• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]

Nah, I think you’re using that as a dodge on this one. Nearly every other post of yours on this thread (including in the past where you’ve made glib references to the ‘inconvenience’ thing) have been posted in apparent seriousness, and rightly so. There are a few people on this site that as a rule I don’t take seriously. Because you usually have some insightful takes on things, I actually see you as quite the opposite.

You’ve been clear that you didn’t support the protest itself (‘waste of diesel’ I think you said) but you’ve also been clear that you feel very strongly about the right to peaceful protest; which is cool, I do too. I think in the case of this particular protest, you’ve given way too much leeway to the crap that was allowed to continue. Unfortunately, in your glibness on this one, you’re adding to a narrative a lot of us in the city are hearing from those not here, that dismisses and minimizes the impact this had on our community. Not so much a matter of you being a ‘chew toy’, I just think you have a bad take on something that’s important to me, and it’s a take I’ll usually have something to say about whoever it’s coming from.
Fair enough, cards on the table time. I wonder how well all you city-zens in THE EAST have slept for the past six years, plus, while the absolute clown college that you put in office has dismantled the resource sector in Western Canada? How do you sleep knowing the number of families that have been disenfranchised, dismembered, and made destitute by YOUR government? My bet is it's the sleep of the angels. The protest itself was a stupid thing, and you're right, I've made no secret of my opinion. But the mandates were the final straw for a lot of blue collar people who just want to work and feed their families, oh, and pay their taxes, btw. The mandates just broke the skin on a festering boil. I really do have a hard time feeling sorry for people who went without sleep for a couple of weeks. There are people out here who lose sleep every night wondering how they're going to feed their kids. Sounds like melodrama? It's not. Maybe the hope was that those people would put the pressure where it belonged, rather than demand the horse cavalry. Silly us western, rural, rednecks with unacceptable beliefs for expecting support from fellow Canadians. Another lesson learned.
 
I actually have no issue with breaking up the protest. I think it's completely reasonable that it was broken up and thought the police did an excellent job using the minimum amount of force required.

I have a huge issue with the mechanisms used by the Trudeau Government. Forcing Banks to freeze bank accounts, weaponization of monetary systems, the misuse of the Emergency Act.

None of these actions were required. Existing laws could have been used. I hope Trudeau, Freeland and Co end up eventually paying dearly for their lack of leadership but I won't hold my breath.
My mind’s not yet made up on that. I was too front line to have a decent view, but on the back end I do have a decent appreciation of legal mechanisms to curb financial contributions to criminality (basically the tools in PCMLTFA and the various sanctions mechanisms). I’ll be interested to see what comes out of the inquiry, and by some academic study into it from people who really know their stuff. I’m open to the possibility of coming to a conclusion one way or the other about it, and to entail ly believing on steps may have been necessary and others not. I’m not there yet.
 
Fair enough, cards on the table time. I wonder how well all you city-zens in THE EAST have slept for the past six years, plus, while the absolute clown college that you put in office has dismantled the resource sector in Western Canada? How do you sleep knowing the number of families that have been disenfranchised, dismembered, and made destitute by YOUR government? My bet is it's the sleep of the angels. The protest itself was a stupid thing, and you're right, I've made no secret of my opinion. But the mandates were the final straw for a lot of blue collar people who just want to work and feed their families, oh, and pay their taxes, btw. The mandates just broke the skin on a festering boil. I really do have a hard time feeling sorry for people who went without sleep for a couple of weeks. There are people out here who lose sleep every night wondering how they're going to feed their kids. Sounds like melodrama? It's not. Maybe the hope was that those people would put the pressure where it belonged, rather than demand the horse cavalry. Silly us western, rural, rednecks with unacceptable beliefs for expecting support from fellow Canadians. Another lesson learned.
Well, the people losing sleep weren’t, largely, government bureaucrats. The people living in downtown Ottawa are generally not the decision makers. They’re the ones who sell the decision makers coffee and beer and clothes and iPhones. They very much also worry about getting by, about if they can feed their kids, make tuition and rent, or ever escape the rent trap.

I didn’t vote for the party currently in power either. It’s no more my government than it is yours. It is, however, jointly ours, and we have a lawful process to change it when the time comes. A lot of the people who occupied our downtown had ceased to be believers in that lawful process and wanted us to join them to facilitate something different. I draw a big line there.
 
Except rural areas are given disproportionately large representation in federal and provincial governments - urban votes are worth significantly less than rural.
Yes rural has lots of trained seals on the back bench. But all of the important cabinet posts are held by urban ridings, if not a majority of downtown urban ridings.
 
Well, the people losing sleep weren’t, largely, government bureaucrats. The people living in downtown Ottawa are generally not the decision makers. They’re the ones who sell the decision makers coffee and beer and clothes and iPhones. They very much also worry about getting by, about if they can feed their kids, make tuition and rent, or ever escape the rent trap.

I didn’t vote for the party currently in power either. It’s no more my government than it is yours. It is, however, jointly ours, and we have a lawful process to change it when the time comes. A lot of the people who occupied our downtown had ceased to be believers in that lawful process and wanted us to join them to facilitate something different. I draw a big line there.
Kind of tough to do that when the election is won before the polls in Nanaimo are even open. It's your government in the sense that you enjoy their largesse due to your geographical location, rather than their depredations due to mine. Maybe get posted to Boyle, or Slave Lake, or Manning AB for five years and see if your opinion doesn't change. Life in District 13 sucks compared to the capitol.
 
Nah, I’m not even talking about me personally being down there mixed up in it. That was just a few days of work and some time away from family over a few weeks. That’s nothing anyone on this site would be fazed by. I’m talking about the impact on those in our city who don’t have a nice house in the suburbs and weren’t insulated by wealth and distance from being directly impacted by it when they tried to sleep or go to work. I have friends whose lives were really screwed up for some time by this. We also have a whole city wrestling with whether it can even rely on its own police service.

So that’s where my really intense engagement comes from; not the fact that I personally had to deal with a few people who were being idiots. The convoy was nothing new there, it was just concentrated and sensational in that regard.

I had said it much earlier in the thread, but the blockade at the bridge in Windsor was, IMHO, the greater threat to the national interest.
And Doug Ford managed to deal with it, using existing laws, without turning it in to a broadway spectacle. Which again, really makes me question what exactly they are smoking in Ottawa?

My mind’s not yet made up on that. I was too front line to have a decent view, but on the back end I do have a decent appreciation of legal mechanisms to curb financial contributions to criminality (basically the tools in PCMLTFA and the various sanctions mechanisms). I’ll be interested to see what comes out of the inquiry, and by some academic study into it from people who really know their stuff. I’m open to the possibility of coming to a conclusion one way or the other about it, and to entail ly believing on steps may have been necessary and others not. I’m not there yet.
Well I can tell you my wife, who works in the Financial Sector at the coal face was none to happy about having to tell regular Canadians they could not access their money that belonged to them that they had earned. It was unprecedented and quite frankly a bunch of BS.

Significant trust was lost in the Banks and our Financial Institutions. The Government should not be able to dip its fingers in to Banks and tell them how to run their business. People put their money in Banks because it's supposed to be safeguarded there.

You're starting to sound like you've been in Ottawa too long.
 

Northern Ontario should in all reality, be its own province.

Read this, about that,

Thunder Bay mayor Lynn Peterson opposed Murdoch's proposal, stating that one of the perceived issues was inconsequential, specifically that policies defined in the Ontario legislature are not Toronto-centric.[28]
Michael Gravelle, the Minister of Northern Devlopment and Mines, said "I look at it from the perspective of would this be good for Northern Ontario . . . and I don‘t think it would be".[28]

As far as Alberta goes, my sister retired to Cold Lake and loves it.
 
And Doug Ford managed to deal with it, using existing laws, without turning it in to a broadway spectacle. Which again, really makes me question what exactly they are smoking in Ottawa?


Well I can tell you my wife, who works in the Financial Sector at the coal face was none to happy about having to tell regular Canadians they could not access their money that belonged to them that they had earned. It was unprecedented and quite frankly a bunch of BS.

Significant trust was lost in the Banks and our Financial Institutions. The Government should not be able to dip its fingers in to Banks and tell them how to run their business. People put their money in Banks because it's supposed to be safeguarded there.

You're starting to sound like you've been in Ottawa too long.
As I said, I want to see more information before I commit to an opinion. I know that these decisions would have been made based off far more information than I presently have access to or knowledge of, and that a lot of technical expertise would have gone into offering options. We’re I to make a decision on my position right now it would be based on emotion, not a proper appreciation of the facts and evidence.

Your wife may not have told you that the banks interface with government all the time and already have a massive regulatory compliance framework to work in. Ever done a transaction over $10,000? FINTRAC likely has it. Even at the teller level they regularly identify suspicious transactions that get flagged, written up, sent to FINTRAC and, yes, can be and regularly are shared with law enforcement. I’ve been eyeballs deep in that (on a completely unrelated matter). So, the measures that were taken with regards to the convoy were not exactly unprecedented; they were based off existing tools, but then were extended and applied in an emergency. I remain to be convinced one way or the other as to the need for them, and to be honest once I do have an opinion on that particular government policy I may be more prudent to keep it to myself anyway.

EDIT TO ADD: I absolutely will concede that whatever justification there may have been for use of certain financial sector tools, once actually applied they ended up capturing people more broadly than I expect was the intent. The government may also not have adequately considered the additional unilateral steps banks will take to ‘de-risk’ by speculatively closing off products and services to individuals if the bank is concerned it may subject them to liability. They can, will, and regularly do do that even just based on a suspicion that a customer’s financial dealings may be dirty- and the definition of what could legally be ‘dirty’ was briefly very uncertain and in flux last winter.
 
As I said, I want to see more information before I commit to an opinion. I know that these decisions would have been made based off far more information than I presently have access to or knowledge of, and that a lot of technical expertise would have gone into offering options. We’re I to make a decision on my position right now it would be based on emotion, not a proper appreciation of the facts and evidence.

Your wife may not have told you that the banks interface with government all the time and already have a massive regulatory compliance framework to work in. Ever done a transaction over $10,000? FINTRAC likely has it. Even at the teller level they regularly identify suspicious transactions that get flagged, written up, sent to FINTRAC and, yes, can be and regularly are shared with law enforcement. I’ve been eyeballs deep in that (on a completely unrelated matter). So, the measures that were taken with regards to the convoy were not exactly unprecedented; they were based off existing tools, but then were extended and applied in an emergency. I remain to be convinced one way or the other as to the need for them, and to be honest once I do have an opinion on that particular government policy I may be more prudent to keep it to myself anyway.

EDIT TO ADD: I absolutely will concede that whatever justification there may have been for use of certain financial sector tools, once actually applied they ended up capturing people more broadly than I expect was the intent. The government may also not have adequately considered the additional unilateral steps banks will take to ‘de-risk’ by speculatively closing off products and services to individuals if the bank is concerned it may subject them to liability. They can, will, and regularly do do that even just based on a suspicion that a customer’s financial dealings may be dirty- and the definition of what could legally be ‘dirty’ was briefly very uncertain and in flux last winter.
It is a slippery slope. One that the private sector will seize (with tacit government approval) to their advantage every time.
 
It is a slippery slope. One that the private sector will seize (with tacit government approval) to their advantage every time.
Sorry but on this one I think you’re missing it. The only advantage to a bank to reporting suspicious transactions or cutting off a customer is to avoid regulatory or criminal risk. The banks act unilaterally to avoid complicity in money laundering, sanctions violation, etc. This isn’t the banks taking advantage of government policy to do something they’d otherwise not get to to, and which advantages them. Left to their own devices, banks would be happy to largely ignore potential laundering if they get to keep taking fees.

Because those rules ARE there, banks are very risk averse and sometimes proactive in ending customer relationships if they bank has concerns about what they see. They may also share information amongst banks to help other institutions avoid potential criminal exposure and fraud.
 
Sorry but on this one I think you’re missing it. The only advantage to a bank to reporting suspicious transactions or cutting off a customer is to avoid regulatory or criminal risk. The banks act unilaterally to avoid complicity in money laundering, sanctions violation, etc. This isn’t the banks taking advantage of government policy to do something they’d otherwise not get to to, and which advantages them. Left to their own devices, banks would be happy to largely ignore potential laundering if they get to keep taking fees.

Because those rules ARE there, banks are very risk averse and sometimes proactive in ending customer relationships if they bank has concerns about what they see. They may also share information amongst banks to help other institutions avoid potential criminal exposure and fraud.
Sorry Brihard, we r talking past each other. I wasn't referring to the convoy specifically, I was talking writ large.
 
Every dollar in a frozen bank account earns the bank money.
 
Fixed that assumption. Not to be pedantic, but the banks in Canada are ruthless when it comes to profits. And no government will confront them.
Of course. My point was that at least with an unfrozen account, I can decide what to do and where to put my money. These poor fuckers do not. It's a stable revenue platform for the bank as long as that fixed amount just sits there.
 
Sorry, just looking back again- I wasn’t talking specifically about the convoy either; banks do the things I described regularly, though usually it’s closing accounts and forcing the customer to take their money elsewhere. That’s a very normal thing pre-convoy. It does still result in the bank losing out on fees, credit interest, etc. closing accounts is only in the banks’ interest because it steers them clear of legal trouble for regulatory noncompliance. This stuff nearly all comes from the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. There’s a huge amount of regulation on financial institutions / money services businesses.
 
Of course. My point was that at least with an unfrozen account, I can decide what to do and where to put my money. These poor fuckers do not. It's a stable revenue platform for the bank as long as that fixed amount just sits there.

Do we know if all the account shave been unlocked for are some still locked up?
 
As I said, I want to see more information before I commit to an opinion. I know that these decisions would have been made based off far more information than I presently have access to or knowledge of, and that a lot of technical expertise would have gone into offering options. We’re I to make a decision on my position right now it would be based on emotion, not a proper appreciation of the facts and evidence.

Your wife may not have told you that the banks interface with government all the time and already have a massive regulatory compliance framework to work in. Ever done a transaction over $10,000? FINTRAC likely has it. Even at the teller level they regularly identify suspicious transactions that get flagged, written up, sent to FINTRAC and, yes, can be and regularly are shared with law enforcement. I’ve been eyeballs deep in that (on a completely unrelated matter). So, the measures that were taken with regards to the convoy were not exactly unprecedented; they were based off existing tools, but then were extended and applied in an emergency. I remain to be convinced one way or the other as to the need for them, and to be honest once I do have an opinion on that particular government policy I may be more prudent to keep it to myself anyway.

EDIT TO ADD: I absolutely will concede that whatever justification there may have been for use of certain financial sector tools, once actually applied they ended up capturing people more broadly than I expect was the intent. The government may also not have adequately considered the additional unilateral steps banks will take to ‘de-risk’ by speculatively closing off products and services to individuals if the bank is concerned it may subject them to liability. They can, will, and regularly do do that even just based on a suspicion that a customer’s financial dealings may be dirty- and the definition of what could legally be ‘dirty’ was briefly very uncertain and in flux last winter.
I'm sorry Brihard but you're going to have a tough time convincing me that single mom's who happened to donate $50.00 to the convoy protest from a Facebook advert are worthy of drawing gun fire from FINTRAC

As predicted, Government's are now misusing legislation and policies originally conceived during the 9/11 + Early GWoT era.
 
Back
Top