3 ms·

I think that it is extremely dangerous to start freezing every single financial provider; banks/credit cards/investment firms/crowdfunding/crypto/insurance, for

by Baloo 5y ago

I think that it is extremely dangerous to start freezing every single financial provider; banks/credit cards/investment firms/crowdfunding/crypto/insurance, for anyone directly or "indirectly" supporting the protests. That is insanely ripe for abuse, whether you agree with the current situation or not. If laws are being broken, arrest the perpetrators and charge them with a crime. Follow the judicial process. What is happening here has very little oversight and seems to be an entirely disproportionate response. You say that institutions have the right to 'not do deals with you', but that's not what's happening. Business is being explicitly instructed not to do business with them, what if they want to offer their services? It's not simply the 'ability to exercise rights', it is denial of a fundamental aspect of living; being able to transact with your peers. Historically this wouldn't have been such an issue, but as 'non-custodial' money is fast disappearing, it poses risks for all of us.

TameAntelope 5y ago
If being able to transact with your peers is a fundamental right, what do you do when people sit in trucks and prevent you from doing exactly that?
- smegma2 5y ago
  As TFA says, you arrest them and give them due process, and hold the state accountable for any mistakes in the process. Are you suggesting an 'eye for an eye' penal code? e. g. you would suggest punishing an arsonist by burning their house down? (Of course not but I guess anything is ok when you disagree with the protest to begin with)
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    I'm suggesting the government of a country ought to be able to act in defense of its citizens before charging and convicting the perpetrators. As I said in another comment, this is the expectation in other areas of law enforcement, so it makes sense to apply that here.
- Baloo 5y ago
  A bit disingenuous as I don't believe (limited knowledge of the protest) they're stopping people from transacting, at least not at the same level/significance as freezing peoples finances. However I did already answer this, you arrest people that are breaking the law and charge them with a crime. Unless we're now happy enough to simply let politicians be judge, jury and executioner; targeting citizens as and when they see fit?
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Pretty sure blocking major transit substantially prohibits commerce, and the degree to which that is true is not really relevant. They're doing it, and you think it's a fundamental right. And do you think literally nothing negative should happen to you at the hand of the government until you're convicted of a crime? Should police refuse to use force against someone actively breaking into a home, just because the burglar is just a "suspect"? Courts will be involved if a crime is being committed, but more importantly a right (you believe in) is being violated. The government is, in every other situation, expected to step in to provide immediate relief to the physical violation of the right to conduct commerce (again, the right you believe in) of the Canadian citizens. This is no different.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      I'm sure you'll likewise approve when the next conservative administration uses these emergency powers to deprive Black Lives Matter protesters (or indigenous rights protesters or whatever they have up there) and anyone who supports them of their access to banking and insurance, right? Because the BLM protests were a hundred times more disruptive to commerce, which appears to be of paramount importance to people like you. > Should police refuse to use force against someone actively breaking into a home, just because the burglar is just a "suspect"? No, the government is empowered to arrest the trespasser based on reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place. And that's what they do. > Courts will be involved if a crime is being committed No, the role of the court is determine whether a crime has been committed. > This is no different. Which is exactly why the twitter thread points out that the only correct course of action in a country with a functional rule of law is to arrest the protesters/trespassers, remove their vehicles from the streets, charge them, and follow the established due process under the law to determine their guilt and punishment. It appears the first step of this process is underway as we speak.

by Baloo 5y ago

TameAntelope 5y ago

If being able to transact with your peers is a fundamental right, what do you do when people sit in trucks and prevent you from doing exactly that?

smegma2 5y ago
As TFA says, you arrest them and give them due process, and hold the state accountable for any mistakes in the process. Are you suggesting an 'eye for an eye' penal code? e. g. you would suggest punishing an arsonist by burning their house down? (Of course not but I guess anything is ok when you disagree with the protest to begin with)
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  I'm suggesting the government of a country ought to be able to act in defense of its citizens before charging and convicting the perpetrators. As I said in another comment, this is the expectation in other areas of law enforcement, so it makes sense to apply that here.
Baloo 5y ago
A bit disingenuous as I don't believe (limited knowledge of the protest) they're stopping people from transacting, at least not at the same level/significance as freezing peoples finances. However I did already answer this, you arrest people that are breaking the law and charge them with a crime. Unless we're now happy enough to simply let politicians be judge, jury and executioner; targeting citizens as and when they see fit?
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Pretty sure blocking major transit substantially prohibits commerce, and the degree to which that is true is not really relevant. They're doing it, and you think it's a fundamental right. And do you think literally nothing negative should happen to you at the hand of the government until you're convicted of a crime? Should police refuse to use force against someone actively breaking into a home, just because the burglar is just a "suspect"? Courts will be involved if a crime is being committed, but more importantly a right (you believe in) is being violated. The government is, in every other situation, expected to step in to provide immediate relief to the physical violation of the right to conduct commerce (again, the right you believe in) of the Canadian citizens. This is no different.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    I'm sure you'll likewise approve when the next conservative administration uses these emergency powers to deprive Black Lives Matter protesters (or indigenous rights protesters or whatever they have up there) and anyone who supports them of their access to banking and insurance, right? Because the BLM protests were a hundred times more disruptive to commerce, which appears to be of paramount importance to people like you. > Should police refuse to use force against someone actively breaking into a home, just because the burglar is just a "suspect"? No, the government is empowered to arrest the trespasser based on reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place. And that's what they do. > Courts will be involved if a crime is being committed No, the role of the court is determine whether a crime has been committed. > This is no different. Which is exactly why the twitter thread points out that the only correct course of action in a country with a functional rule of law is to arrest the protesters/trespassers, remove their vehicles from the streets, charge them, and follow the established due process under the law to determine their guilt and punishment. It appears the first step of this process is underway as we speak.