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

Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

citoyens.soquij.qc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 318 posts

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#301

Post by ornornor »

Gigachad wrote: post #176
mnkv wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the whole report??? The complainant is essentially stalking his neighbour with surveillance footage, recording any time the neighbour so much as looks in his direction, and keeps a stalker-ish log book with insults. On top of that his wife and his father nearly hit the neighbour's 4 year olds with a car and then say they refuse to slow down. The report says the car was "inches away" from another person a…

Guy should lose his license for life for threatening to murder a child with a vehicle.

You’re obviously not very well acquainted with the utter lack of accountability that anyone benefits from as soon as they sit behind the wheel.

Also see the 500$ fines and slaps on the wrist for people who run over cyclists in Toronto. “Whoops didn’t see them” is a valid defense there.

For instance: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/01/15/in-our-system-yo...

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#302

Post by Nursie »

refurb wrote: post #299
Nursie wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending money to support something the government has decided is a criminal enterprise ... getting your accounts frozen would seem to be the least thing to be concerned about - if indeed this even happened, there seems to be vanishingly little evidence. By the date they're talking about, a state of emergency has been declared to try to do something about the situation. If you're still sending money after that, you ne…

Sending money to support something the government has decided is a criminal enterprise The government never decided the Convoy was a "criminal enterprise". I have no idea where you go that from. The government decided the protests were going beyond that allowed, but that had to do with the people protesting, not the people sending in $10. What's amazing to me is how you just dismiss all this. "Oh well, some guy who P…

You don’t have the democratic freedom to fuck with everyone else’s day, and night, and day and night for weeks.

And the thing is, AFAICT there is no “guy who PayPal’d $10 and got his accounts frozen”, so if there’s no outcry, if people like me dismiss it, that might be because it didn’t happen.

From here it looks like you bought into the ‘freedumb!’ narrative, that any action taken to deal with the situation was bad. We had people here on HN lamenting that with the invocation of emergency powers, Canada had seen it’s last election, they would never be rescinded and that Trudeau was now a dictator for life. The whole thing is hyperbole built on childish notions of freedom that are pretty incompatible with the democratic functioning of a country.

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#303

Post by [deleted] »

refurb wrote: post #300
defrost wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears about the protest .. > Now his bank account is frozen and he can't pay the rent. Where does your linked article say that happened though? The article does not say that the frozen accounts were donor accounts ( ie accounts of blue collar workers ). The part you highlighted was in response to a question about whether that might happen .. and the response was it's t…

The Deputy Minister literally said "yes, that can happen under the powers of the Emergency Act". Yet you skip over to the "well, I see no proof someone was affected so what's the big deal?" I'm horrified by the fact it could even happen at all . That the government had the power to arbitrarily freeze someone's bank account with nothing more than a note from the RCMP. No evidence, no presumption of innocence, no right…

[deleted]

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#304

Post by defrost »

refurb wrote: post #300
defrost wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears about the protest .. > Now his bank account is frozen and he can't pay the rent. Where does your linked article say that happened though? The article does not say that the frozen accounts were donor accounts ( ie accounts of blue collar workers ). The part you highlighted was in response to a question about whether that might happen .. and the response was it's t…

The Deputy Minister literally said "yes, that can happen under the powers of the Emergency Act". Yet you skip over to the "well, I see no proof someone was affected so what's the big deal?" I'm horrified by the fact it could even happen at all . That the government had the power to arbitrarily freeze someone's bank account with nothing more than a note from the RCMP. No evidence, no presumption of innocence, no right…

Do you have an actual example of an actual person that this actually happened to?

Someone that had their account frozen for no other reason than they donated a few bucks from afar?

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#305

Post by refurb »

Nursie wrote: post #302
refurb wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending money to support something the government has decided is a criminal enterprise The government never decided the Convoy was a "criminal enterprise". I have no idea where you go that from. The government decided the protests were going beyond that allowed, but that had to do with the people protesting, not the people sending in $10. What's amazing to me is how you just dismiss all this. "Oh well, some guy who P…

You don’t have the democratic freedom to fuck with everyone else’s day, and night, and day and night for weeks. And the thing is, AFAICT there is no “guy who PayPal’d $10 and got his accounts frozen”, so if there’s no outcry, if people like me dismiss it, that might be because it didn’t happen . From here it looks like you bought into the ‘freedumb!’ narrative, that any action taken to deal with the situation was bad…

And the thing is, AFAICT there is no “guy who PayPal’d $10 and got his accounts frozen”, so if there’s no outcry, if people like me dismiss it, that might be because it didn’t happen.

The Deputy Minister of Finance said they had that power.

And instead of being pissed your government can lock your bank account down with no evidence, no trial, no ability to defend yourself and your response is “you bought into the ‘freedunb!’ narrative.

Yikes.

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#306

Post by refurb »

defrost wrote: post #304
refurb wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Deputy Minister literally said "yes, that can happen under the powers of the Emergency Act". Yet you skip over to the "well, I see no proof someone was affected so what's the big deal?" I'm horrified by the fact it could even happen at all . That the government had the power to arbitrarily freeze someone's bank account with nothing more than a note from the RCMP. No evidence, no presumption of innocence, no right…

Do you have an actual example of an actual person that this actually happened to? Someone that had their account frozen for no other reason than they donated a few bucks from afar?

You’re missing the forest for the trees.

The government had the power to do it. No trial, no evidence, nothing but the police putting you on a list (as per the Deputy Minister of Finance).

That alone should scare you.

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#307

Post by Nursie »

refurb wrote: post #305
Nursie wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t have the democratic freedom to fuck with everyone else’s day, and night, and day and night for weeks. And the thing is, AFAICT there is no “guy who PayPal’d $10 and got his accounts frozen”, so if there’s no outcry, if people like me dismiss it, that might be because it didn’t happen . From here it looks like you bought into the ‘freedumb!’ narrative, that any action taken to deal with the situation was bad…

And the thing is, AFAICT there is no “guy who PayPal’d $10 and got his accounts frozen”, so if there’s no outcry, if people like me dismiss it, that might be because it didn’t happen. The Deputy Minister of Finance said they had that power. And instead of being pissed your government can lock your bank account down with no evidence, no trial, no ability to defend yourself and your response is “you bought into the ‘fr…

Governments and police have all sorts of powers. Freezing bank accounts pending investigation is not particularly outlandish (look at all the “I may have done some money laundering… why are my accounts locked?” threads that pop up in relation to cryptocurrency on Reddit)

The theoretical but non-exercised power to put a temporary freeze on the bank account of someone contributing to a blockade which is being dismantled under the provisions of a national emergency, with both democratic and judicial oversight …

Yeah there are bigger things to get worked up about. I would expect national emergency legislation to come with all sorts of powers, and only the appropriate ones to be exercised, with Parliamentary and democratic accountability down the line for those doing the exercising.

Yikes indeed, that people are surprised by the availability of financial interventions available to governments, in extremis.

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#308

Post by refurb »

Nursie wrote: post #307
refurb wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the thing is, AFAICT there is no “guy who PayPal’d $10 and got his accounts frozen”, so if there’s no outcry, if people like me dismiss it, that might be because it didn’t happen. The Deputy Minister of Finance said they had that power. And instead of being pissed your government can lock your bank account down with no evidence, no trial, no ability to defend yourself and your response is “you bought into the ‘fr…

Governments and police have all sorts of powers. Freezing bank accounts pending investigation is not particularly outlandish (look at all the “I may have done some money laundering… why are my accounts locked?” threads that pop up in relation to cryptocurrency on Reddit) The theoretical but non-exercised power to put a temporary freeze on the bank account of someone contributing to a blockade which is being dismantle…

I think you need to bone up on your civic lessons.

As a Canadian citizen, your bank account cannot be arbitrarily frozen by the RCMP and some politician because they feel like it.

Your bank can do it, but no the government cant without evidence, a court order and your right to argue your case before a judge. It’s called “due process”.

How do you not know that?

I think I get it now. You’re not upset because you didn't even understand the rights you had before they were taken away.

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#309

Post by Nursie »

refurb wrote: post #308
Nursie wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments and police have all sorts of powers. Freezing bank accounts pending investigation is not particularly outlandish (look at all the “I may have done some money laundering… why are my accounts locked?” threads that pop up in relation to cryptocurrency on Reddit) The theoretical but non-exercised power to put a temporary freeze on the bank account of someone contributing to a blockade which is being dismantle…

I think you need to bone up on your civic lessons. As a Canadian citizen, your bank account cannot be arbitrarily frozen by the RCMP and some politician because they feel like it. Your bank can do it, but no the government cant without evidence, a court order and your right to argue your case before a judge. It’s called “due process”. How do you not know that? I think I get it now. You’re not upset because you didn't…

I had a huge long reply but I’ve removed it, in the end we’re never going to see eye to eye.

In the circumstances, I don’t believe that power is disproportionate, particularly as it was not exercised. You do. I think that’s really all we can learn from this conversation.

Re: Giving the finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

#310

Post by refurb »

Nursie wrote: post #309
refurb wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to bone up on your civic lessons. As a Canadian citizen, your bank account cannot be arbitrarily frozen by the RCMP and some politician because they feel like it. Your bank can do it, but no the government cant without evidence, a court order and your right to argue your case before a judge. It’s called “due process”. How do you not know that? I think I get it now. You’re not upset because you didn't…

I had a huge long reply but I’ve removed it, in the end we’re never going to see eye to eye. In the circumstances, I don’t believe that power is disproportionate, particularly as it was not exercised. You do. I think that’s really all we can learn from this conversation.

Again, I'd encourage you to do a deep dive into the laws of Canada. Like I said, it's clear you don't understand the rights you have - so not surprising you don't see the problem.

The banks can and will freeze accounts when the police or other agencies raise suspicions with them in most western nations

The police or a politician cannot arbitrarily order a bank account frozen without a court order (again due process). Sure, the police could say "hey that looks suspicious", but the bank is under no obligation to do anything.

You say there is no distinction there - I'd say it's a massive distinction.

I’m not upset because it’s not unreasonable to grant powers to perform an emergency breakup of a blockade, particularly when not all of those powers are going to be exercised (as they weren’t here), and when under the scrutiny of parliament and with democratic accountability.

What scrutiny of Parliament? The decision to enact the Emergencies Act was a decision by the Prime Minister, done with his cabinet, and those discussions were secret.

Sure, there was a inquiry after the fact, but hey, the horse is already out the barn by then.

Post reply on HN