Trudeau vows to freeze anti-mandate protesters' bank accounts

[BumRushDaShow]

38. Let me break this down

Mark my words, His action will EMPOWER the most dangerous in both our countries.

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 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.

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
.

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 -

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.

. . 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,

Again - you are conflating what Canada can and chose to do based on their legal system vs the U.S.

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.

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" -

Canada trucker protest: What powers will Emergencies Act give Trudeau?

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 -

Trudeau takes rare step of invoking national emergency to quell the protests.

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 people’s 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 -

Federal government invokes Emergencies Act for first time ever in response to protests, blockades



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.

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 .

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.