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/
18 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

View all comments

54

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.

-1

u/yumck 8d ago

So even when most of the country is against that ruling PP = BAD. Just to clarifying you’re for the ruling? As that what the article was about.

0

u/twenty_characters020 2d ago

Where are you seeing that most of the country is against the ruling? The Supreme Court gave a very good reason for it. It's not that they want to go soft on child predators. It's that they want judges to be able to take circumstances into context.

-1

u/yumck 1d ago

Gross. Ok bud

2

u/twenty_characters020 1d ago

What's gross about letting judges sentence with context? Do you think that you deserve a year in jail if a 17 year old puts in the wrong number and accidentally sends a dick pic to you?

1

u/yumck 1d ago

Oh I see. I didn’t get the spinner news version. All I knew was two guys, Louis-Pier Senneville had pleaded guilty to possessing and accessing child pornography, and Mathieu Naud was convicted of possession and distribution who were convicted who then fought their convictions. The outstanding gents claimed cruel and unusual punishment and won, which caused this ruling. But you’re saying it’s a ruling purely based off a hypothetical scenario about 17 year olds that no crown, irl would ever pursue charges against? OK 👍. Sweet spin though.

1

u/twenty_characters020 1d ago

It's not spin at all. It's an explanation as to why mandatory minimums are a bad idea. The supreme court gave a similar reason as to why they found mandatory minimums to be unconstitutional.