Yeah, but in most countries there is due process in front of a judge to do that.
You can't just have the executive decide they can do that using pure administrative action to seize property. Also, you generally also have to prove in a court of law there was a crime before you can do anything at all.
The US civilian asset forfeiture (and now in Canada too, it seems) are actually quite unique in that regard outside of maybe China (not sure even you can do that there anymore), and at most couple other dystopian very authoritarian nations.
Note that this is not asset forfeiture. The order only authorizes financially institutions to temporarily freeze accounts if they suspect they’re being used to fund illegal blockades. They can temporarily freeze accounts without a court order without any fear of legal liability.
That’s it. It’s a time out, not a forfeiture. The Emergency Act is powerful, but this invocation isn’t that powerful.
My point was only that this is a temporary denial of service, not an asset forfeiture. Finally, do you have experience with Canadian banks? Temporary account suspensions are relatively common for unpaid debt. There are defined processes, federally regulated banks have a position called ombudsperson and there is always the OBSI.
Moral is, don’t ignore court orders in democratic countries.
What is according to you the legal link (or logical construction), in between an order to disperse, or not support somebody not dispersing, and a freezing of said person's assets ?
It doesn't exist in the normal course of judicial business, how does it get created here ?
I'm not an expert in this field, I just tried to correct one word. This is a freeze not a forfeiture.
My understanding is that the legal link was created by the Emergencies Act. The government believes that it will be able to calm the situation faster if they can track and cut off the flow of money. This invocation gives the government increased powers to track (they ordered crowdfunding platforms/payment processors to register with FINTRAC). And increased powers to cut off funds (through freezing bank accounts).
Edit:
Here's a relevant quote from Canada's Deputy PM:
“The government is issuing an order with immediate effect under the Emergencies Act, authorizing Canadian financial institutions to temporarily cease providing financial services where the institution suspects that an account is being used to further the illegal blockades and occupations,” she said. “This order covers both personal and corporate accounts.”
> My understanding is that the legal link was created by the Emergencies Act. The government believes that it will be able to calm the situation faster if they can track and cut off the flow of money.
They created a power of themselves, out of expedience, but there still doesn't seem to be any justification or grounds for it according to the basic principles of the Canadian legal order, except it formally comes from the PM, and he has cops.
They created a false legal reality (grave danger of violence to Canada and its people), which isn't objectively observable, to justify a power to solve that false reality, where in fact they are using it for something else (forcing people to move parked trucks).
They could have just arrested all the truckers for a variety of traffic laws or public-order laws (honking, noise), and then moved the trucks one by one. Instead, Emergency powers...
As my administrative and fiscal law professor taught us, after listing for two weeks all the principles which can be used to craft a law (not Canadian law school, European) :
There's one very old legal principle left, according to which laws are sometimes made, wrongly, but well, that's the real world for you : "I'mma the state, I do it because I can, or I'mma gonna crush you".
Ah, perfect, the corporations are free to do the govt bidding without explicit pressure from the govt. They'll work hand in hand though. This feels like they are just making what GoFundMe did, legal after the fact.
Well, the big corporations and the government have always worked hand in hand. What they do under the covers when they're in bed with each other is their business.
As has now been called out by the person I replied to, when I typed my reply, they said seizing funds “at all” was dystopian. They’ve now amended the comment to specify without the involvement of the judiciary.
You can't just have the executive decide they can do that using pure administrative action to seize property. Also, you generally also have to prove in a court of law there was a crime before you can do anything at all.
The US civilian asset forfeiture (and now in Canada too, it seems) are actually quite unique in that regard outside of maybe China (not sure even you can do that there anymore), and at most couple other dystopian very authoritarian nations.