Liberals reject reinstating mandatory minimums for child pornography
Federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser confirmed that the Liberals will not invoke the notwithstanding clause to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling on mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography.
Federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser confirmed that the Liberals will not invoke the notwithstanding clause to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling on mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving child pornography.
“We don’t intend to override the Constitution to fix the problem. There are other solutions that are apparent to us, and we’re doing the policy exercise to find the right path right now to protect our kids,” Fraser told reporters on Parliament Hill Tuesday.
“The path forward will involve certain policy choices. I don’t think we need to override the constitution to fix these problems, but we are going to fix the gap.”
Fraser noted that he does plan to introduce new legislation to deal with the “sexual exploitation of kids in an online environment” in the coming weeks.
The Supreme Court based its ruling on “reasonable hypotheticals,” an exercise of imagining scenarios when deciding whether Parliament should impose mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes.
However, the court struck down the possibility of a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for child pornography offences in a divided 5-4 ruling, under the rationale that the law could impose disproportionate punishment in a hypothetical but “reasonably foreseeable” scenario.
The mandatory one-year minimum sentence for possession of child pornography was first introduced in 2006 under the Harper government, through an Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.
The hypothetical scenario in question cited an 18-year-old accessing a nude photo from a 17-year-old acquaintance.
However, that was far from the actual case that was before the court, which involved two Quebec men, one in his late 20s and the other in his 30s, who pled guilty to possessing hundreds of child sexual abuse images, including preschool and elementary-school-aged children being forced into various sexual acts.
The ruling was met with considerable pushback from Canadians, with several premiers calling for the Carney government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to have the decision promptly overturned.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford argued that the notwithstanding clause “was designed to protect the will of the people.”
“The federal government needs to use it to overturn this decision immediately,” he said on Friday.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith called the decisions “outrageous,” urging the swift use of the notwithstanding clause.
“The possession of child pornography is a heinous crime, and even a one-year minimum sentence is already far too lenient,” she said. “We call on the Federal Government to immediately invoke the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to overturn this ruling and ensure the protection of our children.”
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew took things a step further by calling for criminals in possession of child pornography to be buried beneath prisons.
https://x.com/401_da_sarpanch/status/1985518390166081914
“Not only should you go to prison for a long time, they should bury you under the prison,” said Kinew on Monday. “You shouldn’t get protective custody. They should put you into general population, if you know what I mean.”
MLA Chantelle De Jonge delivered a speech in the Alberta Legislature on behalf of the entire Alberta UCP, stating the decision “made me absolutely sick to my stomach.”
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre also condemned the decision, saying he would use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the decisions and implement penalties that are “far, far tougher” on such predators, if elected.
“The monsters who look at this material create a prophet motive for literally hundreds of kids to be tortured and humiliated in videos that may circulate for the rest of their lives. They will never recover from this trauma,” said Poilievre.“And yet, these two perverts are going to get out of jail in a year and nine months. Frankly, those sentences were far too low and now the court says that some other users of child pornography should be able to get out in less than that time. This is insane.”
 | A guest post by
|
This makes me wonder how many Liberal MPs and supreme court judges are themselves into child porn?.....
Fraser has a typical Liberal's (total lack) of understanding of the Charter or the law if he thinks using the NWC is going to "override the Constitution." First of all, we don't have a Constitution. We are (for better of worse) not a Republic. Seany boy has been watching too much Law and Order (and not the lame Toronto version). We have a Charter and it is in that very Charter that the NWC lies. Using the clause does not "override" the Constitution, it affirms it. But then again why expect the head lawman in the country to know that?