By John Q. Hosedrinker 
B.C. Premier David Eby has doubled down on his assertion that the Alberta separatist movement, which has reportedly sought foreign assistance from the U.S., constitutes treason. These comments were made in response to reports of meetings between members of Donald Trump’s administration and the Alberta Prosperity Project, a group aiming for Alberta’s independence and seeking a substantial U.S. line of credit. While Eby maintains that seeking foreign government support to break up Canada is by definition treasonous, one analyst cautions that such strong language could inadvertently bolster separatist sentiment by alienating those with concerns.
Read the original article here
The assertion that a movement seeking support from a foreign government for provincial separatism constitutes treason is not just being reiterated, but emphatically reinforced. This isn’t a nuanced take or a diplomatic suggestion; it’s a strong declaration that attempts to engage with a divisive issue head-on. The core argument is that when a segment of a nation, particularly a province, actively seeks external backing to break away from the sovereign entity, it crosses a fundamental line. This isn’t about expressing dissatisfaction with national policies or advocating for greater autonomy within existing frameworks. Instead, it’s framed as a direct attempt to undermine national unity and territorial integrity with the assistance of another country.
Such actions, according to this viewpoint, are not merely political maneuvering or aggressive negotiation tactics. They are viewed as a betrayal of the highest order. The act of colluding with a foreign power to destabilize the nation is seen as the very definition of treason, a serious offense that strikes at the heart of national security and sovereignty. This perspective doesn’t shy away from the gravity of the accusation, suggesting that such behavior warrants severe consequences, including potential criminal charges and imprisonment. The implication is that the state has a responsibility to protect itself from such internal threats, especially when they are aided by external forces.
The focus on collusion with a foreign government is critical to understanding this strong stance. It’s not just about the desire for separation, which might be considered an extreme but still internal political debate. The inclusion of foreign involvement transforms the situation, in this framing, into something far more sinister. It suggests a deliberate effort to weaken the country from within, leveraging external influence for internal disruption. This makes the alleged separatists not just dissidents, but agents of potential foreign interference, thereby escalating the perceived threat to national security.
Furthermore, there’s a clear comparison being drawn to situations where foreign interference has led to significant national turmoil. The experience of observing a neighboring democracy grapple with internal divisions fueled by external forces serves as a stark warning. The argument is that allowing such tendencies to fester and grow, without a firm response, can lead to the erosion of democratic institutions and national stability. Therefore, the strong language used is not seen as inflammatory, but as a necessary and urgent call to action to prevent a similar fate.
The criticism of those who advise caution or suggest that such strong language might be counterproductive is also quite pointed. The idea that calling out treason might somehow embolden separatists is dismissed. From this perspective, the danger lies not in labeling the act, but in its actual occurrence. To downplay or ignore such clear instances of what is perceived as treason is considered a failure of leadership and a dereliction of duty. The priority, in this view, is to confront and expose such actions for what they are, rather than to manage their potential fallout by softening the language.
The financial aspect is also raised as a significant area of concern. The suggestion to “follow the money” implies a belief that such movements are not purely ideological but are likely being financed or influenced by foreign interests. This adds another layer to the accusation of treason, suggesting that those involved are not only betraying their country but are also potentially acting as conduits for foreign agendas. Investigating the financial backing of such groups is seen as a crucial step in understanding the scope and intent of the movement.
There’s a strong sentiment that the legal and security apparatus of the country needs to be actively involved. The hope is that agencies like the RCMP and CSIS are already investigating these alleged separatists. The quietness or perceived toning down of rhetoric from some separatist circles is interpreted not as a sign of waning support, but potentially as an indication that these groups are aware they are under scrutiny, perhaps even fear being caught. This reinforces the belief that there are grounds for investigation and potential prosecution.
Ultimately, the reiteration of the “treason” label for Alberta separatism seeking U.S. support is a declaration that the actions described are seen as a fundamental betrayal of Canada. It’s a call for a firm and uncompromising response, driven by the belief that national sovereignty and security are paramount. The sentiment is that such a clear act of seeking foreign intervention to dismantle the country cannot and should not be tolerated, and that failing to act decisively would be a grave mistake with potentially catastrophic consequences for Canada’s future.