“Yes,” she replied.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/even-small-donation-t...
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.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".
> 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.
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.
Someone that had their account frozen for no other reason than they donated a few bucks from afar?
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_governm...
> "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.
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.
And the thing is, AFAICT there is no “guy who PayPal’d $10 and got his accounts frozen”, so if there’s no outcry, if people like me dismiss it, that might be because it didn’t happen.
From here it looks like you bought into the ‘freedumb!’ narrative, that any action taken to deal with the situation was bad. We had people here on HN lamenting that with the invocation of emergency powers, Canada had seen it’s last election, they would never be rescinded and that Trudeau was now a dictator for life. The whole thing is hyperbole built on childish notions of freedom that are pretty incompatible with the democratic functioning of a country.
The Deputy Minister of Finance said they had that power.
And instead of being pissed your government can lock your bank account down with no evidence, no trial, no ability to defend yourself and your response is “you bought into the ‘freedunb!’ narrative.
Yikes.
The theoretical but non-exercised power to put a temporary freeze on the bank account of someone contributing to a blockade which is being dismantled under the provisions of a national emergency, with both democratic and judicial oversight …
Yeah there are bigger things to get worked up about. I would expect national emergency legislation to come with all sorts of powers, and only the appropriate ones to be exercised, with Parliamentary and democratic accountability down the line for those doing the exercising.
Yikes indeed, that people are surprised by the availability of financial interventions available to governments, in extremis.
As a Canadian citizen, your bank account cannot be arbitrarily frozen by the RCMP and some politician because they feel like it.
Your bank can do it, but no the government cant without evidence, a court order and your right to argue your case before a judge. It’s called “due process”.
How do you not know that?
I think I get it now. You’re not upset because you didn't even understand the rights you had before they were taken away.
In the circumstances, I don’t believe that power is disproportionate, particularly as it was not exercised. You do. I think that’s really all we can learn from this conversation.
The banks can and will freeze accounts when the police or other agencies raise suspicions with them in most western nations
The police or a politician cannot arbitrarily order a bank account frozen without a court order (again due process). Sure, the police could say "hey that looks suspicious", but the bank is under no obligation to do anything.
You say there is no distinction there - I'd say it's a massive distinction.
I’m not upset because it’s not unreasonable to grant powers to perform an emergency breakup of a blockade, particularly when not all of those powers are going to be exercised (as they weren’t here), and when under the scrutiny of parliament and with democratic accountability.
What scrutiny of Parliament? The decision to enact the Emergencies Act was a decision by the Prime Minister, done with his cabinet, and those discussions were secret.
Sure, there was a inquiry after the fact, but hey, the horse is already out the barn by then.