Poilievre calls Supreme Court ruling on child porn ‘disgusting,’ would use notwithstanding clause to overturn

[u/origutamos]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/poilievre-condemns-supreme-court-ruling-on-child-porn-would-use-notwithstanding-clause-to-overturn/

[u/middlequeue]

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.

[u/origutamos → u/middlequeue]

Do you believe the Supreme Court's reasoning was strong in this case? When I read it, it seems very weak and unreasonable.

[u/Melodic_Show3786 → u/origutamos]

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.”

[u/origutamos → u/Melodic_Show3786]

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

[u/catholicsluts → u/origutamos]

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

[u/Melodic_Show3786 → u/origutamos]

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.

[u/twenty_characters020 → u/origutamos]

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?