SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The latest is insane.
Using powers granted under the Emergencies Act, the federal government has directed banks and other financial institutions to stop doing business with people associated with the anti-vaccine mandate convoy occupying the nation's capital.
According to the regulations published late Tuesday, financial institutions are required to monitor and halt all transactions that funnel money to demonstrators — a measure designed to cut off funding to a well-financed protest that has taken over large swaths of Ottawa's downtown core.
"Financial institutions" aren't just banks.
The government is also ordering insurance companies to suspend policies on vehicles that are part of an unlawful "public assembly."
These financial institutions can't handle cash, issue a loan, extend a mortgage or more generally facilitate "any transaction" of a "designated person" while the Emergencies Act is in place.
The regulations define a "designated person" who can be cut off from financial services as someone who is "directly or indirectly" participating in a "public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace," or a person engaging in "serious interference with trade" or "critical infrastructure."
So basically, the Canadian government chickened out and mandated instead that the banks and insurance companies to do everything. Then rat out their customers to the government once they're done.
Banks also are required to "disclose without delay" the "existence of property in their possession or control" or "any information about a transaction or proposed transaction" related to a "designated person" to both the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).
"Those authorities are now in force and they're being used," said Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino. "It's incredibly important that we follow the money."
It's not "incredibly important" for anyone interested in rule of law, due process, or proportionality of punishment. And the final part:
The Emergencies Act and its associated regulations are in effect for only 30 days; that period could be shorter if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet revoke it or if Parliament scuttles it after a vote. But a senior government official said there could be long-term implications.
"For the most part, financial institutions can decide who they do business with and they may decide to cease offering financial services," the official said.
Mark Blumberg is a lawyer at Blumberg Segal LLP who specializes in non-profit and charity law. In an interview, he said that while the Emergencies Act gives banks time-limited powers, these institutions "may just decide to shut the person's account down" because there could be "huge risks" for banks servicing these customers in the future.
So rather than deal with the protest in a sensible manner (they're breaking the law, right?), the Canadian government has put forward this ridiculous "emergency" and deputized a bunch of businesses to go crazy with legal immunity (but only if they toe the government line). In the meantime, the protesters can lose their insurance and freeze finances. So what's going to happen to protesters of any sort in the future, if banks and insurance companies see them as liabilities due to this emergency?
Now imagine if Trump and US financial institutions had this kind of power over BLM protesters. Wouldn't be a problem, right?
Hopefully, this will get reversed in the Canadian courts, because otherwise it's a huge move towards tyranny, particularly of the fascist sort.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 18 2022, @07:43AM (7 children)
If they were popular in Canada they wouldn't be dependent on external funding. The US outnumbers Canada 10:1, so a movement supported by 5% of the US has the same resources as a movement supported by 50% of Canadians. This is why foreign money must never be allowed in domestic politics.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Friday February 18 2022, @12:06PM (5 children)
So you acknowledge they are popular. Rest my case on that one. And I find all the babble about "well-funded" to be ridiculous. How well funded does a simple protest that has only lasted a few weeks need to be?
Let's stop being stupid for a minute here. Even if foreign support from a neighboring democracy really were a problem (which nobody has shown), Trudeau's measures will cut these protesters off from all support, including themselves. It's a complete disfranchisement not just cutting them off from foreign funding. Sorry, that's bullshit.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 18 2022, @05:57PM (4 children)
No, I made no such admission. They are a fringe movement, but their voice is amplified because the American fringe supporting them outnumbers the Canadian majority.
They have already raised tens of millions of dollars, and there are reports that a lot of it is coming from the US. Cutting them off from foreign support is right and proper. Cutting them off from domestic support, especially their own, is going too far.
To be clear, I don't agree with what they say. I do agree that they have the right to say it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 18 2022, @08:07PM (3 children)
"Right and proper", eh? I think we're seeing a typical failure mode of what happens when you screw around like that. I notice that no one has bothered to explain what's supposed to be wrong with US support.
I think it'll be amusing when this argument gets turned against you in the future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 20 2022, @12:12AM (2 children)
Repeating what I said earlier, "The US outnumbers Canada 10:1, so a movement supported by 5% of the US has the same resources as a movement supported by 50% of Canadians." That means that a foreign fringe group can overwhelm the domestic majority, which is anti-democracy. If you really can't understand why that is a bad thing, I can't help you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 20 2022, @02:49AM
Last I heard, those protests get get a lot of Canadian support.
No such overwhelming has occurred. Rather I see that a group with valid concerns (even being anti-vax is within the valid purview of Canada citizens) is being attacked because it also happens to be supported to a significant degree by US citizens. This is merely a propaganda attack not a legitimate concern.
Notice that this is consistent with my long term stance on foreign influence. For example, back in 2018 I wrote this:
I wasn't defending a bunch of Russian citizens who just happened to be "overwhelming" some US system. It's the Russian government.
The reason is the following:
Basically, the accusations of funding from US sources is just a giant ad hominem (much like the Nazi accusations and the claim that one already has to be vaccinated going the other way). Foreign entanglements and such are easy to fabricate. My take is that we have a great example of this right here. There's no strings attached to that money, they're just getting it because they're popular with various parties in Canada and the US.
And consider this: if Trudeau's strategy works and all access to financial resources is cut off, then foreign contributions (which incidentally will probably include Canadian contributions routed through a foreign proxy in order to bypass this decree) will be the only way they can survive and protest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 20 2022, @09:56AM
The saying is:
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 18 2022, @04:16PM
So Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland [notcbc.ca] will not be accepting any more money from the World Economic Forum then? Perhaps the RCMP can detain them without charge while the matter is investigated?