Danielle Smith weist das Urteil eines Richters in Alberta gegen den Trennungsantrag als „antidemokratisch“ zurück.
Danielle Smith rejects Alberta judge’s ruling against separation petition as ‘anti-democratic’
Danielle Smith weist das Urteil eines Richters in Alberta gegen den Trennungsantrag als „antidemokratisch“ zurück.
Danielle Smith rejects Alberta judge’s ruling against separation petition as ‘anti-democratic’
19 Kommentare
We live in a Constiutional Monarchy with a Liberal Democratic constitution, where the Crown is supreme and we are all subject to the rule of law *mitigated* by the authority of our democratically elected representatives.
>*“*I would say that it is a single judge who has made a decision, and we have now 700,000 Albertans — whether they’re on the remain side or the leave side — who’ve said that they want to have this public debate,” said Smith.
*Tough*.
>“We want to hear from Albertans. That’s what we think democracy is.”
With all due respect, this is Canada. And here in Canada we have *the rule of law*.
The same Danielle Smith trying to bring america-style gerrymandering to Alberta, to fix the next election?
BTW generating fair and representative electoral districts seems to be a solved software problem, in practice. It’s not the 19th century. Trying to screw with generating fair district maps is inexcusable and should be treated the same as if Smith had asked for the provincial bank account passwords for personal use, for „reasons“.
Meanwhile, an investigation into how all those names suddenly appeared on the separation petition right after being leaked stillllll hasn’t been announced? No word yet on how „democratic“ that may turn out to be.
Now here’s Dave with the sports.
So when she suppressed the Forever Canada petition and changed the law to make the seperatist petition possible isn’t anti-democratic?
This is the end result of decades of inaction when it came to Conservative – and it always has been conservative – Premiers, Leaders, and pundits decrying jurisprudence.
A Premier cannot – full stop cannot – “reject” a ruling by the courts. They can disagree, sure, and even make their case as to why they disagree, but they cannot even remotely begin to entertain the notion that a judgement is invalid.
If she disagrees, she can say so and file an appeal. Then keep her peace to herself while the legal process does its work.
Instead – she’ll spend the next few weeks fundraising off this. Other Premiers will chime in, I’m sure Moe will, and the whole boogeyman of “radical judges” will be raised again.
I know Carney is walking a narrow path here and trying to get/keep Alberta on side, but this rhetoric is dangerous. It’s been dangerous since the 1990s, and we’ve done a damn poor job holding those who espouse it to account. But now would be a VERY good time for a PM to remind folks that we are a country ruled by law, a law which applies to all of us. It doesn’t have to be a bodyslam – though at this point I think that would actually be needed – but some amount of handslap is needed here.
Maybe she could have a bit of humility about the consequences of drafting a bill in a fit of pique without thinking through the legalities all because you’re a coward who runs away from the fight you need to have with Take Back Alberta.
> We have now 700,000 Albertans — whether they’re on the remain side or the leave side — who’ve said that they want to have this public debate,” said Smith.
Showing up to your burning house with a bucket of water after someone set fire to it does not mean you’ve publicly announced any kind of implicit support for what has happened…
So let’s get this straight. You run your platform that intentionally misleads your constituents, attempt an independence bid that also includes literal treason by involving a foreign government and the have the audacity to call it undemocratic? Only 7% of Alberta voted in favour.
What is going on? This is literal treason. What is her deal? What’s the end game?
It’s anti democratic to undermine the judiciary
And it’s anti democratic to ignore known constitutional stakeholders
And it’s anti democratic for a premier to align with an anti democratic president intent on destabilizing Canada while promoting a separatist movement through foreign interference while imposing economic force.
She says there are 700,000 people on both sides that want this debate.
Um, no….
Those of us that signed the stay forever petition didnt do it out of nowhere. We didnt want this discussion at all. The signing was literally all of us saying we dont want this debate.
This whole thing better light a fire under the general voters ass. We need to punt this crew out of power for good.
Regardless of your opinion on separatism, saying that separatism is against treaty rights is probably the worst way to go about it. Even if that is technically true, I don’t think it’s going to change anybody’s mind, and is more likely to turn someone towards separatism than against.
Same thing could be said about Quebec, where separatism would entail a messy fight with first nations.
Ha ha ha SCREW SMITH & the traitorous UCP.
Thanks go to Alberta’s First Nations for doing what few others had the guts to do: stand up for Canada.
So basically our government is pro-separation. I would not be surprised a bit if being annexed by the magastan was their real agenda.
Yet our PM Mark Carney is doing things to make this same premier happy at cost of environment and other things. 🤷🏽♂️
Until i can delve deeper into the arguments, the government’s lawyer makes a good point. How can the government be expected to consult before anything has happened? This is before the petition is confirmed, before the vote is set, before the results.
Taking this rulings logic, a petition proposed by any crazy person affecting treaty rights would impose an obligation on government to consult.
> Neil Dobson, a lawyer for the province, argued in court that it was premature to consult with Indigenous leaders about the petition, because the government wasn’t yet taking any action to take Alberta out of Canada.
I think she finds a way to have that referendum one way or another this fall.
I think the UCP becomes a full blown separatist party by this time next year, no matter what the result. It is already doing what it can to make a referendum happen. If there is no referendum or the province votes it down, the separatists will take over. If the referendum succeeds then they become a separatist party based on that.
I think this will be disastrous for the country. Separatists will talk about all of the money that goes to Quebec through equalization, Quebecers will push back and temperatures will rise with the Alberta referendum and Quebec provincial election happening in October.
I think she’s appealing because she knows there’s no other pathway to get this on the October ballot. I imagine that they won’t be able to properly consult with indigenous groups by early September which is when they’d need to know so the ballots can be printed. So then just declaring it as referendum by cabinet wouldn’t work. This is her only option and I don’t think she’ll win at appeals to the Supreme Court.
The reality is that today may be the beginning of the end of her premiership. If there is no separation question on the ballot in October they will overthrow her at the fall AGM.
I’m continually embarrassed to be a born and raised Albertan. It’s getting so much worse here. Please don’t hate us, we aren’t all like this.
In doing this Danielle Smith is all but saying the current UCP government is pro-separation. If I’m the ANDP right now I’m hammering that point straight into the next election.
Separation is deeply unpopular according to all polling done. Smith is trying to cement her legacy as the most divisive Canadian politician in recent history.