While I agree with you that we shouldn't think in 'red vs. blue' terms, the Emergencies Act was actually written because Justin Trudeau's father had undertaken even more extreme measures in the 1970s, while leader of the same party that Trudeau currently leads. This is a situation where the Liberal party has consistently taken extreme anti-civil liberties positions.
Protesters blocked multiple international borders between Canada and the US, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars per day ($300 million/day for the Windsor/Detroit crossing alone). There is no "civil liberty" that protects the right to blockade an international border, just as there is no civil liberty to park a convoy of trucks in someone's neighbourhood and then stay there indefinitely.
I have family who live in the Ottawa neighbourhood that went through this. They had tractor trailers parked outside their house that honked their horns all day and night for days on end. They literally had to leave and live elsewhere for almost three weeks.
I think we can agree that in a democratic society like Canada, we have civil liberties that allow us to protest, but those same liberties allow us to enjoy our homes in peace, not to mention cross international borders, subject to public health and whatever other restrictions have been put in place by our elected governments.
I'd agree that blocking traffic violates some laws and regulations. Freezing people's bank accounts with no trial or right to appeal still seems like a civil liberties violation to me.
Similarly, the FLQ had no right to kidnap or murder people, but Pierre Trudeau definitely infringed on civil liberties during the October crisis.
The correct solution to Illegal behavior in a healthy democracy is to arrest someone and try them in court. We shouldn't be denying that to to anybody no matter how wrong they are.
Banks were instructed to unfreeze accounts on Monday, Feb 21 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-instructs-banks-to-unfre...). The Emergencies Act that kicked off the account freezes was enacted a week earlier, on Monday, Feb 15. If you were involved in an illegal blockade/occupation, would you honestly choose being arrested and charged with one or more crimes and run the risk of a prison sentence/criminal record, over having your bank account frozen for a week?
Yes, I think the truckers should be charged for their crimes. No, I don't think their assets should be frozen without an court process.
This is because don't support extra judicial asset seizure as a valid policing tool.
You posed your question as an either/or, but I haven't seen any pardon claim that the truckers will never be charged (not that it would Change my position)
Using a legal system to enforce laws is the line that separates legitimate governments from racketeers. I believe that it should not be crossed outside of active warzones.
Separating people from their money is an extremely powerful tool. People capitulate quickly if you threaten to starve their family and children. It should never be used simply because you don't want to go to the effort of charging someone with a crime and arresting them.
