A double standard
Alain babineau ·
The author draws a comparison between two events that occurred during the same period in two cities in Québec (Trois-Rivières and Montréal) and which have sparked very different reactions.
The author draws a comparison between two events that occurred during the same period in two Quebec cities (Trois-Rivières and Montreal), which have sparked very different reactions. A woman from Trois-Rivières was broadcasting racist insults against Black, Arab and Muslim people in a live stream. People seemed to find it funny.
And a young man from Montreal who violently insulted a SPVM police officer during a traffic stop. Condemnation in the National Assembly, denounced by Montreal's mayor, singled out for his origins.
Two reprehensible behaviors. Two radically different collective reactions. Why?, asks Alain Babineau — a McGill-trained jurist and former RCMP senior non-commissioned officer.
Author's Note _ I am a retired police officer and RCMP senior staff manager. I spent my career alongside the women and men who perform this difficult frontline work, daily exposed to verbal violence, provocations and abuse of all kinds. I know the human cost of this profession. I know what it costs, in body and soul, to absorb day after day the hostility of those you are there to protect. I am also a racialized person. A committed anti-racist and human rights defender, I have zero tolerance for words and actions that undermine human dignity — regardless of their source or their target. This is not a contradiction. It is precisely this dual perspective — one who has lived from the inside the realities of police work, and one who has lived from the inside what it means to be looked at differently, treated differently, judged differently — that allows me to see what so many others choose not to see._ — Alain Babineau
Let us be clear: Insulting a police officer is unacceptable! Making racist remarks in public is unacceptable! Both deserve the same outrage. Both deserve the same response. What I cannot accept is that people choose one and laugh at the other!
Part I
Two incidents. Two individuals. Two radically different collective reactions. Why? Over the past few months, two cases have shaken Quebec's social media. In both cases, individuals publicly made hateful, degrading and violent remarks. In both cases, vulnerable groups were targeted. And yet, the reaction from the public, media and institutions was not the same at all.
First case
A "pure laine" Québécoise A woman, a "pure laine" Québécoise, broadcasts on social media live streams in which she utters, apparently under the influence of alcohol, racist and degrading insults toward Black, Arab and Muslim people. She uses vulgar terms to distinguish herself from racialized people. Parents are concerned that she works with children from diverse backgrounds.
Second case
A young man of Arab origin A young man of Arab origin, who considers himself fully Québécois, is filmed during a traffic stop violently insulting a SPVM police officer using extreme misogynistic language. Another video shows him insulting two other officers. He has a criminal record including a fraud conviction in 2025, fines in several cities for insulting police officers, and ongoing investigations.
Both behaviors are reprehensible. Period.
Part II
But let us look at how society reacted to each one In the first case: viral shares, parodies, memes. People mock. They quote her phrases like punchlines. They comment with amusement. And when voices rise in condemnation, the reflex is swift: "She's probably sick. She needs help." Psychological distress and alcohol dependency are invoked. Compassion is called for. No official condemnation. No documented intervention by authorities. No articles in recognized media outlets.
In the second case: unanimous condemnation in the National Assembly. Motions adopted. Montreal's mayor calls the remarks "repugnant." The SPVM chief steps forward. Journalists confront his parents. A municipal legal gap is debated. Regulation is demanded. His behavior is linked to his origins, his culture, his immigrant status — even though he says he feels fully Québécois.
Part III
Let us ask the real questions Why do we speak of mental illness for one, but never for the other? As soon as the first person's videos circulated, part of the public immediately evoked mental health, alcoholism, and distress. But let us ask ourselves honestly: did anyone, at any point, publicly consider that the second individual might also be suffering from behavioral disorders, pathological impulsivity, or a problematic relationship with authority? No. Not once. For him, no charitable diagnosis. No call for compassion. Directly: condemnation, sanctions, symbolism.
The observation
Mental illness serves here as a shield — but only for some. And that shield has a color / an ethnicity.
Why do one person's remarks draw laughter, while the other's provoke outrage? This is nothing new. Quebec has a long memory when it comes to racism dressed up as entertainment. For generations, jokes about "Nèg," Arabs, Jews, gay people or immigrants circulated in theatres, on the radio, on television — often under the guise of popular humor, "terroir culture" or "plain-spoken Québécois."
People laughed. They applauded. And anyone who dared complain was cast as someone who "doesn't get the joke" or who "sees racism everywhere."
Social media did not invent this phenomenon. It amplified it, accelerated it, monetized it. Racist live streams are no longer broadcast on radio waves — they are streamed live, liked, shared, transformed into memes. The mechanics are identical: shock a minority, make the majority laugh, and call it authenticity.
Laughter is not neutral. It reveals to whom we grant humanity — and to whom we refuse the dignity of being taken seriously. When that laughter has lasted for generations, it can no longer be called humor. It is called complicity. - Alain Babineau
Why is one person's behavior linked to their origins, but not the other's? The second individual was described in many media outlets as being "of Arab origin," even though he identifies as Québécois — as if that explained his actions. His parents were confronted. Cultural shock was evoked. But the first — a "pure laine" Québécoise from Trois-Rivières — was never presented as a symbol of Franco-Québécois cultural drift. Her actions belong to her alone. So why should the other's actions belong to an entire community?
Part IV
What the law says — and what we carefully forget to distinguish Insulting a police officer is not a hate crime. It is a violation of a municipal bylaw — where one exists. It is condemnable, it is unacceptable, but it is not the same thing, legally speaking, as targeting an identifiable group with hateful speech during a public broadcast. Criminal Code of Canada.
Section 319(1) — Public incitement of hatred Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code provides that anyone who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against an identifiable group is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.1 Under section 318(4), an identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, or sexual orientation.2
However, other available videos clearly show that the young man insults police officers of all genders — men and women alike. His target is not women as an identifiable group based on sex. His target is police authority as an institution. The apparent misogynistic charge in the most viral video therefore does not reflect a systematic hatred of women — it is part of a generalized hostility toward law enforcement, regardless of gender.
This finding legally undermines any attempt to qualify his actions as a hate crime under section 319 of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, repeated public broadcasts, before thousands of followers, explicitly targeting people because of their skin color, ethnic origin or religion: that is precisely what section 319 is designed to address. And yet, the opposite occurs in the collective reaction.
What jurisprudence teaches us There is significant Canadian case law on the question of hateful speech directed at identifiable groups. Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. [2011]3 is particularly relevant here, as it concerns racist remarks made publicly against Arab and Haitian taxi drivers in Montreal.
A radio host had made denigrating remarks about these drivers, accusing them of corruption, incompetence and uncleanliness. The Superior Court had initially ordered payment of $220,000 to the 1,100 drivers targeted. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the class action in defamation — not because the remarks were acceptable, but for a procedural reason: the remarks had "diluted into the crowd" due to the size of the group, making it impossible to prove individualized harm for each member.
What this decision does not say is that such remarks are legal or without consequence. It simply says that the civil route of collective defamation was inapplicable in that specific context. The penal provisions of section 319 of the Criminal Code remain fully intact.
Supreme Court of Canada — 1990
R. v. Keegstra: the legitimate limits on freedom of expression Freedom of expression has limits. In R. v. Keegstra [1990]4, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions prohibiting hate propaganda constitute reasonable and justifiable limits on freedom of expression in a free and democratic society. You have the right to shock, to offend, to disturb. You do not have the right to foment hatred against a racialized, religious or ethnic group.
What this double standard reveals Normalized racism when it comes from "one of our own" is still racism. Misogyny condemned when it comes from "the other" is still misogyny. But treating these two realities with different scales reveals a systemic bias that we must honestly name: we tend to judge racialized individuals for their actions, and to excuse white individuals for their circumstances. This does not mean that insulting a police officer is acceptable. It is not. This does not mean that the young man in question should not be held accountable for his actions. He should.
It means that the woman who makes racist remarks in a live stream, before thousands of viewers, who treats human beings in a degrading manner based on their skin color or religion, and who potentially works with children from those very same communities — she too must be held accountable for her actions. And society — media, institutions, internet users — must be equally outraged.
One standard for some, another for others! That is not justice. It is a reflection of our collective blind spots. It is time to face them head on!
Author's postscript
This article does not seek to minimize either of the behaviors described, nor to protect anyone. It seeks to highlight the inconsistency of our collective reactions — because it is precisely in that inconsistency that prejudice lives.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
Alain Babineau, JD/BCL, is a graduate of the McGill University Faculty of Law and a former RCMP senior non-commissioned officer. He is Director of the racial profiling and public safety file at Red Coalition Inc. and Director of advocacy and Francophone affairs at the Black Class Action Secretariat (BCAS).