Iqaluit RCMP investigate ‘threat’ comments toward council
Social media post follows passage of animal control bylaw
Iqaluit RCMP have launched an investigation into comments made this week on social media, which Coun. Sam Tilley described as a “threat.” The comments appeared on a post opposing city council’s decision to approve amendments to the animal control bylaw. (File photo by Jeff Pelletier)
Facebook comments described by Coun. Sam Tilley as a “threat” following the passage of amendments to Iqaluit’s animal control bylaw Tuesday are now being investigated by the Iqaluit RCMP.
The amendments allow municipal enforcement to euthanize loose dogs after 24 hours, reduced from seven days. It also applies heavier impound fees to owners of animals that have been caught.
Dozens of people came out to Tuesday’s council meeting, many with a desire to express opposition to the amendments.
Sgt. George Henrie initially said police hadn’t received a complaint, so there was no investigation, when Nunatsiaq News asked on Thursday afternoon.
But he provided an update Friday morning.
“I was notified that the Iqaluit detachment did receive a report of the Facebook post and that they are investigating the matter,” said Henrie in an email.
“As it is an ongoing investigation, I am unable to provide additional details.”
The two comments appeared under a Facebook post Wednesday by Nunavut Animal Rescue president Janelle Kennedy, in which she argued why she felt council was wrong in its unanimous decision to approve the bylaw amendments.
Tilley shared screenshots those comments on his Facebook account before they were deleted from Kennedy’s post.
One user had 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.
I would think that the RCMP has more imported things to do than investigating bad jokes. To the city councillors – Next time let the public know about changes like this before you finalize it. By the way not everybody has Facebook or X (twitter).
If the people really cared, they would have shown up for the first 2 readings, the third reading is a formality and not the time for public consultation. This is standard for all city stuff that needs to get passed. First is introduction, second is public consultation, third is reading.
There was no surprise here.
“First is introduction, second is public consultation“
Second reading happened immediately after first reading, though. Check the minutes and motion registry for May 13 if you don’t believe me.
So when was the opportunity for public consultation exactly? Should we all attend every meeting of council just in case they intend to speed some brand new amendment through introduction and “consultation” in the span of a few minutes?
Not only would you need to attend every council meeting. You would also have to know ahead of time to apply for space on that agenda to voice your concern with a bylaw you don’t even know is coming.
EVEN THEN, Mayor Awa will simply deny you request to appear as a delegate by fully ignoring it.
This council, especially Mayor Awa, is deliberately avoiding public input.
Whether they are credible threats or jokes is debatable, but one thing is certain the comments on FB are very unprofessional. Janelle should resign if she cannot be a professional member of the community.
From the Humane Society?
Really? Because Sam is “scared”?
Janelle should resign. She is rude to community members on a regular basis when their opinions or circumstances don’t align with what she wants.
Oh, for Pete’s sakes!
Grow up; the lot of you!
Seriously?
It’s abhorrent that council passed this bylaw amendment, and are now actively going after the people who are trying to take a more humane (and effective) approach to Iqaluit’s dog problem.
What a waste of RCMP time.
Talk about drama! Holayyyy
Oh gawd, really?
For wannabe politicians, these council members sure have thin skins.
Grow a pair and get back to work.
Blown out of proportion for dark humour. This same council that was elected by the public did not consult with the public.
Not all were elected. Amber is apparently only accountable to the other councilors
“This same council that was elected by the public did not consult with the public.”
That is what second readings are for, these people showed up to the third hearing. Who is at fault for not coming at the right time?
“That is what second readings are for, these people showed up to the third hearing. Who is at fault for not coming at the right time?”
In this specific case, it’s council’s fault, because second reading happened immediately after the by-law was introduced at first reading. Check the agenda and motion registry for May 13.
Do you expect the public to show up to every single council meeting just in case they hurry a by-law through introduction and “consultation” in the span of a few minutes?
Just waiting for any person to be seriously injured, maimed or killed. We cannot take threats with a grain of salt. Look at all the murders and violence already articles in the NN. Yes, I would lay criminal charges.
give it a break, as if Janelle or anyone from the society would murder someone about this. It was a joke and damn funny one too. RCMP are welcome to investigate the crack epidemic happening; the real threat to this town and the real cause for these violent crimes you are so worried of – not basic dark humour people choose to take seriously lol what a pathetic waste of time on everybody’s part. I can’t imagine the sense of pride the person felt walking in to the detachment with “screenshots” LoL and how much disbelief the clerk must’ve felt opening an “investigation” when they just received a call 20mins prior about intoxicated domestic violence with children involved. good damn grief
what a complete waste of time and resources. This was a bad joke in bad taste, but I highly doubt Sam actually feels threatened. Do I think she should have made this odd and dark joke?? No, but does it amount of an investigation?? Also no.
There were many people that showed up the day the bylaw was passed and they weren’t able to speak. What happened to IQ principles?? It’s clear this bylaw has been controversial and invoked a lot of passion. The council should recognize that and empathize with it, instead of demonizing people who disagree with their extreme stance.
Those people that wanted to speak at a THIRD hearing, should have learned the way things work. They had a chance to speak, at the second hearing. This is how all city things are passed. 1) introduction, 2) public consulations, 3) voting.
Dont get mad at city council that these people waited until voting to show up.
This inaccuracy about council process is addressed above. There was no opportunity for public input.
What a joke. How easily manipulated we are.
One minute we are focused on a thoughtless, reflexive policy change that lacks, rigor, consultation and sense, the next we are clutching pearls and posturing for the poor victims of this brutal.assult on civility.
What dupes this publication has made of is all.
Why another article on this as opposed to an update on the previous one? Salacious topic I suppose. See very good comment on previous article about threats to the person in question that no one has cared about, even if that person has been disrespectful at times. See other comments, this is a distraction from the serious issue at stake, loving dog owners are at serious risk of losing their friendly dog forever because of errors, miscommunication etc because the city can now kill dogs at any time because the dog does not have a collar or lost it or after 24 hours because “reasonable efforts” to communicate with dog owners have not worked, or because the dog owners do not have the money to pay for increased fees. Let’s set aside pettiness and deal with real issues, let’s have a dog neutering program and work together and have compassion for each other instead of hatred.
What fees? The tags and registration of your dog with the city is free. I know of nowhere where this is the case.
Cost is absolutely no excuse for your dog not to have tags.
This issue, the public reaction, and the rest of the theatrics leave me concerned that the people in this town have finally lost it. I hope summer brings some sanity.
Oh my goodness! There’s a bunch of snowflakes amidst our current City Council! If Mr. Tilley took the time to loosen his grip on his tightly clutched pearls he may realize the difference between admittedly inept sarcastic social commentary and snowflakes actual threat!
Sam Tilley is a snowflake? Wow, first time I’ve ever heard this, and probably the last. Have you ever heard the guy talk?
Snowflakes are as Snowflakes do
Happy mens mental health month i guess? These comments are not it lol Let the man be, im sure it would have been one of a thousand Iqaluitmuit that reported this to the RCMP and maybe we dont blatantly joke about shooting someone just over a dog? Thats the basics of having a brain and a company lol
A lot of people are telling Tilley to lighten up and “take it as a joke,” but we have to be honest here — you simply cannot make jokes like that, especially when you’re in a position of public trust. Whether or not Kennedy meant it seriously, the fact remains: if the roles were reversed and it was Tilley who made a similar joke toward someone like Kennedy, people would be outraged. It would likely be reported to the RCMP immediately, shared across social media, and used as evidence of misconduct.
Kennedy is well known in the community, and when someone with influence responds to a comment joking about mistaking council members for “lost/unclaimed dogs” by saying “my eyesight is pretty bad these days so anything is possible 😂” — that’s not just dark humour, it’s reckless. Especially when the debate is already heated.
And let’s not forget: Tilley didn’t pass the bylaw alone. It was a decision made by a quorum of council members. Disagree with the decision — that’s your right. But don’t make it personal, and certainly don’t dismiss concerning comments as harmless jokes when they’re aimed at people in vulnerable positions.
Jokes have limits — especially when they sound like threats, even if unintentional. We’re all for free speech, but there’s a line. Let’s not act surprised when someone calls it out.
The irony of council getting upset about the “threat” made here.
Daily on Public Announcements or Rant and Rave, there is continuous threats against cab drivers and other non-locals. What does the RCMP or Council have to say about that? Or are we going to pretend that we have not seen regular comments about non locals and act you dont see it?
If this was anyone but Janelle Kennedy, no one would have responded. This is as soft as it gets and not only a waste of RCMP money, waste of this news paper’s money and resources reporting this.
So are you all implying these jokes are funny ? Have you ever watch your child being attacked by a dog ? Get real Janelle, you guys cant even control the amount of loose dogs yet alone reply to messages. of course everyone will call the bylaw because you guys ( humane society ) will never reply or answer calls. pfft. keyboard warriors on social media. make a big pound for all loose dogs there is your victory
Ummm, what?
It isn’t the humane society’s role to control the number of loose dogs. That is the job of our council, and our by-law.
When people in leadership positions make decisions out of fear and callousness, it gives everyone else permission to act the same way. Like, Einstein said: “You can judge the humanity of a society by how it treats its animals.” The animal by-law (and why people are upset) is about more than just how the City handles dogs. It’s how the City handles decisions that in turn affect community ethos and values. Engaging the RCMP in this manner, for this, is pathetic. The RCMP have more important things to do. So does Council. When is the last time Council approved a building permit and why is Council approving building permits in the first place?
The lack of accountability for comments and the amount of gaslighting not only in these NN comments but also the comments on social media about this incident is appalling!
I feel bad for the city council, they are trying their best to serve and protect their community but the white saviour society here in Iqaluit are working against them and now making death threats! So sick! I am glad the RCMP were informed of these threats and I’m glad that screenshots were made. Let’s hope that these key board warriors remember that things posted on the internet are forever, even if you delete your comments.
God forbid the tables turn and those types of comments were made by the council members.. how loud would everyone cry then?!
Shame on Janelle and Shame on everyone who supports her comments and excuse them as dark humour, there is nothing humorous about this.
People who talk about “tables turned” don’t realize that a city councillor has power over our lives. Janelle doesn’t. And even so, I am sure that Janelle would not have contacted the RCMP for the same joke made about her.
Let me call your bluff on that !
Only in the Hamlet of Iqaluit would this be an issue,
It’s a City and the capital of Nunavut . We just can’t have dogs running around like in 🇧🇧 Barbados
I think some councilors need to put on their big boy underwear, dark humor is now a threat LOL the city is a joke. So embarrassing.
You are free to leave
The RCMP refuse to investigate years of verbal abuse from one person who has harassed GN employees by calling everyday, using fake Facebook accounts to harass and demean staff but they jump all over this petty nonsense? Is it cause they are white? This is embarrassing and not productive from anyone. Where are the adults?
Because your wrong
Where are the children ?
When the comments above called out city council for doing both First and Second reading of this divisive bylaw amendment on the same day, May 13, without giving the public a chance to be informed I had to see for myself.
It’s true. The minutes show that the first and second reading happened on the same day. Makes me now question why they do this and how many times they’ve done this in the past.
I thought the whole point of a council was to represent the people who voted for them and to work together with the community for the betterment of our city, not to ignore concerns and circumvent other options that may be more beneficial in the long run.
Short-term, easy but cruel decisions chosen by those with the power to rule. Can’t do anything about it now right?
The only ones actually being punished by this by-law are not irresponsible dog owners, but the dogs themselves.
Maybe be a good responsible dog owner and your dog wont be taken away? (Speaking from someone who has owned variety of sizes of dogs before) Never had an issue where my dog would be caught by bylaw because i made an effort to look for them. Why? Cause i actually care for the pets I have. Meanwhile in the south it doesnt happen because they get ran over on the highway lol
1st Reading: Introduces the by-law formally. No debate happens at this stage. just a motion to read.
2nd Reading: Happens immediately after the first. This is when council can debate the content, propose amendments, and vote on whether to move it forward.
If there is no significant opposition or amendments, both readings are often passed in the same meeting.
Exceptions:
Council may delay the 2nd Reading if:
More consultation is needed,
There are concerns from councillors or the public,
Administration needs to make revisions.
Third Reading:
Usually happens in a later meeting, but council can vote for unanimous consent to do 3rd Reading in the same meeting (if permitted by by-law or legislation), often used in urgent or straightforward matters.
So to answer you question: They do this all the fricken time.