You are going to became tne Nazi nation :-)

Et moi... Moi, je vais quitter votre maudite pays fasciste dans 11 mois! Yahoo!

Even if it was an STM security officer, you still have to provide identification if you are asked. See chapter VI and VII of An Act respecting Public transit authorities:
http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/rsq-c-s-30.01/latest/rsq-c-s-30.01.html

OK I have a few problems with this issue:
1) Why is it a by-law to hold the handrail? An escalator is just like a staircase, and hence doesn’t need the excessive by-law. No one has never been hurt on an escalator by not holding the handrail unless they were goffing off.

It’s just a standard “cover your arse” procedure, so in the event of a lawsuit, the defendant can point out ”look, I plastered warnings all over the place, so it’s their damn fault if they didn’t heed the warning”.

2) Last time I checked, an STM security officer is not a police officer and hence, there is no obligation to provide identification, except to a police officer.

Transit security officers DO have the standing of a peace officer (police officer), but solely on transit property and solely with regards to transit bylaws.

3) Why doesn’t these security officers deal with all the drug-dealing and pickpocketing going on at Berri-UQAM every day?

Because it’s much easier to pick on ex-soviet citizens who talk back to the ??????? ??????????????? ????????????.

4) Assualting a police officer is a crime. Talking back to one isn’t. Police were just on a power trip.

The bœufs acted improperly by not telling the girl why she was about to be given a ticket, as required in the canadian charter of rights, so they brought the whole situation upon themselves.

The obstruction charge wasn't for talking back to police. It was for refusing to follow the orders of an officer and for refusing to provide identification (which necessitated an arrest - and handcuffs - so they could search her for ID).

1) Why is it a by-law to hold the handrail? An escalator is just like a staircase, and hence doesn't need the excessive by-law. No one has never been hurt on an escalator by not holding the handrail unless they were goffing off.

2) Last time I checked, an STM security officer is not a police officer and hence, there is no obligation to provide identification, except to a police officer.

3) Why doesn't these security officers deal with all the drug-dealing and pickpocketing going on at Berri-UQAM every day?

4) Assualting a police officer is a crime. Talking back to one isn't. Police were just on a power trip.

Because, Jean, it was not an unreasonable order. Holding a handrail or furnishing a piece of ID when a cop observes you doing something against the law (in this case talking back to the police and being an asshole about it)

Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! “Talking back to the police” is against the law???
Against which law? The “law” the cop made on the spot? Excuse me, but the only one body who can make laws here are the parliaments and city halls, and then within their own range of competence, and then they are restrcted by this. Now, where do you see that one shall not “talk back to the police”? (I won’t hold my breath). They may try to have city hall outlaw it, but they haven’t done so yet.

is not the same as the cops ordering you to pull down your pants and dance for them. She may not have agreed with holding the handrail, but it would have saved her lots of trouble. Never ever do you assume that police, border guards, security agents, etc have a sense of humor on the job.

Of course not. They are specially selected amongst those who are the dimmest witted possible and have their craniums specially drilled to drain any sense of humour they might have had.
* * *
You seem to be going a good job shilling for the bœufs… Here, we want full disclosure: are you a boeuf or in anyway involved with bœufs to back them like that?

If you ask me, the cops were clearly in the wrong, and we should be investigating why exactly they do boneheaded things like this so often. (See also: Tazing people to death) Also, I think it's good that the case got some publicity. The more public shaming the cops receive, the better. Then maybe they'll think twice before they issue a ticket or make charges just to retaliate against someone they didn't feel was respectful enough.

Hardly anyone in the metro holds the handrail. We don't, and shouldn't, get tickets for not doing so. This woman was clearly unfairly singled out. The cops should mind their own business and stick to actual crimes that do actual harm. Where were they when that lady in her 60s got mugged at a bus stop?

http://www.985fm.ca/chmp/audio/audioplayer.php?url=http://mediacorus.corusquebec.com/webcorus/audio/content_Audio/200631.mp3

Évidemment, les journaux ont seulement rapportés la version de la dame…

It’s less about her holding the handrail and more about her absolute contempt for a figure of authority.

And, pray tell, what is wrong with expressing contempt of a figure of authority?

Her excuse that she was fumbling for her bus pass is absolute nonsense - she could have done that with much greater ease once off the escalator. Her other excuse about catching germs was also bogus - has she not heard of those little pocket-sized things of Purell? Face it: when using the Metro, you're going to have to touch things.

I briefly heard her on the radio today making comments about the East Bloc. For her to make those comparisons is ridiculous and only belittles the suffering people experienced during that period in that part of the world.

This woman claims she's the victim. On that, she's correct. She's the victim of her own stupidity and got what she deserved.

Donc, il est fortement suggéré de tenir la rampe, et non pas obligatoire de le faire.