Republic of Alberta, Part III

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You know nothing about the Canadian military. If you did, you would know that CF members reflect Canadian societies. Breakdown of votes from military bases have found that they tend to mirror the popular vote, including votes for the NDP.

Meanwhile when squirrels vote, they vote high and low with lopsided testicles...

Link the obscure, Tingkai.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

I did...

You gave the patently ridiculous argument that anyone can "secede" when it suits them. Which I pointed out generates ridiculous counterexamples that destroy the point of democracy.

Agathon, if you're going to keep saying "this is not sufficient reason for seceding", you're going to have to tell us what IS sufficient reason...

No I don't. All I have to do is show that your assertion is false to refute your argument. Any subsequent arguments I provide are besides the point of proving you wrong. In fact nowhere have I explicitly argued that separation is out of the question - I just think your reasons aren't good enough because they are based on a ridiculous and anti-democratic premise.

It's a region with specific interests that are very important to us, not important at all to the rest of Canada, and as such the federal government doesn't even consider them...

So you've said. As I said this goes for other regions and individuals, but it would be ridiculous to give all of them the right to determine government policy. Get to the point.

A majority opinion while ensuring it's not unfairly targeting a minority. Again, look at Kyoto: The way the Liberals currently have it rigged will shelter vote-rich Ontario and hammer Alberta. Should that be permitted, or should all provinces equally take the hit from Kyoto?

How should this be decided, by a democratic majority or not. I'd agree with you that the Kyoto implementation is unfair, but lots of government policies are unfair to certain persons. But no one said that democracy was perfect, it is just the least worst system.

You're the one that called the US senate undemocratic, when they're ELECTED. Remind the foreigners reading this thread how Canada's senate is made up, and explain how this is remotely democratic and why it hasn't been changed.

I don't mind if the Canadian Senate goes or is changed. All I have claimed is that if it is changed it will have to be changed by democratic means. That is sufficient for my point. And merely having an election is not sufficient. We could imagine a system in which a white person's vote counts for 100 black votes. Someone elected by this system would be an elected representative, but it would not be a fair election.

Easy. The right to our own resources, as guaranteed to us in 1930, but then stripped away from us on whim in the early 80s by a greedy Frenchman in Ottawa named Trudeau...

You should say an elected greedy Frenchman.

Of COURSE it comes from the tax! That's NOT THE ISSUE though. The issue is the distribution of funds from Ottawa, which is related to Ottawa's interests in province's problems. Ottawa takes money from Alberta and gives it to other provinces, constantly. That's fine, as long as Ottawa doesn't give us the shaft all the time, all right? I'm not taking issue with the tax system at all. Okay...? I'm taking issue with how Ottawa can do whatever they want with it, shafting particular regions constantly.

Your argument seemed to be, "we pay more so we should get more" (at least this is the usual argument). So now you don't object to being taxed - great. Presumably though there would be two ways of solving the problem - one would be Alberta getting more, the other would be Albertans paying less. From what I've heard I'm willing to bet that most Albertans, being of the conservative persuasion, would rather pay less - so it is about taxation after all.

But the argument still holds - why should the government's spending policy be based on what a minority of Canadians (in this case Albertans) think it should be based on? That would be anti democratic. Ottawa can do whatever they want with it because they are an elected government. If Canadians don't like it, they are free to vote for another party.

You still haven't answered this question: what gives Albertans the right to defy the wishes of an elected government? The answer you seem to be giving is that Ottawa shafts Alberta. So what? Ottawa shafts a lot of Canadians and regions, that doesn't give the shafted persons the right to opt out of Canada, anymore than anyone with a grievance has a right to break the law when they feel like it.

Your argument seems to be, "If someone doesn't like the government's policy, then they can usurp the place of the electorate and overturn it". That's silly.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Canada will never take Albertan seperation seriously with this above attitude. Revolution will be the only thing to get the attention of the Federal government.

A province-wide referendum means nothing without the motive to back the complaints.

I'm not talking about something that'd happen today. It'd obviously happen when frustration continues to rise years into the future, to a point where Albertans can't stand it.

Believe me, by then, they'd take it seriously. They don't take it seriously right now because polls put separation at 10%, but those same polls say if there's not significant reform by 2010, 50% will support it. If the polls continually keep showing high support for separation, and the PCs in Alberta adopt a stance in favor of separation, we certainly would get the "same treatment as Quebec".

Also, do you endorse an entirely pacifist Alberta? Interesting how you would continue to rely on American protection to maintain your sovereignty.

Might as well become the 51st state and get it over with. Who cares about independence if you aren't willing to fight for it?

Alberta may as well be pacifist. A country of 3M people would just get in people's way if we tried to do anything.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

He hasn't helped you at all.

He's displayed an incredible ignorance about Canada, and so have you.

Ah you dolt. Your "refutation" does not refute his basic point - that you have to supply a reason why the province of Alberta can secede that exlcudes any other region of Canada or sub region of Alberta from seceding if they want to. That is his point - the vagaries of energy distribution in Alberta notwithstanding.

If you say that any region or anyone can secede if they don't like the government's policies then you have destroyed democracy since anyone who doesn't like what the government does will declare himself not bound by government policy.

I will ask you again. What reason is there for Alberta's secession that could not be equally applied to other regions, provincial or sub-provincial or even individuals?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Zylka


Then what right did we have to become a sovereign nation state from the British empire, you semantic tweaking little pr*ck?

Ah, swearing - the last refuge of the inarticulate.

I never said secession was out of the question, just that Asher's argument doesn't hold water. Can you provide a better one?

Nuff said.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you realise what it took for the velvet revolution to work?

More that 80% of both the Czechs and Slovaks approving of the plan.

Alberta cannot secede unilaterally. Nor can Quebec. Both must get the approval of the majority of Canada to leave.

If Alberta wants to leave unilaterally, this will mean war with Canada. Canada cannot allow one province to leave without loss of all of Canada's sovereignty.

Could you convince 80 percent of ALL canadians to accept Alberta's seperation?

How hard are you willing to push for independence? If you won't kill anybody, would you want to devote your life to the task?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
You gave the patently ridiculous argument that anyone can "secede" when it suits them. Which I pointed out generates ridiculous counterexamples that destroy the point of democracy.

I asked when you considered it appropriate for a region to secede, since you keep saying certain things are not enough reason. If you're going to keep saying that, you need to give guidelines on when you can and can't separate, okay?

All I have to do is show that your assertion is false to refute your argument.

Are you aware that a province can legally secede under the Canadian constitution, or not? It doesn't seem like you are...

How should this be decided, by a democratic majority or not. I'd agree with you that the Kyoto implementation is unfair, but lots of government policies are unfair to certain persons. But no one said that democracy was perfect, it is just the least worst system.

A legislative body that cannot create bills, but can send bills back for revision, would be necessary. If a province like Alberta thinks they're being unduly "raped" of their resources as we were in the early 80s, there should be some mechanism for us to fall back on.

I mean, Trudeau blatantly ignored legal agreements the Federal government signed in 1930 with Alberta when he made the NEP -- there's just no checks on power in the current system. It needs to be fixed.

I don't mind if the Canadian Senate goes or is changed.

Which is precisely why it's pointless for Albertans to keep staying and hope eventually we reform it. Most Canadians have that same attitude you have -- they don't care that it's useless.

You should say an elected greedy Frenchman.

Wasn't elected by Alberta. Which is why we were a target, in fact.

Your argument seemed to be, "we pay more so we should get more" (at least this is the usual argument).

NO! God no.
My argument is "we pay more, so we should get THE SAME".
We don't get any say in it. Hell, Alberta has someone in Chretien's cabinet. Great in theory, right? Only Chretien ORDERED her to vote yes on Kyoto.

But the argument still holds - why should the government's spending policy be based on what a minority of Canadians (in this case Albertans) think it should be based on?

Please...please...please knock off that same strawman. I've tried to correct you about half a dozen times now but you still don't get it. I'm not saying Alberta should rule the country, I'm saying Alberta shouldn't be subject to the bull**** of Kyoto, Chretien appointing senators for Alberta even though they're not who we voted for, how Chretien orders Alberta Liberals (there are a few) on what to vote for even though it's not in the interest of Alberta, etc. THAT is antidemocratic.

That would be anti democratic. Ottawa can do whatever they want with it because they are an elected government.

You have a WEIRD definition of democracy!
Elected governments should not be all-powerful -- I guess growing up in the commonwealth you don't understand this concept.

Checks and balances are key. We shouldn't elect dictatorships.

You still haven't answered this question: what gives Albertans the right to defy the wishes of an elected government?

The constitution. It allows a provinces to secede legally if a referrendum is in favor of it.

The answer you seem to be giving is that Ottawa shafts Alberta. So what?

"Why are the people in Alberta so upset, I don't understand -- They're just whiners!"
"The answer you seem to be giving is that Ottawa shafts Alberta. So what?"

Your argument seems to be, "If someone doesn't like the government's policy, then they can usurp the place of the electorate and overturn it". That's silly.

It's in the constitution, baby.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Ah you dolt.

I'm sorry -- weren't you the one who said *I* used petty insults?

Your "refutation" does not refute his basic point - that you have to supply a reason why the province of Alberta can secede that exlcudes any other region of Canada or sub region of Alberta from seceding if they want to.

A PROVINCE CAN LEGALLY SECEDE IN CANADA IF A REFERRENDUM SUPPORTS IT, UNDER THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION. That's why I think a province can secede if they want to!

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

And yes, I know of the 1998 supreme court decisions which rules that Canada is simply "obliged" to let a province seced.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Do you realise what it took for the velvet revolution to work?

More that 80% of both the Czechs and Slovaks approving of the plan.

Alberta cannot secede unilaterally. Nor can Quebec. Both must get the approval of the majority of Canada to leave.

If Alberta wants to leave unilaterally, this will mean war with Canada. Canada cannot allow one province to leave without loss of all of Canada's sovereignty.

Could you convince 80 percent of ALL canadians to accept Alberta's seperation?

How hard are you willing to push for independence? If you won't kill anybody, would you want to devote your life to the task?

The reason the Albertans want to leave is basically money. I don't think that is morally justifiable, or that it would set a good precedent, but if they can convince a majority of Canadians (who'd have to be pretty dumb to accept it) then I won't bat an eyelid - that's democracy; same goes for the Quebecois (who I think have a better case).

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you aware that a province can legally secede under the Canadian constitution, or not? It doesn't seem like you are...

SECESSION AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDING FORMULA
In his factum, the Attorney General of Canada rightly asserts that the secession of a Canadian province is not allowed under the unilateral amending power of the provincial legislatures set out in s.45 of the Constitution Act, 1982. As a matter of fact, this provision only authorizes modifications to the internal constitution of each province. Obviously, the secession of a province from Canada would affect the whole fabric of the Canadian Constitution and not only the separating province.

http://www.robarts.yorku.ca/canadawatch/vol_5_6/woehrling.htm

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Alberta cannot secede unilaterally. Nor can Quebec. Both must get the approval of the majority of Canada to leave.

I thought the supreme court merely clarified the law to be Canada is "obliged" to let a province separate if a majority votes for it?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
The reason the Albertans want to leave is basically money.

Just give it up. You don't know WHAT Albertans want.

You're not even a Canadian for christ sake. Just get out of the thread...

Albertans are pissed off because we are politically very different from the rest of the country. So much so that the rest of the country doesn't care to compromise for our sake.

It's just the icing on the cake how much money Canada sucks out of our province...

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
SECESSION AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDING FORMULA
In his factum, the Attorney General of Canada rightly asserts that the secession of a Canadian province is not allowed under the unilateral amending power of the provincial legislatures set out in s.45 of the Constitution Act, 1982. As a matter of fact, this provision only authorizes modifications to the internal constitution of each province. Obviously, the secession of a province from Canada would affect the whole fabric of the Canadian Constitution and not only the separating province.

http://www.robarts.yorku.ca/canadawa.../woehrling.htm

You forgot the next paragraph:

On the other hand, the federal government clearly admits that the entire content of the Canadian Constitution is changeable and therefore that the secession of a province must logically be possible under one of the five amending formulas, since it is nowhere expressly prohibited.

[Ben Kenobi]

And what are those amending formulas?

It's the same thing with the Charlottetown Accord and Meech Lake Accords to amend the constitution.

The constitution does not say that a province has the right to unilaterally secede. All this fellow says is that if they can change the constitution, they can secede.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm sorry -- weren't you the one who said *I* used petty insults?


A PROVINCE CAN LEGALLY SECEDE IN CANADA IF A REFERRENDUM SUPPORTS IT, UNDER THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION. That's why I think a province can secede if they want to!

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

As far as I know the Constitution has it that no province can secede unilaterally except in dire circumstances, but the federal government has an obligation to sit down and negotiate. That's according to a 1998 decision by the Supreme Court on the issue of Quebec's separation. They are deliberately vague although it seems clear that it is not as cut and dried as you suggest.

I had to hunt around for this:

http://www.law.mcgill.ca/academics/coursenotes/scott/cpn/tibbetts.htm

I'm not sure if this is still Canadian law, but if Alberta is not subject to this decision like the other provinces, then that's the first I've heard of it.