Iqaluit councillor condemns online ‘threat’ comment over animal control bylaw
Controversial bylaw changes were approved Tuesday; RCMP says no investigation underway
Members of the public look on during Tuesday night’s Iqaluit city council meeting. Coun. Sam Tilley, seated on the right wearing grey clothing, later condemned a pair of Facebook comments targeting councillors, calling it a “threat.” (Photo by Arty Sarkisian)
A pair of Facebook comments posted after Iqaluit city council approved controversial amendments to the city’s animal control bylaw are drawing the ire of at least one city councillor.
Council unanimously approved the changes Tuesday evening, allowing municipal enforcement officers to euthanize loose animals 24 hours after being captured.
The bylaw amendment emerged after city councillors raised concerns over loose dogs being a public safety risk. The City of Iqaluit attempted to calm residents, issuing a statement saying euthanasia is a “last resort” measure.
More than 50 residents attended Tuesday’s council meeting to protest the vote. However, none were listed on the agenda to speak and the issue was quickly voted on without comment or debate, which is common for the third reading of bylaws.
On Wednesday, Nunavut Animal Rescue president Janelle Kennedy wrote a lengthy and widely shared Facebook post explaining why the city was wrong in its approach to the issue, stating “the public has been denied due process.”
In a response to her post, one user commented, “It would be a truly terrible shame if anyone ever came across the city officials who passed this amendment and mistook them for lost/unclaimed dogs.”
Kennedy posted a response, saying “my eyesight is pretty bad these days so anything is possible,” followed by a laughing emoji.
The two comments remained online for several hours Wednesday. They were eventually deleted, but not before Coun. Sam Tilley posted a screenshot of them on his Facebook page, condemning what was said.
In a text message to Nunatsiaq News on Wednesday, Tilley said he saw the comments as a “threat.” But when asked for an interview Thursday, he declined further comment.
Kennedy, reached by phone Thursday, also declined to comment. In a separate Facebook post, she brushed off the comments as “dark humour.”
When asked if the City of Iqaluit will take action, spokesperson Geoff Byrne said by email that the city had no comment.
Several commenters on Tilley’s Facebook post suggested notifying police.
“The Iqaluit RCMP have not received any complaints regarding this Facebook post, therefore the matter is not being investigated,” said Sgt. George Henrie, Nunavut RCMP spokesperson, on Thursday.
A distasteful joke, really. Not a credible threat.
I didn’t see a threat in here.
The original comment by Catherine about « It would be a shame if…. » is simply wishful Schadenfreude, served with Swiftian irony.
Janelle’s response made fun of an inability to distinguish councilors from canines.
Neither alluded to assassination. According to the bylaw being poked fun at, the satirical outcome would more likely be detainment. Culling (not « euthanasia » ) would only occur after and if the rounded-up councilors/canines were to not be reclaimed by their owners—presumably, in this amusing scenario conflating reviled loose beasts and loose-mouthed elected officials, those being the fine residents of Iqaluit… who may or may not indeed wish to do so.
Now, THAT’s funny.
What’s not funny is Sam Tilley demonstrating such weak constitution and even weaker abilities to 1) read and 2) read irony. If he knew half of the truly dark subject matter Janelle has had to deal with in regards to animal cruelty, defending the voiceless, he would be humbled or ashamed. I, for one, am saddened that he counts for one of our municipal leaders.
A Nunavut Animal Rescue volunteer today was told « I hope you get mauled by one of the loose dogs. » She brushed it off.
Perhaps Councillor Tilley should volunteer for the shelter. Not only might he learn of Iqaluit’s complex dog issue, he might even develop a biting sense of humour.
Oh please. Irony needs clarity of intent, and no one in those comments has a shred of Swift’s wit.
It was a joke poorly made, in poor taste, that could easily and rightly be construed as a threat by councilors.
Thank you, Polly, for emphasising that the true matter up for debate is semantics, not menaced homicide.
As for the grave crime shown in my use qualificative (chosen for kind, not necessarily quality), to justify: I had “A Modest Proposal” in mind, an essay that propones human trafficking and infantile cannibalism among the elite as a solution to rid Ireland of its poverty issues… in order to denounce it.
“Swift’s use of satirical hyperbole was intended to mock hostile attitudes towards the poor and anti-Catholicism among the Protestant Ascendancy as well as the Dublin Castle administration’s policies in general” (Wikipedia). I’d say here: “Catherine and Janelle’s comments use of satirical hyperbole was intended to mock hostile city council decisions towards dogs and dog-owners among the Iqalummiut Ascendancy as well as the Iqaluit City Council administration’s policies in general”. Oh–and Janelle was poking fun at her age-related macular degeneration, which would confuse lowly dogs with lowly people (insert perfunctory laughing emoji). But it could have been better written, I’ll concede.
In any case, the comments made (technically not a joke, but a mockery) use a similarly subversive conflation, outraging some, humouring others.
Guess which group gets the point?
Yes, precisely: it is a semantic issue. When one implies that politicians should be collected and shot in the head, is it a joke or a call to action? Semantically, if one wants to engage in that sort of mockery, one should be clear in one’s intent.
A Modest Proposal is satire, and very clear in its message. The Facebook post was sloppy and semantically unclear.
‘Semantically unclear’. LOL… some people are infatuated the sophisticated noise they make, regardless of how little it calibrates with reality.
Boy howdy, do I ever agree with you.
Except there’s nothing about it that could “easily and rightly” be taken as a threat. Clutch those pearls harder.
If it were told well it would be clear that it was a joke.
As it stands, it was sloppy and humourless, so there’s no obvious signs that it was in jest.
To be sloppy and of poor humour is an entirely different thing than being a credible threat. This analysis is an absurd overreach of reality.
If it were not dark humour but still sloppy then it wouldn’t be a credible threat.
If it were well crafted dark humour then it wouldn’t be a credible threat.
Because it was a poor attempt at dark humour, it’s reasonable that someone wouldn’t see that its a joke.
I suppose people will see what they want or are primed to see.
Your attempt at humour was not in good taste. I know you would be going koko if it was directed your way. The debate is over and time to move on.
Do you defend the cab drivers like this? They get threats online regularly.
I think everyone who doesn’t think that Janelle’s “joke” was inappropriate is failing to understand the territory’s social climate. We all know that violence is a huge issue that is constantly trying to be addressed by various stakeholders.
What this means is likely all councilor have been victims at some point or another in their lives of some violence – assaults, sexual assaults, threats, firearm issues, etc. Making light of “jokes” like this, or using “dark humour” on a PUBLIC Facebook post, concerning people that you KNOW are going to see said post, is discounting and overlooking the perpetual traumas that are very much present in our communities.
It wasn’t a tasteless joke. Jokes aren’t meant to be perceived as threats. It was written in anger and frustration. Which again, is quite literally the opposite of the definition of a joke.
“What this means is likely all councilor have been victims…”
“What this means is likely all councilor have been victims (and some possible perpetrators)”
Victims can be perpetrators. And perpetrators can also be victims. Both can exist for the same person, with differing situations.
Hope this helps!
Because people say bad things to me, it makes it okay to say bad things to others. What a dumb argument. Some things should be easy to condemn. It was objectively not funny, but you explaining the jokes definitely makes it better.
It seems this comment divides. Clearly, humour and wit (i.e. intelligence) go hand-in-hand. Methinks if one lack the former, so, too, the latter.
It would be a shame if those that use clear bags failed to see that they were indeed “not toys”. Or, that the clients of Black Heart Café did not deduce that the contents of their fine cup of joe were indeed “hot”. Or, that the readers Nunatsiaq News mistook what is printed as fit to print, viz. “news”, as opposed to the titillations of a muck-raking rag designed to compel its readership into debased, asinine, simpleton outrage.
…Or, that Iqalummiut accept their city council going about cavalierly snuffing out representative democracy swifter than a tag-less puppy at the dump. “We’ve never seen council chambers so full as it was during Tuesday night’s meeting,” they said. “Let’s not listen to them,” they did.
Now, please call the RCMP on me for threatening to bag people over the heat, scald them with coffee, insult their intelligence, and triggering trauma through the application of flippant sarcasm.
As for denouncing the assassination of democracy – and even worse, of wit, personal moral constitution and critical discernment – you need only look at yourselves.
In trying to appear decisive, Iqaluit council simply comes off as callous and cruel. And a bit stupid.
They chose fascism over liberal democracy
There’s a lot of fascism in the world today, but representative democracy is not fascism.
You missed the opportunity at first reading and second reading. The City gave due process with public notices of the first and second readings. It was not callous and cruel.
Ick. We honestly get sick of white savourism. That only outsiders know better. That they’re ‘smarter’ and have ‘better’ solutions. That Inuit are ‘dumb’ for standing against white saviourism. Outsiders have no clue how incredibly overbearing, controlling and vicious they really are. Like using ‘dark humour’ to make councillors look stupid. Imaa, as if one person’s view is the ONLY way it should be accepted, nobody else’s. Giving no space other than to make themselves look like the true hero. The animal rights activists who have no clue how forced settlement has exacerbated the problem in the first place. White people forced decisions on us and of course, only white people keep wanting to force decisions on us again; because they want to remind Inuit that white people are in control and that Inuit are pitiful, dumb people who can’t think for themselves. Yuck, I’m sick of that mindset, especially from the likes of people like Janelle Kennedy.
I don’t know where you live, but ‘White people’ (whatever that means) are definitely NOT in control of this territory. Those who believe otherwise are deluded.
You know who is in control? The elite, mixed-heritage in Iqaluit, that is who is in control.
are you blind ?
Since Nunatsiaq News is singling out Janelle personally (anyone else notice how she is named, but not the other author with the perhaps more significant comment?)–and since you do, too–I’ll add something personal.
Janelle is no “White saviour”. She helps. She sees a dog suffer, she acts directly, such as with administrating animal first aid or sheltering under our roof (even defrosting exposed new-born puppies by holding them in between her breasts); strategically, by being involved in the Iqaluit Humane Society / Nunavut Animal Rescue; and collaboratively, by trying to work with a historically apathetic, sometimes antagonistic city council (this being another case in point). She, alongside other volunteers, has helped animal rescue and care in Iqaluit reached heights unimagined in a recent past. Her 18-year involvement in this community has benefitted thousands of animal’s lives–this, unlike the hyperbole-filled discourse before us, is no exaggeration.
And such kindness, such philanthropy in this community are not only in short supply, but immensely needed. And things, to be sure, are bloody grim. It’s worse than wandering dogs, or mere welfare, or the “luxury” of humane treatment under the often incorrect assumption of cultural difference. Recurring issues of animal cruelty include bestiality, torture, forced intoxication, incestuous breeding… Having heard the stories, and seen some of the victims, it’s truly atrocious.
And to speak of threats, she herself has received direct, humourless threats, such as the one fellow who shared to a bylaw officer that he would sneak up behind her and strike her with a “big stick”; and the other, who wrote to her directly to say he was going to stab her.
And in the face of such overwhelming human ugliness, Janelle keeps at it.
Finally, since you assume Janelle is an “outsider”, I’ll add that her professional and personal involvements, all defined and informed by cherished relationships with our land, our people and our creatures, speak for themselves. She’s from here, recognised by many as such, and is proud to be.
Janelle certainly acts when she perceives that a dog needs help, whether that means having an Inuktut speaker’s dog spayed without the owner’s consent, or packing dogs into kennels that haven’t been cleared of parvo.
Would that she thought before she acted.
It is unfortunate — though sadly unsurprising — that Nunatsiaq News once again chose a clickbait headline over thoughtful journalism. Rather than taking the opportunity to explore a nuanced civic process and the real challenges facing council, the article settles for superficial drama and contributes little to public understanding.
Let me be clear: the comments made online, however some might want to pass them off as “dark humour,” cross a line. This was not a slip of the tongue, nor satire in the tradition of political critique. Suggesting harm — even metaphorically — to elected officials undermines not just civility but the democratic processes we are all meant to uphold. Whether perceived or actual, threats to council are a slippery slope, and they chill participation in public life at a time when trust in institutions is already under pressure.
I am also compelled to say that Nunavut Animal Rescue (NAR), as an organization with a legitimate voice in animal welfare, risks discrediting its cause by remaining aligned — even passively — with individuals who promote or tolerate this kind of rhetoric. If NAR wishes to continue its advocacy with credibility, it must distance itself clearly and publicly from comments that demean, threaten, or ridicule public servants.
It is possible to disagree strongly — and even passionately — with policy. But responsible discourse means drawing the line at threats and personal attacks. The alternative is a public square where intimidation replaces engagement, and no one benefits from that.
Systems created by White Supreme coming back to bite them and them southerners expressing on social media.
“More than 50 residents attended Tuesday’s council meeting to protest the vote.” Not all 50 were there to protest. There was some who were there to supported the amendment. Another bad reporting by NN, NN assumed everyone there was there to protest, NOT!
What kind of News posting is this ? is this the new rant and rave? this is so irrelevant…
My favorite story will be when Nunatsiaq announces the closing of this rag for good.
We need a bylaw amendment for off leash councillors.
Indeed. And that was the point of the mockery-turned threat: put thyself in someone else’s shoes (or lack thereof, i.e. paws).
This whole situation should bring us to collective meditation… and action. For, we can all here well observe that, in our esteemed councillors, there be present a most peculiar affliction, constituting the true and actual menace to the public: a chronic inflammation of the sensibilities, wherein every utterance not perfectly aligned with their own opinion, morals and sense of humour ignites a conflagration of great theatrical indignation. One might conclude their tender constitutions better suited to the cloistered nursery than the robust arena of public discourse. Incapable of weathering the slightest breeze of dissent without immediately collapsing into a paroxysm of manufactured victimhood, we should follow through with moral necessity and proverbially offer to take them out of their destitute misery (with a call for resignation, not “yoothenascia”, my dearest yet perhaps duller co-citizens). Perhaps we can even find them fur-ever homes!
Yes! I am favour of this proposal of a “a bylaw amendment for off-leash councillors”.
It is really difficult to understand how holding a dog for 24 hours as opposed to the previous 72 hours will improve the problem of loose dogs in Iqaluit. It’s a sop, aimed at appeasing those who have legitimate concerns about safety around loose dogs. But the solution seems unrelated to the problem. Maybe City Council thinks that a changed by-law will make heretofore negligent pet owners keep their dogs on leash. This seems unlikely to me, and the by-law may result in profoundly cruel and unfair situations for diligent pet-owners whose dogs get loose while in the care of house-sitter, or being walked by children or whatever.
Your comment is spot on. This ‘solution’ doesn’t address the actual problem. The councilors are either too stubborn, or something worse, to back track, so they double down. If they cannot see how this doesn’t actually address the problem then there is something seriously off with their judgement.
It’s sort of where we are as a society – there’s no common sense anymore. Everything is so extreme. It’s really sad.
Half of Nunavut’s Facebook posts are personal attacks and death threats and everyone knows better than to take them seriously. Was this really worth a news article?
Yeah that is what is getting me about these comments. Like Service announcements get some moderation but people are regularly on there and Rant and Rave saying dogs deserve to be shot, kids aren’t hit enough, drug dealers should be killed ect ect. If the councilor had not run to the Paper about it, it would already be forgotten
From reading this article and comments here and the comments on the Facebook feed I can see there is bad blood between Iqaluit Humane Society and City council past and present, not sure what may have led to that but to be honest let’s get passed it…on both sides and work together. From my understanding, the city council did not try to reach out for public opinion on the amendment of this bi-law and not much if any transparency as to the first 2 readings when the new amendment was discussed and passed in their (City Council) meeting(s). It led to a lot of residents being upset over this, there should have been opportunity for public debate.
City councilors’, you are elected to these positions to represent the people of Iqaluit, your handling of this is not something I would expect from you. No, you do not have to take any type of threat lightly, however your post on social media is not the place to resolve this.
I’m sure you are all doing the best you can to uphold the City’s by-laws and work with the citizens of Iqaluit. Lets not forget, regardless of how anyone may feel about Janelle Kennedy she has put her heart and soul into the Humane Society and does not deserve the backlash from the Council and some of the public that she is receiving over something that was meant as a joke, distasteful one at that and I do believe an apology on her side should be given, it was a trigger to some council members, that should not be taken lightly.
City Council and the Humane Society should put old and or new grievance toward each other aside and come together to resolve such a complex issues that effects so many here in this community. Have a meeting to find resolution and work together.
That is solely my opinion as a citizen of this beautiful city I call home. Let’s do better!!
“there should have been opportunity for public debate.”
There was, second reading.
It was a bad joke, and although it was made innocently, I think Janelle unfortunately doesn’t understand that, as the face of the Iqaluit rescue, she has to be a model of tact and be extremely careful about her public image. It just comes with the job—any role that requires collaboration with other entities, especially in small communities. Unlike a rights group, a rescue organization has to work with the city, by-law officers, possibly the RCMP, and others. Being careless with her words has an unfortunate impact not just on her, but more importantly, on the rescue itself.
On the other hand, both Janelle and Stephanie Tawse have received threats—Janelle for many years. Yet no one seems to bat an eye at that, likely because they don’t have the same platform as a city councilor, and because Janelle’s image has been tarnished over the years. Part of that is due to her outspoken (at times disrespectful) nature, which angers some people, but a large part is also due to people misrepresenting situations and making assumptions that aren’t true.
On another note, I don’t understand why this has somehow turned into an Inuit vs. Southerners issue. The vast majority of people—and children—who will cry and be traumatized by the by-law will be Inuit. The vast majority of those who will experience a mental health crisis because they slipped up for a day and lost their pet as a result will also be Inuit. Shouldn’t that factor into the community’s decision? Doesn’t that justify giving people a few extra days to realize their mistake and come up with the money to get their pet back? Shouldn’t we take into account that things can be a bit disorganized in Nunavut, and that systems don’t always run smoothly—which, with short deadlines, could lead to irreversible mistakes?
Right now, emotions are running high, and publicly there seems to be a divide between Inuit and non-Inuit. But I’m not so sure that reflects how everyone truly feels—especially once we start hearing about the real impact these changes are having on actual people.
I think some dog owners want the 72hrs put back in place because they cannot pay to get their dog back until payday.
That being said,
There was a post almost everyday on FB about how many people were bit or scared to walk outside due to too many loose dogs, and they showed screen shots of all those dogs. It is understanding to be afraid because I myself was attack by a huge dog and bit my ear and chest.
Do not get a puppy just because your baby wants a puppy and then leave it outside loose when it get bigger as that is not right. Stop complaining about having to pay to get back your dog, especially after leaving on the loose all the time.
Thank you to the City Councillors to finally do their job and keeping us safe from loose scary dogs.
Please withheld my name as I do not want to get bit by a big loose dog.
Nowhere in Janelle’s comment was there a threat. No one was named. No councillor was mentioned. No weapons were referenced. It was a bad joke—born out of frustration over a bylaw that allows dogs to be killed within 24 hours. The so-called “threat” was someone else’s interpretation, not something she actually said.
Come on, let’s get real – two reported dog bites in a six month span is not a crisis when there is child abuse, suicide, addiction, bullying, and overcrowded housing? That’s a crisis. Where’s the outrage on those issues?
What’s also troubling is how quickly people who speak out are dismissed. It is not uncommon for critics to be told to leave the North or be made to feel like outsiders just for raising concerns. That’s not public safety—it’s public intimidation.
This isn’t about protecting council. It’s about silencing criticism. And when the loudest voices are more concerned about sarcasm than suffering, the real danger isn’t who made a Facebook post—it’s who benefits from the distraction.
This community deserves better. And we all have the right to speak up without fear.
I am old enough to realize if you have to “Explain” your joke it is generally not seen as funny by the observer. Nor very “joke-y”
Being unfunny is not a crime though.
Only in the Hamlet of Iqaluit would this be an issue and have 40 follow-up comments by keyboard warriors debating it. No wonder the feds signed a devolution agreement so easily.
idk if nunatsiaq will allow this post. lol
if janelle and her husband can get a house for the dogs they so badly want to save, why cant your humane society expand?
also, if you’ve lived here that many years, why havent you guys expanded? i know nothings cheap now-a-days
also, why havent the people who sign the online petition show up to the meeting? lol
if janelle and her husband have had previous threats or dark humour targeted to them via there humane society or personal life, why redirect it to someone else. just cause you got offended/attacked verbally/feelings got hurt ?
the white people control this town thing is getting old, if you can’t see yourself working with the community you flew to, then why you still here? money? to get away from other white people whom are worse then yourself? if so, put your past to the side and start working on yourself, rather than being a d*ck.
i feel like this whole comment section can be an article LOL