The canadian government declared an emergency under the emergencies act. The act enables the government to make any orders or regulations, so there is no need to go through the court.

So it's not abuse then? If it was done according to law.

Vienna’s jews were rounded up into camps perfectly legally according to the Law. I don’t think this is a route you really want to go down.

If you're claiming that a government is abusing its power because it froze some funds, and it turns out it was done according to law, then the accusation is unsubstantiated. Maybe it was abusing its power, but we haven't been shown any evidence. And the burden of proof is on you to show that it was an abuse of power.

The government used emergency powers designed to be used in case of war for dealing with peaceful protesters. The previous act was only used during WW1, WW2, and during the October Crisis by Trudeau's alleged father, which is also the reason the powers were watered down.

Canada's democracy slip up was criticized in the EU: https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-n...

> the burden of proof is on you

Which is impossible because the government explicitly said they won't be transparent and that all the charges are secret:

> Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen."

-- https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-...

> Freeland said she would not give "specifics of whose accounts are being frozen."

Freeland did say that they would be freezing the donators as well in the original videos.

The more egregious comment was by David Lamenti. He's a lawyer and law professor. He knows the law. His comments are not a gaffe and not out of context or anything. This is not him pulling the wrong insult out of his bag. He spoke clearly and he meant every little bit of the comment.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/trudeau-minister-threat...

The CTV guy is even like wtf.

Days later the RCMP disavowed being involved and urgently worked to unfreeze those bank accounts.

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

That is a pretty high bar for abuse you have there. Emergency acts are typically meant for governments to react quickly to unprecedented situations where not all eventualities can be forseen and covered by laws. This means that they are grant very broad powers that considered unacceptable under normal conditions and thus any use of those powers is potential abuse. What is abuse and what dis not allowed are two entirely different things.

>If you're claiming that a government is abusing its power because it froze some funds, and it turns out it was done according to law, then the accusation is unsubstantiated. Maybe it was abusing its power, but we haven't been shown any evidence. And the burden of proof is on you to show that it was an abuse of power.

This is kind of the argument that Gerald Butts made. That technically parliament approved this misuse of power. In a way you are right. Here's the problem.

The Canadian media represented the protest as a bunch of nazis and maga military occupying ottawa and loooking to over throw the government.

The NYTimes thought it was the best story ever. They put boots on the ground and said... wait we don't really agree with the goal of the protest but it's a legitimate protest. That using force to end the protest would be wrong. That in a democracy protests are going to be annoying but these must be left to exist.

They are right. There can never be an exception to the charter right of peaceful protest. Right now, what the conservatives in Canada have been told is that they do not have the right to protest. They will simply declare another national emergency, seize bank accounts, and arrest them on 'mischief' charges.

So now what happens? The conservatives cant peacefully protest... media is smearing them to propaganda levels.

You can still do roaming protests where you keep moving making stopping the protest difficult to do. I suspect these kinds of protests will get tiresome.

Eventually you just say, ok, peaceful isn't allowed. Other than peaceful is our new option.

Yes, it's perfectly legal and done according to law.

There are some oversights. Under the Emergencies Act, the Parliament and the Senate get to confirm the use of the act. What surprised people were the fact that the action of voting down the use of the act will trigger an election, and parties didn't want an election. [1]

[1]: https://windsorstar.com/news/canada/mps-to-vote-tonight-on-w...

In same way that the patriot act is legal, yes.

So we cannot deem past slavery abusive, then? According to law, after all.

>Are you sure this is abuse? My guess is a judge ordered the accounts to be frozen.

That's kind of the problem. No judge was ever involved. The emergency act was deployed by Trudeau, they seized bank accounts and arrested legitimate peaceful protesters. Tyrannically crushing a legitimate protest just because ~70 semi trucks were illegally parked in ottawa.

Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center and harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me. They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings. That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion. I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time. Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent.

Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed. Tiananmen Square was crushed (literally), US civil rights protests were crushed with firehouses and dogs, etc. The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest.

>Shutting down a protest because it completely shut down a major city center

It did not do this at all. When I zoom in on Ottawa and ignore gatineau. I would assert the city center is say UofOttwa to the east side, if not all the way to the rideau. Maybe kowloon market, china town, little italy, centretown west is the west side. With a southern spot of maybe the 417 highway?

What did the protest block? You'll have to zoom it significant more. It blocked what wellington and queen for 2 blocks? It did absolutely nothing to 90% of the city centre.

To suggest a protest at parliament hill is 'completely shutting down the major city center' is absurd.

> harassed locals for weeks seems like a totally legitimate use of government power to me.

Ok, fine, so we set the precedent that you agree with. You're fine with future governments crushing legitimate protests under the same misrepresentations as well? Afterall, how much conservative protests are there? Pretty rare. We're going to be crushing left-wing protest for the most part.

>They also blocked a major bridge border crossing and attempted to block other border crossings.

Did they? Which bridge in Ottawa did they block? Or do you mean ambassador bridge which is a related but unconnected protest. This blockade ended before the emergency act was ever implemented. We are talking about Trudeau crushing a legitimate protest in ottawa. The emergency act was used for ONLY ottawa, took them days to even do anything.

>That makes them less of a protest and more a rebellion.

A rebellion! Oh wow. A peaceful protest in front of parliament with bouncy castles and hottub is a rebellion. I guess they just never quite got around to the rebelling part...

I honestly didnt even see the canadian media label them a rebellion. Sure even doug ford called them a military occupation. But rebellion!

>I can’t think of a single country in the world which would allow an absolutely tiny minority to shut down border crossings for extended periods of time.

People linked Trudeau being in favour of the extremely violent hong kong riots and the only marginally violent farmer protests in india. Yet he refused to even talk to them once. Couldnt even send a staffer to go talk to the protest once.

I would hope ANY government would be forced to talk to a protest at least once before declaring national emergency and crushing them with force.

>Preventing trade to that extent is arguably a form of violence; using horns in residential areas late at night is definitely violent.

Oh wow, we are even redefining what violence is. Why are you doing this? There's a clear reason. The protesters have the right to 'peaceful protest'. You are required to redefine 'violence' in order to invalidate their charter rights. I see what you are doing.

You are even redefining what a residential area is. For the record... you have to go about 4 blocks or more away from the protest to get to the first residential building. Where they were parked is not residential at all. Census data is public. The protest was never 'harassing residents'. At most they were 'harassing counter protesters' which is what it is.

>Also “crushing” a protest usually involves lots more violence then was employed.

Now you're redefining crushing?

>The actions of the Canadian government seem anodyne to any government I’ve heard described as “crushing” a protest.

Crushing means 'to subdue completely' or 'oppress grievously'. Well the day before they gave the emergency act back. There was not a single protester in ottawa and parliament hill. They subdued the protest completely. AKA they crushed a peaceful protest.

There's a reason why Bill Maher called Trudeau Hitler right before he crushed a peaceful protest. After he tyrannically crushed the protest and made protesting illegal for conservatives. Bill Maher seems to be saying that Trudeau = Hitler.

You guessed wrong.