My claim is that when evaluating when an authority's actions were reasonable, we should lend little to no credence to statements by that same authority claiming the actions were reasonable, especially when it is impossible to verify even who exactly was targeted, let alone why.

As a contrasting case, if a police department arrested some people during a protest and released a statement about why, a journalist could verify that against the public records and even follow along the criminal proceedings. How can we verify claims made by the RCMP about their extrajudicial actions?

But that's not what happened? The authority did not come out and say "we did this and we were right to do so!", they came out and said "this did not happen".

Do we know there's no public records in this case?

I think there might be, the banks aren't in individually being contacted, I'm pretty sure they would have been added to one of the public sanction lists here: https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_re...

In this case, the statement was backed up by an ADM in front of a parliamentary committee. If she lied, someone will be able to show proof of that. At minimum, it would end her career.

Why assume she lied until there is proof?

The claim isn’t that broad. The democratic model of society has never trusted executive government to dispense justice unilaterally. Having due process and an open system of courts is a mandatory feature of the democratic society, and when a government decides to suspend those safeguards, that governments own commentary about how little harm it’s decisions are causing do not have any credibility.

Not a single charter right has been overridden. Every act undertaken under the EA is on the official record (available to the opposition parties). Parliament can revoke or partially revoke any component of the EA at any juncture. Then it has a followup discussion/analysis phase built in.

Let's be clear -- there is no silencing component to this act. If someone has unfairly seen their accounts frozen, do a tell-all sad tale to every media outlet you can find. Rant on twitter. Share those Facebook pages. There are plenty of outlets that would love it. There are political parties who would make this their battle cry, using it to seal their own ascension.

But there isn't a single case. Not one. No sad tales. Now accounts have been frozen -- we know that for sure -- but the people whose accounts have been frozen have been organizers and direct participants. People who knew what was coming and had literally weeks of warning to stop or face consequences. There isn't a lot of sympathy there. But the poor waitress in some small town who gave $20...boy, that story will give this country a new government.

Yet...where is it?

> Nobody called the EA when BLM was destroying businesses

You've mentioned BLM multiple times. BLM protests in Canada were a momentary point event and the total sum of damage was minuscule (not the "billions" you claimed in another post). Why would the EA or SoE be called for a momentary event? One that isn't making promises about not leaving. Of "holding the line". Sorry, your own rhetoric and bombast got used against you.

A single day of the Windsor bridge blockade eclipsed that total in damages by magnitudes. As did a single day of the Ottawa insurrection. They might not have been breaking windows, but the damage was enormous. The cost to businesses, in policing, and to commerce was enormous. Now add that the convoy and its supporters were openly advocating terroristic threats against service providers that cooperate with the police (e.g. towing companies), which it should be noted is itself an incredibly serious crime, but that just got normalized.

> Or this tweet by the Ottawa Police?

Are you referring to the sadly pathetic lawyer basically police-car-chasing for clients to grift? Because you know the Ottawa Police tweet was spot on. Just as they gave plenty of warnings. And just to be clear, it is critically important that defense lawyers and civil liberty groups push the government and fight for every right, but citing this guy and his obvious grift, or his pander-to-the-crowd "but you can't do that!!!" routine, is not convincing.

As a protip, when you put dozens of links -- most of them completely unconvincing nonsense -- in your posts, it just looks crazy. It doesn't make your point.

Being able to audit the government requires being able to know what the government is doing, not just what the government says it's doing.