[gruez]

> There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented

In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government?

> Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today.

Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?

[HappySweeney]

> In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged?

That's a good question. The article doesn't say and I haven't read the bill.

> Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?

Before, of course. That was one of the justifications for invoking the emergency powers, and it wouldn't have been controversial otherwise. This is a digression, though, as there is no mention of any legislative changes to bank account seizures in the article.

[incomingpain]

>That's a good question. The article doesn't say and I haven't read the bill.

How are your responding to me making affirmative comments that there's judicial oversight if you havent read the bill?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVTgGnNlfe8

[HappySweeney]

It's in the article. I'm happy to read the bill and watch your linked video once my workday is over.

[incomingpain]

>It's in the article. I'm happy to read the bill and watch your linked video once my workday is over.

You misunderstand. After it's done, only then could you sue and get judicial review. But it's all in secrecy, so you dont know what or who you need to sue. So you cant get judicial review.

[kstenerud]

Did it say that Telus/Rogers would be forbidden from telling you why they've terminated your account?

[bawolff]

> In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government?

Umm,that's how court systems work in general. You sue when someone wrongs you. I'm not sure how else it could possibly work.

> Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?

This is a different topic, but there were 2 different bank account freezes. Some were frozen due to a contempt of court order (this didn't involve the government, a private citizen brought the lawsuit). The more controversial was the emergency powers seizure. Arguably the protestors were engaging in manifestly illegal conduct. Personally i think its akin to how you can arrest someone before conviction, but opinions vary. As far as i know, the bank accounts were only frozen while the protestors were engaging in illegal action and were released once the situation was resolved.