If adopted, Montreal’s new bylaw could see dozens of fines issued each month, reshaping the city’s approach to policing and free speech.
The city council is slated to vote this week on a draft ordinance that would allow municipal officials to levy fines ranging from $350 to $1,000 against anyone who insults police officers or other city employees. A second offence would trigger a doubling of the penalty. The proposal, drafted last month by Mayor Soraya Martinez Ferrada’s administration, follows a reported 250 % rise in incidents of harassment and intimidation toward municipal staff between 2019 and 2025.
The bylaw’s impetus was a high‑profile case in June 2025 when 24‑year‑old Mohamed Bekkali filmed himself hurling misogynistic insults at a SPVM officer during a traffic stop. The clip went viral, leading to Bekkali’s arrest on defamation charges in July. The episode intensified discussions about officer safety and the limits of public criticism.
Who is affected?
The ordinance directly targets the general public, but its ripple effects reach a broader spectrum. Municipal employees, especially police, would gain a new enforcement tool. Rights organisations fear the measure could chill legitimate criticism of law‑enforcement practices. The Fédération des policiers et policières municipaux du Québec (FPMQ) welcomed the draft, citing the need for stronger protections for officers.
Opposition voices are equally vocal. In a joint statement, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Ligue des droits et libertés denounced the bylaw as an infringement on freedom of expression. “Allowing SPVM officers to issue fines for comments deemed offensive, but not threatening, significantly exacerbates the power imbalance between law enforcement and the public,” said Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, Quebec spokesperson for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Concordia University associate professor Ted Rutland argues the measure is unnecessary. “The police have a whole series of mechanisms that they can presently use when they believe they're being mistreated by a citizen,” he said. Rutland added that Bekkali’s arrest demonstrates the existing legal framework is sufficient. He warned the bylaw could disproportionately impact marginalized communities and deepen mistrust in police relations.
Fo Niemi, executive director of the Center for Research‑Action on Race Relations (CRARR), urged the city to hold public consultations and conduct a social‑impact study before enacting the ordinance. “When one adopts a law with such an important ramification on citizens and residents, civil rights and civil liberties, one would expect that it should be studied,” Niemi said. He also called for clearer language to define the types of harassment and intimidation the law intends to curb.
Legal challenges loom
Even if the council approves the draft, Rutland believes the bylaw will face defeat in court. “Jurisprudence on this question is very clear, that you don't have the right to interfere with police work. You don't have the right to threaten a police officer, but insulting a police officer is just as legal as insulting anyone else,” he explained. The courts have consistently upheld the principle that free expression extends to criticism of law‑enforcement officers.
Civil‑rights attorney Sibel Ataogul, who has represented clients in high‑profile constitutional cases, posted on Facebook: “I'm tempted to do it pro bono,” the post reads. She offered her services to anyone wishing to challenge the ordinance.
Market analysis
The proposed bylaw could have several economic implications for Montreal and its stakeholders. First, the city’s revenue stream may increase modestly from fines, but the administrative burden of processing, adjudicating, and enforcing the penalties could offset any gains. Municipal budgets already allocate significant funds to policing; adding a new enforcement layer may divert resources from community outreach or training programs.
Second, the ordinance may affect Montreal’s image as a welcoming, progressive city. Businesses and tourists often weigh a city’s respect for civil liberties when choosing destinations. A perceived crackdown on free expression could deter visitors, particularly those from liberal democracies that value open discourse. Hospitality and retail sectors could feel the impact if visitor numbers decline.
Third, the legal costs associated with potential challenges could strain city finances. If the ordinance is struck down in court, the city may face litigation expenses, settlement costs, and reputational damage. Investors monitoring municipal governance might view the controversy as a risk factor, potentially influencing municipal bond ratings.
Finally, the bylaw could influence labor relations within the municipal workforce. While police may welcome additional protection, other employees could feel the measure signals a broader trend toward restricting employee rights. This perception could affect recruitment, retention, and union negotiations, with downstream effects on service delivery and labor costs.
What comes next?
The council’s vote will likely be followed by a flurry of legal filings and public commentary. If the bylaw passes, the city will need to establish enforcement protocols, train officers, and monitor compliance. Conversely, a rejection could prompt the administration to revisit its strategy for addressing harassment, perhaps focusing on community engagement or alternative disciplinary mechanisms.
The outcome will set a precedent for other Canadian municipalities grappling with similar tensions between policing and free speech. As the debate unfolds, stakeholders across the spectrum will watch closely to gauge how Montreal balances public safety with civil liberties.