Montreal adopts bylaw banning insults against police, municipal employees
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
> The Constitution does not allow such speech to be made a crime. The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.
The difference is that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a "notwithstanding clause" which, when invoked, allows a province to avoid having one of its laws struck down by federal courts even if it goes against some parts of the Canadian Charter (though only applies to some rights, not all).
you do realize that Montreal, Canada is not in the 51st state, correct?
It is valid to remind and affirm that Canada is a different country with a totally different landscape of rights.
But since this website serves a primarily American audience, I was curious if such a law was possible in the US and I found that it is not. So I posted that.
So yes, the current SCOTUS has already upheld it.
but you can legally call them cunts, so that's okay I guess
Already illegal: "I'm going to kick your ass" Now illegal: "You're a poopy head"
If they haven't made enough from fines for a particular time window they all start messing with the traffic to get people to drive over reds in frustration, or get pedestrians to cross against the light. I've seen them leave people at intersections for over five minutes trying to do this.
Never seen it taken to such an extremely obvious level anywhere else, along with their bizarrely over the top body armour for what is in reality a very safe place.
https://therover.ca/open-letter-investigate-the-montreal-pol...
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2261943/calls-grow-f...
...oh dear..
Give it a decade and they'll be using it for everything.
It’s a miscarriage of logic, I don’t care how emotional that video is. Laws and rights should be based on logic and reason.
The ones that want this passed will be dead by the time people are like wtf is this archaic law who voted this in
And in fact they are never based on logic and reason alone. Everyone has reasons and anything can be framed under some logical system. Admittedly, having a sound logical system is harder and having something like that might seem preferable for the average HN reader. Now, let’s face it, there is not a single juridical corpus that ever met such a high standard of soundness. Really, everyone is free to seek a legal system that can be proved sound on ZFC grounds, good lucks.
That’s just not how it works.
That’s even sadder that people can’t refrain from supporting such a juridical decision with huge possible side effects in terms of abusive application.
In both cases, that’s some kind of impulsive reactions lacking proper rational counterparts to balance the performed actions. And the second one feels far more problematic at societal level, without dismissing in any way the due empathy for the officer.
>The new Montreal bylaw would ban insults, harassment, threats, abuse and intimidation, as well as offensive and aggressive behaviour.
>It also includes provisions saying city employees could refuse to provide services to someone who misbehaves. However, the bylaw doesn't define what could be construed as an insult.
That's how the (evil) people who support it will construe it. In reality that kind of stuff doesn't really bother employees all that much because it's just part of the job, they knew it going in and everyone agrees those sort of people are out of line.
What bothers employees is when they get heckled for doing (in the course of their job) stuff that just about everyone agrees is wrong, bad, stupid or heavy handed, because most of those employees know deep down they're in the wrong, and having it pointed out and having enough of the public agree with the hecklers in message if not in delivery is a real morale killer. And then your burnt out employees stop giving a shit, do a bad job, get caught on camera enforcing the "you had to lie through your teeth to defend it to begin with" policy in a way that lays bare how f-d up it is. And that's what they're trying to avoid by threatening to fine any peasant who opens their mouth.
You will find the same behavior across so many different government services — a culture of not taking charge, or like committee thinking. Nothing gets done.
There’s a reason people are pissed.
Idk what the solution is, my brain goes to automated government services, maybe something like Singapore
Like when people say we need better sanitation, there's too many tent cities, this needs to be fixed, etc, etc, and the city goes and hires a bunch of employees who then get to work fining residents for trash bin violations no shit they get heckled even if they solve some token amount of the core problem (invariably just enough to let the liars in the comments go to bat for them without the lies being obvious). And you see this kind of thing on damn near every axis of government enforcement and social services these days.
The city and its people are way cooler than this
IMO this rule is not good but there is a trade-off being made either way.
Yes it does
>they knew it going in
No. Nor civil employees nor service workers go to work expecting to be abused.
You sound very much like a person who likes to verbally abuse those you deem beneath you
Angry people who are right burn out employees.
Nobody likes being a human shield for their employer.
Like: police officer does something racist. Person says "hey, you're racist!". Police officer then gives a $1000 fine to the person for insulting them
apparently it can be
is there appeals to national courts there
edit: after looking into it, this seems embellished and laymen level of legal understanding that I see everywhere. I wanted to believe though! There seems to be no functional difference for Quebec as a province in Canada compared to others, despite some nuance.
>The Charter is applicable in Quebec because all provinces are bound by the constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...
Unfortunately, I suspect eventually this strategy of "containment" of dissent will eventually lead to outbursts of violence since less extreme forms of dissent are not tolerated anyway.
I had never seen one in US. How is it framed, specifically "insulting", or framed as "non-compliant" or some other way?
All over the world, people in power seem to be forgetting this. Unfortunately for us all, it's likely that they'll need a practical reminder before they remember.
You already see this in many public businesses. Front line workers should not have to endure abuse from the public.
But, the standard for sworn officers should be much higher.
Criminalizing an insult is not the same thing at all. This law could get people fined for saying some cop is racist or even things not aimed at a specific person like wearing a fuck the police shirt. And insults are subjective so it's all up to the prosecutor and judge, who might side with the police by default when the evidence is unclear.
It should not be criminalized. The first offense should just be getting kicked out of the DMV office or whatever. If you keep doing it then they should have some way to ban you until you pay a fine, or post a bond or something.
> "The thousands of women and men who work every day to serve Montreal have the right to protection from their employer, which is us."
So basically it was pushed through despite being unpopular or unfinished because they have legitimate employment problems in government right now.
There's erosion of trust in the government, and the solution will further erode trust. Unfortunately this is not an exclusive problem to Canada right now.
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/grand-montreal/2026-09-21...
The police woman is amazingly patient.
If we cannot say mean things under extreme duress, then they shouldn't be allowed to lie/mislead to extract evidence. (The inverse is illegal afaik -- to lie to an officer)
...
"It also includes provisions saying city employees could refuse to provide services to someone who misbehaves. However, the bylaw doesn't define what could be construed as an insult."
----------------
1. If what constitutes an "insult" is left undefined and up to discretion, then this law will be used as an tool for police to fine and harass anyone they don't like at a given moment. It will be abused.
2. This law also bans things, such as threats, that are already covered by the law. If you threaten police, they already have the tools to arrest and charge you. This should not have been included in a law that covers insults and is likely only there to provide camouflage.
I sincerely doubt this law will stand up to its first test in court.
The Canadian charter explicitly allows for limits based on the (necessarily) vague concept of what a normal democratic society would consider fine, and what they would consider "how about you sit down, and reflect on what you just said because what the hell is wrong with you". And of course, context matters.
Calling a city worker something unpleasant because they refuse to issue a marriage license because of their personal beliefs is not the same as laying into someone because they're slow at their job, and berating a cop for punching a kid during an arrest is nothing like making sailors blush by yelling at a parking cop who's writing you a ticket because it's a minute past what you paid for.
Will some folks try to get fines issued as an obvious overreach? Yep. And that's what courts are for.