Retrospective Nature of Punishment is Especially Chilling. Bari Weiss interviews David Sachs, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur.
BW: We went, in such a short time, from people getting booted off of PayPal, for example, to governments wielding this power.
A few weeks ago we saw massive protests in Canada of truckers … It didn’t matter if you were a protest leader or if you contributed $15 via GoFundMe, or even if you had sold a protestor a cup of coffee. Their accounts were frozen. Their money was stranded. They couldn’t use their credit cards. …
DS: One of the most indefensible aspects of what Trudeau did is that the freezing of accounts was done retroactively.
Meaning: at the time that the protesters engaged in their civil disobedience or the people donated to them, it was a perfectly legal activity. And yet their accounts were frozen based on having contributed in the past, again, at a time when it was completely legal. …
Anybody who had views that Justin Trudeau believed were unacceptable could be retroactively subjected to this punishment. That precedent must have a chilling effect on speech moving forward.
If, today, you are a citizen in Canada contemplating making a contribution to a political cause that you believe that Justin Trudeau doesn’t like, the precedent has been set that, at some point in the future, Trudeau could look back at that contribution and basically freeze your account …
That’s going to have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to contribute to causes that Justin Trudeau doesn’t like.
Doesn’t that make Justin Trudeau a dictator, able to effortlessly punish anyone who ever disagreed with his views?
No discussion, no argument, no trial, just punishment.
hat-tip Stephen Neil