I've been through this all back in the day. A wiki article does not change that.

For example. There were permitted drilling operations that were intentionally shut down by secondary permits for local pipelines (multiple drills in a field connecting to a local collection point). These and other methods were used to impair US production, and this doubt/change in supply absolutely increased oil futures. Soubt, uncertainty, drives oil prices up.

Did any donations made by "useful idiots" lead to bank account freezes?

The RCMP criteria for account freezes included "notable influencers". That's a pretty vague ill-defined net.

Pay particular attention to "Canadian banks were also temporarily given the authority to freeze accounts suspected of being used to support the protests without the need to obtain court orders, were granted legal immunity if they chose to do so, and were allowed to more freely share information with law enforcement and government agencies" in the following:

"After the invocation of the [Emergencies] Act, Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance announced that the purview of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada was expanded to include the monitoring of funds sent through crowdfunding platforms such as GoFundMe, where protestors had raised millions that were ultimately refunded, as well as payment providers formerly outside its scope. Freeland specifically cited cryptocurrency transactions, which the protestors turned to after GoFundMe, as a type of digital transaction that the new measures were meant to cover. Canadian banks were also temporarily given the authority to freeze accounts suspected of being used to support the protests without the need to obtain court orders, were granted legal immunity if they chose to do so, and were allowed to more freely share information with law enforcement and government agencies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Was it a false report? Did the contractor not feel threatened or harassed?

then again ... 17 minutes to assess the situation around a clearly signalled journalist with credentials doing his work sitting in his car in a public space and check said credentials seems an awful lot to me.

How does being a journalist make one unable to threaten or harass? Showing a journalist ID does not end an investigation. Like the journalist, the police officer needs to have the person tell their side of the story. Then compare their side to what the other person said. That can easily take 17 minutes.

And if it did NOT take 17 minutes, letting people have some sort of angry argument separate and go their respective ways is a pretty common police tactic. It often avoid escalation.

And now add that the journalist was following the person with a car. If in an emotion state, a "hot pursuit" mentality, the journalist could be driving dangerously and putting other people on the road at risk. Yet another reason to let the two separate.

Lets sit on this for 5 minutes is a common deescalation technique.

I think "could" is the problem, it makes the individual level case sound too optional. My understanding is that for even a very broad and well agreed upon concept, such a civil rights, an individual case is pretty much required. I believe civil rights advocates reviewed many individual case before selecting Rosa Parks as the case to get the issue before the Supreme Court. And famous Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had stated that "Roe v Wade" was probably the wrong case to use to bring abortion rights before the Court. I'm left with the perception that individual level cases are quite fundamental.

Nope. Every citizen has the freedom of the press. You can print and distribute what you want. Working for a news organization is not required. Being (self-)employed as a journalist is not required.

You have convinced me, universal free meds does seem to be needed. :-)

Thank you for outing yourself as a complete loon. Bad guess regarding GOP, never been a member. But you have your script and you aren't allowed to deviate from it, so I understand.

LOL - Thank you for outing yourself as a nutcase. Police having a conversation with an angry person following and harassing someone is perfectly constitutional. They determined what is going on. Weird behavior but no lines had been crossed yet. Free to go.

Exchanging angry words on the internet is a lesser thing than angry words face to face.

And the police showing up for angry words on the internet is a British thing, not an American thing. In the USA there has to be a credible incitement to / threat of actual real world violence.

True. But police also have a duty to prevent crime. They should have a conversation with an angry person acting in a stalky or harassy manner before they cross the line. Hopefully making a legal case never necessary.

Huh, I thought only cold water was outlawed in the EU, room temperature allowed. :-)

Now try this example. Canadian truckers protest, they do outrageous things like slow traffic and block roads. The government then freezes the bank accounts of people that donated money to that protest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

A BLM protest leads to a violent riot. Should we freeze the bank accounts of everyone who donated to the organization of that protest?

Which by the way did not happen in the Canadian trucker's case. They did outrageous things like slowing traffic and blocking streets. Would you approve of freezing bank accounts when peaceful BLM protesters block traffic? Environmental protesters block traffic?

Part of the job of the police is to prevent crime. They don't have to wait for the angry ex-boyfriend stalker to hurt someone, they can have a conversation before that to prevent things from going too far.