This is repulsive, especially in a world where we're seeing authoritarians use all sorts of bullshit, made up excuses to arbitrarily punish people. No - the go

This is repulsive, especially in a world where we're seeing authoritarians use all sorts of bullshit, made up excuses to arbitrarily punish people. No - the government does (should) not have the authority in any normal democracy to arbitrarily freeze the finances of those who have not committed any crimes, especially those that have not been proven in court or whereupon there isn't any threat of impending violence. The situation is obviously politicized, as there are perennially 'protest' activities in every nation which may technically 'criminal'. The are innumerable protests and related activities in Canada related such things as block Oil pipelines from being built, Aboriginal blockades etc.. In Portland, Oregon, several city blocks were taken over by violent force - with a militia of self-appointed 'soldiers' brandishing weapons, prevent police and emergency services in. Were their finances blocked? Were the supporting charities blocked? Did those donating to the charities have their assets frozen - no in all cases. The justice system of most governments have ample power to enforce basic laws, as exemplified by the police response at the border in Alberta and Ontario, and should not be partial to the 'types of protesters' they chose to pursue let alone pursue extra constitutional measures. That extra judicial measures were taken in Canada is a stain on Democracy and definitely an indication that the government can't be trusted with basic civil liberties specifically with respect to the issue of the transfer of money. The last thing we need is more oversight over basic finances. If the police, acting independently of any politicians impetus, get a warrant from a judge to intervene in something or the other - they can do that, and it's why those mechanisms exist in the first place.