This article supplied by Troy Media.

 By Lee Harding 

The rise of debanking threatens free speech and financial rights. Canadians have a right to be worried

If you thought bank account freezes ended after the 2022 convoy, think again. “Debanking”—the practice of banks abruptly closing accounts, often without a clear explanation—is on the rise in Canada and the U.S., and it’s fast becoming a tool to silence dissent.

Alberta lawyer Eva Chipiuk is a recent debanking victim. On July 17, the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sent her a letter saying she could no longer have an account there. She posted RBC’s letter, which offered little explanation beyond stating her recent account activity was “outside of RBC’s client risk appetite,” on X. She was told to transfer her funds to another financial institution within 31 days.

In an interview with the Financial Post, Chipiuk said she had made two $1,000 transfers to cryptocurrency platform Shakepay Inc. over two consecutive days to buy Bitcoin. The second transfer was blocked by the bank and triggered an account freeze. She went to the bank to have her account restored. A few days after succeeding, she received the letter saying her accounts would again be closed until mid-August.

While banks often flag cryptocurrency transactions for review because of antimoney-laundering regulations, such activity is lawful.

If that alone were grounds for debanking, more than four million Canadians would be at risk. According to the Triple A Global Cryptocurrency
Report, about 10.1 per cent of Canadians own cryptocurrency.

However, buying crypto does not appear to be the real reason. Chipiuk represented protesters from the Freedom Convoy, which began in
opposition to COVID-19 vaccine mandates and sweeping pandemic restrictions, and cross-examined then-prime minister Justin Trudeau
in 2022 at the Public Order Emergency Commission hearings in Ottawa.

In 2022, Canadian banks froze $7.8 million from 200 accounts related to the convoy. A single mother in B.C. complained to her MP, Mark Strahl, that her bank account was frozen after giving a $50 donation to the convoy, which was legal at the time. In response, the prime minister and deputy prime minister said financial measures were meant only to target convoy leaders.

The convoy is over, but debanking is not. The Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments opened 94 cases related to debanking in 2024 and 105 in 2023. A spokesperson for the organization told the Financial Post: “We are not able to challenge or change a bank’s decision. We are also generally not able to tell the consumer the bank’s reason for account closure.”

Debanking has also emerged as an issue in the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump complained about it in his Jan. 20 video conference with the World Economic Forum. He told Brian T. Moynihan, chair, president and CEO of Bank of America: “I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business.”

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren agreed. At a Senate committee hearing on Feb. 8 entitled “Investigating the Real Impacts of Debanking in America,” she said: “Donald Trump was onto a real problem when he criticized Bank of America for its de-banking practices.”

Warren said de-banked U.S. customers “all reported common themes,” namely: “No warning. No explanation. No chance to dispute or appeal. They described how one day, all of a sudden, they lost their place in the banking system.” The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has received 12,000 debanking complaints over the past three years. Georgia, Florida and Tennessee have introduced laws to curb debanking.

A completely de-banked person is left with only cash, but in Canada, Bill C-2 could significantly worsen their predicament. If passed, federal law will ban cash transactions of $10,000 or more to a business or non-profit for any given thing, whether that amount is in a lump sum or a series of payments.

Encroachments on free speech and financial rights are paving the way for a dystopian future, where those who refuse to bow to government diktat or bankfavoured ideologies are shut out of the financial system.

Canadians and Americans must defend their freedoms now, before a digital technocracy emerges to cancel and crush dissent.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Conservatives are coming to the defense of British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm after was fined over $93,000 for saying gender is based on biology.

In an August 20 post on X, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre denounced a ruling by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) that mandated Hamm pay $93,639.80 in legal fees and suspended her license for one month for her statements opposing LGBT ideology.

“A nurse with a spotless track record gets fined and suspended for pointing out there are two genders, and for praising world renowned author & women’s rights advocate

@jk_rowling,” Poilievre declared.

“This is authoritarian censorship,” he warned. “We must restore free speech and free thinking in a free country.”

Many other Conservative Members of Parliament (MPs) also came to Hamm’s defense, condemning the actions taken against her as censorship while voicing concerns over the implications of punishing professionals for publicly voicing their opinions.

“Fining a nurse $93,000 for acknowledging biological sex is punishing her for recognizing a scientific reality required to safely practice medicine,” MP Leslyn Lewis wrote on X. “We cannot ignore that in medicine, biological sex matters.”

“Nurses and doctors have to distinguish between sex and gender in order to treat patients safely — for example, when prescribing medications, diagnosing conditions, or determining appropriate procedures,” she added.

Additionally, Lewis raised concerns over “whether a professional can safely do their job if they are punished for acknowledging biological realities.”

Similarly, MP Andrew Scheer called the ruling “completely unjust,” adding that “everyone who cares about free speech should be outraged!”

Scheer quoted a 1926 warning from British author G.K. Chesterton that read, “We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.”

In March, a ruling from the BCCNM disciplinary panel found that Hamm committed “unprofessional conduct” by publicly discussing the dangers of the LGBT agenda in three articles and a podcast appearance.

Later that month, Hamm shared on social media that Vancouver Coastal Health fired her from her nursing position without severance after she was found guilty of “unprofessional conduct.”

Hamm found herself targeted by the BCCNM in 2020 when she co-sponsored a billboard reading, “I (heart) JK Rowling.” This sign was a nod to the famous British author’s public comments defending women’s private spaces from being used by gender-confused men.

The BCCNM accused Hamm of making “discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding (so-called) transgender people” while identifying herself as a nurse or nurse educator.

According to the college, Hamm’s statements were “made across various online platforms, including but not limited to podcasts, videos, published writings, and social media” between July 2018 and March 2021.

In July, Hamm filed human rights complaints with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to hold both organizations accountable for targeting her over her beliefs. She has since announced that she is taking her case to the British Columbia Supreme Court.