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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, gotcha

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.

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