图片说明：示意图
图片来源：Public Domain（公有领域）
【中国观察2022年2月21日讯】
大卫-萨克斯写的《自下而上》--
2月20日
去年夏天，我曾警告《常识》杂志的读者，金融脱媒将是下一波在线审查制度。像贝宝(PayPal)这样的大型科技公司已经在与ADL和SPLC这样的左翼团体合作，定义应该被拒绝服务的个人和团体名单。随着越来越多有类似想法的科技公司效仿（正如社交媒体审查所发生的那样），这些可悲的人将被取消平台，被删除，并最终被完全拒绝进入现代经济，作为对他们不可接受的观点的惩罚。
这一预言已经成为现实。
我无法预料的是，这将首先发生在我们温和的北方邻居身上，由加拿大政府自己指挥报复行动。但任何关心美国作为一个公民可以自由抗议其政府的地方的未来的人，都需要了解刚刚发生的事情，并努力阻止它在这里扎根。
在过去的三周里，成千上万的卡车司机聚集在渥太华和加美边境，抗议Covid的限制和规定。加拿大总理贾斯汀-特鲁多没有与他们接触或倾听他们的关切，而是首先谴责他们有 "不可接受的观点"。然后，他把他们妖魔化为白人至上主义者、种族主义者和 "挥舞纳粹标志的人"。
周一，当特鲁多援引《紧急状态法》时，言辞变成了行动。这部此前未被使用的1988年的法律赋予政府30天内处理危机的几乎无限权力。在目前的情况下援引该法需要威胁或使用 "严重暴力"，但绝大多数抗议者完全是和平的--播放 "我们是世界的 "并挥舞枫叶旗。事实上，除了特鲁多经常哀叹卡车司机所谓的 "仇恨言论 "之外，政府几乎没有试图证明需要紧急权力的理由。他的公共安全部长马可-门多西诺说，由于 "恐吓、骚扰和仇恨的表达"，这种非常措施是必要的。也许他没有意识到，这些都没有在法律中被列为援引法律的有效理由。
周二晚上，特鲁多将事情进一步升级，他发布了一项名为《紧急经济措施令》的新指令。该命令援引一项名为《犯罪所得和恐怖主义融资法》的反恐战争法，要求金融机构--包括银行、信用社、合作社、贷款公司、信托，甚至是加密货币钱包--停止向与抗议活动有关的任何人（"指定人员"）"提供任何金融或相关服务"。据CBC报道，这导致了 "账户被冻结，资金被滞留，信用卡被取消"。
根据这项新命令，银行有 "责任确定 "其客户是否为 "指定人员"。一个 "指定的人 "可以指任何 "直接或间接 "参与抗议活动的人，包括通过众筹网站 "提供财产以促进 "抗议活动的捐助者。换句话说，被指定的人可以是一个捐赠25美元支持卡车司机的老奶奶，也可以是车队的组织者之一。
由于众筹网站GiveSendGo的捐赠者数据被黑--泄露的数据显示，加拿大人捐出了800万美元筹款中的大部分--成千上万守法的加拿大人现在面临着仅仅因为支持反政府抗议活动而遭到经济报复和毁灭的前景。
安大略省的一名低级政府官员在她的100美元捐款被曝光后被解雇。一家冰激凌店在店主被揭露向抗议活动捐款后收到威胁，被迫关闭。周三，司法部长大卫-拉梅蒂上了加拿大电视台，大声说出了安静的部分，即任何为 "亲特朗普运动 "捐款的人都应该 "担心 "他们的银行账户和其他金融资产被冻结。
当这些抗议者或那些支持他们的人因为失去工作、生意或银行账户而最终陷入经济困境时，那些试图帮助他们的人将会怎样？加拿大的金融机构会不会被迫玩六度空间的游戏？担心被抓到，肯定会对那些被怀疑有 "不可接受的观点 "的人的商业前景产生寒蝉效应，形成一个贱民阶层，没有人敢与之交易或帮助他们。
B.J. Dichter是抗议活动的组织者之一，他的所有银行账户和信用卡都被冻结，他表达了这种绝望的感觉。"这感觉就像被放逐到中世纪的村庄任其自生自灭"。
事情是如何走到这一步的？多年来，意识形态主义者利用对偏执的指责来追捕人们的工作，把他们从社交媒体上踢开，并取消他们参与网络经济的权利。然而，许多观察家把这些案例当作离群索居的例子，因为它们影响了不具同情心的个人，所以可以忽略不计。但是，现在我们有一个广泛的工人阶级群体和他们的支持者，他们因为公民不服从而在经济上被剥夺了权利。
加拿大卡车司机被边境两边的媒体彻底诋毁为种族主义者和偏执狂，以至于很少有人考虑到对普通公民的噩梦般的影响。在大多数情况下，CBC、CNN、MSNBC和两国的主要报纸都在为特鲁多的专制主义行为欢呼和鼓劲--甚至在加拿大各省取消最初激发抗议的疫苗规定的时候。
也许没有人比CNN撰稿人Juliette Kayyem更热心。她在推特上鼓励特鲁多政府首先 "砍掉轮胎，清空油箱，逮捕司机"，然后 "取消他们的保险，吊销他们的驾驶执照，禁止今后对卡车司机进行任何监管核查"，以及其他看起来很极端的想法，直到特鲁多采纳了其中的几个。"相信我，"卡耶姆宣称，"我不会用尽各种方法来让这一切受到伤害。" 人们怀疑特鲁多也不会，即使大流行病的结束使整个争端变得无关紧要。有趣的是，这几乎就像 "残酷是重点 "一样。
这些学者和政客的自我概念与现实相差无几。他们一边冒充民主的捍卫者，一边未经立法或公开辩论，或者在没有紧急情况的情况下援引紧急权力。他们声称多样性和宽容是他们的最高价值，同时坚持认为只有一种政治观点是可以接受的，并对其他观点进行审查。最重要的是，进步的精英们将自己视为弱势群体的拥护者，同时妖魔化工人阶级的男人和女人，他们的经济生计已经被他们苛刻的科维德政策破坏了。
这些精英们很快就会转向下一个Twitter的愤怒，但在每一辆卡车被拖走，最后一个抗议者被催泪瓦斯、眩晕手榴弹和骑马的警察清除之后，加拿大人民将长期承受特鲁多行动的后果。事实上，在周末，渥太华警察局长告诉记者，他们将在未来数周和数月内追捕抗议者。"如果你参与了这次抗议活动，我们将积极查找你的身份，并采取后续的经济制裁和刑事指控。绝对的。"
虽然紧急命令只授权冻结资产30天，但银行和金融机构将警惕恢复与任何 "指定人员 "的业务关系--或者他们认为将来可能成为指定人员的人。由于确信这些私营企业将为他们做肮脏的工作，政府可能会退缩，但对政治异议的寒蝉效应将继续存在。这是中国社会信用体系的西方版本，它并不完全禁止政治异议，但使其成本过高，以至于对普通公民来说变得不切实际。
我们如何阻止这种乌托邦式的政策在美国扎根？我在科技界的一些朋友说，去中心化的区块链和加密货币提供了一个答案--对于那些可以在世界任何地方做零工的假名计算机程序员来说，这可能是真的。但它不会帮助那些在加拿大皇家骑警监督下在现实世界中运营的卡车司机。
真正的答案在于政治和法律。政策制定者需要在我们的法律中建立保障措施，以保护公民的财务权利，防止未来出现某种紧急情况，作为剥夺这些权利的借口。正如芝加哥大学教授理查德-爱泼斯坦(Richard Epstein)提议，最大的社交媒体公司应被视为普通运营商，以禁止它们限制言论，我们可能需要禁止最大的金融机构因为不喜欢公民的政治而拒绝他们进入金融系统。为了防止基于信仰的歧视，政治信仰可能需要成为一个受保护的类别。
我们还必须阻止围绕 "恐怖主义 "的定义蠕动，这个词的使用已经变得如此有弹性，现在甚至包括愤怒的母亲与学校董事会的斗争。就在这个月，国土安全部对其国内恐怖主义的定义做了一个鲜为人知的改变，称 "关于未经证实的广泛选举欺诈和COVID-19的虚假或误导性叙述在网上广泛传播 "是其认为国内恐怖威胁环境加剧的一个关键驱动因素。正如我们20多年来所看到的，"恐怖主义 "是一个神奇的词，任何限制权利和扩大政府权力的行为都可以以此为由。
美国公民绝不能仅仅因为行使宪法规定的自由发言、自由礼拜或和平集会抗议的权利而被贴上恐怖分子的标签。当然，无论是在巴格达还是在布鲁克林，为激进事业而实施的暴力行为都是恐怖主义，但受宪法保护的言论则不是。与大学行政人员和人力资源部门实行的安全主义相反，言论不是暴力。一个公民在社交媒体上发帖，即使她是在质疑疫苗或抨击面具任务，也不是在煽动恐怖主义。
我们这些自由世界的人被要求在这场大流行中为了我们的集体健康而暂停我们的许多自由。但是，要求我们损害和平抗议的权利，或者以虚假的紧急情况为名，未经适当的法律程序扣押我们的财务，永远不能成为正常的。用Gorsuch法官的话说，"即使宪法在这场大流行病中放了假，也不能成为一个休假。"
A Social Credit System Arrives in Canada
Justin Trudeau just created a caste of economic untouchables. Can we stop this dystopian policy from taking hold in America?
Last summer, I warned readers of Common Sense that financial deplatforming would be the next wave of online censorship. Big Tech companies like PayPal were already working with left-wing groups like the ADL and SPLC to define lists of individuals and groups who should be denied service. As more and more similarly minded tech companies followed suit (as happened with social media censorship), these deplorables would be deplatformed, debanked, and eventually denied access to the modern economy altogether, as punishment for their unacceptable views.
That prediction has become reality.
What I could not have anticipated is that it would occur first in our mild-mannered neighbor to the north, with the Canadian government itself directing the reprisals. It remains to be seen whether Canada will be a bellwether for the U.S. But anyone who cares about the future of America as a place where citizens are free to protest their government needs to understand what has just occurred and work to stop it from taking root here.
For the past three weeks, thousands of truckers have gathered in Ottawa and along the Canada-America border in protest of Covid restrictions and mandates. Rather than engage with them or listen to their concerns, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first denounced them as having “unacceptable views.” Then he demonized them as white supremacists, racists, and “swastika wavers.”
On Monday, the rhetoric turned to action when Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act. This heretofore-unused 1988 law gives the government virtually unlimited power for 30 days to deal with a crisis. Invoking the law under the present circumstance would require the threat or use of “serious violence,” yet the vast majority of protesters have been entirely peaceful—playing “We Are the World” and waving Maple Leaf flags. Indeed, the government has made little attempt to justify the need for emergency powers beyond Trudeau’s frequent bemoaning of the truckers’ alleged “hateful rhetoric.” His public safety minister Marco Mendocino stated that such extraordinary measures were necessary due to “intimidation, harassment, and expressions of hate.” Perhaps he doesn’t realize that none of these are listed in the law as valid reasons to invoke it.
Trudeau escalated things further on Tuesday night, when he issued a new directive called the Emergency Economic Measures Order. Invoking a War on Terror law called the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, the order requires financial institutions—including banks, credit unions, co-ops, loan companies, trusts, and even cryptocurrency wallets—to stop “providing any financial or related services” to anyone associated with the protests (a “designated person”). This has resulted, according to the CBC, in “frozen accounts, stranded money and canceled credit cards.”
Banks, according to this new order, have a “duty to determine” if one of their customers is a “designated person.” A “designated person” can refer to anyone who “directly or indirectly” participates in the protest, including donors who “provide property to facilitate” the protests through crowdfunding sites. In other words, a designated person can just as easily be a grandmother who donated $25 to support the truckers as one of the organizers of the convoy.
Because the donor data to the crowdfunding site GiveSendGo was hacked—and the leaked data shows that Canadians donated most of the $8 million raised—many thousands of law-abiding Canadians now face the prospect of financial retaliation and ruin merely for supporting an anti-government protest.
Already, a low-level government official in Ontario was fired after her $100 donation came to light. A gelato shop was forced to close when it received threats after its owner was revealed to have donated to the protest. On Wednesday, Justice Minister David Lametti went on Canadian television to say the quiet part aloud, namely that anyone contributing to “a pro-Trump movement” should be “worried” about their bank accounts and other financial assets being frozen.
When these protestors or those that supported them end up in financial hardship because they lose their job, business, or bank account, what will happen to those who try to help them? Will Canadian financial institutions be forced to play Six Degrees of Deplorables? The fear of being ensnared in the dragnet will surely have a chilling effect on the commercial prospects of those suspected of “unacceptable views,” creating a caste of untouchables whom no one will dare to transact with or help.
B.J. Dichter, one of the protest organizers who has had all of his bank accounts and credit cards frozen, expressed the sense of desperation: “It feels like being banished from the medieval village left to die.”
How did things get to this point? For years, ideologues have used accusations of bigotry to hound people from their jobs, kick them off social media, and rescind their right to participate in the online economy. However, many observers shrugged off these cases as outliers—fringe examples that could be ignored because they affected unsympathetic individuals. But now we have a wide-ranging group of working-class people and their supporters who are being financially deplatformed for civil disobedience.
The Canadian truckers have been so thoroughly defamed as racists and bigots by the media on both sides of the border that few are thinking about the nightmarish implications for ordinary citizens. For the most part, the CBC, CNN, MSNBC, and the major newspapers in both countries have cheered and egged Trudeau on as he descends into authoritarianism—even as various Canadian provinces rescind the vaccine mandates that originally inspired the protests.
Perhaps no one has been more enthusiastic than CNN contributor Juliette Kayyem. She took to Twitter to encourage Trudeau’s government to first “slash the tires, empty gas tanks, arrest the drivers” and later to “cancel their insurance, suspend their driver’s licenses, prohibit any future regulatory verification for truckers,” and other ideas that seemed extreme until Trudeau adopted several of them. “Trust me,” declared Kayyem, “I will not run out of ways to make this hurt.” One suspects Trudeau won’t either, even as the coming end of the pandemic renders this entire dispute irrelevant. Funny, it’s almost as if “the cruelty is the point.”
The self-conception of these pundits and politicians could not be more at odds with reality. They pose as defenders of democracy while invoking emergency powers without legislative or public debate, or without an emergency for that matter. They claim that diversity and tolerance are their highest values while insisting that only one political point of view is acceptable and censoring the alternatives. Above all, progressive elites see themselves as the champions of the disadvantaged while demonizing working-class men and women whose economic livelihoods have been devastated by their draconian Covid policies.
These elites will soon move on to the next Twitter outrage, but the people of Canada will be living with the consequences of Trudeau’s actions long after every last truck has been towed and the last of the protesters has been cleared by tear gas, stun grenades, and mounted police on horseback. Indeed, over the weekend, the Ottawa police chief told reporters that they will be pursuing protestors for weeks and months to come: “If you are involved in this protest, we will actively look to identify you and follow up with financial sanctions and criminal charges. Absolutely.”
While the emergency order only authorizes the freezing of assets for 30 days, banks and financial institutions will be wary of resuming business relationships with any “designated person”—or anyone they think could be one in the future. Confident that these private businesses will do their dirty work for them, the government will likely back off, but the chilling effect on political dissent will remain. It’s a Western version of China’s social credit system that does not altogether prohibit political dissent but makes it so costly that it becomes impractical to the ordinary citizen.
How do we stop this dystopian policy from taking root here in the United States? Some of my friends in the tech world say that decentralized blockchain and cryptocurrency offer an answer—and that might be true for pseudonymous computer programmers who can do gig work from anywhere in the world. But it won’t help truck drivers who operate in the real world under the supervision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The real answer lies in politics and the law. Policy makers need to build safeguards into our laws that protect citizens’ financial rights against some future emergency that would be used as the excuse to take them away. Just as University of Chicago professor Richard Epstein proposed that the largest social media companies should be treated as common carriers to prohibit them from restricting speech, we may need to prohibit the largest financial institutions from denying citizens access to the financial system because they dislike their politics. In order to prevent discrimination on the basis of creed, political beliefs may need to become a protected class.
We must also stop the definition creep around “terrorism,” a term whose use has become so elastic that it now even includes angry moms fighting school boards. Just this month, the Department of Homeland Security made a little-noticed change in its definition of domestic terrorism, citing “widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19” as a key driver of what it deemed a heightened domestic terror threat environment. As we have seen for over 20 years, “terrorism” is the magic word by which any curtailment of rights and expansion of government power can be justified.
American citizens must never be labeled terrorists simply for exercising their constitutional rights to speak freely, to worship freely, or to assemble peaceably in protest. Of course, an act of violence committed in service to a radical cause is terrorism, whether committed in Baghdad or Brooklyn, but constitutionally protected speech alone is not. Contrary to the safetyism practiced by university administrators and HR departments, speech is not violence. A citizen posting on social media, even if she is questioning vaccines or railing against mask mandates, is not fomenting terrorism.
Those of us in the free world have been asked to suspend many of our freedoms for the sake of our collective health during this pandemic. But asking us to compromise our right to peaceful protest, or to have our finances seized without due process of law in the name of a fake emergency, can never be made normal. In the words of Justice Gorsuch, “Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.”