Dan Knight

Five judges decided that child exploitation isn’t worth a year in prison

What the hell is going on in Canada?

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville – SCC Cases

This isn’t a legal debate. This isn’t a constitutional nuance. This is a collapse. A collapse of morality, of justice, of basic human decency.

This week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled—by a 5-4 vote—that handing a child pornographer a one-year prison sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. Yes, really. According to the highest court in the land, asking a man who hoarded videos of children—actual children—being raped… to serve twelve months behind bars… is too much to ask. It’s excessive. It’s unfair.

ARE YOU HEARING THIS?!!!!?!!!!?

Let’s talk about the two men at the center of this decision. Not hypotheticals. Not academic theories. Real men. Real crimes. Real victims.

Louis-Pier Senneville—a former soldier, no less—pleaded guilty to possessing over 470 files, 90 percent of which featured young girls aged 3 to 6. Think about that. Three years old. These weren’t gray-area images. These were children, babies, being sodomized, penetrated, used like objects. And he didn’t stumble across them—he looked for them, on specialized sites, and kept them for over a year.

Mathieu Naud? He went even further. 531 images, 274 videos, kids aged 5 to 10. Anal, vaginal, oral rape. These are things no human being should even have to read about—let alone sit in front of a computer and download, categorize, and distribute. Which he did. For months. With software designed to erase his tracks.

This isn’t some “first-time slip-up.” This is deliberate, targeted, depraved behavior. And now?

90 days.

9 to 11 months.

That’s the punishment.

That’s what the Canadian justice system thinks these crimes are worth.

Because five justices decided that asking a pedophile to spend one year in prison might be too harsh for a hypothetical offender. Not these offenders. Not the ones with troves of abuse files saved on hard drives. No… some imaginary guy who maybe clicked the wrong link.

This is what liberalism does to a justice system. It corrupts it beyond repair. It starts with empathy for criminals, and ends with judges protecting predators from consequences. Because in the upside-down world of progressive legal theory, the offender is always the victim. And the actual victims—the kids in those videos—are reduced to footnotes. Inconvenient collateral damage.

This decision—this revolting, disgraceful ruling—is not some fluke. It’s not an isolated misfire by a rogue court. It is the natural conclusion of a liberal worldview that refuses to see evil for what it is. A worldview that sees punishment as outdated, that sees moral judgment as offensive, and that sees child predators as victims of circumstance who just need counseling and compassion.

You want to know what happens when you erase right and wrong?

When your leaders worship “inclusivity” more than innocence?

When your courts protect predators more than children?

This happens.

Five judges decided that a man hoarding child rape videos should be treated with mercy.

Not the children in the videos—no. Not the parents whose lives were shattered.

Not the society that expects its institutions to defend the weak and punish the wicked.

No, mercy for the predator. ALWAYS FOR THE PREDATOR!!!

And now these men—Senneville and Naud—will be out walking the streets. Free men. Maybe shopping next to you at the grocery store. Maybe living near a school. Because Canada’s highest court decided that a year in prison was just too mean.

This isn’t policy failure. This is moral treason.

It’s going to take more than reform to fix this. It’s going to take an entirely new political order—one that puts children before criminals, justice before hypotheticals, and truth before ideology.

Until then, this isn’t a justice system.

It’s a disgrace.

And every decent person in Canada should be outraged.