4 ms·

The Canadian government unbanked protestors they were unhappy with. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-protest-finances.html https://www.

The Canadian government unbanked protestors they were unhappy with. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-protest-finances.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-pro... I think Americans are better off with annoying blocks on porn than the alternative.

stavros 1y ago
I don't see why you're assuming that Americans won't get both bans and unbanking.
- barelysapient 1y ago
  That would require a court order against VC and MC, that they in turn might contest, and possibly get suspended--even if temporarily. But in Canada, bureaucrat Foo talked to bureaucrat Baz, and presto--you're unbanked!
  - stavros 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - barelysapient 1y ago
      Disingenuous?! According the article, that's exactly what happened in Candada! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 With no need for court orders, banks can freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests. ... But the Canadian Civil Liberties Association disagreed, warning that the move "threatens our democracy and our civil liberties".
  - toyg 1y ago
    The WikiLeaks experience kinda demolishes your argument.
    - barelysapient 1y ago
      I'm guessing you're talking about Julian. What's interesting in this case, is that Julian refused to let himself get arrested which would have brought him to court and due process. But that's not what happened in Canada. With no due process non-violent people were unbanked, simply for protesting against the government.
      - toyg 1y ago
        > I'm guessing you're talking about Julian No. This pre-dates anything related to Julian Assange's criminal trial. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-mastercard-move-to-choke-wikileaks/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-m... Simply speaking, Visa and Mastercard debanked Wikipedia because of their journalistic activities, simply because the US government did not like them, before there was any judicial process whatsoever.
  - nulbyte 1y ago
    Banks are happy to de-bank risky customers all on their own; they don't wait for court orders.
    - barelysapient 1y ago
      I'm specifically thinking about political protestors. Such as BLM. Or No Kings. Their right to political protest is protected and VC/MC isn't going to un-bank them without a court order. And since their right to protest is protected, that's unlikely to happen. Unlike Canada.
dleslie 1y ago
The Government was unhappy with them because they were occupying the capital, blocking border crossings, and their MOU demanded that Parliament be dissolved, and that Senators and Bureaucrats who disagreed with the MOU resign; under the threat of the Governor General not allowing Parliament to sit again. It was entirely warranted to freeze their accounts and make arrests.
- logicchains 1y ago
  And when other protests like BLM caused huge public disruption during a pandemic the government did nothing. It was entirely a political response. In a free society people should be able to protest whatever in public without getting arrested and debanked. Otherwise you might as well be one of those authoritarian countries where protesting requires a permit.
  - dleslie 1y ago
    Different country, different Government, different protests. BLM was a nothingburger in Canada. The most similar protests to that would have been the Wet'suwet'en solidarity protests. Those lasted a few weeks and were ultimately resolved peacefully, for the most part. An important thing to consider is that the protestors weren't interested in toppling the Government; they simply wanted the Government to hear them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Canadian_pipeline_and_railway_protests#Rail_disruptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Canadian_pipeline_and_rai...

stavros 1y ago

I don't see why you're assuming that Americans won't get both bans and unbanking.

barelysapient 1y ago
That would require a court order against VC and MC, that they in turn might contest, and possibly get suspended--even if temporarily. But in Canada, bureaucrat Foo talked to bureaucrat Baz, and presto--you're unbanked!
- stavros 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - barelysapient 1y ago
    Disingenuous?! According the article, that's exactly what happened in Candada! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 With no need for court orders, banks can freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests. ... But the Canadian Civil Liberties Association disagreed, warning that the move "threatens our democracy and our civil liberties".
- toyg 1y ago
  The WikiLeaks experience kinda demolishes your argument.
  - barelysapient 1y ago
    I'm guessing you're talking about Julian. What's interesting in this case, is that Julian refused to let himself get arrested which would have brought him to court and due process. But that's not what happened in Canada. With no due process non-violent people were unbanked, simply for protesting against the government.
    - toyg 1y ago
      > I'm guessing you're talking about Julian No. This pre-dates anything related to Julian Assange's criminal trial. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-mastercard-move-to-choke-wikileaks/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-m... Simply speaking, Visa and Mastercard debanked Wikipedia because of their journalistic activities, simply because the US government did not like them, before there was any judicial process whatsoever.
- nulbyte 1y ago
  Banks are happy to de-bank risky customers all on their own; they don't wait for court orders.
  - barelysapient 1y ago
    I'm specifically thinking about political protestors. Such as BLM. Or No Kings. Their right to political protest is protected and VC/MC isn't going to un-bank them without a court order. And since their right to protest is protected, that's unlikely to happen. Unlike Canada.

dleslie 1y ago

The Government was unhappy with them because they were occupying the capital, blocking border crossings, and their MOU demanded that Parliament be dissolved, and that Senators and Bureaucrats who disagreed with the MOU resign; under the threat of the Governor General not allowing Parliament to sit again. It was entirely warranted to freeze their accounts and make arrests.

logicchains 1y ago
And when other protests like BLM caused huge public disruption during a pandemic the government did nothing. It was entirely a political response. In a free society people should be able to protest whatever in public without getting arrested and debanked. Otherwise you might as well be one of those authoritarian countries where protesting requires a permit.
- dleslie 1y ago
  Different country, different Government, different protests. BLM was a nothingburger in Canada. The most similar protests to that would have been the Wet'suwet'en solidarity protests. Those lasted a few weeks and were ultimately resolved peacefully, for the most part. An important thing to consider is that the protestors weren't interested in toppling the Government; they simply wanted the Government to hear them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Canadian_pipeline_and_railway_protests#Rail_disruptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Canadian_pipeline_and_rai...