Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[fotze2]

Sheesh, haven't been in this thread for a while. Grandpa Simpson stripper gif.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Why? To overrule a law for mandatory minimums? This doesn't give criminals any freedom, or shorter sentences, or anything like that. It just gives the decision back to judges, who still have other sentencing guidelines to follow. Essentially by supporting it you are saying you have no faith in our justice system to handle criminals on a case by case basis and that the law is so wrong it must be forced. The justice system must be broken, right? Is our country broken and needs Pierre to save it by overriding charter rights? I guess he must know better than the Supreme Court. Why not approach it from a different angle? To me this does not at all call for the notwithstanding clause, because the alternative isn't just letting child predators do whatever they want.


And if you try to call me a pedo for this post, you may as well just ban yourself, because I'll be reporting it immediately.

Gotta make sure we put the perps like this away for a long time!

the young 18‑year‑old offender who, one day, keeps and views a file showing a 17‑year‑old victim that was sent to the offender without them having requested it

Yup that 18 year old, who was 17 yesterday and got a racy photo from his girlfriend for his birthday now deserves to go away for a very very long time. If conservatives don't understand nuance, then why should judges!

[direwolf]

The budget passes. 170-168.

[Johnny Makarov]

damn they were suggested 2 Cons including Scheerasaurus had a "problem" with voting.

So if all the NDP voted No, they would have not voted to pass the budget through.

[direwolf]

4 abstentions: 2 NDP and 2 Cons. May voted in favour.

[Ped]

Budget passed? No election?

Shocking.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

You’re a funny man. Remind me a lot of Bill Cosby, for more reasons than just the humour.

Pretty simple question. Why are you uncomfortable answering it?

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Why? To overrule a law for mandatory minimums? This doesn't give criminals any freedom, or shorter sentences, or anything like that. It just gives the decision back to judges, who still have other sentencing guidelines to follow. Essentially by supporting it you are saying you have no faith in our justice system to handle criminals on a case by case basis and that the law is so wrong it must be forced. The justice system must be broken, right? Is our country broken and needs Pierre to save it by overriding charter rights? I guess he must know better than the Supreme Court. Why not approach it from a different angle? To me this does not at all call for the notwithstanding clause, because the alternative isn't just letting child predators do whatever they want.


And if you try to call me a pedo for this post, you may as well just ban yourself, because I'll be reporting it immediately.

You must be kidding. First of all “don’t call me names” coming from you who call people whatever every second post? lol. Don’t worry, I won’t call you a pedo. But your sympathy for pedos is….. noted.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...constitutional

The case at hand found its way to the Supreme Court by way of Quebec’s Court of Appeal, which dismissed an earlier appeal from the Crown after it confirmed a court decision, which found the mandatory minimum sentences for the two child pornography crimes in violation of the Charter.

The two men who challenged the mandatory minimum sentences had pleaded guilty to possessing a combined 1,006 files containing images and videos of children between the ages of three and ten, being sexually abused by adults and other minors.

Neither man had a previous criminal record. One was a 28-year-old former soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces who was determined to have a low risk of reoffending, while the other was a man in his thirties, whose recidivism risk was flagged as “above average.”

The court heard that both men had expressed remorse. At the time of their sentencing in 2020, they each challenged the one-year imprisonment rule, which the judge allowed.

The mandatory minimum sentences for the offences in question have been in place since 2005 and were last increased under the former Conservative government of prime minister Stephen Harper back in 2015.

How can you possibly argue that these two shouldn’t have been locked up for a year (minimum)? Children between the ages of three and 10. Yes, that’s right, THREE.

I believe the mandatory minimum would help deter criminals from exploiting children, I can’t believe this is even a discussion. Crazy.

[Jason14h]

I’m not sure it would help deter TBH - these people are not right in the head and aren’t considering the consequences to begin with.

It’s why it’s so hard to “treat” and reoffending is always a risk

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I’m not sure it would help deter TBH - these people are not right in the head and aren’t considering the consequences to begin with.

It’s why it’s so hard to “treat” and reoffending is always a risk

I don’t know, if it helps to deter even a small percentage it’s worth it. And one year hardly feels like too stiff of a punishment for this.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Part of me was actually looking forward to another election. I'm guessing the Liberals would have won by a larger, if not much larger, margin than last time.

People either happy/content with the job Carney is doing. Or other people ticked off at the Cons basically forcing another election and wasting tax payers money, while propping up PP who is still a really terrible candidate. Would have been fun to see if it was indeed a landslide victory.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

You must be kidding. First of all “don’t call me names” coming from you who call people whatever every second post? lol. Don’t worry, I won’t call you a pedo. But your sympathy for pedos is….. noted.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...constitutional

How can you possibly argue that these two shouldn’t have been locked up for a year (minimum)? Children between the ages of three and 10. Yes, that’s right, THREE.

I believe the mandatory minimum would help deter criminals from exploiting children, I can’t believe this is even a discussion. Crazy.

The appeal wasn't about the merits of those peoples' case or their sentence. It was strictly about the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of child pornography. From the SCC decision:

First, this appeal is exclusively about analyzing the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences. Indeed, in their joint factum, the appellants specify that their appeal concerns neither the sentences that were imposed on the respondents nor the cruel and unusual nature of the minimum sentences in relation to them (A.F., at para. 15). These reasons therefore do not address the appropriateness of the sentences imposed on the respondents, notably in light of the teachings of Friesen. Furthermore, given the parties’ submissions, the constitutional analysis will be limited to offenders in reasonably foreseeable scenarios.

To determine the validity of the law, they used a "reasonably foreseeable scenario" where the mandatory minimum sentence would apply and judged whether that would be proportionate punishment. The scenario they used was where:

...an 18‑year‑old receives on his cell phone, from his friend of the same age, a “sext” originally from the friend’s girlfriend, who is 17 years old. This individual keeps the image on his cell phone and looks at the photograph during a brief period of time, knowing that it constitutes child pornography. In the age of digital communication, it is not far‑fetched that an 18‑year‑old receives from a friend an image corresponding to the definition of child pornography. The fact that the representative offender is 18 years old and has no criminal record is also foreseeable. Concerning the first stage of the constitutional analysis, although the acts committed by the representative offender are serious and deserve to be denounced, they fall at the lowest end of the gravity scale for the crimes of accessing and possession of child pornography. Furthermore, the offender’s youth and the absence of a criminal record invite restraint. Concerning the second stage, imposing a sentence of one year’s imprisonment on the young 18‑year‑old representative offender when a fit sentence would be a conditional discharge with strict probationary terms would be grossly disproportionate.

In that light, the decision seems totally reasonable. An 18 year old should not be imprisoned for a year for receiving an image of a 17 year old.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Part of me was actually looking forward to another election. I'm guessing the Liberals would have won by a larger, if not much larger, margin than last time.

People either happy/content with the job Carney is doing. Or other people ticked off at the Cons basically forcing another election and wasting tax payers money, while propping up PP who is still a really terrible candidate. Would have been fun to see if it was indeed a landslide victory.

I never really felt like another election was really on the cards.

Neither the Cons nor NDP are geared for it so this was all just a bit of showmanship which I am well past tired of.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

You must be kidding. First of all “don’t call me names” coming from you who call people whatever every second post? lol. Don’t worry, I won’t call you a pedo. But your sympathy for pedos is….. noted.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...constitutional



How can you possibly argue that these two shouldn’t have been locked up for a year (minimum)? Children between the ages of three and 10. Yes, that’s right, THREE.

I believe the mandatory minimum would help deter criminals from exploiting children, I can’t believe this is even a discussion. Crazy.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that these two don’t deserve 1 yr in prison.

The issue and if you read the court decisions you would understand is that for mandatory minimums to be constitutional they need to be constitutional in all practical cases of people who could be charged under the law.

So that’s where the test the judges used of an 18 year old continues to possess a nude picture of their 17 year old partner came from. Would you argue that person deserves a year in jail?

If you think that would be unreasonable you are against mandatory minimums.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I would have been happy with the notwithstanding clause used in this case.

No brainer.

If this was a no brainer than it should be no problem to get a super majority. Violating peoples constitutional rights by legislation from a simple majority could pretty much be the dictionary definition of tyranny.

There are 0 instances or examples you can come up with where it is a good idea for a simple majority to vote to ignore our charter of rights. Any example you can think of I will say the same. Had medical science advanced to the point that Pickton survive to 400 years old, became eligible for appeal, and we decided to remove his right to an appeal, I would still expect to see 65-70% support for the vote before his rights are revoked.

Clearly a few people have explained to you why this case wasn't so cut and dry simple as you make it out to be, and why it might be sensible for some people not to agree with revoking his rights.

And again you are advocating for something egregious, the revocations of Canadians rights and freedoms via tyrannical governance, by cherry picking circumstances that sound terrible out of context. All in order to distract from that fact that you want to support people who have no plans beyond contradicting everything sensible people say. Stop range baiting and starting thinking about what good governance of Canada looks like.

[Doctorfever]

You guys are using a fictitious scenario that doesn’t exist. I mean, it was a 5-4 ruling, so my side lost. But I still stand with the 4 judges who believe a one year mandatory sentence for pedos is the right thing to do.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

You guys are using a fictitious scenario that doesn’t exist. I mean, it was a 5-4 ruling, so my side lost. But I still stand with the 4 judges who believe a one year mandatory sentence for pedos is the right thing to do.

"Writing for the majority, Justice Mary Moreau argued there’s a range of circumstances that could lead to convictions of possession or access to child pornography.

“They capture both the well‑organized offender who, over the years, has accumulated thousands of files showing prepubescent victims, and the young 18‑year‑old offender who, one day, keeps and views a file showing a 17‑year‑old victim that was sent to the offender without them having requested it,” the decision read.

Moreau wrote that “in the age of digital communication” that last scenario “is not uncommon.”

Justice Mary "You Guys" Moreau

[Doctorfever]

Like I said. My side lost. Your side won.

I agree with 4 judges out of 9.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Like I said. My side lost. Your side won.

I agree with 4 judges out of 9.

And this is the problem with our current state of affairs, summed up in 2 words.

I don't think you are even engage in the same conversation as most of the people here. You learnt about this case at the absolute minimum level of depth to feel you know everything about it, formed a strong opinion, and pigeon holed others onto an imaginary other side, ignoring any points that run counter to that opinion, in the service of the side you made up in your head.

I don't want to speak for others, but we don't have a side here. We are with the Canadian judicial system, allowing them to gain a better understanding of this case than we can hope to gain.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Pretty simple question. Why are you uncomfortable answering it?

What was the question, Dr Huxtable?