In last week’s edition of Hour, Jamie O’Meara in last week’s Hour touched on the behaviour of Montreal’s police in city parks, and in particular their arbitrary enforcement of closing hours, which last from 11pm to 6am in most parks and midnight to 6am in others. (The article has already been taken offline, but you can see a Google cache version here.) I’m willing to bet that most Montrealers have made a late-night excursion into some park or another without any trouble. Every so often, though, an unlucky few are targeted by police, who seem to exercise their authority on a whim.
This is part of larger problem concerning park regulations and how they are applied. For the most part, a huge range of behaviour is tolerated in Montreal’s parks—think of all the picnickers eating their meals with beer or wine, or all of the pot smoking that goes on during the tam-tams—but an ever-mounting burden of new park rules makes it easier for cops to randomly target people, or to harass those they don’t like. This usually means that the police will take it upon themselves to make life difficult for marginal people like street kids and the homeless, but otherwise ordinary people are picked on, too, like the Concordia student who was fined $628 for sitting on a marble ledge in Berri Square.
Parks need rules, but we need to rethink our approach to regulating our parks. Something needs to change — let’s start with the opening hours. We don’t close our streets at night, so why do we close our parks? And since we’re on the topic, here’s another nuisance: why do police drive their cruisers through parks? It’s not uncommon to see a police car parked in St. Louis Square or Lafontaine Park, two offers inside keeping an eye on things. Not only does this obstruct the walking path, it’s an affront to the entire notion that parks are meant for pedestrians and cyclists. What ever happened to walking the beat?
Photo by Mike Gericke
19 comments
BTW, it is legal to drink beer/wine in parks if it is part of a meal. I double checked it the other day because going to a picnic.
Why would the online version posted already be taken down?
There’s nothing offensive in the story.
While I can understand the need for patrolling and perhaps the laws being enforced when there have been problems reported in the area, but otherwise I just don’t see the point in enforcing this sort of law with any sort of vigor.
The Con U student wasn’t ticketed for sitting in a park. As the article shows, he photographed cops without their consent, then got into a dispute, then refused to move — whether or not he deserved the fine, he sure as hell earned it.
Here’s a news flash: if you piss off a bunch of cops, they’re probably find a way to screw you over. So don’t go looking for trouble, as this guy did.
Big deal.
Two friends of mine (from Vancouver and Gatineau) were sitting in Square Saint Louis at 12.30am eating a sandwich, quietly, before taking the metro home.
Square St Louis has no fences to climb, no shrubs to hide behind… in fact, nothing more than a few pathways and a beautiful fountain which is lit up all night. There is ONE sign half way along the width of the park on St Dennis which indicates in small lettering that the park closes at midnight.
For their heinous crime, they both received fines of $144. The friend from Gatineau is contesting it (good luck), the friend from BC obviously can’t.
Meanwhile, the next day I see some guys shooting up in plain daylight. It really makes me sick.
William of rue Cherrier.
I believe the parks should be close in order to keep the homeless, drug addicts and other people who are wondering around the city at night away from them.
If the parks open at night, we will star finding undeserved elements in them.
Let’s keep them nice and tidy, let’s protect them!
Let the police continue doing their job!!!!
Thanks to the city of montreal for the rule!
Hey Shawn, here’s a newsflash for you. The cops are funded with our tax money and exist to protect us from crime. In Montreal they’ve earned the reputation of being racist bigots, and seem more concerned with STM fare fraud (???), jaywalking tickets, and harassing pot smokers than on doing anything about the real problems in our city. Oh yeah, some of their out of province cousins also seem to have made a habit of tasering people to death. If the cops don’t want to be photographed, they should clean up their act.
You said: “if you piss off a bunch of cops, they’re probably find a way to screw you over. So don’t go looking for trouble, as this guy did.”
My rejoinder is that as good citizens we need to be constantly turning the surveillance back on the cops. We need to stand up for enforcement of the spirit of the law, not the letter. If the guy wasn’t hurting anyone by doing what he was doing, the cops overstepped their bounds and should be punished accordingly. It’s wrong that anyone should be “screwed over” because they “pissed off” a cop. If a trained police officer gets so “pissed off” over an argument over photography and sitting in a park that he needs to “get revenge” by issuing a ticket, that police officer should do something more appropriate to their level of professionalism and maturity. I’m thinking construction site night security.
Okay, on the other hand, William’s friends’ story is just absurd. I’ve walked through that park on the weekend when it was reeling with junkies and freaks, completely ignored by the cops.
To ignore that scene and hassle some guys for eating a quiet sandwich is nuts.
Tux, in an ideal world, I’d agree with you. But you can’t expect police to not behave like, well, like people. With all their flaws.
Last summer I was trying out my new (shitty) digital camera, snapping pics of Montreal for Wikipedia. I happened to take a pic of some cops gathered talking during some anniversary street fest for Saint Viateur bagel.
A female officer happened to see me and was mighty pissed. I’m 49. She was probably 30 years my junior. She gave me shit like I was an idiot kid. I politely said I’d not do it again and left.
If I’d stood there and argued with her about my rights as a citizen, what would I have garnered?
“We need to stand up for enforcement of the spirit of the law, not the letter.” I could not agree more with that one! Note though that the people who were “being ignored” by the police in the park were all transiting through the area (there are public thoroughfares through many parks) as opposed to sitting down and “loitering”. This distinction does make some sense.
Unfortunately our laws tend to be rather black and white and leave little room for interpretation. To a certain extent I attribute this to the disappearance of our sense of ‘community’. Social values (and pressures) have been removed, and have not been replaced by anything else. We expect the ‘authorities’ to enforce certain implicit societal rules for us (no “illicit behaviour” in the park), but then we complain when they are being applied in an arbitrary fashion. How many of us who have been disgusted at seeing junkies shooting up in clear view in a park have actually ever said anything about it? And I don’t mean calling the police – I mean saying something to the person(s) doing the act that this is your space too and that you don’t appreciate this?
The police sometimes are very aggressive in their application of certain laws, but when a cop tells me to “move on” I don’t usually ask too many questions.
I don’t mind people sitting in the park shooting up, to be honest. I don’t mind homeless people sleeping there at night… as long as they’re quiet. I say this as someone who lived on Carré St-Louis for a number of years. (My windows fronted on to the square directly.)
To the extent that the park is MY space, it is also theirs, as last I checked you don’t lose your citizenship for being an addict or homeless.
Last summer I witnessed four cop cars and one supervisor van swoop into the centre of Carré St-Louis to hassle some people who were drinking and playing guitar. I had been sitting there a while and had no issue with them. I’m not sure that anyone around me did either. But hey, it was during Just For Laughs and we don’t want the tourists to see, so let’s shoo them away.
I don’t believe loitering is possible in a park, and I don’t believe these closing hours make any sense.
I agree with you that closing hours are antithetical to a public space…. My point was that “illicit behaviour” is not easily defined, nor is where/how to draw the line (and who should be making this decision).
Closing hours for parks have a purpose. It’s a way of enforcing the noise bylaws. It also prevents illicit activities (drug dealing and using, public fornication, hiding behind a bush waiting to mug someone or worse). Agree with the rules or not, but they aren’t senseless.
Chris, police officers stay in their cars and drive through parks because it gives them mobility, which walking the beat, for the most part, does not (the exception being large events in confined spaces not easily accessible to cars). It’s safer for them and for us. It allows them to quickly respond to calls in other areas of the city. It’s the same reason why ambulance drivers are frequently parked in seemingly obscure parking lots. It’s not because they’re lazy, it’s because it gives optimal coverage of a given area, allowing for more rapid response times.
Julie, when four cop cars and one supervisor swoop into the center of park to “hassle” people it’s HIGHLY likely it was in response to a complaint from someone who “hassled” by the noise and rowdiness (police intuition ain’t THAT good). Loud noise does not respect park boundaries or open windows after all.
Shawn, please elaborate on your definition of the “real problems of the city”. Sure, STM fare fraud isn’t on the top of my priority list, but it sure pisses me off when I see some guy with his three kids push their way through the automated entrance on one fare. We all pay for that cheating and I say good on the police and STM for cracking down on it.
Zvi, I’m not sure if being asking junkies to stop shooting up will stop the problem. They probably won’t be too concerned by a stranger taking exception to their habit. They will, however, be concerned if the police show up.
I agree that the rules and enforcement of them is not always well-defined. The police, like all people, are not flawless. Officers may occasionally make mistakes and overreact. To ask them, however, to enforce the “spirit of the law”, instead of the letter is problematic. Do you really think every individual officer has the same definition of “the spirit of the law”? Wouldn’t this actually perpetuate the problem of the arbitrary enforcement of the rules? I mean, it’s not always easy to tell the difference between a heroin junkie, a drug dealer, a hustler, a homeless guy, or just some dude taking a shortcut. Often, people can be many of these things at the same time (and they certainly won’t be honest with police when questioned if they are one of the first three). To ask the police to make this distinction quickly and apply the “spirit” of the law consistently is just asking for more arbitrary enforcement, and more complaints.
If anything, the problem is compounded by the police being too lenient. I mean, drinking a beer at 1 a.m. on a bench may be ok one night and not the next. When this happens to someone, they get the feeling that the officer who “busted” them for drinking a beer is being unfair and is harassing them. In reality, it is the first officer who let it pass that is unknowingly compounding that feeling. There is no consistent definition and enforcement of the rule, and this leads to confusion and feeling of being picked on.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe there is definitely room for discretion in police work. However, with discretion comes inconsistency, which results in unfair situations on occasion. If a guy wants to be self-righteous and defend his rights to sit on a statue and defy the police, I say to him; take that indignation and use it for a more positive purpose. The underlying important issues of this discussion (homelessness, drug addiction, crime) are not going to be solved by giving the middle finger to the police at every opportunity, whether justified or not.
The guy wasn’t sitting on a statue, but on a ledge deliberately built as a bench to sit on, as well as an architectural element in the park.
Whom does public fornication harm, as long as one means consensual sexual activity and not rape? Sure, I wouldn’t want to see it in a playground or small neighbourhood park, but in out-of-the-way places behind bushes it harms no one. Historically, this has often served as an alibi for police persecution of gay men, who in years past had few places to openly meet others.
I was under the impression that having police walk a beat actually contributed a great deal to crime prevention and a feeling of public safety. Park police could also be on bicycles, weather permitting.
Some very interesting discussion here! Peter, I agree that the police are people too, but their job gives them a degree of power that demands responsibility. You don’t give any old joe the power to hurt someone financially (ticketing), physically (tasering / pepper spray / beatings), or to confine them and deny them freedom without making damn sure that person can respond with a modicum of common sense in a difficult situation. I mean, I’m not a cop and I don’t know any cops, I’m sure I have no idea what the profession demands, but I think of myself as a reasonably intelligent person and it seems like common sense to me that as a police officer, you might need to accept being photographed gracefully. I hear a lot of stories about police getting inordinately pissed off about having their photos taken and what I always think is “Why are you so pissed off if you were acting rightfully as an officer of the law?” To respond to your comments about the letter/spirit of the law, I agree that the spirit of the law is a subtle thing and that inconsistency can be the result of its application. As an example, photographing people without their consent is illegal in Montreal. Does this stop street photography? Should street photographers be ticketed or sent to jail? Think about this question for a minute and you realize that the law prohibiting street photography is not enforceable or sensible as written. I’m not saying that means it shouldn’t exist. In the hands of a responsible and intelligent cop, this law can be used to enforce proper behavior. In the hands of a stupid irresponsible cop, it can be used for censorship or other, darker purposes. Irresponsible application of the letter of the law can be just as bad as inconsistent application of the spirit. Given the choice between the two, I’ll go for spirit. Level heads making good decisions based on available data. Not using the rule book as a bludgeon.
What I’m proposing is not giving the middle finger to the cops at every opportunity, but simply reminding them that might does not equal right. It is inappropriate in any situation for a cop to issue a ticket or detain someone to “punish” them or “remind them who’s boss”. Here in Montreal, we regularly issue tickets to homeless people. That’s supported by law, but in what universe is it a useful or progressive action? I would argue that any cop with a brain is perfectly capable of making the distinction between an action in the public interest and an action against it, and that cops incapable of these distinctions, or who cannot comport themselves in a respectful, professional manner shouldn’t be cops. I’m not asking for perfection, but to use an example from my own life:
A friend of mine was in his apartment hanging out with friends, playing music. It was about 8PM. My friend’s upstairs neighbor had issues with noise. She would bang on the floor constantly, even when my friend was being perfectly silent. This particular evening, this neighbor called in a noise complaint. My friend and his friends happened to be smoking pot that evening, and when the cops arrived (3 squad cars!) to investigate the noise, they forced their way into my friend’s apartment, forced his friends to their knees with their hands behind their heads, conducted an illegal search of his possessions, and all the while were cracking jokes and insulting my friend and his companions. After all this was done with, my friend was allowed to go back to his evening (of course his pot was confiscated) but for many weeks afterwards, when he came home from work in the evening the cops were often parked by his building’s front door, and as he passed by they would make impolite comments.
I tell this story to illustrate my point. I know there are some that would disagree with me, but I believe that the cops abused their power that night. What they did was not in anyone’s interest but their own. They were not protecting anyone or dealing with an actual problem, they were exercising their power for the fun of it. I believe that any cop who would do this or be complicit in it should not be a cop. Cops can be human, but I have a problem with them being plain old assholes. In Montreal this kind of scenario is a lot more common than it should be. Whether it’s kicking black kids out of the metro or kicking someone out of a park at night, it always seems to be the same story of a cop on a power trip, not serving or protecting anybody.
Peter, you say to take the anti-cop indignation and turn it to a useful purpose. I agree in part. I think we all have a part to play in the health of our communities and that expecting to sit back and let the cops do it while complaining loudly isn’t productive. But I also think that we have a duty as citizens to let the cops know when what they do ISN’T in the community’s best interest. I have seen the cops harass the weirdos at Carré St. Louis plenty of times. I used to work on St-Laurent and I’d walk that footpath through the park every day. I never felt threatened or unsafe, and I always resented the cops for disrupting the incomparable community flavor that park has. Sure a police presence, a driveby every so often, fine, but being in there nearly every day screwing with people who are just relaxing and not causing trouble… I think it’s wrong, I think it’s a waste of our tax money, and I think it’s a real problem, worth our attention.
Oh I’m sorry Julie that my opinion is less valid than yours because I live a couple of blocks away. I hate to think what your attitude towards Lavallois participation in Montréal’s government might be.
I find it amazing that anyone wouldn’t worried about the possibility of hazardous detrius such as needles being left where people may stand on them (or children play with them). I also think that the three levels of Government should be housing homeless people properly (and/or dealing with their physical/mental problems as appropriate). These people need active support, not “live and let live”.
I for one would not approach a junkie simply because a lot of these people have severe mental health issues. For the sake of personal safety, I wouldn’t recommend anybody do that.
The Police deserve respect, and by the same token, so do regular law-abidding citizens. I think the Police had it within their operational guidelines to issue my out-of-town friends with a warning, especially given the lake of appropriate signage in this instance (given that you can enter the park from the corner as they did and not see the sign).
While we’re on the subject of police misdeeds, this from Gothamist:
http://gothamist.com/2008/07/28/cop_caught_on_video_assaulting_cycl.php
(courtesy Digg, where it tops the list)
Maria, I suppose public fornication doesn’t necessarily harm everyone who comes across it. However, if I had kids I sure wouldn’t want them to come upon two people having sex. I agree that in the past that this law may have been used to overly harass gay men but it still doesn’t mean that the behaviour is ok. I don’t care if you’re gay, straight, transvestite or someone “having sex with yourself”, discretion should be the rule.
Tux, you make some very good points. I agree ticketing homeless people is counterproductive and harassment in most cases. The thing is, we only hear about the times that homeless people get ticketed. How many times have police officers ignored, say ,a homeless person in a park late after hours. Or helped them out. I have no way of knowing, but I’ll bet it’s way more frequent than the times they DO give a ticket. Similarly, I can think of hundreds of times I’ve seen pedestrians, cyclists and motorists safely break minor rules of the road without consequence. It’s those few times that, for whatever reason, the police enforce the law that we remember. And if it’s you or a friend who it happens to, you sure aren’t going to forget.
The story you tell is interesting. I’m not sure what you mean by “forced their way into my friend’s apartment”. Was he initially refusing to let them in? If so, that would certainly set alarm bells ringing in any police officer’s mind. They would be wondering what he was hiding. It’s likely they smelled the pot from outside the door. Anyways, I shouldn’t presuppose anything. Making people go on their knees with their arms behind their backs is a safety precaution. I mean, how are they to know whether your friends are dangerous or not? Of course, YOU know and YOUR friends know full well that they aren’t, but how are they supposed to know? Yes, it can be humiliating and embarrassing but it’s just something they have to deal with. I’m going on a flight tomorrow and I know damn well that I will trigger the metal detector and be scanned with the handheld and maybe even asked to remove my belt and shoes. It’s uncomfortable but it I know it has a purpose so I accept it.
To say that the police were exercising their power for the fun of it is a bit of a stretch. It’s a lot more complicated than that. They suspected there was pot in the apartment and they acted on it (and they were correct). If some of them were jerks in the process then so be it. Maybe they are real jerks, or maybe they use sarcasm and mild insults to convince people RIGHT AWAY who’s in charge at that moment, to avoid having to use physical suppression (batons, fists) if people are not compliant. I’m not saying it’s necessarily right or justified for a cop to act like a prick, but there are psychological and practical reasons for it. They deal with dishonest, antisocial and violent people on a daily basis.
I remember in the 1990’s Carre Saint-Louis had a reputation as being full of drug dealers. I don’t hear that so much today but maybe the police are trying to make sure it doesn’t happen again. When a cop tells a person to move along from a park, it may seem heavy handed but maybe that person is a drug dealer known to police. They didn’t see him directly dealing drugs but they know damn well what he’s doing there. They can’t search him so they deal with it by shooing him away. You probably walk by scores of drug dealers and you never know who they are. There are always drug dealers at the metro station near the school I teach at. They just hang around, seemingly not bothering anyone. The police use the loitering laws to shoo them away (because they can’t search them unless they witness a transaction). Occasionally, innocent people will get caught up in this and it’s not right. The thing is, I don’t want drug dealers dealing to my students, and I’m happy that they try to do something about it. It’s complicated.
Tux, my understanding of the ‘street photography’ law is that it’s not illegal to take pictures on the street (goodbye tourists if that were the case), but it’s against Quebec civil code to publish photos in which other individuals are identifiable.
So, if you take a picture of say, the downtown skyline, and no actual people are visible in it, you’re fine. But, even if you take a picture of ste-catherine street pedestrians at rush hour, and several people’s faces are visible in it, you’re fine as long as you don’t put it in a magazine or throw it onto your blog.
If you do want to publish photos in which other individuals are identifiable, then you need written permission from each one, or else you’re at risk of getting sued.