The correct solution to illegal behavior in a healthy democracy is to arrest someone and try them in court. We shouldn't be denying that to to anybody no matter how wrong they are.
There should be proportionate responses to illegal behavior. Not even attempting to address to illegal behavior with the appropriate government response should not be a justification for more severe government response.
Simply not wanting to go through the process of arresting people shouldn't be sufficient cause for emergency powers.
Did the city or provincial government instruct them to? Did they refuse?
Specifically I am thinking about this interesting interview with Dr. Leah West onthe Michael Geist LawBytes podcast. From about 8 minutes onwards they discuss whether the terrorist justification or the foreign influence justification existed: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/02/law-bytes-podcast-episod...
It is interesting to see some commentators in this HN thread trying to suggest Russian influence. (And also IMO not very convincing).
In any case, whatever opinion you have on this, it's a good podcast.
Using the phrase "dictatorial powers" to describe a bill explicitly designed to balance rights and forward action is incindiary language.
It's a terrifying reminder of how vulnerable we've become to arbitrary and lawless government actions in our near-cashless society.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30446703
Crypto doesn't exist in a vacuum.
It's true that you still need to convert them to local currency to spend them, same as US dollar bills, which are the popular savings vehicle here in Argentina. Around here, mostly the same networks of illegal money-changers handle dollars, Bitcoin, and gold jewelry, though there are some that only handle one or two of these.
It would not be the first time store decide to accept an unofficial currency
I mean, yes, the government can still probably take your money, or for that matter kill you with impunity. But it's a good idea to put some obstacles in their way that aren't merely procedural.
I guess the senate reforms to make it more independent actually yielded some results (one of the good things trudeau did, back when he was a lot less politically hawkish). The lawsuits were also piling up but those will continue I think. In any case this has been a disaster for the liberals and for Canada's reputation and I'm pleasantly surprised by the senate. I can see why it's not necessarily an uncessary, antiquated institution now. Checks and balances!
