Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions
twitter.comThe meat starts at tweet #35!
35/ Canada has asked every single financial system provider from banks to credit card companies to investment firms to crowdfunding platforms to crypto companies to insurance companies to:
- freeze the accounts - of anyone directly or "indirectly" supporting the protests
36/ Given the powers of the Emergency Act, there is no due process on these actions and no civil liability for this freezing.
Given the author's command /41 to "always invert, invert, invert" does that, absent a financial emergency power, mean we should normalize allowing foreign money to bankroll people with semis to blockade cities under the flag of protest? That feels like something most citizens of a country would be against.
Without the massive inflows of cash this protest would have been just as demonstrative, but not as crippling or injurious to the public.
>does that, absent a financial emergency power, mean we should normalize allowing foreign money to bankroll people with semis to blockade cities under the flag of protest?
If you're against that, the reasonable reaction would be to block foreign transfers and/or freeze the portion of funds that came from foreign sources, not ban them from the financial system entirely. Imagine the government shutting down an opposition candidate's campaign entirely, because it received a little too much money from foreign donors.
It is illegal for anyone who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident to contribute to a Canadian political party or campaign. This is also true in the United States.
This isn’t responding to the point in the comment directly above yours, from my perspective. That’s just restating the initial point.
The majority of donations are from Canadians.
I'm not sure if a 55:45 split makes this okay. If it were under five percent I would agree that it's negligible.
citation? I'm reading:
- Leaked data of the donations on GiveSendGo showed Canadians raised $4.31 million for the Freedom Convoy while Americans donated $3.62 million.
- Americans, however, accounted 56 per cent of the donor base while Canadians made up only 29 per cent of all donors
Not sure what’s up with British Commonwealth countries but there is a definite split when it comes to individual rights.
Australia is creating a massive surveillance state, NZ won’t allow their own citizens into the country (2 years now!) and Canada pulls out a sledgehammer to deal with protestors on the front steps of its legislature.
Maybe Canada can adopt some of Singapore’s rules? Permits for any protest (even a one person protest), a “free speech square” where you can exercise your rights - all in the name of “stability and maintenance of harmony”.
You don't only have that in Singapore, many western countries have similar laws. Germany for example. It is not a good example though and should not be copied or presented as anything good.
If you think this is the sledgehammer, you should read up on what they did to G20 protesters. It wasn't weeks of friendly fraternization.
I don’t recall a suspension of Charter Rights?
There is no suspension of charter rights. Emergencies Act unambiguously says all charter rights remain in effect.
Indeed...
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2022/02/can...
"The Charter allows the Government to balance the rights of the individual with the interests of society where limits on guaranteed rights and freedoms can be justified in a free and democratic society."
The Emergencies Act can give the government the power to force you to act on their behalf.... "Directing specified persons to render essential services". If that's not a violation of the Charter..."the right to life, liberty and security of the person", I don't know what is.
It's basically saying "we'll respect the Charter because the Charter allows reasonable violations of those rights".
The core point made here is wrong.
> 6/ Freedom of speech might require such activities like:
> A website
> A pamphlet
> An advertisement
> Paying a graphic designer
> Travelling to a different location
All of those amplify your speech, but they're not prerequisites for speech. You can speak without any of them - I'm doing it right now!
Same for all the other various things mentioned in this thread. None of the things are requirements for the rights. You can worship and pray without a physical building, you can assemble without buying hot dogs etc etc.
> All of which "cost money".
This is the world that crypto folks want, but it's not the reality (at least yet). You can do plenty of things without money, including exercising said rights. The problem is that they can't conceive that because their worldview is centered around trying to monetize everything and every interaction - interactions that don't involve money aren't valid to them.
Uh, no, your speech would be moot without the people who pay for the website allowing you to use it. You don't contribute financially because you are the product (an audience of engineers for YC companies to influence and recruit). Make no mistake, though, money is a crucial element of your ability to broadcast your thoughts here.
> All of those amplify your speech, but they're not prerequisites for speech. You can speak without any of them - I'm doing it right now!
What did you use to post this comment?
Change freedom of speech to "freedom to realistically effect change", and you'll ultimately end up at the point everyone is dancing around, but no one is willing to say out loud.
Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about.
You can't buy a printing press without... Money. You can't buy a computer without... Money You can't get an internet connection without... Money.
You can't just pass this off as cryptobros being cryptobros.
Canada is basically saying, no one shall be serviced whose capital is getting allocated to "this".
And that is dangerous, especially when done unilaterally by the executive government. Call me an overly stiff contrarian if you want, but a spade is a spade, whether you want to call it something else. That people are busy playing these semantic games should be reason for pause.
What you're suggesting comes down to rich people having disproportionally more say.
Taking money out of the equation democratizes speech and makes sure everyone has a say, not just the Peter Thiels that can buy printing presses.
But taking money out of the equation for only some, and not others, takes us even further from democratization of speech.
Properly, the government needs to fund the publication of speech by every citizen, so anyone can spend as much as Peter Thiel can
Square one. What the government giveth, it can take away. See Canada.
Info propagation isn't free. Even at the atomic unit, you and someone to listen to you, requires the organization of participants to scale beyond triviality. Realistically, within the societal framework we operate in, there isn't really feasible decoupling of funds from access to anplification. You're not safe relying on government subsidy, because, well, square one.
> Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about.
Nobody has freedom to be heard. "Freedom to be heard" equals "freedom to force others to listen (or at least to hear)". I deny that anyone legitimately has that freedom.
The Court, the Executive, and anyone sufficiently close to tweak their or, or with a big enough pocket book to have a lobbyist's ear beg to differ. Hence, the concern whenever it appears Governments are flexing it a bit brazenly.
What good is "freedom of speech" if you can only talk to yourself?
Freedom is speech isn't the freedom to make people listen.
Great. You have the freedom to speak, as long as it’s only in your head or into a corner where no one can ever hear you.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to make people listen, but the government can’t make that choice for people.
"make people listen"
Like, coercion? As in, physically restrain someone so they must engage with my ideas?
No, we're talking about a situation in Ottawa where people are blaring their truck horns for hours at a time with a complete lack of regard for how the citizens of that city feel about it.
Oh, I thought we were talking about freedom of speech.
You clearly listened to me. I didn't spend any money on that. Case in point.
I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.
Maybe it would be clearer if you told me what "freedom of speech" means to you .
You have the right to talk all you want. You don't have the right to force anyone to listen to you, nor to prevent others from pursuing their daily lives. Nor does freedom of speech imply that your speech is free from repercussions. The government (federal, state, or local) cannot prevent you from saying most things, or retaliating against you. But most everyone else can within the bounds of legality.
Freedom of speech means you can stand on the corner and yell about the "undisputed benefits of cryptocurrencies". It also means me and a group of my friends can surround you and sing "Baby Shark" repeatedly at the top of our lungs, drowning out your message.
Freedom of speech means freedom to speak. We're speaking freely right now, aren't we? And I didn't have to create a website or an ad or pay a graphic designer or any of the many things claimed in that Twitter thread.
Maybe you don't pay to use the internet, but I do.
If the government froze my bank account so I couldn't pay my phone bill, I wouldn't be free to speak to you right now.
That's not true. You just wouldn't be free to speak on this medium.
I don't have the right to speak in the Queen's bedroom in Buckingham Palace, either.
Neither of those things are significant limitations on the freedom of speech.
Freedom also means the ability to live without having to suffer overbearing impacts from others. The blockade of Ottawa and the US/Canada border crossings are causing enormous economic impacts on both countries while in the midst of a global pandemic, rising inflation due to supply chain issues. Estimates of the financial impact of this "protest" are not definitive, but are likely in the billions of dollars and are affecting everyone in both countries.
You have the right to protest and make your opinion heard. But at the point that you are actively preventing ~25% of the international trade between two countries while further increasing both inflation and supply chain issues, your "protest" looks more like economic terrorism. Especially when only a small minority of people actually care--let alone support--your position.
To tie this back to the original thread: The author states "There are no other constitutional rights in substance without freedom to transact". But this protest is impacting other people's ability to transact. Therefore, by the same logic the author presents, this "protest" is impacting the freedoms of millions just because a couple of hundred people don't want to get vaccinated or get tested regularly.
The requirement that people crossing the border be vaccinated or have taken quick and painless test to prove that they are not carrying a virus that has claimed more than 5M lives in the past two year is NOT tyranny: it's an minor inconvenience.
>Freedom also means the ability to live without having to suffer overbearing impacts from others.
From TFA:
>I don't actually have a view on the substance of the trucker protests and if Canada's COVID policies are good, bad or neutral.
>I would further guess that the truckers are probably violating a variety of Canadian laws relating to how they can protest.
>What would be a normal constitutional democracy political response to a problem like this is either:
>a) let it play out if you think it is in good faith
>or
>b) encourage the local authorities to arrest them and try them in a court if you think it is not
>Either is fine.
>The right to assembly in Canada probably does not allow you to block the highway for days for everyone else.
>I assume Canada still has police and courts so they could presumably arrest the highway blockers & take them to court
In other words, he's not advocating that the protests should go on unimpeded (contrary to what you think). He's against the government punishing the protesters extra-judicially.
>> "But this protest is impacting other people's ability to transact."
It is really astonishing that you try to claim there is equivalence between having one's accounts frozen vs being impacted by the effects of a protest.
anything that takes that long to make an argument seems to not have a specific point other than costing money and some hints at decentrLizied freedoms?
>anything that takes that long to make an argument seems to not have a specific point
Is this what twitter has turned discourse into? If you haven't made your within one or two tweets your whole work is dismissed as "not have a specific point".
Anyways the "point" of this article is that the government is punishing their enemies by locking them out of the financial system. This is bad because of how much we rely on the financial system for every day life, and that the action is being done without the usual due process (ie. right to a trial). You might be in favor of this action because the targets happen to be your enemies, but this could easily be flipped next time around.
The protesters are locking the government and many US and Canadian systems out of the ability to travel between the countries or engage in many types of free commerce. They haven't confiscated the money, they have simply frozen the accounts, effectively saying "block our commerce, we block your access to money to support your actions."
I don't find that to be an unreasonable reaction given the scope of the daily business and economic disruption being caused. If the Canadian government actually confiscated the money or kept the accounts frozen after the situation resolves, that would be government overreach.
>The protesters are locking the government and many US and Canadian systems out of the ability to travel between the countries or engage in many types of free commerce.
If you think those actions are illegal, the correct course of action is to prosecute them under the normal judicial process, not to shut them out of society "nosedive" style. Murderers and rapists do worse but even then we give them due process.
>They haven't confiscated the money, they have simply frozen the accounts, effectively saying "block our commerce, we block your access to money to support your actions."
As was stated in the OP and my previous comment, the argument here isn't that "this protest is legal and should be allowed", it's "if the protest is illegal, the government should go through the normal legal channels (ie. courts) to shut it down, rather than having the executive branch unilaterally dish out punishments.
It's the lack of due process. If a court were to find them guilty of this then fine.
I'm not clear that twitter is the right tool for the job. Perhaps writing a book or essay is proper.
All the same, you should be able to fit your thesis and list your key arguments in a couple of sentences.
>All the same, you should be able to fit your thesis and list your key arguments in a couple of sentences.
Well luckily OP posted a "tl;dr" at the end. I agree it'll be better if it was at the front, but posting tl;drs at the end seems to be pretty common for whatever reason.
> You might be in favor of this action because the targets happen to be your enemies, but this could easily be flipped next time around.
Well, that's the irony right there. Conservatives are all about this authoritarian garbage, have been for decades or more. Now that it's been flipped around on them, it's all hue and cry. If the cops had treated this like any other protest, they'd have violently shut it down 3 weeks ago. The federal government declared it a national emergency because the cops decided not to maintain order. Sure, this is bad. But if it's somehow news to you, you just haven't been paying attention because you didn't like what the protesters had to say. Let's change the law already. But let's make sure the cops are respectful of everybody's freedom to assemble while we're at it.