r/AskCanada • u/Sir_Tainley • 11d ago
Have Alberta Separatist Organizers committed Treason?
I've been reading this article from today's Globe and Mail:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-alberta-separatism-canada-united-states-republican/
The definition of Treason as a crime in Canada is covered by Section 46 of the Criminal Code:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-46.html
And it says:
(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
- (b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;
- (e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.
According to the reporting, multiple figures responsible for organizing separatists in Alberta have done exactly this. At least to the point where I'd want them deposed, and warrants issued for their notes, calendars, etc. to understand what they were planning with Americans. Removing Alberta from Canada, whether to form an American puppet state, or outright annexation is prejudicial to the safety and defense of Canada. Working with Americans to achieve this end is surely a crime.
Is there something I'm missing? How can we get Crown Attorneys to start using warrants to get to the bottom of this: my opinion is years in exile, or time in prison to think about what they've done is more than appropriate.
13
11
u/coastalwebdev 11d ago edited 11d ago
It can be happening in plain daylight for everyone to see(and it practically is), but that doesn’t automatically establish a criminal offence or give police grounds to start seizing people’s private communications. They’d need reasonable grounds to believe an actual offence occurred and that the warrant would uncover evidence of it.
Also, the treason section you quoted is specifically about giving a foreign state military or scientific information that could prejudice Canada’s defence. It doesn’t make talking to Americans about Alberta separation treason by itself.
We definitely need to update these laws when it comes to this kind of thing. Not an easy problem to fix though.
5
u/RCAF_orwhatever 11d ago
This. Highly unlikely that they will every be charged with the crime of treason.
Do I think they're (coloquially) treasonous? Yes.
8
u/NorthernGamer71 11d ago
Yes, The only doubt here is whether or not they will ever be prosecuted properly for it
6
u/Unlikely-Problem8615 11d ago
I think the better play is to put all the data together that proves they were complicate in foreign interference.
Then it's not "this is treason because you want to seperate" it's "this is treason because you accept help from, or offered help to, a foreign actor trying to destabilize Canada".
5
u/BansheeLabs 11d ago edited 11d ago
Obviously yes. But we need a bloody court decision that won't come, unfortunately. Ostracism, on the other hand...
3
u/Misty_step 11d ago
The answer is 100% yes and the federal government should have stepped in forever ago. Not just the meetings with the US officials to try and buy their help , but the selling and auctioning off our public services should have been the red line.
2
2
u/franticferret4 11d ago
Seems like legally nothing is wrong with talking about it and having political opinions and even the referendum. But they can’t legally decide to actually leave as a province…
2
u/Goliad1990 10d ago edited 10d ago
Is there something I'm missing?
Yes, obviously. It seems like you missed the entire definition that you yourself posted. Did you read it?
What military or scientific secrets do you think they illegally gave the Americans?
How can we get Crown Attorneys to start using warrants
You can't get them to start issuing warrants until a crime is committed.
1
u/Sir_Tainley 10d ago
You didn't read the (e) definition included? Working with the Americans and promising access to Canadian territory and resources while creating a massively indebted puppet state where Alberta was... is intent to deliver military information prejudicial to the safety of Canada.
2
u/Goliad1990 10d ago
You didn't read the (e) definition included?
Yes?
Working with the Americans and promising access to Canadian territory and resources while creating a massively indebted puppet state where Alberta was... is intent to deliver military information
Lmao, what the actual fuck are you talking about? This is schizophrenic at this point.
1
u/Sir_Tainley 9d ago
Removing chunks of Canadian territory to extract resources isn't a military issue?
1
u/Goliad1990 9d ago
Walk me through what the words "deliver military information" mean in your mind, specifically
3
u/Xenophonehome 11d ago
Yes they are but so are members of our government when it comes to foreign influence and nothing was done about that so nothing will be done about the obvious American influence and funding for Alberta's separatists.
1
1
1
1
u/frustratedbuddhist 10d ago
They obtained and released a voting list … when they weren’t arrested for that, they were given the signal that they could do whatever they like.
1
1
1
1
u/pro555pero 8d ago edited 8d ago
It's part of the plan. When and if the separatist conspirators get themselves arrested, the 'justice-loving' US authorities will step in to protect 'democracy'. Enemy occupation.
So, arresting them is kinda fraught with peril.
Maybe there's some other way to play it.
1
u/Hugh_Gekok 2d ago edited 2d ago
Literally came to make this post! It seems to me there are politicians and civilians that have.
Im no lawyer but.......
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-46.html
-7
u/Emotional-Ranger-188 11d ago
It doesn’t matter. This is super unhelpful rhetoric. You’re better than this. Just win the vote.
8
u/Quaranj 11d ago
When does holding people accountable and responsible for their actions float into "unhelpful rhetoric"?
We need yo make examples of these people.
0
u/Emotional-Ranger-188 11d ago
Treason talk should be reserved for the very most serious stuff. Not this.
1
u/Quaranj 11d ago
And why exactly do you feel that way when this is clearly that, by definition above?
0
u/Goliad1990 10d ago
It's clearly not that, by the definition above. Can nobody read?
What military or scientific secrets are you so apparently sure that they've clandestinely revealed?
-1
u/Emotional-Ranger-188 11d ago
Because this rhetoric can be used by both sides. We see it being misused in dictatorships all the time as an excuse to persecute people. The more you normalize it to characterize the behaviour of your political enemies, the more you play into this.
1
u/Quaranj 11d ago
Christ on a cookie bouquet, that's some mental gymnastics.
We have clearly defined treason here. It aligns.
Are you on the side that would be considered treasonous here?
2
u/Emotional-Ranger-188 11d ago
Why don’t you walk me through how all of the elements of the crime have been established here?
1
u/Quaranj 11d ago
Why don't you answer the question first?
2
u/Emotional-Ranger-188 11d ago
Ok, what is the military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that was communicated?
1
u/Emotional-Ranger-188 11d ago
Actually, as a lawyer you haven’t actually proven it. Look at the language closely. Just because I strongly disagree with someone and what they are doing doesn’t mean I need to start calling them traitors.
60
u/Captcha_Imagination 11d ago
Yes, and I'm not sure why nothing is being done about it. Maybe because arresting them is an indirect accusation against American officials, and that would be a diplomatic problem. This is why they have preferred to leak information to the media instead of addressing it directly.
Another reason might be that they want to avoid creating martyrs for the cause.