The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Andrée Laforest, has just tabled a bill aimed at better protecting municipal elected officials against intimidation. The initiative stems from a growing indignation and concern expressed by local elected officials, sometimes victims of threats to their personal security, sometimes aggressively targeted on social networks, real outlets, where behaviors are more antisocial than social.
Local government par excellence, the municipal government offers a summary of the best and the worst in immediate contact with the population. Daily interaction with citizens is a source of immediate gratification as well as one of the main disadvantages of the function when slippages invade the real or virtual space. From the municipal council which turns into a free-for-all to online harassment, the life of the local elected official is strewn with harsh and deadly criticism, bordering on incivility.
According to a survey conducted by the Union Municipale du Québec (UMQ), nearly three-quarters of municipal elected officials say they have been victims of intimidation in the context of their work. The resignations follow one another at a maddening pace. According to a survey conducted by The galleryalmost one in ten elected officials has resigned since the last elections, or 760 people.
The situation is so critical that the Minister of Municipal Affairs recently launched a psychological support line for Quebec’s 8,000 elected officials. This gesture was interpreted by the municipal community as a first step towards cleaning up morals, while being criticized because it amounts to leaving the responsibility to elected officials to take care of themselves. Bill 57 goes much further by imposing fines of $500 to $1,500 on citizens who threaten or intimidate elected officials. Significant detail: the bill also extends protection to elected representatives of the National Assembly.
If the bill is adopted, “anyone who obstructs the exercise of the functions of such an elected official by threatening, intimidating or harassing him in such a way as to cause him to reasonably fear for his integrity or his safety” would be liable to ‘a fine. An elected official who is the subject of comments or actions that “unduly hinder the exercise of his duties or violate his right to privacy” could obtain an injunction from the Superior Court. Disturbing citizens could be prohibited from accessing municipal council meetings, or from being in municipal offices or from broadcasting comments considered to be intimidation, harassment or threats.
This is where the nobility of intentions meets the test of reality. The intimidation of elected officials is not only the result of boorish citizens. All you have to do is view the anthology of incredible behaviors documented by Infoman to convince yourself of this. Jean-René Dufort takes great pleasure in broadcasting extracts from municipal council sessions on his show, which are shocking to say the least. In many localities, intimidation and vexatious behavior come from elected officials or administrative staff, among themselves and against citizens.
The news regularly brings us its share of inappropriate behavior. Sainte-Pétronille has been in the news recently. Its general director, Nathalie Paquet, incurred $19,000 in legal fees to send formal notices to citizens who questioned her hiring. The municipality even went so far as to threaten legal action against the local weekly, Around the island, to prevent the publication of an article about him. The mayor of Trois-Rivières, Jean Lamarche, did not do otherwise by putting on notice an environmental activist who criticized her competence in protecting wetlands on Facebook.
In the wrong hands, Bill 57 could quickly become a license to gag elected officials who are unable to distinguish intimidation from criticism of their policies, which is legitimate and necessary in a democratic society. However uncomfortable it may be, criticism is protected by the right to free speech. It cannot be limited by a normative approach which would grant elected officials the function of arbiter of good taste.
Without denying or trivializing the distress experienced by elected officials, particularly women victims of sexism, Bill 57 raises important questions. The most reprehensible actions are already punishable by the Criminal Code, and reports of harassment and intimidation have exploded in recent years. How will Bill 57 be more effective in curbing undesirable elements? And what will the new regime be worth if the elected officials themselves are not capable of rising above the fray? If the grip is too tight and the oversight mechanism is not subject to adequate judicial oversight, this reform could well increase distrust in municipal democracy instead of alleviating it.