[recuter]

If you read more carefully (I can not stress enough that I am not Canadian, if you ask me the protests were dumb 'etc) that does not at all refute the point I am making.

One day Mark Strahl or somebody like him will be in power and the shoe will be on the other foot. If you start banning people you don't like (from twitter, bank accounts, whatever) left and right you will end up in a very dark place by setting that precedent.

[dghlsakjg]

For context: I’m an American living in Canada.

There were ~200 accounts frozen affecting less than that number of people (some people had multiple accounts frozen). The claim is that these accounts were the ones directly supporting the protest. This was after the courts had declared many aspects of the protest unlawful. The accounts were mostly unfrozen after the protest broke up. The mechanism that was used to freeze their accounts allows them to sue for compensation

As much as the process for the emergencies act has been painted as absolute power. It very much isn’t. It is subject to quite a bit of oversight from the legislative and judicial.

I understand what your point is, but Canada has a history of going after left leaning protesters in FAR more concerning ways than this. As far as I can tell this was way more preferable to the usual tactics that the RCMP used to enforce injunctions.

For example, the military was used to clear native peoples off their land to build a golf course. A child was bayoneted. In 1990.

The RCMP broke into a cabin with a chainsaw and axe where indigenous elders were praying to stop oil and gas construction. That was last year.

Temporarily freezing funds of enablers seems like a pretty reasonable solution to an unlawful protest, all things considered.

Besides all that, at the time it was VERY clear that this political action was funded from unknown sources outside the country. I don’t think that money is speech. And I really don’t think that political destabilization should be funded by anonymous overseas donors.

[recuter]

> I understand what your point is

Yay

> but Canada has a history of going after left leaning protesters in FAR more concerning ways than this

Sigh

[dghlsakjg]

Fine. Ignore that part. But feel free to address the actual argument:

Temporarily freezing the banking privileges of people involved in the perpetuation of 1. A crime 2. while acting against an injunction 3. after being authorized to use that power by a majority of elected representatives is a pretty acceptable use of government. Regardless of who in power does it.

You said you don’t like people in power arbitrarily freezing accounts of people they don’t like, and cited what appears to be a completely made up story from a fringe candidate.

I’m pointing out that this was not arbitrary, and it was used in a very specific and limited manner, as authorized by law, to accomplish a very specific goal. The goal was accomplished with, as far as has been actually proven, an absolute minimum of harm caused, even to the perpetrators themselves.

The protest is still allowed, there are still people protesting in my town. Just saw ‘em this weekend. What they aren’t allowed to do is use money from unknown international sources to shut down cities and infrastructure

[recuter]

> You said you don’t like people in power arbitrarily freezing accounts of people they don’t like, and cited what appears to be a completely made up story from a fringe candidate.

What are we discussing here? Because your response to me was that "the other side is much worse" and you cited the military bayoneted a child in 1990.

This Mark Stahl fellow is a sitting MP not a fringe candidate.

> Temporarily freezing funds of enablers seems like a pretty reasonable solution to an unlawful protest, all things considered.

Well, if they are willing to bayonet children to build golf courses imagine the pandoras box you've now opened for when they get back in power. Won't seem so reasonable when they freeze your bank account in turn. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Try to imagine a carbon copy of yourself who fell into the other echo chamber and has similarly low opinions of your politics. There will be no shortage of justifications for why you must be punished.

[dghlsakjg]

Sorry, he’s not a candidate. He’s an elected rep who has been thoroughly hung out to dry for making shit up. There is no evidence from reliable sources besides this tweet that donors faced any consequences or had their accounts frozen. There is sworn testimony indicating that didn’t happen. Marjory Taylor Greene is an elected rep too, but many would agree that she’s not someone to cite.

You seem to be seeing this through the lens of “two sides”. There are more than two major political parties in Canada. And the East/West/French divide is as important as the left/right divide.

I’m seeing this through the lens of government quelling illegal protest, regardless of what is being protested. I see what happened in Ottawa as a restrained response that I wish was used more, rather than the violent response that is so common.

At the time temporary asset freezes we’re used, military force was authorized by the legislature. They could have dragged the trucks out using military recovery equipment, instead they made it so they couldn’t buy diesel and propane with money from unknown sources.

> Try to imagine a carbon copy of yourself who fell into the other echo chamber and has similarly low opinions of your politics. There will be no shortage of justifications for why you must be punished.

If I fall down some conspiracy rabbit hole, protest by unlawfully shutting down a city for a month, ignore an injunction, and encourage others to do the same while ignoring warnings about the consequences, I sure as hell expect that the government will come after me.

There was no “pandoras box” opened. The legislature authorized the PM to act in a limited way to end an unlawful protest. Those powers have expired, and could have been rescinded at any time.

The people weren’t “punished”. Organizers had money frozen for about a week until it could be seen that it wouldn’t be used to support more activity deemed to be an emergency.

The dangerous precedent isn’t the seizure of money. It’s using foreign bankrolls to pay for a destabilizing protest movement to use industrial equipment to shut down major infrastructure and cities while ignoring the rule of law.

[recuter]

> Marjory Taylor Greene is an elected rep too, but many would agree that she’s not someone to cite.

Many people are childish and it is now fashionable to stick your fingers in your ears and try to make the thing you don't like disappear instead of dealing with it. Once upon a time citing did not imply agreement. Sometimes reality is icky.

> You seem to be seeing this through the lens of “two sides”.

I'm seeing it through the lens of "no sides". Try putting politics aside.

> If I fall down some conspiracy rabbit hole, protest by unlawfully shutting down a city for a month, ignore an injunction, and encourage others to do the same while ignoring warnings about the consequences, I sure as hell expect that the government will come after me.

I wonder why you think only people with politics that differ from yours (and therefore are clearly wrong) are susceptible to this behavior and members of your tribe are somehow immune.

> There was no “pandoras box” opened. The legislature authorized the PM to act in a limited way to end an unlawful protest. Those powers have expired, and could have been rescinded at any time.

It seems you are under the impression you need to convince me.

Many people would say otherwise, to use your parlance. Alas, Mark Strahl is still an MP, even if he spreads lies. Marjory Taylor Greene somehow got elected. They have supporters. You need to convince them.

Is it getting easier or harder? What will happen when they regain power? Something to ruminate on.

And not only the "fringe" or conservatives but even people who might agree with your politics directionally might disagree with the heavy handedness and perceived slide into authoritarianism. It is as if your perceptions are not the only ones that matter even if undoubtably you're right of course.

> The dangerous precedent isn’t the seizure of money. It’s using foreign bankrolls to pay for a destabilizing protest movement to use industrial equipment to shut down major infrastructure and cities while ignoring the rule of law.

Presumably it could be both. You could have multiple ongoing problems. And in a heavy handed attempt to solve one exacerbate others. I really hope it sinks in but I'm quite afraid you'll just reply again about how bad the people you don't like are.