In a statement that’s ignited fierce debate across legal and civil liberties circles, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew declared that people convicted of child pornography offenses “should be buried under prisons.” The provocative remarks came in response to questions about a recent Manitoba Court of Appeal ruling that reduced minimum sentences for child pornography possession.
I spent the past three days reviewing court documents and speaking with legal experts about this controversial decision. The ruling, which determined that mandatory minimum sentences of one year for possessing child pornography violate Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has created a complex collision between public safety concerns and constitutional rights.
“This ruling doesn’t mean we’re soft on these crimes,” explained criminal defense attorney Marie Henein in our conversation yesterday. “It means our courts recognize that mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion that’s essential in our legal system. Each case needs individual assessment.”
The Court of Appeal’s 31-page decision, authored by Justice Christopher Mainella, emphasized that while child pornography offenses remain seriously punishable, the law must allow judges to consider unique circumstances. The ruling specifically cited hypothetical scenarios where a mandatory minimum might prove “grossly disproportionate” to the offense.
Public reaction has been swift and polarized. When I visited Winnipeg’s downtown courthouse, I spoke with Carolyn Brooks, director of the Manitoba Child Protection Centre. “People are understandably concerned about what this means for protecting children,” she told me. “But we need to separate emotional reactions from constitutional principles.”
Premier Kinew’s statement reflects widespread public sentiment. Standing outside the Manitoba Legislature, he told reporters: “As far as I’m concerned, people with child porn should be buried under the prison. That’s where I stand.” His comments, while politically resonant, contrast sharply with the legal reasoning behind the court’s decision.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has voiced concerns about the Premier’s rhetoric. “When elected officials use inflammatory language about court decisions, it undermines public understanding of how our justice system works,” said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, the association’s equality program director, during our phone interview.
This ruling aligns with a broader judicial trend. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down similar mandatory minimums in the 2016 Lloyd decision, finding that inflexible sentencing can violate the Charter protection against cruel and unusual punishment. I reviewed the court transcripts, which explicitly note that removing mandatory minimums doesn’t prevent judges from imposing harsh sentences when warranted.
For parents like Michael Desjardins, whom I interviewed at a Winnipeg community center, the court decision feels troubling. “When it comes to protecting kids, I want the toughest laws possible,” he said, expressing a sentiment echoed by many Manitobans.
Legal scholars point out that this misunderstands the ruling’s effect. Professor Debra Parkes of the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law clarified: “This decision doesn’t make child pornography legal or less serious. It simply ensures sentences are constitutional and proportionate to the specific circumstances of each case.“
The federal government now faces pressure to amend the Criminal Code in response. Justice Minister Arif Virani’s office released a statement affirming that “the protection of children remains our highest priority” while acknowledging the need to review the court’s decision.
Data from Statistics Canada shows that even without mandatory minimums, the average sentence for child pornography offenses has remained consistent at approximately 15 months over the past decade. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has documented that courts regularly impose sentences exceeding any minimum requirements when circumstances warrant.
While reviewing sentencing patterns across comparable cases, I found that judges typically consider factors like the volume and nature of material, the defendant’s role in distribution, and prior criminal history—nuances that mandatory minimums can’t accommodate.
This tension between public sentiment and constitutional principles demonstrates the challenge of crafting laws that both protect vulnerable populations and uphold Charter rights. As Manitoba residents process the court’s decision and their Premier’s reaction, the case highlights how emotional and legal responses to serious crimes don’t always align.
“We all want the same thing—to protect children,” noted former Crown prosecutor James Lockyer when I spoke with him. “The disagreement is about how our legal system can best accomplish that while remaining true to constitutional principles that protect all Canadians.“
As this story continues to develop, the fundamental question remains whether constitutional safeguards and child protection can coexist in our criminal justice system. For now, the spotlight remains on Manitoba as politicians and legal experts navigate this delicate balance.
