[HappySweeney]

While I agree with most of this and oppose this bill, your last two lines are a mischaracterization. There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented. Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today. In general, protests do not engage in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn for 16 to 20 hours a day. The account seizure also required emergency powers.

[alexandre_m]

Emergency powers which were deemed as unreasonable and violated the charter rights by admission of the Federal court.

I can't believe that people are defending that.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlm...

[incomingpain]

There is not judicial oversight. You never know there was an order.

If you get into that scenario, you suspect the government cut you off, but you go to a lawyer and have literally nothing. The court will not take the case.

>econd, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors,

They seized hundreds of accounts; later had the banks terminate the bank accounts.

In fact, not only protestors but people who donated to the protest got their bank accounts seized.

>as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today.

Protesting the government, in front of parliament is mischief? Political prisoners.

>n general, protests do not engage in torturing the local populace with 95db of air horn for 16 to 20 hours a day. The account seizure also required emergency powers.

Which was found to be unconstitutional.

But Bill C8 wont be abused by this same government? How about abuse in the future by other governments?

[mulr00ney]

> In fact, not only protestors but people who donated to the protest got their bank accounts seized.

As far as I can tell accounts were frozen, not seized. Do you have a reference for donor accounts being seized?

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

[digitalPhonix]

> There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented

How would one find out information about the process, find a lawyer etc. without internet access?

[halJordan]

Why is this question somehow a non-sequitor? Many court proceedings are now mandatory zoom meetings. How do you participate in a zoom meeting when the state has barred you. It's a clear catch-22 and the refusal to address it beyond "thats not the intention" is beyond galling.

[busymom0]

> The account seizure also required emergency powers.

Court ruled the use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-cou...

> Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors

Wrong. Many people whose accounts were frozen were family/friends who were not even at the protest.

Court found:

> The judge said the economic orders infringed on protesters' freedom of expression "as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace." He also concluded the economic orders violated protesters' Charter rights "by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts."

[zahlman]

> Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today.

"There were arrests, therefore this was not a valid protest" is a very dangerous argument to be making, and I furthermore strongly doubt that you would apply this standard consistently to causes you endorse.

[gruez]

> There is judicial oversight, but only after the order is implemented

In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government?

> Second, the bank accounts seized did not belong to protestors, as the leaders of that siege were convicted of mischief, two of which are being sentenced today.

Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?

[HappySweeney]

> In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged?

That's a good question. The article doesn't say and I haven't read the bill.

> Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?

Before, of course. That was one of the justifications for invoking the emergency powers, and it wouldn't have been controversial otherwise. This is a digression, though, as there is no mention of any legislative changes to bank account seizures in the article.

[bawolff]

> In the sense that you can sue to have the order challenged? How's this different than what Trump's doing, where the government does something illegal (or at least legally dubious), and there's "judicial oversight" because aggrieved parties can sue the government?

Umm,that's how court systems work in general. You sue when someone wrongs you. I'm not sure how else it could possibly work.

> Were the bank accounts seized before or after the conviction?

This is a different topic, but there were 2 different bank account freezes. Some were frozen due to a contempt of court order (this didn't involve the government, a private citizen brought the lawsuit). The more controversial was the emergency powers seizure. Arguably the protestors were engaging in manifestly illegal conduct. Personally i think its akin to how you can arrest someone before conviction, but opinions vary. As far as i know, the bank accounts were only frozen while the protestors were engaging in illegal action and were released once the situation was resolved.

[joemazerino]

If I am not mistaken, a court ruled those emergency powers were overreach.