Public debate in Alberta has always been spirited, but recent comments from former provincial cabinet minister Thomas Lukaszuk take that debate in a dangerous direction. His descriptions of Albertans involved in or sympathetic to separatist sentiment go far beyond political disagreement. They stigmatize entire groups of people and risk deepening divisions at a moment when the province needs clarity, not caricature.

In interviews about the separatist movement, Lukaszuk has drawn a sweeping picture of what he calls the “hard-core” and “soft-core” separatist blocs. He characterizes the first group as predominantly white men between 20 and 45, describing many as anti-vaccine, anti-mask, pro-convoy and tied to American cultural or religious influences. He even suggests that within this group there are “militant men” who are “armed to their teeth.” He then casts another 10 per cent of the population as “soft-core” separatists who, in his telling, are using separation as a bargaining tactic.

This is not harmless analysis. It’s a portrayal of ordinary citizens as a kind of internal threat, defined by race, age, ideology or faith. It suggests that dissenting political views naturally correlate with extremism. That kind of language is not just inaccurate — it is corrosive. It assigns motive and menace to people who have done nothing more than express frustration with the government, the economy or the direction of the country.

Canada has clear expectations around public speech. We can argue policies, movements and ideas forcefully. But when rhetoric shifts from challenging positions to labelling entire groups as inherently dangerous, it crosses into territory that undermines public trust and potentially endangers the very people being described. Painting thousands of Albertans as militant or unstable does nothing to encourage dialogue. It instead invites suspicion and resentment.

The separatist conversation in Alberta deserves to be taken seriously. People have the right to feel unheard. They have the right to question whether political and economic arrangements are fair. Dismissing those concerns by casting them as symptoms of extremism only pushes people further away from institutions, not closer to them.

Public figures carry an obligation to elevate discussion, not inflame it. Lukaszuk’s remarks do the opposite. They turn neighbours into archetypes and disagreements into security risks. That is not what responsible commentary looks like and it should not be excused as political colour or colourful language.

Albertans — whether federalists, critics of Ottawa, or indifferent to constitutional debates altogether — deserve discourse rooted in accuracy and respect. When commentary strays into broad, alarming generalizations that frame citizens as threats, there must be a clear acknowledgement that the line has been crossed. Accountability is not optional in a democratic society; it is essential.

Alberta’s challenges are real. Its people are diverse. And its political debates are complex. Reducing any part of this province to a caricature of “militant white men” does nothing to solve problems. It only creates new ones. Canada needs voices that build understanding, not ones that further fracture it.