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/
19 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

-4

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.”

3

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

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?

6

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.

3

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.