11 ms·

See, for a recent example in a supposedly free first world country, Canada. Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the ban

See, for a recent example in a supposedly free first world country, Canada. Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes. Just like with any bulk data collection and surveillance technology, it is only a question of how soon it will be abused.

lottin 5y ago
Are you sure this is abuse? My guess is a judge ordered the accounts to be frozen.
- unmole 5y ago
  You guessed wrong.
- wolpoli 5y ago
  The canadian government declared an emergency under the emergencies act. The act enables the government to make any orders or regulations, so there is no need to go through the court.
  - lottin 5y ago
    So it's not abuse then? If it was done according to law.
    - esyir 5y ago
      In same way that the patriot act is legal, yes.
    - wolpoli 5y ago
      Yes, it's perfectly legal and done according to law. There are some oversights. Under the Emergencies Act, the Parliament and the Senate get to confirm the use of the act. What surprised people were the fact that the action of voting down the use of the act will trigger an election, and parties didn't want an election. [1] [1]: https://windsorstar.com/news/canada/mps-to-vote-tonight-on-whether-emergencies-act-for-blockades-still-needed/wcm/559bf3e4-f53c-4e30-a895-92202da578c9 https://windsorstar.com/news/canada/mps-to-vote-tonight-on-w...
    - Wildgoose 5y ago
      Vienna’s jews were rounded up into camps perfectly legally according to the Law. I don’t think this is a route you really want to go down.
      - lottin 5y ago
        If you're claiming that a government is abusing its power because it froze some funds, and it turns out it was done according to law, then the accusation is unsubstantiated. Maybe it was abusing its power, but we haven't been shown any evidence. And the burden of proof is on you to show that it was an abuse of power.
        xdennis 5y ago
        The government used emergency powers designed to be used in case of war for dealing with peaceful protesters. The previous act was only used during WW1, WW2, and during the October Crisis by Trudeau's alleged father, which is also the reason the powers were watered down. Canada's democracy slip up was criticized in the EU: https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/justin-trudeau-blasted-by-eu-parliament-for-handling-of-freedom-convoy-protests-in-canada-articleshow.html https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-n... > the burden of proof is on you Which is impossible because the government explicitly said they won't be transparent and that all the charges are secret: > Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." -- https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649 https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-...
        incomingpain 5y ago
        > Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." Freeland did say that they would be freezing the donators as well in the original videos. The more egregious comment was by David Lamenti. He's a lawyer and law professor. He knows the law. His comments are not a gaffe and not out of context or anything. This is not him pulling the wrong insult out of his bag. He spoke clearly and he meant every little bit of the comment. https://torontosun.com/news/national/trudeau-minister-threatens-to-seize-accounts-of-pro-trump-convoy-donors https://torontosun.com/news/national/trudeau-minister-threat... The CTV guy is even like wtf. Days later the RCMP disavowed being involved and urgently worked to unfreeze those bank accounts. https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en.html https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en...
    - soundnote 5y ago
      So we cannot deem past slavery abusive, then? According to law, after all.
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >Are you sure this is abuse? My guess is a judge ordered the accounts to be frozen. That's kind of the problem. No judge was ever involved. The emergency act was deployed by Trudeau, they seized bank accounts and arrested legitimate peaceful protesters. Tyrannically crushing a legitimate protest just because ~70 semi trucks were illegally parked in ottawa.
  - generj 5y ago
    Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center and harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me. They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings. That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion. I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time. Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent. Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed. Tiananmen Square was crushed (literally), US civil rights protests were crushed with firehouses and dogs, etc. The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest.
    - incomingpain 5y ago
      >Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center It did not do this at all. When I zoom in on Ottawa and ignore gatineau. I would assert the city center is say UofOttwa to the east side, if not all the way to the rideau. Maybe kowloon market, china town, little italy, centretown west is the west side. With a southern spot of maybe the 417 highway? What did the protest block? You'll have to zoom it significant more. It blocked what wellington and queen for 2 blocks? It did absolutely nothing to 90% of the city centre. To suggest a protest at parliament hill is 'completely shutting down the major city center' is absurd. > harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me. Ok, fine, so we set the precedent that you agree with. You're fine with future governments crushing legitimate protests under the same misrepresentations as well? Afterall, how much conservative protests are there? Pretty rare. We're going to be crushing left-wing protest for the most part. >They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings. Did they? Which bridge in Ottawa did they block? Or do you mean ambassador bridge which is a related but unconnected protest. This blockade ended before the emergency act was ever implemented. We are talking about Trudeau crushing a legitimate protest in ottawa. The emergency act was used for ONLY ottawa, took them days to even do anything. >That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion. A rebellion! Oh wow. A peaceful protest in front of parliament with bouncy castles and hottub is a rebellion. I guess they just never quite got around to the rebelling part... I honestly didnt even see the canadian media label them a rebellion. Sure even doug ford called them a military occupation. But rebellion! >I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time. People linked Trudeau being in favour of the extremely violent hong kong riots and the only marginally violent farmer protests in india. Yet he refused to even talk to them once. Couldnt even send a staffer to go talk to the protest once. I would hope ANY government would be forced to talk to a protest at least once before declaring national emergency and crushing them with force. >Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent. Oh wow, we are even redefining what violence is. Why are you doing this? There's a clear reason. The protesters have the right to 'peaceful protest'. You are required to redefine 'violence' in order to invalidate their charter rights. I see what you are doing. You are even redefining what a residential area is. For the record... you have to go about 4 blocks or more away from the protest to get to the first residential building. Where they were parked is not residential at all. Census data is public. The protest was never 'harassing residents'. At most they were 'harassing counter protesters' which is what it is. >Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed. Now you're redefining crushing? >The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest. Crushing means 'to subdue completely' or 'oppress grievously'. Well the day before they gave the emergency act back. There was not a single protester in ottawa and parliament hill. They subdued the protest completely. AKA they crushed a peaceful protest. There's a reason why Bill Maher called Trudeau Hitler right before he crushed a peaceful protest. After he tyrannically crushed the protest and made protesting illegal for conservatives. Bill Maher seems to be saying that Trudeau = Hitler.
sgt 5y ago
Seriously?! How did they justify donating to the truckers as something to be punished? That sounds almost like a police state to me.
- halfnormalform 5y ago
  They didn't punish a single person who donated. That's just ridiculous.
  - throwaway111023 5y ago
    how is freezing their donations not punishment?
    - halfnormalform 5y ago
      Because once you donate money, you have given it away, and it's gone. If you're expecting something in return you are trying to make a purchase, not a donation. Punishment would involve having something further taken away. If they jailed people for donating, that would be punishment.
      - hatefulmoron 5y ago
        > Because once you donate money, you have given it away, and it's gone. Presumably to the entity you intended to donate to, no? I would argue that determining where your money goes is a right.. If I intercepted all of your future charitable donations for my own purposes you would be understandably upset.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - luciusdomitius 5y ago
gabes 5y ago
> Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes. Source?
- Wildgoose 5y ago
  I saw this reported here in the UK. I believe it was also mentioned in a recent Unherd article about the dangerous implications of this misuse of powers, but I’m sure you are capable of using a search engine.
  - gabes 5y ago
    I was asking because American right wing news has frequently lied about what was happening here in Canada. To my knowledge there hasn’t been a single report of a frozen bank account over a donation except for some debunked tweet by a Canadian conservative politician. Thus, I asked for a source.
- xdennis 5y ago
  There's no way to know for sure because these are all secret charges (Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." -- https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649 https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-... ). But there are some example of people who have come forth: https://www.visiontimes.com/2022/02/21/canadians-frozen-bank-accounts-lawmakers-say.html https://www.visiontimes.com/2022/02/21/canadians-frozen-bank...
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    Not knowing anything about the Vision Times, a quick search: > Vision Times is one of the news organizations that Falun Gong's founder Li Hongzhi refers to as "our media".[1] The newspaper's president is the spokesperson for the Falun Dafa Association in New York, and is chair of another Falun Gong group called Quit the CCP.[1] In 2021, The Atlantic called Vision Times a "doppelgänger site" of The Epoch Times.[5] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzhongguo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzhongguo
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throw0101a 5y ago
> Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes. [citation needed] The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2]. There was a lot of initial confusion, and so whatever story you may have heard (and is stuck in your head), you may wish to go back and double-check to see if there were any corrections. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Canada
- incomingpain 5y ago
  I see you are a throwaway account and unlikely to respond. One cannot deny that the emergency act was used this way. The RCMP confirmed(https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en.html https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en...) that this happened and denied being the ones who did it. Implying either the government went around them OR the banks took this action upon themselves with gigantic liability issues. >The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2]. That's a very good point, but incorrect. The emergency act is EXPECTED to trample on charter rights. In an actual emergency it's entirely expected that police will go over the line. What exactly was the emergency act used for? Not a single blockade existed. It was used entirely for the protest in Ottawa. Their goal is to remove the illegally parked semi trucks. If this was used in such a way that charter rights were not trampled on. The police would have gone in, towed the trucks and left the protesters who were lawfully protesting. That's not at all what happened. They came in and removed the entire lawful protest, not just some illegally parked trucks. The emergency act was used to crush a legitimate protest. So what happens next? Section 46 of the emergency act is next. The people damaged by the protest, be it having gotten pepper sprayed or your right to protest being removed. You get compensation. The crown is about to pay huge $ to these protesters.
  - philistine 5y ago
    To safely remove the trucks from the street, nobody needs to be around the workers doing the towing. It's basic health and safety. Police repeatedly asked people to leave. Many refused, many complied. Would you have prefered the police run over the protesters with their own trucks?
singularity2001 5y ago
See also China, were people can be basically pushed out of society by blocking their bank accounts. (China is an astonishingly cashless society)

lottin 5y ago

Are you sure this is abuse? My guess is a judge ordered the accounts to be frozen.

unmole 5y ago
You guessed wrong.
wolpoli 5y ago
The canadian government declared an emergency under the emergencies act. The act enables the government to make any orders or regulations, so there is no need to go through the court.
- lottin 5y ago
  So it's not abuse then? If it was done according to law.
  - esyir 5y ago
    In same way that the patriot act is legal, yes.
  - wolpoli 5y ago
    Yes, it's perfectly legal and done according to law. There are some oversights. Under the Emergencies Act, the Parliament and the Senate get to confirm the use of the act. What surprised people were the fact that the action of voting down the use of the act will trigger an election, and parties didn't want an election. [1] [1]: https://windsorstar.com/news/canada/mps-to-vote-tonight-on-whether-emergencies-act-for-blockades-still-needed/wcm/559bf3e4-f53c-4e30-a895-92202da578c9 https://windsorstar.com/news/canada/mps-to-vote-tonight-on-w...
  - Wildgoose 5y ago
    Vienna’s jews were rounded up into camps perfectly legally according to the Law. I don’t think this is a route you really want to go down.
    - lottin 5y ago
      If you're claiming that a government is abusing its power because it froze some funds, and it turns out it was done according to law, then the accusation is unsubstantiated. Maybe it was abusing its power, but we haven't been shown any evidence. And the burden of proof is on you to show that it was an abuse of power.
      - xdennis 5y ago
        The government used emergency powers designed to be used in case of war for dealing with peaceful protesters. The previous act was only used during WW1, WW2, and during the October Crisis by Trudeau's alleged father, which is also the reason the powers were watered down. Canada's democracy slip up was criticized in the EU: https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/justin-trudeau-blasted-by-eu-parliament-for-handling-of-freedom-convoy-protests-in-canada-articleshow.html https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-n... > the burden of proof is on you Which is impossible because the government explicitly said they won't be transparent and that all the charges are secret: > Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." -- https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649 https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-...
        incomingpain 5y ago
        > Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." Freeland did say that they would be freezing the donators as well in the original videos. The more egregious comment was by David Lamenti. He's a lawyer and law professor. He knows the law. His comments are not a gaffe and not out of context or anything. This is not him pulling the wrong insult out of his bag. He spoke clearly and he meant every little bit of the comment. https://torontosun.com/news/national/trudeau-minister-threatens-to-seize-accounts-of-pro-trump-convoy-donors https://torontosun.com/news/national/trudeau-minister-threat... The CTV guy is even like wtf. Days later the RCMP disavowed being involved and urgently worked to unfreeze those bank accounts. https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en.html https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en...
  - soundnote 5y ago
    So we cannot deem past slavery abusive, then? According to law, after all.
incomingpain 5y ago
>Are you sure this is abuse? My guess is a judge ordered the accounts to be frozen. That's kind of the problem. No judge was ever involved. The emergency act was deployed by Trudeau, they seized bank accounts and arrested legitimate peaceful protesters. Tyrannically crushing a legitimate protest just because ~70 semi trucks were illegally parked in ottawa.
- generj 5y ago
  Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center and harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me. They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings. That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion. I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time. Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent. Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed. Tiananmen Square was crushed (literally), US civil rights protests were crushed with firehouses and dogs, etc. The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest.
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    >Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center It did not do this at all. When I zoom in on Ottawa and ignore gatineau. I would assert the city center is say UofOttwa to the east side, if not all the way to the rideau. Maybe kowloon market, china town, little italy, centretown west is the west side. With a southern spot of maybe the 417 highway? What did the protest block? You'll have to zoom it significant more. It blocked what wellington and queen for 2 blocks? It did absolutely nothing to 90% of the city centre. To suggest a protest at parliament hill is 'completely shutting down the major city center' is absurd. > harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me. Ok, fine, so we set the precedent that you agree with. You're fine with future governments crushing legitimate protests under the same misrepresentations as well? Afterall, how much conservative protests are there? Pretty rare. We're going to be crushing left-wing protest for the most part. >They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings. Did they? Which bridge in Ottawa did they block? Or do you mean ambassador bridge which is a related but unconnected protest. This blockade ended before the emergency act was ever implemented. We are talking about Trudeau crushing a legitimate protest in ottawa. The emergency act was used for ONLY ottawa, took them days to even do anything. >That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion. A rebellion! Oh wow. A peaceful protest in front of parliament with bouncy castles and hottub is a rebellion. I guess they just never quite got around to the rebelling part... I honestly didnt even see the canadian media label them a rebellion. Sure even doug ford called them a military occupation. But rebellion! >I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time. People linked Trudeau being in favour of the extremely violent hong kong riots and the only marginally violent farmer protests in india. Yet he refused to even talk to them once. Couldnt even send a staffer to go talk to the protest once. I would hope ANY government would be forced to talk to a protest at least once before declaring national emergency and crushing them with force. >Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent. Oh wow, we are even redefining what violence is. Why are you doing this? There's a clear reason. The protesters have the right to 'peaceful protest'. You are required to redefine 'violence' in order to invalidate their charter rights. I see what you are doing. You are even redefining what a residential area is. For the record... you have to go about 4 blocks or more away from the protest to get to the first residential building. Where they were parked is not residential at all. Census data is public. The protest was never 'harassing residents'. At most they were 'harassing counter protesters' which is what it is. >Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed. Now you're redefining crushing? >The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest. Crushing means 'to subdue completely' or 'oppress grievously'. Well the day before they gave the emergency act back. There was not a single protester in ottawa and parliament hill. They subdued the protest completely. AKA they crushed a peaceful protest. There's a reason why Bill Maher called Trudeau Hitler right before he crushed a peaceful protest. After he tyrannically crushed the protest and made protesting illegal for conservatives. Bill Maher seems to be saying that Trudeau = Hitler.

sgt 5y ago

Seriously?! How did they justify donating to the truckers as something to be punished? That sounds almost like a police state to me.

halfnormalform 5y ago
They didn't punish a single person who donated. That's just ridiculous.
- throwaway111023 5y ago
  how is freezing their donations not punishment?
  - halfnormalform 5y ago
    Because once you donate money, you have given it away, and it's gone. If you're expecting something in return you are trying to make a purchase, not a donation. Punishment would involve having something further taken away. If they jailed people for donating, that would be punishment.
    - hatefulmoron 5y ago
      > Because once you donate money, you have given it away, and it's gone. Presumably to the entity you intended to donate to, no? I would argue that determining where your money goes is a right.. If I intercepted all of your future charitable donations for my own purposes you would be understandably upset.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - luciusdomitius 5y ago

gabes 5y ago

> Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes. Source?

Wildgoose 5y ago
I saw this reported here in the UK. I believe it was also mentioned in a recent Unherd article about the dangerous implications of this misuse of powers, but I’m sure you are capable of using a search engine.
- gabes 5y ago
  I was asking because American right wing news has frequently lied about what was happening here in Canada. To my knowledge there hasn’t been a single report of a frozen bank account over a donation except for some debunked tweet by a Canadian conservative politician. Thus, I asked for a source.
xdennis 5y ago
There's no way to know for sure because these are all secret charges (Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." -- https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649 https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-... ). But there are some example of people who have come forth: https://www.visiontimes.com/2022/02/21/canadians-frozen-bank-accounts-lawmakers-say.html https://www.visiontimes.com/2022/02/21/canadians-frozen-bank...
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Not knowing anything about the Vision Times, a quick search: > Vision Times is one of the news organizations that Falun Gong's founder Li Hongzhi refers to as "our media".[1] The newspaper's president is the spokesperson for the Falun Dafa Association in New York, and is chair of another Falun Gong group called Quit the CCP.[1] In 2021, The Atlantic called Vision Times a "doppelgänger site" of The Epoch Times.[5] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzhongguo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzhongguo

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throw0101a 5y ago

> Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes. [citation needed] The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2]. There was a lot of initial confusion, and so whatever story you may have heard (and is stuck in your head), you may wish to go back and double-check to see if there were any corrections. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Canada

incomingpain 5y ago
I see you are a throwaway account and unlikely to respond. One cannot deny that the emergency act was used this way. The RCMP confirmed(https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en.html https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en...) that this happened and denied being the ones who did it. Implying either the government went around them OR the banks took this action upon themselves with gigantic liability issues. >The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2]. That's a very good point, but incorrect. The emergency act is EXPECTED to trample on charter rights. In an actual emergency it's entirely expected that police will go over the line. What exactly was the emergency act used for? Not a single blockade existed. It was used entirely for the protest in Ottawa. Their goal is to remove the illegally parked semi trucks. If this was used in such a way that charter rights were not trampled on. The police would have gone in, towed the trucks and left the protesters who were lawfully protesting. That's not at all what happened. They came in and removed the entire lawful protest, not just some illegally parked trucks. The emergency act was used to crush a legitimate protest. So what happens next? Section 46 of the emergency act is next. The people damaged by the protest, be it having gotten pepper sprayed or your right to protest being removed. You get compensation. The crown is about to pay huge $ to these protesters.
- philistine 5y ago
  To safely remove the trucks from the street, nobody needs to be around the workers doing the towing. It's basic health and safety. Police repeatedly asked people to leave. Many refused, many complied. Would you have prefered the police run over the protesters with their own trucks?

singularity2001 5y ago

See also China, were people can be basically pushed out of society by blocking their bank accounts. (China is an astonishingly cashless society)