Michael Semrok

Less than 24 hours after the close of the proceeding, Justice Leonard issued her stay decision, stating: “To be clear, the Court is not staying the collection of signatures; this decision has no impact whatsoever on the signature collection period or when that period expires... Specifically, the Chief Electoral Officer shall not certify the petition results or make a referral to the Minister of Justice until the Court has ruled on the Applications by ACN and the Blackfoot Nations.” If there is no harm in gathering signatures, what is the harm in verifying them or transmitting the results to the Legislature? In effect, the decision halts the communication of the democratic will of citizens to their elected representatives. How does that strengthen, or even preserve, the integrity of our democratic process? And it doesn’t take into consideration the canvassers, those standing in the cold for hours and engaged their fellow citizens in a lawful democratic exercise, only to be told that their work cannot be formally recognized or conveyed. If participation is permitted, but the outcome cannot be communicated, what exactly is the process meant to achieve and who does that ultimately serve?

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?

🇮🇱🇮🇷 Israel is apparently already preparing for talks to fail and things to escalate again. Reports say the army is getting ready in case Washington–Tehran negotiations collapse, with plans in place to resume strikes on Iran. Message is pretty direct, if no real deal comes out of the talks, attacks are back on the table. Source: RN Intel

🚨Jeffery Rath outlines his vision of an independent Alberta! "Theres going to be no GST, no carbon tax...."