flâneur

Supreme Court Did the Right Thing in Child Pornography Ruling

carleton.ca · 1,264 words · saved by 1 readers

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Attorney General of Québec v. Senneville struck down one-year mandatory minimum sentences for accessing or possessing child pornography. Immediately, politicians and commentators denounced the ruling. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have urged Ottawa to invoke Section 33, also known as the notwithstanding clause, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The clause allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain Charter rights for five years. Their alarm fits a broader pattern of constitutional populism in which politicians move to sidestep court rulings and Charter protections whenever they obstruct political objectives — whether that’s targeting the unhoused, trans rights, labour rights or now criminal sentencing. One media commentator accused the Supreme Court of trying to “help” sex offenders, while Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew declared offenders should be “b

Supreme Court Did the Right Thing in Child Pornography Ruling Skip to Content Lead image by Iryna Tolmachova / iStock By Meg D. Lonergan and Kyler Chittick The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Attorney General of Québec v. Senneville struck down one-year mandatory minimum sentences for accessing or possessing child pornography. Immediately, politicians and commentators denounced the ruling. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have urged Ottawa to invoke Section 33, also known as the notwithstanding clause, of the Cha

saved by

related reading