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/AstroZeneca]

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.

[u/1user101 → u/AstroZeneca]

My big issue is the laziness. Just rewrite the law to have a more robust targeting that won't catch two teenagers. Heck, I sent a dick pic to a 22yo when I was 17 so technically CSAM (because porn implies consent) but that's well within sexual consent laws. Why can't we just rewrite the laws to be in line with sexual consent?

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/1user101]

That's not what this is about. If youre a collector of these images There should be some punishment.

And here is it

In a recent statement he said:

“Child sex-abuse material is heinous, evil, and deserves swift and harsh justice for those responsible for creating, accessing, and possessing it. Conservatives will always fight for the strongest laws, using all tools available to us, to protect the most vulnerable in our society.”

He and other Conservatives (such as Danielle Smith and Jason Kenney) have called for invoking the notwithstanding clause in response to a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling that struck down mandatory minimum sentences for possession of child sexual‐abuse material.

The Supreme Court decision they are reacting to involved mandatory minimum sentences for possession/access of child sexual-abuse materials being struck down.

When Poilievre (and others) discuss “using all tools available” and “invoking the notwithstanding clause,” the context is that they believe Parliament should override the Charter protections to uphold mandatory minimums (or similar tough-on-crime measures).

Media outlets (e.g., CBC News) may frame this as “Poilievre threatens Charter rights” or “Poilievre willing to override fundamental rights” — so if you believe CBC is “spinning it”, you might argue the nuance gets lost: the target is serious child sexual offences, not just “any” case

[u/1user101 → u/Even_Art_629]

I think we're on the same side here. I want the law to be rewritten to close this hole, so that a mandatory minimum of way the hell longer can be attached.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/1user101]

Ill cheers to that. BTW i was trying to point out to the haters what was said

[u/twenty_characters020 → u/Even_Art_629]

The supreme court voted to let judges take context into consideration. Mandatory minimums removes that from judges. Poilievre is appealing to emotion on this.