The Supreme Court of Canada sides with pedophiles, rules mandatory sentences for offenses against minors "unconstitutional", still upholds a lengthy sentence for people protesting against Justin Trudeau

[West]

This country is seriously run by a bunch of sickos. 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/mandatory-minimum-child-pornography-sentences-unconstitutional-supreme-court-rules/

 

[Nefarious Banana]

"All rise" . . . . as the wokie karen so called esteemed knothead shuffles to his bench.

Respect?  

Not anymore!

[herbie]

No it didn't, It just confirmed previous rulings on minimum sentences.
Were you dumb enough to think it would rule otherwise? 

[West]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

No it didn't, It just confirmed previous rulings on minimum sentences.
Were you dumb enough to think it would rule otherwise? 

A leftist trying to excuse the inexcusable. Not surprised..woke ideology over common sense 

Edited November 1, 2025 by West

[herbie]

A ploughboy without an inkling of knowledge on either law or justice defining common sense? (proving it isn't)
Who can't even conceive of law other than as a political position? Move to the USA boy and elect Judges solely on that basis.

Yes, yes abiding by the Constitution and a thousand years of Common Law is just so damn 'woke'. The janitor wants to run the Boardroom, it's 'common sense'.

 

[I am Groot]

Activist judges are eroding Canada's democracy.

https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/activist-judges-are-eroding-canadas-democracy-by-abusing-the-charter-peter-copeland-and-mark-mancini-in-the-national-post/

[taxme]

On 10/31/2025 at 2:11 PM, West said:

This country is seriously run by a bunch of sickos. 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/mandatory-minimum-child-pornography-sentences-unconstitutional-supreme-court-rules/

 

Next in line will be beastiality. I always believed that pedophilia would become the norm in Canada one day and after that it will be beastiality. I can pretty much guarantee it. We are truly being controlled by a bunch of sick and pathetic lieberals who keep trying to push the absurd. Indecency and immorality is what they always is what they all want to strive for.

The lieberal communists gave Canada their sick and psycho Marxist like programs and agendas that have only made Canada worse and not better. And there are lieberals here who will still vote and support those bunch of sicko wackos. I see no hope for Canada anymore.

Canada must cease and exist as a country. Canada must be laid to rest. And so i say RIP Canada, you had a good run at it Canada, but now, You need to go. Bye-bye Canada. It has been a slice. 

Go, Alberta, go. God bless America. 😇

[West]

And now the SC decides to allow the culling and destruction of someones livelihood on the Ostrich farm but allows the pedos to roam free. Sick stuff

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Activist judges are eroding Canada's democracy.

I'm sorry to pee on your pancakes but they've been improving democracy ever since 1929.

The "living tree" doctrine is a Canadian constitutional interpretation method that views the Constitution as an evolving document, allowing it to adapt to changing societal realities while staying true to its original principles. Coined in the 1929 Persons Case (Edwards v. Canada), this approach balances legal predictability with the need for flexibility by ensuring the Constitution can grow and be interpreted in a broad, progressive manner.

 

[I am Groot]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm sorry to pee on your pancakes but they've been improving democracy ever since 1929.

The "living tree" doctrine is a Canadian constitutional interpretation method that views the Constitution as an evolving document, allowing it to adapt to changing societal realities while staying true to its original principles. Coined in the 1929 Persons Case (Edwards v. Canada), this approach balances legal predictability with the need for flexibility by ensuring the Constitution can grow and be interpreted in a broad, progressive manner.

In 1929 the term 'progressive' meant something different than it does now. Judges were more reluctant to try to overrule parliament because the judges themselves could be overruled. So what we're talking about now when we say the constitution is 'evolving' is judge made changes to the constitution without consultation with the people or their representatives.

And this is what you consider improving democracy...

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

In 1929 the term 'progressive' meant something different than it does now. Judges were more reluctant to try to overrule parliament because the judges themselves could be overruled. So what we're talking about now when we say the constitution is 'evolving' is judge made changes to the constitution without consultation with the people or their representatives.

And this is what you consider improving democracy...

He considers "government control of what we inject into our bodies" improving democracy, and then he calls everyone who disagrees a fascist. 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

In 1929 the term 'progressive' meant something different than it does now. Judges were more reluctant to try to overrule parliament because the judges themselves could be overruled. 

Before 1982, overriding a Supreme Court decision was an exceptional and largely unwritten parliamentary option, not a formalized, constitutional one like the notwithstanding clause.

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

And this is what you consider improving democracy...

Compared to the way politicians improve democracy nowadays by overrulling charter victories? Yes.

Edited November 9, 2025 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

You know that you're a cultist when you allow your partisanship to force you to side with pedophiles:

 

[CdnFox]

On 11/1/2025 at 11:31 AM, herbie said:

A ploughboy without an inkling of knowledge on either law or justice defining common sense? (proving it isn't)
Who can't even conceive of law other than as a political position? Move to the USA boy and elect Judges solely on that basis.

Yes, yes abiding by the Constitution and a thousand years of Common Law is just so damn 'woke'. The janitor wants to run the Boardroom, it's 'common sense'.

 

If you're going to try and convince people that you're somehow more knowledgeable than them claiming that letting pedophiles off without a mandatory sentence is a 1000 year old tradition he was probably a pretty stupid idea :)

You are comfortable in the bottom 25% of intelligence on this forum. You've got no room to stand when it comes to a lack of knowledge of these things

 

[taxme]

On 11/7/2025 at 5:21 PM, West said:

And now the SC decides to allow the culling and destruction of someones livelihood on the Ostrich farm but allows the pedos to roam free. Sick stuff

Once again, the activist lieberal Marxist SC has decided that all those innocent ostriches must be slaughtered when there was no good reason to do so. Once again, the eastern Marxists have phkd the west. Would the activist lieberals on the SC have allowed the feds to kill someone's ostriches in Quebec? Like hell they would. The SC is Quebec.

When will the west ever learn?  Probably never. So sad indeed. 👎

[I am Groot]

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

Before 1982, overriding a Supreme Court decision was an exceptional and largely unwritten parliamentary option, not a formalized, constitutional one like the notwithstanding clause.

The mere fact it existed kept the SC honest.

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

Compared to the way politicians improve democracy nowadays by overrulling charter victories? Yes.

Charter victories? You mean like our esteemed judges deciding that it would be 'cruel and unusual punishment' to hold mass murderers to a longer jail term than 25 years, no matter how many people they murder? That doesn't really come from the Charer, you know. It comes from their own ideology, from the way they CHOOSE to interpret the Charter. 

The very definition of cruel and unusual that is on their site says it's a punishment that outrages public sensibilities, that is so out of bounds it would bring the reputation of the justice system down. Making mass killers serve thirty or forty years instead of 25 absolutely didn't do that. The public was fine with it. Only our ivory tower judges objected.

[herbie]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If you're going to try and convince people that you're somehow more knowledgeable than them

No, not at all. Just clearly more than you. Which doesn't require any effort.

Or anyone else who thinks a ruling on minimum sentencing is 'siding with pedophiles'. 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, herbie said:

No, not at all.

Oh good! That would be the correct amount  My bad, carry on

[eyeball]

On 11/9/2025 at 1:02 PM, I am Groot said:

The mere fact it existed kept the SC honest.

I highly doubt the honesty of the SC was ever at issue if and when it was used.

On 11/9/2025 at 1:02 PM, I am Groot said:

Charter victories? You mean like our esteemed judges deciding that it would be 'cruel and unusual punishment' to hold mass murderers to a longer jail term than 25 years, no matter how many people they murder?

No all the times provincial governments have used it to get around the charter...a couple dozen times in Quebec alone...the federal government hasn't used it once and neither has the SC.

[Political Smash]

I'm so fed up, will come down hard soon.

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

I highly doubt the honesty of the SC was ever at issue if and when it was used.

No all the times provincial governments have used it to get around the charter...a couple dozen times in Quebec alone...the federal government hasn't used it once and neither has the SC.

The feds don't need to use it when the Liberals are in power since the SC is usually made up of liberals. And Harper was always far too restrained in his actions. He was Mister incrementalism, not wanting to rock the boat too hard. Though if he'd had to deal with the present SC, filled with Trudeau social justice activists, I suspect he'd have given in and used the Notwithstanding clause.

Edited November 11, 2025 by I am Groot

[taxme]

On 10/31/2025 at 2:11 PM, West said:

This country is seriously run by a bunch of sickos. 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/mandatory-minimum-child-pornography-sentences-unconstitutional-supreme-court-rules/

 

Our jokesters that we call judges and politicans in Canada are just a bunch of sick and pathetic insane jokesters that should never be judges and politicians at all. Many of our Canadian judges and politicians are just a bunch of lieberal Marxist social activist judges and politicians that have no interest in protecting we the people from criminals in this sick and pathetic country. They only want to now make the criminal the victim and the victim the criminal. 

Only some kind of a freedom loving demonstration and challenge, like we had with the truckers convoy demonstration, which should help we the people and help save us from those traitorous leftist lieberal appointed activist judges and politicians that treat and abuse and show contempt towards we the sheeple whenever they can. It's sad to see that there are so many stunned and stupid Canadians out there that will keep voting for these Marxist activist scumbag 🤡 and their own demise.  

If Carnage ever gets his majority then we are all in big time trouble and we will all see as to what this Carnage guy is really all about and what he will do to us all. Are you all ready for WEF Zionist globalist Marxist life in Canada? We just have to look at what life is like in a communist country. Freedom of speech and assembly are gone.

We will get it if Carnage gets his majority. Carnage is just drooling at the mouth right now hoping that he can get to convince some of the red Tory so called lieberals in conservative clothing to turn traitor on conservative Canadians and the conservative party. Very soon pedophilia will be normalized and next will be beastiality. Mark my words. Just my opinion of course. 

[herbie]

Sickos like the ones who think let's just ignore the Constitution because we don't like it. Why should everybody get the same rights?

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, herbie said:

Sickos like the ones who think let's just ignore the Constitution because we don't like it. Why should everybody get the same rights?

You mean like when they call the emergency act on people for bringing bouncy castles?  

You've been very supportive of people like that in the past. Even though a judge has ruled that it was an unlawful use of that act.

Perhaps your words would have more impact if you practiced consistency