Konservative Abgeordnete bekunden ihre Bereitschaft, in Nanaimo eine Abweichungsklausel zu verwenden
Conservative MPs express willingness to use notwithstanding clause in Nanaimo
Konservative Abgeordnete bekunden ihre Bereitschaft, in Nanaimo eine Abweichungsklausel zu verwenden
Conservative MPs express willingness to use notwithstanding clause in Nanaimo
4 Kommentare
To install harsher criminal sentences.
I’m alright with that. I’m old enough to remember the days where getting caught with a gun was a guaranteed 5-10+ year sentence. Human/drug/gun trafficking carried similar penalties. Extortion, while it did happen, happened on such a small scale it was barely noticed by the general public, and still got people sent to prison.
Now we have drug and gun gangs running wild, extortion gangs inexplicably imported from India, auto theft is still a problem, illegal dispensaries selling illegal drugs, and all manner of petty and violent crime. Criminals get arrested and are back on the street asap, immigrant criminals get exempted from the law to protect their ability to continue being a negative for Canada. It’s absolutely asinine that we let feelings and emotions dictate criminal justice.
„The MP added he was “appalled” by the Supreme Court’s decision in 2025 to strike down one-year mandatory minimum penalty for accessing or possessing child sexual abuse and exploitation materials. On Oct. 31, 2025, judges struck down one-year mandatory minimum sentences for the charges, citing the need for judges to consider situations individually, giving the hypothetical of a “foreseeable scenario” in which an 18-year-old is convicted for a sexual photograph from a 17-year-old girlfriend. The judges argued this situation, while serious, would have had mandatory minimums imposing a one-year sentence, which they felt would be “grossly disproportionate.” “We were absolutely disgusted by that,” Brock stated, “because, unfortunately I disagree with the Supreme Court of Canada, when they thought it would be ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’”
Never let it be said that a Conservative MP would let the opportunity rest to be loud and not understand a court ruling when trying to drum up support.
The fact that they are this brazen about wanting to ram things through with the Notwithstanding clause should have a chilling effect on most people, but unfortunately politics has become a ‚team sport‘ so because these folks are wearing blue underwear, there’s tons of people who would vote for them.
Canadians want bail and sentencing reform.
The federal government presented the bail and sentencing reform bill to parliament in October with collaboration and support from the provinces and chiefs of police targeting violent and organized criminals and organizations specifically.
What happened to that bill?
Still not passed due to the way parliament and committees are being used tactically. But there is an opposing bill – “jail not bail” bill.
[Poilievre doubles down on ‚jail, not bail‘ idea that experts say ignores Charter](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/poilievre-doubles-down-on-jail-not-bail-idea-that-experts-say-ignores-charter/)
Bail, Sentencing Reform Bill;
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c14/index.html
Police Chiefs statement of support;
[Canada’s police leaders welcome the announcement of new measures to combat violent crime and organized crime](https://www.oacp.ca/en/CACP_Statement_-_Announcement_on_bail_reform_-_2025-10-16.pdf)
Ugh conservatives being pointlessly mean again. There is no real reason to have a high minimum penalty for any crime. If some one did a bad thing and it’s bad enough to warrant a decent to high level of punishment then they will get a decent to high level of punishment. Not what ever the minimum would have been. And if someone only lightly cause a problem then high minimums mean that instead of an appropriate slap on the wrist they would get a needlessly cruel punishment that does not fit their crime.