>And the emergencies act is being challenged in court, which will determine if this is lawful.

The difference is that in liberal democracies, the executive branches has to convince a court before they can act. eg. getting a warrant before doing a search, or getting a conviction before imprisoning someone. The approach of "shoot first, you can sue us in court later" makes a mockery of this.

>Banks are private entities. They freeze accounts engaged in illegal activities regularly. The US does too - here's one random citation. [1]

They're both bad. This is just slightly worse because the government is directing businesses into targeting their political enemies.

In this case the executive didn't do any convincing, the legislature did. It's a parliamentary system - the executive is an extension of the legislature.

> The difference is that in liberal democracies, the executive branches has to convince a court before they can act. eg. getting a warrant before doing a search, or getting a conviction before imprisoning someone. The approach of "shoot first, you can sue us in court later" makes a mockery of this.

Uh no, not really. I'm going to presume you're comparing with the US. Do you forget that the US kidnapped, imprisoned and murdered random people, including American citizens without any judicial oversight? Not to mention sweeping surveillance with laughable pretense of judicial oversight ( FISA courts)?

Executive branches have lots of power, and that power is controlled via checks and balances, the judicial and legislative branches ( in many countries the executive branch' power comes from the legislative and is directly beholden to it ( where PMs are sitting MPs)).

>Uh no, not really. I'm going to presume you're comparing with the US. Do you forget that the US kidnapped, imprisoned and murdered random people, including American citizens without any judicial oversight? Not to mention sweeping surveillance with laughable pretense of judicial oversight ( FISA courts)?

And? That's just as bad. I'm saying canada's actions are bad because they go against how liberal democracies should work, not against how the US works in practice

>Executive branches have lots of power

That's exactly why I'm concerned.

>and that power is controlled via checks and balances, the judicial and legislative branches ( in many countries the executive branch' power comes from the legislative and is directly beholden to it ( where PMs are sitting MPs)).

And 9/11 in the US shows how easily the populace can be convinced to abandon those liberal democracy ideals given a threat.

The key here is that these people are not engaged in illegal activities or even accused of engaging in illegal activities before their accounts are frozen and before they have been given any chance to defend themselves. Rapists and murderers don’t even get treated this badly. They are treating them like terrorists.

> The key here is that these people are not engaged in illegal activities or even accused of engaging in illegal activities before their accounts are frozen

What stood out the most about these protests, vs most other large protests in recent Canadian history, is how many warnings the participants received. They were told time and time and time again by every party involved that their conduct was illegal - from the police as well as from municipal, provincial, and federal level. They were even given a court injunction against certain specific actions (horn honking), which was largely ignored after the first 24 hrs. They were engaged in illegal activities for weeks before this action was taken.

That has nothing to do with freezing accounts of donors, or blocking donations.

> That has nothing to do with freezing accounts of donors, or blocking donations.

Yes, it does. The donations were specifically to fund an activity that had been deemed illegal. Similar to the other things tracked by FINTRAC.

I have seen only one claim of a donor being targeted, and quite frankly, I didn't trust the source, but it is possible. The RCMP issued a statement [1] yesterday clarifying that the only information they had provided to banks was regarding organizers and trucks blocking the street (both groups were made explicitly aware that their behaviour was illegal and would have consequences).

[1] https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en...

But they are engaged in illegal activities, which you can find with a cursory Google search. And blocking borders and pipelines can arguably be classified as economic terrorism.

They are fully welcome to protest peacefully, on foot, in front of parliament like everyone else.

>But they are engaged in illegal activities, which you can find with a cursory Google search.

So were rapists and murderers, but even they have a right to a fair trial.

That has nothing to do with freezing accounts of donors, or blocking donations.

Donating money is illegal?

Yes, donating money can be illegal depending on what it is being donated to. Here[1]'s a list of financial transactions that would be tracked in Canada.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Transactions_and_Rep...

Banks freeze accounts under the effective duress and cover of the government, because freezing money is stealing money from someone, even if you (might) give it back one day. If they didn't have the cover of the government then they would be under a ton of liability.

Much like how taking someone's car, even if you plan to give it back one day, maybe, if you think they deserve it, is still theft.

Because banks do it under duress, it's really the government that is doing this, not the bank itself.

Where is towing tresspassing cars illegal?

A better analogy would be: you park your car illegally, and the city then goes into your home and takes all your possessions without due process.