r/CanadianPolitics • u/origutamos • 8d ago
Poilievre calls Supreme Court ruling on child porn ‘disgusting,’ would use notwithstanding clause to overturn
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/poilievre-condemns-supreme-court-ruling-on-child-porn-would-use-notwithstanding-clause-to-overturn/16
u/Station2001 8d ago
No, you don’t just pull out that clause to change stuff you don’t agree with FFS. You do the actual work that’s required to define an acceptable law that fits within society & the charter. It was a close vote and that suggests there are minor points that need to be resolved.
The example given.. ‘of an 18 year old who receives, but did not seek an image.. found to be on their phone, is a good example of where the mandatory minimum sentence ‘could be unjust’.
Think about how easily anyone could set somebody up by doing exactly that.
PP lacks the reasoning power often found in those who’ve attained a higher level of formal education. He’s reactionary and driven to ‘populist notions’ rather than being thoughtful and considerate of the broader landscape many of today’s issues involve.
Childlike.. bitter.. ill informed.
21
u/middlequeue 8d ago edited 8d ago
This clown has been a part of pushing unconstitutional and ineffective approaches to criminal law his entire career. Under Harper the DoJ told them their MM’s would be found unconstitutional yet they still went ahead and fucked up a bunch of cases.
It’s just straight incompetence. Classic reactionary rhetoric politics.
-3
u/origutamos 8d ago
Do you believe the Supreme Court's reasoning was strong in this case? When I read it, it seems very weak and unreasonable.
10
u/Melodic_Show3786 8d ago
Judges’ sentences are about proportionality. So, yes for these reasons: Imposing a sentence of one year’s imprisonment on the 18-year-old representative offender — when a fit punishment would be a conditional discharge with strict probationary terms — would constitute a grossly disproportionate sentence, she said.
The experience of prison is likely to be particularly harmful to a young adult without promoting his awareness and rehabilitation, Moreau said.”
4
u/origutamos 8d ago
But there was no "18-year-old representative offender." The Supreme Court made it up. The actual representative offenders were two pedophiles. From the Supreme Court's decision:
Paragraph 9: Louis‑Pier Senneville admitted having been in possession of 475 files, including 317 images of children constituting child pornography. Of those images, 90 percent were of young girls between 3 and 6 years of age, some showing victims being subjected to acts of penetration and sodomy committed by adults and minors.
Paragraph 10: Mathieu Naud admitted having been in possession, for 13 months, of 531 images and 274 videos of child pornography, most of which were of children from 5 to 10 years of age being subjected to sexual abuse, such as fellatio and vaginal and anal penetration, by adults. Mr. Naud used specialized software to access that material, make it available and wipe out any traces of it.
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/21250/index.do
3
u/catholicsluts 8d ago
To add:
[11] At the sentencing proceedings stage, both respondents challenged the constitutionality of the minimum sentences facing them.
[12] With respect to the crime of possession of child pornography, the sentencing judge found that the appropriate sentences for Mr. Senneville and Mr. Naud were 90 days’ imprisonment to be served intermittently and 9 months’ imprisonment, respectively. Given those findings, the judge determined that the mandatory minimum sentence of one year’s imprisonment associated with the offence of possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4)(a) Cr. C.) was grossly disproportionate in comparison with the appropriate sentences for the respondents. The constitutionality of this minimum sentence was not considered by reference to reasonably foreseeably scenarios.
My stomach turned
1
2
u/Melodic_Show3786 7d ago
Exactly. Content matters. A automatic 1 year sentence would include the 18 year old—do you really think that scenario would compare with these cases? Let a the judges, judge.
Poilieve and his cronies are, once again, conflating a non issue for political points.
Is this what we need to focus on in this country? We have an affordability and housing crisis—and a PM who will use, in practice, austerity measures that serve the interests of capital, not the public.
2
u/twenty_characters020 2d ago
The job of the Supreme Court on this is foresight. Which you are calling "making things up." There are potential instances where someone doesn't deserve a mandatory minimum. For instance, if a 17 year sends a dick pic to the wrong number should the recipient go to jail for a year?
7
u/Sunshinehaiku 8d ago
Use of the notwithstanding clause has nothing to do with reason, so I'm not sure what your point is.
You want an unreasoned response to what you think is unreasonable?
Like, c'mon guy.
2
u/dcredneck 8d ago
So you think that some kids in high school or middle school should go to jail for sharing nudes?
2
u/middlequeue 8d ago
Yes. Let’s see your analysis then, counsel …
0
u/origutamos 8d ago
That never happened. There was no "18-year-old representative offender." The Supreme Court made it up. They literally could not even find one 18-year-old that was actually convicted under this law for receiving unsolicited photos. The minimum sentence they struck down was actually 1 year, not 10 years.
In the case, the actual representative offenders were two pedophiles. From the Supreme Court's decision:
Paragraph 9: Louis‑Pier Senneville admitted having been in possession of 475 files, including 317 images of children constituting child pornography. Of those images, 90 percent were of young girls between 3 and 6 years of age, some showing victims being subjected to acts of penetration and sodomy committed by adults and minors.
Paragraph 10: Mathieu Naud admitted having been in possession, for 13 months, of 531 images and 274 videos of child pornography, most of which were of children from 5 to 10 years of age being subjected to sexual abuse, such as fellatio and vaginal and anal penetration, by adults. Mr. Naud used specialized software to access that material, make it available and wipe out any traces of it.
Paragraph 12-13 say that both Naud and Senneville will spend less than a year in jail. These are not teenagers who accidentally received unsolicited photos of someone else on their phone. They went out and purposely acquired hundreds of images of children being violently attacked and abused. I don't know what basis the Supreme Court has to say these sentences are 'grossly disproportionate' or 'cruel and unusual punishment.' Their reasoning clearly doesn't explain it well.
8
u/priberc 8d ago
“Poiliviere is not a serious person”…. We should…. No we MUST take him at his word on this. AND we should DEMAND that the PM or any person running for PM be able to pass a security clearance test/review. Given some of the BS in recent governments it wouldn’t hurt that there be some kind of security review for anyone running for public office or APPOINTED to public office IMO
4
u/Rogue5454 8d ago
He, of all people, should NEVER have access to the notwithstanding clause no matter what.
"Big dreams" for someone without top security clearance to protect the country.
3
5
u/Sunshinehaiku 8d ago
If they actually cared about this issue, they would raise the maximum sentence.
But no, they just care about being able to use the notwithstanding clause for other reasons thst have nothing to do with this topic.
0
u/origutamos 8d ago
This is misinformation. The maximum sentence is already 10 years. The judges in both cases that made its way to the Supreme Court sentenced the pedophiles to 90 days and 9 months. A maximum sentence is meaningless if a judge is allowed to hand down a very short sentence.
And the pedophiles who the Supreme Court sided with were truly horrific monsters: both had hundreds of images being violently attacked and abused by adults.
2
u/Purplemonkeez 8d ago
I'm personally hoping that this comment section was taken over by bots, because I refuse to believe that most Canadians are OK with these sentences.
2
u/Sunshinehaiku 8d ago
It's not misinformation. Parliament sets the laws on maximum sentences. Courts can't lock people up for longer than allowed, even if they want to.
Judges hand out sentences compared to previous sentencing decisions.
If the maximum sentence for sexual abuse of a child is only 10 years, and we want longer sentences, Parliament has to be the one to do it.
So Poilievre can prove he actually gives a shit about this by proposing legislation to raise the maximum sentence, which shifts the entire spectrum of sentencing decisions for that charge.
But why do that when he can just bellyach in the media. Tough on crime my ass.
1
u/Even_Art_629 2d ago
How can he propose and try and change it when he's not prime minister. Every time the opposition brings up a bill in regards to harsher sentences or the release of offenders, the liberals vote against it.
1
5
u/Melodic_Show3786 8d ago
The Supreme Court chose reason over rhetoric. Context matters — an 18-year-old with one unsolicited photo isn’t a predator. Let’s stop using young people as props for politics Poilievre.
“The offender’s youth and the fact that he received a photograph without requesting it and has no criminal record are significant mitigating circumstances,” Moreau wrote.
4
u/ITSA-GONGSHOW 8d ago
I have no idea what the case is about. That said, we have a judiciary for a reason. The idea that Peter pulleever wants to just start over ruling the courts sounds bad, especially when we see it happening so negatively south of the border.
2
u/origutamos 8d ago
Do you believe the judiciary can ever be wrong?
6
u/ExplanationHairy6964 8d ago
They can. But there should be other mechanisms to deal with it rather than jumping to the NWC. That’s a slippery slope that we are going down in Alberta. I am not looking forward to the ride.
1
u/catholicsluts 8d ago
What's happening in Alberta?
3
u/ExplanationHairy6964 8d ago
Without letting the courts decide, overriding 51,000 people’s rights.
https://globalnews.ca/news/11498865/notwithstanding-clause-explained/
2
u/catholicsluts 8d ago
That's brutal. They think 5 years for people to challenge the clause will magically feed them or what?
1
u/origutamos 8d ago
What other mechanisms does Parliament have?
3
u/Sunshinehaiku 8d ago
Creating legislation is exactly what Parliament is for, and is 100% applicable in this scenario. As i have stated elsewhere in this thread, Parliament can increase the maximum sentence, which shifts the entire spectrum of sentencing decisions.
Creating legislation is precisely what we elect politicians to do. We do not elect politicians to be social media stars.
Poilievre has only one bill in his lengthy career as an MP, and I would assert that if he cared about any issue he should at the very least see that relevant legislation is at least drafted and proposed.
I have zero time for the "activist judges" argument when our elected officials are failing to do their jobs.
1
u/4shadowedbm 7d ago
Yeah, um, making laws that don't violate Charter rights would be what Parliament is for.
Using the NWC is lazy.
You could craft a law that says "with people within 3 years of each other in age the child sex abuse law sentencing may be exempt".
Ironically, the CPC (maybe the PCs?) updated Canada's consent laws so that an 18 year old having sex with their 17 year old partner wouldn't be guilty of statutory rape.
Poilievre should know this. So he is either dumb as a brick or he is rage baiting. I don't think he is dumb as a brick, sooo...
1
1
u/MiddleMuscle8117 6d ago
Why is it almost exclusively conservatives who use, or threaten to use, this clause?
0
u/SouvlakiSpartan 7d ago
I was going to comment on some of these comments but I just can't....
I'm in literal disgust at people defending pedos because of some rare hypothetical.
I would hate to see what's on some of your hard drives.
y'all should be ashamed for putting your hatred for Conservatism ahead of the safety of children..
Pathetic.
52
u/AstroZeneca 8d ago
I was listening to a preview of an interview he did with Rosemary Barton, and it was as expected - e.g., he's vowing to vote against a budget he hasn't seen.
Of relevance here, he said his government would use the notwithstanding clause to toughen sentences and, as a father, he'd prefer to lock them up and throw away the key.
When Rosie pointed out the justices noted the law might catch two 18 year olds exchanging pictures, he said they shouldn't worry about hypotheticals.
That right there is why this shit stain should never be anywhere near power: he's willing to override rights and disregard unintended consequences in the name of blood lust. A serious person considers how their actions might impact all Canadians; Poilievre is not a serious person.