8 ms·

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

by sgt 5y ago

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
      Great. So, stealing from charity is now ethical. Good to know !!!
      - fennecfoxy 5y ago
        Ha ha, so easy to refute. Is it unethical for the government to stop me from say, donating to a terrorist organisation? It's still "charity", right? ;)
        leach 5y ago
        if we really want to get dirty with things aren't you already doing that through taxes? black budgets and such? also what constitutes a terrorist? its easy to say ISIS is terrorism, but are the truckers or January 6th people considered terrorists? if so then BLM can be considered terrorists, and then how come they never got their donations seized? deep rabbit hole with no way out
    - kurisufag 5y ago
      donation are purchases -- you are buying capital for the fund of your choice. if it turned out a charity you donated to was funneling money somewhere, they would be effectively stealing from you, as the thing you were purchasing was never given.
  - mrozbarry 5y ago
    This wasn't strictly freezing donations, it was completely freezing a person's bank account.
- cscurmudgeon 5y ago
  Freezing their accounts is not punishment? https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/even-small-donation-to-freedom-convoy-after-feb-15-enough-to-have-donors-bank-accounts-frozen-finance-committee-told https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/even-small-donation-t... > Even small donation to Freedom Convoy after Feb. 15 enough to have donor's bank accounts frozen, finance committee told
  - NeutronStar 5y ago
mschuster91 5y ago
Financing terrorists - and these "truckers" were nothing else, which led to the declaration of the emergency state, a legally defined mechanism! - will lead to issues no matter if it's al-quaeda or y'all-quaeda. The donors should be happy all they got was a temporary freeze on their bank accounts. Had it been Islamist terror they had donated to, the accounts would have been terminated and criminal charges levied.
- unmole 5y ago
  A few questions: 1. Is blocking roads and blowing horns is equivalent to crashing planes into buildings and setting off bombs? 2. Were the truckers designated a terrorist entity under the Anti-Terrorism Act? 3. Was there an actual legal prohibition against financially supporting them?
  - hoseja 5y ago
    Terrorism is when you're inconvenient to a western government.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    This is whataboutery. At the very least the truckers were an extremely unpleasant and potentially dangerous nuisance for everyone in the vicinity. At worst were literally attempting regime change. They were also largely funded by the US far right, which has obvious links to Russia. In fact Russian propoganda was encouraging similar actions in the US and the EU. So of course they were defunded. It's always amusing to see libertarians complaining that a government shoots first - financially in this case, and only after a long delay - and asks questions later, when they're typically the people claiming loudly that far more extreme forms of violence are always legitimate in personal self-defence. Just as with Jan 6, most of these people should have been jailed and those from the US should have been banned from entering Canada again. Never mind the political angle, the nuisance and intimidation were more than enough to justify that.
    - unmole 5y ago
      > This is whataboutery. It is not. The parent comment compared truckers to Al-Qaeda. I pointed out the ridiculouslness of it. > At worst were literally attempting regime change. Regime change? You seem to be using words that don't mean what you think they mean > They were also largely funded by the US far right And? > which has obvious links to Russia. Those links are not obvious to me at all. > It's always amusing to see libertarians Rule of law isn't something that only libertarians care about. It's the very basis of liberal democracy. I'm not going bother responding to the rest of your comment which quite frankly is unworthy of HN.
TomSwirly 5y ago
They didn't. You are responding to someone who is consciously telling an untruth.
- xdennis 5y ago
  https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649 https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-... > On February 17, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a press conference that financial institutions have started freezing accounts and canceling credit cards in accordance with the Emergencies Act, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked earlier this week. > The powers granted by the act would allow banks to target the accounts of people who have donated to crowdfunding platforms, like the fundraising campaigns on GoFundMe and GiveSendGo, that have fueled the ongoing protests, but Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." They can lock anything for any amount and not give any details. Supposedly they have unlocked some, but there's no way of knowing who and why not for others. Typical petrostate behavior.
  - crtasm 5y ago
    I'm sure if this happened to people who'd just sent a donation at least one of them would have come forward by now and we'd have some evidence instead of the handwaving "what if" in this article and your comment.
    - srslack 5y ago
      https://www.nationalreview.com/news/canada-unlocks-vast-majority-of-bank-accounts-frozen-for-supporting-trucker-convoy/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/canada-unlocks-vast-majo... >“Just to be clear, a financial contribution either through a crowdsourced platform or directly, could result in their bank account being frozen?” Lawrence asked. >“Yes,” Jacques answered. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mp-mark-strahl-convoy-protest-briane-bank-account-frozen-1.6360132 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mp-mark-stra...
      - 5y ago
incomingpain 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. So imagine Trudeau's point of view. The Canadian media smeared the protest as nazis, racists, white supremacists, who were going to Ottawa to overthrow the government. Indie and international media clearly disproved this, but Trudeau never saw this. Joel Lightbound, one of Trudeau's top allies saw this. So imagine you are Trudeau. You believe that a bunch of nazis are looking to overthrow the government. You absolutely declare a national emergency and send the police to arrest them. You also seize the bank accounts of those who are involved in the military occupation of the capital. The problem? The canadian media was lying quite extensively. This was a legitimate protest of regular canadians who are good people.
- account42 5y ago
  I don't think you can excuse this by blaming the media - shouldn't it be the government's responsibility to make sure they have the correct information before making use of emergency powers?
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    >I don't think you can excuse this by blaming the media - shouldn't it be the government's responsibility to make sure they have the correct information before making use of emergency powers? I never intended to excuse anything. The media is bought and paid for by the government. This is the state propaganda who called the protest a bunch of nazis. Worse yet... Joel Lightbound is a liberal quebec MP. He made the huge mistake of going to the protest and talk to them and he was astounded by how misrepresented the protest was by Canadian media. Over a week before the emergency was declared he said exactly what should happen. Stop the inflammatory messaging calling them all nazis, they are not nazis. Give us a roadmap to when our rights will be restored. That would have solved the entire problem long before anything went down. Today, not only did everything that the protest was protesting still remains without a roadmap, they have added new restrictions to our rights.
- mrozbarry 5y ago
  CBC is literally state-funded media, and Trudea literally lives in Ottawa. In no world does he have an excuse to be blind, and even in some sliver of hope where he honestly didn't know, why didn't he make a public apology?

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

by 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
    Great. So, stealing from charity is now ethical. Good to know !!!
    - fennecfoxy 5y ago
      Ha ha, so easy to refute. Is it unethical for the government to stop me from say, donating to a terrorist organisation? It's still "charity", right? ;)
      - leach 5y ago
        if we really want to get dirty with things aren't you already doing that through taxes? black budgets and such? also what constitutes a terrorist? its easy to say ISIS is terrorism, but are the truckers or January 6th people considered terrorists? if so then BLM can be considered terrorists, and then how come they never got their donations seized? deep rabbit hole with no way out
  - kurisufag 5y ago
    donation are purchases -- you are buying capital for the fund of your choice. if it turned out a charity you donated to was funneling money somewhere, they would be effectively stealing from you, as the thing you were purchasing was never given.
- mrozbarry 5y ago
  This wasn't strictly freezing donations, it was completely freezing a person's bank account.
cscurmudgeon 5y ago
Freezing their accounts is not punishment? https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/even-small-donation-to-freedom-convoy-after-feb-15-enough-to-have-donors-bank-accounts-frozen-finance-committee-told https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/even-small-donation-t... > Even small donation to Freedom Convoy after Feb. 15 enough to have donor's bank accounts frozen, finance committee told
- NeutronStar 5y ago

mschuster91 5y ago

Financing terrorists - and these "truckers" were nothing else, which led to the declaration of the emergency state, a legally defined mechanism! - will lead to issues no matter if it's al-quaeda or y'all-quaeda. The donors should be happy all they got was a temporary freeze on their bank accounts. Had it been Islamist terror they had donated to, the accounts would have been terminated and criminal charges levied.

unmole 5y ago
A few questions: 1. Is blocking roads and blowing horns is equivalent to crashing planes into buildings and setting off bombs? 2. Were the truckers designated a terrorist entity under the Anti-Terrorism Act? 3. Was there an actual legal prohibition against financially supporting them?
- hoseja 5y ago
  Terrorism is when you're inconvenient to a western government.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  This is whataboutery. At the very least the truckers were an extremely unpleasant and potentially dangerous nuisance for everyone in the vicinity. At worst were literally attempting regime change. They were also largely funded by the US far right, which has obvious links to Russia. In fact Russian propoganda was encouraging similar actions in the US and the EU. So of course they were defunded. It's always amusing to see libertarians complaining that a government shoots first - financially in this case, and only after a long delay - and asks questions later, when they're typically the people claiming loudly that far more extreme forms of violence are always legitimate in personal self-defence. Just as with Jan 6, most of these people should have been jailed and those from the US should have been banned from entering Canada again. Never mind the political angle, the nuisance and intimidation were more than enough to justify that.
  - unmole 5y ago
    > This is whataboutery. It is not. The parent comment compared truckers to Al-Qaeda. I pointed out the ridiculouslness of it. > At worst were literally attempting regime change. Regime change? You seem to be using words that don't mean what you think they mean > They were also largely funded by the US far right And? > which has obvious links to Russia. Those links are not obvious to me at all. > It's always amusing to see libertarians Rule of law isn't something that only libertarians care about. It's the very basis of liberal democracy. I'm not going bother responding to the rest of your comment which quite frankly is unworthy of HN.

TomSwirly 5y ago

They didn't. You are responding to someone who is consciously telling an untruth.

xdennis 5y ago
https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-linked-trucker-protest-1680649 https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-... > On February 17, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a press conference that financial institutions have started freezing accounts and canceling credit cards in accordance with the Emergencies Act, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked earlier this week. > The powers granted by the act would allow banks to target the accounts of people who have donated to crowdfunding platforms, like the fundraising campaigns on GoFundMe and GiveSendGo, that have fueled the ongoing protests, but Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen." They can lock anything for any amount and not give any details. Supposedly they have unlocked some, but there's no way of knowing who and why not for others. Typical petrostate behavior.
- crtasm 5y ago
  I'm sure if this happened to people who'd just sent a donation at least one of them would have come forward by now and we'd have some evidence instead of the handwaving "what if" in this article and your comment.
  - srslack 5y ago
    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/canada-unlocks-vast-majority-of-bank-accounts-frozen-for-supporting-trucker-convoy/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/canada-unlocks-vast-majo... >“Just to be clear, a financial contribution either through a crowdsourced platform or directly, could result in their bank account being frozen?” Lawrence asked. >“Yes,” Jacques answered. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mp-mark-strahl-convoy-protest-briane-bank-account-frozen-1.6360132 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mp-mark-stra...
    - 5y ago

incomingpain 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. So imagine Trudeau's point of view. The Canadian media smeared the protest as nazis, racists, white supremacists, who were going to Ottawa to overthrow the government. Indie and international media clearly disproved this, but Trudeau never saw this. Joel Lightbound, one of Trudeau's top allies saw this. So imagine you are Trudeau. You believe that a bunch of nazis are looking to overthrow the government. You absolutely declare a national emergency and send the police to arrest them. You also seize the bank accounts of those who are involved in the military occupation of the capital. The problem? The canadian media was lying quite extensively. This was a legitimate protest of regular canadians who are good people.

account42 5y ago
I don't think you can excuse this by blaming the media - shouldn't it be the government's responsibility to make sure they have the correct information before making use of emergency powers?
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >I don't think you can excuse this by blaming the media - shouldn't it be the government's responsibility to make sure they have the correct information before making use of emergency powers? I never intended to excuse anything. The media is bought and paid for by the government. This is the state propaganda who called the protest a bunch of nazis. Worse yet... Joel Lightbound is a liberal quebec MP. He made the huge mistake of going to the protest and talk to them and he was astounded by how misrepresented the protest was by Canadian media. Over a week before the emergency was declared he said exactly what should happen. Stop the inflammatory messaging calling them all nazis, they are not nazis. Give us a roadmap to when our rights will be restored. That would have solved the entire problem long before anything went down. Today, not only did everything that the protest was protesting still remains without a roadmap, they have added new restrictions to our rights.
mrozbarry 5y ago
CBC is literally state-funded media, and Trudea literally lives in Ottawa. In no world does he have an excuse to be blind, and even in some sliver of hope where he honestly didn't know, why didn't he make a public apology?