14 ms·

I read the article as connecting (not conflating) the two. He's saying that the government can no longer be trusted with this power, as evidenced by this partic

by csee 5y ago

I read the article as connecting (not conflating) the two. He's saying that the government can no longer be trusted with this power, as evidenced by this particular misuse, and they therefore should lose that ability.

Comevius 5y ago
[flagged]
- csee 5y ago
  Why must we choose between doing nothing on the one hand and freezing assets without due process on the other? Why can't we just have a functioning liberal democracy that arrests the purported criminals quickly, charges them with a crime, and tries them in a court under the full scrutiny of the voting public?
  - Comevius 5y ago
    Canada only enacted the Emergencies Act when things got out of hand. This was separatist group that for a time took control over the border, threatened and blockaded critical infrastructure and committed thousands of crimes (bribery, threats, assault, setting a fire in a building). The criminal investigations are ongoing. Due process will be had.
    - csee 5y ago
      Then arrest the people who are breaking the laws and blockading critical infrastructure, and charge them with a criminal offence. The BLM protests also saw many criminal elements that did looting and assaults. None of this is a valid argument for freezing accounts of people "involved" without due process.
      - Comevius 5y ago
        The Emergencies Act is specifically for when there is an urgent and critical public order emergency. It's invocation is going to be ratified by the Parlaiment today. The police unfortunately dropped the ball, they tried that option too. But just arresting specific people also wasn't enough. Polling shows that the majority of Canadians supported the use of the act.
        csee 5y ago
        I don't accept that this wasn't resolvable by normal police action. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/191-arrests-later-ottawa-police-remove-remaining-freedom-convoy-vehicles-1.5788869 https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/191-arrests-later-ottawa-polic... Maybe freezing accounts contributed to this particular outcome, but I don't accept that it was necessary.
        lowkey 5y ago
        Notably, the War Measures Act - which is the original act that was rebranded as the Emergencies Act in 1988 - has only ever been put into effect 3 times in history. 1. WWI 2. WWII 3. FLQ Crisis - an incident that included the kidnapping of federal ministers by a terrorist organization By contrast, this protest has been incredibly peaceful when compared to other similar protests or occupations. There is a debate happening in parliament right now on whether or not to extend the Emergency powers now that the government has successfully cleared the protestors and taken back control of downtown Ottawa. I personally don't believe this incident warranted the suspension of civil liberties. It isn't clear to me that the government did what they could to apply the existing laws on the books. If anything the biggest issue was that the Ottawa police appeared reluctant to enforce existing laws on the protestors. That is a different issue and does not justify the imposition of the Emergency act.
        Comevius 5y ago
        This was one year after similar group attacked the American Capitolium. Holding critical infrastructure hostage, threatening the government and harassing people is not peaceful. Invoking the Emergencies Act after 3 weeks was warranted after the police failed doing it's job. The government did not have a clear picture or control over the situation. A foreign organization could have used it to supply these people, which is what happened. This was a big hole in Canada's national security.
    - muzika 5y ago
      - Comevius 5y ago
        Who pays for writing comments on HN? Asking for a friend.
        muzika 5y ago
        My apologies, I got emotional.
  - woodrow 5y ago
    Remember that these financial controls are about limiting access to donations received from outside of Canada —- over half of the contributions to GiveSendGo were _not_ from Canadians. Canada has the right (just as the US does) to limit foreign influence in its domestic affairs and its democratically elected government is exercising that right.
    - lowkey 5y ago
      But the freezing of accounts wasn't limited to foreign donors, was it? It wasn't even limited to those who actually broke any laws. Multiple incidents have been reported by Canadians who donated as little as $50 to the protest BEFORE it was declared illegal, having their bank accounts frozen without any formal charges. Given that they are not even charging these people with crimes, they are denied due process and their economic lives are destroyed for the crime of committing a lawful act that happened to be unpopular with the ruling party. To portray this as a reasonable step to curtail foreign influence in domestic affairs seems intellectually dishonest. This was government overreach pure and simple.
      - woodrow 5y ago
        Canada obviously doesn't have jurisdiction over foreign donors, so depending on how GiveSendGo implemented their money transmission flows it may not have been possible for the government to distinguish between domestic and foreign financing sources. I agree that domestic money flowing within Canada (to e.g. support Charter-protected actions of others) should not be impeded without a higher degree of scrutiny. This said, I love Canada and don't believe Canada should tolerate one iota foreign interference in our domestic affairs, especially if it sows division or reduces trust in Canada's institutions. Whether you believe the blockading of border crossings, occupation of Parliament Hill, and disruption of peace in Ottawa were peaceful protests or unlawful assemblies, they were amplified and prolonged by foreign money. Canada should rightly do what it takes to nip foreign influence in the bud.
        lowkey 5y ago
        I upvoted your comment as I completely agree. As a smaller nation with a large and powerful neighbor to the south, it is important for Canada to protect against foreign influence in our politics and particularly our elections. I do wish we would apply those foreign influence and foreign funding rules more consistently though. A few years ago, the prime minister in question, accepted millions in funding from Chinese investors to his WE charity. In order to avoid having to defend those actions he even prorogued parliament. It would also be nice to limit foreign investment in Canadian real estate so that more Canadians could afford a home in their native land, but I might be dreaming.
  - drewcoo 5y ago
    > Why must we choose between doing nothing on the one hand and freezing assets without due process on the other? Canadians only have two hands. Even the Quebecois.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  > and the majority don't want these Nazi flag waving idiots distrupting their lives. Slightly off topic but the inconsistent treatment/reporting of these protestors and BLM is what gets me. BLM protestors flying "antifa" flags (let's be honest Marxists) are just as bad as Nazis in my book - seriously misled people with unworkable ideas about how the world should be run. Anyway if you're coming down hard on protestors who are causing disruption but not to protestors who are setting fire to buildings then there's something seriously wrong.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - feoren 5y ago
    > BLM protestors flying "antifa" flags ... are just as bad as Nazis Let's be clear about what you're saying: people who are vehemently opposed to Nazis are just as bad as Nazis. This is the definition of "fake centrism" or (sarcastically) "enlightened centrism". You're really saying that a new flag created to express opposition to Nazis, fascism, authoritarianism, and genocide is as bad as a flag that has been used for almost a century to represent those exact things? They're just as bad as each other? Are there good and bad people "on both sides", too? You need to seriously take a hard look at yourself in a mirror if you believe this. One group is expressly saying "we should subjugate and genocide non-whites" and the other group is expressly saying "we should not tolerate genocide and subjugation" and they are just as bad in your eyes!?
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      People vehemently opposed to Nazis can be exactly as bad as Nazis. It's not the flag; it's not even really the ideology; it's the actions. If your actions are as bad as the actions of Nazis, then you are as bad as Nazis. You and CodeGlitch can argue whether that applies in this situation. But the idea itself is perfectly reasonable.
      - feoren 5y ago
        I'm not claiming nobody is as bad as the Nazis. I am claiming that the core belief of "Antifa", represented by both its name and its flag, is "anti-fascism", which is nearly synonymous with being "anti-Nazi". I am also claiming that people who wave the Nazi flag in modern times are explicitly calling for the genocide of other human beings. Finally, I am claiming that being against genocide and being for genocide are not somehow automatically equal, like two poles of some spectrum; rather, that such a belief is a well-known false equivalency known as "enlightened centrism" that is commonly used by people who actually just outright sympathize with Nazis and just don't want to admit it. None of these claims should be controversial in any way whatsoever. So I don't really understand what you're trying to rebut here.
- lowkey 5y ago
  Please note that the Canadian government has, in the past, on multiple occasions [0], used agents provocateurs to falsely smear a protest movement by planting their own agents who attempt to inflame a situation. For example, trying to turn peaceful protests violent. To my knowledge, there was a singular incident of Nazi flag on the very first day of a 25 day protest. There is also some evidence that it may have actually been the PM's personal photographer who took the photos of the Nazi flag [1]. It is also a curious fact that this flag incident took place at the Fairmont Chateau Laurier, a $300/night luxury hotel in the heart of Ottawa, known for hosting foreign dignitaries and heads of state, that now curiously houses a large contingent of police from all over Canada [2]. It seems suspect to think that truckers and racists would choose such an iconic and expensive venue to display this symbol of hate. Given that most of us never expected the severe curtailing of civil liberties by a liberal democracy such as Canada, I think it is prudent for us all to be skeptical about the facts on the ground in this incident as it almost appear engineered to sow the seeds of hate against the protesters in this case. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur#Canada [1] https://twitter.com/McloughlinGuy/status/1489468112009408514/photo/1 https://twitter.com/McloughlinGuy/status/1489468112009408514... [2] https://twitter.com/GuitarBill609/status/1495447010291372034/photo/1 https://twitter.com/GuitarBill609/status/1495447010291372034...
  - kingofpandora 5y ago
    There is no evidence it was "Trudeau's personal photographer" that took the picture in question. Zero.
    - lowkey 5y ago
      I apologize. I overstepped and will correct my previous comment with a note. I do find it suspect that this all went down at the Fairmont Chateau Laurier which is a hotel most well known for hosting foreign dignitaries and heads of state, as well as more recently large numbers of police brought in from around the country. This single nazi flag incident has been repeated by the government and it's proponent so many times now to paint this entire movement as racist which is do feel is an unfair characterization of the protesters, most of whom were simply Canadians who felt the need to be heard.
- gorwell 5y ago
  One idiot or provocateur in a sea of tens of thousands does not override the 99%. That's an absurd, lazy smear. What this episode makes clear is that many people actually love authoritarianism as long as the actions of the state in the moment appear to align with their own ideology. Next time it won't, which is why it must be resisted on a principled basis. This precedent being set is a dictator's dream come true and you will have no leg to stand on as someone that cheered on the tools of oppression.
  - wwweston 5y ago
    > One idiot or provocateur in a sea of tens of thousands does not override the 99%. When the blockade is significantly funded from outside the country the policies are supposed to be about [0], when effective mechanics of the protest aren't merely speech but crippling trade, when the stated substance is basically claiming the privilege of unrestrained motion across international borders without regard to vaccination status, even if it were true that "one idiot or provocateur in a sea of tens of thousands" were engaging in fundamentally unacceptable (e.g. nazi) performance, there's still be plenty of reasons for sensible and restrained government authorities to intervene. > This precedent being set is a dictator's dream Which precedent? That authorities might use authority to stop trade disruption? Seizure of property from people involved in that disruption? Bigger and far more routine problems in terms of civil forfeiture. Needing to be vaccinated to cross a border? You may want to look at precedents established over the last century or two and ask yourself why the totalitarian catastrophe you seem to be imagining has only crossed some kind of threshold now, almost as if it isn't coming. [0] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/where-things-stand-majority-of-anti-vax-trucker-protest-funds-were-donated-by-americans https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/where-things-stand-majo...
  - Elinvynia 5y ago
    > One idiot or provocateur in a sea of tens of thousands does not override the 99%. That's an absurd, lazy smear. Do you feel the same about the BLM protests?
    - colpabar 5y ago
      This is a really lazy whataboutism. Let's assume that both the blm protests and the convoy both had "a few idiots or provocateurs in a sea of tens of thousands." Now compare the media coverage and government handling of the two things, and compare how those idiots are portrayed compared to the tens of thousands. Do you see a difference? It seems to me that all blm-related events are generally considered peaceful protests (even the ones where buildings are burned down), while the convoy is nothing but a big nazi flag waving party. Did any blm related entity have their bank accounts frozen?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- waterlaw 5y ago
  This comment reminds me of Carl Schmitt's observation that nothing in a Liberal Democracy prevents it from becoming totalitarian (or otherwise.) His books are more relevant today, as the state is re-establishing its authority to define "friend" and "enemy". "Good" and "evil". Tolerating the "other" side's views is no longer acceptable. The state is re-establishing its authority (and monopoly?) to determine public "friend" and "enemy".

by csee 5y ago

Comevius 5y ago

[flagged]

csee 5y ago
Why must we choose between doing nothing on the one hand and freezing assets without due process on the other? Why can't we just have a functioning liberal democracy that arrests the purported criminals quickly, charges them with a crime, and tries them in a court under the full scrutiny of the voting public?
- Comevius 5y ago
  Canada only enacted the Emergencies Act when things got out of hand. This was separatist group that for a time took control over the border, threatened and blockaded critical infrastructure and committed thousands of crimes (bribery, threats, assault, setting a fire in a building). The criminal investigations are ongoing. Due process will be had.
  - csee 5y ago
    Then arrest the people who are breaking the laws and blockading critical infrastructure, and charge them with a criminal offence. The BLM protests also saw many criminal elements that did looting and assaults. None of this is a valid argument for freezing accounts of people "involved" without due process.
    - Comevius 5y ago
      The Emergencies Act is specifically for when there is an urgent and critical public order emergency. It's invocation is going to be ratified by the Parlaiment today. The police unfortunately dropped the ball, they tried that option too. But just arresting specific people also wasn't enough. Polling shows that the majority of Canadians supported the use of the act.
      - csee 5y ago
        I don't accept that this wasn't resolvable by normal police action. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/191-arrests-later-ottawa-police-remove-remaining-freedom-convoy-vehicles-1.5788869 https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/191-arrests-later-ottawa-polic... Maybe freezing accounts contributed to this particular outcome, but I don't accept that it was necessary.
      - lowkey 5y ago
        Notably, the War Measures Act - which is the original act that was rebranded as the Emergencies Act in 1988 - has only ever been put into effect 3 times in history. 1. WWI 2. WWII 3. FLQ Crisis - an incident that included the kidnapping of federal ministers by a terrorist organization By contrast, this protest has been incredibly peaceful when compared to other similar protests or occupations. There is a debate happening in parliament right now on whether or not to extend the Emergency powers now that the government has successfully cleared the protestors and taken back control of downtown Ottawa. I personally don't believe this incident warranted the suspension of civil liberties. It isn't clear to me that the government did what they could to apply the existing laws on the books. If anything the biggest issue was that the Ottawa police appeared reluctant to enforce existing laws on the protestors. That is a different issue and does not justify the imposition of the Emergency act.
        Comevius 5y ago
        This was one year after similar group attacked the American Capitolium. Holding critical infrastructure hostage, threatening the government and harassing people is not peaceful. Invoking the Emergencies Act after 3 weeks was warranted after the police failed doing it's job. The government did not have a clear picture or control over the situation. A foreign organization could have used it to supply these people, which is what happened. This was a big hole in Canada's national security.
  - muzika 5y ago
    - Comevius 5y ago
      Who pays for writing comments on HN? Asking for a friend.
      - muzika 5y ago
        My apologies, I got emotional.
- woodrow 5y ago
  Remember that these financial controls are about limiting access to donations received from outside of Canada —- over half of the contributions to GiveSendGo were _not_ from Canadians. Canada has the right (just as the US does) to limit foreign influence in its domestic affairs and its democratically elected government is exercising that right.
  - lowkey 5y ago
    But the freezing of accounts wasn't limited to foreign donors, was it? It wasn't even limited to those who actually broke any laws. Multiple incidents have been reported by Canadians who donated as little as $50 to the protest BEFORE it was declared illegal, having their bank accounts frozen without any formal charges. Given that they are not even charging these people with crimes, they are denied due process and their economic lives are destroyed for the crime of committing a lawful act that happened to be unpopular with the ruling party. To portray this as a reasonable step to curtail foreign influence in domestic affairs seems intellectually dishonest. This was government overreach pure and simple.
    - woodrow 5y ago
      Canada obviously doesn't have jurisdiction over foreign donors, so depending on how GiveSendGo implemented their money transmission flows it may not have been possible for the government to distinguish between domestic and foreign financing sources. I agree that domestic money flowing within Canada (to e.g. support Charter-protected actions of others) should not be impeded without a higher degree of scrutiny. This said, I love Canada and don't believe Canada should tolerate one iota foreign interference in our domestic affairs, especially if it sows division or reduces trust in Canada's institutions. Whether you believe the blockading of border crossings, occupation of Parliament Hill, and disruption of peace in Ottawa were peaceful protests or unlawful assemblies, they were amplified and prolonged by foreign money. Canada should rightly do what it takes to nip foreign influence in the bud.
      - lowkey 5y ago
        I upvoted your comment as I completely agree. As a smaller nation with a large and powerful neighbor to the south, it is important for Canada to protect against foreign influence in our politics and particularly our elections. I do wish we would apply those foreign influence and foreign funding rules more consistently though. A few years ago, the prime minister in question, accepted millions in funding from Chinese investors to his WE charity. In order to avoid having to defend those actions he even prorogued parliament. It would also be nice to limit foreign investment in Canadian real estate so that more Canadians could afford a home in their native land, but I might be dreaming.
- drewcoo 5y ago
  > Why must we choose between doing nothing on the one hand and freezing assets without due process on the other? Canadians only have two hands. Even the Quebecois.
CodeGlitch 5y ago
> and the majority don't want these Nazi flag waving idiots distrupting their lives. Slightly off topic but the inconsistent treatment/reporting of these protestors and BLM is what gets me. BLM protestors flying "antifa" flags (let's be honest Marxists) are just as bad as Nazis in my book - seriously misled people with unworkable ideas about how the world should be run. Anyway if you're coming down hard on protestors who are causing disruption but not to protestors who are setting fire to buildings then there's something seriously wrong.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- feoren 5y ago
  > BLM protestors flying "antifa" flags ... are just as bad as Nazis Let's be clear about what you're saying: people who are vehemently opposed to Nazis are just as bad as Nazis. This is the definition of "fake centrism" or (sarcastically) "enlightened centrism". You're really saying that a new flag created to express opposition to Nazis, fascism, authoritarianism, and genocide is as bad as a flag that has been used for almost a century to represent those exact things? They're just as bad as each other? Are there good and bad people "on both sides", too? You need to seriously take a hard look at yourself in a mirror if you believe this. One group is expressly saying "we should subjugate and genocide non-whites" and the other group is expressly saying "we should not tolerate genocide and subjugation" and they are just as bad in your eyes!?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    People vehemently opposed to Nazis can be exactly as bad as Nazis. It's not the flag; it's not even really the ideology; it's the actions. If your actions are as bad as the actions of Nazis, then you are as bad as Nazis. You and CodeGlitch can argue whether that applies in this situation. But the idea itself is perfectly reasonable.
    - feoren 5y ago
      I'm not claiming nobody is as bad as the Nazis. I am claiming that the core belief of "Antifa", represented by both its name and its flag, is "anti-fascism", which is nearly synonymous with being "anti-Nazi". I am also claiming that people who wave the Nazi flag in modern times are explicitly calling for the genocide of other human beings. Finally, I am claiming that being against genocide and being for genocide are not somehow automatically equal, like two poles of some spectrum; rather, that such a belief is a well-known false equivalency known as "enlightened centrism" that is commonly used by people who actually just outright sympathize with Nazis and just don't want to admit it. None of these claims should be controversial in any way whatsoever. So I don't really understand what you're trying to rebut here.
lowkey 5y ago
Please note that the Canadian government has, in the past, on multiple occasions [0], used agents provocateurs to falsely smear a protest movement by planting their own agents who attempt to inflame a situation. For example, trying to turn peaceful protests violent. To my knowledge, there was a singular incident of Nazi flag on the very first day of a 25 day protest. There is also some evidence that it may have actually been the PM's personal photographer who took the photos of the Nazi flag [1]. It is also a curious fact that this flag incident took place at the Fairmont Chateau Laurier, a $300/night luxury hotel in the heart of Ottawa, known for hosting foreign dignitaries and heads of state, that now curiously houses a large contingent of police from all over Canada [2]. It seems suspect to think that truckers and racists would choose such an iconic and expensive venue to display this symbol of hate. Given that most of us never expected the severe curtailing of civil liberties by a liberal democracy such as Canada, I think it is prudent for us all to be skeptical about the facts on the ground in this incident as it almost appear engineered to sow the seeds of hate against the protesters in this case. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur#Canada [1] https://twitter.com/McloughlinGuy/status/1489468112009408514/photo/1 https://twitter.com/McloughlinGuy/status/1489468112009408514... [2] https://twitter.com/GuitarBill609/status/1495447010291372034/photo/1 https://twitter.com/GuitarBill609/status/1495447010291372034...
- kingofpandora 5y ago
  There is no evidence it was "Trudeau's personal photographer" that took the picture in question. Zero.
  - lowkey 5y ago
    I apologize. I overstepped and will correct my previous comment with a note. I do find it suspect that this all went down at the Fairmont Chateau Laurier which is a hotel most well known for hosting foreign dignitaries and heads of state, as well as more recently large numbers of police brought in from around the country. This single nazi flag incident has been repeated by the government and it's proponent so many times now to paint this entire movement as racist which is do feel is an unfair characterization of the protesters, most of whom were simply Canadians who felt the need to be heard.
gorwell 5y ago
One idiot or provocateur in a sea of tens of thousands does not override the 99%. That's an absurd, lazy smear. What this episode makes clear is that many people actually love authoritarianism as long as the actions of the state in the moment appear to align with their own ideology. Next time it won't, which is why it must be resisted on a principled basis. This precedent being set is a dictator's dream come true and you will have no leg to stand on as someone that cheered on the tools of oppression.
- wwweston 5y ago
  > One idiot or provocateur in a sea of tens of thousands does not override the 99%. When the blockade is significantly funded from outside the country the policies are supposed to be about [0], when effective mechanics of the protest aren't merely speech but crippling trade, when the stated substance is basically claiming the privilege of unrestrained motion across international borders without regard to vaccination status, even if it were true that "one idiot or provocateur in a sea of tens of thousands" were engaging in fundamentally unacceptable (e.g. nazi) performance, there's still be plenty of reasons for sensible and restrained government authorities to intervene. > This precedent being set is a dictator's dream Which precedent? That authorities might use authority to stop trade disruption? Seizure of property from people involved in that disruption? Bigger and far more routine problems in terms of civil forfeiture. Needing to be vaccinated to cross a border? You may want to look at precedents established over the last century or two and ask yourself why the totalitarian catastrophe you seem to be imagining has only crossed some kind of threshold now, almost as if it isn't coming. [0] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/where-things-stand-majority-of-anti-vax-trucker-protest-funds-were-donated-by-americans https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/where-things-stand-majo...
- Elinvynia 5y ago
  > One idiot or provocateur in a sea of tens of thousands does not override the 99%. That's an absurd, lazy smear. Do you feel the same about the BLM protests?
  - colpabar 5y ago
    This is a really lazy whataboutism. Let's assume that both the blm protests and the convoy both had "a few idiots or provocateurs in a sea of tens of thousands." Now compare the media coverage and government handling of the two things, and compare how those idiots are portrayed compared to the tens of thousands. Do you see a difference? It seems to me that all blm-related events are generally considered peaceful protests (even the ones where buildings are burned down), while the convoy is nothing but a big nazi flag waving party. Did any blm related entity have their bank accounts frozen?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
waterlaw 5y ago
This comment reminds me of Carl Schmitt's observation that nothing in a Liberal Democracy prevents it from becoming totalitarian (or otherwise.) His books are more relevant today, as the state is re-establishing its authority to define "friend" and "enemy". "Good" and "evil". Tolerating the "other" side's views is no longer acceptable. The state is re-establishing its authority (and monopoly?) to determine public "friend" and "enemy".