3 ms·

> Just don't go protesting, I heard that's one way to lose access to your money in Canada. You heard incorrectly. Don't accept anonymous international donation

> Just don't go protesting, I heard that's one way to lose access to your money in Canada. You heard incorrectly. Don't accept anonymous international donations to participate in disruptive harassment so severe that it requires the federal government to invoke the emergencies act. It's a pretty damn easy bar to pass.

lowkey 4y ago
I think you mean just don’t give or receive donations in any amount to any cause that the Canadian government may retro-actively determine to be unacceptable or embarrassing, and your right to access your own money won’t be put at risk. (By a fellow Canadian with a different point of view.)
- SECProto 4y ago
  These are the parts that aren't a reasonable argument: > your right to access your own money won’t be put at risk. The bank accounts that were frozen were those "that funnel money to demonstrators"[1] - i.e, not their own money. > any cause that the Canadian government may retro-actively determine to be unacceptable This was after the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which made it clear that the actions were not permissible. And the use of the Emergencies Act was found to be justified.[2] [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-banks-ottawa-protests-1.6353968 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-banks-ottaw... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poec-report-released-friday-1.6750919 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poec-report-released-friday...
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > retro-actively Nope: > A. A state party to the ICCPR can never derogate the right to life, freedom from torture, or freedom of thought for instance. And, importantly for our current circumstance, a state can’t make retroactive laws in an emergency either. That means anyone who donated to the convoy before the emergency order would not be subject to having their assets frozen. * https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-ottawa-can-do-now-under-the-emergencies-act/ https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-ottawa-can-do-now-u...

lowkey 4y ago

I think you mean just don’t give or receive donations in any amount to any cause that the Canadian government may retro-actively determine to be unacceptable or embarrassing, and your right to access your own money won’t be put at risk. (By a fellow Canadian with a different point of view.)

SECProto 4y ago
These are the parts that aren't a reasonable argument: > your right to access your own money won’t be put at risk. The bank accounts that were frozen were those "that funnel money to demonstrators"[1] - i.e, not their own money. > any cause that the Canadian government may retro-actively determine to be unacceptable This was after the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which made it clear that the actions were not permissible. And the use of the Emergencies Act was found to be justified.[2] [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-banks-ottawa-protests-1.6353968 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-banks-ottaw... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poec-report-released-friday-1.6750919 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poec-report-released-friday...
throw0101c 4y ago
> retro-actively Nope: > A. A state party to the ICCPR can never derogate the right to life, freedom from torture, or freedom of thought for instance. And, importantly for our current circumstance, a state can’t make retroactive laws in an emergency either. That means anyone who donated to the convoy before the emergency order would not be subject to having their assets frozen. * https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-ottawa-can-do-now-under-the-emergencies-act/ https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-ottawa-can-do-now-u...