3 ms·

That doesn’t say donor accounts were frozen. There appears to be little evidence that donors had their accounts frozen. Accounts receiving those donations were

by Nursie 4y ago

That doesn’t say donor accounts were frozen. There appears to be little evidence that donors had their accounts frozen. Accounts receiving those donations were.

refurb 4y ago
“Just to be clear, a financial contribution either through a crowdsourced platform or directly, could result in their bank account being frozen?” Conservative MP Philip Lawrence asked Department of Finance Assistant Deputy Minister Isabelle Jacques. “Yes,” she replied. 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...
- defrost 4y ago
  Followed by: Such action, she said, would only be taken on donations made after Feb. 15’s emergency declaration and isn’t retroactive — adding such a case would be “very unlikely,” but definitely possible. The main solid takeaway from that article is that 206 accounts were definitely frozen .. accounts that very probably donations were flowing into. The rest of the article is weasel phrased, there are allegations of donors having their accounts frozen but no corroboration and then later details on how some of those stories don't add up. A solid reference would be the actual public records that were requested to be kept: The committee gave unanimous consent to a motion tabled by Chambers compelling government departments and agencies to report weekly to the committee on how many accounts they’d recommended frozen, who owned them and the reasons thereof.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Who cares if it was "only after the emergency declaration"? Who cares if it wasn't "retroactive"? Who care if the government is sending updates on who they freeze? Those sound like a lot of attempts to say "oh, seizing people's assets without trial for the crime of a small donation only happened to a few people, so no big deal". Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears about the protest after the emergency and says "yeah, I think the government is overstepping, I'm going to send $10 in support". Never stepped foot in Ottawa, never blocked any bridges, never honked any horns. Now his bank account is frozen and he can't pay the rent. How in any way is that acceptable in a country that claims to respect person freedoms? These are the tactics you'd expect from authoritarian systems. I used to laugh at the irony when Vietnam would charge some protestor for "abusing democratic freedoms", but hey, that's kinda what Canada did. People should be really pissed off that it happens at all. But you know what, I'm ok if people aren't that pissed off. What's more maddening are people who saying "yeah, that should have happened. In fact, I'm glad it happened". Jesus Christ Canada. I don't know what it is with Commonwealth countries but you see places like New Zealand and Australia doing the same. "The right of the state supersede the rights of the individual".
    - defrost 4y ago
      > Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears about the protest .. > Now his bank account is frozen and he can't pay the rent. Where does your linked article say that happened though? The article does not say that the frozen accounts were donor accounts ( ie accounts of blue collar workers ). The part you highlighted was in response to a question about whether that might happen .. and the response was it's technically possible .. but pretty unlikely.
      - refurb 4y ago
        The Deputy Minister literally said "yes, that can happen under the powers of the Emergency Act". Yet you skip over to the "well, I see no proof someone was affected so what's the big deal?" I'm horrified by the fact it could even happen at all. That the government had the power to arbitrarily freeze someone's bank account with nothing more than a note from the RCMP. No evidence, no presumption of innocence, no right to argue in front of a judge. Why aren't you horrified? Because it didn't affect you? Next time it could be you.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        defrost 4y ago
        Do you have an actual example of an actual person that this actually happened to? Someone that had their account frozen for no other reason than they donated a few bucks from afar?
        refurb 4y ago
        You’re missing the forest for the trees. The government had the power to do it. No trial, no evidence, nothing but the police putting you on a list (as per the Deputy Minister of Finance). That alone should scare you.
    - maximilianburke 4y ago
      Commonwealth countries follow the principle of "peace, order, and good government," rather than "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_governm...

by Nursie 4y ago

That doesn’t say donor accounts were frozen. There appears to be little evidence that donors had their accounts frozen. Accounts receiving those donations were.

refurb 4y ago

“Just to be clear, a financial contribution either through a crowdsourced platform or directly, could result in their bank account being frozen?” Conservative MP Philip Lawrence asked Department of Finance Assistant Deputy Minister Isabelle Jacques. “Yes,” she replied. 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...

defrost 4y ago
Followed by: Such action, she said, would only be taken on donations made after Feb. 15’s emergency declaration and isn’t retroactive — adding such a case would be “very unlikely,” but definitely possible. The main solid takeaway from that article is that 206 accounts were definitely frozen .. accounts that very probably donations were flowing into. The rest of the article is weasel phrased, there are allegations of donors having their accounts frozen but no corroboration and then later details on how some of those stories don't add up. A solid reference would be the actual public records that were requested to be kept: The committee gave unanimous consent to a motion tabled by Chambers compelling government departments and agencies to report weekly to the committee on how many accounts they’d recommended frozen, who owned them and the reasons thereof.
- refurb 4y ago
  Who cares if it was "only after the emergency declaration"? Who cares if it wasn't "retroactive"? Who care if the government is sending updates on who they freeze? Those sound like a lot of attempts to say "oh, seizing people's assets without trial for the crime of a small donation only happened to a few people, so no big deal". Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears about the protest after the emergency and says "yeah, I think the government is overstepping, I'm going to send $10 in support". Never stepped foot in Ottawa, never blocked any bridges, never honked any horns. Now his bank account is frozen and he can't pay the rent. How in any way is that acceptable in a country that claims to respect person freedoms? These are the tactics you'd expect from authoritarian systems. I used to laugh at the irony when Vietnam would charge some protestor for "abusing democratic freedoms", but hey, that's kinda what Canada did. People should be really pissed off that it happens at all. But you know what, I'm ok if people aren't that pissed off. What's more maddening are people who saying "yeah, that should have happened. In fact, I'm glad it happened". Jesus Christ Canada. I don't know what it is with Commonwealth countries but you see places like New Zealand and Australia doing the same. "The right of the state supersede the rights of the individual".
  - defrost 4y ago
    > Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears about the protest .. > Now his bank account is frozen and he can't pay the rent. Where does your linked article say that happened though? The article does not say that the frozen accounts were donor accounts ( ie accounts of blue collar workers ). The part you highlighted was in response to a question about whether that might happen .. and the response was it's technically possible .. but pretty unlikely.
    - refurb 4y ago
      The Deputy Minister literally said "yes, that can happen under the powers of the Emergency Act". Yet you skip over to the "well, I see no proof someone was affected so what's the big deal?" I'm horrified by the fact it could even happen at all. That the government had the power to arbitrarily freeze someone's bank account with nothing more than a note from the RCMP. No evidence, no presumption of innocence, no right to argue in front of a judge. Why aren't you horrified? Because it didn't affect you? Next time it could be you.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - defrost 4y ago
        Do you have an actual example of an actual person that this actually happened to? Someone that had their account frozen for no other reason than they donated a few bucks from afar?
        refurb 4y ago
        You’re missing the forest for the trees. The government had the power to do it. No trial, no evidence, nothing but the police putting you on a list (as per the Deputy Minister of Finance). That alone should scare you.
  - maximilianburke 4y ago
    Commonwealth countries follow the principle of "peace, order, and good government," rather than "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_governm...