4 ms·

You don't need to lose trust in the system as a hole. Only in the fact that the system serves you. Bank accounts gets frozen all the time and for a variety of

You don't need to lose trust in the system as a hole. Only in the fact that the system serves you. Bank accounts gets frozen all the time and for a variety of reasons.

cpursley 3y ago
Like supporting the free speech rights of some truckers (now matter how misguided and annoying they might have been). De-banking people for wrongthink is absolutely terrifying, because any of us could be next depending on the mood of the current government.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Define "supporting the free speech rights"?
  - cpursley 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Ch...
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      That's the rights, I'm asking about the supporting. I heard about freezes for people doing the protesting (including organizing). But that's an extremely different thing from supporting the free speech rights of the protesters.
      - didntcheck 3y ago
        OK, the government debanked people for organizing peaceful protests against them. That's hardly reassuring
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        When the accusation was thought crime, I find it pretty reassuring. Sometimes governments jail people for protests, and locking a bank account seems similarly or slightly less bad to me. Not great but not newly worrying. Or is it that you don't consider direct organizational efforts to be a subset of taking part in a protest? I'm generally fine with it, I think. Do you have anyone in particular in mind that was in this role but shouldn't count?
        cpursley 3y ago
        Locking someone’s bank account means you can’t pay your rent/mortgage (become homeless), can’t buy food, can’t purchase your medicine, can’t work.
        satellite2 3y ago
        Exactly, it's much worse on many accounts.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Were accounts locked for much longer than the protest? And sticking someone in jail does those too.
    - defrost 3y ago
      It's not the free speech rights of the truckers that was the issue in Canada. The problem came with the freedom of assembly, which is bound up with the right to protest ... and long curtailed with restrictions from causing substantial disruption. That last part was the line crossed when roads were shutdown for days on end, horns blared round the clock, etc. Additionally, IIRC, the Canadian Gov't didn't debank individuals for the act of donating .. they froze accounts that donations were flowing into. The last time this came up in a forum several people linked to discussions in the Canadian Question time (or some equivilant) where "gotcha" questions were being posed about whether the law in question could be used to debank individuals .. as it was broad legislation targeted toward shutting down the protests by drying up funds the answer "yes, but ..." .. followed by a general failure to produce any non core individuals that had their general savings frozen - just the accounts used to collect donations and some(?) organisers taking part (again, IIRC).
      - didntcheck 3y ago
        "Protests are meant to be disruptive". It was a very effective protest, and from my memory almost entirely peaceful, which is way more than can be said of other protests in 2020-21. Honking horns somehow caused more media outrage than actual riots It was surprising to see how quickly people turned around into saying that blue collar workers uniting and striking was a bad thing (with several suggestions that they be forced to work somehow), that protesting government authoritarianism is in fact fascism, that calling someone a Nazi is somehow supporting Naziism, and that the government coercing people by threatening their livelihoods due to their political activities (or refusing medication), and deciding what is and isn't "legitimate" political views, is actually defending democracy And I have no faith in "yes the law has technical pathological cases but obviously nobody would do that". I used to, but I've just seen enough cases of the letter of the law being twisted with complete disregard to the spirit. E.g. practically any law to do with terrorism
        defrost 3y ago
        > blue collar workers uniting and striking don't get to close off access to and from work sites for days and weeks on end, nor do they get to block customers. > protesting government authoritarianism is A-OK in my book - but blocking intersections and pissing off fellow citizens and stopping their free travel is not. The line crossed, in the view of many people who might have otherwise supported them, was the nature of their protest - not the fact that they were protesting and not the words that they were saying.
pohl 3y ago
“system as a hole” is my new band name.

You don't need to lose trust in the system as a hole. Only in the fact that the system serves you. Bank accounts gets frozen all the time and for a variety of reasons.

cpursley 3y ago

Like supporting the free speech rights of some truckers (now matter how misguided and annoying they might have been). De-banking people for wrongthink is absolutely terrifying, because any of us could be next depending on the mood of the current government.

Dylan16807 3y ago
Define "supporting the free speech rights"?
- cpursley 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Ch...
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    That's the rights, I'm asking about the supporting. I heard about freezes for people doing the protesting (including organizing). But that's an extremely different thing from supporting the free speech rights of the protesters.
    - didntcheck 3y ago
      OK, the government debanked people for organizing peaceful protests against them. That's hardly reassuring
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        When the accusation was thought crime, I find it pretty reassuring. Sometimes governments jail people for protests, and locking a bank account seems similarly or slightly less bad to me. Not great but not newly worrying. Or is it that you don't consider direct organizational efforts to be a subset of taking part in a protest? I'm generally fine with it, I think. Do you have anyone in particular in mind that was in this role but shouldn't count?
        cpursley 3y ago
        Locking someone’s bank account means you can’t pay your rent/mortgage (become homeless), can’t buy food, can’t purchase your medicine, can’t work.
        satellite2 3y ago
        Exactly, it's much worse on many accounts.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Were accounts locked for much longer than the protest? And sticking someone in jail does those too.
  - defrost 3y ago
    It's not the free speech rights of the truckers that was the issue in Canada. The problem came with the freedom of assembly, which is bound up with the right to protest ... and long curtailed with restrictions from causing substantial disruption. That last part was the line crossed when roads were shutdown for days on end, horns blared round the clock, etc. Additionally, IIRC, the Canadian Gov't didn't debank individuals for the act of donating .. they froze accounts that donations were flowing into. The last time this came up in a forum several people linked to discussions in the Canadian Question time (or some equivilant) where "gotcha" questions were being posed about whether the law in question could be used to debank individuals .. as it was broad legislation targeted toward shutting down the protests by drying up funds the answer "yes, but ..." .. followed by a general failure to produce any non core individuals that had their general savings frozen - just the accounts used to collect donations and some(?) organisers taking part (again, IIRC).
    - didntcheck 3y ago
      "Protests are meant to be disruptive". It was a very effective protest, and from my memory almost entirely peaceful, which is way more than can be said of other protests in 2020-21. Honking horns somehow caused more media outrage than actual riots It was surprising to see how quickly people turned around into saying that blue collar workers uniting and striking was a bad thing (with several suggestions that they be forced to work somehow), that protesting government authoritarianism is in fact fascism, that calling someone a Nazi is somehow supporting Naziism, and that the government coercing people by threatening their livelihoods due to their political activities (or refusing medication), and deciding what is and isn't "legitimate" political views, is actually defending democracy And I have no faith in "yes the law has technical pathological cases but obviously nobody would do that". I used to, but I've just seen enough cases of the letter of the law being twisted with complete disregard to the spirit. E.g. practically any law to do with terrorism
      - defrost 3y ago
        > blue collar workers uniting and striking don't get to close off access to and from work sites for days and weeks on end, nor do they get to block customers. > protesting government authoritarianism is A-OK in my book - but blocking intersections and pissing off fellow citizens and stopping their free travel is not. The line crossed, in the view of many people who might have otherwise supported them, was the nature of their protest - not the fact that they were protesting and not the words that they were saying.

pohl 3y ago

“system as a hole” is my new band name.