3 ms·

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 fr

by 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...
Nursie 4y ago
Sending money to support something the government has decided is a criminal enterprise ... getting your accounts frozen would seem to be the least thing to be concerned about - if indeed this even happened, there seems to be vanishingly little evidence. By the date they're talking about, a state of emergency has been declared to try to do something about the situation. If you're still sending money after that, you need to acknowledge the risks and maybe think about your actions. > "The right of the state supersede the rights of the individual" The rights of people to go about their lives freely, specifically those living and working around the 'protest' site, and the residents and workers of the city in general, should supersede the rights of noisy assholes to block roads and blast their horns at all hours of day and night. In general, you don't get to ruin everyone else's life for your cause. This is why most protests in western countries work with police and have a window of time during which streets are shut down etc. And why (for example) everyone cheered when an environment protestor in London was ripped away from a train he was trying to glue himself to at peak commuting time and given a kicking by the crowd (not that we should praise violence but really, think about what you’re doing). You don't get to just shut down everyone else's use of a public space, or disrupt people's sleep with your airhorns, or block their access to transport and services, indefinitely. You absolutely have the right to be heard, but you don't get to hold the population or the government to ransom like that, and not expect society to take steps to stop you.
- refurb 4y ago
  Sending money to support something the government has decided is a criminal enterprise The government never decided the Convoy was a "criminal enterprise". I have no idea where you go that from. The government decided the protests were going beyond that allowed, but that had to do with the people protesting, not the people sending in $10. What's amazing to me is how you just dismiss all this. "Oh well, some guy who Paypaled $10 to an organization (and did nothing else) deserves to get his account frozen. Sucks to be him if you he can't afford rent or food." What ever happen to due process? What happened to restraints on the government. What even happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Canada like to point to the US abuses like Gitmo and say they are better, but I think they are worse. Canada does it with no concern at all, no self-reflection on consequences, no public outcry. They say that democratic freedoms are fragile and now I know why. So many people are will to take them away from others without a thought.

by refurb 4y ago

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...

Nursie 4y ago

Sending money to support something the government has decided is a criminal enterprise ... getting your accounts frozen would seem to be the least thing to be concerned about - if indeed this even happened, there seems to be vanishingly little evidence. By the date they're talking about, a state of emergency has been declared to try to do something about the situation. If you're still sending money after that, you need to acknowledge the risks and maybe think about your actions. > "The right of the state supersede the rights of the individual" The rights of people to go about their lives freely, specifically those living and working around the 'protest' site, and the residents and workers of the city in general, should supersede the rights of noisy assholes to block roads and blast their horns at all hours of day and night. In general, you don't get to ruin everyone else's life for your cause. This is why most protests in western countries work with police and have a window of time during which streets are shut down etc. And why (for example) everyone cheered when an environment protestor in London was ripped away from a train he was trying to glue himself to at peak commuting time and given a kicking by the crowd (not that we should praise violence but really, think about what you’re doing). You don't get to just shut down everyone else's use of a public space, or disrupt people's sleep with your airhorns, or block their access to transport and services, indefinitely. You absolutely have the right to be heard, but you don't get to hold the population or the government to ransom like that, and not expect society to take steps to stop you.

refurb 4y ago
Sending money to support something the government has decided is a criminal enterprise The government never decided the Convoy was a "criminal enterprise". I have no idea where you go that from. The government decided the protests were going beyond that allowed, but that had to do with the people protesting, not the people sending in $10. What's amazing to me is how you just dismiss all this. "Oh well, some guy who Paypaled $10 to an organization (and did nothing else) deserves to get his account frozen. Sucks to be him if you he can't afford rent or food." What ever happen to due process? What happened to restraints on the government. What even happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Canada like to point to the US abuses like Gitmo and say they are better, but I think they are worse. Canada does it with no concern at all, no self-reflection on consequences, no public outcry. They say that democratic freedoms are fragile and now I know why. So many people are will to take them away from others without a thought.