Very well said. I wish I could think of all these responses whenever there’s a hint of an opportunity to discuss.

Copied⬇️

This past week, I was dropping door hangers which extolled the virtues of Alberta independence. One young man, incensed by his house being littered with such incendiary information (note: I didn’t drop where there was a “no flyers” sign), searched his neighbourhood until he found me and then explained in graphic and vulgar detail how little he thought of my mother and how my questionable upbringing had resulted in me being an odious person. Attempts at a more balanced conversation were rebuffed. What struck me was the depth of his unbalanced anger.

I also met a young mother who graciously and thoughtfully explained why she thought what I was doing was wrong, and it didn’t matter if I thought I had answers to her concerns. She didn’t think I had answers to her concerns. Why the rigid hesitation? She also was afraid of the impact on her family due to what she felt were the precipitous actions of the pro-independence crowd.

A couple of friends imbued with more empathy than I have helped me to understand that fear and anger are logical and legitimate reactions from people who have no context in which to imagine Alberta as an independent nation.

“You pro-independence people are dangerously crazy! What is wrong with Canada? It is Canada to which I cling. Yes, Albertans will profit from leaving Canada, but what about my mom and dad in Orillia, whose economy may very well tank because of Alberta leaving Canada? You say that my pension will be better and stronger in an independent Alberta, but what guarantees do you have of that happening? Better the devil I know…”

My friends pointed out that what I interpret as the sunlit uplands of independence are, to those opposed to independence, the thunder and lightning-lashed fenlands of Mordor. Ironically, both sides are looking for a sign which says, “This way to safety.” I see safety in being independent of the political class (and its codependent voters) that have destroyed the Canada I loved. Those who disagree with me see safety in clinging ever tighter to that political class. You know … the ones who brought their elbows up and now want to make America great again.

I argue that I no longer live in the same country that my predecessors fought to preserve. I now live in an authoritarian Canada that passes bills to prevent speech which someone in Laurentia considers hateful, and I consider holy (Bill 9), that controls the news I watch (Bill 18), that monitors the websites that I visit (Bill 11), and that removes the guns I have bought (Bill 22). Meanwhile, these same authoritarians refuse to change the “no-pipelines bill” (Bill 69) as directed by the Supreme Court. A ruling for thee but not for me.

Our much-vaunted medical system pushes people to medical assistance in dying (MAiD), and the constitution is ignored with impunity. We once had a justice system which was blind to wealth, age, race, and sex. Now it treats Canadians arbitrarily and differently based on their immutable differences. When the former leader of this Laurentian Canada told a young veteran, who had sacrificed limbs in service to his country, that he was asking for too much, I realized that I no longer lived in a country that was recognizable as Canada.

But my view is not universally shared, and that is why we need a vote to have a conversation about these competing views. This is what the October vote is all about. If I can’t subsequently convince the “stayers” of the validity of my anxieties, then they must vote no to independence in the subsequent referendum. In the meantime, those who disagree with me have a responsibility to respond to my anxieties by explaining their own. As I said, a conversation and not a shouting match. A conversation which starts with questions.

From my perspective, the questions should include.

Are you comfortable knowing that, due to the constitutional disparity in representation in the House, Senate, and Supreme Court, federal elections are determined before your vote is registered?

What do you think of Ontario law professor Bruce Pardy’s argument that Canada will not become a great nation again unless and until Alberta becomes independent? Is it possible that your parents in Orillia need brave action from Albertans?

Are you comfortable giving tens of billions of dollars to provinces that view resource development as immoral while happily taking our resource development money to finance services that we in Alberta cannot afford?

Do you really think that equalization is “insurance” and that, when our oil and gas revenues are depleted, other provinces will step in to support Alberta?

Are you happy with an army that can’t fight, an air force that can’t fly, and a navy that can’t sail due to wilful lack of resourcing? Do we really have a military when we need foreigners to staff it because Canadians aren’t interested in losing lives and limbs to protect an indifferent population?

Do you not think that if British Columbia denies tidewater access to Alberta’s products, they will not lose far more when Alberta denies eastern access to their containers?

If Alberta has one of the highest gross domestic products per capita, the highest economic productivity, and the lowest debt per capita of any country in the G-7, will there not be a line-up of institutions wanting to extend credit?

Are you comfortable with the undeniable, authoritarian trend in legislation from the federal government, even as that government plunges our economy into recession?

Do you agree with the leadership of a Prime Minister who came to power with his elbows up and now wants to make America great again? Perhaps the guy who motivated 7,000 people to collect 300,000 signatures in raging blizzards has shown more leadership than the guy who is a year behind in his promise to deliver a trade agreement with the United States.

As I said, it is a conversation, and the questions are meant to expand the universe of potential pathways forward. Albertans who are fearful of what they consider to be the radical nature of independence should allow their imaginations to roam in the same Elysian fields of we who would be independent. Remember that our desire for independence is also a reaction to the complacency of those who would bury their heads reciting, “we’ll be fine, we’ll be fine,” even as the social and economic structure of Canada is corrosively removed from beneath us.

So, let’s have a conversation that gets the issues on the table and allows a deeper understanding of different perspectives. Regardless of the outcome of a referendum vote, the conversation will be very valuable to all those who call themselves Albertans. And who knows, we may find a third path which threads the needle for all. And with luck, the conversation can be had over a convivial beer rather than with vituperative and filthy language shouted on a sidewalk.

https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/lytle-alberta-independence-isnt-radical-the-real-danger-lies-in-refusing-the-debate/74158