Cops seek 3 in mock beheading
Quebec labour minister Jean Boulet was beheaded in effigy during a May Day demonstration downtown, and the cops want to identify the perpetrators.
Mock executions have been a thing lately, with investigations as well into pretend hangings of Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Donald Trump during a protest last month.
Nicholas 17:32 on 2026-06-04 Permalink
Why do the cops care about this? What law did these people break? I can’t imagine how any interpretation of the criminal code or human rights law could be applied to these facts and result in a Charter-proof conviction. Is it possible they just want to harass these people for their constitutionally protected speech, maybe retaliate against them to get them fired from their jobs? Dear cops: get back to solving the few murders still unsolved.
jeather 17:43 on 2026-06-04 Permalink
A house near a friend always has a (generic) body hanging in effigy before Halloween and despite multiple complaints, it is legal.
Chris 18:19 on 2026-06-04 Permalink
>What law did these people break?
I believe death threats are a crime. One could interpret these that way.
Nicholas 19:35 on 2026-06-04 Permalink
Chris, beheading a puppet is not a death threat. It is longstanding political speech to make effigies of people you disagree with politically and burn or behead them; a quick google finds cases back to the 14th century burning an effigy of the Pope. To be a crime in Canada it has to be meant seriously as a threat to intend to harm or kill someone. Is it ambiguous whether these people seriously intended to kill the minister? Was this just bluster and political theatre? Reasonable doubt. That it’s unclear if these people said any words, rather than just beheading a puppet, further muddies the waters as to whether a threat was uttered; non-verbal actions are often more ambiguous. Did the people intend to intimidate the minister, or did they just disagree with him? Whether the minister felt intimidated or he took the threat seriously has no effect, legally speaking.
The most recent Supreme Court case on uttering threats is when a guy called his ex-girlfriend from jail and repeatedly said if she went through with her planned abortion of their child he would kill her. She testified that he always talked like that and it wasn’t serious. He was acquitted. So long as these guys here can claim they were just making political bluster, that this was just a crude expression of their political ideals, and that they had no intent of seriously harming anyone, they just wanted to harm the political ideals of the government, there’s no way they can get a conviction because the crown needs to show they knowingly intended to go through with this or intimidate.
But if you want further proof this is a sham, here is the chief inspector at the SPVM describing this situation: “It’s not black or white, but definitely one thing is for sure, using a simulation of a public execution is not a good way of doing things, and the Montreal police will have an eye on that, and we will warn the protest organizers that they should not be using that type of means to express themselves, and if they do, they are walking on a fence, and they can quickly fall on the side of becoming a criminal offence.”
It’s not black or white? Reasonable doubt. Not a good way of doing things? Not how cops usually describe crimes. Warn protestors they should not do this because they are walking on a fence? Come on, he knows this is bogus! This isn’t a serious murder plot, it’s a bunch of dummies trying to act edgy to impress their friends at a freaking May Day celebration: look at me, I burned an effigy of someone 99% of the population can’t recognize, and then I’ll go home to my parents’ basement. The minister or the premier or someone high up in the chain feels the sads for being mocked and instead of sucking it up like the powerful person they are, they want the police to waste time making a show of these people so they can scare them or maybe even use the power of the state to retaliate against them. Everyone involved here should grow up.
Chris 20:38 on 2026-06-04 Permalink
Nicholas, no need to argue it to me (I wasn’t taking any position), argue it against the other side’s lawyers. 🙂
Tim S. 21:58 on 2026-06-04 Permalink
I look at it this way: in a democracy, everyone should be able to participate without fear – and participation means voting and protesting but also running for and serving in office. Criticism of actions and policy positions, sure, but not threats of personal violence. If it was me, or someone in my family, who was caricatured on a beheaded puppet, then yes, that would make me much less likely to participate or continue in elected positions. And fewer people being willing to participate in democracy, I think, would be bad for everyone.
So yeah, I’m ok with the police investigating this. Should it be a criminal offence? A bylaw violation? I dunno, but the act is not OK.
And Nicholas, has your research told you what happened to those 14thC people who executed effigies? Because medieval governments – ones that lasted – were not particularly tolerant of public disorder and threats to governments (of course, it also matters which pope, the 14thC being the time of the Schism).
bob 14:50 on 2026-06-05 Permalink
It was also often the case that effigies were hanged and burnt because the crowd simply did not have access to the person they wanted to lynch.
RE 21:36 on 2026-06-05 Permalink
@Jeather there’s a house in my area that hangs a seemingly generic one at the start of the halloween season and then keeps it there all through winter on the front of their tempo…it’s more like just a head or something. I avoid passing by that house even by car and feel for their immediate neighbours, especially across the street who have to see that daily. I’d wondered if anyone had ever complained.