Canada's freezing of the funds of people breaking the law and blockading border crossings?
So terrible. I don't see that as suppression of speech though.
(As I said elsewhere - take note that there is no evidence that any donors had their accounts frozen. One person was reported by a local politician to have had her accounts frozen, but when a list of donors was leaked later, no matching name was found, and no other information about that case has been shown. AFAICT, and I've looked, there is no decent evidence that any donors had their accounts frozen. It's just a right wing talking point.
The donated funds were frozen, temporarily, while the border blockage and other illegal protest activities were cleared up. But donors? Nope. )
This is repulsive, especially in a world where we're seeing authoritarians use all sorts of bullshit, made up excuses to arbitrarily punish people.
No - the government does (should) not have the authority in any normal democracy to arbitrarily freeze the finances of those who have not committed any crimes, especially those that have not been proven in court or whereupon there isn't any threat of impending violence.
The situation is obviously politicized, as there are perennially 'protest' activities in every nation which may technically 'criminal'.
The are innumerable protests and related activities in Canada related such things as block Oil pipelines from being built, Aboriginal blockades etc..
In Portland, Oregon, several city blocks were taken over by violent force - with a militia of self-appointed 'soldiers' brandishing weapons, prevent police and emergency services in.
Were their finances blocked? Were the supporting charities blocked? Did those donating to the charities have their assets frozen - no in all cases.
The justice system of most governments have ample power to enforce basic laws, as exemplified by the police response at the border in Alberta and Ontario, and should not be partial to the 'types of protesters' they chose to pursue let alone pursue extra constitutional measures.
That extra judicial measures were taken in Canada is a stain on Democracy and definitely an indication that the government can't be trusted with basic civil liberties specifically with respect to the issue of the transfer of money.
The last thing we need is more oversight over basic finances. If the police, acting independently of any politicians impetus, get a warrant from a judge to intervene in something or the other - they can do that, and it's why those mechanisms exist in the first place.
I'm just going to say again - I can find no good evidence donors had accounts blocked, just a lot of noise about it. What was definitely blocked was access to the funds that had been donated, being used to support the activities of the protestors.
I find that with Parliamentary oversight, I have no issue with this at all, and calling it a stain on democracy is entirely disproportionate, especially considering the actions we see in other countries.
So terrible. I don't see that as suppression of speech though.
(As I said elsewhere - take note that there is no evidence that any donors had their accounts frozen. One person was reported by a local politician to have had her accounts frozen, but when a list of donors was leaked later, no matching name was found, and no other information about that case has been shown. AFAICT, and I've looked, there is no decent evidence that any donors had their accounts frozen. It's just a right wing talking point.
The donated funds were frozen, temporarily, while the border blockage and other illegal protest activities were cleared up. But donors? Nope. )