Source: theconversation.com 11/23/25
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 “buried underneath prisons.” His reaction echoes last year’s episode in which he apologized for his caucus’s move to expel Mark Wasyliw — a criminal defence lawyer and NDP member of provincial parliament — after Wasyliw’s colleague, Gerri Wiebe, represented convicted sex offender Peter Nygard.
What the court actually did
In her seminal 1984 essay “Thinking Sex,” queer theorist and scholar Gayle Rubin observed that few political tactics are as effective at generating moral panic as invoking the need to “protect children.”
That remains true today, in part because voices across the political spectrum are vulnerable to the same knee-jerk, sensationalized responses whenever sexual harm involving children is at issue.
While the furious response to Senneville shows Canada in the grip of a new moral panic, the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down …
Once again, the Great White North is judicially leading on this topic where it gets it right for the human rights in sentencing within context and appropriateness. Our own courts need to do the same and those elected should let them do their jobs as such without interference.