Trudeau vows to freeze anti-mandate protesters' bank accounts
Source: BBC News
(5 mins ago). Mr Trudeau said the scope of the measures would be "time-limited", "reasonable and proportionate". The military will not be called to assist. Without a court order, banks will be able freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests. Mr Trudeau faces widespread criticism for his handling of the protests.
"This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people's jobs," he said. He said the police would be given "more tools" to imprison or fine protesters and protect critical infrastructure. The extraordinary move by Mr Trudeau comes as demonstrations across Canada enter their third week. It is his most aggressive move since the protests began.
On Sunday, law enforcement cleared anti-mandate protesters at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor - a critical pathway for Canada-US trade - after a week-long stalemate. Hundreds of protesters remain in Canada's capital city. Last week, Ontario Premier Doug Ford called for a state of emergency in the province in response to the protests.
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said banks will be able freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests without any need for a court order. Vehicle insurance of anyone involved with the demonstrations can also be suspended, she added...
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
- Trudeau invokes Emergencies Act for first time ever in response to protests, CBC News. Streamed live 2 hrs ago. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will deliver remarks with Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, Attorney General David Lametti, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino and Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair about invoking the Emergencies Act to handle vaccine mandate protests across the country. To read more: http://cbc.ca/news
Deuxcents
(15,777 posts)So should we.
Evolve Dammit
(16,632 posts)dalton99a
(81,065 posts)and make the terrorists pay
Cha
(295,903 posts)JCMach1
(27,544 posts)Put the cities on lock and arrest them, full-stop...
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,787 posts)BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Holy cow thats some serious shit right there.
cadoman
(792 posts)And your banking has been locked until you are no longer a piece of shit. Good bye!
And for the naysayers, don't think tfg or the gqp wouldn't do this to us the second they got a chance. This is a preventative strike and you damn well can bet we'll be applying it soon here. Biden isn't fucking stupid.
Next order of business is to vaccinate this trash as soon as they are imprisoned so they don't infect prisoners who may actually pay their dues and lead productive lives some day.
ificandream
(9,196 posts)mysteryowl
(7,323 posts)Dr. Strange
(25,898 posts)So I'm not sure that something like this wouldn't go over here, at least as far as the courts are concerned.
LiberalFighter
(50,499 posts)Will the proclamation include revoking licenses for American truckers in Canada?
DesertGarden
(184 posts),
. . I'M NOT INTERESTED IN ARGUING,
|.
. . . THIS SHOULD BE INHERENTLY OBVIOUS TO ALL OF US . .
/
. . . JUST IMAGINE tRUMP HAD THIS POWER.
/
. . . LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN . . .
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
. . . . JUST IMAGINE tRUMP HAD THIS POWER.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
. . . TO EXTRAJUDICIOUSLY "FREEZE' THE ASSETS OF CITIZENS ( US -YOU AND I )
. . . WHO PROTEST
/ / / / JUST F'N IMAGINE WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO / THOUSANDS /
/ / / / OF BLACK LIVES PROTESTERS . .
/
. . . . . . . . ABSOLUTELY FN TERRIFYING .
... . . . WRONG . . . | FULL STOP |
Demobrat
(8,915 posts)My jaw hit the floor when I read that. He said WHAT?
No to freezing bank accounts, unless were okay with it happening to us next time we show up at a pro choice rally.
niyad
(112,434 posts)DesertGarden
(184 posts). . . NO ACTUALLY , YOUR RIGHT FN ON -
I MUST HAVE CONFUSED IT WITH . . . FN CHINA. |
niyad
(112,434 posts)obstructionist assholes?
DesertGarden
(184 posts)niyad
(112,434 posts)DesertGarden
(184 posts)BradAllison
(1,879 posts)Maybe that too much on a discussion forum.
Demobrat
(8,915 posts)niyad
(112,434 posts)niyad
(112,434 posts)forthemiddle
(1,373 posts)It is alarming that the vast amount of people on DU are ok with this. It is irrelevant that it is Canada, it's obvious that people here would be thrilled if it was the US.
Do you honestly think Trump would have hesitated to use these tactics if he could have on BLM, or on Occupy Wall Street?
I know that they are illegally "occupying", but are we honestly encouraging these tactics?
BumRushDaShow
(127,300 posts)When people in the U.S. protest (notably liberals who have protested all sorts of thing over the past century) - they are arrested and put in jail for various and sundry reasons. Unfortunately, many more violently than others. In fact, that becomes a badge of honor.
When BLM and George Floyd protestors took to the interstates here in Philly, this is what happened to them (much to the eventual chagrin of our deep blue city and Democratic mayor) -
In the case of this RW crap - this same funder - "GiveSendGo" that has had its various holding banks cut off money, has been a tool of the Proud Boys and other RW extremists, and was used to help finance the January 6 insurrection. And if you support that, then there are bigger issues.
By Justine Coleman - 01/20/21 11:11 AM EST
Right-wing extremists, including at least one man arrested after the Capitol riot, are making use of Christian fundraising website GiveSendGo.com, including to raise money for the Jan. 6 protest that preceded the assault, CNN reported on Wednesday. A CNN analysis determined that more than two dozen fundraisers on GiveSendGo have been related to contesting the presidential election results, raising money for people to protest in Washington and other right-wing causes.
Hawaiian Proud Boys leader Nick Ochs, who was arrested and charged with participating in the Capitol raid, reportedly raised $300 on GiveSendGo for travel funds to get to D.C. on Jan. 6. After Ochs was arrested, another fundraiser was launched to raise money for his legal funds and has collected almost $20,000. The fundraiser organizer noted that the money raised helped Ochs get released on a $5,000 bond.
Other fundraisers on the website include one for Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who has gathered more than $113,000 for legal funding, after he was arrested days before the riots in D.C. Tarrio was charged with possession of high-capacity firearm magazines and destruction of property for burning a Black Lives Matter flag during a December protest.
Ali Alexander, a "Stop the Steal" organizer, has collected $30,000 for a security and administrative team, and Jim Hoft, the founder of Gateway Pundit, has gathered more than $135,000 to investigate alleged voter fraud in Michigan and to "take on the tech giant censorship of conservative voices." Ochs, Alexander, Tarrio and Hoft did not return CNNs requests for comment.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/535000-right-wing-extremists-including-man-arrested-after-capitol-riot-using
DesertGarden
(184 posts)Unfortunately TRUTH has become fungible ,
with "alternate" truths able to gain "equality" in social discourse , ,
. . I am NOT challenging - your point of how the right has learned -
. . . the weaponization of internet funding tools . .
/
. . . just remembering, when I and My parents and their parents , have been socially involved, and some or another right winger - always "called us out" as 'communist dupes ' etc . . and often suggested we had been seeded by billionaire "lefty's"
/
. . .
. . . these are EXTREMELY AUTHORITARIAN extrajudicial government powers ,
. . . that may be necessary - >. . .for EXTREME / EXTREME SITUATIONS . .
/ /
. . . his use here feels to me / like a sign of the governments abandonment of the rule of law - due to a challenge that is admittedly - dangerous and economically harmfull /
/ / /
/ / / I can give you a couple pages worth of "challenges" that have faced our country - that if the leadership were so inclined - -
. . . THIS TYPE OF SUSPENSION of rights - could have been " reasonably"
justified to enough people to pass without challenge - -
/
- - - I suggest - we need to be vigilant to challenge government excess -
. . even when it is against a group, or idea, or protest we condemn . .
. . . CANADAIN AND US governments have LAWS that can be enforced to adress these situations - - WITHOUT opening the slippery slope of - those in power -
. . . SUSPENDING THOSE LAWS < < < AND PROTECTIONS > > >
. . . Listen , I respect you, ALOT, in the short time ive been here -
. . you have shared . wisdom, and leads for learning . . .
. . . that said - - this something , I cant find the "alternate truths" on,
, but since you and so many seem to think I am wrong . . I will re-evaluate . .
Thanks, again : )
Peace
. . .
BumRushDaShow
(127,300 posts)It's always been a dystopian idea, based on historic facts and events, that fascism and total government control of societies, can and has occurred.
But be aware that by having no nuance and going "all or nothing", you then go down the rabbit hole of allowing funding violent extremist groups from any political persuasion. Because. Principles. The KKK or Skinheads or Aryan Nation, should NOT be "funded" if during the "protests" they then engage in violent behavior, which is what happened in Charlottesville with their "Unite the Right" rally -
THAT should not be "funded".
An example that you might recall "from the left" were "The Weathermen" (later "Weather Underground" - a quick recap) who formed in the late '60s and bombed government buildings on and off during the early - mid-'70s. If this type of organization existed today (and no, BLM is not that), then any "funding" for violent actions by them should NOT be supportable.
This is the type of thing we are talking about when it comes to the funding of the latest crowd of armed RWers like the Proud Boys, the 3%ers, and the Oathkeepers to name a few. These are some of the types who have been supporting and even participating in various "Freedom Convoys", and who have been using that GiveSendGo service (where TD bank was one of the funds holders) to fund their activities, and I expect including firearms "for protection" - such as the cache that was confiscated a day or so ago at the border crossing to Alberta -
By Caley Gibson Global News
Posted February 14, 2022 1:09 pm
Updated February 15, 2022 7:27 am
Alberta RCMP said Monday evening they have arrested 13 people in connection to the Coutts border protest in the last 24 hours. RCMP said earlier Monday that 11 people were initially arrested following the seizure of more than dozen long guns, hand guns, ammunition and body armour. The RCMP said they recently became aware of a small organized group within those involved in the larger Coutts border protest. Alberta RCMP Supt. Roberta McKale said its believed the smaller group arrived within days of the initial group of protesters arriving at the border.
The group was said to have a willingness to use force against the police if any attempts were made to disrupt the blockade, RCMP said in a news release. This resulted in an immediate and complex investigation to determine the extent of the threat and criminal organization. A search warrant was executed early Monday morning on three trailers that RCMP allege were associated with the criminal organization. The following items were seized:
13 long guns handguns multiple sets of body armour a machete a large quantity of ammunition high capacity magazines
(snip)
https://globalnews.ca/news/8618494/alberta-coutts-border-protest-weapons-ammunition-seized/
The above happened just north of the Canada / Montana border - https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/us-officials-concerned-as-unrest-continues-at-canadian-border
The "convoys" being planned here in the U.S. are reaching out to these RW groups to fill the ranks -
US freedom convoy inspired by Canada bids to organize for Washington trip
Justin Ling
Mon 14 Feb 2022 08.09 EST
Last modified on Mon 14 Feb 2022 11.58 EST
The effort to launch an American freedom convoy, inspired by the Canadian truckers who have shut down parts of Ottawa for several weeks initially to protest vaccine mandates, is taking shape in a somewhat haphazard fashion. At least three national organizations, and a constellation of regional ones, say they will depart for Washington in early March. One proposed convoy aims to leave from Fresno in California on 2 March, taking the I-10 interstate straight to the capital, where it would arrive on 6 March.
What brings us here tonight is unity, solidarity and a mindset of America, the groups lead organizer, Kip Coltrin, said on a conference call last week. Obviously we have a grievance to address with our politicians, our people in Washington. Another organization, which calls itself the Peoples Convoy, also plans to departin the first week of March from California. That effort is being backed by Freedom Fighter Nation, a far-right conspiracy group led by lawyer Leigh Dundas. A third group, Convoy 4 Freedom, is advertising its own convoy, although its size and organization appears modest in comparison with the others.
(snip)
The motivation of the US convoys appears as fragmented as its organization. Coltrin has said his groups protest will be about everything from the cross-border vaccine mandates for truckers, to rising inflation, to their erroneous belief that electoral fraud cost Donald Trump his re-election. Remember we are not only up against the government, but a $200tn big pharma industry and all its investors, he said. Coltrin has repeatedly shared anti-vaccine misinformation on Facebook, including from the QAnon influencer Praying Medic.
Coltrin said in another video: Patriot Guard Riders, our veterans, come on guys. Three Percenters: come on, guys. Oath Keepers: come on guys. The FBI has laid charges against a number of members of the Three Percenters and the Oath Keepers, including its leader, for their role in the January 6 insurrection. Several participants on the conference call said they were present at the Capitol that day.
(snip)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/14/us-freedom-convoy-canada-covid-vaccine
This is the type of "nuance" that should be used to contrast RW violent loon behavior during their "protests" versus the protests from the left - whether it is the "BLM", "Pro-Choice", "LGBTQA Rights", or "Voting Rights", etc., and any "funding" associated with their activities. And I am not talking about the nebulous "Antifa" nor groups like "Black Bloc", nor am I talking about agent-provocateurs or general melees that often happen during protests with local/non-protest participants who take advantage of the chaos to loot that often plague protests by the left.
"Guns" and "bombs" are NOT "protected speech".
DesertGarden
(184 posts)You make good points,
but i am still opposed to the executive branch waiving constitutional protections , EXCEPT in cases when all normal legal processes have been exhausted, and or the immediacy of a threat requires.
/
He did not exhaust the normal legal means of resolving this problem,
/
He may have felt this was an issue of expediency, and beyond the capacity of
"normal" methods to solve. I disagree with that conclusion.
.
And again, I ask - if this is allowed by a "lib" /
why would anyone not believe it will be used by another "tRump"
he pushed his country over a slippery slope,
imagine all the other laws the leadership might want to suspend,
when it suits their narrative- of necessity - -
/
. . I do remember the weather underground, and others,
My point is - we are a country of laws, and until those laws are shown to have
been followed and exhausted, we should not be suspending them to deal with
difficult situations.
. The laws and constitution "SHOULD" prevent a single leader
from suspending them,
/
These protesters broke many laws / as did every other group you mentioned,
IMHO we - and Trudeau - have sufficient legal means to deal with those who
would break our laws. In fact - in your first paragraph you mentioned 3 racist
groups whose funding you appear willing to extra judiciously prevent or seizing
their funding. . . I ask, why not go thru the courts, i seem to remember hearing
recently courts have been used to bankrupt similar groups.
Finally, you seem to suggest we should use nuance to decide who gets the
protection of the constitution,
/ I would respectfully disagree -
I suggest we should use and follow normal legal process.
Otherwise, the law will not be applied equally,
it could swing with the political winds .
Just my $ .02 / = opinions, / and we all know what that's worth
Thanks again,
peace
BumRushDaShow
(127,300 posts)You make good points,
but i am still opposed to the executive branch waiving constitutional protections , EXCEPT in cases when all normal legal processes have been exhausted, and or the immediacy of a threat requires.
I have no idea what the "Constitution" is in Canada (I suppose I could google it and dive in), but Canada is a "Constitutional Monarchy" (part of the UK's "Commonwealth" countries who recognize the Queen of England as their head) so I don't know how they work it vs the United States that has no such "monarch" system.
/
He may have felt this was an issue of expediency, and beyond the capacity of
"normal" methods to solve. I disagree with that conclusion.
Again - are you familiar with the legal functioning of Canada's system? It's not the same as the U.S. They have a Parliament with MPs, etc., and that is uniquely and directly tied in with their Executive
.
why would anyone not believe it will be used by another "tRump"
he pushed his country over a slippery slope,
imagine all the other laws the leadership might want to suspend,
when it suits their narrative- of necessity -
You are trying to associate Trudeau's role as "Prime Minister" - which is NOT a position that is "popularly elected" (through electors) like the U.S., but is done through how many are elected as MPs to their Parliament, with an occasional need to tap the support of other parties to form a coalition government to reach a "majority", and then agree to a Prime Minister. In this case, that position is the literal "leader of the party" or "coalition of parties" (vs here where The President is sortof a de facto "leader" of the party who helped to elect them but is STILL separate from the parties that run for and control Congress).
In the U.S., the Legislative Branch party infrastructure and percentages elected, is moot with respect to the Executive Branch (i.e., the President), and each operates independently. I.e., a President of the U.S. is NOT selected based on which party gains the majority in Congress.
So in Canada's case, with the Liberal Party having gained the majority in Parliament, they automatically ALSO have a Liberal Prime Minister who campaigned for the party to win seats. Thus at their national level , they have one party rule (sometimes including smaller parties who also might win seats - I think dubbed "back benchers" in the UK for example, who coalesced to bring enough to have a "majority" ).
HOWEVER they have Provincial governments as well (like our state governments) where the Premiers are elected within the Provinces based on the outcome of the Legislative Assemblies and reflect the voters there. The same thing happens as happens at the national level - the "head" of the party that gets the most seats in their Legislative Assembly elections, becomes the Premier. So in Canada's case, several of the Provinces, including Ontario and Alberta, have conservative parties in the majority (e.g., Ontario's "Progressive Conservative Party" and Alberta's "United Conservative Party" (which includes the merged Alberta Alliance and Wildrose parties, both conservative) in coalition with their "Progressive Conservative Party" ).
So I expect that generally, the Provinces do their own thing however if something happens where the national government needed to intervene, then they invoke the authorities to do that, and I expect anything that impacts "international", is something that would be of interest to the national government.
My point is - we are a country of laws, and until those laws are shown to have
been followed and exhausted, we should not be suspending them to deal with
difficult situations.
. The laws and constitution "SHOULD" prevent a single leader
from suspending them,
Again - you are conflating what Canada can and chose to do based on their legal system vs the U.S.
IMHO we - and Trudeau - have sufficient legal means to deal with those who
would break our laws. In fact - in your first paragraph you mentioned 3 racist
groups whose funding you appear willing to extra judiciously prevent or seizing
their funding. . . I ask, why not go thru the courts, i seem to remember hearing
recently courts have been used to bankrupt similar groups.
But again - you are conflating what is considered "legal" in another country to what is "legal" in the United States. Don't look at "party affiliations" and/or political leanings there versus here. Apparently THEIR laws allow for what Trudeau did.
Hunting around, BBC has an article that describes Canada's "National Emergencies Act" -
Published
2 hours ago
(snip)
What is the Emergencies Act?
The Emergencies Act, passed in 1988, bestows the government with added powers in times of national crisis. The situation must meet a high bar, specifically an "urgent and critical situation" that "seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians". And Cabinet may only invoke the legislation if the emergency cannot be addressed by any existing federal law and if it exceeds the capacity of the provinces to handle it effectively.
The Emergencies Act outlines four different types of emergencies: public welfare emergencies, public order emergencies, international emergencies and war emergencies. If the legislation is invoked this week, it will likely be under the 'public order' category. Again, the criteria here is strict - lawful protests do not qualify. Instead, the situation must be considered a threat to the security of Canada, as defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. This law outlines four possible scenarios:
Espionage or sabotage Foreign-influenced activities Threats or use of acts of serious violence for political, religious or ideological objectives Covert, unlawful acts intended to undermine or overthrow the constitutionally established government
It is so far unclear which scenario Mr Trudeau would rely on to justify the use of the Emergency Act - none of these four scenarios have been clearly present in Ontario. To invoke the law, the prime minister must also consult with the premiers of any impacted provinces before putting the move before Parliament. If the act does not pass a vote there, the proclamation will be revoked.
On Monday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said he would support the federal government and "any proposals they have to bring law and order back to our province". The premier of Quebec, Francois Legault, told reporters he didn't want to see the act applied in his province.
(snip)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60381096
So based on the above, the Prime Minister (Trudeau) is NOT unilaterally invoking anything as a sole authority. He has had to not only consult with the affected Provinces but must also consult with the Parliament, who can vote to deny the authority. In addition - per the above-linked article (but not excerpted there), these "powers" granted by the Act are only in effect for 30 days.
Per a NYT article that clarifies some of the steps, you have this indicating their Parliament has a week to vote on this declaration -
Published Feb. 14, 2022 Updated Feb. 15, 2022, 11:47 a.m. ET
(snip)
The invocation of the Emergencies Act confers enormous temporary powers on the federal government, allowing it to do what is necessary, including overriding civil rights, to restore public order, for example, banning public assemblies or restricting travel to and from specific areas. But Mr. Trudeau stressed repeatedly that the act would not be used to suspend fundamental rights.
We are not limiting peoples freedom of speech, Mr. Trudeau said. We are not limiting freedom of peaceful assembly. We are not preventing people from exercising their right to protest legally.
While the prime minister and the cabinet can invoke the act whenever they see fit if the security of Canada is deemed under threat, the decision must then be approved by Parliament within a week.
(snip)
Dan Bilefsky and Ian Austen
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/14/world/canada-protests-news/as-traffic-resumes-on-crucial-border-crossing-ottawa-remains-snarled
From a CBC article, you have this with further detail on what can be done -
Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Feb 14, 2022 7:54 AM ET | Last Updated: 12 hours ago
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he's invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canada's history to give the federal government temporary powers to handle ongoing blockades and protests against pandemic restrictions. "It is now clear that there are serious challenges to law enforcement's ability to effectively enforce the law," Trudeau told a news conference Monday afternoon. "It is no longer a lawful protest at a disagreement over government policy. It is now an illegal occupation. It's time for people to go home." Trudeau said the measures will be geographically targeted and "reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address."
The unprecedented deployment of the Emergencies Act gives police more tools to restore order in places where public assemblies constitute illegal and dangerous activities, such as blockades and occupations, he said. Trudeau said the act also will enable the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws and provincial offences where required. "This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people's jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions," he said. The government is also designating and securing critical areas such as border crossings and airports. Invoking the act will also allow the government to make sure that essential services such as towing services to remove trucks are rendered, said Trudeau.
(snip)
Massive financial implications
The federal government is also going after financial support for illegal activity associated with the convoy protest. Convoy organizers have raised millions of dollars. They raised money first through the GoFundMe crowdfunding site. When GoFundMe shut the fundraising campaign down, organizers pivoted to the Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said that under the Emergencies Act, crowdfunding platforms and the payment service providers they use must register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), the national financial intelligence agency.
They must also report large and suspicious transactions to FINTRAC. "The illegal blockades have highlighted the fact that crowdfunding platforms, and some of the payment service providers they use, are not fully captured under the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act," she said. "We are making these changes because we know that these platforms are being used to support illegal blockades and illegal activity which is damaging the Canadian economy." Canadian financial institutions can now temporarily cease providing financial services if the institution suspects an account is being used to further the illegal blockades and occupations, said Freeland. "This order covers both personal and corporate accounts," she said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-premiers-cabinet-1.6350734
So based on the above with invocation of this Act, any fund-raising entities are required to register with their Financial Transactions Center and follow the guidelines required by that entity to continue to operate in the country. Meaning that their money is not being unilaterally "taken away" forever but requires that any Canadian-based organizations using these entities to raise money, be on a platform that is "registered" with the Canadian authorities. So once that is done, then TD (which by the way, stands for "Toronto-Dominion Bank", a multinational Canadian bank that has a presence in the U.S.) would probably "un-freeze" the funds if everything else is in order and legal.
The problem with the nuts who run GiveSendGo is that they flipped Canada the finger and the (private) Canadian bank that hosted their funds (TD) froze them pending their ability to verify the legalities of the funds use.
protection of the constitution,
/ I would respectfully disagree -
I suggest we should use and follow normal legal process.
Otherwise, the law will not be applied equally,
it could swing with the political winds .
And I ask, who is "we"? The United States is not Canada (despite the fact that we have a baseball team and hockey teams that share the same leagues between the two ).
Again - you need to know what someone else's "Constitution" says because the United States is the most unique of any in the world. In fact, in the U.S., "private" corporations, although generally under some kind of federal regulation, usually have a say as to how they will serve their customers outside of any government interference. We have seen that enough with going to the SCOTUS to uphold who Congress has deemed as "protected classes" of people and there are quite a few still out there who are part of that group who are "protected' yet are abused, as well as those not considered "protected" but should be, and who are ripe for facing the same type of discrimination by private entities.
You can't always be a "literalist" when it comes to the Constitution here in the U.S.
PurgedVoter
(2,191 posts)Trump did have the power to hit peoples accounts though. All he had to do was declare a legitimate organization that actually existed a terrorist organization and then all the members and donors could have had their credit frozen and even taken.
I suspect that the only reason he didn't stop peoples credit was the fear by his owners that if he did, that might open the way to having the rich hung out to dry.
Besides, Trump was able to steal money, keep things, destroy papers, put Supreme Court Justices in that he shouldn't have and provoke violence. I am sure he was warming up and as soon as he could be declared "President for Life," and set up the government leadership to go to his children, he would have really gotten started, but death sentences would have gone along with the confiscation of property.
Also, DesertGarden, typing in all caps like this is not the best way to convince us that your arguments are solid.
DesertGarden
(184 posts)I actually think those around tRump may not have shared . .
all the "secret" - emergency powers the executive here has access to . . and I cant imagine he would be capable of searching thru dry legalese , all classified so high he couldnt get his 'hacks" to help him sort thru . .
/
anyway , thanks for the gentle advice - I get TOTALLY carried away sometimes : )
,
peace
DesertGarden
(184 posts)I actually think those around tRump may not have shared . .
all the "secret" - emergency powers the executive here has access to . . and I cant imagine he would be capable of searching thru dry legalese , all classified so high he couldnt get his 'hacks" to help him sort thru . .
/
anyway , thanks for the gentle advice - I get TOTALLY carried away sometimes : )
,
peace
PurgedVoter
(2,191 posts)A drug bust can take your house, your credit, everything. Right now, a dishonest DA can take your computer, "Find" the wrong thing on it and your life is eternally over. (Some of this is not as bad as it was a few years back but it is still pretty scary.)
If you do ever prove you are innocent, you still may have lost years of life. You may end up being able to sue, but the officers and officials who cheated you out of your lost life will never lose a thing.
Don Siegelman is a good example of what can happen to you and evidence that fascism is hardly new to the Republican party.
When folk on the Democratic side pursue justice it is common for the Republican fascists to threaten revenge. From all evidence, they should be ignored, if they are threatening something, they are already planning to do it.
There are a lot of times a judge can make a ruling and temporarily freeze your assets and there are judgments where it is permanent. If you flee, rob folk, lie in a divorce, etc... You can lose your rights to your money quickly. If you carry too much money it can be taken and you have to prove your right to own it and you might not ever see it anyway. If you are rich, you can manage money with banks in other countries. Bitcoin I suspect would be long gone if it were not such a good way to preserve assets from government seizure.
The lesson here is that we need honest government. We cannot afford mean government. We cannot afford big money controlling government. Right now we just have to keep our heads down to avoid the hammer. That is no way to live, but to be honest, I am white so while I might think things are bad now, anyone with broader experience and darker skin would tell me, and be correct to tell me, it's always been that way.
mysteryowl
(7,323 posts)You helped me understand and think about the ramifications.
This is huge and not a good idea.
I am now concerned that the world has heard of his 'idea' and we may see this pop-up again now.
EX500rider
(10,528 posts)Speaking on Monday, Canada's Justice Minister David Lametti argued these conditions had been met.
But the Canadian Civil Liberties Association disagreed, warning that the move "threatens our democracy and our civil liberties".
Roisin Ni Fiachra
(2,574 posts)The most effective way to kill fascism is to prevent those who fund it from funding it.
In the US, a fascist SCOTUS approved Citizen's United, legalizing unlimited funding of fascists and fascist interests by enormously wealthy fascists.
Wesley Barnett was just as surprised as anyone to learn from news reports that the Jan. 6 Trump rally that turned into a violent assault on the U.S. Capitol was funded by Julia Jenkins Fancelli, an heiress to the fortune of the popular Publix supermarket chain. But Barnett had extra cause for being startled: Fancelli is his aunt.
Barnett said he was at a loss to explain how his aunt who isnt on social media, lives part time in Italy and keeps a low profile in their central Florida town got mixed up with the likes of Alex Jones and Ali Alexander, the right-wing provocateurs who were VIPs at the Jan. 6 rally in front of the White House.
Over the last five years, it has become clear that former President Donald Trump has activated a new set of mega-donors who were not previously big spenders in national politics. Some of the donors appear to share the more extreme views of many Trump supporters, based on social media posts promoting falsehoods about election fraud or masks and vaccines. Whether they will deepen their involvement or step back, and whether their giving will extend to candidates beyond Trump, will have an outsized role in steering the future of the Republican Party and even American democracy.
ProPublica identified 29 people and couples who increased their political contributions at least tenfold since 2015, based on an analysis of Federal Election Commission records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. The donors in the table below gave at least $1 million to Trump and the GOP after previously having spent less than $1 million total. Most of the donations went to super PACs supporting Trump or to the Trump Victory joint fundraising vehicle that spread the money among his campaign and party committees.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-spawned-a-new-group-of-mega-donors-who-now-hold-sway-over-gops-future
qallunat
(16 posts)Hi all. Canadian here. I live in Ottawa, FWIW, and work a few blocks South of the occupation. Many of us are of two minds about this. first, the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) has shown themselves to be either nothing more than thugs with guns or complete incompetents. As someone who has attended several protests in the city, I can confirm that the OPS are not shrinking violets when it comes to instigating violence in full riot gear if the protesters are racially diverse and peaceful.
Both Quebec City and Toronto managed to avoid paralysis of their cities. Collusion between the OPS and the convoy has been well-documented.
While it's deliciously ironic that protesters championing "freedom" have resulted in the the PM instituting what may be the potentially serious--this word is key for the moment-- abrogation of civil liberties since his father, some might say that several factors make this this an understandable response if you step back and view this situation as a country government faced with:
1. An occupation of the capital city and several sites critical for the economic functioning of the country. This is a form of sabotage and, if we consider that the mayor has caved into demands and allowed trucks to park in front of Parliament (think about the World trade Center for a moment), any country's security apparatus should be taking this situation seriously.
2. Let's throw into the mix, the fact that the occupation force has operational and intelligence support from members of several municipal and provincial police service members, as well as at least two members of our elite Special Forces unit (JTF2) and a few retired federal law-enforcement agents, including Trudeau's former head of security, and a pretty troubling picture emerges.
3. Several sitting parliamentarians have expressed sympathy for the stated goals of this occupation (one of which was the overturning of a fair democratic election- sound familiar?), plus the influx of substantial amounts of foreign funding and public support from foreign seditionists (Tucker Carlson and Ted cruz come immediately to mind) and we appear to have an international movement to destabilise a democratic government. Trudeau, as the head of that government, is invoking a law that seeks to fight a credible internal threat to the rule of law.
For the record, I did not, and never would vote for Justin Trudeau or any Liberal, but that is another discussion. Nonetheless, I think we need to frame this situation as, not a grassroots demonstration against government overreach on public health measures, but rather, as a trial balloon being floated to assess the viability of an approach to sedition and an interrogation of the amount of public support similarly motivated actions might have in the future. Worrying stuff!
On the other hand, though the motivations of the organizers may be in line with the national security/democracy in jeopardy frame, maybe the actual effect is just of a terrorist LARP that got out of control. I will say I know people in Ottawa who have been beaten for wearing masks, subjected to racist verbal attacks and some who are afraid to leave their apartments, to say nothing of the stress of the noise and exhaust fumes that have made living in the Market and downtown centre living hell.
If that is true, then the Emergencies Act is too much too soon because the OPS had the legal and logistiacl tools to deal with the situation and the citizens of Ottawa are entitled to know why they failed us. Invoking the Emergencies Act unecessarily puts our civil liberties at risk (the points above about government being able to cut off funding/freeze accounts of any protest group is especially worrying), just whitewashes a systemic rot in at least one municipal police force and hides the issue of accountability of our provincial and municipal leaders to the people they were elected to serve.
Anyway, just some thoughts. Gonna join the counter-protests this weeked.