Note that folks who claimed their bank accounts were frozen because they were “donors to the convoy” never actually verified that that actually happened [1]. At the same time the government, the RCMP, and the banks have come out and said “that didn’t happen” [2]. Last, the government ceded its emergency powers after about a week total, despite claims on HN and various thinkpieces that they would be extended in perpetuity [3].
>and the banks have come out and said “that didn’t happen”
The article didn't say it didn't happen. In fact, it says it did happen:
“individuals and companies suspected of involvement in illegal acts,” such as “influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa””
What exactly does it mean to be an "influencer"? Why are people being punished for "suspected involvement"? You're using circular reasoning claiming the only people affected deserved it.
>Last, the government ceded its emergency powers after about a week total
What does this matter if they can turn around and re-enact it tomorrow?
I specifically referred to donors, it is largely understood that convoy organizers and a number of participants had their accounts frozen.
I am not using circular reasoning; I am literally addressing the fact that donating $50 to the convoy did not subject you to your bank account being frozen, despite purported claims to the contrary.
The “illegal acts” are referring to the plain-as-day laws that the protesters (to some, occupiers) were accused of breaking, like parking tractor trailers in the middle of the street for weeks blocking traffic in downtown Ottawa.
If folks outside the immediate circle of downtown protesters and organizers were affected, I would find that deeply concerning. But I can only find unsubstantiated rumors. If you have a credible source indicating otherwise, I’d appreciate it.
And then there was GoFundMe and GiveSendGo. I am not arguing the politics here. I am responding to the critique that crypto is a solution in search of a problem.
Guess what happens if crypto would become bigger and actually a problem for all states globally?
Do you really think they will just accept this? In which way do you think they literlay can't control crypto anymore?
Just because its digital and on the internet, doesn't mean its digital only. It is not and as long as that is, its easy for a state to make sure crypto will never ever reach this level.
You don't believe a state can do this? Just a small reminder about the great firewall from china. There are countries who shut down their internet, literaly.
The reason they didn't extend them was that they didn't want to go through the senate vote, and also because of the extreme controversy it caused. Trudeau had said earlier he wanted to extend them past the 30 days. So it's weird to say that the controversy and reactions were baseless because their intended goal was achieved. And that was to make Trudeau's decision as politically costly and controversial as possible.
Also accounts were still seized over a protest, so it doesn't matter if it was from people donating or those who were protesting
I guess but only because there was a very very vocal backlash. It wouldn't have necessarily worked if everyone was just complacent and apologetic for Trudeau. Trudeau had no intention of showing any restraint until the backlash intensified.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mp-mark-stra...
[2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-rcmp-banks-an...
[3] https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/02/23/justin-t...