An Alberta judge will decide next week if a proposed provincial separation referendum question is constitutional.
Court of King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby is expected to give his ruling Aug. 14.
Edmonton, Aug.7.– The matter stems from Alberta Chief Electoral Officer Gordon McClure referring the proposed question to the Edmonton court last week. He has asked the judge to determine whether the question violates the Constitution, including treaty rights.
The question asks Albertans: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?”
At the start of a hearing Thursday, Mitch Sylvestre, an executive with the group that proposed the question — the Alberta Prosperity Project —applied to the court to strike the referral.
Through his X account, the influential Mexican businessman reacted to an intervention by the president at the morning conference at the National Palace.
Ciudad México, July 24.– Businessman Ricardo Salinas Pliego questioned President Claudia Sheinbaum on Thursday for maintaining her support for Senator Adán Augusto López, despite allegations linking the legislator to organized crime.
Through his X account, Salinas - one of the most influential voices in the country - reacted to a moment of the morning conference at the National Palace, where a reporter revealed that, according to information obtained by Army intelligence, a huachicolero leader directly mentioned the former governor of Tabasco under the nickname "Uncle Adán", describing his alleged role in illicit activities related to gasoline trafficking.
Written by Democracia Participativa on .
Posted in Headlines.
Strasbourg, Jul. 24 (DPnet).– Ben Bradshaw, Caroline Lucas, and Alyn Smith presented a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights against the United Kingdom for lack of proper response to alleged interference by Russia in the United Kingdom’s democratic processes, including the 2019 general election.
The applicants complained that, despite the existence of credible allegations that Russia had sought to interfere in the UK’s democratic elections, through, for example, the dissemination of disinformation and the running of influence campaigns, the Government had failed to fulfil its duty (“positive obligation”) to investigate those allegations and had not put in place an effective legal and institutional framework in order to protect against the risk of such interference.
However, the Court found that, while States should not remain passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes were under threat, they must be given considerable latitude in their choice of how to counter such threats. In the Court’s view, while there were undoubtedly shortcomings in the UK’s initial response to the reports of Russian election interference, there had been two thorough and independent investigations, and the Government had since taken several legislative and operational measures to counter disinformation efforts and protect the democratic integrity of the UK. Any failings were therefore not sufficiently grave as to have impaired the very essence of the applicants’ right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to benefit from elections held “under conditions which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people.”
Edmonton, Aug.7.– The matter stems from Alberta Chief Electoral Officer Gordon McClure referring the proposed question to the Edmonton court last week. He has asked the judge to determine whether the question violates the Constitution, including treaty rights.
