Controversial opinion but when a protest is declared illegal and then has foreign funding keeping it going, i see no issue with siezing the bank accounts of ororganizers.
But that's such a slippery slope, you may as well pour a swimming pool's worth of water down a hill in January then try to walk up it the next day...
Because context matters. A lot. And people's rights matter. A lot.
...
We have to ask ourselves...
Who declared the protest as illegal? Why did they declare it illegal?
Did they just freeze the bank accounts of the organizers, or did normal everyday people get caught up in it and have their accounts frozen too?
What parameters have to be met before a government can just decide people no longer have the right to protest? (Not in theory, but in practice)
Should Canadians all across our vast country have their right to protest restricted because of an incident that's occurring somewhere in Ontario?
Should all of Ontario be subject to this, if the situation that's prompting such a response is confined to a specific border crossing?
...
As we all know, if the government can decide one morning that you no longer have the right to do something, it isn't a right - its a privilege...
And as we all know, the government's declaration that they were restricting people's rights was done illegally. (Hence them canceling the use of the Emergencies Act the day before it was to be reviewed by the courts.)
...
So a government declares a protest as illegal, and activates the Emergencies Act.
A court finds the government activated it illegally.
And the government cancels it's use the day before the court review, because they knew they were in the wrong.
...I can't say I'm a huge supporter of arbitrarily freezing people's bank accounts.
...
We also have to ask ourselves...
What access does the government have to people's personal banking information, that they can push a button & suddenly that person can't use their accounts?
I'm not talking about the mechanisms used to physically freeze the accounts (that's obviously done over the phone with the banks themselves & specific authorizations & approvals needed)
Locating and fixing an account to see who has e-transferred them money, and then freezing those accounts is one thing...
But what if the account holder is transferring a payment from PayPal? What allows the government to access PayPal's internal information that shows who sent the money via PayPal?
Is that person under criminal investigation now? Are they such a threat that production orders & warrants are required to eliminate their ability to use their own bank account?
...
Under terrorism legislation, it's a totally different story and I am then 100% in agreement with you.
That's what I mean when I say it's a slippery slope, because legal precedent matters. A lot. Things may seem done & over with, but that's only until those same things are brought up in court in the future.
...
This post runs a serious risk of derailing an incredibly important thread, which I sincerely don't want to do.
So as far as it's relevant to this upcoming election, if Carney was behind the government freezing people's bank accounts, it is something people should take note of come election time.
Some people here agree with the government freezing people out of their own bank accounts under the circumstances at the time.
Some people here disagree with the government doing so.
Both groups can point to valid reasons to support their position on the matter.
But it's interesting that Carney's involvement behind the scenes was what it was - regardless of whether people view it as a positive or negative in the Carney column
www.canada.ca
