[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?