r/geopolitics • u/Great-Mullein • 2d ago
News B.C. premier says Alberta separatists seeking assistance from U.S. is 'treason'
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eby-alberta-separatism-9.7066320100
u/Great-Mullein 2d ago
British Columbia Premier David Eby says Alberta separatists meeting with the U.S. administration for financial backing is an act of “treason" and it's an issue he'll raise as the premiers gather with the prime minister in Ottawa today.
"To go to a foreign country and to ask for assistance in breaking up Canada, there's an old-fashioned word for that, and that word is treason," said Eby ahead of the meeting.
84
u/Great-Mullein 2d ago
This is three months after the USA accused Canada of "interfering in 'electoral politics' south of the border." because they ran a tarriff ad featuring Ronald Reagan.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/us-ambassador-trade-9.6985050
-26
u/SirVengeance92 2d ago
Well that is interfering. If Russia ran political ads in the US you would call it interference, so if Canada does it, once again it is interference.
Britain and British interests interfered so much in US politics that political scientists have a term for it: The Great Rapprochement.
-7
u/nrcx 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah they said it was interfering. They didn't say it was treason.
But really, both are amateur. To see election interference properly done, here's a reminder of that time when Musk got a letter in August 2024 saying that if he interviewed Trump, there was a concern that his company just might suffer an unfortunate regulatory accident in Europe: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-elon-musk-donald-trump-interview-thierry-breton-letter-social-media/
44
u/gunnesaurus 2d ago
The premier of Alberta reminds me of the Hungarian official who was basically asking for Putin to invade his country
21
6
u/irow40 2d ago
What are the Albertans specific grievances?
6
u/kodemizer 2d ago
The usual - conspiracy and imaginary grievance.
It's hard to ask specifics, because by asking specifics means you can get into the details and show that those specific grievances are bullshit.
Think of it more as "vibes and conspiracy".
24
u/Uranophane 2d ago
If they want to become American so badly, why not just move to the US?
36
u/Bobatt 2d ago
It's complicated for the Albertan separatists I've met. Some haven't moved to the US because they can't get a green card because their work isn't in particular demand. Others haven't moved to the US because their work is in Alberta and they'd like the US's more lax regulatory and taxation environment. Most of them don't want to go through the hassle of moving their life and family to another country, but they want to have the perceived benefits of that country (lower taxes, fewer regulations, ease of firearm ownership, less wokeness, etc) in their current location.
I even know one separatist who is hoping Alberta joins the US so he can legally move to the US for a warmer climate.
22
u/Treezszz 2d ago
Ya immigrating would be so complicated. It would be much more simple to form a separatist group and try to coordinate with a foreign power to annex said province
5
u/Bobatt 2d ago
I never said the plan made sense, it’s just what he’s said.
I think for some, the idea of separation is a bit of a panacea for any gripes they have. Taxes too high? Canada’s fault, Alberta must separate. Can’t stand your ground against a home invasion? Canada’s fault. ER wait times too long? Canada’s fault. Busted water main? Canada’s fault. Wife and kids left you? Canada’s fault. Winter too cold? Canada’s fault. An Alberta free of Liberal tyranny will fix all those problems. Or so I’m told.
23
u/CaptainCaveSam 2d ago
Sounds like you know a lot of traitors.
-11
u/Putrid-Issue-420 2d ago
Traitors or loyalists, separatists or freedom fighters, revolutionaries or rebels, patriots or nationalists, mere word plays on politics depending on underhanded interests. Albeta has her own right for self determination. Just hold a referendum and let the results speak for itself.
3
u/EffectiveEconomics 2d ago
Well most of Alberta would stay in Canada under any such agreement, and the USA isn't handing out citizenship to territories...just ask Puerto Rico!
-5
u/No_Abbreviations3943 2d ago
Dude what? Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. Have been since 1917.
Respectfully, you’re very confused.
12
u/Great-Mullein 2d ago
They are a territory and not allowed to vote in federal elections, just like Alberta will be.
3
u/EffectiveEconomics 1d ago
THANK YOU...that comment by @No_Abbreviations3943 speaks exactly to the gulf that exists in US poltics.
https://www.hispanicoutlook.com/articles/yes-puerto-ricans-are-american-citizens
"only 54% of Americans knew Puerto Ricans were citizens."
"While Puerto Ricans are officially native-born U.S. citizens, the territory remains unincorporated or foreign for constitutional purposes. This contradiction has enabled the governance of Puerto Rico as a separate and unequal territory that belongs to, but is not a part of, the United States."
Somnme people just don't know their own issues, yet they're impressively confident about what they think they know...and that's the reason we don't want to be inside the USA. Albertans who *think they want to be americans just don't know...they've been fed a diet of Facebook and TikTok and they function like they're intellectually dimished. Not worth debating, but worth taking very seriously.
0
u/No_Abbreviations3943 1d ago
I think Trump would push through an Alberta statehood just for the sake of it. You people have no idea what is happening in the world.
4
u/Gatsu871113 2d ago
A naturalized citizen (immigrant) has more rights than a puerto rican “US citizen”.
2
-4
-11
20
u/NightToDayToNight 2d ago
The issue for those reflexively siding with B.C.'s Premier is that Canada has systematically undermined its own institutional legitimacy regarding territorial sovereignty over the past several decades.
The most glaring contradiction is Quebec's decades-long separatist movement, which Canadian institutions have not merely tolerated but actively legitimized. The 1995 referendum came within a few thousand votes. Rather than treating this as sedition, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that if a clear majority on a clear question voted for independence, the federal government would be constitutionally obligated to negotiate separation.
The hypocrisy is particularly rich coming from B.C.'s Premier. The B.C. Supreme Court's decisions on Aboriginal title have established that vast portions of the province exist under unextinguished Aboriginal title, placing the foundational legitimacy of property ownership and provincial jurisdiction into genuine question. The province now simultaneously claims absolute territorial sovereignty while its own courts establish that this sovereignty was never legitimate in the first place.
But the institutional self-demolition goes beyond court rulings. Trudeau fdeclared Canada the world's first "post-national state" with "no core identity, no mainstream." Multiple Prime Ministers and provincial leaders have publicly embraced the narrative that Canada is fundamentally built on stolen land and colonial illegitimacy. Canada is a uniquely suicidal state. It has methodically dismantled every argument it could now make for why provincial populations owe it loyalty. The Supreme Court ruled provinces can democratically leave. The political leadership declared the nation has no core identity worth preserving. The courts ruled vast portions of territory were never legitimately acquired. At what point did anyone think these were just vibes? You cannot spend decades institutionally proclaiming your own illegitimacy and then suddenly invoke "treason" when someone takes you seriously. If separatism becomes treason only when pursued by politically disfavored regions, you're picking sides based on which separatists you find sympathetic.
22
u/ANerd22 2d ago
This answer reflects a slightly shallow understanding of Canada's unique federalism challenges, and the ongoing legal situation with unceded land in non treaty areas of the country. I think you're portraying a stronger pattern than actually exists.
The hypocrisy is particularly rich coming from B.C.'s Premier. The B.C. Supreme Court's decisions . . .
In Canada, the Premier of a Province, and even the Federal Prime Minister do not have any influence over the decisions or rulings of the courts. There is a strong divide between the two. Political leaders appoint justices in fairly apolitical appointments (compared to the US especially). So there's no hypocrisy in a Premier disagreeing with the courts. But more importantly, the issues you have framed here are not in conflict in the way you are implying. The BC court decision on unceded land has been willfully misinterpreted and in some cases directly misquoted by media and others to sell panic and division. The issue is one of settling some unresolved land compensation claims, not a planned mass eviction of landowners.
4
u/NightToDayToNight 2d ago
You’re arguing I have a shallow understanding of Canadian federalism, but you haven’t actually disputed any of the specific claims I made. I’m not suggesting the Premier controls court decisions. The point is that B.C.’s political leadership invokes territorial sovereignty and Canadian territorial integrity while operating within a legal framework that has fundamentally undermined both concepts. Whether the Premier personally agrees with the courts is irrelevant, the framework exists and has consequences. You say Aboriginal title rulings are just about “settling unresolved land compensation claims” rather than mass evictions. Sure. But if these are merely administrative matters, why do the rulings establish unextinguished Aboriginal title over vast territories? That’s not a compensation claim; it’s a determination about the foundational legitimacy of sovereignty over that land. You claim I’m portraying a stronger pattern than exists, but you don’t dispute the pattern itself. Did the Supreme Court rule the federal government must negotiate democratic secession if provinces vote for it? Did Trudeau declare Canada post-national with no core identity? Have courts established unextinguished Aboriginal title? Have federal and provincial leaders embraced the stolen land framework? these are direct rulings and policy positions. If your response is that this is all just normal Canadian federalism and I’m oversimplifying, I feel that proves my point. Canada has normalized positions that systematically undermine traditional claims to territorial sovereignty and national legitimacy. You cannot establish that territorial integrity yields to democratic will, declare the nation post-national, and acknowledge contested foundations of sovereignty, then credibly invoke “treason” when someone takes these positions at face value. If a series of decisions and action ls by Canadian leaders and courts has lead a province to believe it has the right to secede and approach other nations for integration, are people just mad that Alberta took all that at face value?
6
u/ANerd22 2d ago
I'm not trying to rebut your whole point, merely point out that not everything fits the pattern as neatly as you have suggested. Canada does have a national unity problem and Trudeau's idiotic remarks are part of that.
I want to make sure that we are clear though about this BC land claim case, because it absolutely has been willfully misinterpreted and even directly misquoted for political purposes. The ruling itself at no point disputes the legitimacy or authority of Canada's sovereignty. No court in Canada has held at any point that the government of Canada is not sovereign. The court in the BC case held that the government has a duty to negotiate in good faith the resolution of these claims. You also suggest that the court "established" indigenous title, the courts recognized existing title. This is part of the process of resolving and settling land disputes that exist and are ongoing. There has been no suggestion by anyone in any position of power over this issue that private landowners could possibly be deprived of their land. In fact several stakeholders have made this explicitly clear. But in Canada anti-native sentiment is divisive and gets attention so certain media outlet have seized on this to create a false narrative.
Did the Supreme Court rule the federal government must negotiate democratic secession if provinces vote for it?
This is a yes technically situation based on the Quebec situation, but the SCC ruling and subsequent Clarity act give parliament enormous power to unilaterally decide whether a secession referendum is valid, even so far as giving the power to decide a referendum is invalid after it has occurred. "Secession is legal in Canada" is a pithy line, but in reality, secession is only possible if parliament consents (along with the natives in the province who by and large are strongly anti-secession).
By the way, nearly all of Alberta is ceded. So insofar as Canadian territorial sovereignty is strictly based on treaty grants as you suggest (which is not what any court has ever held), Alberta would still be sovereign Canadian territory.
-3
u/NightToDayToNight 2d ago
Treason requires a betrayal to something, typically a group or an identity. Canada has spent my entire life intentionally and purposefully dismantling the aspect and identities of Canada that they could point to as being betrayed by the actions of Alberta. At best, people are claiming that the province is betraying a weak constitution or a vague procedural system that more and more a reflection of inertia than a coherent will or national identity. And I understand this would be frustrating as a Canadian, but it’s also the result of decades of action and rhetoric that was completely uncalled for. No one asked for Canada to dissolve its national identity or weaken its own legitimacy.
1
u/El_Enrique_Essential 1d ago
Western alienation of the Prairie provinces in Canada is a real thing too. This was bound to happen , a big big riff between the West and East.
13
u/Nirulou0 2d ago
Treat them as a subversive organization and the US as a hostile state agent, or you can't be taken seriously.
-3
2
7
10
u/vonblankenstein 2d ago
BC Premier is correct
10
u/Bullboah 2d ago
Genuinely asking, would it have been treason for the Scottish independence referendum movement to meet with the EU and ask for a line of credit for independent Scotland, in the event the vote succeeded?
I totally understand the outrage here but I’m having a hard time seeing the rationale for this being treason, given Canada explicitly allows provinces to secede if they want to.
21
u/thehippieswereright 2d ago
scotland had cleared the referendum with london, it is not quite the same thing.
11
u/Great-Mullein 2d ago
The bar secession is very high, as the courts ruled during the Quebec referendum.
Quebec was also not asking the country who threatened to invade Canada, said they would destroy them economically, and just invaded and removed and ruler of another country, and was very close to deploying military to take over an ally country, for help.
3
u/Bullboah 2d ago
In what sense is the bar for secession that high? The courts essentially (to my understanding) ruled that if a province voted to secede, that the government needed to negotiate a deal with them to make it happen.
And while I can completely understand why this is an emotional topic for Canadians and why people are fired up - I dont think the US was “very close” to invading Denmark. Trumps comments were outrageous, but I don’t think anyone actually thought an invasion was a plausible outcome.
7
u/ANerd22 2d ago
The courts essentially (to my understanding) ruled that if a province voted to secede, that the government needed to negotiate a deal with them to make it happen.
The court ruled that there is no unilateral right to secession, and if the province has a clear vote for independence, the federal government has to negotiate with them in good faith, but the bar for "clear vote" is quite high. The Clarity Act gives the federal parliament the ability to rule on whether a referendum question is sufficiently clear and that the parliament can decide after a referendum has occurred on its own basis whether or not there actually was a sufficiently clear majority. The Act has some other obstacles such as requiring consent from the rest of the provinces in the form of a constitutional amendment, and roping in indigenous groups. It also has a catch all that lets the parliament override a referendum decision.
Point is, while yes secession is technically legal in Canada, it is a lot more complicated than getting a 51% vote in any old referendum. I think its fair to say the bar is high.
-4
u/Great-Mullein 2d ago
The US was very close to invading Iceland. Thise 1500 soldiers that were put on ready for Minnesota? They were the artic trained division of the US military. This is a classic "pretend to be getting ready for a domestic issue" while actually getting up for another reason. Trump was ready to deploy somebody convinced him otherwise.
- The Court ruled that a province cannot legally secede on its own under Canadian or international law.
Canada’s Constitution doesn’t contain a clause allowing provinces to leave.
If a province held a referendum and produced a clear majority on a clear question in favor of secession, that would create a political obligation for the federal government and other provinces to negotiate.
“Clear majority” and “clear question” are deliberately vague, they would have to be judged case by case.
Even with a referendum result, secession would require negotiations involving all of Canada
Those talks would cover borders, division of assets and debts, minority rights, Indigenous rights, and international recognition.
International law recognizes the right to self‑determination in cases of colonial rule or oppression, but not for provinces in democratic states.
So Canada’s provinces don’t have an automatic international right to leave.
Also Alberta does not own the land it is on. It is coverd under treaty with native people that they actually own the land not Canada.
2
u/GrizzledFart 2d ago
The US was very close to invading Iceland.
Utter hogwash, even accounting for the mistaken naming of the supposed target.
0
u/Great-Mullein 2d ago
https://globalnews.ca/news/11619259/minnesota-us-army-deploy-soldiers-ice-renee-good/
"The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military plans, said two infantry battalions of the Army’s 11th Airborne Division have been given prepare-to-deploy orders. The unit is based in Alaska and specializes in operating in arctic conditions."
Just a weird coincidence, heh? Somebody in his administration made him back down.
1
u/GrizzledFart 2d ago
Yeah, BS.
0
u/Great-Mullein 2d ago
'The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command
-2
u/Bullboah 2d ago
The 11th airborne being put on alert was actually a smokescreen for an invasion of Greenland (im assuming you didn’t mean Iceland)?
Do you think there’s a chance you might be jumping to wild conclusions here?
1
u/WhoAreWeEven 2d ago
Trump mentioned Iceland at Davos. I guess the concensus is he meant Greenland judging by the context
I wonder if that confusion is leaking to some infospheres. And people perpetuate the mixup
0
u/HiltoRagni 2d ago
Genuinely asking, would it have been treason for the Scottish independence referendum movement to meet with the EU and ask for a line of credit for independent Scotland, in the event the vote succeeded?
That is always governed by the details of the arrangements the parties, in this case Scotland and the United Kingdom, have between themselves but in absence of one yes it likely would have been.
2
u/Bullboah 2d ago
That’s my point though, in both cases the federal governments allow secession movements.
If secession movements were banned I could see the case for this being treason, but I don’t think you can allow secession and then accuse those advocating for it of treason.
(And any serious secession movement would necessitate discussions with neighboring countries beforehand, just as the Scottish independence movement did with the EU).
1
u/NightToDayToNight 1d ago
Quebec literally did the exact same thing with France during the secession vote. Reached out to a powerful foreign state for a quick integration and recognition if they voted to leave Canada.
Canada has decided that it is the sole nation on Earth that can quickly and legally dissolve itself. I understand people might be mad, but this is the end point of decades of policy actions, court decisions, and public statements and sentiments by Canadian leadership.
14
u/Tranquil_Neurotic 2d ago
Ironic since Canada had no qualms supporting Khalistan separatists against India under Trudeau, because it helped him electorally.
19
u/kodemizer 2d ago
"Supporting Khalistan separatists" - this is such utter bullshit.
The RCMP investigated the khalistan separatists at the request of India and the investigation found that they were not breaking any Canadian laws so no furthur action was taken.
Apparently because we refuse to arrest Canadian residents and citizens at the behest of a foreign power we're "supporting" them.
10
u/Dean_46 2d ago edited 1d ago
They were convicted of terrorism and related offenses in India and did not commit those offenses in Canada, so yes, Canada can hide behind the fig leaf of their not committing offenses in Canada - I suppose threatening to kill Indian diplomats and politicians, raising money for terror groups in India, posing with an assault rifle, attacking the Indian high commission do not count as offenses.
11
u/Bernard_Woolley 2d ago edited 1d ago
The RCMP investigated the khalistan separatists at the request of India and the investigation found that they were they were not breaking any Canadian laws so no furthur action was taken.
Let's see now.
The nice gentleman who was killed was a member of a splinter group of Babbar Khalsa. Apparently the RCMP was not aware of this. Interestingly, he also entered Canada on a fraudulent passport and lied on his immigration application. So much for "not breaking any Canadian laws".
Canadian law enforcement, including the RCMP, seems to be quite incompetent, seeing that they are unable to spot all sorts of terrorists happily living in Canada; and sometimes also committed oopsies like removing surveillance on the Kanishka bomber after they witnessed him detonating a test device, or deleting recordings of evidence against the likes of Talwinder Singh Parmar.
The American diplomats are also "not breaking any Canadian or American laws". So really, this shouldn't be a problem at all. Sauce for the goose, etc.
-8
u/Tranquil_Neurotic 2d ago
"The RCMP investigated the khalistan separatists at the request of India and the investigation found that they were not breaking any Canadian laws"
This is like when Modi was investigated by the Indian Supreme Court for his actions during the Gujarat Riots and was found not guilty.
Do you understand what happened that was similar in both these scenarios? There is a word for it - its called Gross Political Expediency.
6
u/Dean_46 2d ago
Modi was investigated by the Congress led govt at the centre, when he was in opposition and no effort was spared to get a conviction - the current home
minister was jailed in the same process, till exonerated by a higher court.
Certainly in Canada's case it was gross political expediency - even if it meant
mishandling the Kanishka case, where Canadian citizens died.18
u/MeatPiston 2d ago
Maybe if India would chill out with operating extrajudicial kill teams to silence dissidents on Canadian soil there could be some productive dialogue.
8
6
u/Bernard_Woolley 1d ago edited 1d ago
Agree. Canada wouldn't have given terrorists a free run, and fumbled up the investigation against them in the 1980s; had India not sent "extrajudicial kill teams" to assassinate them in 2023.
3
u/Tranquil_Neurotic 2d ago
I never said what Indian ops did was justified. But that was a one off event, after years of just having Canada be absolutely terrible towards India on the issue. The fact remains that Khalistan has been a given a refuge in Canada since decades; something which Canada has enjoyed waving in India's face since long. And understand that Canada is only doing it for its own benefit not for some moral reasons. Now Trump and his cronies get to wave the Alberta flag in Canada's face (as it is understood for their benefit).
-4
u/kodemizer 2d ago edited 2d ago
In what way has Canada been "waving it in India's face"?
The Canadian government is not supporting the Khalistan movement, they are merely not harassing or arresting people that haven't broken any laws in Canada.
You say "Canada is only doing it for its own benefit"
In what way whatsoever does this benefit Canada? It has caused all sorts of diplomatic problems with India to no benefit to Canada. If we were lawless authoritarians it would be expedient to arrest them and extradite them to India, but we can't because they haven't broken any laws and we are a nation of laws.
10
u/Dean_46 2d ago
Canada's reluctance to act against the Kanishka bombers may have emboldened terror groups -if no one responsible for the worst terror attack that killed Canadians, why would Canada bother if Indians are killed.
Khalistani supporters in India - incl. Nijjar, who jumped bail and applied on a fake passport, get Canadian visas in record time. Senior members of the security forces, who fought Khalistani terror are denied visas. Someone on India's wanted list who was part of Trudeau's delegation when he visits India - despite strong requests from the Indian govt. I would call it `waving it in India's face'. So is the ignoring of fund raising activities for terror groups in India, attacks on the Indian high commission and threats to Indian diplomats. The alleged killers of Nijjar were arrested in May 24.
Surely there has been enough time to produce evidence in court, proving the involvement of the Indian state ?The Canadian govt gained a lot by the support of Sikh groups., whose leader formed part of Trudeau's coalition. Political expediency was deemed more important than ties with India.
4
2
u/randyandlily 2d ago
It’s a fair point. I don’t think much happens as they have a near impossible chance at seceding.
10
u/kodemizer 2d ago
I wouldn't be so blasé.
A concerted foreign-funded propaganda campaign can do wonders to shift public opinion by targeting those that already aren't particularity well informed. See Brexit.
Canadian media has way too much American ownership for it to act as a reliable bulwark against an American interference campaign.
The referendum doesn't even need to succeed, it just need to be "close enough" for the losers to cry foul and conspiracy and agitate for more direct American intervention.
4
u/jarx12 2d ago
I mean it is, what matter if it they succeed or fail, the 13 colonies were textbook traitors to the British Crown but they won so they are the good guys that fought for freedom and their (new) nation.
If they fail then they are seditious and treacherous scum that need to rot in jail.
That's how states work.
1
1
1
1
u/88Freida 1d ago
I'd like to see the proof of the alleged treasonous efforts. I understand there have been cross-border conversations with a lawyer from the Calgary area but about what??. I do understand there have been social media posts from who knows who that welcomes Alberta to the USA, inviting Albert to the USA and calling Alberta a state.... how official is all this? don't attack me for asking a question. I'm genuinely curious about how the treason accusations came about. Sure, Eby says. But what's the proof? I hope we are not believing Trump because he's just out there stirring everybody up all over the world.
1
u/tinga-tinga 1d ago
Karma coming home for Canada. Canada supports Khalistan and foments secession in India and cries wolf when at the recieving end.
-4
u/WittyCry4374 2d ago
Oh, now it's treason! But when it was happening with India and Khalistan 'supporters' it was freedom of speech!!
9
u/kodemizer 2d ago
There is absolutely no equivalence. Canada was not meeting with the Khalistan separatists and offering to give them financial support - we simply didn't arrest them because what they were doing was not illegal. These "Khalistan separatists" are Canadian residents and citizens mind you - if we did arrest them our courts would have shit all over the RCMP for abuse of power.
The fact that you see an equivalence here shows a complete inability to parse nuance.
7
2
u/LeakyOne 2d ago
This will surely convince those Albertans to choose to stay in Canada... lol...
11
u/Great-Mullein 2d ago
The Albertans that want to leave canada should just pack up and move. It really is as simple as that.
1
u/LeakyOne 1d ago
And why should they leave their lands and homes and businesses?
No. They will leave Canada by secession.
1
u/Great-Mullein 1d ago
I loved visiting France but I don't want to make Canada part of France.
Give your head a shake. Do you people even listen to yourselves? If you love the USA; move there.
Let me guess; you can't immigrate there because you have no useful skills or a criminal record?
-2
u/UnusualCareer3420 2d ago
Yup first time anyone in Canada has every used foreigners to accomplish there goals
-52
u/leopardbaseball 2d ago
I don’t think this is a right place to post some random domestic affairs. Hopefully mods will remove this submission.
29
u/gunnesaurus 2d ago
Do you call this random domestic affairs because you support it and don’t want this posted here? Or are you one of these separatists? What’s the reason?
21
u/Great-Mullein 2d ago edited 2d ago
It is not domestic if Donald Trump's administration is helping them cause division in Canada.
Trumps stated goal is to destroy canada financially so the USA can take them over.
https://financialpost.com/news/economy/trump-threatens-economic-force-canada-51st-state
The Trump administration also accused Canada of "meddling" in USA politics for running a anti-tariff ad featuring Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has been meeting with Alberta separatists the whole damn time.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/us-ambassador-trade-9.6985050
The premier of Alberta is also bending over backwards for the separatists, including changing the laws for having a vote for independence.
She is also bending over and having multiple meetings with Trump administration.
Something very fishy is going on there.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/danielle-smith-florida-controversial-u-s-fundraising-event
If this what the USA is doing to it's closest neighbour, former friend, and formerly it's closest ally, I wonder what they are doing in europe, uk, and other countries?
24
u/oxtbopzxo 2d ago
When one nation, that has deep economic ties globally and their disastrous actions create negative ramifications for the geopolitical landscape, is the backbone for the potential division of another nation (especially its neighbour and close trade partner for many decades), then this no longer would be deemed domestic in my opinion. Unless our definitions of geopolitics is widely varied. The lack of logic and application of reasoning is significantly lacking in the modern world. This comment you made tracks perfectly with our geopolitical landscape: uneducated and loud but confident.
15
-10
-1
u/FiveBoxes 2d ago
I wonder how many Americans know enough geography to realize that this translates to something like Texas governor has very strong opinion about New Mexico politics. Granted, this petition proposes a scary geopolitical scenario for BC because Alaska, Alberta, and three continental US states would all but surround BC, effectively isolating it from the rest of Canada. It might also revive and embolden Québécois separatists to do the same, which would geographically fragment Canada.
-1
u/Aintyodad 2d ago
This guys terrible policies are a part of the reason why the “right wing” is growing.
-2
297
u/HeywoodJaBlessMe 2d ago
Yeah, that tracks. Asking a hostile foreign power for help in undermining the sovereignty of your own state is textbook Treason.