this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
411 points (99.5% liked)

World News

52790 readers
1999 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
411
Canada separatists accused of ‘treason’ after secret talks with US state department (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Kastael@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 43 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I agree... but the person calling them traitors does not have the authority to do that.

I believe it has to come from the gov of Alberta (traitors all as well) or the Federal gov.

I do expect some form of movement on this, strategically this is too dangerous to go unpunished

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Criminal charges are federal in Canada, but charges are laid by crown prosecutors in that particular province (never by the government itself)

I don't think this actually meets the definition of treason, as they aren't using violence and are going the legislative/referendum route: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-46.html

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This is why a full investigation must take place. Until then we have no proof that the meeting did not violate paragraph b.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago

Paragraph B is the kicker, because we do know they met with a foreign power that has stated it wants to expand into Canada.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hi there, you seem to be confused about how laws work in Canada. See, unlike our neighbours to the south, we have this crazy notion that civil rights do in fact matter.

That includes the right not to be subject to investigation without reasonable suspicion of a crime. There being no evidence that someone has not committed a crime is not a reasonable basis for an investigation.

Do you drive? Prove you haven't ever committed vehicular manslaughter. Do you own bolt cutters? Prove you've never used them to break and enter. Do you have alcohol or weed in your home? Prove you've never sold them to minors. Have you ever been near a school? Prove you're not a child rapist.

See how this works? Saying that someone was in a situation where they could have a comitted a crime cannot be the basis for a criminal investigation, or else we'd be investigating everyone, all the time.

The Alberta separatists are pathetic scumbags, but they're not automatically criminals just because you don't like what they did. That's toddler logic.

[–] podian@piefed.social 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think you're mistaking "investigation" with "prosecution" or something else. The cops can investigate literally anyone. You can hire a PI to investigate anyone.

There are limits however on what investigative actions can be legally taken by cops based on the evidence they have. Even with no evidence, they can still do things like interview people who know the POI, even follow them around in public. They can't, for example, detain them and beat a confession out of them, or search their house willy nilly.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

If we're going to get technical, yes, there are extremely limited forms of investigative action that could be taken based on a broad suspicion. But without "reasonable grounds" the police are forbidden from interviewing suspects, detaining people, or performing any form of search or seizure. That's not an investigation, that's walking up to a guy in the street and going "Yo, did this guy do any crimes?" What on earth do you imagine would come out of that beyond wasting police time?

As for your comparison with private detectives, do I really have to explain that constraints on state power only apply to state actors? Private detectives are, by definition, private individuals. And they're still basically constrained in all the same ways anyway, because you can't just break into someone's house or hack their computer. I know PIs in Canada. 100% of what they investigate falls into exactly two camps; infidelity, and insurance fraud. That's it. They're not Sherlock Holmes.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's unlikely that these dorks are leakng military info, but they should definitely be investigated. I think the real question is whether the US are using "force or violence", which would fall under C) and A)

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character

I'm getting real sick of people ignoring 3/4 of the shit they're supposedly quoting.

For some reason a lot of y'all wanna bend over backwards to defend this shit.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

For some reason a lot of y’all wanna bend over backwards to defend this shit.

🙄

Pray tell, what would these dumbfucks even know about science that it's worth leaking?

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Bent so far back you're crowning.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"anything I don't like is treason"

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

No, you're just ignorant of history and have your head up your ass.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I do actually think 2b-e are all applicable here.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You gonna actually lay out your case for that? Because I'm pretty sure you're wrong, but it's hard to say when you haven't even offered any justification for your argument.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The regime has made overt commentary and motions of hostility toward Canada, and has vociferously stated a desire for lebensraum in Canada, Greenland, and other neighboring countries. When they talk about neo-Monroe doctrine, they’re really talking about neocolonialism. They’re “joking” until they’re not. It’s an established pattern and practice with the regime, now as well as in the first stint they had.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Right, but you have to make a case for what the people in Alberta did that's treason. Not what the US did. We all know what the US did.

Simply interacting with a potentially hostile foreign power isn't treason. If I have a coffee with a guy who works for the Iranian government, I'm not automatically a traitor.

What are the specific, treasonous actions that you're alleging here?

[–] we_all_live_in_a_capital_i@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

(c) and (d) are circular, unless "high treason" is defined elsewhere. According to this, high treason is treason on its own.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

High treason is defined in the previous section;

High treason

46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

    (a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

    (b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

    (c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.