Plan B Forum

Are you tired of Alberta being shackled by the imperious grip of the Canadian government? The people of Alberta have the undeniable right to self-determination—whether that means independence or joining the United States. If the majority chooses freedom, shouldn't their voice matter most?
Of course, we acknowledge that Indigenous treaties grant significant land rights in Alberta to native people, but should decisions affecting millions rest in the hands of a minority? Should treaty rights override the will of the broader population? Democracy is about majority rule—if Alberta votes for independence, shouldn't that choice stand?

If you agree, join the conversation. Let’s talk about the future of Alberta—so the people decide, not the government!

https://apnews.com/article/canada-alber ... 11ee29f8f3

I absolutely think Alberta should have its referendum on independence.

I also think that Danielle "Temu Trump" Smith is too much of a coward to make it a government initiative, because she will wear the result when it resoundingly fails. Hence the government bill to make "citizen-led" referenda easier to mount.

Smith believes that the threat of a referendum is going to box the federal government into giving "a better deal" for Alberta. The only thing that it will do is show the feds how weak Alberta's hand actually is.

eta - that the village idiot actually believes that he has anything in the least bit insightful to add to a discussion of Canadian politics was my laugh of the week

Funny, we here in the USofA do not allow our citizens to have the right Liberty writes should be extended to the voters of Alberta. I wonder if Mr. Liberty has ever sent time living beyond the borders of his nation.

snailgate.

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 12:01 am

Funny, we here in the USofA do not allow our citizens to have the right Liberty writes should be extended to the voters of Alberta. I wonder if Mr. Liberty has ever sent time living beyond the borders of his nation.

snailgate.

Well, someone is finally showing interest in this thread! I thought it was either dormant or ignored. We've established the principle in the United States that a sovereign state cannot withdraw from the Union—unless it can fight its way out, which seems reasonable. if Puerto Rico was to join the union and then change their minds, the consequences off that would be that we burn down their state, kill their people, and turn them into a territory ruled by Congress? Seems fair enough, doesn't it? Or at least, that's the precedent.

This thread presents an opportunity to explore concepts like one country interfering in another's internal affairs. In the past, both Canada and Cuba have sent people to the United States to agitate for certain causes. The Cuban interference was a direct operation conducted by the Cuban government, while the Canadian interference may have been less organized—but the fundamental fact remains the same. So, if those governments can interfere in our affairs, what’s wrong with the United States sending agents—either official or volunteer—into Canada to help the people of Alberta agitate for their freedom from the oppressive central government and police state of Ottawa?

Yes, I've lived outside the borders of the United States in Okinawa, the Philippines, Korea, and Iceland. I was also stationed in Alaska, but that's within the United States

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 12:01 am

Funny, we here in the USofA do not allow our citizens to have the right [the village idiot] writes should be extended to the voters of Alberta.

It's a bit murkier up here. In the Secession Reference, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that, while neither Canadian nor international law gave a province a unilateral right to secede, "[a] clear majority vote ... on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize" by engaging in negotiations aimed at protecting the rights of all concerned.

In response, the Parliament of Canada enacted the Clarity Act, which outlines a process by which Parliament would determine whether secession of a province is supported by a clear majority on a clear question, and forbidding the Government of Canada from negotiating secession unless that condition is met.

A very practical approach to a difficult question. It makes a lot of sense.

Big RR wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 1:09 pm

A very practical approach to a difficult question. It makes a lot of sense.

Sounds like the word of a tyrant to me—just waiting for the centralized imperialist authority to crush and oppress the locals. Don’t you believe in majority rule? Shouldn't the people of Alberta be able to choose their own fate, or do you think a distant master should decide it for them?

Indeed, that is what it is saying, that it must be supported by a majority of the citizens, and then the negotiations will set forth how it shoud proceed. Just as a marriage cannot just be ended without tying up many loose ends, so too would a secession. Beats fighting a war to keep them in the same country.

liberty wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 6:25 pm

Big RR wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 1:09 pm

A very practical approach to a difficult question. It makes a lot of sense.

Sounds like the word of a tyrant to me—just waiting for the centralized imperialist authority to crush and oppress the locals. Don’t you believe in majority rule? Shouldn't the people of Alberta be able to choose their own fate, or do you think a distant master should decide it for them?

If 51% of Alberta citizens wanted to secede, would you think it right to just cast aside the concerns of the other 49%?

if Puerto Rico was to join the union and then change their minds, the consequences off that would be that we burn down their state, kill their people, and turn them into a territory ruled by Congress? Seems fair enough, doesn't it? Or at least, that's the precedent.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 8:02 pm

***

Deep.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 7:04 pm

liberty wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 6:25 pm

Don’t you believe in majority rule? Shouldn't the people of Alberta be able to choose their own fate, or do you think a distant master should decide it for them?

If 51% of Alberta citizens wanted to secede, would you think it right to just cast aside the concerns of the other 49%?

We already know how liberty would answer that question, BSG.   He's already signed off on a guy who only got 49.8% of all votes cast riding roughshod over the 50.2% of voters who didn't...  let alone take into consideration the opinions of those people who didn't (or couldn't) vote at all.

-"BB"-

Big RR wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 6:41 pm

Indeed, that is what it is saying, that it must be supported by a majority of the citizens, and then the negotiations will set forth how it shoud proceed. Just as a marriage cannot just be ended without tying up many loose ends, so too would a secession. Beats fighting a war to keep them in the same country.

How can you justify waging an imperialist war to keep a supposedly free people subservient to a centralized, tyrannical police state? Freedom for Alberta—freedom now and forever! Long live the free people of Alberta!

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 7:04 pm

liberty wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 6:25 pm

Big RR wrote: ↑

Thu May 08, 2025 1:09 pm

A very practical approach to a difficult question. It makes a lot of sense.

Sounds like the word of a tyrant to me—just waiting for the centralized imperialist authority to crush and oppress the locals. Don’t you believe in majority rule? Shouldn't the people of Alberta be able to choose their own fate, or do you think a distant master should decide it for them?

If 51% of Alberta citizens wanted to secede, would you think it right to just cast aside the concerns of the other 49%?

Is that not majority rule? I thought you supported governance by the majority—should a minority rule over the majority? There is no need to run roughshod over anyone; Indigenous people can keep their lands, just as anyone else can keep their property. And those who do not support a free Alberta are free to leave and move to another part of Canada.

Who wants to tell the village idiot that no one has expressed any opposition to Alberta's secession if that is what Albertans want, but that so far, secession appears to be the fantasy of a vocal minority.

Is that not majority rule? I thought you supported governance by the majority—should a minority rule over the majority? There is no need to run roughshod over anyone; Indigenous people can keep their lands, just as anyone else can keep their property. And those who do not support a free Alberta are free to leave and move to another part of Canada.

Why? What if majority said that they can confiscate the property of anyone who doesn't agree with them? don't you believe in majority rule?

Big RR wrote: ↑

Fri May 09, 2025 12:47 pm

Is that not majority rule? I thought you supported governance by the majority—should a minority rule over the majority? There is no need to run roughshod over anyone; Indigenous people can keep their lands, just as anyone else can keep their property. And those who do not support a free Alberta are free to leave and move to another part of Canada.

Why? What if majority said that they can confiscate the property of anyone who doesn't agree with them? don't you believe in majority rule?

You should know better than to ask such a nasty question. I believe in democracy, but I also believe in freedom—and you can't have freedom unless everyone's rights are respected. That includes property rights. Your question would be better directed toward Shit Head and Sue. I'm not the one who believes in confiscating people's property to redistribute it to others, unless it's justified by the commission of a crime. Nor do I support placing people in concentration camps simply because they have too much money or because their ancestors are disliked.

Of course, I believe that in any society or nation, there will be times when sacrifices must be asked of the people. They may have to do things they don't want to do for the common good. However, such sacrifices won't last forever—only until the emergency is over.

you can't have freedom unless everyone's rights are respect

Fair enough, but how is this different from "a process by which Parliament would determine whether secession of a province is supported by a clear majority on a clear question, and forbidding the Government of Canada from negotiating secession unless that condition is met"? Especially when the negotiation would include protecting the rights of those who do not favor secession among other issues? Ot would you prefer someone other than duly elected representatives of the rest of the country participate in the negotiations and protect the rights of the minority?

As for

Of course, I believe that in any society or nation, there will be times when sacrifices must be asked of the people. They may have to do things they don't want to do for the common good. However, such sacrifices won't last forever—only until the emergency is over.

, that is the clear mantra of every would be dictator from the beginning of time. And you really subscribe to it?

And our fearless leader, DJ Trump, declared that there was an emergency, an invasion of murderers, insane, dope dealers and other criminals across our Southern border. He has now declared this invasion has been stopped and the emergency is over, but He still retains emergency powers, including the denial of the right of Habeus Corpus. After all, Abe Lincoln did it and now he is a hero.

snailgate