If we put someone in jail, as in to disable their ability to interface with society, we would have the expectation to feed and shelter them decently for that duration. Removing access to funds under the emergency act has no baseline duty of care expected from the government, despite government action disabling them from acquiring food or shelter independently in modern society for a number of days beyond which someone could starve. The number of days is unpredictably constrained by popular sentiment in a heated moment not a pre-encoded ethical baseline.
I don't think this hypothetical and the potential grave consequences is going to be often likely, yet i don't see why it need be a possibility to entertain.
Yes. They did attack their sources of income and blocked protestors from accessing THEIR money to stop them from protesting.
You minimizing it like "just a few accounts, just a few days" is not only false but also doesn't acknowledge the fact that it should NEVER Happen.
But hey, there's always the one saying that reality doesn't happen even when the government attacks from all angles as a coercion mechanism. What's the euphemism now? What's the handbook? "Free speech but not freedom of consequences"?