Forever Canadian Petition Support (Alberta Politics)

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Will there be some setups in the downtown +15's in the coming months?

I'm just reminded of the RECALL THE MAYOR guy that was just at various places in the +15's and while it was met with a lot of derision, it seemed to generate a ton of engagement (and likely lots of signatures too).

The tally was under 70k, out of a random sample of over 300 ballots all were deemed invalid because the organizer missed a piece of paperwork for each ballot. It cost the city thirty thousand if I recall correctly.

[Eric Vail]

I brought my wife and daughter to a park in Acadia to sign the petition tonight. Let's keep the signatures going.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

I brought my wife and daughter to a park in Acadia to sign the petition tonight. Let's keep the signatures going.

I signed last Thursday at the Farmers market in High River.

[WideReceiver]

Do natives really own land in Alberta that can prevent separation?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by WideReceiver

Do natives really own land in Alberta that can prevent separation?

"Native" is a pretty outdated term. Indigenous is more appropriate. But yes. Treaties 6,7 and 8 cover most of Alberta, with the remaining covered by 4 and 10. Those treaties were made with the Crown, before Canadian independence, and before Alberta as a province existed. Those treaties are still legal agreements to which Alberta has zero rights to end or renegotiate, because they are not a party to them. Any attempt for Alberta to seperate would immediately be challenged in court, and defeated. It's one of the reasons this is all so stupid.


The only way for this to happen is for the Crown and all indigenous treaty parties to agree, or violence and war. Clearly given the lack of respect the UCP has shown them indicates they'd have to be dumber than Trump voters to side with the UCP, and then you still have to get The Crown on side, and probably the rest of Canada, too.

[WideReceiver]

Thank you. Yes, should have used Indigenous; it was late and I was falling asleep. Your answer is reassuring.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

"Native" is a pretty outdated term. Indigenous is more appropriate. But yes. Treaties 6,7 and 8 cover most of Alberta, with the remaining covered by 4 and 10. Those treaties were made with the Crown, before Canadian independence, and before Alberta as a province existed. Those treaties are still legal agreements to which Alberta has zero rights to end or renegotiate, because they are not a party to them. Any attempt for Alberta to seperate would immediately be challenged in court, and defeated. It's one of the reasons this is all so stupid.


The only way for this to happen is for the Crown and all indigenous treaty parties to agree, or violence and war. Clearly given the lack of respect the UCP has shown them indicates they'd have to be dumber than Trump voters to side with the UCP, and then you still have to get The Crown on side, and probably the rest of Canada, too.

Don't forget the national parks! Smith just went through a whole big thing about how the feds own the national parks and the province does not.

In an attempt to separate those national parks would go back to the feds and then Banff and Jasper would become a part of BC and that big national park that is 1/3 of northern Alberta would probably rejoin the NWT.

Driving around Calgary would be fun. They would need to set up border crossings in the SW section of the ring road as that is on treaty land. At that point, life would be easier for Calgary to separate from Alberta and rejoin Canada.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

BC will be obligated to build it for us, too. If you read international law interpreted by a Rodeo Clown "Lawyer."

For a group of people so keenly anti-UN, they certainly like to raise UN conventions to support their argument.

[WideReceiver]

Elks fans will be canvassing their tailgate party and have challenged Calgary fans to collect more signatures in the Labour Day Classic. Game on. Whoever wins, Alberta wins.

[Buff]

I understand the importance of getting as many signatures as possible to prove the point. However, I'm curious as to how many they have right now. Surely they surpassed what they needed quite some time ago.

I found a place to sign close to my home so I'll be adding to the total on Saturday.

[Reggie Dunlop]

300,000 is still a lot of signatures... like A LOT.

They're not there yet. The initial month is exceeding expectations I think.

It's still summer and people are out and about in public and issue is forefront in a traditionally slow news month. But come October momentum might wane.

[WideReceiver]

I’m canvassing and our area group is very motivated and organized. I’ll be disappointed if province wide we don’t get 500,000. I don’t want numbers. I don’t want people to ease up.

[Tiger]

Is there a list of where they will be this weekend in Calgary?

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Is there a list of where they will be this weekend in Calgary?

There is a list here on the website

https://www.forever-canadian.ca/sign-the-petition

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

"Native" is a pretty outdated term. Indigenous is more appropriate. But yes. Treaties 6,7 and 8 cover most of Alberta, with the remaining covered by 4 and 10. Those treaties were made with the Crown, before Canadian independence, and before Alberta as a province existed. Those treaties are still legal agreements to which Alberta has zero rights to end or renegotiate, because they are not a party to them. Any attempt for Alberta to seperate would immediately be challenged in court, and defeated. It's one of the reasons this is all so stupid.


The only way for this to happen is for the Crown and all indigenous treaty parties to agree, or violence and war. Clearly given the lack of respect the UCP has shown them indicates they'd have to be dumber than Trump voters to side with the UCP, and then you still have to get The Crown on side, and probably the rest of Canada, too.

This is undecided law but an Alberta that was still a subject of the crown likely could be a separate nation and responsible for the treaties.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

BC will be obligated to build it for us, too. If you read international law interpreted by a Rodeo Clown "Lawyer."

[Julio]

Originally Posted by WideReceiver

Elks fans will be canvassing their tailgate party and have challenged Calgary fans to collect more signatures in the Labour Day Classic. Game on. Whoever wins, Alberta wins.

There isn't any listing of anybody collecting signatures at McMahon on Monday. Not sure if anybody would be able to do it at the Stadium itself, but maybe by the C Train stations before and after the game?

[Bigtime]

River Hall (which opens today) from 4:30 to 6ish there will be volunteers there collecting signatures today.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is undecided law but an Alberta that was still a subject of the crown likely could be a separate nation and responsible for the treaties.

At absolute best, Alberta would have to remain under the Crown, or give up the treaties crossing borders.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

"Native" is a pretty outdated term. Indigenous is more appropriate. But yes. Treaties 6,7 and 8 cover most of Alberta, with the remaining covered by 4 and 10. Those treaties were made with the Crown, before Canadian independence, and before Alberta as a province existed. Those treaties are still legal agreements to which Alberta has zero rights to end or renegotiate, because they are not a party to them. Any attempt for Alberta to seperate would immediately be challenged in court, and defeated. It's one of the reasons this is all so stupid.


The only way for this to happen is for the Crown and all indigenous treaty parties to agree, or violence and war. Clearly given the lack of respect the UCP has shown them indicates they'd have to be dumber than Trump voters to side with the UCP, and then you still have to get The Crown on side, and probably the rest of Canada, too.

To me, whether you are for or against the idea of Alberta separation, two points need to be emphasized by every person who would like our society to be shaped by reality and fact-based debates:

1. The only thing a successful referendum vote for secession gets you is a legal and moral entitlement to negotiate a potential exit. That's it. No entitlement to an actual exit, just the chance to try and the need for others to also at least try to come to an agreement respecting the referendum result in good faith.

The separatists comical 'Fully Costed Fiscal Plan' and other propaganda now asserts that "no different than Kosovo" (I promise that is an actual quote) Alberta could ignore the Clarity Act legal and constitutional requirements, get a mere "50% plus one" and then skip negotiations and "declare" independence that would simply be recognized by the US and poof! we become a country (giving up nothing and only gaining everything we could ever want).

Of course, in this fever-dream scenario of idiocy they completely skip attempting to say what the financial assets and territorial borders of such a non-negotiated 'declared' Alberta would be...because of course such a declared state could not just take federal funds or a single square foot of federal or treaty lands with it.

2. Stating the obvious, any separation negotiations would actually occur with - you guessed it - the rest of Canada...including First Nations. Any negotiated secession would then need to be ratified by the House and Senate by way of the constitutional amending formula agreed to by (checks notes) yep, Alberta, at the patriation of the Constitution back in 1982.

While it is not crystal clear which subsection of the amending formula would apply, let us assume we do not need unanimous agreement of all provinces but instead we only need 7 provinces representing 50% of the population...there is no way we ever get that level of support for any kind of one-sided agreement that sets Alberta up sweet and leaves the rest of Canada in the lurch.

This is just basic common sense. If anything, the New Alberta that claims it will be so super rich within a couple years of leaving will have to lopsidedly buy its way out of Canada - otherwise the rest of Canada just won't agree.

So, the entire premise of the current separatists that rich New Alberta can run away and become Dubai 2.0 and leave behind a pile of rubble is a fallacy unless they plan to engage in a revolutionary war.

That said, it seems to me in a constitutional amendment negotiation, any individual Treaty Nation would be expected to negotiate in good faith and could decide to terminate its existing treaty in order to broker a new deal with New Alberta. But in practical terms it would be up to the prospective New Alberta to make an offer good enough to convince them to do so.