5 ms·

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 demo

by 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.
        lowkey 5y ago
        > This was one year after similar group attacked the American Capitolium. Assuming you are referring to the January 6th insurrection incident, I don't think the two are comparable. What happened in Canada could fairly be described as an occupation and would therefore be most similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Notably the Occupy movement, despite being equally frustrating for the local and national government as well as the civilian population, was allowed to go on for close to 2 years. I don't claim that Canada should have allowed this protest/occupation to go on for that long, but I think it is clear that had the Ottawa police had the will to take action, the existing laws were sufficient to put an end to any illegal activity. Peaceful protest, not occupation, is lawful under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So my hypothesis is that the Canadian Government implemented the Emergency Measures act in order to suspend the Charter so they could suppress an otherwise lawful activity.
    - StanislavPetrov 5y ago
      >Polling shows that the majority of Canadians supported the use of the act. The majority of southerners supported slavery and breaking away from the union.
- 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.

by csee 5y ago

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.
      - lowkey 5y ago
        > This was one year after similar group attacked the American Capitolium. Assuming you are referring to the January 6th insurrection incident, I don't think the two are comparable. What happened in Canada could fairly be described as an occupation and would therefore be most similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Notably the Occupy movement, despite being equally frustrating for the local and national government as well as the civilian population, was allowed to go on for close to 2 years. I don't claim that Canada should have allowed this protest/occupation to go on for that long, but I think it is clear that had the Ottawa police had the will to take action, the existing laws were sufficient to put an end to any illegal activity. Peaceful protest, not occupation, is lawful under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So my hypothesis is that the Canadian Government implemented the Emergency Measures act in order to suspend the Charter so they could suppress an otherwise lawful activity.
  - StanislavPetrov 5y ago
    >Polling shows that the majority of Canadians supported the use of the act. The majority of southerners supported slavery and breaking away from the union.
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.