5 ms·

> the Canadian prime minister imposed martial law on the protestors No, he didn’t.

drewcoo 5y ago
Technically the War Measures Act, which the Emergencies Act replaced, was not considered martial law either. We can all understand what this really is in spirit, though, and I don't think anyone is claiming literally that the military is in charge.
wobblyasp 5y ago
Grifters gonna grift anyway they can. For anyone interested in knowing what the emergency act actually entails, and why it's not the war measures act, Elizabeth May has a fairly decent, if not long, speech during the debate: https://youtu.be/-iPsgfuum2c https://youtu.be/-iPsgfuum2c
givemeethekeys 5y ago
Are you saying, "no he didn't in theory" or "no he didn't in theory or in practice" ?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  No he didn't either way, because that's not what the Emergencies Act is or does. [1, 2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iPsgfuum2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iPsgfuum2c
  - guilhas 5y ago
    So what do you call closing people bank accounts because they donated 50$ to a protest? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10535361/Canadian-MP-says-single-mom-bank-account-frozen-donating-50-Freedom-Convoy.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10535361/Canadian-M...
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Not to a protest, to an unlawful occupation of the capital. I'm 100% behind that. I'm sorry. And so are over 2/3 of Canadians. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. [edit] I would be just as glib about someone who donated $50 to Hezbollah and got their accounts shut down. [edit2] Trudeau has a minority government, and minority governments both require another party to prop them up - and have an average tenure of 1 year and 140 days. It's been 154 days already. There will be an election in less than a year, on average. We have courts, we have ballot boxes. Use them. [edit3] I say this as someone who did not vote for the Liberals, and is open to revisiting restrictions.
      - stickfigure 5y ago
        > I would be just as glib about someone who donated $50 to Hezbollah and got their accounts shut down. When the truckers start lobbing rockets into population zones, this comparison might be reasonable. The increasingly common habit of comparing everyone with Wrong Political Opinions to terrorists does not sit well with me.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        I'm not - I'm saying that contributing to an unlawful activity after being warned not to, very publicly ("playing stupid games") is subject to winning stupid prizes.
      - guilhas 5y ago
        People donate to a protest when they believe what they stand for, like being against mandatory vaccination, not when they made sure that every protester is following the law Besides how can a peaceful protest be unlawful? I hear that in China when protests are "unlawful" when they disagree with the great leader
        arcticbull 5y ago
        There was a court case that settled this if you're curious to learn more. [1] Not only did they rule it unlawful, they gave the truckers a few hours after the ruling came down to vacate the area before it went into effect. They have been given every opportunity. They decided that rather than following the lawful orders of the court, they would simply continue their occupation. This isn't a protest, it's an unlawful occupation. Canada has a long history of peaceful protest. If they'd picketed on the streets in front of Parliament Hill as hundreds of thousands have done over the last century nobody would have batted an eyelash. In fact the government gave them three full weeks of outright occupation before they began to ask them to leave - then eventually told them to in no uncertain terms. After all there have been tens of other anti-vaxx protests in Canada over the last two years. None were treated this way. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60356461 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60356461
- woodruffw 5y ago
  He did not in theory or in practice impose martial law. The comment adjacent to yours contains a video that explains the provisions under the Emergency Act in detail.
0xbadc0de5 5y ago
Semantics aside - the Act does allow for the suspension of civil liberties that should be troubling to everyone. The ability for a government to unilaterally lock people out of their bank accounts without a court order or any form of recourse is virtually unprecedented in Western society. Likewise, retroactively labelling a behaviour as a crime, then punishing individuals for it is explicitly against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Being 2022, most financial transactions are electronic. Locking people out of their bank accounts is severely restricting their ability to buy essential goods such as food, shelter, transportation, etc. Remember, it's not about the individuals, it's about the precedent it sets. If the government can do it to those you disagree with, they can (and will) do it to you.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  When a conversation starts with accusations of "martial law," you don't get to wiggle out of that by wringing over "semantics": "martial law" means something specific, and using it in the first place belies either an incorrect understanding or a dishonest attempt to portray the Canadian government's actions in terms that nobody can disagree with. > The ability for a government to unilaterally lock people out of their bank accounts without a court order or any form of recourse is virtually unprecedented in Western society. No, it isn't. The US uses SARs[1] on a daily basis, and has since the passing of the Bank Secrecy Act in the 1970s. There is virtually no recourse to a SAR levied against your account: virtually every bank in the US will simply close your account and refuse to disclose any further information.
  - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
    So...your argument for Canada discarding due process is: "But the US discards due process, too!"
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      It's not an argument. The GP claimed that the act of freezing bank accounts was unprecedented in Western societies; I showed that there is, in fact, ample precedent. There isn't even remotely a due process concern here, in the US constitutional sense (which isn't the Canadian sense!) of the phrase. When someone receives a SAR, their bank account is frozen and they are given steps to liquidate the account. No deprivation of property, the necessary condition for due process, occurs.
guilhas 5y ago
Call it what you want, it is abuse of power by the government to deal with a peaceful protest that has a vast support if not the majority of the people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_GnClytz34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_GnClytz34
- defaultname 5y ago
  Support of the majority? 93% of Canadians wanted to see the protests cleared. 2/3rds wanted participants jailed. A majority of Canadians agree with a lifting of mandates, but this was true before this protest, and if anything the protest set it back. Support for the protest was extremely low.

Technically the War Measures Act, which the Emergencies Act replaced, was not considered martial law either. We can all understand what this really is in spirit, though, and I don't think anyone is claiming literally that the military is in charge.

wobblyasp 5y ago

Grifters gonna grift anyway they can. For anyone interested in knowing what the emergency act actually entails, and why it's not the war measures act, Elizabeth May has a fairly decent, if not long, speech during the debate: https://youtu.be/-iPsgfuum2c https://youtu.be/-iPsgfuum2c

givemeethekeys 5y ago

Are you saying, "no he didn't in theory" or "no he didn't in theory or in practice" ?

arcticbull 5y ago
No he didn't either way, because that's not what the Emergencies Act is or does. [1, 2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iPsgfuum2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iPsgfuum2c
- guilhas 5y ago
  So what do you call closing people bank accounts because they donated 50$ to a protest? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10535361/Canadian-MP-says-single-mom-bank-account-frozen-donating-50-Freedom-Convoy.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10535361/Canadian-M...
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Not to a protest, to an unlawful occupation of the capital. I'm 100% behind that. I'm sorry. And so are over 2/3 of Canadians. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. [edit] I would be just as glib about someone who donated $50 to Hezbollah and got their accounts shut down. [edit2] Trudeau has a minority government, and minority governments both require another party to prop them up - and have an average tenure of 1 year and 140 days. It's been 154 days already. There will be an election in less than a year, on average. We have courts, we have ballot boxes. Use them. [edit3] I say this as someone who did not vote for the Liberals, and is open to revisiting restrictions.
    - stickfigure 5y ago
      > I would be just as glib about someone who donated $50 to Hezbollah and got their accounts shut down. When the truckers start lobbing rockets into population zones, this comparison might be reasonable. The increasingly common habit of comparing everyone with Wrong Political Opinions to terrorists does not sit well with me.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        I'm not - I'm saying that contributing to an unlawful activity after being warned not to, very publicly ("playing stupid games") is subject to winning stupid prizes.
    - guilhas 5y ago
      People donate to a protest when they believe what they stand for, like being against mandatory vaccination, not when they made sure that every protester is following the law Besides how can a peaceful protest be unlawful? I hear that in China when protests are "unlawful" when they disagree with the great leader
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        There was a court case that settled this if you're curious to learn more. [1] Not only did they rule it unlawful, they gave the truckers a few hours after the ruling came down to vacate the area before it went into effect. They have been given every opportunity. They decided that rather than following the lawful orders of the court, they would simply continue their occupation. This isn't a protest, it's an unlawful occupation. Canada has a long history of peaceful protest. If they'd picketed on the streets in front of Parliament Hill as hundreds of thousands have done over the last century nobody would have batted an eyelash. In fact the government gave them three full weeks of outright occupation before they began to ask them to leave - then eventually told them to in no uncertain terms. After all there have been tens of other anti-vaxx protests in Canada over the last two years. None were treated this way. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60356461 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60356461
woodruffw 5y ago
He did not in theory or in practice impose martial law. The comment adjacent to yours contains a video that explains the provisions under the Emergency Act in detail.

0xbadc0de5 5y ago

Semantics aside - the Act does allow for the suspension of civil liberties that should be troubling to everyone. The ability for a government to unilaterally lock people out of their bank accounts without a court order or any form of recourse is virtually unprecedented in Western society. Likewise, retroactively labelling a behaviour as a crime, then punishing individuals for it is explicitly against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Being 2022, most financial transactions are electronic. Locking people out of their bank accounts is severely restricting their ability to buy essential goods such as food, shelter, transportation, etc. Remember, it's not about the individuals, it's about the precedent it sets. If the government can do it to those you disagree with, they can (and will) do it to you.

woodruffw 5y ago
When a conversation starts with accusations of "martial law," you don't get to wiggle out of that by wringing over "semantics": "martial law" means something specific, and using it in the first place belies either an incorrect understanding or a dishonest attempt to portray the Canadian government's actions in terms that nobody can disagree with. > The ability for a government to unilaterally lock people out of their bank accounts without a court order or any form of recourse is virtually unprecedented in Western society. No, it isn't. The US uses SARs[1] on a daily basis, and has since the passing of the Bank Secrecy Act in the 1970s. There is virtually no recourse to a SAR levied against your account: virtually every bank in the US will simply close your account and refuse to disclose any further information.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  So...your argument for Canada discarding due process is: "But the US discards due process, too!"
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    It's not an argument. The GP claimed that the act of freezing bank accounts was unprecedented in Western societies; I showed that there is, in fact, ample precedent. There isn't even remotely a due process concern here, in the US constitutional sense (which isn't the Canadian sense!) of the phrase. When someone receives a SAR, their bank account is frozen and they are given steps to liquidate the account. No deprivation of property, the necessary condition for due process, occurs.

guilhas 5y ago

Call it what you want, it is abuse of power by the government to deal with a peaceful protest that has a vast support if not the majority of the people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_GnClytz34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_GnClytz34

defaultname 5y ago
Support of the majority? 93% of Canadians wanted to see the protests cleared. 2/3rds wanted participants jailed. A majority of Canadians agree with a lifting of mandates, but this was true before this protest, and if anything the protest set it back. Support for the protest was extremely low.