I’m getting a deluge of calls about people who are worried about having donated to @GiveSendGo
Once again, this thread is not legal advice but it can be useful information.
First, don’t panic. For reasons elaborated on out below, I am not convinced that past donations are illegal. I am also not saying they aren’t either; but for starters, assume you’re okay until and unless you hear otherwise; no point in stressing yourself out.
Second, don’t discuss the matter with anybody other than a lawyer. I’ve heard stories of the @CBCNews contacting people to confirm details. Do not discuss your donation with anybody and especially not the media.
Third, consider not donating in the future. Although you may be supportive of the #FreedomConvoy2022 and although I am not necessarily saying the protest is illegal, the ante has been upped at this point and the claim will be that you now know it is illegal.
Finally, live your life. This is related to my 1st point; even if you technically broke the law, for the same reason that police don’t generally pull people over for driving 1km/h over the speed limit, so too is it far fetched to think that thousands of accounts will be frozen.
If the authorities contact you, say nothing and DM me.
If your bank freezes your account, contact a civil litigation lawyer immediately and consider also sending me a DM.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I keep seeing this chart circulating — I encourage everyone to read it’s methodology. It is one of the most dishonest surveys I’ve ever seen in my life and I break it down in this thread. 🧵
The proposition they advance is “the more uninformed you are, the less you support vaccine passports”.
So in order to measure how “uninformed” someone is, they asked 7 questions and the more affirmatively people answered, the more uninformed this study claims they are.
Makes sense…if those 7 false statements are, in fact false.
So what are those questions/statements?
Here they are; read them and see for yourself how broken this study is.
The same legal “experts” on Twitter who explained us concepts like how they believe an injunction works last week, are now publishing a flurry of “legal opinions” on how Canada should invoke the Emergencies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 22.
A 🧵 on why they’re wrong.
Starting in the preamble, a “national emergency” is needed that requires the Act to “ensure safety & security” during the emergency. Looking at what’s going on in Ottawa right now, it’s hard to say this is a “national emergency” let alone one that puts safety/security in issue.
Next, once over those first two hurdles, the national emergency must “seriously threaten” one or more “obligations”. Words matter and so the mere threat to obligations would not be sufficient to allow the use of the special powers in the Act. What are those “obligations”?
1. When an officer tells you to give your property to him, say “no I refuse to give you my property” or “give me back my property”. Do not yell or be aggressive.
2. If he refuses ask him to tell you the reason why. Try to document it in personal notes or on audio or video.
3. Ask for his name and badge number. Also try and capture video of him or her.
It is probable that these seizures are not lawful but it’s never clear cut in court.
UPDATE:I have started to receive calls from people arrested. It appears that the allegation is “aiding:abetting mischief”. There some basis for this to be alleged although it may not hold up in court.
At this stage it is CRUCIAL that you don’t say anything to police other than:
It does not appear that @MaximeBernier was informed of his full rights to counsel “immediately” as required by the Supreme Court in R. v. Suberu. In addition to challenging every other horrifying aspect of this case, @JCCFCanada should raise this as well. [Thread continues]
Full, technical compliance with the law would have seen the arresting officer read the rights where the cuffing first took place. But even once back at the cruiser, there’s a conversation and no officer pulls out a card to read the full rights; Bernier then enters the cruiser.
It is not okay for the police to wait until some other point — even a couple minutes later — because ‘right to counsel’ is *that* important, and no aspect of it may be delayed. It’s right there in section 10(b) of the Charter. But this is a “systemic problem” in many places in 🇨🇦