4 ms·

I don't know much about the issue. But isn't that a bit extreme? They're Canadian citizens after all, not terrorists. We've had our fair share of anti-vax prote

by jp0d 5y ago

I don't know much about the issue. But isn't that a bit extreme? They're Canadian citizens after all, not terrorists. We've had our fair share of anti-vax protestors here in Australia. Many of them were arrested for unruly/criminal behaviour but not for protesting. How is it even legal to freeze their bank accounts? Asking here to learn more about it.

version_five 5y ago
"Legal" is a strong word for it. It's possible because there is a law that lets the government suspend due process when there is a war or something. And they've chosen to frame the protest as something dire enough to invoke that law. So who's going to stop them? This is exactly the kind of thing that people were worrying about Trump doing in 2016: breaking societal norms and acting like a strongman, and getting away with it because the legal framework assumed leaders would all act like gentlemen. It's what you hear about people like Orban and Poland's leader doing, ignoring convention to push their own agenda. And now it is happening in Canada
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  There are also laws in the US that prevent certain people from striking. Simply signing a phone contract or registering on a website these days eliminates your constitutional rights, like to trial by jury. The laws are written by corporations and people are just now realizing that freedom never really existed, at least not to the extend they were lead to believe.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    > Simply signing a phone contract or registering on a website these days eliminates your constitutional rights, like to trial by jury. The right to trial by jury is only for criminal cases. The ninth amendment hasn't been incorporated to the States.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      The seventh amendment does in fact lay out trial by jury in civil cases, but it was decided in the supreme court that states were not required to provide jury trials in civil cases; but many of them do provide it until you supposedly "voluntarily" wave it to do things like purchase essential goods and services like a motor vehicle or Internet service.
- jcadam 5y ago
  Notice our current president, or really any other major western leader, isn't condemning what Trudeau is doing.
yoloyoloyoloa 5y ago
mindslight 5y ago
Once authoritarian abilities are in place, the easiest approaches get used, no matter how repugnant. I'm completely willing to believe that the protests have created a massive public disturbance due to the use of heavy equipment, horns, etc. But the right answer there is to enforce the straightforward laws against such things, arrest the perpetrators, and tow the illegally-used equipment. But of course that takes a lot of work, so instead the government reaches for the easy but totalitarian approach of trying to control communication and organization in general.
- BeefWellington 5y ago
  This is a bad take for several reasons. 1. Ottawa police have basically put zero effort into doing anything about the nighttime noise or generally criminal behaviour of the "protestors." 2. The federal government should not be stepping in immediately to solve policing issues like this precisely until the situation becomes untenable. THAT would have been draconian and authoritarian. 3. Beyond the city police, the provinces themselves needed to precipitate asking for this in some way, or to appear completely nonresponsive. This is why you saw states of emergency in the City, then in the Province, and only then was the act engaged. 4. The law that was invoked was an (IMO) very well designed piece of legislation that was designed to replace something called the War Measures Act, which was abused by Trudeau senior to end a terrorism threat in Quebec. That overstep of federal authority essentially ensured that law would never remain on the books and it was later replaced with this act. This is why today, tomorrow, and through Monday, there are debates going on on the house floor around the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and if the whole of parliament doesn't agree they can simply end it Monday at the conclusion of the debate when they vote on it. These rules are all clearly spelled out in the legislation. There's also effectively a review process where if this is engaged they must review and continue to agree to keep it in force over time, meaning it could not be an indefinite thing unless the majority of MPs agreed to keep it in force.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I purposely stayed away from #1-3, to avoid getting dragged into partisan muck. I would call the situation untenable when the local police are no longer under control of their civilian governments, and I would say at that point the federal police stepping in is entirely appropriate. Part of their actions should include holding the insubordinate and corrupt local police accountable. (Also note I said the easiest thing gets used, not the most authoritarian or extreme) #4 seems like a decent check on the action, but the action itself is repulsively technocratic - cutting citizens off from the necessary infrastructure of the banking system, by executive decree. And regardless of being heavy handed, it seems ineffectual for actually discouraging the protests and if anything might just increase their resolve.
BeefWellington 5y ago
Money laundering is illegal in most western jurisdictions. Your accounts can already be seized for a variety of criminal and crime-adjacent reasons. > They're Canadian citizens after all, not terrorists. These are not mutually exclusive. You can be both a citizen of a country and a terrorist operating within that country. Most countries (including Australia) have histories of this.

by jp0d 5y ago

version_five 5y ago

"Legal" is a strong word for it. It's possible because there is a law that lets the government suspend due process when there is a war or something. And they've chosen to frame the protest as something dire enough to invoke that law. So who's going to stop them? This is exactly the kind of thing that people were worrying about Trump doing in 2016: breaking societal norms and acting like a strongman, and getting away with it because the legal framework assumed leaders would all act like gentlemen. It's what you hear about people like Orban and Poland's leader doing, ignoring convention to push their own agenda. And now it is happening in Canada

encryptluks2 5y ago
There are also laws in the US that prevent certain people from striking. Simply signing a phone contract or registering on a website these days eliminates your constitutional rights, like to trial by jury. The laws are written by corporations and people are just now realizing that freedom never really existed, at least not to the extend they were lead to believe.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  > Simply signing a phone contract or registering on a website these days eliminates your constitutional rights, like to trial by jury. The right to trial by jury is only for criminal cases. The ninth amendment hasn't been incorporated to the States.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    The seventh amendment does in fact lay out trial by jury in civil cases, but it was decided in the supreme court that states were not required to provide jury trials in civil cases; but many of them do provide it until you supposedly "voluntarily" wave it to do things like purchase essential goods and services like a motor vehicle or Internet service.
jcadam 5y ago
Notice our current president, or really any other major western leader, isn't condemning what Trudeau is doing.

yoloyoloyoloa 5y ago

mindslight 5y ago

Once authoritarian abilities are in place, the easiest approaches get used, no matter how repugnant. I'm completely willing to believe that the protests have created a massive public disturbance due to the use of heavy equipment, horns, etc. But the right answer there is to enforce the straightforward laws against such things, arrest the perpetrators, and tow the illegally-used equipment. But of course that takes a lot of work, so instead the government reaches for the easy but totalitarian approach of trying to control communication and organization in general.

BeefWellington 5y ago
This is a bad take for several reasons. 1. Ottawa police have basically put zero effort into doing anything about the nighttime noise or generally criminal behaviour of the "protestors." 2. The federal government should not be stepping in immediately to solve policing issues like this precisely until the situation becomes untenable. THAT would have been draconian and authoritarian. 3. Beyond the city police, the provinces themselves needed to precipitate asking for this in some way, or to appear completely nonresponsive. This is why you saw states of emergency in the City, then in the Province, and only then was the act engaged. 4. The law that was invoked was an (IMO) very well designed piece of legislation that was designed to replace something called the War Measures Act, which was abused by Trudeau senior to end a terrorism threat in Quebec. That overstep of federal authority essentially ensured that law would never remain on the books and it was later replaced with this act. This is why today, tomorrow, and through Monday, there are debates going on on the house floor around the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and if the whole of parliament doesn't agree they can simply end it Monday at the conclusion of the debate when they vote on it. These rules are all clearly spelled out in the legislation. There's also effectively a review process where if this is engaged they must review and continue to agree to keep it in force over time, meaning it could not be an indefinite thing unless the majority of MPs agreed to keep it in force.
- mindslight 5y ago
  I purposely stayed away from #1-3, to avoid getting dragged into partisan muck. I would call the situation untenable when the local police are no longer under control of their civilian governments, and I would say at that point the federal police stepping in is entirely appropriate. Part of their actions should include holding the insubordinate and corrupt local police accountable. (Also note I said the easiest thing gets used, not the most authoritarian or extreme) #4 seems like a decent check on the action, but the action itself is repulsively technocratic - cutting citizens off from the necessary infrastructure of the banking system, by executive decree. And regardless of being heavy handed, it seems ineffectual for actually discouraging the protests and if anything might just increase their resolve.

BeefWellington 5y ago

Money laundering is illegal in most western jurisdictions. Your accounts can already be seized for a variety of criminal and crime-adjacent reasons. > They're Canadian citizens after all, not terrorists. These are not mutually exclusive. You can be both a citizen of a country and a terrorist operating within that country. Most countries (including Australia) have histories of this.