Rebel News
Subhead:While a King’s Court justice has determined that petitioning for an independence referendum has clashed with the duty to consent with Indigenous peoples, it hasn’t stated that provincial independence would violate or invalidate treaties.# In an op-ed written for The Conversation , associate professors from University of Victoria, Gina Starblanket and James Rowe accuse Alberta Premier Danielle Smith of spreading “dangerous rhetoric” which threatens the Constitution and treaty rights. In scheduling a referendum to be held asking if Albertans want to hold a binding referendum, Premier Smith may be trying to pacify sovereigntist sentiment within Alberta, but she isn’t threatening the Constitution or any treaty rights. Her public statements have been expressly in support of federalism and don’t constitute dangerous rhetoric by any measure. The Supreme Court reference case on the secession of Quebec determined that provincial secession has a legal pathway to pursue without constitutional roadblocks. The Clarity Act reinforced and codified that provincial right. The professors dive right into what they called “settler colonial” borders. It’s a way to frame the makeup of Canada as being a construct of the Crown that doesn’t apply to Indigenous people who are considered to be nations unto themselves. Ironically, the professors also claim that the Constitution must be adhered to though it is the settler colonial document that defines the borders and rights of the provinces created by them. Amazon-embed:B0GXDXZ6LX
Go to News Site