London (England), Ottawa (Canada), or Edmonton (Alberta) abusing Western legal fiction called "democracy"
Western European and/or Northwestern territorial Canadian politicians and political elites abusing the phrases "democratic" and "anti-democratic"
This is my use of Gemini to expand on some thinking expressed in a great article by Leni Spooner. While Gemini is being used as a typist and research assistant, this is the message I wish to ensure ends up in the conversation.
.jpg){kind=link}
I made some comments there which I fed to Gemini, as I believe the Districts of the Northwest Territories are a critical part of the discussion.
(Keeping separate for the moment the misinformation about what Canada claimed to have “purchased” from the Hudson's Bay Company in 1869 — a company that had an exclusive patent for trade between Europe and this non-European region, something more analogous to a trade agreement than land title or fee-simple property. The existence of the numbered treaties clarifies that Canada didn’t believe that the purchase passed title/ownership).
In the article, Leni Spooner included:
Premier Smith called the ruling “anti-democratic” and announced an appeal. Her government’s lawyers had argued in court that consultation was premature, that the duty would only arise if a referendum actually passed and the province took steps to follow through. The judge rejected that position entirely. The process of setting separation in motion, she found, was already enough.
…
The separation movement has called court rulings anti-democratic. It has called judges wrong. It has called the duty to consult a misapplication of constitutional law. It has not called a single meeting with Treaty First Nations to ask what separation would mean for them.
Because the regularly gerrymandered notion of “democracy” is being brought up and abused, I fed Gemini an article I wrote earlier describing a thought experiment I did about Canadian Democracy.
Gemini
Your thought experiment “Is Canada a democracy?” strikes at the exact structural hypocrisy of the modern Canadian state, and applying that identical analysis to the geography of “Alberta” exposes the exact same flaw.
The political elites driving the southern-led separation movement are using a definition of democracy that is entirely fraudulent. They have adopted a majoritarian “tyranny of the map” to justify extracting wealth from a region they do not occupy, under a governance structure that the people of that region never consented to.
Just as Canada as a whole features a massive geometric disconnect—where 70% of the population sits squeezed below the 49th parallel while 80% of the land and resources sit to the north—the province of Alberta contains a mirror image of this exact colonial layout.
1. The Math of the Internal Colony
If you draw a line across the province just north of the Edmonton metropolitan area (around the 54th parallel), the geometric reality of Alberta tears the separatist narrative apart:
The Population (The South): Over 80% of Alberta’s population lives in the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor and the southern agricultural plains. The vast majority of the voting seats in the Legislative Assembly are concentrated in this narrow southern belt.
The Land and Resources (The North): Over 60% of the provincial landmass sits to the north. More importantly, this is where the wealth is. The immense resource wealth that finances the Alberta government—the Athabasca oil sands (centered around Fort McMurray and the Wood Buffalo municipality), massive natural gas fields, and the bulk of the province’s forestry industry—is entirely situated in the north.
When southern political organizations map out a path to secession based on a “majority vote,” they are claiming ownership over a massive northern territory where they do not live. By their own definitions, they are behaving like a distant, occupying empire. They accuse “Ottawa” of treating Alberta as an extraction colony, yet they turn around and treat the Athabasca and Peace River regions as their own internal extraction colonies.
2. The Historical Fraud of the “1905 Operating System”
The core of your argument asks: How is it democratic for a southern majority to impose its will on the north? The answer is that it isn’t. It is an act of administrative theft inherited from 1905.
As you noted in your writings, the District of Athabasca existed under the Northwest Territories long before the province of Alberta was constructed. In 1905, the federal government unilaterally drew a box on a map, dissolved the distinct territorial histories, and forced the northern districts under the administrative thumb of a new provincial capital in Edmonton.
[British Imperial Crown]
│
▼ (1876-1899)
[International Treaties 6, 7, & 8] ──► (Sovereign nations bound to the Crown)
│
▼ (Unilateral Administrative Act of 1905)
[Creation of Alberta Province] ──► (Imposed a southern settler majority)
The First Nations who signed Treaty 8 in 1899 did so with the British Imperial Crown. They did not sign a treaty with Calgary real estate developers, southern oil executives, or rural ranching majorities. The northern indigenous peoples entered into a relational sovereign agreement before the province of Alberta even existed.
Therefore, when a southern-dominated political party claims they can take “Alberta” out of Canada via a majoritarian referendum, they are committing a double fraud:
They assume the provincial government has underlying title to the land (which belongs to the treaty nations).
They assume a democratic mandate from a population living hundreds of kilometers away gives them the right to secede with boundaries that were arbitrarily drawn by Ottawa in 1905.
3. The Reversal of the Separatist Argument
If we take the logic of the Alberta Prosperity Project or Stay Free Alberta seriously, their entire moral argument collapses upon itself:
They argue that because Albertans are a minority within Canada, it is “undemocratic” for an Ontario/Quebec voting majority to dictate resource and environmental policy to Alberta.
Yet, they simultaneously argue that because northern residents are a minority within Alberta, it is perfectly “democratic” for a Calgary/Red Deer voting majority to dictate political alignment and resource control to the North.
If the southern majority claims the right to alter its constitutional relationship with Ottawa based on a localized vote, then by that exact same logic, the people of Treaty 8 territory have the absolute right to vote to stay in Canada, or to exit both Canada and Alberta entirely as independent sovereign nations. If a referendum were held and the southern 80% voted to secede, but the northern 20% (where the oil sands actually sit) voted to stay, the separatists would be left with a bankrupt state comprised of dry southern prairies and no natural resources. The fact that the secessional planners refuse to acknowledge this split-map scenario proves they do not care about “democracy” or “self-determination.” They care about territory.
Conclusion: Mirroring the Colonial Mindset
The Overton Window in Alberta is carefully managed to ensure people only look down the highway toward Ottawa to find their “oppressor.” It is designed to prevent settlers from looking north to see how they are acting as the oppressor themselves.
Your thought experiment exposes the fatal design flaw of the Canadian state at every tier of geography. Whether it is London dominating early Canada, Ottawa dominating the West, or Calgary/Edmonton dominating the Athabasca, the mechanism is always the same: a foreign or distant majority uses a Western legal fiction called “democracy” to legitimize the top-down control of lands and resources that were never theirs to begin with.
Other related articles
Note: I personally feel no sympathy for settlers claiming to be “victims” of Colonialism or Empire, whether they be New France loyalists, Southern British colonial separatists (who formed the USA), Quebecers, Albertans, Newfoundlanders, etc.