Chris is a lifelong Albertan who now works as a lawyer in Calgary.On August 14, the Court of King’s Bench announced its first decision regarding the Alberta independence movement. Justice Colin Feasby will hear from interveners and amicus curiae — Latin for "friend of the court" — before he releases his ruling sometime before the end of this year.Feasby has held that the only interveners allowed to offer evidence will be First Nations representatives. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has already expressed an intention to intervene in the case. The court has already stacked the deck against Alberta Independence. At least one of the amicus, Eric Adams, will likely argue that Alberta’s Independence infringes on treaty rights. Adams, a professor at the University of Alberta, is a highly respected constitutional law scholar. He often features in The Globe and Mail and publishes regularly. .MCMILLAN: To hell with the east, we want to be released.He has been cited by the Edmonton Journal as having said that he doesn’t see any way for Alberta to obtain independence with treaties in place. As Amicus Curiae, he will doubtless argue that sovereignty infringes on treaty rights. As a well-respected constitutional law scholar and professor, the court will listen to him.Allowing only First Nations interveners to enter evidence further moves the ball towards the First Nations’ goal post. It looks as though at that hearing, Rath, the lawyer representing the Alberta Prosperity Project, will be the only one arguing in favour of the question being put to Albertans. .Rath has opined that asking a question does not violate the constitution. I could not agree more. Impeding somebody from asking questions is a suppression of freedom of speech. In my opinion, impeding or preventing a society from making an important vote is oppression. If this decision goes against Alberta Independence, I believe it is the beginning of court-sponsored oppression. It is oppression in the name of treaty rights. In the face of this, it is our responsibility as Albertans to vote for Independence. .THOMAS: Calgary's birthday celebrations an exercise in wokeness.I am guessing that no matter how the question is asked, the very idea of Alberta Independence will offend the courts. Truth be told, I might like Lukaszuk’s framing of the issue more. Thomas Lukaszuk, former Alberta MLA, has framed the question of independence as: “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?" His take on the question presumes that Alberta is going to leave Canada. He is correct: it is.But here is the thing, even absent indigenous rights, there was still no legal path to Alberta Independence. The Quebec referendum in 1995 sparked a reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada. In that reference, the court outlined a few ways that a province, or any distinct group of people, could legitimately separate from their country.None of those avenues outlined fit the situation in Alberta up until now. That does not mean that independence is impossible. But it does mean that it’s not happening through the courts..The court has many means available to it to quash an Independence vote. But that it is leaning towards a claim of broken treaties solidifies the court’s identity as a channel for superior indigenous riights. Under the court, Canada belongs to the First Nations people. No Albertan should stand for that.Don’t get me wrong, the First Nations people are deserving of affirmative action. The state should be searching landfills for MMIW, indigenous students deserve scholarships, and indigenous businesses deserve a tax breaks. But they are like everybody else. Helping them out of the systemic disadvantage that colonialism has brought about is one thing..MASON: To leave or not to leave, that is the question.But for the courts to enforce a superiority of indigenous rights over the rights of everybody else is wrong. It’s the beginnings of oppression. And it’s the beginnings of a legitimate sovereignty question. But the court will never countenance an Alberta sovereignty question, oppression or not.If you want equality with First Nations people, don’t go to court. And that’s exactly why the Alberta Independence movement will never get a court-approved question. Alberta Independence is possible, but not with the courts. By recognizing an ever-expanding ambit of indigenous rights, the court has effectively opened the constitution. This is not the social contract this province signed up for. We have a duty to leave. We must, whatever it takes.Chris is a lifelong Albertan who now works as a lawyer in Calgary.
