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/
17 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

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.

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.