Jude Naidoo

Punishment for failure to collect rubber quotas in the Belgian Congo, 1908 💔💔

This week, we will be in Court on a challenge brought by several First Nations in relation to the independence petition. Our position is straightforward: the matter is non-justiciable, premature, and fundamentally political, not legal. It is not a matter for the Court and should be dismissed outright. It is unfortunate that emotion and misinformation have become part of this campaign, which has caused division and confusion. At this stage of the process, a private Albertan has collected signatures from fellow citizens and has already communicated that outcome to elected representatives. Did anything life-shattering or legally consequential occur? No. So we already know the answer to this week of court challenges: nothing changes legally, because nothing has happened beyond citizens communicating with each other and with their elected officials. This is civic engagement. It is a core feature of a functioning democracy and it should be encouraged, not discouraged and obstructed. Importantly, no one requires permission to speak with fellow citizens or to convey collective views to elected officials. Mr. Mitch Sylvestre chose to use the framework set out in the Citizen Initiative Act, legislation designed to structure and facilitate precisely this kind of participation, with oversight by Elections Alberta. Because that statutory framework exists, it opens the door to legal challenges directed at both the legislation and the actions of Elections Alberta. That is how we arrived here. But at its core, this case reflects something much broader: organized interests seeking to challenge administrative decisions that are intended to enable citizen participation, not restrict it. And when lawful civic engagement is met with attempts to control or suppress it, the result should not be surprising. The more participation is constrained, the more people will push back and seek other avenues to be heard. So we must ask ourselves: Do we want a system that encourages citizens to engage or one that discourages them from participating? And if participation is discouraged, who actually benefits?

Just happened to be her second last house sitting before crossing the floor. Zero integrity.