Ex Post Facto Laws Mean No One Is Safe

 

The Trudeau regime is applying its unlawful declaration of emergency retroactively. Thus, people who contributed to the truckers before the declaration are having their bank accounts frozen. This means that no one is safe from arbitrary law. The U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. However, we aren’t in much better shape since the FBI and the Mueller Special Counsel Investigation bankrupted Trump supporters. In the U.S.’s version of a banana republic, the losers get to persecute the supporters of the guy who won it. Biden urged Trudeau to take action since the authoritarians need to stand together. Once again, the Trump supporters have proven to be right about who threatened civil liberties.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 93 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Stina (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    For the record, I am against freezing a private bank account of people donating to a cause I don’t like.

    I don’t mind so much if a group has been formally put on a terror list (by Congress), but simply a cause that the government doesn’t like is seriously questionable.

    The government can get a warrant, or the government can get stuffed.

    • #31
  2. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    genferei (View Comment):

    How about this: the US invades Canada and burns down Ottawa while Canada invades the US and burns down Washington, DC. Then peace. Win win!

    Will there be refugees? 

    • #32
  3. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

    The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a clause that forbids ex post facto convictions:

    11(g) Any person charged with an offence has the right not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

    My wager is that the government is counting on having the “emergency” resolved before the courts can rule their seizure of people’s bank accounts unconstitutional. They’ll give back the money if so ordered, but in the meantime they were able to deprive the Freedom Rally of financial support.

    Note that the Charter doesn’t say it’s illegal to charge someone with an ex post facto offence. It only says they cannot be found guilty of one.

    Also besides, nobody’s been charged with illegally funding the protest, as far as I am aware, so it’s not something they can be found guilty of, therefore the government didn’t violate section 11.

    Those who had their funds seized will have to sue, arguing that it constituted an unreasonable seizure under section 8 of the Charter. I’m not confident the Supreme Court won’t rule that it was a reasonable seizure.

    Because it is a tyranny

    Technically, it’s easier to overrule the Supreme Court in Canada than in the USA, because we have the option of the Notwithstanding Clause.  In the US the only option for overruling the Supreme Court is a constitutional amendment.

    It’s also technically easier to depose a government in Canada.  It only takes a majority vote in the House of Commons to render a judgement of non-confidence, thereby triggering a new election.  A party’s caucus can also replace its leader with a simple majority vote.  Impeachment in the US is much more difficult, and it doesn’t replace the party in power.

    In both cases, what’s lacking is the will of the voters, not a deficiency of the system.

    • #33
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

    The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a clause that forbids ex post facto convictions:

    11(g) Any person charged with an offence has the right not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

    My wager is that the government is counting on having the “emergency” resolved before the courts can rule their seizure of people’s bank accounts unconstitutional. They’ll give back the money if so ordered, but in the meantime they were able to deprive the Freedom Rally of financial support.

    Note that the Charter doesn’t say it’s illegal to charge someone with an ex post facto offence. It only says they cannot be found guilty of one.

    Also besides, nobody’s been charged with illegally funding the protest, as far as I am aware, so it’s not something they can be found guilty of, therefore the government didn’t violate section 11.

    Those who had their funds seized will have to sue, arguing that it constituted an unreasonable seizure under section 8 of the Charter. I’m not confident the Supreme Court won’t rule that it was a reasonable seizure.

    Because it is a tyranny

    Technically, it’s easier to overrule the Supreme Court in Canada than in the USA. In the US the only option is a constitutional amendment.

    No.

    Ignore it.

    • #34
  5. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Canada out of the G7.

    • #35
  6. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Also, even in the US where we have an ex post facto clause, it generally only applies to changes in criminal law.  For example, sex offender registration acts did not violate the clause, because they were civil regulations.

    I don’t see how that is similar.  I’m not familiar, so is this true:  a law was passed which required previously convicted sex offenders to register at some point after the law was passed? 

    If that’s the premise, there’s nothing ex post facto about that.  It’s not as though the law criminalized something after the fact.  For this to be ex post facto, it would have to punish a failure to have had registered previous to the new law.

    Right?

    • #36
  7. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Frozen (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    How about this: the US invades Canada and burns down Ottawa while Canada invades the US and burns down Washington, DC. Then peace. Win win!

    Canada should have a hockey summit series with the US. The winner squares off against the Russians for world domination. As the Chinese don’t yet have a decent team, we’re a shoe in unless its televised in China in which case the size of the contract will mean they all play ping pong instead.

    The CCP can hire all hooligans it needs.  They will also have enough intelligence to blackmail all of the officials.

    • #37
  8. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    genferei (View Comment):

    How about this: the US invades Canada and burns down Ottawa while Canada invades the US and burns down Washington, DC. Then peace. Win win!

    That’s not a fair trade! Ottawa is fifteen times the size of Washington D.C. geographically and only 1/6 the size of Washington D.C. (metro area) population-wise!

    ;-)

    • #38
  9. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I don’t like the policy, in this application, though I wouldn’t mind if it was done to an account used to make donations to Al Qaeda.  However, at first glance, it doesn’t look like an ex post facto violation.

    It is against the law (I presume) to donate to AQ because it is designated a terror organization or some such.

    In the absence of such a designation, all this emergency act does is ex post facto restrict (money is speech, recall) political expression.

    • #39
  10. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Stina (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    For the record, I am against freezing a private bank account of people donating to a cause I don’t like.

    I don’t mind so much if a group has been formally put on a terror list (by Congress), but simply a cause that the government doesn’t like is seriously questionable.

    Zackly.

    • #40
  11. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    Percival (View Comment):

    Canada out of the G7.

    Canada should have been replaced by India at the G7 years ago.  Canada’s now the ninth-richest country by GDP, and the eighth-richest democracy.

    • #41
  12. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    BDB (View Comment):
    In the absence of such a designation, all this emergency act does is ex post facto restrict (money is speech, recall) political expression.

    The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on numerous occasions that money is not speech.

    • #42
  13. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Frozen (View Comment):

    Frozen (View Comment):

    For the record, I didn’t change my handle.

    Ricochet is having database issues.

    • #43
  14. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Percival (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    For the record, I am against freezing a private bank account of people donating to a cause I don’t like.

    I don’t mind so much if a group has been formally put on a terror list (by Congress), but simply a cause that the government doesn’t like is seriously questionable.

    The government can get a warrant, or the government can get stuffed.

    And sometimes both.

    • #44
  15. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Richard Easton: Once again, the Trump supporters have proven to be right about who threatened civil liberties.

    There least there are no more mean tweets, right?

    • #45
  16. Frozen Inactive
    Frozen
    @Pseudodionysius

    They’re going to need a bigger Emergency Act:

    • #46
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BDB (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Also, even in the US where we have an ex post facto clause, it generally only applies to changes in criminal law. For example, sex offender registration acts did not violate the clause, because they were civil regulations.

    I don’t see how that is similar. I’m not familiar, so is this true: a law was passed which required previously convicted sex offenders to register at some point after the law was passed?

    If that’s the premise, there’s nothing ex post facto about that. It’s not as though the law criminalized something after the fact. For this to be ex post facto, it would have to punish a failure to have had registered previous to the new law.

    Right?

    The claim that registration was ex post facto was based on it being added punishment for a crime that had already been convicted, sentenced, and perhaps fully served.

    • #47
  18. Frozen Inactive
    Frozen
    @Pseudodionysius

    We can only dream:

    “Imagine a Sikh convoy, Mohawk convoy, and a Ghurka convoy converging on Ottawa”.

    • Anonymous
    • #48
  19. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    kedavis (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Also, even in the US where we have an ex post facto clause, it generally only applies to changes in criminal law. For example, sex offender registration acts did not violate the clause, because they were civil regulations.

    I don’t see how that is similar. I’m not familiar, so is this true: a law was passed which required previously convicted sex offenders to register at some point after the law was passed?

    If that’s the premise, there’s nothing ex post facto about that. It’s not as though the law criminalized something after the fact. For this to be ex post facto, it would have to punish a failure to have had registered previous to the new law.

    Right?

    The claim that registration was ex post facto was based on it being added punishment for a crime that had already been convicted, sentenced, and perhaps fully served.

    And I think generally wrong. 

    • #49
  20. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    What is unlawful about the emergency declaration?

    I dunno . . . let me de-bank you and listen to you squeal.

    • #50
  21. Frozen Inactive
    Frozen
    @Pseudodionysius

    During the election campaign earlier this fall, Bernier attracted large crowds with his opposition to vaccine mandates and other public health restrictions aimed at controlling the spread of COVID-19. His supporters were prominent among the angry, profanity-spewing protesters who dogged Prime Justin Trudeau’s campaign.

    Experts who follow hate groups have said the anti-vaccination fringe has been infiltrated and exploited by white supremacists.

     

    • #51
  22. Frozen Inactive
    Frozen
    @Pseudodionysius

    “Experts…have said…”

    • #52
  23. Frozen Inactive
    Frozen
    @Pseudodionysius

    Judge: “Bail is set at $100,000”

    Defendant: “But my bank accounts and credit card are frozen.”

    Judge: “Defendant refuses bail.”

    • #53
  24. Frozen Inactive
    Frozen
    @Pseudodionysius

    It’s also technically easier to depose a government in Canada. It only takes a majority vote in the House of Commons to render a judgement of non-confidence, thereby triggering a new election. A party’s caucus can also replace its leader with a simple majority vote. Impeachment in the US is much more difficult, and it doesn’t replace the party in power.

    Today, a country with a long, storied history of fighting against the odds and harsh elements faces a choice between a leader with nazi links and a leader sired by Communists. If you depose one you get the other. 

    Canada, choose wisely.

    • #54
  25. DonG (CAGW is a hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a hoax)
    @DonG

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Donate to the wrong cause and lose all access to you money without trial and no biggie to you. In fact you agree with it. No trial

    Which states allow civil asset forfeiture?   Too many!  FYI, using federal law is a workaround to state controls.

    https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7195521/civil_forfeiture_map.0.png

    • #55
  26. Frozen Inactive
    Frozen
    @Pseudodionysius

    Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    In the absence of such a designation, all this emergency act does is ex post facto restrict (money is speech, recall) political expression.

    The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on numerous occasions that money is not speech.

    Judge: “You have a right to legal counsel.”

    Defendant: “My bank accounts are frozen.”

    Judge: “You have a right to a legal aid lawyer.”

    Defendant: “But all their bank accounts are frozen too.”

    Judge: “Defendant refuses legal counsel.”

    • #56
  27. DonG (CAGW is a hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a hoax)
    @DonG

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    What is unlawful about the emergency declaration?

    I found a reference that said: ‘A national emergency is defined as “an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that … cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” ‘

    Is there really no law relating to double parking in Ottawa?    I think Trudeau considers “dealt with” as “satisfyingly punished” not “remedied”.  

    • #57
  28. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    DonG (CAGW is a hoax) (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Donate to the wrong cause and lose all access to you money without trial and no biggie to you. In fact you agree with it. No trial

    Which states allow civil asset forfeiture? Too many! FYI, using federal law is a workaround to state controls.

    https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7195521/civil_forfeiture_map.0.png

    Yep, it is a great injustice.

    What is going on in Canada is even worse. 

    • #58
  29. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    Frozen (View Comment):

    It’s also technically easier to depose a government in Canada. It only takes a majority vote in the House of Commons to render a judgement of non-confidence, thereby triggering a new election. A party’s caucus can also replace its leader with a simple majority vote. Impeachment in the US is much more difficult, and it doesn’t replace the party in power.

    Today, a country with a long, storied history of fighting against the odds and harsh elements faces a choice between a leader with nazi links and a leader sired by Communists. If you depose one you get the other.

    Canada, choose wisely.

    Where did you read that Candace Bergen has Nazi links?!

    • #59
  30. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    DonG (Keep on Truckin) (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    What is unlawful about the emergency declaration?

    I found a reference that said: ‘A national emergency is defined as “an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that … cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” ‘

    Is there really no law relating to double parking in Ottawa? I think Trudeau considers “dealt with” as “satisfyingly punished” not “remedied”.

    That is the core argument of the lawsuits against Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act that are currently working their way through the courts.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.