Poilievre sagt, er würde sich auf die Ungeachtetsklausel berufen, um das Urteil zu Kinderporno-Strafen aufzuheben
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-child-pornography-9.6961728
Poilievre sagt, er würde sich auf die Ungeachtetsklausel berufen, um das Urteil zu Kinderporno-Strafen aufzuheben
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-child-pornography-9.6961728
11 Kommentare
this is one of the dumbest issues in politics. it invokes a visceral response in all of us, because harming children SHOULD do that. But somehow people let that emotion shut down their entire brain.
There have been issues with how child porn laws are written for a long time. There have been instances of children being charged as adults for distributing cp OF THEMSELVES. they’re being charged with a crime where they are both the adult perpetrator and child victim. this makes no sense. having a minimum mandatory sentence of one year for these cases is absolutely absurd.
Slippery slope although it fits previous with his brand of courting people who are angry. “Angry Pierre” should be his new nickname
100% agree. There’s no fucking way this should stand. It was a 5-4 split decision. As for examples of people taking pictures of themselves when kids being charged? Blame it on idiot cops and crowns for prosecuting those cases.
I hate reporting on anything related to crime because people don’t take more than five seconds to render an opinion. With the reaction to this headline you’d think the court just decided that anybody convicted of child porn would just go free altogether. If people took five minutes to read the article and understand what this specific court ruling says and this specific aspect of this specific mandatory minimum law, they’d see that the decision is rational. If they took a second to consider if they themselves at 17 sent a nude picture of themselves to their 18 year old partner, should they both now spend a year in jail?
The court is right in it’s reasoning. The solution is clear, more fine grained an sensible laws that guard against them being misused in innocent situations. It’s not imaginary, it has happened it does happen. But that doesn’t drive outrage and is ripe for mis-framing from fear mongers. There are circumstances where a hard line doesn’t make sense, as the court pointed out.
No one can be against putting pedophiles in jail. It’s a none issue. However, the politicization of our legal system isn’t something we should want.
We need to redraft the constitution so the legislature is the Supreme legal authority. Unelected, borderline unaccountable, justices should not have any power strike down laws based on what they imagine might happen. If they think there is a manifestly unjust actual circumstance, give them the power to refer it to legislators for consideration. In the interim we should be using the NWC on every decision they make based on a hypothetical until they get the message they are not legislators.
They need to rewrite that clause or, better yet, get rid or it. It is being abused and now PP has pretty much made it clear he will continue the abuse.
If the not withstanding clause is going to be abused like this so governments can undemocratically force policy on us . It needs to go. Not that I think pedo’s deserve leniency, but the power is blind and can be used on lawful citizens if we don’t nip this behavior in the bud.
Of course he did. He’s appealing to emotion, because it’s an emotional topic. People hear this and turn their brains off.
I’ll repeat what I said in an earlier post: mandatory minimums are bad law. They take away all judicial discretion and treat the person who got a nude from a minor without even knowing it was a minor the same way as someone with thousands of files of the worst kind of csam. Those two offenses are very obviously not on the same level, but MMs treat them as if they are. That’s crazy.
Sentencing isn’t predicated on feelings and vibes. There is a reason the judicial and the legislative are separate. Sentences should reflect offense severity, offender history, case law, precedent, mitigating factors, and so on. MMs take away any and all nuance and slap on a mandatory sentence, everything else be damned.
The SC is absolutely correct in this ruling and it’s an important reminder why experts in law and not politicians should be the ones passing judgment. Politicians write laws, and, if necessary, the courts decide if it’s actually legal and/or constitutional. The idea of legislators being able to pass whatever with no checks is insane.
NO ONE is saying don’t punish child predators. What we are saying is not every offense is on the same level with the same set of circumstances, and punishment should reflect individual offenses.
Don’t like PP, but I’m honestly getting tired of our judiciary. Constantly pro-criminal and putting the public at risk as a result.