[itsoktocry]

>and the banks have come out and said “that didn’t happen”

The article didn't say it didn't happen. In fact, it says it did happen:

“individuals and companies suspected of involvement in illegal acts,” such as “influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa””

What exactly does it mean to be an "influencer"? Why are people being punished for "suspected involvement"? You're using circular reasoning claiming the only people affected deserved it.

>Last, the government ceded its emergency powers after about a week total

What does this matter if they can turn around and re-enact it tomorrow?

[bentlegen]

I specifically referred to donors, it is largely understood that convoy organizers and a number of participants had their accounts frozen.

I am not using circular reasoning; I am literally addressing the fact that donating $50 to the convoy did not subject you to your bank account being frozen, despite purported claims to the contrary.

The “illegal acts” are referring to the plain-as-day laws that the protesters (to some, occupiers) were accused of breaking, like parking tractor trailers in the middle of the street for weeks blocking traffic in downtown Ottawa.

If folks outside the immediate circle of downtown protesters and organizers were affected, I would find that deeply concerning. But I can only find unsubstantiated rumors. If you have a credible source indicating otherwise, I’d appreciate it.