Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Town Outlaws Online Insults To Police and Officials

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.

152 comments

  1. Sorry by Pikoro · · Score: 1, Funny

    eh.

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    1. Re:Sorry by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      No no no .. this is Quebec ... it's oui.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, no, no... this is Québec.... Fuck you, mayor of Granby.

    3. Re:Sorry by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Granby is renowned for it's zoo. Seems that the monkeys aren't all in the zoo...

    4. Re:Sorry by aynoknman · · Score: 0

      Non non non .. this is Quebec ... it's oui.

      FTFY

      --
      We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
    5. Re: Sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO THIS IS PATRICK.

  2. Not the same thing by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Not the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

  3. Here we go again by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Here we go again by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Here we go again by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Here we go again by msauve · · Score: 3, Informative

      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 laws. It's good to be the King, at least until the peasants revolt.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:Here we go again by mrbester · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    5. Re:Here we go again by monkeyzoo · · Score: 1

      Would voting against an incumbent public official be an "insult"?
      This law is a croc of shit!

    6. Re:Here we go again by msauve · · Score: 1

      Sorry about the URI - seems Slashdot not only screws up non-ASCII text, but even URIs containing HTML character codes.

      Try this: " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... "

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah but doing that was illegal in Granby even before this change to the by-law. The change is in that it is now also an offense to do it via Twitter instead of insulting him at a press conference or when the police pulled you over for making their quota.

  4. Suck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Suck it by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Suck it by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Funny

      he did insult them; he used english!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Suck it by Trikshot · · Score: 2

      In that case, I shall use my outrageous [French] accent when I say to Robert Riel, deputy mayor* of Granby, Québec, "You empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"

      * Incorrectly attributed as mayor of Granby by the submitter.

      --
      I reject your reality and substitute my own!
    4. Re:Suck it by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Funny

      What a bunch of ciboired osties de tabernacs!

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:Suck it by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    6. Re:Suck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imbéciles

    7. Re:Suck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a bunch of ciboired osties de tabernacs!

      Tss... tss.. tss...
      You should say : "Ciboire d'ostie de tabarnak !"

    8. Re:Suck it by MiniMike · · Score: 1

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

    9. Re:Suck it by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      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/

      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.

    10. Re:Suck it by vawarayer · · Score: 1

      They may not have a First Amendment of their own, but they get the idea.

      Actually, we do have a First Amendment of our own. It's called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and mentions freedom of expression.

      This municipal law is mostly gonna get challenged in court.

    11. Re:Suck it by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      You can insult them in English but must include a French translation which has to be in a visibly larger font.

  5. Why? Because police and officials are royalty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  6. That why there are elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To NOT allow idiots to continue in office.

    1. Re:That why there are elections by alex67500 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that you're usually offered another lot of idiots to choose from...

    2. Re:That why there are elections by knightghost · · Score: 1

      Never take what is offered. If there are no good choices then write one in.

    3. Re:That why there are elections by mrbester · · Score: 2

      No one counts spoiled ballot papers, which is what altering does. If the choices are Idiot A (no) or Idiot B (also no) then spoiling the ballot paper just wasted your time so you may as well have not bothered to travel to the polling station in the first place.

      This is what those "if you don't vote how can you expect to have a say" retards don't understand. There's no "None of the above" box that you can choose. Being forced to pick from undesirable choices isn't having your say. It's "you have a choice of this dick or this dick and fuck you if you don't like it"

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    4. Re: That why there are elections by Eugriped3z · · Score: 1

      The alternative is (C) [Your Name Goes Here] Even if you only enter the 'race' long enough to change the conversation, at least you participted, otherwise you're right. Your nonparticipation is unlikely to have much effect.

  7. That's nice for you by simplypeachy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  8. Are politicians actually incapable of thinking? by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *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.

    1. Re:Are politicians actually incapable of thinking? by JustOK · · Score: 1

      No, you are not allowed to be the first to say that.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Are politicians actually incapable of thinking? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      "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.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Are politicians actually incapable of thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Are politicians actually incapable of thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many current laws are written in a way that makes posting it online a loophole.

    5. Re:Are politicians actually incapable of thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Threats* are already crimes.

      Not always.

      For example, death threats are.

    6. Re:Are politicians actually incapable of thinking? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  9. Fuck you Mayor, you piece of shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There you go. I broke your silly rule, happy?

  10. Insults? HA! by moehoward · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Insults? HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  11. Marv Heemeyer disapproves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Majors of towns named Granby should know better than to be complete asshats.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ew3cSLljTM

  12. don't worry, we got you covered Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have an equal protection clause in the constitution. It didn't help eric garner, but as long as cops aren't killing white people I guess we'll just let congress steal as much as they want. The real secret is to continue to appoint cartoonish supreme court justices who will protect our rights to whine like a bitch about it.
    You would have thought a black president might have stepped up and stopped this nonsense, but instead he wants a national police force, like the SS. Keep your matches dry men, Systemd can't fix this problem.

    1. Re:don't worry, we got you covered Canada by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You're obviously nucking phutts, but if I understand you correctly, then I agree with you.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  13. So, Illegal to Insult a Council Official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:So, Illegal to Insult a Council Official by umghhh · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:So, Illegal to Insult a Council Official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point being that I have posted the insult AC and therefore it will be rather difficult to find me. This particular law is worthless

  14. WTF by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:WTF by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:WTF by electrofelix · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:WTF by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      What's the legal structure that allows Quebec to have laws that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster in the rest of the provinces?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    5. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada does not have a constitution because it's not withstanding... Human rights don't apply.

    6. Re:WTF by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:WTF by Minupla · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    8. Re:WTF by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      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 power.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    9. Re:WTF by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      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 avoid touching some laws which could cause a ruckus and have no negative effect on the rest of Canada.

    10. Re:WTF by Nugoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
    11. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >What's the legal structure that allows Quebec to have laws that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster in the rest of the provinces?

      Same legal structure that exists in all other provinces. The other provinces just don't bother to exercise it. There's an opt-out clause in the Charter of Rights. Quebec renews its opt-out each time a new provincial government is sworn in. Specifically, Quebec opts-out of freedom of speech. Seriously.

    12. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heu how is this a language thing again?

    13. Re:WTF by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      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 cannot last more than 5 years. So, no, Granby outlawing online insults has nothing to do with the notwithstanding clause, nor is not specific to Québec alone; it can happen anywhere else in Canada.

    14. Re:WTF by qeveren · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    15. Re:WTF by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you would call this "Muslim like" says a lot about your bigoted notions. Stop listening to talk radio. It's rotting your brain.

    17. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the Canadian constitution does not protect free speech as well as the American one is supposed to.
      In Canada, you have basically have free speech, unless anyone is offended by it or the government can dream up some other reason for denying it.

    18. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the famous "Notwithstanding" clause in the Canadian Constitution. It was mainly put there to allow Quebec to control use of French in that province. Not written that way but that was the political reality that created this clause in the first place. It would not exist but for that.

      Very controversial at the time. The one thing it has going for it is that there is no such thing as a perpetual constitutional override based upon Section 33. Any law based upon Section 33 has to be renewed every 5 years. This brings the override forward into public view. It also means that the default condition is a timed lapse of Section 33 based legislation. If the government does nothing, then constitutionally encroaching laws expire.

      It's still imperfect but it's done it's part towards constitutional peace. Quebec separatism is largely a spent force. The Parti Québécois still exists but they have a hard time getting elected, and an even harder time pushing the separatist agenda. Quebecers mostly don't repudiate separation, I think because they have a soft spot for the idea in their hearts. However it has become "Your Father's (or Grandfather's)" cause. This puts the PQ into the unenviable position of having a core principle for separation but no means to bring it to reality.

    19. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is called the 'not withstanding clause'...though technically the clause can be used by any provincial legislature or the Federal Government to override basic 'constitutional protections', Quebec is the only province to have used it 'successfully' in practice (primarily to restrict the language used for commercial signs...requiring them to only be posted in French. And apparently at one time adding the use of the clause automatically to every law passed in Quebec...both practices seem to have been discontinuied).

      It goes a bit like this 'This constitutional right or protection applies to everyone unless a government passes a law invoking the notwithstanding clause to override the right'. It seemed a 'pretty fishy' way at the time to define a constitution when the constitution was created (e.g. "these are your constitutional rights unless we pass a law saying they aren't") but the 'people' had no say in the matter to stop it.

      In any case the original poster is incorrect in that a law passed in a province using the notwithstanding clause would pass 'constitutional muster' in other provinces but since the law doesn't apply in other provinces the point is moot & the law in Quebec would also pass 'constitutional' muster anyhow.

      Last but not least, while any body of government can in effect pass any law they choose that doesn't mean it is 'constitutionally protected', and a town government can not invoke the 'notwithstanding' clause only provincial legislature's, territorial governments (Yukon, NWT & 'the new one' :-)) & the Federal parliament. So its highly likely that the law has no force...that doesn't mean you won't get arrested for violating it...but hey...the Granby town government & police are a bunch of idiots & babies...(now let me see them charge me with a crime...I dare them...bunch of know nothing incompetents! ).

    20. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right...except that Quebec hasn't actually considered the alternative...if the Constitution of Canada as passed in 1987 doesn't apply to Quebec than the only existing legal documents that do apply are the British North America Acts ...so if Quebec doesn't want to abide by the Canadian Constitution that means Quebec is still under the power of the British Monarchy...as far as I know the BNA Acts were only repealed or made part of the Canadian Constitution when the Queen (or Governor General) signed the law passing the Canadian Constitution (which she had to in order to enact it in to law per the BNA Acts!...kind of handy that bit of slight of hand...though clearly the Queen felt it prudent to sign the law since not doing so might have led to a more sticky situation (war) that nobody would have wanted).

      In any case, Quebec lost this 'fight' back in 1867 not 1987, they are either subject to the BNA Acts or the Canadian Constitution, there is no other legal framework for them to choose.

  15. Bob and Doug McKenzie Endorse This Statute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cold winters and all. And you can only blow up so many things real good. Oh, wait. That was the fat guy.

  16. Simple solution by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    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.

  17. Know your rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Number 1
    You have the right not to be killed
    Murder is a CRIME!
    Unless it was done by a
    Policeman or aristocrat
    Know your rights ...
    Know these rights
    Number 3
    You have the right to free
    Speech as long as you're not
    Dumb enough to actually try it.

    -The Clash

    1. Re:Know your rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems number 2 was obliterated in the clash of number 1 and number 3. Peace to number 2's soul.

  18. Fuck the police. by Jack+Zombie · · Score: 1

    Specifically, the police from Granby, Québec in Canada.

    --
    "You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
  19. Dear Town of Granby by fnj · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Dear Town of Granby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Putin from your list.

      Oh and fuck you frogs of Granby, Québec, Canada.

  20. Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are police more vulnerable than others? They are issued weapons, armour, training, and backup by their department. Everyone else is their own first responder, and likely will not have weapons, armour, or training, and may not even the ability to call for assistance.

      Unless the previous version of the bylaw specified that threats were only unlawful if they were communicated in a certain way, it didn't matter what medium was used.

    2. Re:Makes sense by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Police can't normally walk away from the scene, and they are compelled to attend in the first place. That does not mean I support this law, but police injury rates are _much_ higher than most work. According to http://www.governing.com/gov-d..., they're only surpassed by nursing care, and I can easily believe that.

    3. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      police injury rates are _much_ higher than most work. According to Governing Magazine they're only surpassed by nursing care, and I can easily believe that.

      That is not what your citation says:

      Occupations recording the highest injury and illness rates include nursing and residential care facilities, police and fire personnel.

      Note the weasel word "including" - there is no inherent ranking there, not even to say that the listed occupations are even at the top. The fact that they don't mention construction, which accounts for 20% of all workplace fatalities, more than any other occupation, suggests that site is being sneaky to promote their own agenda.

      I don't really care about the numbers, but if you do, I recommend putting in the effort to analyze the BLS data yourself. I couldn't find an easy summary with less than 2 minutes of googling so I gave up.

    4. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, sycophantic statist: police "officer" doesn't even make the top 10 on the most dangerous jobs list.

    5. Re:Makes sense by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      police generally are NOT the most risky professions. talk to roofers and window cleaners; they have much more danger in their lives.

      cops are coddled these days. the poor babies! maybe they just need MORE military gear, hmm??

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly makes police officers more likely to be a target of a threat? The threats, and eventually assaults carried out afterward, against regular citizens far outnumber those of police officers. How they're more vulnerable, being able to legally carry a firearm anywhere, even beyond points where regular citizens cannot, doesn't make sense either.

    7. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most police are injured in car accidents, because again they are above the law and aren't required to wear a safety belt.

    8. Re:Makes sense by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Police can't normally walk away from the scene, and they are compelled to attend in the first place."

      Uhhhhh - no. The police are not obligated to come to your aid. Never have been, never will be. When you call the police, they only come if it is convenient, and when they feel like it.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06...

      As for walking away from the scene - I'm not aware of anything that binds any individual officer to the scene. He may walk away from a confrontation at any time.

      There are some pretty good discussions going on right now about such things.

      http://www.policemag.com/chann...

      In short, a cop can decide to defuse a situation by just backing off, at any time he chooses to do so. And, in fact, some of the wiser heads in the various police forces say that they should do just that. Not always, but often.

      How many stories have we read of, where some mentally deficient person was shot to death, simply because he wasn't cooperating? And - the cop feels "threatened". One of the most recent stories I remember involved a nut case who was on his own porch, and happened to have a screw driver in his hand. There was no indication that he intended to use that screwdriver as a weapon - the cop just "felt threatened" because of that dumbass 21 foot rule. Yet another dead nutcase - and no one answers for the killing.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:Makes sense by beefoot · · Score: 1

      I don't have the source to refer to and I may as well make this up. I read it somewhere in my country the occupation has the highest injuries are roofers and police is far down the list.

    10. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most on-duty police fatalities occur in single vehicle collisions (ie. the cop crashes their car into a stationary object).

    11. Re:Makes sense by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      police injury rates are _much_ higher than most work

      Welp...sort of. The U.S. BLP recently published their 2013 census of fatal occupational injuries. The overall fatality rate for the workforce was 3.3 fatal injuries for every 100,000 full-time-equivalent workers per year. Management employees averaged 2.4; sales 1.6--no surprises there, really.

      For employees in the "protective service occupations" - police, firefighters, correctional services, animal control, security guards, and so forth - the rate was 6.9 fatalities per 100,000 FTE. (I haven't been able to find data broken out by occupation within the category. If someone can find that, that would be great.) So that's what we expect--police, firefighters, and others do have a riskier job than the average, and riskier than the typical office worker. Somewhat surprisingly, the relative risk is only a factor of three or four different when comparing a police officer to, say, an IT manager.

      But...there's the rest of the table. "Intallation, maintenance, and repair" occupations? 7.2 fatalities per 100,000. "Construction and extraction"? 12.2. "Transportation and material moving"? 14.9. "Farming, fishing, and forestry"? 23.9.

      The real manly men, in real danger on the job, are apparently out there working with tools, building stuff, drilling for oil, driving big rigs, and cutting down trees.

      And let's be honest--a lot of the injuries and fatalities sustained by police officers aren't directly attributable to violent suspects. A big chunk of them come from the fact that the typical frontline officer spends a lot of time moving around--in a patrol car, on a motorcycle, on foot, or on a bicycle. Special laws protecting police officers from insults don't actually reduce their likelihood of being in a vehicular accident, or getting clipped by a passing car during a traffic stop, or slipping on an icy sidewalk in the winter. Looking at the last ten years' police fatalities for the United States, the total number of officers killed in motor vehicle incidents (car and motorcycle crashes; hit by car) is 605. The total number of officers fatally shot, strangled, or stabbed is 553. (And I suspect that the proportion who get shot is even lower in Canada.)

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    12. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      **Above comment was meant for Hognoxious**

    13. Re:Makes sense by Ravaldy · · Score: 2

      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.

    14. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how citing a court case for a US court, has any relevance to Canadian law, and requirements for Canadian police officers. Including parent posts talking about injury stats, from another country.

      What I will say, is that even a traffic stop is handled differently than in the US. The officer in question has different requirements, and different restrictions on what he can and can not do.

    15. Re:Makes sense by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Err, uhhh - - - you're right, my citations have just about nothing to do with Canada. But - we are on a mostly American site, and the conversation has done as it usually does. It eventually turns US-centric. And, I wandered down that path. I thought that I was replying to another US-centric post.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    16. Re:Makes sense by Stickasylum · · Score: 1

      If you scroll down three sentences, you'll see a chart where, by golly! state police workers have the second highest rate of workplace injury, surpassed only by (state government) nursing! If you look at days away from work rate, job transfer or restriction (DART), it moves to fourth behind state and local nursing and local fire departments. Construction makes the list - it's close to policing for injury rate and DART, but the RATE is smaller for both measures. There's just a heck of a lot more construction workers that police officers, so total injuries are very high.

    17. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police injury rates are "much" higher... You're right - police injure more people than regular people injure people.

      That's why people are angry with the Police, because they're out there injuring and or killing innocent people because they can.

    18. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't believe I've ever read reports of Alaskan crab fishermen receiving death threats via Twitter.

    19. Re:Makes sense by crbowman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps where you live, but where I live (and in most of the United States) Police have no obligation to even show up and have sovereign immunity if they don't.

    20. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is also just "nonfatal occupational injury and illness rates for all state and local government industries with published data" not injury rates across all workplaces. Doesn't include federal (military, etc) nor private industry. Nor does it include fatalities.

    21. Re: Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem. There was a case of a mentally ill Montreal man that had a hammer that was killed by SPVM officers because they felt threatened. There were officers on the scene and another racing to the scene in his car. The best thing he thought he could do was to crash his car into the man to protect his fellow officers. IIRC that didn't work too well and then they shot the guy.

      The investigation found that all of that was OK. Apparently they had radioed for a Taser that was on its way but they didn't think of de-escalation.

    22. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Uhhhhh - no. The police are not obligated to come to your aid. Never have been, never will be. When you call the police, they only come if it is convenient, and when they feel like it."

      thats in the U.S , in Canada convenient or not they have to , thats the beauty of having a Monarchy .

    23. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the kid who answered the door holding an assault Wiimote. Good thing the heroes in blue were there to gun down that violent criminal in the name of their own safety.

    24. Re:Makes sense by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      How are police more vulnerable than others? They are issued weapons, ...

      They are more "vulnerable" because they are attacked more often. Wearing a shield is like wearing a target. The likelihood of being attacked is increased.

    25. Re:Makes sense by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      In my suburb a lot of the homes are of the age that the roofs need replacement and I've seen many different companies installing them. You can tell a lot about the various companies by how they work. They cheap companies take every shortcut and are about doing the most number of roofs during the season. You can see the guys up on the roof as the sun is going down. I'm talking the last part of the sun is visible against the horizon. Plus none of their workers are tied up against falls. No wonder they get hurt. The more expensive companies are cleaned up by the time you need to turn your car headlights on and always have their workers tied up.

  21. Not part of Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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).

  22. It's Quebec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just threaten them in English, and then they'll pretend to not understand!

    1. Re:It's Quebec by maliqua · · Score: 1

      +1 it's funny because its true

  23. Good News Everybody by wisnoskij · · Score: 0

    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...

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re: Good News Everybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the page for the public pool dumbass.

    2. Re: Good News Everybody by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I was mislead by Wikipedia.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re: Good News Everybody by rhazz · · Score: 1

      They don't have a facebook page yet, they had to pass this law first.

    4. Re: Good News Everybody by nytes · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  24. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's this all aboot?

  25. Town ran by hosers.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  26. How did I know this was Quebec? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

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

    I must be psychic!!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:How did I know this was Quebec? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  27. I'm sorry, you were insulted by that? by mpercy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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:
    But Brutus says he was ambitious;
    And Brutus is an honourable man.
    He hath brought many captives home to Rome
    Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
    Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
    When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
    Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
    Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
    And Brutus is an honourable man.
    You all did see that on the Lupercal
    I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
    Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
    Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
    And, sure, he is an honourable man.
    I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
    But here I am to speak what I do know.

  28. This is a reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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 from being popularly used in the province). Freedom of speech is limited in our country. :(

  29. Oh, they did away with the Charter of Rights???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This municipal bylaw is unconstitutional:

    Fundamental freedoms
    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
            (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

  30. cmon. Canada - they all are slaves of Queen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they all are slaves of Queen Elizabeth 2.0

  31. Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The police and officials in Granby, Québec, that are responsible for this ridiculous rule, are embarrassing Canada. They are stupid, this rule is bad, and they should feel bad. Also I fart in their general direction.

  32. Re:Because by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Like Jerry's kids?

  33. Et Tu Canada? by ememisya · · Score: 1

    Anybody still remember when we used to make fun of China's "human rights" and their Great Firewall of China? Wasn't that nice? It was nice.

  34. It is Islamic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not 'Muslim', it's fanaticism.

    No, it's Islamic. Hundreds of millions of mainstream, "moderate" Muslims believe you should face criminal charges, even death, for making depictions of their prophet, criticizing or "insulting" their religion, or leaving the faith. These are not views held by a fringe minority of the religion, they are views held by a very large segment of the religion, so much so that they are the law of the land in numerous Islamic countries.

    In Christianity these sorts of attitudes are so far out of the mainstream as to be labelled "fanatical," but in Islam they are the baseline belief.

  35. Rainbows and Unicorns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's all hold hands and sing "We Are The World". If we just pretend everything will be fine, then it will be!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ26DMkMFks

  36. Re:Oh, they did away with the Charter of Rights??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...,but some animals are more equal than others.

  37. French and English by Kagato · · Score: 1

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

  38. the simplest answer is the best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > wonder why police and officials should get protection an average citizen does not.

    They got the guns... tasers... APCs... M16s... Kevlar clothes... State-friendly court systems... And you don't.

  39. Québec n'est pas la Canada by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

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

  40. logical. by nvm_my_comment · · Score: 1

    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!

    1. Re:logical. by smithmc · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  41. I guess we know now by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

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

  42. Insulting or threatening? by smithmc · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  43. Canadian Officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To the officials of Granby, Québec, I fart in your general direction, now go away before I am forced to taunt you a second time.

  44. stupid pigs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are dumb cops out there in the coumtry of quebec

    1. Re:stupid pigs by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      There are dumb cops everywhere. But here, cops don't make the laws, politicians do. So we have dumb politicians here, too.

  45. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's high time for the web to be muzzled, at last. This is a start. A couple of years down the lane and we'll have really begun to undo the damage done by the internet on social engineering since 1992. We were this close to finally police language and have it purged from hate words and backward concept, and the web ruined it all by removing accountability. People had finally understood that uttering a hate word was enough to ruin their lives - as it should be - and then widespread anonimity destroyed decades of effort to civilize society. The world wide web set back the Liberal Agenda 25 years. We can finally repair the damage but we lost an entire generation to hatred and wrong ideas. The peddlers of hatred - computer fanatics in particular - must be made to pay.

  46. So using his logic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... if I beat the mayor of Granby about the head with my keyboard, it's the same thing if I just used my keyboard to call him a wanker. Brilliant!

  47. Hey, Officials of Granby, Québec!!! by sconeu · · Score: 1

    You guys area all a bunch of idiots!!!

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Hey, Officials of Granby, Québec!!! by sconeu · · Score: 1

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

      You ARE all a bunch of idiots!!!

      Now come and get me, jerkwads!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  48. shitty police department in Granby, Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bloody f - police department of, what was the name, Granby, Quebec. A full load of retards not knowing my right to speak freely. This police idi. confuse personal insults with statements about police force in general. Totally wrong in his place, should be cleaning the streets. An Idio-.

  49. Did they outline irony and innuendo? by hey! · · Score: 1

    This could be fun, actually.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  50. Selon le Loi 101 by ControlsGeek · · Score: 1

    Tous les insultes doivent Ãtre affichés en franÃais seulement.

  51. Quebec does not mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada. They have tried to secede numerous times. They run shit differently in Quebec, almost like they're trying to be French or something.

  52. All trade agreement kill a sacred cow by jd.schmidt · · Score: 1

    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 hashed out in long and difficult sessions by dedicated staff and their likely net effects on the economy of both nations have been calculated. So of course after going through this processes, the negotiators don't want to deal with local special interests campaigning to insist that their particular trade barrier remain. Basically you have lots of special interests who correctly see a big danger to themselves, while potential winners only see potential gains, the trade agreement can get quickly picked apart piece by piece.

  53. Text of the Bylaw by dmatos · · Score: 1

    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, or molest an agent of peace [officer of the law] or a municipal officer during the exercise of their duties.

    It is an infraction under this section for remarks to be made on the Internet or on social networks.

    So, the municipality of Granby has made it illegal to say "God damn it, mayor" on Facebook. Honestly, even discounting the online portion of this bylaw, I think it's unreasonable. And I suspect many of you agree. But remember, Quebec (and especially some of the smaller towns in Quebec) are much more devoutly Catholic, with over 70% of the province identifying as RC.

    --

    It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
    --Scott Adams
  54. To zee Police een Granby, Québec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I F A R T in your general direction!

  55. my opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since i live in the region and work in Granby, I am unable to state my opinion at this time. I just hope one of the moneybags in the region get charged and fight through the system to prove this law is a violation of the free speech laws.