[franey]

For people not familiar with Canadian politics, this summary missed some important nuance. Bank accounts were frozen for some people who donated money to support an illegal occupation of part of Canada's capital city, Ottawa. The occupation was a mix of people protesting COVID measures and others demanding that Justin Trudeau resign.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-bank-measures-fin...

[xyzzyz]

Yes, the people with power to declare stuff illegal can always say that whatever you’re doing is illegal before freezing your bank account. Was your comment meant to reassure me?

[franey]

It wasn't, no. It was meant to clarify for other readers that people didn't have their bank accounts frozen for protesting COVID; they had their bank accounts frozen for financially supporting or participating in an illegal occupation of a city centre.

Your point stands that governments/courts decide what is illegal and that they have the power to freeze bank accounts when those accounts are used to fund illegal activities.

[justahuman74]

> Bank accounts were frozen for some people who donated money

That seems like an incredibly disproportionate response, and makes me think that Canadian banks really are unsafe

[naniwaduni]

> Bank accounts were frozen for some people who donated money to support an illegal occupation of part of Canada's capital city, Ottawa. The occupation was a mix of people protesting COVID measures and others demanding that Justin Trudeau resign.

There's certainly ... nuance you're taking for granted in declaring a mix of political protest and political protest illegal.

[franey]

We're getting pretty off topic, but it wasn't what they were protesting that was illegal, it was how they did it. For a US comparison, First Amendment rights don't include a right to occupy city streets for weeks, even if you're doing it to protest the government.

[gruez]

>Bank accounts were frozen for some people who donated money to support an illegal occupation of part of Canada's capital city, Ottawa.

Were they a designated criminal group at the time of donation? It seems strange to go after the donors rather than freezing the bank accounts of the recipients. The way I see it, there are only two possibilities:

1. the groups in question were declared criminal organizations, and therefore their bank accounts should be frozen and future donations should be blocked/banned

2. the groups in question weren't declared criminal organizations, and therefore it should be okay to donate to them.

[engineer_22]

>1. the groups in question were declared criminal organizations, and therefore their bank accounts should be frozen and future donations should be blocked/banned

Should criminals be denied all access to the financial system?

Even if the criminal is not receiving money for criminal cause?

Do criminals have the right to buy food?

[engineer_22]

Are they criminals without a trial?

[Georgelemental]

To add more important nuance, people had their bank accounts frozen without them being convicted or even charged with a crime.

[ameixaseca]

Please read the article and avoid the spread of more misinformation. Donor names were NOT provided by the RCMP. The frozen accounts were holding funds that were donated:

> In a statement released Monday, the RCMP said it only provided banks with the names of convoy organizers and the owners of trucks who had refused to leave the protest area. The RCMP said it did not release an exhaustive list of every donation made.

> "At no time did we provide a list of donors to financial institutions," the statement said.

The only reports of accounts being indiscriminately frozen came from hearsay:

> Some Conservative MPs have said constituents have reported that their bank accounts were frozen after they made donations to the convoy protest through one of its crowdfunding campaigns.

Most of the reports were fictitious constituents that "lost bank account access to buy groceries". Nobody was able to independently confirm any of these claims.