Mandatory minimum child luring sentences ruled unconstitutional by Supreme Court

[CdnFox]

https://tnc.news/2023/11/03/mandatory-minimum-child-luring-unconstitutional/

The court ruled that in both cases, mandatory minimum sentences of one year for an indictment and six months for a summary offence violated of Section 12 of the Charter, which states that “everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”

 

Apparently at this point according to the legal system ANY PUNISHMENT for serious offenses is 'cruel and unusual'.

Basically when the conservatives get in they just need to repass every law the courts have shot down with the notwithstanding clause built in and a message to courts - "Legislators make laws, not judges" .

[Michael Hardner]

The short sightedness of using the notwithstanding clause to undercut the courts is obvious to many.  It's a terrible idea. 

Wait until the people get elected who want to eliminate religion get in... you'll have given them a powerful tool.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[DUI_Offender]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

Basically when the conservatives get in they just need to repass every law the courts have shot down with the notwithstanding clause built in and a message to courts - "Legislators make laws, not judges" .

Just like the American system that has worked so well?

[ExFlyer]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

https://tnc.news/2023/11/03/mandatory-minimum-child-luring-unconstitutional/

The court ruled that in both cases, mandatory minimum sentences of one year for an indictment and six months for a summary offence violated of Section 12 of the Charter, which states that “everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”

 

Apparently at this point according to the legal system ANY PUNISHMENT for serious offenses is 'cruel and unusual'.

Basically when the conservatives get in they just need to repass every law the courts have shot down with the notwithstanding clause built in and a message to courts - "Legislators make laws, not judges" .

I am unclear how you came to that overriding conclusion.

The Supreme Court was ruling on a very specific case and made a ruling on that.

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

https://tnc.news/2023/11/03/mandatory-minimum-child-luring-unconstitutional/

The court ruled that in both cases, mandatory minimum sentences of one year for an indictment and six months for a summary offence violated of Section 12 of the Charter, which states that “everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”

 

Apparently at this point according to the legal system ANY PUNISHMENT for serious offenses is 'cruel and unusual'.

Basically when the conservatives get in they just need to repass every law the courts have shot down with the notwithstanding clause built in and a message to courts - "Legislators make laws, not judges" .

First step towards state-sanctioned pedophilia. Men and boys who love each other have the right to be protected from pedophobes.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The short sightedness of using the notwithstanding clause to undercut the courts is obvious to many.  It's a terrible idea. 

Wait until the people get elected who want to eliminate religion get in... you'll have given them a powerful tool.

 

Yes - because religion and pedophilia are pretty much the same thing.

We can judge those politicians on their actons. And the notwithstanding clauses have to be renewed every 5 years so if people disagree then future gov'ts don't even need to do anything to put an end to it.

But right now the courts make up the law arbitrarily.  They- not the people and not the lawmakers -  decide what is 'unusual' or cruel.  They decide what is 'reasonable' for puinishment and whether to follow a law or simply ignore it.That's not ok. And MOST people recognize that they have gone too far and that the rights and safety of the public has to be taken into account as well.

Edited November 4, 2023 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

 

5 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Just like the American system that has worked so well?

 

The american system is nothing like ours.  They elect their judges - nobody's proposing that. In fact, the american system is more along the extremes of what we're seeing right now, with bias and personal opinion at the judicial level counting for as much or more as lawmaker's intent.

It'd be great if you learned about what you're discussing before offering an opinion.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I am unclear how you came to that overriding conclusion.

The Supreme Court was ruling on a very specific case and made a ruling on that.

The supreme court dealt with two cases actually, and struck down the law for ALL future cases.  It was not confined to a single case or even two cases, they've said that law is unenforceable ever.

And this is happening more and more. And the problem is that they're not really basing their decision on "law", they're basing it on judicial opinion.  A judge says "It's cruel to lock someone up with no chance of parole".  So that law gets struck down - but who are they to say it's "cruel'? It's arguably far MORE cruel to the families of the victims to have this guy walking around at some point or to force them to go give victim impact statments again and again for life to prevent it,

THen the next judge lowers the bar even further. Then the next lowers it further and so on and so on.

And now people luring children are to be protected - can't have them facing 6 whole months in jail. That's mean.

At MOST there should be a mechansim to kick it back to the parliament and say "this seems cruel to us - are you SURE this is necessary" and have them either reaffirm it or if they agree with the judge then change the law.

But as it is judges do more to make law in this country than our elected legislators and that's not ok.

[herbie]

First of all they'd have to see if they could even invoke it. The notwithstanding clause was designed for Provinces to use in exceptional cases that go against the Charter of Rights. not Parliament itself.

Would they need 7/10 provinces to agree?
Would they need a Supreme Court decision that they even could first?

Either would mean so long a time we could vote the fascist bastards out of office.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

First of all they'd have to see if they could even invoke it. The notwithstanding clause was designed for Provinces to use in exceptional cases that go against the Charter of Rights. not Parliament itself.

Ahhhh - no.