Categories:
Liberty
Canada quickly turns totalitarian and at least Evan Solomon had the decency to challenge one of Canada’s leading totalitarians.
Take a look at this interview of Canada’s Attorney General and Justice Minister David Lametti by a CTV reporter named Evan Solomon.
Notice that he never answers the question that the CTV reporter, Evan, asked: What’s someone’s recourse if he thinks his bank account has been unfairly frozen?
And for the really bone-chilling part, look at Lametti’s statement at about 3:40.
The picture above is of David Lametti.
READER COMMENTS
Thomas Strenge
Feb 17 2022 at 5:46pm
The end of Weimar Germany was not the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor, but rather the passage of the Enabling Law following the Reichstag fire. Beware the use of emergency powers! The Roman Republic was wise enough to limit the appointment of dictators to six months after which there had to be an accounting of the actions taken.
David Henderson
Feb 17 2022 at 5:55pm
Good point.
My hope is still that there will be some accounting soon. The War Measures that Trudeau Sr. invoked in October 1970 and that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney got Parliament to repeal in 1988 was way worse that the Emergency Act. The Emergency Act has more safeguards. We’ll see if they’re followed.
Tom Palmer
Feb 17 2022 at 11:32pm
Canadian liberty is in a very bad condition right now. https://theunpopulist.substack.com/p/canadas-freedom-convoy-is-undermining?utm_source=url
David Henderson
Feb 19 2022 at 8:12pm
I critiqued that here.
The more I thought about it, the weaker her case seemed.
Niko Davor
Feb 18 2022 at 10:08am
Dr Henderson, you also wrote this:
https://www.econlib.org/private-firms-cannot-censor/
The banks are private companies. They are freezing bank accounts of people involved in public political expression at the behest of government. You might say that a private bank is free to freeze assets of any individual for any reason of their choosing, including cooperation with one party of government to suppress political opposition, just like Twitter is free to freeze accounts for any reason. Customers can choose another private company. And if all private companies are working in unison, people are free to start their own companies.
What is the dividing principle between this Canadian scenario and the US scenario? You choose the word “totalitarian” for this Canada scenario. That seems like an arbitrary label you use to say that Canada went over the line, but somehow the US did not.
The Canadian politicians are being more open and honest about using government power to coerce banks. They are admitting to doing that on public interviews. If they made efforts to deny it and hide it, so they had some plausible deniability that banks were independently freezing assets of political rivals, would that make it less “totalitarian”?
Jon Murphy
Feb 18 2022 at 10:25am
Not to speak for Dr Henderson, but there is a key phrase in your question:
That is the major difference. The government is ordering the freeze. Twitter account suspensions are not done “at the best of government.” What is going on in Canada is not voluntary or “cooperation” with government. It is being done under the threat of government retribution if the banks do not comply.
Zeke5123
Feb 18 2022 at 11:49am
I’m not sure that’s a key difference since the US government has threatened actions against eg Twitter and at the same time is “requesting” certain editorial decisions.
I agree it is a matter of degree but Twitter isn’t making the editorial decisions in a vacuum.
I think the problem here is the banks are basically stealing a property right.
Jon Murphy
Feb 18 2022 at 11:58am
Have they?
zeke5123
Feb 18 2022 at 3:11pm
There have been numerous hearings on tech having a monopoly that requires anti-trust.
The Biden admin has called for at least some censorship. See here for example. The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 on Twitter: “Revealing answer by WH Press Secretary on the Censorship of President Trump by Twitter & Big Tech WH Press Secretary Psaki: “We’ve spoken to and [Biden has] spoken to the need for social media platforms to continue to take steps to reduce hate speech.” https://t.co/jabB6hGl0R” / Twitter
Jon Murphy
Feb 18 2022 at 3:59pm
That’s not quite the same, is it?
zeke5123
Feb 18 2022 at 5:14pm
I don’t know what your objection is — you are being a bit coy.
But here is another article where the WH is flagging certain posts to be removed. White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor due to COVID-19 ‘misinformation’ (nypost.com)White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor due to COVID-19 ‘misinformation’ (nypost.com)
If your question is about the government threatening actions, well I can also find those links.
David Henderson
Feb 18 2022 at 10:27am
You write:
I don’t think so. When you have a checking account at a bank, a bank must provide your funds on demand. So no, a bank is not “free to freeze assets of any individual for any reason of their choosing.” That’s very different from the deal that Twitter offers.
The banks and credit unions, etc. are doing this because the Canadian government is forcing them to.
You talked about the U.S. but you didn’t say what the U.S. government is doing. What do you have in mind? If it’s Operation Choke Point, then I agree that this very wrong, bordering on totalitarianism. Is that what you have in mind?
niko davor
Feb 18 2022 at 2:51pm
Is the Canadian government forcing banks? Banks can decline to cooperate. The banks made the choice to eagerly comply with the Canadian government without violent force used against them. It’s a safe assumption that many or even most bank executives were supporters of Trudeau and were sincerely eager and willing to help punish political rivals. It’s also a safe assumption that if Trudeau was less admired among bank managers, the banks wouldn’t have complied. If President Trump ordered the banks to do something they didn’t want, they would have thwarted him.
You ask what US government coercion I have in mind? The interactions between sitting members of government and American companies was done in secret. We don’t know what coercive techniques were used or not used.
The US government has chosen discrete forms of coercion to compel private companies to punish political rivals. The Canadian government have been more open and honest about what they are doing. The latter provokes more of a blowback. The former seems more effective, and as it is more effective, more totalitarian. At least the Canadian government is honest about what they are doing.
Banks don’t own member funds, but you would agree banks have every right to refuse service and deactivate members accounts, as long as they allow members to retrieve their funds, even if done for political reasons in cooperation with government?
David Henderson
Feb 18 2022 at 3:34pm
You write:
I’m pretty sure it is.
You write:
But then the banks would face legal action.
Think of it this way. If it were voluntary on the part of the banks, a customer could sue the bank for breach. Yet it seems clear that a customer has no legal power to do that. Notice that the Attorney General never answered the question about whether someone has recourse. I think that’s because people don’t have recourse.
You write:
I don’t think that’s a safe assumption at all.
You write:
Yes, just as my bank could close my account tomorrow. But it would have to give me my funds. That’s not what’s going on in Canada. What do you think they mean when they say the accounts are frozen? It doesn’t mean that you can get your money.
Christophe Biocca
Feb 18 2022 at 4:10pm
Refusing to obey an order made under the emergencies act can lead to fines and jail time up to 6 months or 5 years depending on the method by which you’re convicted of having disobeyed. Plus anyone complying with an order made under the act is completely absolved of damages, with the Crown essentially assuming the liability. Plus get compensated for whatever losses they suffer as a result of complying.
So the banks can say no and have their officers face potential prison time, or they can do whatever the government tells them and hand off the entire liability and get compensated if they’re losing a profitable client. No-brainer really.
Thomas Strenge
Feb 18 2022 at 12:38pm
Keep in mind that banking is one of the most regulated businesses there is. I know. I tried to start one. Virtually every business decision has to be justified to a government regulator. So, if the government “asks”, then that’s not the same as you and me asking.
Niko Davor
Feb 18 2022 at 2:56pm
Obviously, If the government “asks” a bank to punish a political rival it’s not the same as just some rando off the street calling into the support desk. Sure, there are consequences involved. What’s bizarre is you suggest that that is not the case when the Biden Administration “asks” Facebook or Twitter or PayPal to do something? Of course it is.
Hanoch
Feb 18 2022 at 10:59am
The action taken by the Canadian government is one of the most frightening things I have seen in my lifetime. If someone suggested to me two years ago that a Western democracy would effectively erase civil liberties with the stroke of a pen, I would never have believed it. Individuals protesting vaccine mandates, and their supporters, now have to choose between exercising their right to free speech or face financial ruin by having bank accounts frozen and job licenses terminated. Some are apparently even facing the possibility of prison. It is beyond me how every Canadian — irrespective of their political party or opinions on Covid policy — could not be deeply disturbed by their government’s actions.
steve
Feb 19 2022 at 6:59pm
They can say whatever they want, they just cant shut down cities and make people miserable by blowing their horns all hours and do it for weeks.
Steve
Mark Z
Feb 20 2022 at 3:13am
If someone donates money to an organization that supports a cause, and then such that organization does something illegal in the course of a protest, do you think this practice should be enforced consistently, even absent premeditation, regardless of the cause, or just in this case? It does not seemed to be being enforced consistently here. Other protests in the recent past that have illegally shut down rail lines, for example, did not illicit this response. If this is the appropriate response, fine, but then Trudeau should bring the hammer down on everyone who does it then.
Mark Z
Feb 20 2022 at 3:14am
*elicit, not illicit
steve
Feb 20 2022 at 9:20am
Yes, they did shut down some rail lines. That had some financial impact. But it did not shut down a city. If you are working in your home office next to the blaring truck or trying to get your 6 month old to nap that blaring horn has a huge impact.
So they are Canadians. They have gone out of their way to not arrest or even ticket people at first. And has been pointed out many other places the mandates were already largely going away. At this point, actually from the beginning I think, this is way beyond liberty issues. This is people wanting to get rid of Trudeau by means other than through an election. It seems pretty clear that the group in Ottawa is really holding out for a physical confrontation hoping that will win them some support. Given that the people in that city should have just as many rights and as much liberty as the protesters at some point the govt has to honor their property rights and remove the protesters. Is cutting down the financial support of these people so that they need to leave worse than having a physical battle? I dont know. What do you think?
Steve
Mark Z
Feb 20 2022 at 8:24pm
That doesn’t really answer either of my objections. 1) that people are being deprived of their property without due process despite having donated money to organizations before they had ever done anything illegal and 2) the government is being ideologically selective in enforcing this policy, giving financial supporters of certain other illegal protests a pass.
David Seltzer
Feb 18 2022 at 11:12am
Possible fallout from these fascist policies. Crypto-currency becomes far more attractive and a run on the banks. If peaceful protest can be threatened by despotic authority, one will be well advised to go crypto.
Monte
Feb 18 2022 at 11:17am
Considering that 60% of the senate and 37% of the house are comprised of lawyers, the largest voting block of one type, we can understand how emergency powers have come to be so broadly defined.
Maybe, just maybe, HHS secretary Becerra, at the behest of President Biden, can define Trump and the republican party as a previously eradicated pathogen and, like racism, declare them to be a public health crisis. Problem solved.
Henri Hein
Feb 18 2022 at 12:18pm
Something that disturbs me even further about these kind of incidents is that nobody ever resigns over them. You would think sometimes there would be a member or staff in government with enough moral back-bone to say “that’s going to far. I resign in protest.” Granted, maybe that happens at lower levels where it’s not news-worthy. That top-level public officials never (or at least hyper-rarely) seem to find the fiber to at least speak out about over-reach lowers my already low opinion of them.
Thomas Strenge
Feb 18 2022 at 12:36pm
That’s another excellent point against government pensions. Government pensions are extremely lucrative in a 2 percent interest world. If someone will give you a million dollars after 20 years of service, then at 19 years of service most people will bury their conscience.
David Henderson
Feb 18 2022 at 3:38pm
That one RCMP guy, Corporal Bulford, who was a member of Trudeau’s personal security detail, did resign in protest.
Here’s his speech.
BS
Feb 18 2022 at 2:20pm
The thing about the answer past 3:40 is to hear/read it with and without the mention of “pro-Trump”. Why’d Lametti slip that in there? My guess: he did it without thinking; it reveals underlying prejudices about views people may or may not hold.
Comments are closed.