Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

ottawacitizen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#131

Post by mattnewton »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #112
Jackim wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an exaggerated headline. Accounts being used to fund illegal activities can be frozen. Protesting is not and will not be illegal. Blocking critical infrastructure is illegal.

Locking bank accounts at all WITHOUT A TRIAL, seems dystopian. That's a lot of power for the state to have to be able to reach into some ones bank accounts with no due process. Edit: changed AT ALL to without a trial because on second thought resized it's possible that there are some legit uses for freezing bank accounts.

I agree. I have no idea how Canada's legal system works but I would not trust the american executive branch with this power without the authorization of a judge. Even then it feels too easily abused, but you can already do a lot worse with a judge's sign off and there are certainly cases where the power makes sense.

Is this something that has precedent in Canada?

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#132

Post by BitwiseFool »

Jackim wrote: post #54
makomk wrote: post #24

Headline on the front page of BBC News right now: "Trudeau vows to freeze anti-mandate protesters' bank accounts" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60383385 This feels downright dystopian, especially if the move away from cash and towards centrally-controlled electronic payment systems is anywhere near as widespread in Canada as elsewhere.

That is an exaggerated headline. Accounts being used to fund illegal activities can be frozen. Protesting is not and will not be illegal. Blocking critical infrastructure is illegal.

> "Protesting is not and will not be illegal."

The trick is to categorize the protest as something else.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#133

Post by e4e78a06 »

tedivm wrote: post #70
e4e78a06 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confiscating peoples' assets does not exactly engender you to a lot of political support. You're risking a massive loss in the next elections if you do that, just like how Democrats in the US are also facing huge electoral pressures on crime and COVID restrictions [1]. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/us/politics/new-york-mask...

This idea that there's a crime wave seems to be pushed here and on reddit by month old accounts with no real proof. The reality is that crime is down in most places. Lets look at San Francisco. I'm going to get my stats right from the San Francisco Police Department. Homocide - Down 20% Rape - Down 23.8% Robbery - Down 20.7% Assault - Down 8.8% Human Trafficking - Down 83.3% Burglary - Down 45.4% Motor Vehicle Theft…

Most thefts (robbery, etc) are not reported now because people know police don't care. You also need to adjust your numbers for decreased activity (people stopped going out during COVID!). Restaurant reservations are down by 50% or more in SF [1] even despite reopening. If you use restaurant reservations as a proxy for foot traffic in general, all your metrics are strongly up when you adjust for foot traffic.

The idea that larceny (petty) theft doesn't matter is also a big reason why you think there's no crime wave. Petty theft is the crime most often encountered by everyday citizens. People don't like having their property stolen. I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge that.

[1]: https://www.opentable.com/state-of-industry

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#134

Post by [deleted] »

tedivm wrote: post #70
e4e78a06 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confiscating peoples' assets does not exactly engender you to a lot of political support. You're risking a massive loss in the next elections if you do that, just like how Democrats in the US are also facing huge electoral pressures on crime and COVID restrictions [1]. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/us/politics/new-york-mask...

This idea that there's a crime wave seems to be pushed here and on reddit by month old accounts with no real proof. The reality is that crime is down in most places. Lets look at San Francisco. I'm going to get my stats right from the San Francisco Police Department. Homocide - Down 20% Rape - Down 23.8% Robbery - Down 20.7% Assault - Down 8.8% Human Trafficking - Down 83.3% Burglary - Down 45.4% Motor Vehicle Theft…

[deleted]

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#135

Post by ameminator »

synthos wrote: post #102
ameminator wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, how is someone supposed to protest? I mean, I see clear differences between going up to someone's home or into someone's workplace and making noise in the street. Any protest is almost guaranteed to inconvenience someone, unless you want to limit a "protester" to yelling in their own home. So what would you suggest is the line?

Work with the city to park in a designated spot and then protest on foot in front of parliament. Not 'move-in' and set up hot tubs, saunas, and sleep in your truck on Wellington.

What if the city doesn't want to work with the protesters? Do the protesters have to prove that they tried to work with the city? What if the protest is against the city itself?

I have issues with asking permission to protest, even if it's an issue I don't support.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#136

Post by xienze »

s5300 wrote: post #104
colechristensen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't look like , it is authoritarian response to something which should be protected. Using government power intended for things like war to suppress a protest is ridiculous, if this is what being "liberal" is about, I'm out. I hope the response is a protest escalation. Not my country, not my protest, but I know who I'm rooting for. Contrast this to what was happening in Minneapolis a couple of summers ago... p…

Damage in Minneapolis was mostly confined to a singular street. Singular. At no point were fire and police “afraid” to go places in the city either, though I can imagine you may have been watching certain “news” coverage that may have claimed that.

> At no point were fire and police “afraid” to go places in the city either

They completely abandoned a police precinct which was promptly burned down [0]. Pretty safe to say they were afraid to stay at their own building!

0: https://www.twincities.com/2020/05/28/minneapolis-police-aba...

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#137

Post by akerl_ »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #112
Jackim wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an exaggerated headline. Accounts being used to fund illegal activities can be frozen. Protesting is not and will not be illegal. Blocking critical infrastructure is illegal.

Locking bank accounts at all WITHOUT A TRIAL, seems dystopian. That's a lot of power for the state to have to be able to reach into some ones bank accounts with no due process. Edit: changed AT ALL to without a trial because on second thought resized it's possible that there are some legit uses for freezing bank accounts.

Seizing funds from criminals to restrict their ability to perpetrate and profit from crime is a tool used by law enforcement in essentially every country, and has been happening for a long time.

There’s plenty of areas of this that are misused (see things like civil asset forfeiture), but the overarching strategy of freezing bank accounts isn’t novel or dystopian.

Edit: it’s a bit sneaky to change “AT ALL” to “WITHOUT A TRIAL” without calling out the change.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#138

Post by [deleted] »

salawat wrote: post #114
makomk wrote: post #24

Headline on the front page of BBC News right now: "Trudeau vows to freeze anti-mandate protesters' bank accounts" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60383385 This feels downright dystopian, especially if the move away from cash and towards centrally-controlled electronic payment systems is anywhere near as widespread in Canada as elsewhere.

Thank you! Now you're starting to get what people have been making such a fuss about in the U.S.! The moment you can unilaterally freeze bank accounts of your own citizens, you're basically putting fundamental restrictions on what they can and cannot do! If citizens can't even fund raise for their own protests, you have a problem. ...Now the fact a bunch of donors are American and not Canadian is... Fascinating... I'…

[deleted]

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#139

Post by dblohm7 »

amscanne wrote: post #93

> We’re not suspending the fundamental rights or overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are not limiting people’s freedom of speech, we are not limiting freedom of peaceful assembly (or) preventing people from exercising their right to protest legally Pretending to express concern about charter rights with respect to towing some trucks away is quite the theatre. Meanwhile, Canada spent the last two years s…

> Canada has a big opt-out for charter rights, in that “reasonable limits” are allowed if they can be “demonstrably justified”

Indeed, and there is ample case law from the Supreme Court of Canada that provides guidance to judges as to how to apply that section of the Charter.

R v. Oakes was one of the seminal cases in that regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Oakes

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#140

Post by ajross »

colechristensen wrote: post #110
Jackim wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an exaggerated headline. Accounts being used to fund illegal activities can be frozen. Protesting is not and will not be illegal. Blocking critical infrastructure is illegal.

The adjective critical though has been used very broadly during the pandemic. It's clear that it needs a very specific definition or such language could be used to make any protest illegal because it blocked access to a pizza place, etc.

> The adjective critical though has been used very broadly

Access to most of Ottawa was been cut off, including one of the biggest border crossings in Canada, not a "pizza place". Deploying hyperbole like this isn't helping your case. Surely if the Ambassador Bridge doesn't qualify as critical infrastructure, nothing does.

Post reply on HN