this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
166 points (98.8% liked)

World News

48844 readers
2294 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
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 85 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

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.

Treason

(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.

[–] one_step_behind@quokk.au 24 points 1 week ago (3 children)

(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;

So Charles is fair game?

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Do yourself a favor and execute your traitors before they become president

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

fr. look at your neighbors down south and ask yourselves if this is what you want. pro-tip: you fuckin' don't

[–] one_step_behind@quokk.au 3 points 1 week ago

I absolutely agree. I was just joking about the specific verbiage in that law because it was written for Elizabeth.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

I was going to comment something similar. The law is still worded as "her majesty" when we now have a male monarch?

[–] nao@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Does separation (possibly via a referendum) fall into any of these cases?

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Not really, or at least not entirely. Here's a link that goes into some detail. It basically comes down to: referendums are fine and legal; secession has to be agreed to by the area leaving and the country as a whole; and subgroups of the region seceeding likely have the option to not seceed depending on their legal status. The Supreme Court has already determined that unilateral declarations of independence are unconstitutional in Canada, and I suspect the notwithstanding clause won't apply, either.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

So... not treason?

Whatever the legal definition, this guy should go straight to Yale

[–] NotSteve_@piefed.ca 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

How is this not treason? Are you American?

I ask because even the most left leaning of you all keep making light of this shit and it's actually driving me crazy. I have American coworkers making 51st state jokes and it's actually making me hate all of you

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Did you read the definition of treason? I don't see where they intersect

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What you don't see isn't a surprise to anyone but you.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Bruh you asked me if I'd read the definition of treason under my own comment copy and pasting the defintion of treason.

Like if you wanted to dispute allegations of treason you shouldn't have lead with a washed up reddit dunk.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Okay smart guy, quote the section you think makes this treason.

I don't give a fuck who posted it, I read it, I don't so where this action and that definition meet. So put up or fuck off

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 55 points 1 week ago

yeah that's treason...

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 week ago

This is fucking terrifying.

We need to deal with these people yesterday.

[–] TwinTitans@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wonder how much Danielle was getting paid? Time to drain the UCP swamp Alberta.

I say this as an Albertan.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Has any of this been verified?

“We talked about a $500 million transition loan that we would only draw down on as necessary as we work with the U.S. to transition from a province to a country,” said Modry. He also claimed that they discussed a plan to prop up Alberta’s currency where “the U.S. agrees to take every Alberta citizen’s Canadian dollar and then exchange it for one U.S. dollar.”

“Alberta, of course, can provide energy security,” he said. “It can also provide water security, agricultural security, forestry security, metal security, coal security, plus an industrious workforce. So there is tremendous benefit to the U.S., to work with us.”

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wasn't able to find any 3rd party sources verifying this.

[–] idarknight@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

That's my issue and even after a couple of days no other source had picked up the story.

[–] modernangel@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

I know we're not supposed to judge a book by its cover but this guy looks like the kind of pedo grifter the regime is absolutely packed with

[–] SirMaple__@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago
[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago