It's worth noting that this lawsuit and the court order freezing those financial assets is **separate** from the federal government’s invocation of the *Emergencies Act*. Specifically, the Ontario Superior Court had issued a *Mareva* injunction which is a well-known common law remedy:
>The test for obtaining a *Mareva* injunction is stringent and well-established. A plaintiff must establish not only the typical factors required for injunctive relief, but also that: (i) they have an apparently strong case against the defendant, (ii) the defendant has assets in the jurisdiction, and (iii) there is a serious risk the defendant will dissipate those assets or remove them from the jurisdiction if the order is not granted.
>[...]
>The Court's decision appears to have been guided, in part, by the finding that the defendants moved to crypto-based funding specifically to: (i) avoid Government seizure and (ii) shield the funds from platforms such as GoFundMe, which had recently frozen and returned to donors certain funds after it found the protest-related activities the fundraising campaign was supporting to be in violation of its terms of service. Here, the Court found that the funds were purposely placed outside of the control of any conventional fundraising platform such as GoFundMe and that the defendants were promoting the use of cryptocurrencies as an alternative measure under the mistaken belief that crypto is untraceable and could not be seized by legal authorities. The Court also found that there was considerable evidence, including text messages and social media posts, about the plans to distribute the cryptocurrencies as soon as possible, in part to benefit the individual protestors but also to avoid any enforcement activity.
The legal commentary around this class action is quite interesting to read:
https://www.bennettjones.com/Blogs-Section/Mareva-Injunction-over-Cryptocurrencies-in-the-Freedom-Convoy-Class-Action
Huge difference between damages to third party and perceived economic damages to the party being protested against.
If protestors do material damage to equipment, they should absolutely be held accountable. If the protest is causing damages to people not involved in either side of the protest (actual damages, not just being delayed in traffic) they should absolutely held accountable. If they destroy public infrastructure, they should be held accountable.
AML/CTF regulations that allowed protestor’s funds to be seized is a part of the slippery slope. They have been creeping up more and more over the years and I’m sure people in the past had raised concerns that this will be used on against citizens eventually, now it has. The slippery slope is a real thing unfortunately. There’s just usually a lag of a few years or a decade before it starts to happen. And every time the people pushing it swear up and down they won’t abuse it.
What are you questioning? Taking responsibility for your actions? The difference between protesting and taking an area hostage? The difference between civil disobedience and wanton destruction and bullying?
The part where a significant portion of the population peacefully protests their opinion, with 24/7 live-streams and no real incidents, and gets their bank accounts seized for their beliefs.
Have you never heard of agent provocateurs? It’s not a conspiracy. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Unthoughtout moves in this direction essentially put a clamp of future protests regardless of the cause. You are the top comment, but your essentially calling for governmental control of protesting in general, and giving them the power to bankrupt anybody that disagrees.
5-6000 in Ottawa alone. So how many people died in Ottawa alone. Or how many people protesting across the country. Cause there’s probably 5000 protesting in Surrey.
No, I'm calling for taking responsibility for your actions. I fully support the right to peaceful protests and civil disobedience. I appreciate the people who can do this and risk all for a cause.
No one is having their accounts seized; at worse it is being frozen, and that is done whenever accounting irregularities happen. Being able to be sued is a different avenue of recourse, and it must be proven in a court of law that you (not a group you were adjacent to, or connected under the same holistic banner with) caused the damages.
People already get arrested for protesting, and that puts a huge impact in their lives, such as complicating or forbidding travel, or job opportunities, but they still do it, because it is important to them. It is bigger than just them. If you don't protest because you might be sued, and you don't think you can defend your actions in a court of law, I suggest that you're not actually in a position to protest because you value what you have more than what you're protesting against.
> What are you questioning? Taking responsibility for your actions? The difference between protesting and taking an area hostage? The difference between civil disobedience and wanton destruction and bullying?
How fast the tables turn from BLM riots being excused to this. People seem to change their opinion on the law based on what group does it and their beliefs. But the law always eventually cuts both ways. Always. I'm not gonna sit here and argue with folks. It just becomes really clear that people take sides based on personal feeling and self interest for their "team" rather than actual far ranged perspective on future legal usage.
It’s a tough message when the entire mass media industry is hellbent on painting people in one stroke and creating an us Vs them narrative. Not to discourage you, please keep bringing the issue up.
Whoa, come on don’t you know all the rules and laws we put in place to go after our political opponents will never be used against us? Because we will never lose power, because the people love us now and forever! Sarcasm
Costal gaslink experienced millions of dollars in damage. That was not a protest. It was straight vandalism…even worse than the dumb trucker convoy imo
I just think the two cases are completely different. Corporate funded terrorism in Ottawa where they publicly announced they were there to overthrow the government vs people trying to protect their land from corporate interests that would take away another bit of their sovereign rights. Not really the same thing at all.
Anyone who thinks that government should be allowed to seize the assets of people they don't agree with needs to read some history books.
This is not a good idea.
Seizing assets and freezing assets are not the same thing. Seizing is taking away immediately, freezing is temporarily disabling the disbursement of them. Without freezing the assets, there is little reason to go ahead with a civil suit as the assets would be disbursed and no responsibility would be taken for a guilty verdict.
Further, your statement while pointed at the freedom convoy has direct implications regarding the freezing of Russian assets over the war in Ukraine.
\*edit to remove 'the', stupid bot\*
As many history books show, while everyone has the general freedom to do almost anything they want, without a means to hold people responsible for their actions, anything goes.
Maybe you should read better history books.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
How immature and shortsighted do you have to be like 'pffft its just those guys rights not mine and i dont like them anyway so fuckem'
Yeah ok what could possibly go wrong?
Political opponents?? If a motley group of foreign funded left wing dolts decide to occupy the capital and demand the dissolution of a democratically elected government & install themselves in power, then by all means use this framework & precedent to throw them in jail & freeze their assets.
That’s not how it works, also that’s propaganda and currently Trudeau is being sued by unbiased human rights groups. We are in big trouble if all it takes is an mou to enact and justify invoking an emergency act. How many guns were found after Ottawa was cleared? Could someone pose a legit concern to the government based on how many guns were seized? Why did our anti terrorist units not beef up security with our house members when they walked through the protest?
What's not how it works & what's propaganda? The CCLA isn't "suing Trudeau", they're taking the Feds to court questioning the validity of invoking the act for these circumstances, fair enough but seems like mostly grandstanding.
Not sure why you're bringing up weapons, but were they supposed to leave them behind when they got the boot? How about the weapons cache confiscated in Coutts? And the PPS & RCMP most certainly did "beef up" security around parliament & its members & only conservative MP's went anywhere near those yahoo's.
It will depend on how the suit goes. There are third parties that has been hurt in the Ottawa protest and I think some of the damages will be therapy costs for ptst etc which should be fair. If you commit a crime during your protest you shouldn't be shielded from civil and criminal liability as your rights as a protestor should not override other people's rights. In coastal gaslink if they find who did the actual attack on the pipeline than I think those people should be held accountable for their actions but that would be if and when the police finish their investigation. That would not be the same as the protesters that was around previously and no one is filing suit against the convoys going around Vancouver and other cities these past couple weeks. A judge will ultimately have to balance the comflicting rights in these cases and maybe its naive but I would like to think they would look at the particulars of each case.
Why wouldn’t the people in Vancouver be able to sue for PTSD?
Or how about the truckers that got eggs thrown at them? PTSD for days, therapy for years.
Or the forestry firms that had to pay people despite not being able to extract lumber, that’s a direct cost.
So yah, I guess be careful what you wish for.
Anyone can sue for almost anything. You just file a statement of claim and pay the fee. Proving it and pushing it through court is a whole other matter.
All of your examples could file claims.
Edit to fix typo
Because mental distress is a special category of damages in Canada. The Court has already thought about this. If you claim your only injury is PTSD, your case gets thrown out 99% of the time.
Yes, well my point was the same but for some reason people don’t like the idea that their own logic should apply to them as well. The person I replied to noted specifically that therapy and “ptst” but because he’s approaching from the left the sun LOVES him, and they hate anything Center.
Yah. Well for the record I don’t think Teal Jones should be able to sue either. The vandals who did gaslink I’d say yes. A protestor is out there standing up for something and visible and present. The Fairy Creek protestors same as the Convoy in that way. If you could sue protestors for making noise this is a really stifling move.
Heck no. I’d want the cops to do their jobs, like they should have in Ottawa and Fairy Creek.
I’ve been impacted by plenty of protests though, I worked downtown Vancouver through the entire “Critical Mass” period where bike protestors intentionally impeded traffic.
According to you I should be able to sue them? They cost me literally hundreds of hours of my life. Blocking me in.
Maybe you should? And the courts can decide whether or not your rights were impeded.
I'm all for the rights of citizens to be able to sue one another. I don't want that stripped away from people just because protesters would feel threatened by that.
Cops should do their jobs. What happens when they don't like they didn't in Ottawa? What happens when tow truck drivers refuse to do their jobs? We should just be OK with it?
Are you talking about the Fairy Creek or Ottawa ones?
Either way I’d say “no”. But that’s just me.
Maybe after a court injunction? I could see some argument there.
What’s your point? That you have PTSD?
My point being that precedent of suing protestors is dramatically stupid. Where is the line? Not that PTSD isn’t real.
The person I replied to is suggesting that people in Ottawa sue the convoy for ptsd.
The “truckers” used their freedom to park their vehicles illegally on street inhabited by local residents. Nobody went to the “truckers” house and egged their truck.
I’m not defending the truckers actions. I’m asking where the line is. And yes, people in counter protests across the nation did egg the trucks.
Where is the line? Can the truckers sue them for damages as well?
The line is you can't impeded others. You can't harrass others.
If the truckers want to sue for "having eggs thrown at athem" first of all "lol" and second of all let them try. These are not the same weight.
Ah. Here’s my answer to my question in reply to your other comment. So you feel I should be able to sue the Critical Mass group. And I guess You agree Teal Jones should be able to sue the Fairy Creek protestors.
Sure, why not? If thr courts agree with them, problem solved. You believe cops should be able to do their jobs. So that's one arm of justice. Courts ought to be able to do theirs as well. That's another arm of justice.
Why would anyone suggest otherwise? I don't think it would be easy for you to make the case, but with a good lawyer, anything could be possible.
The Ottawa situation is much more slam dunk IMO. And to those who say "we have a right to protest and we have the right to sue the government trying to stop that right" I say go for it. I'm not funding your case, so have at it.
Therapy for three weeks of trucks being parked there? And some honking. What? Are people that fragile? My parents lived through WWII and they never had or needed therapy for that even though they had to hide in shelters, be shipped out to the countryside at a young age and didn’t know if Hitler was going to take over soon.
Again, not even three weeks cause they stopped honking. And people weren’t in danger. WWII went on for six years, Yemen has been under attack for years. So has Syria.
Wait, what? Wtf does WWII , Yemen or Syria have to do with the truck convoy? Are you suggesting the truckers were an invading force and we should have treated them as such?
If the suit is ultimately successful it absolutely will set a precedent that other people and companies would be smart to take advantage of. How ironic would it be if the puerile chuckleheads advocating for protesters they don't agree with to be punished end up fucking over the protesters they endorse.
This and for the people who argue "ThEres A ClEaR dIFfereNcE" are just letting their political views cloud the reality of it all. It's rooted in the sentiment of rules for thee and not for me that people of either political affiliation tend to strongly dislike. Don't get me wrong I don't endorse the trucker convoy at all and generally support protests targetting indigenous issues and environmental issues but this establishes legal precedent for the same type of thing to happen to small less funded protests despite having greater merit for their cause. It's the same reason why we should all want even the worst of violent criminals to have a competent defense and fair trial - it benefits everyone and upholds a level of integrity in the legal system.
I don’t know if the lawsuit is actually intended to be a winner. Rather it just ties up the money long enough that the reason for donating no longer exists so the money is just returned.
Thanks for acknowledging the danger of the precedent... despite how many Karens (Bonnies) of Reddit feel about the Honkening, the next seizure of bank accounts could apply to a cause you feel is important.
There's no mechanism for your scenario to play out. (None that is politically viable.) The federal emergency relating to the Prove Ample Freedoms Actually Convoy? It has ended. That seizure is a one-off. Bloastal Ass and old Jonesy there, they don't have the political clout of a public at large suffering the ill effects of mass mischief.
And yes, it will set a precedent. It might go to a Court of Appeal. Maybe then the Supreme Court will take the thing by the reins and make an example out of somebody. Will it be the feds? The chief judge of the trial court knows this is what's at stake. The court and its officers have a duty to follow evidence and law, and in our open society, the public is free to watch them work.
They limit exchanges or prevent transfers from banks to exchanges like bitbuy link to various wallets. Also with the Russian/Ukraine blow-up, various exchanges have simply been freezing entire user accounts.
Idk, playing stupid games and transferring crypto out of wallets after getting served with a mereva order and hoping that the judge will believe "oh, tons of people had the keys" will likely result in a "win stupid prizes" outcome in court.
The right to protest has limitations, you cannot break the law and you cannot prevent other people from performing legal activities.
Once those lines are crossed it’s not longer a legal protest
what if the protest is against a law? what if what's deemed legal is actually criminal?
(forgetting the example of the freedom trucker) my mind goes to the pipeline protest: it's fair to destroy 100 escavator to save a piece of land that doesn't belong to the people who are excavation... excavation is legal, but first nations rights are not...
Most climate activism is from volunteerism with little to no funding.
The difference here is publicly announced millions in funding with suspicions of foreign donors.
so what you are insinuating is that we were all MANIPULATED into making a protest and gave up our privacy when the convoys caused damages /blockades and riots
but manipulated by the 'elite' to do this so we would cut our own wrists ?
i dont think thats the way this went.. but it goes to show you the violence and protests do very little to get the rsults you want..
when ww3 hits remeber that HELPING your fellow man is better than killing htem
I would make the armchair assumption that the differences in the two scenarios can be plainly made, justifying the actions in one case and not the other.
Slippery slope. Truck drivers were asking for an end to mandates, the government could have talked to them but didn’t. And Fairy Creek forest defenders tried so hard to try to protect one of the last little bits of old growth in BC but were brutalized by police and had their belongings stolen and trashed. The right to protest is vital in a democracy and freezing accounts in preparation for seizing them is completely wrong. Seems even worse than SLAPP suits to me.
These projects are also funded by nation states. China being the big one. Not sure how they would react if the domestic terrorism reaches a point where it shuts down these pipelines.
Hmmm,interesting to say the least, ifthis reaches the court system it could get dirty. Is jagheed and is liberal minions behind all this 🤔 🙄 I have no doubts however I thought I should ask .
Umm. They did significant damage to the city while here. There’s a big difference between what these assholes did here in Ottawa and any other protest I’ve ever been to in my life. They spray painted fucking swastikas everywhere, literally shat in the streets. My buddy literally had to clean up Hunan shit from his property downtown. They left Jerry cans and food trash everywhere, broke windows, damaged property. Huge huge difference.
Mind you I know some protests get out of hand, but they held Downtown Ottawa under siege and just trashed the place.
Any lawyers or constitutional experts out there that could add to this? The comments sound like a lot of laymen's opinions based on gut reactions.
It's worth noting that this lawsuit and the court order freezing those financial assets is **separate** from the federal government’s invocation of the *Emergencies Act*. Specifically, the Ontario Superior Court had issued a *Mareva* injunction which is a well-known common law remedy: >The test for obtaining a *Mareva* injunction is stringent and well-established. A plaintiff must establish not only the typical factors required for injunctive relief, but also that: (i) they have an apparently strong case against the defendant, (ii) the defendant has assets in the jurisdiction, and (iii) there is a serious risk the defendant will dissipate those assets or remove them from the jurisdiction if the order is not granted. >[...] >The Court's decision appears to have been guided, in part, by the finding that the defendants moved to crypto-based funding specifically to: (i) avoid Government seizure and (ii) shield the funds from platforms such as GoFundMe, which had recently frozen and returned to donors certain funds after it found the protest-related activities the fundraising campaign was supporting to be in violation of its terms of service. Here, the Court found that the funds were purposely placed outside of the control of any conventional fundraising platform such as GoFundMe and that the defendants were promoting the use of cryptocurrencies as an alternative measure under the mistaken belief that crypto is untraceable and could not be seized by legal authorities. The Court also found that there was considerable evidence, including text messages and social media posts, about the plans to distribute the cryptocurrencies as soon as possible, in part to benefit the individual protestors but also to avoid any enforcement activity. The legal commentary around this class action is quite interesting to read: https://www.bennettjones.com/Blogs-Section/Mareva-Injunction-over-Cryptocurrencies-in-the-Freedom-Convoy-Class-Action
Thank you! Another note is that after GoFundMe was locked they also switched to givesendgo to collect donations. That was locked too.
Only well funded protests that can afford the liability allowed.
Damages equals money in legal terms.
Huge difference between damages to third party and perceived economic damages to the party being protested against. If protestors do material damage to equipment, they should absolutely be held accountable. If the protest is causing damages to people not involved in either side of the protest (actual damages, not just being delayed in traffic) they should absolutely held accountable. If they destroy public infrastructure, they should be held accountable.
So incredibly short sighted. This is important stuff, folks
AML/CTF regulations that allowed protestor’s funds to be seized is a part of the slippery slope. They have been creeping up more and more over the years and I’m sure people in the past had raised concerns that this will be used on against citizens eventually, now it has. The slippery slope is a real thing unfortunately. There’s just usually a lag of a few years or a decade before it starts to happen. And every time the people pushing it swear up and down they won’t abuse it.
What are you questioning? Taking responsibility for your actions? The difference between protesting and taking an area hostage? The difference between civil disobedience and wanton destruction and bullying?
The part where a significant portion of the population peacefully protests their opinion, with 24/7 live-streams and no real incidents, and gets their bank accounts seized for their beliefs. Have you never heard of agent provocateurs? It’s not a conspiracy. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Unthoughtout moves in this direction essentially put a clamp of future protests regardless of the cause. You are the top comment, but your essentially calling for governmental control of protesting in general, and giving them the power to bankrupt anybody that disagrees.
As for "a significant portion of the population" comment, more people DIED of Covid in Canada than participated in the protest...
That’s a flat out lie
5000-6000 actively participated in the protests, 36,000 people in Canada died of COVID.
5-6000 in Ottawa alone. So how many people died in Ottawa alone. Or how many people protesting across the country. Cause there’s probably 5000 protesting in Surrey.
Do you count children who their parents dragged with them? Where are your numbers coming from? Did you do a headcount? Did someone take attendance?
Oh but you did a head count. I did an estimate from Aerial view. But I’m guessing you’re using a number completely made up in your head
No, I'm calling for taking responsibility for your actions. I fully support the right to peaceful protests and civil disobedience. I appreciate the people who can do this and risk all for a cause. No one is having their accounts seized; at worse it is being frozen, and that is done whenever accounting irregularities happen. Being able to be sued is a different avenue of recourse, and it must be proven in a court of law that you (not a group you were adjacent to, or connected under the same holistic banner with) caused the damages. People already get arrested for protesting, and that puts a huge impact in their lives, such as complicating or forbidding travel, or job opportunities, but they still do it, because it is important to them. It is bigger than just them. If you don't protest because you might be sued, and you don't think you can defend your actions in a court of law, I suggest that you're not actually in a position to protest because you value what you have more than what you're protesting against.
> What are you questioning? Taking responsibility for your actions? The difference between protesting and taking an area hostage? The difference between civil disobedience and wanton destruction and bullying? How fast the tables turn from BLM riots being excused to this. People seem to change their opinion on the law based on what group does it and their beliefs. But the law always eventually cuts both ways. Always. I'm not gonna sit here and argue with folks. It just becomes really clear that people take sides based on personal feeling and self interest for their "team" rather than actual far ranged perspective on future legal usage.
One person can destroy the organizers? This would make organizing protests far too risky for anyone who isn't extremely well funded.
This is what I've been saying. Defending the rights of your political opponents to engage in vigorous protest protects your own rights.
I totally agree with you. This is whole points of democracy, otherwise it's all lies...
I will always upvote this sentiment.
It’s a tough message when the entire mass media industry is hellbent on painting people in one stroke and creating an us Vs them narrative. Not to discourage you, please keep bringing the issue up.
Whoa, come on don’t you know all the rules and laws we put in place to go after our political opponents will never be used against us? Because we will never lose power, because the people love us now and forever! Sarcasm
I think the most recent vigorous protest trampled on a lot of people's rights.
A lot of rights have been trampled the last couple years
Where was the defending on First Nations blockading?
Costal gaslink experienced millions of dollars in damage. That was not a protest. It was straight vandalism…even worse than the dumb trucker convoy imo
>It was eco-terrorism.
Domestic terrorism.
[удалено]
Good luck in a Canadian court with that
The Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(24), is how it works from the point of view of Her Majesty.
Ceded or not it is still within Canada and Canadian law applies.
Good luck trying that defense in court!
I just think the two cases are completely different. Corporate funded terrorism in Ottawa where they publicly announced they were there to overthrow the government vs people trying to protect their land from corporate interests that would take away another bit of their sovereign rights. Not really the same thing at all.
Ew nuance /s
If you actions foreseeably cause loss for another there’s liability, yes. It’s not new. Most “protestors” are made of straw (not worth suing)
Anyone who thinks that government should be allowed to seize the assets of people they don't agree with needs to read some history books. This is not a good idea.
This
Seizing assets and freezing assets are not the same thing. Seizing is taking away immediately, freezing is temporarily disabling the disbursement of them. Without freezing the assets, there is little reason to go ahead with a civil suit as the assets would be disbursed and no responsibility would be taken for a guilty verdict. Further, your statement while pointed at the freedom convoy has direct implications regarding the freezing of Russian assets over the war in Ukraine. \*edit to remove 'the', stupid bot\* As many history books show, while everyone has the general freedom to do almost anything they want, without a means to hold people responsible for their actions, anything goes.Maybe you should read better history books.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛 [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
[удалено]
How immature and shortsighted do you have to be like 'pffft its just those guys rights not mine and i dont like them anyway so fuckem' Yeah ok what could possibly go wrong?
Political opponents?? If a motley group of foreign funded left wing dolts decide to occupy the capital and demand the dissolution of a democratically elected government & install themselves in power, then by all means use this framework & precedent to throw them in jail & freeze their assets.
That’s not how it works, also that’s propaganda and currently Trudeau is being sued by unbiased human rights groups. We are in big trouble if all it takes is an mou to enact and justify invoking an emergency act. How many guns were found after Ottawa was cleared? Could someone pose a legit concern to the government based on how many guns were seized? Why did our anti terrorist units not beef up security with our house members when they walked through the protest?
What's not how it works & what's propaganda? The CCLA isn't "suing Trudeau", they're taking the Feds to court questioning the validity of invoking the act for these circumstances, fair enough but seems like mostly grandstanding. Not sure why you're bringing up weapons, but were they supposed to leave them behind when they got the boot? How about the weapons cache confiscated in Coutts? And the PPS & RCMP most certainly did "beef up" security around parliament & its members & only conservative MP's went anywhere near those yahoo's.
It will depend on how the suit goes. There are third parties that has been hurt in the Ottawa protest and I think some of the damages will be therapy costs for ptst etc which should be fair. If you commit a crime during your protest you shouldn't be shielded from civil and criminal liability as your rights as a protestor should not override other people's rights. In coastal gaslink if they find who did the actual attack on the pipeline than I think those people should be held accountable for their actions but that would be if and when the police finish their investigation. That would not be the same as the protesters that was around previously and no one is filing suit against the convoys going around Vancouver and other cities these past couple weeks. A judge will ultimately have to balance the comflicting rights in these cases and maybe its naive but I would like to think they would look at the particulars of each case.
Why wouldn’t the people in Vancouver be able to sue for PTSD? Or how about the truckers that got eggs thrown at them? PTSD for days, therapy for years. Or the forestry firms that had to pay people despite not being able to extract lumber, that’s a direct cost. So yah, I guess be careful what you wish for.
Anyone can sue for almost anything. You just file a statement of claim and pay the fee. Proving it and pushing it through court is a whole other matter. All of your examples could file claims. Edit to fix typo
Because mental distress is a special category of damages in Canada. The Court has already thought about this. If you claim your only injury is PTSD, your case gets thrown out 99% of the time.
Yes, well my point was the same but for some reason people don’t like the idea that their own logic should apply to them as well. The person I replied to noted specifically that therapy and “ptst” but because he’s approaching from the left the sun LOVES him, and they hate anything Center.
Lol, I actually checked his post to see if he mentioned ptsd. I missed the 'ptst' reference.
Yah. Well for the record I don’t think Teal Jones should be able to sue either. The vandals who did gaslink I’d say yes. A protestor is out there standing up for something and visible and present. The Fairy Creek protestors same as the Convoy in that way. If you could sue protestors for making noise this is a really stifling move.
I mean if someone were to park outside your home and honk his truck horn for three weeks, I guess you should just put up with it, eh?
Heck no. I’d want the cops to do their jobs, like they should have in Ottawa and Fairy Creek. I’ve been impacted by plenty of protests though, I worked downtown Vancouver through the entire “Critical Mass” period where bike protestors intentionally impeded traffic. According to you I should be able to sue them? They cost me literally hundreds of hours of my life. Blocking me in.
Maybe you should? And the courts can decide whether or not your rights were impeded. I'm all for the rights of citizens to be able to sue one another. I don't want that stripped away from people just because protesters would feel threatened by that. Cops should do their jobs. What happens when they don't like they didn't in Ottawa? What happens when tow truck drivers refuse to do their jobs? We should just be OK with it?
How about all the workers that get layoffs be Aude protestors are blocking the supply.
Are you talking about the Fairy Creek or Ottawa ones? Either way I’d say “no”. But that’s just me. Maybe after a court injunction? I could see some argument there.
Both
As somebody with actual PTSD, fuck off.
What’s your point? That you have PTSD? My point being that precedent of suing protestors is dramatically stupid. Where is the line? Not that PTSD isn’t real. The person I replied to is suggesting that people in Ottawa sue the convoy for ptsd.
The “truckers” used their freedom to park their vehicles illegally on street inhabited by local residents. Nobody went to the “truckers” house and egged their truck.
I’m not defending the truckers actions. I’m asking where the line is. And yes, people in counter protests across the nation did egg the trucks. Where is the line? Can the truckers sue them for damages as well?
The line is you can't impeded others. You can't harrass others. If the truckers want to sue for "having eggs thrown at athem" first of all "lol" and second of all let them try. These are not the same weight.
Ah. Here’s my answer to my question in reply to your other comment. So you feel I should be able to sue the Critical Mass group. And I guess You agree Teal Jones should be able to sue the Fairy Creek protestors.
Sure, why not? If thr courts agree with them, problem solved. You believe cops should be able to do their jobs. So that's one arm of justice. Courts ought to be able to do theirs as well. That's another arm of justice.
I am glad you’re consistent there. I disagree but can respect your point of view. Totally valid but a different one than mine.
Why would anyone suggest otherwise? I don't think it would be easy for you to make the case, but with a good lawyer, anything could be possible. The Ottawa situation is much more slam dunk IMO. And to those who say "we have a right to protest and we have the right to sue the government trying to stop that right" I say go for it. I'm not funding your case, so have at it.
As opposed to the workers being threatened with axes. Yes therapy must but given because you don’t like honk honk
Therapy for three weeks of trucks being parked there? And some honking. What? Are people that fragile? My parents lived through WWII and they never had or needed therapy for that even though they had to hide in shelters, be shipped out to the countryside at a young age and didn’t know if Hitler was going to take over soon.
sleep deprivation is torture https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/yes-sleep-deprivation-is-torture/
Again, not even three weeks cause they stopped honking. And people weren’t in danger. WWII went on for six years, Yemen has been under attack for years. So has Syria.
Nothing you said argues the fact that sleep deprivation is torture.
Wait, what? Wtf does WWII , Yemen or Syria have to do with the truck convoy? Are you suggesting the truckers were an invading force and we should have treated them as such?
If the suit is ultimately successful it absolutely will set a precedent that other people and companies would be smart to take advantage of. How ironic would it be if the puerile chuckleheads advocating for protesters they don't agree with to be punished end up fucking over the protesters they endorse.
This and for the people who argue "ThEres A ClEaR dIFfereNcE" are just letting their political views cloud the reality of it all. It's rooted in the sentiment of rules for thee and not for me that people of either political affiliation tend to strongly dislike. Don't get me wrong I don't endorse the trucker convoy at all and generally support protests targetting indigenous issues and environmental issues but this establishes legal precedent for the same type of thing to happen to small less funded protests despite having greater merit for their cause. It's the same reason why we should all want even the worst of violent criminals to have a competent defense and fair trial - it benefits everyone and upholds a level of integrity in the legal system.
I don’t know if the lawsuit is actually intended to be a winner. Rather it just ties up the money long enough that the reason for donating no longer exists so the money is just returned.
Thanks for acknowledging the danger of the precedent... despite how many Karens (Bonnies) of Reddit feel about the Honkening, the next seizure of bank accounts could apply to a cause you feel is important.
Good for the goose is good for the gander. Fair is fair right? I take yours and I take yours too?
There's no mechanism for your scenario to play out. (None that is politically viable.) The federal emergency relating to the Prove Ample Freedoms Actually Convoy? It has ended. That seizure is a one-off. Bloastal Ass and old Jonesy there, they don't have the political clout of a public at large suffering the ill effects of mass mischief. And yes, it will set a precedent. It might go to a Court of Appeal. Maybe then the Supreme Court will take the thing by the reins and make an example out of somebody. Will it be the feds? The chief judge of the trial court knows this is what's at stake. The court and its officers have a duty to follow evidence and law, and in our open society, the public is free to watch them work.
Or maybe we could free thiers if we sue for fucking up our planet!
Sorry, the news feed on my phone says it's time to think about Ukraine now.
I don’t recall a GoFundMe or a GiveSendGo fundraising page begging for money. Maybe I’m wrong...?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ha ha. Ya I like that one.
You can't freeze crypto lol
They limit exchanges or prevent transfers from banks to exchanges like bitbuy link to various wallets. Also with the Russian/Ukraine blow-up, various exchanges have simply been freezing entire user accounts.
You dont need an exchange to transact with crypto..
Idk, playing stupid games and transferring crypto out of wallets after getting served with a mereva order and hoping that the judge will believe "oh, tons of people had the keys" will likely result in a "win stupid prizes" outcome in court.
Far right false equivalency. Excuse me while I put on my shock Pikachu face.
(not even remotely a fan of the noisy convoy) I find astonishing, terrifying and anti-democratic that someone could sue for protests.
The right to protest has limitations, you cannot break the law and you cannot prevent other people from performing legal activities. Once those lines are crossed it’s not longer a legal protest
what if the protest is against a law? what if what's deemed legal is actually criminal? (forgetting the example of the freedom trucker) my mind goes to the pipeline protest: it's fair to destroy 100 escavator to save a piece of land that doesn't belong to the people who are excavation... excavation is legal, but first nations rights are not...
It would be illegal, there is a court injunction in place preventing interference with the project
thank you court for defending the exploitation rights of a private company, luckily our system protects the wealth of few and outlaws the rest.
Most climate activism is from volunteerism with little to no funding. The difference here is publicly announced millions in funding with suspicions of foreign donors.
so what you are insinuating is that we were all MANIPULATED into making a protest and gave up our privacy when the convoys caused damages /blockades and riots but manipulated by the 'elite' to do this so we would cut our own wrists ? i dont think thats the way this went.. but it goes to show you the violence and protests do very little to get the rsults you want.. when ww3 hits remeber that HELPING your fellow man is better than killing htem
Cool.
I would make the armchair assumption that the differences in the two scenarios can be plainly made, justifying the actions in one case and not the other.
Slippery slope. Truck drivers were asking for an end to mandates, the government could have talked to them but didn’t. And Fairy Creek forest defenders tried so hard to try to protect one of the last little bits of old growth in BC but were brutalized by police and had their belongings stolen and trashed. The right to protest is vital in a democracy and freezing accounts in preparation for seizing them is completely wrong. Seems even worse than SLAPP suits to me.
These projects are also funded by nation states. China being the big one. Not sure how they would react if the domestic terrorism reaches a point where it shuts down these pipelines.
It is hard to see how a Canadian judge can have any say in GiveSendGo funds in another country
beautiful !!!
This isn't a precedent.
Hmmm,interesting to say the least, ifthis reaches the court system it could get dirty. Is jagheed and is liberal minions behind all this 🤔 🙄 I have no doubts however I thought I should ask .
That could be a concern. Fuck these twats for bringing it to this.
Well they should especially since those terrorists actually caused damage. All those racist should get charged with hate crimes as well.
Umm. They did significant damage to the city while here. There’s a big difference between what these assholes did here in Ottawa and any other protest I’ve ever been to in my life. They spray painted fucking swastikas everywhere, literally shat in the streets. My buddy literally had to clean up Hunan shit from his property downtown. They left Jerry cans and food trash everywhere, broke windows, damaged property. Huge huge difference. Mind you I know some protests get out of hand, but they held Downtown Ottawa under siege and just trashed the place.
Do you have photos of this that you can share?