According to a news release by the bank about the updated terms and conditions, the rule will allow bank administrators to investigate and close the accounts of people reported to have used "coercive or controlling behavior to limit a person's access to or use of funds; making profane, derogatory, discriminatory or harassing comments to any person; making or promoting threatening or abusive language to any person," and "making or threatening physical or psychological harm to any person."
The rule change is in keeping with guidance issued by Canberra in June that seeks to bring various government institutions’ functioning in line with national law.
The move has aroused the fury of defenders of free speech, which does not have the same legal foundations as it does in the United States, where speech by and large is legally restricted only by its potential to imminently provoke violent or illegal behavior.
Daniel Freiheit, a Counsel at Rousseau Mazzuca LLP and a Law Society of Ontario Certified Specialist in Corporate and Commercial Law, was one such person who spoke out.
"The entire Commonwealth is compromised," Freiheit wrote on X (Twitter) when news about the NAB rule change broke. "Look into dual citizenship & consider moving your savings to countries that respect property & speech."
Sputnik asked the attorney about his thoughts about free speech and how the rule could affect the banking sector.
"I said the entire Commonwealth is compromised because the use of bank freezes appears to be part of a common pattern - in Canada and Australia now - going against basic human rights (free speech)," he said on Tuesday. “Of course, there are and ought to be limits on speech, but this approach of freezing money is quite harsh, escapes due process, and is very difficult to challenge."
"This notion - not being able to criticize our government - is antithetical to democratic values, and to me indicates our Commonwealth system has been 'compromised,'" he added.
"When money is frozen, it makes it hard to challenge the decision - because the person has no money to retain legal counsel," Freiheit observed.
"I can't speculate how this will evolve, but one way this could play out is if an Australian routinely criticizes the Australian government (or an Australian criticizes an individual working for the government, e.g. a politician), that politician can in theory notify the bank of said individual being 'profane' and the bank could then freeze the person's bank account. All for the 'crime' of being too critical of the government."