I always thought Canada already had laws against uttering threats, but it seems the Quebec provincial legislature thought that elected officials needed more wiggle room on that score. It’s anyone’s guess how much of a field day the courts will have enforcing it. Like our constitutional rights, everything hinges on one weasel word: reasonable.
The new Act makes anyone who hinders the exercise of an elected officer’s functions by threatening,
intimidating or harassing the officer in a manner that causes them to reasonably fear for their integrity or safety liable to a fine.Anyone who hinders the exercise of a Member’s functions by threatening, intimidating or harassing the Member in a manner that causes them to reasonably fear for their integrity or safety is liable to a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,500.
If you want to download the whole PDF document, here’s the link.
“……….reasonably fear for their integrity…..”
My first thought exactly. They are responsible for their own integrity and this statement causes me to think they lack integrity. It could be a language barrier, though. Is this a translation error from French to Frenglish?
That’s so beyond the pale that it carries humor. But, don’t think its inclusion is happenstance. Essentially, you can harass someone and it is not illegal. You can intimidate someone based on their idiosyncrasies. What I mean is that while one person will just shrug at certain critiques, others will play the victim and claim to be harassed or intimidated. It matters not if your critique is factual and true based on the language of this “law.” In fact, based on the wording, I would argue that attacking someone with facts and truth would strengthen their case since the result for the “victim” would be a fear for their integrity.
Short version: Beware the laws created by government that only apply to others and not to them. It is nothing more than a power grab.
Lol.
I think having “integrity” and “elected official” in the same sentence lessens the value of the word “integrity”
The same as “good government” being in the bullshit Constitution of Canada does.
So criticizing a Liberal politician will be illegal.
Laws should be created to INCREASE your Freedom, not deny it. We are totally backwards in this Shithole Kanada
like l posted elsewhere recently, having covered everything under the sun with their laws, incl stuff like dont burn down churches, stick up liquor stores or forge cheques.
oh. wait.
what l was going to say, pollllitiSHUNS in 2024 continue to micromanage the nation to justify their zhobs.
Don’t they, uh, work for us?
That is what they are changing.
Hilarious!
Never. Not since 1867. “Peace, Order and Good Government” is a very long way from “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
They can take your money, car, house, kids, wife, even your organs or your very life with nothing more than a vote in Parliament. We work for them. That’s how it is.
The Clinton Doctrine.
“…exercise of a member’s functions…” is pretty subjective. Just ask Monica Lewinski.
So now, a politician’s integrity is to be protected.
Looks like another “revenue tool.”
Oh look!
ANOTHER Liberal law I shall gleefully break.
This proposed law is why I remain The Phantom, and why I try not to -name- any of these people.
Pretty soon that will not be enough protection, and even alluding to any of them by nickname or manner, like Twitchy the Underpants Gnome (everybody knows who that is, right?) will get you arrested.
Like you can’t post a pic of Winnie the Pooh in China, you won’t be able to post a pic of a pony here. Or a potato, or a surfer, or you get the picture. Before then I’ll be taking my blog down.
All pointless of course, because EVEN IN CHINA the peasants are revolting. You can only tighten the fist so far before all the sand squeezes through the fingers.