278

Eby calls reported meeting between Alberta separatists and U.S. official ‘treason’ (www.cp24.com)

submitted 3 months ago by CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 8 points 3 months ago

Legally speaking? Almost certainly not.

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(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;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(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.

[-] HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 40 points 3 months ago

This definition of "high treason" seems close enough to me. And if it's not close enough for you, seems like it's well on its way, no?

"Waging war against Canada or doing any act preparatory to waging war against Canada."

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 months ago

Yeah, undermining the stability of the country while waging trade war and threatening annexation. It's part of the puzzle. This is hybrid warfare. War is not just bombs and bullets. We have a standard legal term for that, and it's "international armed conflict." War is a more expansive idea, not clearly defined but arguably very appropriate here.

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 9 points 3 months ago

I think there would have to be an actual military buildup to make that stick.

To be clear, I'm more than happy to call them colliquially treasonous...I just don't think elected officials should be throwing the term around too casually.

[-] TerranFenrir@lemmy.ca 27 points 3 months ago

The president of another country publicly saying, "we will annex you against your will", not once but hundreds of times itself is as threating if not more than military buildup.

We're so desentisized to Trump's ramblings, that we often forget that he's the PRESIDENT of the US. He wields immense power and can act on what he says (which he has done almost always).

A foreign power tells us that we'll be annexed. Their president repeatedly refers to our elected officials by names designated to non sovereign entities inside their country.

This foreign power funds and engages in a separatist movement within our country. How is this not an "act preparatory to war"?

These assholes should be locked up for high treason.

Note: Quebecois separatism is different. It's really stupid, but NOT TREASON. Why's that? It would be treason to conspire with a foreign power, and take actions to undermine the sovereignty of Canada.

Had Alberta separatism not had US involvement, it would not have been treason. It would just be a bunch of really stupid people using their democratic rights to act within what they feel is their interest.

But what is happening right now is exactly what happened to Ukraine.

If the current administration is really as "elbows up" as it claims to be, it should prosecute and shut down this US backed operation in Alberta. Not doing so could make us another Ukraine.

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 3 months ago

is as threating if not more than military buildup.

I really don't think that would hold up in court, and in any case it is irrelevant to whether the Alberta separatists are sharing military secrets, or doing anything that would meet Canada's legal definition of treason.

[-] Canconda@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 months ago

USA is threatening to occupy our airspace (under the guise of NORAD) if we don't subsidize their F-35 program to the tune of 80 Billion USD.

You are naive.

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 points 3 months ago

As was pointed out when that was discussed earlier this week, no they aren't. They're trying to convince us that our military will be weaker if we don't buy their planes, and that they will have to pick up the slack.

The administration isn't that bright. When they threaten military force, it won't be subtle.

[-] Canconda@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 months ago

Like I said. You are naive.

[-] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

Lemmy is a better place when you don't use ad hominem attacks.

[-] Canconda@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Lemmy is better without extortion apologia.

Regardless calling someone naive isn't an ad hominim. It's advice.

Read a history book.

[-] Smaile@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago

I wouldnt consider what Alberta is doing as causal, it's a coordinated efferts to try and a ex the Provence to fit America wishes, I would consider that treasonous, you can got to court about it but I'd think they'd lose.

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm describing Eby's use of the word casual, as I don't think he, as an elected official, should be accusing people of crimes - especially those with an extraordinarily high bar.

Do I think the Alberta separatists are wrong? Yes.

Do I consider it a betrayal? Yes.

Am I fine with the average person on the street using the word "treason" to describe it. Sure.

Do I think elected officials should do the same? No.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

while i think there's a point to that, there's also the time that leaders need to put voice to what the people are feeling, and using colloquial terms is more effective. in the legislative, judicial and other governmental chambers, yeah pedantry is important. official edicts, also.

sometimes you need to be able to look at your elected officials and see them saying "shit is fucked yo" too instead of "now this is improper"

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I would be fine with that - "shit is fucked" isn't a crime with a specific legal definition!

[-] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago

Bet you b) was done during this meeting. Financial planning a bridge loan facility for the seperation of Alberta counts.

[-] nyan@lemmy.cafe 7 points 3 months ago

Some of those just seem to require conspiracy, not overt action. If they ever discussed those possibilities, even as contingency plans, it might be possible to make a charge stick.

In the end, if this makes it to court, it's likely to come down to the judge.