If you’re talking about the accounts / funds seized during the freedom convoy, that was indeed financial institutions acting at the behest of the federal government, an action That was authorized by the emergencies act.
The act was being debated in the senate and it was looking like it would not pass, so the federal government suspended the act before it could be formally rejected.
I have no doubt that the feds will claim as you have said, that they merely provided a suggestion to the institutions, though the actions themselves would have been an absolute violation, had the institutions just up and decided to do this without the oversight and blessings of the feds.
Furthermore, none has anything to do with the newly elected premier of Alberta - the woman speaking in the video.
To be clear I am talking about banks like TD and RBC, not gofundme or whatever. I am fairly certain that the government recommended the action and provided info in the form of lists of names, but they didn't have legal standing to force the freeze, they could only ask for it. This was my understanding. It was the government trying to absolve itself of responsibility and throw the banks under the bus. Basically downloading responsibility.
That’s like giving someone a gun, giving them a target, a time, and a place, and then afterwards claiming you’re not complicit in the murder.
Or the feds in the US approaching social media companies to censor users, and then claiming it wasn’t a violation of the first amendment because the actions were taken by a private company.
TD would not have dreamed to take those actions on their own. It was 100% an act of government. No amount of semantics will refute that.
If you’re talking about the accounts / funds seized during the freedom convoy, that was indeed financial institutions acting at the behest of the federal government, an action That was authorized by the emergencies act.
The act was being debated in the senate and it was looking like it would not pass, so the federal government suspended the act before it could be formally rejected.
I have no doubt that the feds will claim as you have said, that they merely provided a suggestion to the institutions, though the actions themselves would have been an absolute violation, had the institutions just up and decided to do this without the oversight and blessings of the feds.
Furthermore, none has anything to do with the newly elected premier of Alberta - the woman speaking in the video.
To be clear I am talking about banks like TD and RBC, not gofundme or whatever. I am fairly certain that the government recommended the action and provided info in the form of lists of names, but they didn't have legal standing to force the freeze, they could only ask for it. This was my understanding. It was the government trying to absolve itself of responsibility and throw the banks under the bus. Basically downloading responsibility.
That’s like giving someone a gun, giving them a target, a time, and a place, and then afterwards claiming you’re not complicit in the murder.
Or the feds in the US approaching social media companies to censor users, and then claiming it wasn’t a violation of the first amendment because the actions were taken by a private company.
TD would not have dreamed to take those actions on their own. It was 100% an act of government. No amount of semantics will refute that.