If Canada is severable, then so are its provinces
Debunking one of the more nonsensical aspects of Canada's White Nationalist/Separatist movements
Thinking about this story….
Judge quashes Alberta separation petition in favour of First Nations
I am constantly confused why these settler “separatist” movements aren’t aware of the obvious fact:
If Canada is severable, then so are “provinces”.
These settler White Nationalist movements seem to believe they can separate from the Canadian Crown (which the British crown claims it passed treaty responsibility to), but that they will somehow maintain the same land base which was delegated to them by the Canadian Crown.
Typical Western European ideological loyalists, they confuse their Western European ideologically siloed Liberal democracies with their bogus land title claims.
Why is there a belief that a National Capital in Edmonton would be within the same Westphalian “country” as what was previously known as the District of Athabasca prior to the Canadian Crown unilaterally imposing the Alberta Crown in 1905 (without the knowledge or consent of the inhabitants or pre-existing domestic governments)?
If Alberta formed the way European Nations formed, that gerrymandering to allow a southern colonial center to control the resources of a periphery would not exist. The same gerrymandering to allow southern settler governments to control northern resources applies to nearly all “provinces”.
If we looked at Geography alone, it would be 3-5 countries over the land that the Alberta Crown claims jurisdiction over, using the average size of European countries.
If we looked at the more natural/organic “cultural country” concept we are still talking 5-7 different counties based on radically different language families and political confederacies: The Niitsitapi (Blackfoot) State, The Nehiyawak (Cree) State, The Dene State, The Stoney Nakoda State, The Tsuut’ina State.
The reality is that the grievances of these settler separatists are not about feeling harmed being a periphery of the Canadian Empire, but that the central Canadian government limits the Alberta Empire’s desire to inflict greater harm on the peripheries of their empire. This isn’t about Alberta vs Canada, but Empire vs Empire where we have no reason to feel sympathy for any of this Empire.
With all the noise coming from that provincial Crown, maybe it is time to rescind Alberta Act 1905, and as a bare minimum grant the District of Athabaska self-determination in a way similar to Nunavut.
For those distracted by "The West Wants In" Reform Party slogans (prior to this movement taking over the “Conservative” party), the real political problems caused by the expansion of the Dominion of Canada have always been a South-vs-North issue. The identical nonsense that is happening with Alberta started earlier in Quebec based on their similarly foreign Eurocentric settler grievances.
Quebec had a referendum in 1995, as did the peoples of the True North regions that the territorial expansion of Quebec claimed jurisdiction to, and it was made clear that the northern regions would not be part of an independent Quebec.
Book: Never Without Consent: James Bay Crees Stand Against Forcible Inclusion into an Independent Quebec
Gemini helped with some quick clarification:
The 1995 Cree Referendum: The Details & Outcome
To counter the narrative that a singular “Quebec people” could unilaterally determine the fate of the entire geographic space, the Crees organized their own independent, democratic referendum on October 24, 1995—six days before the provincial vote.
The Question:
“Do you consent, as a people, that the Government of Quebec separate the James Bay Crees and Cree traditional territory from Canada in the event of a Yes vote in the Quebec referendum?”
The Outcome:
Voter Turnout: An extraordinary 77% of eligible Cree voters cast their ballots.
The Result: 96.3% voted NO.
The message was definitive: the Crees overwhelmingly rejected the idea that their territory or their people could be moved out of their existing treaty relationship with the Crown without their explicit, sovereign consent. (The Inuit of Nunavik held a similar referendum a few days later, yielding a 96% “No” result).
One of the confusions many Western worldview loyalists have is around the difference between Western Conservatism and Western Liberalism when it comes to diversity (including diversity in conceptualizations of sovereignty).
For Western Conservatives they recognize the existence of diversity, and want to eradicate it within their domain of influence (strict immigration/extradition policies, etc).
For Western Liberals they want to discount the relevance of diversity, and want all diversity to assimilate into Western “Age of Enlightenment” ideology – which allows land and life to be more easily manageable by the centralized hierarchical administrative state.
In both cases, diversity isn’t intended to remain within their exclusive control over land and life within imaginary lines (Westpalian borders), but one appears more “polite” than the other.
Excellent article and I have not heard this subject matter discussed anywhere.