You discover a serial killer lives nearby and her kids go to school with your kids

And you would be in breach of Quebec’s privacy laws, and quite possibly committing a criminal offence under federal law.

What legal basis do you suggest the police can monitor a citizen who is not suspected of having committed an offence and is not subject to any probation restrictions? We normally don’t want the police to monitor citizens unless they have a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. That rule doesn’t change because of a police screw-up 20 years ago.

“Who the Hell makes and shrink-wraps a ‘Serial Murderer Kit Basket’, complete with knives, rope, duct tape, and lye… and gives it to the school for the ‘Tricky Tray’?”

“Shhh. Leanne will Hear you…”

Wikipedia says that Quebec Children’s Aid apparently determined that her custody would not be automatically placed at issue, even though she participated in the killing of several victims who, while older, were still children. Whatever the justice of maintaining scrutiny upon Homolka herself, presumably the state has an independent and ongoing interest in the safety of the children. Even if removing them from her custody would not necessarily be warranted, it surprises me a bit that they would not be monitored.

My heart hurts for those children. How will they not be negatively affected by the actions of their mother? There is no way they can live any kind of a normal life.

Depending on the age of my own children, I would have a pretty comprehensive talk with them about this family and their situation. I would encourage them to not participate in any shaming of the children (and I’m sure there will be plenty of that, sadly), but I would also strongly state that my own children would not be allowed to visit that house - at no time and for no reason.

Hopefully there will be opportunities for those children to interact positively with other children through public activities outside of the school and neighborhood, where people wouldn’t know who they were.

A great deal more would be required than to simply not let your children in her home.
Your teenage daughter would not be safe walking home from school.

Re. 15 yr old Kristen French (her body dumped on my running route):

Your teenage daughter would not be safe in her own yard.

Re. 15 yr old Leslie Mahaffy (a kid from who lived between my place and the high-school that we attended at different years):

Homolko was often the initiator of the rape and torture, according to the lawyer who saw the video tapes

How can you believe that?

People who enjoy raping, torturing, killing, and dismembering people don’t grow out of it. It’s not just a phase.

My hope is that although Homolka is into raping and murdering teenage girls, that does not necessarily mean that she is into doing it incestuously.

She raped and murdered her own sister. So hope dashed.

I think **stillownedbysetters **is referring to the stigma they will face.

Damn, I forgot.

That puts it down to hoping her sons can protect her daughter from her.

I dunno about Canadialand, but in the US, if those cameras were on my property and not zoomed in on her windows, it would all be perfectly legal.

The hell of it is, her own children are probably only comparatively safe because they are under the eyes of the public school officials. If her children were made miserable at school until they withdrew, they’d be in graver danger.

That said, I’d move myself rather than let my own children hang out with her children.

It blows my mind that “mother is a serial killer who slaughtered her own sister” is not grounds for removing the children in Canada.

Whilst it is admirable to the loopier Canadian liberals that they were willing to take a chance with her and not keep her caged up like an animal; I feel I should point out that of those I mentioned above, Mr. Christie ( of Rillington Place ) went for the long drop, but this wasn’t an option for those later due to the abolition of the death penalty.

However, both Fred West and Harold Shipman did the right thing and swung themselves, despite being alone in their cells, under close observation by prison guards, and without the proper equipment.

We really are not a nice people.

This had nothing to do with liberals. The prosecutor cut a deal with Homolka to get her to testify against Bernardo. The degree of her complicity in the murders was only discovered after Homolka was sentenced, and due to the principle of double jeopardy she couldn’t be re-tried or given a longer sentence.

Sounds pretty damn liberal to me.

“She was forbidden to be with people under the age of 16.”

At all? What does that mean? Can she ride on a public bus? Go into a store? Attend a movie?

And how old are her children, anyway??

Not fifteen yet. She seems to have a preference for fifteen year olds.

Jesus. Don’t they have child protective services in Canada? How the hell is she living with her kids? how does she even have kids?

They do. But privacy laws prevent all of us being privy to exactly what kind of supervision, in any, she faces.

Don’t they have privacy laws in the US? Double jeopardy laws?