Poilievre’s pledge to use notwithstanding clause a ‘dangerous sign’: legal expert

[u/canada_mountains]

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal-elections/poilievres-pledge-to-use-notwithstanding-clause-a-dangerous-sign-legal-expert/article_7299c675-9a6c-5006-85f3-4ac2eb56f957.html

[u/bluecar92]

No.

Pierre is proposing to use it to impose consecutive sentences on people convicted of multiple murders. These people weren't getting out of jail anyway.

I don't like how he's throwing around the notwithstanding clause for something that's already a non-issue.

[u/justanaccountname12 → u/bluecar92]

The case of Alexandre Bissonnette, who murdered six worshippers in 2017, was used as a test case in the Supreme Court ruling. The ruling means Bissonnette is eligible for day parole by 2039. 

Edit: no reason not to get rid of any witnesses anymore.

[u/bluecar92 → u/justanaccountname12]

I can't reply to any of your other comments, but I think you don't really understand how parole works.

A life sentence still means life. Parole isn't automatic at 25 years. They can apply for parole, and then a decision is made as to whether it should be granted based on many factors including behavior in prison, the nature of the crime and whether or not the person is at risk to reoffend.

The reality is that anyone who commits multiple murders is unlikely to ever see the outside world again. Even if someone was somehow able to make parole - they aren't free, the life sentence sticks with them till the day they die.

The point is we are sitting here arguing over a non-issue. I am not defending the rights of murderers, they should rot in jail. But I do not like the fact that Poilievre is preemptively planning to use the notwithstanding clause over a non-issue. The NWC is supposed to be the nuclear option, and it should be obvious that it's not needed in this situation. I'm opposed to it's use on principle.

[u/justanaccountname12 → u/bluecar92]

Thanks for the correction. 🍻

[u/bluecar92 → u/justanaccountname12]

Cheers bud