site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   408 thread views

Transnational Thursday for May 14, 2026

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Reuters:

Alberta's separatists hit by legal setback

Alberta separatists have been dealt their first major setback in their campaign for a referendum on seceding from Canada, after a provincial court ruled this week in favor of a First Nations bid to halt the referendum petition.

Justice Shaina Leonard ruled on Wednesday that the province's chief electoral officer was wrong to allow separatists to collect signatures requesting a referendum, because the process should have triggered a consultation with Indigenous peoples whose rights might be violated by Alberta's separation from Canada.

"Alberta independence would fundamentally contravene" the land treaties Indigenous peoples signed with Canada, Leonard said.

[Alberta Premier Danielle] Smith, who pushed through several legislative changes last year making it easier for separatists to trigger a referendum, said the court decision was "incorrect in law."

Smith has stopped short of publicly supporting independence, but some factions of the movement back her leadership. She said that her government would appeal against Leonard's ruling and that her caucus would meet "to discuss the full context and make some decisions after we've had a chance to talk it through."

Text of decision

The Applicants contend that the duty to consult was triggered by the CEO Decision, and Alberta's failure to undertake consultation results in the CEO Decision [the Chief Electoral Officer's approval of the petition application] being incorrect. ACFN [Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation] raised this as a primary argument while Blackfoot Nations raised it as an alternative argument.

The Proponent argues the CEO Decision does not trigger a duty to consult and contends the Applicants’ argument is an attempt to transform a non-adjudicative administrative step into a constitutional decision, which, the Proponent argues, it is not.

Similarly, Alberta argues that the CEO Decision does not give rise to a duty to consult as the CEO Decision is limited to allowing the Proponent to gather signatures to determine if there is enough support for the Second Proposal to move forward to a referendum. In fact, Alberta made oral submissions that the duty to consult would not be triggered until after the referendum.

The Applicants dispute Alberta and the Proponent’s characterization of the limited scope and effect of the CEO Decision. The Applicants arguments are based on the legislative framework that requires that a referendum be held if the signature threshold is met.

Alberta acknowledges that the duty to consult often arises when the Crown makes decisions that may adversely impact the lands and resources that affect the exercise of Aboriginal rights but argues that the CEO Decision is not akin to a “strategic, higher-level decision”. The CEO Decision was a nondiscretionary decision dealing with the approval of an application for an initiative petition. It simply allows signatures to be collected. In Alberta’s view the CEO Decision did not engage in governmental policy development, strategy, or resources approvals affecting Aboriginal or Treaty rights, that would elevate it to a strategic higher-level decision.

I have already found that the framework of the Amended CIA provides that upon the CEO verifying that the Second Proposal complies with statutory requirements, including verifying that the signature thresholds are met, it is mandatory for the executive to undertake the subsequent actions outlined in the Amended CIA and the Referendum Act. This means, once an initiative petition is approved and the required signatures are obtained, the executive must hold a referendum and must implement the results of the referendum.

The statutory framework only allows the Applicants to participate in secession once the process enters the realm of the political and is no longer justiciable. I conclude that the CEO Decision, i.e., the Crown conduct, has the potential to adversely affect Treaty rights.

I conclude that the CEO Decision triggers a duty to consult. All three elements of the Haida test are satisfied. The Crown has actual knowledge of Treaty rights that are engaged by the Second Proposal. The CEO Decision triggers a binding referendum on secession. Because of the sequence of events that are triggered by the CEO Decision, the CEO Decision constitutes Crown conduct. A requirement to implement secession without prior involvement of the Applicants has the potential to adversely affect Treaty rights. The CEO Decision therefore triggers a duty to consult.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats