Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal.Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
As a semantic point, there is Treason the crime defined by the criminal code (as well as criminal sedition) which this behaviour obviously is not. But there also is treason and betrayal as spoken colloquially which has a much broader definition. I have no problem with calling Rath and company as traitors in ordinary usage of the word even if they aren't committing actual crimes, and people who deflect the conversation on the subject by pointing to the criminal code definitions are doing a nice bit of motte and bailey arguing.
Secession should be completely illegal, this is something the Americans got right. Entertaining this notion has nothing but threatened national unity and undermined the Canadian government and state. You do not get to benefit from the economic investment and government structures and laws of this country with equal representation politically and then walk away because you happen to be displeased with the current federal government. No one entered confederation under the understanding they'd get to leave it on a whim.
This is my fear. The federal government will be extremely incompetent on this issue and do nothing while the UCP rigs the process and resulting vote with foreign aid to ensure separation.
MAGA has mastered the art of pushing the boundaries of democracy and the rule of law. We’re now seeing similar tactics mirrored by the UCP - almost feels like they are "training" their UCP counterparts.
If Canadians don’t push back, we risk becoming a vassal state rather than a sovereign partner to the U.S.
There has only been one credible allegation of election interference by the RCMP - from China. Post a credible allegation of "MAGA" influencing things in Canada?
MAGA doesn't care what's going on in Canada, honestly.
that Harper led group - the IDU? - has been spreading conservative policies and tactics globally. the right learns from each other and sticks together internationally whereas the left is very fragmented, even within their own countries.
Well as a socialist I think the left should be more like that. Why is international solidarity a bad thing? I hate the right so I hate the IDU but democracy means your enemies have a right to organize. I’d rather fight my political enemies through democracy than through civil war.
I actually agree with part of this. International solidarity in itself is not the problem. I’m a socialist too, and I don’t think the right should be banned from organizing. Democracy absolutely means your enemies get to exist and organize politically.
Where I disagree is treating all international organizing as morally or functionally equivalent.
There’s a difference between international solidarity aimed at advancing policy goals within democratic norms, and transnational coordination that normalizes or spreads tactics that erode those norms. The issue with the IDU is not that conservatives talk to each other across borders. It’s that, especially under Harper, it has increasingly linked parties that flirt with or embrace authoritarian practices, culture-war grievance politics, and delegitimization of institutions when outcomes don’t go their way.
That distinction matters if democracy is the thing we’re trying to protect.
Fighting your political enemies through democracy only works if those enemies are actually committed to democracy as more than a slogan. When movements start treating elections, courts, media, or even national sovereignty as optional obstacles i.e “ideas I don’t like,” it’s a different category of threat.
So yes, they have a right to organize. No argument there. But that doesn’t mean we have to pretend all organizing is neutral, benign, or equally compatible with democratic stability. Calling that out isn’t anti-democratic. It’s part of defending the system that lets any of us argue this in the first place.
What about the Liberal version of the IDU, Liberal International which the Canadian Liberal Party is a member of? They spread Liberal policies and tactics globally. Assuming they get a pass?
The Liberal International comparison is just whataboutism. Yes, it exists. No, it is not the same thing.
LI is a boring, transparent network that pushes standard liberal democratic stuff like elections, rule of law, and multilateralism. You do not see them coordinating culture war narratives or trying to undermine courts and media across borders. The IDU under Harper absolutely has been a hub for right wing populist tactics. Grievance politics, anti elite framing, and attacks on institutions did not appear out of nowhere.
And the “show me RCMP proof of MAGA influence” line is a strawman. Nobody is claiming Trump operatives are stuffing ballot boxes in Canada. Influence is not limited to espionage. It is ideological and strategic, and it is obvious.
Canadian conservatives did not independently invent MAGA language. The talking points, the media ecosystem, and the culture war obsessions are imported almost wholesale. Danielle Smith went on Breitbart and told an American right wing audience she would be more accommodating to Trump than Canada’s own federal government, while Trump was threatening tariffs and floating annexation talk.
That is not nothing.
Brushing off annexation threats as unserious is either naive or dishonest. This is a movement that already tried to overturn an election and openly talks about using state power against perceived enemies. Taking them lightly because it is politically convenient is reckless.
This is not a both sides situation. One network is flawed but still operates within liberal democracy. The other increasingly treats democratic norms as optional. Pretending they are equivalent is just a way to avoid engaging with that reality.
Whether you intend it or not, your posts read like you simp for MAGA.
The Liberal International comparison is just whataboutism. Yes, it exists. No, it is not the same thing. LI is a boring, transparent network that pushes standard liberal democratic stuff like elections, rule of law, and multilateralism. You do not see them coordinating culture war narratives or trying to undermine courts and media across borders. The IDU under Harper absolutely has been a hub for right wing populist tactics. Grievance politics, anti elite framing, and attacks on institutions did not appear out of nowhere.
It's not a whataboutism. My point is that there is a similar Liberal organization that work together and promote modern Liberal policies, like net zero, open immigration etc.
And the “show me RCMP proof of MAGA influence” line is a strawman. Nobody is claiming Trump operatives are stuffing ballot boxes in Canada. Influence is not limited to espionage. It is ideological and strategic, and it is obvious.
A strawman for asking for proof of credible allegations of MAGA interference? I'm not talking about ballot boxing stuffing, I'm talking about instances, like the CPP busing foreign Chinese students to Liberal nomination events or CCP spying stations operating in Canada, both of which have been alleged by the RCMP.
Post an example of the RCMP alleging that level of election interference by "MAGA Operatives"?
Canadian conservatives did not independently invent MAGA language. The talking points, the media ecosystem, and the culture war obsessions are imported almost wholesale. Danielle Smith went on Breitbart and told an American right wing audience she would be more accommodating to Trump than Canada’s own federal government, while Trump was threatening tariffs and floating annexation talk.
Just like Liberals didn't independently invent Leftist langauge, like DEI, radical net zero, intiatives like the Centurty Initative (opening Canada's borders). Justin Trudeau loved importing US culture war obsessions, like abortion and bringing them to the forefront of Canada when there wasn't even a debate.
Brushing off annexation threats as unserious is either naive or dishonest. This is a movement that already tried to overturn an election and openly talks about using state power against perceived enemies. Taking them lightly because it is politically convenient is reckless.
I'm not sticking up for Trump and his tactics, especially when it comes to trade negiotations.
What I'm saying is that this is just Trump's way of belittling an oponent during a negiotation in order to extract better terms on things like trade. 800 US companies already operate in Canada's O&G Sector. Why would the US even bother to annex?
Whether you intend it or not, your posts read like you simp for MAGA.
EDIT: 25 day old account eh.....
Just because I'm against radical leftist ideology, like DEI, net zero and open borders doesn't make me a "simp" for MAGA.
You’re still missing the core distinction, and repeating it louder doesn’t fix it.
Your Liberal International comparison is whataboutism because it doesn’t address the claim being made. Nobody said Liberals don’t coordinate internationally. The claim is about what kind of politics is being coordinated. Net zero, immigration levels, and multilateral policy frameworks are debated openly in Parliament, campaigns, and courts. They are not built around delegitimizing elections, attacking judges, or framing media as enemies of the people. Treating “policy alignment” and “institution-erosion tactics” as equivalent is flattening the issue on purpose.
On the RCMP point, you’re moving the goalposts.
No one claimed MAGA operatives are running covert ops in Canada on the same level as foreign state actors. That’s your framing, not mine. Influence does not require RCMP criminal thresholds to be real. Ideological alignment, shared media ecosystems, donor networks, and narrative importation do not trigger CSIS press conferences, but they absolutely shape domestic politics. Asking for RCMP allegations is irrelevant because that is not how soft political influence works, and you know that.
Your “both sides import language” argument also collapses under scrutiny.
Yes, Canadian liberals import language from the US. The difference is that abortion rights, DEI, or climate policy debates do not involve threatening to overturn elections, encouraging political violence, or joking about annexing allies. Importing rhetoric is not the issue. Importing authoritarian norms and grievance politics is. Pretending those are symmetrical is disingenuous.
On annexation, this is where your argument really falls apart.
Saying “Trump is just negotiating” ignores his actual record. This is not a normal hard-ball negotiator. This is someone who tried to overturn an election, regularly frames allies as enemies, and treats sovereignty as conditional on obedience. Hand-waving annexation talk because it sounds inconvenient does not make it unserious. It makes it reckless to dismiss. Serious countries do not normalize threats against themselves just because the speaker claims to be joking.
And finally, the “I’m just against radical left ideology” defense doesn’t help you.
No one said criticizing DEI or net zero makes you MAGA. What makes your posts read like MAGA apologism is consistently minimizing MAGA behavior, demanding impossible standards of proof for its influence, reframing its threats as harmless bluster, and defaulting to “but Liberals do it too” whenever the conversation gets uncomfortable.
If that’s not the lane you want to be in, fine. But right now, whether you intend it or not, that’s exactly how your arguments come across.
Poilievre says it’s “settled,” yet he’s repeatedly allowed social conservative backbenchers to reopen the issue through private members’ bills and free votes instead of shutting it down. You can’t accuse Liberals of importing US culture wars while letting your own caucus quietly relitigate abortion.
It's not really clear how you would write such laws. On the face of it, trying to criminalize foreign influence would roughshod over Charter freedoms in the process. As it stands, treason has been abused mightily throughout history to target political enemies, so there's a reason modern constitutions and legal codes, or even somewhat older ones like that of the United States constitution, create a very high bar for treason.
Like with lobbying if someone is misrepresenting themselves.
So someone who appears to be just a “concerned Alberta resident who genuinely believes in separation” and starts a separatist movement is actually get paid by the Americans to promote those views.
Charter freedoms can't possibly extend to trying to destroy your own country with help of foreign actors. still better to draft an imperfect law and let the Courts decide than to have no law at all.
If you're referring to those guys bringing all the guns to Coutts, that's just pure criminality. I wouldn't call it sedition, I'd call it morons with firearms.
And the Trucker protests in general were a little too diffuse. I think they may have been able to go after Pat King, who was, so far as I can tell, the one who came up with the idea of overthrowing the government, but Lich and Barber don't seem to have been cut from quite the same cloth.
But the moment you charge any of them with sedition or insurrection, in a way you elevate them. Do we really want wannabe far right mobsters like King, Lich and Barber refashioned into some sort of separatist or would-be junta heroes?
All the individual groups of that filthy convoy banded together to lock the capital down. The MOU demanding an overthrow of the government was common knowledge at the time. By remaining present at these protests they stood by and remained there with that knowledge. They're treasonists every last one of them.
As I understand it Lich and Barber were pretty concerned about King, so I suspect at best you might get King on such charges, but since there was no credible threat of sedition, I doubt even charges would have hung to King.
They were kooky fanatics who were only permitted to as far as they did because Ottawa and the Ontario government let this go on as long as it did. It fell apart pretty rapidly once the Federal government got directly involved.
Depends. Charter rights aren’t absolute. There are two ways laws can engage them: under Section 1, if they’re “necessary in a free and democratic society,” or via the Notwithstanding Clause of Section 33.
I’d argue it’s possible to pass a law that prohibits private citizens from engaging with foreign agents to influence domestic policy and still pass the Oakes test. For example:
Any Canadian citizen or lawful resident who, outside of their official duties for the Crown or other authorized Canadian institution, knowingly:
(a) seeks support, assistance, or material aid from a foreign agent or entity in favour of a political agenda;
(b) does so without lawful authority granted by the Crown or relevant Canadian institution; and
(c) intends that such support influence a domestic policy outcome;
shall be guilty of an indictable offence.
This could pass the Oakes test because:
Pressing objective: preventing unauthorized foreign influence on Canadian domestic policy.
Rational connection: targets only unofficial, unauthorized engagement, leaving lawful, official interactions intact. It also allows for private engagement, with permission and registration with the government to keep things transparent.
Minimal impairment: It preserves official duties, as well as sanctioned advocacy or charity work and offers avenue for lawful, private engagement.
Proportionality: depends on the penalties, but this is arguably the most negotiable aspect.
It's not perfect, and to be clear: I am not a lawyer, I am only a law nerd.
But this is the vein under which such a law could be crafted.
I didn't make reference to Section 33 beyond noting it being one of two ways to limit our section 2 rights. My example is grounded solidly in the Section 1 exceptions.
Section 33 would be the sledgehammer - it'd certainly allow criminalization, but would be limited by the five year limit.
For real. Constitutional technicalities and gotchas are going to do nothing but inflame these tensions. Separatist sentiment cannot be quashed by force.
I don't see how it's clear at all. You can't prevent people from hearing or speaking about undesirable things (however defined) without throwing out the free and democratic society of which you speak.
It’s funny how liberals will call socialism authoritarian and than pull stuff like this
Political freedom is not a luxury that can be pulled from people we don’t like.
To quote Polish communist Rosa Luxemburg “Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all.”
These far right Alberta separatists are disgusting, so let’s fight them politically. This might even involve highly militant confrontational actions, but using the state to clamp down on political freedom is a dead end
I am very sympathetic to a lot of the left wing “pink tide governments” if people I support meet with the president of Columbia to discuss democratic socialist and environmentalist political strategy, I can easily see a right wing capitalist government using the same precedent to target that.
If they are taking concrete actions sure but it seems hard tk enforce without setting a bad precedent.
If they are actively planning an American backed rebellion it is fair to repress that but preemptive action is what I disagree with.
To me it echoes Pierre Trudeau’s use of the War Measures Act in response to the FLQ
there should at least be a registry where Canadian politicians have to report any discussions with foreign officials outside of meetings sanctioned by the federal gov't and a record of what that meeting is about. there's already lobbyist registration but this puts the onus on the politician. any discussion about the dissolution of Canada should be considered a violation of the oath of office
Hell yeah it is! This country was built by all of us for all of us and benefits all of us. There should be no regional ownership! There should only be national ownership. This talk of separation only serves the self interests and the ambitions of a few; of a minority of Canadians. It seems the subject of separation is being used, by a minority, as opportunistic leverage at a time when our sovereignty is being pressured by external forces. It is shameful to see our sovereignty being used in this way to gain advantage.
Explain to me how separation for either Alberta or Quebec would improve life for the citizens of either province?
remember, the majoirty of albertans didn't ask for this.
this is a small minority of politicians that want this for the advantages they believe they will personally reap.
then they pay for consultants and pr firms to spread the message to convince enough people hoping it will snowball into something big enough (will never be majority) to enact.
I don't think it's equivalent. It was an appeal to American's in general, in response to their "foreign government entertaining [the] destabilization [of] Canada".
I don't see how you don't see the equivalence. The Government of Ontario pushed a narrative in absolute contradiction to the president's view to the National Interest.
The American Government is pushing a narrative in absolute contradiction to the official position of the Government of Alberta that Alberta should be constitutionally sovereign in a United Canada (or put more simply I want more than my fair share of transfers from the Fed and make their strings unconstitutional).
Now I'm not stupid, these two things are in no way the same.
Treason has a very high bar to be a criminal charge, and the discussion around separation is a legally protected from of political speech under Section 2(b). Even sedition doesn't apply.
Sedition requires the intentional messaging urging lawlessness against the Crown or it's representatives. Discussing separation is lawful, and does not in and of itself result in taking action against the Crown. Treason would be acts intended to rebell against or intentionally undermine the actions of the state with an enemy or foreign actor in direct conflict with our military. This does not apply with the US currently.
Ottawa is free to pass legislation that limits the engagement of foreign contacts by private citizens, but that wouldn't be sedition or treason as they are currently written. However it doesn't seem like there is any desire to do so, especially given that the foreign agent registry still isn't official.
Advocating for a separation vote is frustrating and extremely, extremely, self-destructive… but isn’t treason. Like the other poster said, there’s a very high bar- for a reason.
I'm not sure the best response to foreign funding of domestic issue groups is to view the recipients as traitors. We're probably better served with changes to the rules around political advertising and verifying that groups buying these ads are entirely Canadian-funded.
Of course they said no because other separatists in this country already do it. Blanchet has openly said he has met with foreign officials to talk about the process of Quebec separation and what it would mean for foreign diplomacy.
You can't get angry at Alberta for what Quebec has already long been doing.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
As a semantic point, there is Treason the crime defined by the criminal code (as well as criminal sedition) which this behaviour obviously is not. But there also is treason and betrayal as spoken colloquially which has a much broader definition. I have no problem with calling Rath and company as traitors in ordinary usage of the word even if they aren't committing actual crimes, and people who deflect the conversation on the subject by pointing to the criminal code definitions are doing a nice bit of motte and bailey arguing.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
It absolutely should be and allowing these discussions were a mistake in the first place.
Ridiculous place we find ourselves
Secession should be completely illegal, this is something the Americans got right. Entertaining this notion has nothing but threatened national unity and undermined the Canadian government and state. You do not get to benefit from the economic investment and government structures and laws of this country with equal representation politically and then walk away because you happen to be displeased with the current federal government. No one entered confederation under the understanding they'd get to leave it on a whim.
So? Whether that's a good or bad thing is subjective. A lot of Albertans, Quebecois and even some Saskatchewanians think that's a good thing.
not legally treason, but morally treasonous and voters should keep that in mind during the recalls and elections.
Canada needs some new laws. foreign interference is a real problem and Ottawa needs to do something more than sticking its head in the sand.
You either have laws that prevent foreign interference or you have an agency that operates covertly yo prevent it but we have neither.
Ottawa will do nothing and separatism is a growing reality.
As an Albertan who sees the misinformation being spread i agree.
The laws are being written by the corrupt people who rig the deck anytime people try and do the democratic process.
This is my fear. The federal government will be extremely incompetent on this issue and do nothing while the UCP rigs the process and resulting vote with foreign aid to ensure separation.
MAGA has mastered the art of pushing the boundaries of democracy and the rule of law. We’re now seeing similar tactics mirrored by the UCP - almost feels like they are "training" their UCP counterparts.
If Canadians don’t push back, we risk becoming a vassal state rather than a sovereign partner to the U.S.
If you think the lesson of MAGA UN the states amid they had too much democracy there is something with you
The US is barely even a democracy, the country needs much more democracy if MAGA is gonna be defeated
One step. One vote.
MAGA-style anger politics is poisoning Alberta. Vote out the UCP. Reject separation.
Alberta is Canadian. Always been and always will be. Disagreement is healthy, but perpetual anger doesn’t make bad ideas good.
There has only been one credible allegation of election interference by the RCMP - from China. Post a credible allegation of "MAGA" influencing things in Canada?
MAGA doesn't care what's going on in Canada, honestly.
This is the most hilarious take when you consider they want to annex us. Are you daft?
that Harper led group - the IDU? - has been spreading conservative policies and tactics globally. the right learns from each other and sticks together internationally whereas the left is very fragmented, even within their own countries.
Well as a socialist I think the left should be more like that. Why is international solidarity a bad thing? I hate the right so I hate the IDU but democracy means your enemies have a right to organize. I’d rather fight my political enemies through democracy than through civil war.
I actually agree with part of this. International solidarity in itself is not the problem. I’m a socialist too, and I don’t think the right should be banned from organizing. Democracy absolutely means your enemies get to exist and organize politically.
Where I disagree is treating all international organizing as morally or functionally equivalent.
There’s a difference between international solidarity aimed at advancing policy goals within democratic norms, and transnational coordination that normalizes or spreads tactics that erode those norms. The issue with the IDU is not that conservatives talk to each other across borders. It’s that, especially under Harper, it has increasingly linked parties that flirt with or embrace authoritarian practices, culture-war grievance politics, and delegitimization of institutions when outcomes don’t go their way.
That distinction matters if democracy is the thing we’re trying to protect.
Fighting your political enemies through democracy only works if those enemies are actually committed to democracy as more than a slogan. When movements start treating elections, courts, media, or even national sovereignty as optional obstacles i.e “ideas I don’t like,” it’s a different category of threat.
So yes, they have a right to organize. No argument there. But that doesn’t mean we have to pretend all organizing is neutral, benign, or equally compatible with democratic stability. Calling that out isn’t anti-democratic. It’s part of defending the system that lets any of us argue this in the first place.
What about the Liberal version of the IDU, Liberal International which the Canadian Liberal Party is a member of? They spread Liberal policies and tactics globally. Assuming they get a pass?
This is like saying that the corner store is just like the crack dealer.
The Liberal International comparison is just whataboutism. Yes, it exists. No, it is not the same thing. LI is a boring, transparent network that pushes standard liberal democratic stuff like elections, rule of law, and multilateralism. You do not see them coordinating culture war narratives or trying to undermine courts and media across borders. The IDU under Harper absolutely has been a hub for right wing populist tactics. Grievance politics, anti elite framing, and attacks on institutions did not appear out of nowhere.
And the “show me RCMP proof of MAGA influence” line is a strawman. Nobody is claiming Trump operatives are stuffing ballot boxes in Canada. Influence is not limited to espionage. It is ideological and strategic, and it is obvious.
Canadian conservatives did not independently invent MAGA language. The talking points, the media ecosystem, and the culture war obsessions are imported almost wholesale. Danielle Smith went on Breitbart and told an American right wing audience she would be more accommodating to Trump than Canada’s own federal government, while Trump was threatening tariffs and floating annexation talk.
That is not nothing.
Brushing off annexation threats as unserious is either naive or dishonest. This is a movement that already tried to overturn an election and openly talks about using state power against perceived enemies. Taking them lightly because it is politically convenient is reckless.
This is not a both sides situation. One network is flawed but still operates within liberal democracy. The other increasingly treats democratic norms as optional. Pretending they are equivalent is just a way to avoid engaging with that reality.
Whether you intend it or not, your posts read like you simp for MAGA.
EDIT: 25 day old account eh.....
It's not a whataboutism. My point is that there is a similar Liberal organization that work together and promote modern Liberal policies, like net zero, open immigration etc.
A strawman for asking for proof of credible allegations of MAGA interference? I'm not talking about ballot boxing stuffing, I'm talking about instances, like the CPP busing foreign Chinese students to Liberal nomination events or CCP spying stations operating in Canada, both of which have been alleged by the RCMP.
Post an example of the RCMP alleging that level of election interference by "MAGA Operatives"?
Just like Liberals didn't independently invent Leftist langauge, like DEI, radical net zero, intiatives like the Centurty Initative (opening Canada's borders). Justin Trudeau loved importing US culture war obsessions, like abortion and bringing them to the forefront of Canada when there wasn't even a debate.
I'm not sticking up for Trump and his tactics, especially when it comes to trade negiotations.
What I'm saying is that this is just Trump's way of belittling an oponent during a negiotation in order to extract better terms on things like trade. 800 US companies already operate in Canada's O&G Sector. Why would the US even bother to annex?
Just because I'm against radical leftist ideology, like DEI, net zero and open borders doesn't make me a "simp" for MAGA.
You’re still missing the core distinction, and repeating it louder doesn’t fix it.
Your Liberal International comparison is whataboutism because it doesn’t address the claim being made. Nobody said Liberals don’t coordinate internationally. The claim is about what kind of politics is being coordinated. Net zero, immigration levels, and multilateral policy frameworks are debated openly in Parliament, campaigns, and courts. They are not built around delegitimizing elections, attacking judges, or framing media as enemies of the people. Treating “policy alignment” and “institution-erosion tactics” as equivalent is flattening the issue on purpose.
On the RCMP point, you’re moving the goalposts.
No one claimed MAGA operatives are running covert ops in Canada on the same level as foreign state actors. That’s your framing, not mine. Influence does not require RCMP criminal thresholds to be real. Ideological alignment, shared media ecosystems, donor networks, and narrative importation do not trigger CSIS press conferences, but they absolutely shape domestic politics. Asking for RCMP allegations is irrelevant because that is not how soft political influence works, and you know that.
Your “both sides import language” argument also collapses under scrutiny.
Yes, Canadian liberals import language from the US. The difference is that abortion rights, DEI, or climate policy debates do not involve threatening to overturn elections, encouraging political violence, or joking about annexing allies. Importing rhetoric is not the issue. Importing authoritarian norms and grievance politics is. Pretending those are symmetrical is disingenuous. On annexation, this is where your argument really falls apart.
Saying “Trump is just negotiating” ignores his actual record. This is not a normal hard-ball negotiator. This is someone who tried to overturn an election, regularly frames allies as enemies, and treats sovereignty as conditional on obedience. Hand-waving annexation talk because it sounds inconvenient does not make it unserious. It makes it reckless to dismiss. Serious countries do not normalize threats against themselves just because the speaker claims to be joking.
And finally, the “I’m just against radical left ideology” defense doesn’t help you.
No one said criticizing DEI or net zero makes you MAGA. What makes your posts read like MAGA apologism is consistently minimizing MAGA behavior, demanding impossible standards of proof for its influence, reframing its threats as harmless bluster, and defaulting to “but Liberals do it too” whenever the conversation gets uncomfortable.
If that’s not the lane you want to be in, fine. But right now, whether you intend it or not, that’s exactly how your arguments come across.
Also, the abortion point is pure projection.
Poilievre says it’s “settled,” yet he’s repeatedly allowed social conservative backbenchers to reopen the issue through private members’ bills and free votes instead of shutting it down. You can’t accuse Liberals of importing US culture wars while letting your own caucus quietly relitigate abortion.
It's not really clear how you would write such laws. On the face of it, trying to criminalize foreign influence would roughshod over Charter freedoms in the process. As it stands, treason has been abused mightily throughout history to target political enemies, so there's a reason modern constitutions and legal codes, or even somewhat older ones like that of the United States constitution, create a very high bar for treason.
Then it would be foreign interference if a domestic actor is acting on behalf of foreign powers.
Although there’s enough separation that it probably wouldn’t meet that threshold either.
It depends on what you mean by "act".
Like with lobbying if someone is misrepresenting themselves.
So someone who appears to be just a “concerned Alberta resident who genuinely believes in separation” and starts a separatist movement is actually get paid by the Americans to promote those views.
Providing they report it on their taxes, what of it?
Charter freedoms can't possibly extend to trying to destroy your own country with help of foreign actors. still better to draft an imperfect law and let the Courts decide than to have no law at all.
The Charter protects free expression. If you have some evidence of actual insurrection or sedition then provide it.
Coutts.
Truckers.
If you're referring to those guys bringing all the guns to Coutts, that's just pure criminality. I wouldn't call it sedition, I'd call it morons with firearms.
And the Trucker protests in general were a little too diffuse. I think they may have been able to go after Pat King, who was, so far as I can tell, the one who came up with the idea of overthrowing the government, but Lich and Barber don't seem to have been cut from quite the same cloth.
But the moment you charge any of them with sedition or insurrection, in a way you elevate them. Do we really want wannabe far right mobsters like King, Lich and Barber refashioned into some sort of separatist or would-be junta heroes?
All the individual groups of that filthy convoy banded together to lock the capital down. The MOU demanding an overthrow of the government was common knowledge at the time. By remaining present at these protests they stood by and remained there with that knowledge. They're treasonists every last one of them.
As I understand it Lich and Barber were pretty concerned about King, so I suspect at best you might get King on such charges, but since there was no credible threat of sedition, I doubt even charges would have hung to King.
They were kooky fanatics who were only permitted to as far as they did because Ottawa and the Ontario government let this go on as long as it did. It fell apart pretty rapidly once the Federal government got directly involved.
That would solve the problem. Take away their charter freedoms haha.
They would probably love nothing more than Ottawa to do that
Depends. Charter rights aren’t absolute. There are two ways laws can engage them: under Section 1, if they’re “necessary in a free and democratic society,” or via the Notwithstanding Clause of Section 33.
I’d argue it’s possible to pass a law that prohibits private citizens from engaging with foreign agents to influence domestic policy and still pass the Oakes test. For example:
This could pass the Oakes test because:
It's not perfect, and to be clear: I am not a lawyer, I am only a law nerd.
But this is the vein under which such a law could be crafted.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
Ah yes, let's pretend s33 would stop people talking about separation
I didn't make reference to Section 33 beyond noting it being one of two ways to limit our section 2 rights. My example is grounded solidly in the Section 1 exceptions.
Section 33 would be the sledgehammer - it'd certainly allow criminalization, but would be limited by the five year limit.
For real. Constitutional technicalities and gotchas are going to do nothing but inflame these tensions. Separatist sentiment cannot be quashed by force.
It’s very clear: free and democratic societies take reasonable measures to prevent themselves from being torn about by their enemies
I don't see how it's clear at all. You can't prevent people from hearing or speaking about undesirable things (however defined) without throwing out the free and democratic society of which you speak.
We can prevent them from speaking to foreign powers and their agents sure we can
It’s funny how liberals will call socialism authoritarian and than pull stuff like this
Political freedom is not a luxury that can be pulled from people we don’t like.
To quote Polish communist Rosa Luxemburg “Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all.”
These far right Alberta separatists are disgusting, so let’s fight them politically. This might even involve highly militant confrontational actions, but using the state to clamp down on political freedom is a dead end
I am fascinated by the presumption that “don’t meet with foreign agents to conspire against Canada” could only be enforced through tyranny.
It's a huge tell to how the thought processes are working.
I am very sympathetic to a lot of the left wing “pink tide governments” if people I support meet with the president of Columbia to discuss democratic socialist and environmentalist political strategy, I can easily see a right wing capitalist government using the same precedent to target that.
If they are taking concrete actions sure but it seems hard tk enforce without setting a bad precedent.
If they are actively planning an American backed rebellion it is fair to repress that but preemptive action is what I disagree with.
To me it echoes Pierre Trudeau’s use of the War Measures Act in response to the FLQ
Really? How? Cut off their phone and internet and open their mail? And wouldn't you just be proving their point?
there should at least be a registry where Canadian politicians have to report any discussions with foreign officials outside of meetings sanctioned by the federal gov't and a record of what that meeting is about. there's already lobbyist registration but this puts the onus on the politician. any discussion about the dissolution of Canada should be considered a violation of the oath of office
These people aren’t exactly being subtle.
“Liberal society is helpless to defend itself” is something our neighbours have learned much to late and we can profit by their bad example
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
Hell yeah it is! This country was built by all of us for all of us and benefits all of us. There should be no regional ownership! There should only be national ownership. This talk of separation only serves the self interests and the ambitions of a few; of a minority of Canadians. It seems the subject of separation is being used, by a minority, as opportunistic leverage at a time when our sovereignty is being pressured by external forces. It is shameful to see our sovereignty being used in this way to gain advantage. Explain to me how separation for either Alberta or Quebec would improve life for the citizens of either province?
under what definition of treason? because it's certainly not in the one laid out in our criminal code
how does that have anything to do with treason?
Because you don't agree with it does not make it treason. That's ridiculous
remember, the majoirty of albertans didn't ask for this.
this is a small minority of politicians that want this for the advantages they believe they will personally reap.
then they pay for consultants and pr firms to spread the message to convince enough people hoping it will snowball into something big enough (will never be majority) to enact.
[removed]
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
[removed]
Canadians should be able to talk with whomever they wish, outside of criminality.
But foreign governments entertaining destabilization in Canada is something else entirely.
MAGA doesn't grasp this, but most other governments do. (except France, of course).
I'm just going to sit here quietly and point to Ontario's tariff advertisement.
I don't think it's equivalent. It was an appeal to American's in general, in response to their "foreign government entertaining [the] destabilization [of] Canada".
I don't see how you don't see the equivalence. The Government of Ontario pushed a narrative in absolute contradiction to the president's view to the National Interest.
The American Government is pushing a narrative in absolute contradiction to the official position of the Government of Alberta that Alberta should be constitutionally sovereign in a United Canada (or put more simply I want more than my fair share of transfers from the Fed and make their strings unconstitutional).
Now I'm not stupid, these two things are in no way the same.
Not just Ottawa, the criminal code.
Treason has a very high bar to be a criminal charge, and the discussion around separation is a legally protected from of political speech under Section 2(b). Even sedition doesn't apply.
Sedition requires the intentional messaging urging lawlessness against the Crown or it's representatives. Discussing separation is lawful, and does not in and of itself result in taking action against the Crown. Treason would be acts intended to rebell against or intentionally undermine the actions of the state with an enemy or foreign actor in direct conflict with our military. This does not apply with the US currently.
Ottawa is free to pass legislation that limits the engagement of foreign contacts by private citizens, but that wouldn't be sedition or treason as they are currently written. However it doesn't seem like there is any desire to do so, especially given that the foreign agent registry still isn't official.
Advocating for a separation vote is frustrating and extremely, extremely, self-destructive… but isn’t treason. Like the other poster said, there’s a very high bar- for a reason.
There’s a difference between advocating for a separation vote and getting foreign funding.
I'm not sure the best response to foreign funding of domestic issue groups is to view the recipients as traitors. We're probably better served with changes to the rules around political advertising and verifying that groups buying these ads are entirely Canadian-funded.
Of course they said no because other separatists in this country already do it. Blanchet has openly said he has met with foreign officials to talk about the process of Quebec separation and what it would mean for foreign diplomacy.
You can't get angry at Alberta for what Quebec has already long been doing.
I mean Blanchet was walking through what might happen with a separate Quebec, these folks are going abroad to secure foreign funding.
They are very different things.