court battles. And no, I am not an Albertan separatist, just a scared Albertan who wants to remain in Canada.
markezonni76 on
Interesting, how all of sudden, when tables turn and happening in our backyard, separation is illegal.
Pandora’s Box opened long time ago..
Loyalist_15 on
Would it be illegal for Quebec as well?
But in all honesty, if it’s talking about the indigenous treaties, then Alberta could theoretically move the treaties if they maintain the crown.
While we all know the separatists wish to join America, or become an Alberta Republic, they would legally be required to maintain the crown, or give up the indigenous treaty land to the Canadian government, splitting some Albertan territory off of Alberta itself.
Either way I consider it treason but since the government doesn’t what can we do but sit and wait to vote against any such referendum.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
9 Kommentare
If Quebec can separate, then so can Alberta. We are all supposed to be equal under the laws in this democracy. If one set of rules only applies to Quebeckers, there is your primary evidence this country should fold.
Here is the reality however on the ground folks, the government, courts and first nations can crow all they like about seperation being „illegal“ and at the end of the day if a clear majority of Albertans vote to secede from Canadas federation they will take a vast amount of territory with them. The Prime Minister of the day is highly unlikely to send in the military and even if they do it will come down to the reality that 2.5 to 3.5 million Albertans made a choice.
I personally dont think its a likely outcome, but you are absolutely kidding yourselves if you think for a moment Canada won’t respect the democratic will of a the majority voting for independence. There will definitely be territory disputes and debt/obligation disputes, but at the end of the Canada isn’t going to use military force to stop a province from democratically leaving. Frankly it would probably shatter the country further if the government tried that.
I don’t really have much of an opinion on if Alberta seperates myself, I would prefer they didnt, but like Quebec I can’t say I exactly blame people in Canada for being sick of how things are going here long term.
> First, as political scientist Emmett Macfarlane has recently written, as a matter of Canadian constitutional law, the Secession Reference is dated.
> In particular, it did not take into account a constitutional principle that looms large in 2026: the honour of the Crown in its dealings with our Indigenous Peoples. The Crown, in both its federal and provincial guises, has a duty to support Indigenous interests. This would have to include claims to Aboriginal title and the pre-existing sovereignty of Indigenous communities in Alberta.
Which is why FN peoples would be involved in any discussion on Albertan independence. (It’s also quite noble savage-y to imply that FN peoples would *never* consent to cede their land as some people do given that we have several examples of FN peoples consenting to resource extraction projects.)
> Second, to implement the Secession Reference, the federal government passed the Clarity Act, which clearly states that the House of Commons is the decision-maker here.
The Clarity Act is almost certainly a violation of the right to self-determination given that it allows the people theoretically doing the oppressing to decide whether the oppressed people have spoken loud enough. (Spoiler: the answer will always be „no.“)
> Section 2 of the act says the House must consider negotiating only if “there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada” (i.e., not just a majority of those who vote in a referendum).
This would violate *Reference Re Secession of Quebec*.
> Third, in the Secession Reference, the Supreme Court conducted a separate analysis of whether separation of a Canadian province would be lawful under international law. The short answer is a flat “no.”
A unilateral separation would be illegal, yes.
> possibly (the court correctly noted that international law is uncertain on this point) where the “people” are “denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part.”
By this reasoning, refusing to negotiate following an expression of a desire for independence would instantly qualify Alberta for self-determination. (That or this argument is tautological; you only get the right to self-determination if you have the right to self-determination.)
EDIT:
> It is. It is also a completely valid and legally coherent view on statehood in international politics.
It is not. The base case for this assertion is that *nobody* has the right to self-determination, since nobody has the right to self-determination.
[removed]
I appreciate Canadian policy wonks opining on the Alberta separatism but I hope they’re speaking to each other. They’re not going to reason someone out of a position they used emotion to get to.
I find it exteenely hard to believe that Canada would block Alberta from seceding if Albertans showed a clear majority. The only question is how treaties would be administered. Which, if it got to that point, it’s more likely to me that Canada would transfer existing Indigeous rights and treaties to an independent Alberta.
Isn’t Emmet Macfarlane the professor that stated Congress should be burned to the ground before Trump could nominate a Supreme Court justice?
I don’t think the separatists care about legality. It would be a matter of voting, marching, and seizing all provincial and federal buildings by force. Who’s gonna stop them, the Liberals? They gonna march the army in to engage in a bloody street battle? Is the provincial NDP gonna strongly protest and give a very stern warning? It’s all the country kooks that have the rage, the firearms, the organization(and American support) and the will to separate. People need to get over legalities and realize this will be about violence and struggle, not court battles. And no, I am not an Albertan separatist, just a scared Albertan who wants to remain in Canada.
Interesting, how all of sudden, when tables turn and happening in our backyard, separation is illegal.
Pandora’s Box opened long time ago..
Would it be illegal for Quebec as well?
But in all honesty, if it’s talking about the indigenous treaties, then Alberta could theoretically move the treaties if they maintain the crown.
While we all know the separatists wish to join America, or become an Alberta Republic, they would legally be required to maintain the crown, or give up the indigenous treaty land to the Canadian government, splitting some Albertan territory off of Alberta itself.
Either way I consider it treason but since the government doesn’t what can we do but sit and wait to vote against any such referendum.