Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Canada Censorship Communications Social Networks Your Rights Online

Canadian Town Outlaws Online Insults To Police and Officials 152

Posted by Soulskill from the because-canadians-are-so-rude dept.
Pig Hogger writes: The Canadian town of Granby, Québec, just strengthened its municipal bylaw that prohibits insulting police officers and town officials by extending its "jurisdiction" to online postings. Fines range from $100 to $1,000. The town's mayor said, "In my opinion, if I threaten you via my keyboard, it's as though I am making that threat right in front of you. For me, it's the same thing." Critics worry about the implications for freedom of speech, and wonder why police and officials should get protection an average citizen does not.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Town Outlaws Online Insults To Police and Officials More

Canadian Town Outlaws Online Insults To Police and Officials

Comments Filter:

  • Sorry (Score:2, Funny)

    by Pikoro ( 844299 )

    eh.

  • Not the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @06:46AM (#49627795) Homepage Journal

    Threats and insults aren't the same thing. What a bunch of idiots, someone should nuke them.

    • Makes sense (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      By nature, police officers should have a thicker skin than normal citizens when it comes to insults, and they should be trained to deal with them.

      However, police officers do need extra protection against real threats.They're more likely to be a target, and they're be more vulnerable than others. And it shouldn't matter which medium is used to threaten a police officer.

      • It requires a lot of courage, and an equal amount of stupidity to insult an officer. It's like poking the bear with a stick.

        I didn't need a law to know it's a bad idea to be disrespectful to an officer outside a courtroom. They already have enough power to cause you grief if you do.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What a bunch of idiots, someone should nuke them.

      That will be $1000 please Monsieur. Make the cheque payable to the Granby Policemen's Benevolent Fund.

  • Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @06:46AM (#49627799)
    I hope they made it pretty darned clear what exactly constitutes an "insult". Or is it just "posts I don't like"?

    • Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:10AM (#49627895) Homepage

      Mod parent up

      One right that should be absolute is to criticise a politician for their public actions. We elect them and if we don't like what they do we must be able to say so in clear terms. This includes saying that if think they are being stupid or duplicitous.

      As regards personal insults: they should have the same protections and rights of redress for ad hominem attacks as the rest of us have - no more, no less.

    • Well there is more than that.
      Complaints towards an organization are often based on a Generalization. Yes they are good cops, however there may be enough Bad Cops to make a generalization that Cops are bad, and should be avoided.

      Sure if you are a good cop, this seems like an insult. But it is a generalization.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mrbester ( 200927 )

        If you think you're a Good Cop but don't do anything about the Bad Cops then you're a Bad Cop.

    • Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Informative)

      by msauve ( 701917 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @08:24AM (#49628263)

      I hope they made it pretty darned clear what exactly constitutes an "insult". Or is it just "posts I don't like"?

      Pretty much. There's a long history of Lèse-majesté [wikipedia.org] laws. It's good to be the King, at least until the peasants revolt.

  • Suck it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @06:47AM (#49627801)

    Let me be the first to say, the officials in Granby, Québec, suck.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      Let me be the first to say, the officials in Granby, Québec, suck.

      SInce the town is in Quebec shouldn't we be insulting them in French?

    • Some people used to think that some of them were idiots., on occasion.

      With this bylaw we know for sure that all of them are assholes and idiots, all the time.

    • Is it an insult if it's true? And I doubt that you're the first to say that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Toad-san ( 64810 )

      Regrettably, my French is not good, so I couldn't glean an appropriate email address from the town's web site:

      http://www.ville.granby.qc.ca/ [granby.qc.ca]

      But if I could, I would. And then the insulting emails would begin. I have no plans to visit Quebec, so screw them very much.

      Plus, I don't think this stupid idea will fly. Canadian citizens are not that ignorant. They may not have a First Amendment of their own, but they get the idea.

  • Why? Because police and officials are royalty. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    They see their existing privileges and understandably conclude that they are above the plebs.

  • That's nice for you (Score:4, Insightful)

    by simplypeachy ( 706253 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @06:59AM (#49627855)

    "For me, it's the same thing". For the rest of us, it's obviously very different. Now shut up and go run your little moon.

  • Are politicians actually incapable of thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Livius ( 318358 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:01AM (#49627865)

    *Threats* are already crimes. Opinions are protected by freedom of speech.

    Let me be the first to say that the mayor of Granby is an idiot.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JustOK ( 667959 )
      No, you are not allowed to be the first to say that.

    • "if you don't start following the law, I'm going to report you"

      there, I just made a threat and its actually quite legal.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        What made that illegal is that you are not reporting it immediately, but give a pass this time, again. So you are aiding in breaking the law.

    • Let me be the first to say that the mayor of Granby is an idiot.

      I think you missed that opportunity. Get in line and take a number.

  • Insults? HA! (Score:3)

    by moehoward ( 668736 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:07AM (#49627879)

    Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries, eh!!!

    Now go away or I shall insult you a second time... next to the picture of my cat swatting at the mail slot.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I have insulted your police department. Pray I do not insult it further.

  • So, Illegal to Insult a Council Official (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Robert Riel, Granby Deputy Mayor, you're a waste of good oxygen and I suggest that you resign so that somebody with more brain power can take over your job. Obviously you're not fit to do the job as you don't possess the intelligence.

    Now, as I'm in Germany, what are you going to do about it? Your call asshat.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by umghhh ( 965931 )
      Considering the fact that German federal institutions cooperate willingly in violating constitution of Germany and rights of its citizens in extreme cases cooperating in putting innocent citizens into cages in GITMO, I would be careful - Canada does not have its GITMO but they can throw you into one of the tailings ponds from sand oil production that they have so many in Alberta.

  • WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:11AM (#49627897)
    This is muslim-like mentality - ban saying something we don't like because our feelings are more important than free speech. I wonder if this Canadian town will take this to Muslim extremes where pointing out any moral issues with the officials, or that they are ineffective in their jobs will be seen as a reason to arrest someone.

    • Re:WTF (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:15AM (#49627919)

      This is muslim-like mentality - ban saying something we don't like because our feelings are more important than free speech. I wonder if this Canadian town will take this to Muslim extremes where pointing out any moral issues with the officials, or that they are ineffective in their jobs will be seen as a reason to arrest someone.

      Whatever you do don't draw a cartoon of the mayor.

    • Re:WTF (Score:5, Interesting)

      by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @08:49AM (#49628385) Homepage
      Its not Muslim-like, it is French-like. I was really worried, as a Canadian, until I noticed this is in Québec. Their entire legal system is filled with laws that could never pass our constitution, for the rest of the country. We don't tend to have legal precedent bleed into the the rest of the country; Quebec is more like a separate country to Canada than America is.
      • What's the legal structure that allows Quebec to have laws that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster in the rest of the provinces?

        • Honestly, it's stupidity, and trying very hard to "protect" their culture and language.

          This is a province where they've tried to get companies like "Canadian Tire" and "Home Depot" to rename their companies to French because they've outlawed English signage. It's a place where they keep trying to make it illegal to have your kids educated in English.

          Ironically, French speakers from almost anywhere else in the world typically can't understand WTF Quebec people are saying.

          • Ironically, French speakers from almost anywhere else in the world typically can't understand WTF Quebec people are saying.

            Ah ouin? Pour kessé tu penses qui sont pas capable de comprendre quand t-on leur parle? Parce qui parlent pas français, sti! /Sarcasm

            The Office Québécois de la langue française is one of the most annoying organisation over here.

        • Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)

          by Minupla ( 62455 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `alpunim'> on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @11:08AM (#49629725) Homepage Journal

          I assume this is an honest question so here's an honest answer.

          The relevant bit is:


          Section 33.

          (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
          (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
          (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
          (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
          (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

          Contrary to popular belief it's not specific to Quebec, it can be undertaken by either the federal or provincial/territorial level by a simple majority of the applicable governing body. (note that it doesn't apply to municipalities, so is irrelevant in the particulars of this article)

          It allows temporary suspension of some Charter rights for a period of time (again country to popular belief it's not a blank check, and can't be used to suspend, e.g. mobility rights, or democratic rights, and the Supreme Court has ruled its use invalid in the past.).

          It was first used by the Yukon Territory in 1982, but was never brought into force.

          It's also been used in Alberta (in an ill fated attempt to ban same sex marriages), Saskatchewan (to attempt to force through back to work legislation, and avoid a Charter challenge based on freedom of association), and Quebec (in the most famous instance, to allow the provinces french only sign law). There are not currently as far as I know any in-use cases of Section Thirty Three.

          Min

        • Not a legal structure, a cultural one. About 50% of political Quebecians do even want to be part of Canada, so have no respect for its laws. They have enormous political clout, so pro French laws pass regardless of their legality or not.

          Imagine if 50% of voting British citizens were proponents of Sharia law, it would not matter what laws where in place to restrict the governments power. When you have a highly organised majority of a democracy, there are not really any working legal restrictions on their p

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Nemyst ( 1383049 )
          Quebec never signed the constitution when it was patriated in 1982 (all other province PMs signed it in secret and the law was passed). Nobody's wanted to touch the thing ever since, it'd be like opening Pandora's Box. This does mean that whether Supreme Court decisions are binding in Quebec is rather unclear, as well as whether laws from the province can affect the rest of Canada and vice-versa. By and large, Supreme Court decisions are respected, but on the flip side the court and the federal government a

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by qeveren ( 318805 )

          Quebec is a chunky voting block, so the Federal gov't won't dare poke them too vigorously.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nugoo ( 1794744 )
        It is neither Muslim-like nor French-like. It is narcissist-like. This mentality transcends all cultural boundaries. If you think you're safe because you're not French or not Muslim, you are wrong.
      • The ignorance in that comment is staggering. Which is perfectly normal for the average canadian post about Québec. The notwitstanding clause allows a law to bypass SOME elements of the Charter of Rights. That clause was put in the constitution AT THE INSISTENCE of western provinces in order to allow them to DISCRIMINATE AGAINST their french minorities. The first time it was used in Québec was 25 years ago, by the extremely FEDERALIST liberal party. And that ended 20 years ago because such laws
    • This is not 'Muslim', it's fanaticism. It's reared it's head in most religions, and in reality has nothing to do with a religion and all to do with the desire of some people to control and oppress others. What religion they follow is incidental.
  • If the supreme court rules against your law there should be an instant by-election for anyone who voted for the stupid law in question.

  • Specifically, the police from Granby, Québec in Canada.

  • Town of Granby: you SUCK! That insulting enough for you? OK, you're all probably a bunch of pedophiles and suck your mothers' dicks! Stop trying to emulate Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung! Oh, and come and get me, YA TURDS! Do I sound cowed to you?

    P.S. - there is no threat implied or expressed in my speech, but an insult, maybe. Earth to Granby. Nobody has a right not to be insulted. Nobody even has a right not to FEEL threatened. For all I know, the boogie man is going to get you. Or me.

  • Not part of Canada (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Many in this town would claim they are not part of Canada, I'm sure the rest of the country wishes they were not (right now anyway).

  • They maintain a open FB page, so you can all go and congratulate them on enacting such sensible and inspired legislature. https://www.facebook.com/Centr... [facebook.com]

    • Re: Good News Everybody (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That's the page for the public pool dumbass.

      • I was mislead by Wikipedia.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nytes ( 231372 )

        Well then...

        Hey! You Granby public pool managers suck at your jobs! You wouldn't know chlorine from liquid nitrogen if you stuck your hand in it! You can't clean hard water scale worth beans!

        And your cooking probably sucks, too.

  • Ya hey dere, Dem hosers sure like their Hitler policies eh?

  • How did I know this was Quebec without even reading the summary?

    I must be psychic!!

    • Now that the separatist party of Quebec has failed, the rest of us should raise up and kick them out.

  • Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
    I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
    The evil that men do lives after them;
    The good is oft interred with their bones;
    So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
    Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
    If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
    And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
    Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
    For Brutus is an honourable man;
    So are they all, all honourable men--
    Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
    He was my friend, faithful and just to me:

  • This is a reaction (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is a reaction to the artist whose street art put will likely put her in prison.

    http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/jennifer-pawluck-convicted-of-criminal-harassment-for-image-of-montreal-cop-shot-in-head

    In Canada, negative views on minorities, the government, or the police tend to be dealt with harshly. In fact, in Quebec, negative views on the French language itself are dealt with harshly (they went so far as to circumvent Canada's obviously weak free speech laws to prevent any other language

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I thought it was okay as long as I posted the insult in both French and English.

  • The culture is not "French" in the modern sense, either. Think of pre-revolutionary France, even down to the language.

  • Well it's a law. insult a policeman on the street and he can give you a +100$ fine (just like article). For a non-tech person, doing the same on the net seems logical. But they don't understand shit about what it implies to apply this law, privacy wise. Other than, wow, almost no Québec bashing on this thread (less than 50%), that's progress!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by smithmc ( 451373 ) *
      But the existing law is total BS as well. Define "insult" in a way that can be objectively enforced, and that isn't a slippery slope toward the town government finding excuses to fine the whole town, every day. What if I claim to find the phrase "good morning" to be offensive? Can I fine you $100?

  • This is how you know you live in a police state.

  • Which is it? I can see the issue with making threats against people, whether they be public officials or ordinary citizens. But insulting? Why is it not my right to say "Mayor So-and-So is a poopyhead", whether online or right to his face?

  • You guys area all a bunch of idiots!!!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sconeu ( 64226 )

      Damn... I need to use preview...

      You ARE all a bunch of idiots!!!

      Now come and get me, jerkwads!

  • This could be fun, actually.

  • Tous les insultes doivent Ãtre affichés en franÃais seulement.

  • I am not supporting secrecy, but I am not surprised by it. All trade agreements piss someone off and kill someone's sacred cash cow. If there were no special interests to protect, you wouldn't need a trade agreement as there would be no, or low, import taxes. These agreements very specifically say stuff like, we are going to stop taxing microchip imports and you will stop taxing rice imports. Needless to say, your microchip producers and their rice farmers get pissed off. These agreements have been has

  • Here's the actual text of the bylaw:

    Il est interdit à toute personne de provoquer, dâ(TM)insulter, dâ(TM)injurier, de blasphémer ou de molester un agent de la paix ou un officier municipal dans lâ(TM)exercice de leurs fonctions.
    Constitue une infraction au présent article des propos tenus sur Internet ou sur lesréseaux sociaux.
    (rÃg 0556-2015, art.2)

    And my attempt at a translation:

    It is prohibited for any person to provoke, insult, injure, blaspheme, o

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close