- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
- calgary@lemmy.ca
- edmonton@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
- calgary@lemmy.ca
- edmonton@lemmy.ca
You must log in or register to comment.
Setting aside the obvious right wing anti-immigration questions 2-5, the ones beginning with “Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution…” made me chuckle.
Tried it before, didn’t work.
Not an Albertan or Canadian. Could just be my lack of knowledge but the 7 and 8th questions seem reasonable to me? The explanations seem to be lacking.
7: Letting provincial governments to appoint provincial King’s Bench and Appeals courts. What’s the rationale for the federal government appointing provincial justices? Are these courts responsible just for provincial law, or all law?
8: Abolishing unelected federal Senate. What are these ‘constitutional implications’ that are so extreme? Why is the existence of an unelected senate so readily accepted because it’s already there and it would be hard to remove? Can’t another institution take its place as a check on federal power?
You cant operate under the assumption any of this is in good faith. Assume as a baseline that every question involves provincial fuckery because that is who this is coming from. This is all bad faith.
As I said, I’m not from Canada so I don’t know the character of the proponents any more than that of the website opposing it. I can see what the proponents’ politics are, so I give the website the benefit of the doubt. But a website made to convince someone that they should oppose a law can’t rely on the reader already distrusting the proposers.
It’s good to be cynical, but that shouldn’t mean blindly trusting what ‘your’ people say.
Ok for context as someone who does know this is an openly libertarian fascistic administration that already violated the constitution using a tool of the courts meant for ACTUAL emergencies to shut down a teachers strike. They are very untrustworthy and the referendum was (genuinely, this is established knowledge here) rigged by noodling with legislation to happen despite not meeting its signature goals and an opposing petition blowing the seperatists out of the water with their own “stay in canada” petition, which was dismissed via shady mans to allow for this referendum. Which will btw cost 120-130 million after scrapping so many public resources we had a nearly 24% increase in homelessness in a single year strongly tied to that cost cutting. Oh, and the seperatists side leaking the entire voting database of elections alberta to an unsecured website which has yet to be demonstrated wasnt used to falsify signatures on the separatist petition AND in essence doxxed every single voting Albertan. Wish I made that up but it just happened and we are pretty mad about it.
The premier has a liberty fund tattoo on her forearm. You dont have to be “you people” not to trust a person who flew down to trumps inauguration on the taxpayer dime, uninvited, and during a time when canadians are salty at americans (for valid reasons)
This isnt a “my word vs your word” thing, if you live here and pay attention it is impossible to miss, they have had constant fraud and corruption investigations.
We don’t distinguish between federal and provincial courts. Court of King’s Bench and appeals cover all law, both provincial statute and federal statute. For an American corollary, consider what it would look like if states could appoint their own federal circuit court judges.
7 if I read the text it’s to provincially appoint judges to interpret federal law. There’s a clear distinction between provincial and federal powers, this is just a power grab.
8 I think there’s other discussions about senate reform that should happen but let the other persons point this is too open.
Tl;dr these people should move to the States.
Number 7 would allow the province to stack a court with internally politically motivated individuals instead of remaining impartial. Basically you would let Danielle Smith stack the court to do whatever she wanted instead of having to run it by people that would keep her in check.
Number 8 may not be bad if you don’t have a completely biased small group picking and choosing what they pass whenever they feel like it. There would be no way for us to know until they built the new system, but I’m betting it wouldn’t be good. Yes they could make it better, but from everything I’ve seen this group is not interested in making things better for normal people.
