Your clarification doesn't really provide any actual clarity of your skepticism.
The fact the article quotes a leaked e-mail from before the order is lifted, and then cites no further on going compliance beyond February 28th, and has a ton of quotes of employees even questionning it is quite enough to point out how the title used here is loose.
The "bank" (again, not really a bank) didn't just decide to secretly maintain a list of Convoy supporters.
If you see this as "just complying with the act/ just following orders", then I don't know what to tell you.
Do you know what a CROWN CORPORATION is ? It's literally a Government entity. The same Government that passed the Emergency Act.
If you think compliance to Government orders is optional when working for the Government, I don't know what to tell you.
The fact the article quotes a leaked e-mail from before the order is lifted, and then cites no further on going compliance beyond February 28th, and has a ton of quotes of employees even questionning it is quite enough to point out how the title used here is loose.
The "bank" (again, not really a bank) didn't just decide to secretly maintain a list of Convoy supporters.
Do you know what a CROWN CORPORATION is ? It's literally a Government entity. The same Government that passed the Emergency Act.
If you think compliance to Government orders is optional when working for the Government, I don't know what to tell you.