OLDCORN: Supreme Court’s softening on child porn sentences is a national disgrace

The Supreme Court of Canada’s 5–4 ruling striking down one-year mandatory minimum sentences for possessing or accessing child pornography isn’t a victory for justice — it’s a moral collapse dressed in legal robes. The notion that a one-year minimum jail term for such stomach-turning crimes is “cruel and unusual” strains belief and insults every victim of child sexual exploitation in this country.The majority ruling, written by Justice Michelle Moreau, argues the law could unfairly trap an 18-year-old who kept a nude image (aka sext) sent by a 17-year-old. .Supreme Court rules 1-year mandatory minimums for child pornography are unconstitutional.That hypothetical teenager became the centrepiece for erasing Parliament’s sentencing floor. But building national policy around unlikely hypotheticals is exactly how we ended up with a justice system that bends over backward for offenders while victims get forgotten.Let’s call it what it is..The court elevated theory over reality. In reality, as Conservative Justice Critic Larry Brock pointed out, these cases involved hundreds of images, including toddlers as young as three. One offender possessed over 500 images and 274 videos. .BINDA: BC must slam the brakes on its gas car ban.This wasn’t low-end conduct — it was systemic victimization. Each of those images represents a real child whose life was shattered the moment someone pressed “record.”Brock’s outrage was justified. .He called the ruling “a disgusting and cruel insult” to victims, and he’s right. The mandatory minimum wasn’t harsh — it was barely adequate. Canada was already behind much of the developed world. .HANNAFORD: Time for the right to work in Alberta?.In the United States, average sentences for offenders in federal court often exceed five years. In the UK, sentencing guidelines set longer custodial terms even for first-time offenders. So why does Canada insist that even a year behind bars is too much?.What message does that send to victims or to predators lurking online? When there’s no serious risk of jail time, deterrence evaporates. It invites more exploitation, not less..OLDCORN: Lukaszuk’s petition doesn’t slam the door on an independence vote.Compare the court’s leniency here to how Canadian prosecutors handled Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, who helped organize the Freedom Convoy protests in 2022. Neither assaulted anyone. They were charged with mischief and held in custody while awaiting bail. .Their punishment was harsher in effect than what many child predators now face. That’s a grotesque inversion of justice.This country seems to believe that honking in downtown Ottawa is a greater offence than downloading child pornography. .THOMAS: New Calgary city council sworn in; it must take the common sense approach.Ordinary Canadians can see the absurdity, even if the Supreme Court cannot.The decision restores “full judicial discretion,” meaning that in some cases, offenders could receive conditional discharges or house arrest. The judges claimed this flexibility promotes proportionality. .But where’s the proportion in sparing the guilty at the expense of the permanently traumatized? Parliament created mandatory minimums precisely because too many judges were handing out slaps on the wrist. Now we’re back to that failed experiment..STEINKE: The disappearing voice of rural Alberta.The dissenting justices — Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Côté, Rowe, and O’Bonsawin — understood what’s at stake. They cited R. v. Friesen (2020), a landmark case emphasizing that child sexual offences must be met with strong sentences to denounce and deter. They warned that poorly chosen hypotheticals can “undermine public confidence.” .Those four had it right. Canada’s justice system depends on public trust, and this ruling erodes that foundation.We used to believe some acts were so vile that leniency was indefensible. .MacLEOD: Calgary’s human crisis — The price of our indifference.That principle should still hold when the victims are among our most vulnerable children.Rather than accepting this decision, Parliament should raise the floor, not lower it. .A five-year mandatory minimum for possession and a 10-year minimum for those who produce or distribute material would send a necessary message of deterrence. This isn’t about vengeance; it’s about preventing future harm.Every image shared means another child is exploited again and again. .OLDCORN: Using the notwithstanding clause to end the Alberta teachers' strike was right.When punishment loses meaning, predators don’t reform — they thrive.Canada’s courts have opened the door wider for them.