Dr. A.W. Barber is the former Director of Asian Studies at the University of Calgary. He is internationally active and has wide-ranging interests.Queen’s University Law professor Bruce Pardy drafted a proposed constitution for an independent Alberta, portions of which are published online as “Articles of Freedom.” Drawing on his profound understanding of constitutional principles, he argues for a framework grounded in individual freedom and minimal state coercion.In the scholarly tradition, ideas are presented, critiqued, debated, and refined. Here, I raise only a few friendly points as thought experiments regarding Professor Pardy’s significant contribution to the conversation on Alberta independence. Readers would do well to explore his broader body of work — his insights merit serious consideration.Pardy begins with his core prohibition on force: 1. Force and Threats of Force Prohibited; 1(a) “No one, including the state, shall impose force or threats of force against the person or property of any citizen without consent.” An exception immediately follows in: 1(b) “Notwithstanding (a), proportional force or threats of force may be used to repel imminent force in self-defence, to defend others, or to protect property.” After explaining the principle of countering force with force, he carves out the state’s enforcement role in: 2. “Notwithstanding the prohibition against force in 1(a), the Alberta Executive may use proportional force or threats of force to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of 1(a), and to enforce orders of the Alberta Judiciary.” Pardy continues with a brief explanation of the government’s role and follows with a section providing a detailed explanation of the first provision’s terms.The term “proportional” poses a clear problem: no detailed definition accompanies it. While proportionality is easy to assess with objects — thanks to measurable standards — it becomes highly subjective in human conflict. In quickly developing scenarios, such vagueness invites disputes and jurisdictional challenges. What specific markers define proportionality, and which should be disregarded? A precise definition could prevent endless court battles. .Furthermore, the subjectivity of “proportional” force becomes stark when applied to individual self-defence. Imagine a petite woman walking home on a dark winter evening. A man built like a linebacker approaches on the empty street. She feels immediate fear; he grabs her sleeve. She uses bear spray.Is this a proportional response or excessive force? The answer would depend on highly subjective factors, underscoring the need for a clearer definition to limit future litigation. In addition to a clear definition of “proportional,” a clause addressing situational relativity — factoring in context, relative strength, imminence, and other circumstances — could prevent disputes and endless adjudications.The broad definition of “force” — which includes confinement and detention without consent — raises another issue: there is no distinction between adults and children. Common parental discipline, like sending a misbehaving child to their room, would technically amount to violating their constitutional rights. Clear language that distinguishes the full rights of an adult as contrasted with the partial rights of a child is needed. Further, language implicitly carving out rights for parental authority would avoid criminalizing family life. Article 6 imposes lifetime term limits on civil servants. Subsection (a) “No person shall serve the state, at any level or in any capacity, whether in the Legislature, Executive, or Judiciary, or a combination of any of them, including but not limited to the role of President, Vice President, Senator, Representative, other elected office-holder, judge, appointed officer, ambassador, employee, independent contractor, supplier, consultant, or a combination of any of those roles, for longer than a cumulative total of six years over their lifetime.” What if the nation of Alberta needs a rare expert — a world-class epidemiologist or the most outstanding constitutional scholar — who has already reached the time limit cap? This article, as written, would prevent the government from utilizing those needed skills. A mechanism should be included for rare cases that can override the six-year limitation for a defined period and contain within it significant hurdles. .A university professor, as a government employee, would have to abide by the six-year term limit. Attracting top talent would be difficult — especially in specialized fields with no private-sector market. Few would pursue a PhD requiring eleven years of advanced study only to work for six years before a career change. Other critical occupations would suffer similarly, limiting the time served may be a detriment to the nation and not a benefit. Rather than a single blanket list, the constitution could adopt tiered categories acting in the manner of 6(b) that allows for the military and police to serve for fifteen years. Article 6(c) limits remuneration to “equivalent to the national median wage.” In practical terms, this could mean that highly skilled entrants or executive-level officials receive far less than they would in comparable private-sector positions, while average civil servants might be paid below the median. It may prove difficult to make the math work to attract qualified people in positions where qualifications are needed. This is not a question of the principle but of its practicality. Professor Pardy’s document is an extraordinary initial step, illuminating important principles that could form the foundation for a twenty-first-century constitution attuned to current realities rather than those of the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries. Like many landmark works, some refinement may be necessary. More importantly, Albertans can again recognize that there are already thoughtful people grappling with the many practical concerns that a majority vote for independence would bring. Unlike the caricature of some back East hold, the independence movement is not driven by a few emotional yahoos.Dr. A.W. Barber is the former Director of Asian Studies at the University of Calgary. He is internationally active and has wide-ranging interests.
