In a healthy democracy, political opponents are people you disagree with and hope to persuade. In an unhealthy democracy, critics are treated as enemies and threats.
British Columbia’s NDP government has been leaning toward the second approach since David Eby became premier in 2023. His recent decision to call Albertans who met with American and Trump-aligned representatives “traitors” is only the latest example.
The issue is not just the word itself, although it is hard to overstate how inflammatory it was. The deeper problem is what it signals: a governing style that relies on moral accusation instead of persuasion.
Eby’s comments came amid renewed attention on Alberta’s independence movement and reports that some of its representatives have engaged with American political figures.
Some national analyses asked the practical question many Canadians were already wondering. Does Eby’s “treason” rhetoric have any constitutional meaning at all, or does it simply pour gasoline on an already volatile situation?
Other commentary focused on the deeper national consequence, warning that when a premier reaches for language typically reserved for enemies, he risks turning fellow Canadians into targets, even when they are advocating for constitutional change through political means.
Eby did not argue the merits of federalism. He did not explain why he believes separatism is misguided. He did not lean on his legal background. He framed it as stark betrayal.
On this, it’s worth noting, you do not need to support separatism to see the premier’s language as harmful to Confederation. Many Canadians, including many Albertans, believe the country is stronger together and that the federation, while imperfect, can be improved through democratic and constitutional means.
A leader should unite, not divide
A premier’s job is to lead with restraint, not escalate tensions for applause.
Calling people “traitors” does not lower the temperature. It raises it.
Predictably, Eby’s rhetoric did not weaken Alberta’s independence movement. It gave it oxygen.
Cameron Davies, leader of the Republican Party of Alberta, said Eby’s remarks reflect long-standing frustration with Confederation. He described the comments as “dismissive, disrespectful, and frankly, predictable,” and argued they “reinforce everything we’ve been saying for decades about the broken nature of Confederation.”
“This isn’t just about one comment from one premier,” Davies said in an email. “It’s about a pattern. And Albertans have had enough.”
He argued that Eby’s comments reflect a belief that Alberta “has no real power in this system,” and that the attitude is “exactly what’s driving Alberta toward inevitable independence.”
As Davies’ response shows, rhetoric like Eby’s does not unite. It polarizes and pushes people deeper into grievance politics. It gives the movement exactly what it needs to grow.
Villainizing critics is ‘political theatre’
The premier’s comments should concern British Columbians, even if they have no sympathy for Alberta separatism. Because the pattern is familiar. The BC NDP increasingly treats critics, not as fellow citizens to be reasoned with, but as enemies to discredit.
The strategy is simple. Define the target as a villain, denounce them, and you energize the party base.
Labels are deliberately deployed. The goal is never debate. It is to mark those who disagree as the “other.”
Former BC MLA Gwen O’Mahony has described what that “othering” looks like up close, and how quickly it can be deployed against someone who breaks with the party line.
O’Mahony was elected in a by-election, representing the NDP in Chilliwack-Hope from 2012 to 2013. She later ran for the Conservative Party of BC in the 2024 election. She’s seen how the New Democrat Party communicates internally and publicly.
“My thoughts? It’s theatrics.”
Gwen O’Mahony
In the run-up to the last provincial election, things got personal for O’Mahony when Jobs Minister Ravi Kahlon stood in the legislature and shamed those who were “falling into that trap of… supporting Freedom Convoy, thinking about conspiracies, all of a sudden becoming super anti-trans and anti-homophobic [sic].”
Then Kahlon took a disparaging swipe at O’Mahony for switching allegiance to the BC Conservatives. “What’s clear is that she’s now found a home with people who believe the same thing. That’s what she sees in the leader of the Conservative Party — that same extreme view.”
O’Mahony said senior party figures now rely on communications strategies designed to provoke outrage, not persuade voters.
“My thoughts? It’s theatrics,” she wrote in response to questions about the Eby government’s communications style.
“(They) sit down with their spin doctors and toss out statements intended to accomplish two goals: characterize their target as the worst kind of villain and anger their base to encourage participation in their witch hunt.”
She said the language is calculated, not accidental.
“They have communication teams who know exactly what language to weaponize,” said O’Mahony. “Dog whistles.”
The NDP also use labels such as “antivaxxer, transphobic, conspiracy theorist and of course, Trump supporter,” she said. “Trumpster, or a variation of any kind linked to Trump, is the go-to.”
‘Treason’ remarks normalize moral outrage over reason
Her critique reflects an increasingly widespread perception in British Columbia—the NDP is more comfortable condemning opponents than engaging with them.
And that’s where the connection to Eby’s “traitor” remarks crystalizes into something more disturbing.
His comments are not simply a reaction to Alberta. They reflect a political culture that has normalized moral accusation as a substitute for civilized debate and reasoned argument.
That should matter to British Columbians because what is normalized in provincial politics does not stay there.
When leaders repeatedly frame opponents as dangerous or illegitimate, they’re not just speaking to their base. They’re teaching the country how to talk to itself.
Many communities in British Columbia have spent years feeling dismissed by Victoria. They recognize the tactic. They’ve been on the receiving end of it. And they understand something the government often seems to forget: you cannot hold a country together through contempt.
You cannot build unity by humiliating your neighbours.
And you can’t reduce separatist sentiment by vilifying the disenfranchised.
Danielle Smith seems to know this. Instead of attacking sovereigntists, she tried to understand them.
“When you look at the polls, they suggest as many as 30 per cent of Albertans have lost hope. That’s about a million people, and I’m not going to demonize or marginalize a million of my fellow citizens when they’ve got legitimate grievances.”
Democratic leaders need to persuade critics, not accuse them
A functioning democracy needs its leaders to exercise restraint, especially when emotions run high. It requires leaders who have the maturity to disagree with opposing views without dehumanizing the people behind them. It demands patience, empathy and persuasion, not accusation and a 10-second rage-bait sound clip.
Premier Eby delivered none of this.
His comments likely pleased a portion of his base and scored a day’s worth of sharp, snappy headlines. No doubt his communications team logged it a success. But the win was short-sighted.
It deepened divisions, strengthened grievance politics in Alberta, and reinforced the growing perception that the BC NDP government is more interested in moral antics than democratic persuasion.
British Columbia deserves better.
So does Canada.