See, for a recent example in a supposedly free first world country, Canada. Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes.
Just like with any bulk data collection and surveillance technology, it is only a question of how soon it will be abused.
Because once you donate money, you have given it away, and it's gone. If you're expecting something in return you are trying to make a purchase, not a donation.
Punishment would involve having something further taken away. If they jailed people for donating, that would be punishment.
> Because once you donate money, you have given it away, and it's gone.
Presumably to the entity you intended to donate to, no? I would argue that determining where your money goes is a right.. If I intercepted all of your future charitable donations for my own purposes you would be understandably upset.
Ha ha, so easy to refute. Is it unethical for the government to stop me from say, donating to a terrorist organisation? It's still "charity", right? ;)
donation are purchases -- you are buying capital for the fund of your choice.
if it turned out a charity you donated to was funneling money somewhere, they would be effectively stealing from you, as the thing you were purchasing was never given.
> On February 17, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a press conference that financial institutions have started freezing accounts and canceling credit cards in accordance with the Emergencies Act, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked earlier this week.
> The powers granted by the act would allow banks to target the accounts of people who have donated to crowdfunding platforms, like the fundraising campaigns on GoFundMe and GiveSendGo, that have fueled the ongoing protests, but Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen."
They can lock anything for any amount and not give any details. Supposedly they have unlocked some, but there's no way of knowing who and why not for others. Typical petrostate behavior.
I'm sure if this happened to people who'd just sent a donation at least one of them would have come forward by now and we'd have some evidence instead of the handwaving "what if" in this article and your comment.
>“Just to be clear, a financial contribution either through a crowdsourced platform or directly, could result in their bank account being frozen?” Lawrence asked.
You're wrong TomSwirly, they did, and unless you're Canadian familiar with the situation (I assume you're not), you should really be more careful about untruths. In your case I assume it comes from a place of ignorance, not malice, but it's tough to be certain.
>Seriously?! How did they justify donating to the truckers as something to be punished? That sounds almost like a police state to me.
So imagine Trudeau's point of view. The Canadian media smeared the protest as nazis, racists, white supremacists, who were going to Ottawa to overthrow the government. Indie and international media clearly disproved this, but Trudeau never saw this. Joel Lightbound, one of Trudeau's top allies saw this.
So imagine you are Trudeau. You believe that a bunch of nazis are looking to overthrow the government. You absolutely declare a national emergency and send the police to arrest them. You also seize the bank accounts of those who are involved in the military occupation of the capital.
The problem? The canadian media was lying quite extensively. This was a legitimate protest of regular canadians who are good people.
CBC is literally state-funded media, and Trudea literally lives in Ottawa. In no world does he have an excuse to be blind, and even in some sliver of hope where he honestly didn't know, why didn't he make a public apology?
I don't think you can excuse this by blaming the media - shouldn't it be the government's responsibility to make sure they have the correct information before making use of emergency powers?
>I don't think you can excuse this by blaming the media - shouldn't it be the government's responsibility to make sure they have the correct information before making use of emergency powers?
I never intended to excuse anything. The media is bought and paid for by the government. This is the state propaganda who called the protest a bunch of nazis.
Worse yet... Joel Lightbound is a liberal quebec MP. He made the huge mistake of going to the protest and talk to them and he was astounded by how misrepresented the protest was by Canadian media. Over a week before the emergency was declared he said exactly what should happen. Stop the inflammatory messaging calling them all nazis, they are not nazis. Give us a roadmap to when our rights will be restored.
That would have solved the entire problem long before anything went down. Today, not only did everything that the protest was protesting still remains without a roadmap, they have added new restrictions to our rights.
absolute FUD and lies. They wanted policy change. Telling your government to use its powers is not revolution. They wanted to "overthrow" the government in the same sense that protestors to legalize gay marriage want to overthrow the government.
You misunderstand the Canadian political system. A senator or MP is free to act according to their own desire; they are political actors elected or appointed expressly for that.
The Governor General is Canada's representative of the Queen. They are not a politician. Literal centuries of British and Canadian jurisprudence have defined the Governor General to have no ability to act without the advice of their Prime Minister. As an unelected representative of the Monarch, if they act without the advice of the Prime Minister, that's a tyrant overthrowing the elected government. England cut off the head of the last monarch to act against the will of the House.
I will openly admit that I have limited knowledgeable of the role of the Governor General in Canadian constitution and legal history.
I still think that characterizing the memorandum of understanding as treason is a misunderstanding of both what a MoU is and the contents of this specific MoU.
First, a MoU is a declaration of intent and a commitment to take an action - Not a legislative bill.
This MoU was addressed to both the Senate and the Governor General.
It doesn't specify how the parties will achieve their their commitment. It is up to the parties to determine if there is a lawful way to meet their commitments before making them.
Senators in Canada have the ability to introduce bills, which can be approved via the traditional pathway.
It also doesn't say anything about removal of the PM.
I fail to see the distinctions drawn. What makes it UN democratic to ask your government to make change through lawful process? It's not like the policies were put in place by public referendum.
How can something be a terrorist plot to overthrow the government, but not treason?
I dont know this website. Article written March 10th well after the fact and just hosts a very clearly one sided view of this. Jody thomas? I dont know wtf this is about.
Let me explain in much better detail about what you're trying to get at.
There was a website named 'canada unity' who put together a MOU in which called on the governor general to inform Trudeau that he has to return our charter rights. In a way you can read it as saying the governor general is overthrowing the government by effectively dissolving Trudeau's government.
This poorly put together was run by JAMES BAUDER and his wife. They were never even for a second one of the protest leaders.
Yet the canadian media portrayed this website as THE protest leaders. Used this MOU as justification of calling on the governor general to overthrow the government's sovereignty. This is how they are claiming the protest was overthrowing the government.
Tamara Lich was the key organizer. Involvement in several previous protests. She represented the protest in negotiations with the mayor of ottawa. She represented the protest in court over the honking situation.
Chris Barber had Jordan Peterson's audience.
Pat King is an actor on the otherhand. His acting played the canadian media's bias against themselves so badly.
What exactly was the crime the protest was committing. Parking violations really.
The only problem that anyone can explain about this peaceful protest is ParKing violations.
Yet here we are, everyone is a nazis, confederates, racists. Pat King offered the canadian media every prejudice, every biased hate thing he could think of. He got into the limelight because they ate up everything he said. He gave them everything they ever wanted on a golden platter.
For multiple elections conservatives have run on the plan to defund these lying canadian media. They got played big time.
Flipside, we're now a month later and pat king is still in jail. Original charge was just 'counseling mischief' but the new charges are 'counseling a felony that wasnt committed."
Absurd vague fake charges to crush a peaceful protest.
We were not discussing whether the protest was peaceful or not; we are discussing whether or not self-evident leaders of the movement wanted a coup.
You can personnally cry and cry that they were not leaders of the movement, but never has Tamara Lich publically denounced James Bauder, or denied her desire to overthrow the government. She never went on record denouncing his involvement in any leadership position. Letting someone in a protest you supposedely organize run around and demand the overthrow of the government is a thing that happens all the time; it's common. Whenever that person has the limelight on them, you vigorously denounce them and deny any sort of leadership on their part. Failure to do so means you agree.
Ultimately, this whole convoy was dangerously inept. That's a thing. You can be so clueless, so reckless that you're a danger to others.
>We were not discussing whether the protest was peaceful or not;
Excellent, you cede that they were peaceful and therefore their charter rights were violated.
>we are discussing whether or not self-evident leaders of the movement wanted a coup.
They didn't. The Media doesnt get to pick who the leaders are neither.
>You can personnally cry and cry that they were not leaders of the movement, but never has Tamara Lich publically denounced James Bauder, or denied her desire to overthrow the government.
I provided CBC who clearly never listed James Bauder as a protest leader. Never did Tamara Lich ever call for overthrow of the government. You want to think the media gets to choose some random protester, say he is leader and then use them?
> She never went on record denouncing his involvement in any leadership position.
She doesnt need to. That's a ridiculous requirement.
>Letting someone in a protest you supposedely organize run around and demand the overthrow of the government is a thing that happens all the time; it's common.
Perfect! In future... the media gets to pick who the leader of all protests are. Not the protest itself. Did you meet John Smith the ecoterrorist who wishes to destroy Canada? Every future protest = illegal now.
>Whenever that person has the limelight on them, you vigorously denounce them and deny any sort of leadership on their part. Failure to do so means you agree.
Great, going forward all left-wing protests will have John Smith the ecoterrorist speaking for them.
>Ultimately, this whole convoy was dangerously inept. That's a thing. You can be so clueless, so reckless that you're a danger to others.
How dare they so recklessly exercise their right to protest!
Your whole house of cards rest on the idea that I have to agree that James Bauder was never a leader of the movement. When James Bauder said he was a leader of the movement. When many news outlet identified him as a leader of the movement. When many protesters identified him as a leader of the movement. And Tamara Lich never denounced him or any of his formal requests to the Governor General.
Reality doesn't care about your feelings about James Bauder.
>Your whole house of cards rest on the idea that I have to agree that James Bauder was never a leader of the movement.
Does it matter if you agree or disagree with this? I provided a cbc link that listed the leaders. Bauder was not among them. Why do you think the CBC didn't even list bauder?
In fact, im just doing a search right now... there's no articles on cbc at all listing bauder as anything at all. Which is in fact impossible because I recall reading about bauder, the mou, and how they plan to overthrow the government on the cbc amongst others. It would seem the CBC quietly deleted those articles.
>When James Bauder said he was a leader of the movement.
Did you know I am the leader of BLM?
>hen many news outlet identified him as a leader of the movement. When many protesters identified him as a leader of the movement. And Tamara Lich never denounced him or any of his formal requests to the Governor General.
Why indeed has BLM never denounced me, John Smith the ecoterrorist. Is it by chance Bauder and I were just never a leader. That media smears were ignored by the real leadership?
Politically unaligned media don't get to pick the leaders of a protest.
>Reality doesn't care about your feelings about James Bauder.
I know why you cling to Bauder so much when clearly he's not a real entity. Without this tremendously weak point... you literally have nothing else to say the protest were 'overthrowing the government'. Without this tenuous at best point, how do you ever justify a national emergency.
Ultimately it doesnt even matter. They were parked outfront parliament for weeks and never quite got around to insurrection. The entire narrative that they were trying to overthrow the government is without merit. Reality is on my side.
Financing terrorists - and these "truckers" were nothing else, which led to the declaration of the emergency state, a legally defined mechanism! - will lead to issues no matter if it's al-quaeda or y'all-quaeda.
The donors should be happy all they got was a temporary freeze on their bank accounts. Had it been Islamist terror they had donated to, the accounts would have been terminated and criminal charges levied.
I am curious if you generally feel comfortable with the government being able to retroactively define something as "terrorism" when it does not conform with your general political views. Personally I think this is a terrible idea whether or not I agree with the people being targeted.
>I am curious if you generally feel comfortable with the government being able to retroactively define something as "terrorism" when it does not conform with your general political views. Personally I think this is a terrible idea whether or not I agree with the people being targeted.
There's a hilarious video from our parliament.
Andrew Scheer(former conservative leader, former opposition leader) was talking.
Elizabeth May(former green party leader) got up and started accusing him of 'dogwhistles to nazis' blah blah.
Andrew Scheer stands up with the biggest smile.
He points out Elizabeth May has been arrested and convicted of an illegal blockade while being green party leader. That the precedent set will mean that the green party donaters will have their bank accounts seized as well as her own.
The irony, it's only matter of time that conservatives take government back and very well can do this now.
On twitter a ton of greenpeace and antifa people freaked out at this new precedent.
"What if I donate to greenpeace. Some point later they have a protest that goes sideways. My bank account gets seized?"
It sounds the argument being made here is that this was a dangerous precedent being made that can be abused by political parties against their political opponents. This seems to be presented by you with apparent glee as a conservative vs green party/greenpeace/"antifa" or liberal issue. What you'll actually find is that broader society is just intolerant of the economic duress and disruptions caused by such protests.
Up to a quarter of Canadian-US trade was going through that area, and real people were suffering due to the trucker blockade. These economic disruptions had secondary effects that impact the lingering impacts of the pandemic and exacerbated supply chain issues.
There is not a whit of moral equivalency between climate change protests and some truckers afraid of a needle.
>It sounds the argument being made here is that this was a dangerous precedent being made that can be abused by political parties against their political opponents.
Because it was the current government abusing the act to use against their political opponents. Do you agree or disagee with this?
>This seems to be presented by you with apparent glee as a conservative vs green party/greenpeace/"antifa" or liberal issue.
If Canada is a free country and we do have fair and free elections. Inevitably the conservatives form government again. Andrew Scheer almost was prime minister.
I guess the glee comes from the above question. If you disagree and that the current government did not abuse the act to crush a peaceful protest. I will immediately agree with you and accept the precedent that this future conservative government gets to crush all dissenting political protests.
The glee you detect isn't glee. I very much disagree with this precedent. The government should NEVER be able to stop a peaceful protest. The glee is how absolutely tyrannical Trudeau acted.
>What you'll actually find is that broader society is just intolerant of the economic duress and disruptions caused by such protests.
Well first of all, this 'broader society' needs citation. The only people who suggest the majority of canadians agree with the use of the emergency act are the same media who called the protests a bunch of nazis. I dont accept state propaganda as facts sorry.
Also what economic duress and disruption? By the government's own admission in their required justification of the emergency act there was no blockades. The emergency act was used entirely and solely as part of the Ottawa protest. Blocking a few blocks in front of parliament. There is no economic duress here at all.
>Up to a quarter of Canadian-US trade was going through that area, and real people were suffering due to the trucker blockade. These economic disruptions had secondary effects that impact the lingering impacts of the pandemic and exacerbated supply chain issues.
1/4 of usa trade goes through downtown ottawa for no damned reason? Can you prove that in any way please?
Or do you mean the detroit bridge blockade? Not only was there 1 lane open, the detroit tunnel was completely unblockaded. Sarnia's bluewater bridge was not blockaded. Niagara falls, not blockaded. And cherry on top... the ambassador bridge dissolved BEFORE they even mentioned talking about the emergency act.
No, I dont expect you are trying to use a non-existent blockade as justification for national emergency. The only place the emergency act was used was in ottawa. Surely you are arguing 1/4 of usa trades has to drive in front of parliament?
>There is not a whit of moral equivalency between climate change protests and some truckers afraid of a needle.
If you say so. I do believe I get to decide upon my own moral decisions.
Here's really what's happened. Trudeau was misinformed greatly by the canadian media. He crushed the legitimate protest because he misunderstood why the canadian media called for the denazification of the protest. Trudeau absolutely acted tyrannically and has not fixed the situation.
The precedent is set, conservatives do NOT have the right to protest right now. All of the original reasons for the original protest still stand AND they've added new vaccine mandates making the reason for protesting to increase.
Without the right to peaceful protest.. it means other protest will now be required.
If conservatives want to lead an armed insurrection in Canada over "vaccine mandates" (reactionaries are so good at controlling the discourse with the words they force) they should go for it. Something tells me the consequence will be larger than not being able to swipe your plastic at the gas station.
Funny it took white people getting their bank accounts frozen for there to be noise that the government has too much power and wields it against citizens with impunity. Wonder how Trudeau's government treats the First Nations? Oh that's right, running oil pipelines through their land.
Only a certain demographic has had freedom of protest in Canada. Have you ever been water cannoned for defending your home and the groundwater of your community? But sure, conservatives are the new precedent about not being able to protest. No demographic has been harmed in Canada as deeply or egregiously as the conservatives who live underground now and trade in scrip
>If conservatives want to lead an armed insurrection in Canada over "vaccine mandates" (reactionaries are so good at controlling the discourse with the words they force) they should go for it. Something tells me the consequence will be larger than not being able to swipe your plastic at the gas station.
If you analyze protests lately like the 'mostly peaceful' burning riots of BLM etc. Which as a quick aside, BLM is fully justified in their protest.Police brutality and clear systemic racism is objectively true.
Compare that to the over the top peaceful protest in Ottawa. Which was intentionally that way. The protest policed itself to not give the media this. The media has been smearing conservatives for so long.
But more importantly, and clearly you went right to armed insurrection. Who said this was an insurrection. Notice also how January 6 went from insurrection to less than a riot. It's not even a riot, it's just an 'attack' now. Trudeau urgently wanted it to turn into an insurrection... the false allegation and propaganda was that the protest was looking to overthrow the government. Which isn't true at all. They sat outside in -20c on the road and NEVER insurrected or even tried to overthrow anything.
This just goes to prove how wrong all of this still is. Conservatives still do not have the right to protest.
>Funny it took white people getting their bank accounts frozen for there to be noise that the government has too much power and wields it against citizens with impunity. Wonder how Trudeau's government treats the First Nations? Oh that's right, running oil pipelines through their land.
>Only a certain demographic has had freedom of protest in Canada.
Why do you think Trudeau hates racial minorities so much? Vaccine mandates disproportionately harm racial minorities especially black and indigenous canadians.
>Have you ever been water cannoned for defending your home and the groundwater of your community? But sure, conservatives are the new precedent about not being able to protest. No demographic has been harmed in Canada as deeply or egregiously as the conservatives who live underground now and trade in scrip
It almost reads like you read conservative = white people. How very incorrect.
> “I would be remiss if I didn’t start by recognising the news coming from India about the protest by farmers. The situation is concerning. We are all very worried about family and friends. We know that’s a reality for many of you. Let me remind you, Canada will always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protesters. We believe in the process of dialogue. We’ve reached out through multiple means to the Indian authorities to highlight our concerns. This is a moment for all of us to pull together,” Trudeau had said in November 2021.
Those were in fact not peaceful
> 1 journalist killed. One person lynched for alleged desecration. Over 1,500 telecom tower sites damaged by protestors (as of 28 Dec). Government buses and 30 police vehicles damaged on Republic Day.
Race plays a role in vaccination. Black and Indigenous Canadians are only around 50% vaccinated. Indian/Punjabis are somewhere around 70%. An awful lot of truckers are Indian. Especially from Quebec.
One of the original key issues that sparked this protest is the action by Trudeau to ban unvaccinated truckers and put them out of a job. This disproportionately harmed racial minorities including Indians.
The comparison or hypocrisy is that he supported the indian farmers but called the punjabi truckers a bunch of racists. It blows my mind.
Canadian truckers were > 90% vaccinated at the time of the "Trucker" Tantrum. There were very few Southeast Asians in evidence among the tantrum throwers.
They were majority white (mostly because the Southeast Asian truckers in Canada are mostly vaccinated and were quite busy because the people throwing the tantrum weren’t actually working because they refused to get vaccinated).
This is whataboutery. At the very least the truckers were an extremely unpleasant and potentially dangerous nuisance for everyone in the vicinity.
At worst were literally attempting regime change. They were also largely funded by the US far right, which has obvious links to Russia. In fact Russian propoganda was encouraging similar actions in the US and the EU.
So of course they were defunded.
It's always amusing to see libertarians complaining that a government shoots first - financially in this case, and only after a long delay - and asks questions later, when they're typically the people claiming loudly that far more extreme forms of violence are always legitimate in personal self-defence.
Just as with Jan 6, most of these people should have been jailed and those from the US should have been banned from entering Canada again.
Never mind the political angle, the nuisance and intimidation were more than enough to justify that.
I agree that the truckers were super disruptive. I’m glad some punitive action was taken.
But freezing the bank accounts of people who donated to them without due process is beyond the pail. Given that cash is mostly dead as a result of covid, banking needs to be considered a basic right. It shouldn’t be able to be revoked simply because the government doesn’t like what you do with your money.
Claim made not in evidence. Legally frozen were the recipient accounts. Yes, contributors could have had their accounts frozen, but no evidence that the government ordered such an action on any donor.
You sound severely self-centric and antisocial. Protests are a movement, and the noise they make are the extended arm that you are to grab and hop onto.
>It's always amusing to see libertarians complaining that a government shoots first - financially in this case, and only after a long delay - and asks questions later, when they're typically the people claiming loudly that far more extreme forms of violence are always legitimate in personal self-defence.
do you regularly see libertarians advocating for shooting the friends & family of an attacker, in your own words, "after a long delay"? this is a very poor comparison.
> Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes.
[citation needed]
The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2]. There was a lot of initial confusion, and so whatever story you may have heard (and is stuck in your head), you may wish to go back and double-check to see if there were any corrections.
I see you are a throwaway account and unlikely to respond.
One cannot deny that the emergency act was used this way. The RCMP confirmed(https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en...) that this happened and denied being the ones who did it. Implying either the government went around them OR the banks took this action upon themselves with gigantic liability issues.
>The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2].
That's a very good point, but incorrect. The emergency act is EXPECTED to trample on charter rights. In an actual emergency it's entirely expected that police will go over the line.
What exactly was the emergency act used for? Not a single blockade existed. It was used entirely for the protest in Ottawa. Their goal is to remove the illegally parked semi trucks.
If this was used in such a way that charter rights were not trampled on. The police would have gone in, towed the trucks and left the protesters who were lawfully protesting.
That's not at all what happened. They came in and removed the entire lawful protest, not just some illegally parked trucks. The emergency act was used to crush a legitimate protest.
So what happens next? Section 46 of the emergency act is next. The people damaged by the protest, be it having gotten pepper sprayed or your right to protest being removed. You get compensation. The crown is about to pay huge $ to these protesters.
> I see you are a throwaway account and unlikely to respond.
Created on January 1 (01/01), 2017. It's kind of become less throwaway over time. :)
Also: your username is in green, which means (IIRC) it is less than two weeks old. One of us has a higher probability of being a throwaway.
> One cannot deny that the emergency act was used this way.
Your link says nothing to confirm that it was an ex post facto action.
> That's a very good point, but incorrect. The emergency act is EXPECTED to trample on charter rights. In an actual emergency it's entirely expected that police will go over the line.
The Emergencies Act itself says it is subject to the Charter:
> AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;
> That's not at all what happened. They came in and removed the entire lawful protest, not just some illegally parked trucks. The emergency act was used to crush a legitimate protest.
It was not a blockade or protest that got removed: once they started living there it became an occupation.
Further, threats of use of violence are not part of legal protests:
> (a) the continuing blockades by both persons and motor vehicles that is occurring at various locations throughout Canada and the continuing threats to oppose measures to remove the blockades, including by force, which blockades are being carried on in conjunction with activities that are directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property, including critical infrastructure, for the purpose of achieving a political or ideological objective within Canada,
To safely remove the trucks from the street, nobody needs to be around the workers doing the towing. It's basic health and safety. Police repeatedly asked people to leave. Many refused, many complied. Would you have prefered the police run over the protesters with their own trucks?
Police have an additional power to asking politely. They can arrest people. It is the appropriate response if someone continues to break a law but is non-violent.
Why should anyone be denied access to banking? In our modern world, banking is about as essential as food. Would you deny someone food because of their political beliefs?
I might personally deny them food, but I do not think the government should have the power to stop another consenting person to give or sell food to some based on their political belief.
The charter also allows itself to be overridden so that's a bit disingenuous. If the charter says that you can ignore it in a lot of cases if needed, then it's very easy for any law to be compatible with it
Not knowing anything about the Vision Times, a quick search:
> Vision Times is one of the news organizations that Falun Gong's founder Li Hongzhi refers to as "our media".[1] The newspaper's president is the spokesperson for the Falun Dafa Association in New York, and is chair of another Falun Gong group called Quit the CCP.[1] In 2021, The Atlantic called Vision Times a "doppelgänger site" of The Epoch Times.[5]
I saw this reported here in the UK. I believe it was also mentioned in a recent Unherd article about the dangerous implications of this misuse of powers, but I’m sure you are capable of using a search engine.
I was asking because American right wing news has frequently lied about what was happening here in Canada. To my knowledge there hasn’t been a single report of a frozen bank account over a donation except for some debunked tweet by a Canadian conservative politician.
The canadian government declared an emergency under the emergencies act. The act enables the government to make any orders or regulations, so there is no need to go through the court.
If you're claiming that a government is abusing its power because it froze some funds, and it turns out it was done according to law, then the accusation is unsubstantiated. Maybe it was abusing its power, but we haven't been shown any evidence. And the burden of proof is on you to show that it was an abuse of power.
The government used emergency powers designed to be used in case of war for dealing with peaceful protesters. The previous act was only used during WW1, WW2, and during the October Crisis by Trudeau's alleged father, which is also the reason the powers were watered down.
> Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen."
Freeland did say that they would be freezing the donators as well in the original videos.
The more egregious comment was by David Lamenti. He's a lawyer and law professor. He knows the law. His comments are not a gaffe and not out of context or anything. This is not him pulling the wrong insult out of his bag. He spoke clearly and he meant every little bit of the comment.
That is a pretty high bar for abuse you have there. Emergency acts are typically meant for governments to react quickly to unprecedented situations where not all eventualities can be forseen and covered by laws. This means that they are grant very broad powers that considered unacceptable under normal conditions and thus any use of those powers is potential abuse. What is abuse and what dis not allowed are two entirely different things.
>If you're claiming that a government is abusing its power because it froze some funds, and it turns out it was done according to law, then the accusation is unsubstantiated. Maybe it was abusing its power, but we haven't been shown any evidence. And the burden of proof is on you to show that it was an abuse of power.
This is kind of the argument that Gerald Butts made. That technically parliament approved this misuse of power. In a way you are right. Here's the problem.
The Canadian media represented the protest as a bunch of nazis and maga military occupying ottawa and loooking to over throw the government.
The NYTimes thought it was the best story ever. They put boots on the ground and said... wait we don't really agree with the goal of the protest but it's a legitimate protest. That using force to end the protest would be wrong. That in a democracy protests are going to be annoying but these must be left to exist.
They are right. There can never be an exception to the charter right of peaceful protest. Right now, what the conservatives in Canada have been told is that they do not have the right to protest. They will simply declare another national emergency, seize bank accounts, and arrest them on 'mischief' charges.
So now what happens? The conservatives cant peacefully protest... media is smearing them to propaganda levels.
You can still do roaming protests where you keep moving making stopping the protest difficult to do. I suspect these kinds of protests will get tiresome.
Eventually you just say, ok, peaceful isn't allowed. Other than peaceful is our new option.
Yes, it's perfectly legal and done according to law.
There are some oversights. Under the Emergencies Act, the Parliament and the Senate get to confirm the use of the act. What surprised people were the fact that the action of voting down the use of the act will trigger an election, and parties didn't want an election. [1]
>Are you sure this is abuse? My guess is a judge ordered the accounts to be frozen.
That's kind of the problem. No judge was ever involved. The emergency act was deployed by Trudeau, they seized bank accounts and arrested legitimate peaceful protesters. Tyrannically crushing a legitimate protest just because ~70 semi trucks were illegally parked in ottawa.
Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center and harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me. They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings. That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion. I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time. Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent.
Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed. Tiananmen Square was crushed (literally), US civil rights protests were crushed with firehouses and dogs, etc. The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest.
>Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center
It did not do this at all. When I zoom in on Ottawa and ignore gatineau. I would assert the city center is say UofOttwa to the east side, if not all the way to the rideau. Maybe kowloon market, china town, little italy, centretown west is the west side. With a southern spot of maybe the 417 highway?
What did the protest block? You'll have to zoom it significant more. It blocked what wellington and queen for 2 blocks? It did absolutely nothing to 90% of the city centre.
To suggest a protest at parliament hill is 'completely shutting down the major city center' is absurd.
> harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me.
Ok, fine, so we set the precedent that you agree with. You're fine with future governments crushing legitimate protests under the same misrepresentations as well? Afterall, how much conservative protests are there? Pretty rare. We're going to be crushing left-wing protest for the most part.
>They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings.
Did they? Which bridge in Ottawa did they block? Or do you mean ambassador bridge which is a related but unconnected protest. This blockade ended before the emergency act was ever implemented. We are talking about Trudeau crushing a legitimate protest in ottawa. The emergency act was used for ONLY ottawa, took them days to even do anything.
>That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion.
A rebellion! Oh wow. A peaceful protest in front of parliament with bouncy castles and hottub is a rebellion. I guess they just never quite got around to the rebelling part...
I honestly didnt even see the canadian media label them a rebellion. Sure even doug ford called them a military occupation. But rebellion!
>I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time.
People linked Trudeau being in favour of the extremely violent hong kong riots and the only marginally violent farmer protests in india. Yet he refused to even talk to them once. Couldnt even send a staffer to go talk to the protest once.
I would hope ANY government would be forced to talk to a protest at least once before declaring national emergency and crushing them with force.
>Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent.
Oh wow, we are even redefining what violence is. Why are you doing this? There's a clear reason. The protesters have the right to 'peaceful protest'. You are required to redefine 'violence' in order to invalidate their charter rights. I see what you are doing.
You are even redefining what a residential area is. For the record... you have to go about 4 blocks or more away from the protest to get to the first residential building. Where they were parked is not residential at all. Census data is public. The protest was never 'harassing residents'. At most they were 'harassing counter protesters' which is what it is.
>Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed.
Now you're redefining crushing?
>The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest.
Crushing means 'to subdue completely' or 'oppress grievously'. Well the day before they gave the emergency act back. There was not a single protester in ottawa and parliament hill. They subdued the protest completely. AKA they crushed a peaceful protest.
There's a reason why Bill Maher called Trudeau Hitler right before he crushed a peaceful protest. After he tyrannically crushed the protest and made protesting illegal for conservatives. Bill Maher seems to be saying that Trudeau = Hitler.
Just like with any bulk data collection and surveillance technology, it is only a question of how soon it will be abused.