If it’s treason, then lock them up.
I agree… but the person calling them traitors does not have the authority to do that.
I believe it has to come from the gov of Alberta (traitors all as well) or the Federal gov.
I do expect some form of movement on this, strategically this is too dangerous to go unpunished
Criminal charges are federal in Canada, but charges are laid by crown prosecutors in that particular province (never by the government itself)
I don’t think this actually meets the definition of treason, as they aren’t using violence and are going the legislative/referendum route: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-46.html
- 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.
This is why a full investigation must take place. Until then we have no proof that the meeting did not violate paragraph b.
Hi there, you seem to be confused about how laws work in Canada. See, unlike our neighbours to the south, we have this crazy notion that civil rights do in fact matter.
That includes the right not to be subject to investigation without reasonable suspicion of a crime. There being no evidence that someone has not committed a crime is not a reasonable basis for an investigation.
Do you drive? Prove you haven’t ever committed vehicular manslaughter. Do you own bolt cutters? Prove you’ve never used them to break and enter. Do you have alcohol or weed in your home? Prove you’ve never sold them to minors. Have you ever been near a school? Prove you’re not a child rapist.
See how this works? Saying that someone was in a situation where they could have a comitted a crime cannot be the basis for a criminal investigation, or else we’d be investigating everyone, all the time.
The Alberta separatists are pathetic scumbags, but they’re not automatically criminals just because you don’t like what they did. That’s toddler logic.
I think you’re mistaking “investigation” with “prosecution” or something else. The cops can investigate literally anyone. You can hire a PI to investigate anyone.
There are limits however on what investigative actions can be legally taken by cops based on the evidence they have. Even with no evidence, they can still do things like interview people who know the POI, even follow them around in public. They can’t, for example, detain them and beat a confession out of them, or search their house willy nilly.
If we’re going to get technical, yes, there are extremely limited forms of investigative action that could be taken based on a broad suspicion. But without “reasonable grounds” the police are forbidden from interviewing suspects, detaining people, or performing any form of search or seizure. That’s not an investigation, that’s walking up to a guy in the street and going “Yo, did this guy do any crimes?” What on earth do you imagine would come out of that beyond wasting police time?
As for your comparison with private detectives, do I really have to explain that constraints on state power only apply to state actors? Private detectives are, by definition, private individuals. And they’re still basically constrained in all the same ways anyway, because you can’t just break into someone’s house or hack their computer. I know PIs in Canada. 100% of what they investigate falls into exactly two camps; infidelity, and insurance fraud. That’s it. They’re not Sherlock Holmes.
i suggest trying out this new word i learned:
IMMURATION
Sure. You learned it but won’t teach it to others. All you people in the cave…you’re fucked!
well sure. if i teach it to them then i won’t get any more than my head outta this damn cave
If Canada is smarter than America, they will deal with this decisively. It’s one think to be a big dickhead online, screaming for revolution. It’s a whole other thing to be meeting with representatives of a hostile government who has made many threats of invasion. That’s fucking treason, and Canada should deal with it right the fuck NOW, and send a clear message to future traitors. Don’t wait to see if it gets worse, like we do here in America, deal with it preemptively.
Their leader is an international banker.
They definitely are not smarter than we are, just a few years behind the enshittification curve.
Generally considered to be the most educated country in the OECD, so arguably objectively smarter than the US, which is rather further down.
And yet, still going down the same path as the US with regard to their political and economic situation.
Our current party is currently lead by a former international banker who is now PM. We don’t have a “leader”. And by all metrics (I’m assuming you’re an American from your use of the ‘Royal We’ in this case, since everything is about America to you) “We” are smarter, and not a few years behind.
Let me use the ‘Royal We’ from our country. “We” say, fuck you you fucking hoser and get bent. America bends, Canada won’t.
Canada won’t.
Yeah, that’s what we said back in 2008, when we elected a guy who gives good speeches but is making sure his rich golf buddies get the lion’s share of the wealth.
But I’m sure that won’t happen in Canada. Totally.
