Tom Flanagan Apologises for Child-Porn Comments

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Right off the rails. Completely out of touch with the reality of Child Porn. As was mentioned he committed Political suicide yesterday.
I was wondering when it would be posted.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I find it odd that rather than refute him, discuss with him, instead he's figuratively lynched. It's a lesson in toeing the popularity line in politics.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Hmmm...

Two underage teens videotape themselves having sex and post it online.

Somebody over the age of consent views it.

Where's the harm?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Hmmm...

Two underage teens videotape themselves having sex and post it online.

Somebody over the age of consent views it.

Where's the harm?

Oh my gawd, that's it, I'm gonna get you fired and run out of town. I can't believe you.

Okay, but to be serious, the harm comes in when there's such a market for it that young people are being coerced into doing it.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Hmmm...

Two underage teens videotape themselves having sex and post it online.

Somebody over the age of consent views it.

Where's the harm?

Kids do dumb things now don't they.

Donnie Snook facing child pornography charges | Full Comment | National Post

Though he now faces eight charges — possessing and making child pornography, including images of an unidentified boy who was under 14 at the time of the alleged abuse, and three counts of sexual touching — other alleged victims have since come forward to police, Postmedia has learned.

Additional charges are expected

He was also the executive-director of the Inner City Youth Ministry, a charity affiliated with the local Anglican church which operates after-school clubs, a hot lunch program called the Chicken Noodle Club for the students of three city schools, sends underprivileged youngsters to summer camps and runs swimming and hockey programs.

And, as one of four recently unsealed search warrants reveals, Mr. Snook was apparently also a long-time foster parent with the province.

The Jan. 18 warrant sought “the complete file of Donald Snook as foster parent”, “files of all foster children in Donald Snook’s care” and “All files of disclosure made by children pertaining to Donald Snook.”

A provincial court judge ordered the N.B. ministry of social development to hand over Mr. Snook’s records.

He was arrested Jan. 9 at his home, where RCMP broke down the door, due as an unsealed warrant puts it “to exigent circumstances,” meaning Mr. Snook allegedly had a boy inside police believed “could be at risk”.

Earlier that day, while online with Sgt. Krawczyk and offering to “cam” (video camera) with a boy after school, the user alleged to be Mr. Snook told the officer “somon [someone] at door..s u latr?”

The investigation began in March of 2011, when Sgt. Krawczyk first chatted with a user who said he lived in New Brunswick and who downloaded 48 files showing “prepubescent males engaged in various sex acts with adult males.”

The user said he had access to three boys and gave their ages.

Chat logs contained in the warrants reveal the user alleged to be Mr. Snook as terrified of being found out (“I don’t ever want to be caught, as u can understand,” he said once) but unable to stop himself (“no pill on earth will control me honestly”), self-delusional (“I NEVER hurt,” he said of how he treated boys. “I treat them like gold … they are little princes”) and realistic (“I have … boys I’m grooming right now”).

But perhaps the most telling — and chilling — remark was this: “the hunt of my life,” he told Sgt. Krawczyk last March 23 of his quest for boys. “God it’s a wonder I can do anything else.”


If the police are right, he didn’t.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Oh my gawd, that's it, I'm gonna get you fired and run out of town. I can't believe you.
lol...

I really don't see why his comment was so offensive. I partially agree.

Okay, but to be serious, the harm comes in when there's such a market for it that young people are being coerced into doing it.
Like when I'm coerced into welding for money?

I feel so exploited.

Kids do dumb things now don't they.
Yes they do.

But at the age of 13, I was well aware of what I was willing to do, or have done to me and for what.

And they say kids today are way more familiar with sex than when we were kids.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
CDNBear the problem or harm is if you watch it, it is illegal. porn is different from
child porn in that it is not illegal.
This guy is the poster boy for stupidity for saying such a thin. The other problem is
we have talked here several times about social ills that can't be controlled by laws
people object to. Gambling, prostitution, pot, and the list goes on. Child porn falls
into the criminal realm not the social real society will never condone that.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
lol...

I really don't see why his comment was so offensive. I partially agree.

Like when I'm coerced into welding for money?

I feel so exploited.

Yes they do.

But at the age of 13, I was well aware of what I was willing to do, or have done to me and for what.

And they say kids today are way more familiar with sex than when we were kids.

That's great, but there are plenty of 13 year olds who aren't. And where do you draw the line? Why not 12 year olds? Why not convince two 10 year olds to perform sex acts on eachother?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
That's great, but there are plenty of 13 year olds who aren't. And where do you draw the line? Why not 12 year olds? Why not convince two 10 year olds to perform sex acts on eachother?
Did you see me say the two in the scenario had a director?

I said two underage teens videotape themselves having sex and post it online.

Under the law today, they are guilty of a crime.

Somebody of age watches it, they're now guilty of a crime.

Yet there is no harm, in the context the law is trying to prevent.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
lol...

I really don't see why his comment was so offensive. I partially agree.

Like when I'm coerced into welding for money?

I feel so exploited.

Yes they do.

But at the age of 13, I was well aware of what I was willing to do, or have done to me and for what.

And they say kids today are way more familiar with sex than when we were kids.

He saw no harm in viewing child porn as it was basically a victimless crime. Making Child Porn is a huge industry- you know it, I know many know it. Many of these are kids as young as 1 to 5 - Do they know. Are they willing -
People who watch this are contributing to the making and selling of Child Porn and towards the abuse of children.

Tom Flanagan child pornography remarks condemned by conservatives | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post

Ex-Stephen Harper advisor Tom Flanagan was fired from the CBC Thursday after he told an audience at a university event that viewing child pornography does no harm.
Flanagan's apology statement

“It is a real issue of personal liberty, to what extent we put people in jail for doing something in which they do not harm another person,” he told those gathered at the University of Lethbridge after his previous comments on child pornography were brought up by an audience member.

“I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters, but I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste in pictures,” Flanagan said initially Wednesday evening when asked about his 2009 comments in which he said: “What’s wrong with child pornography — in the sense that it’s just pictures?”
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
Why not convince two 10 year olds to perform sex acts on eachother?

They might already be doing that. I did sexual things with a few people my age when I was 7-8. We of course didnt know they were sex acts at the time though. We just did what felt good.

So, I'm guilty of being an accessory to murder because I watched some deranged loon cut up another drug dealer with a chainsaw?

Damn. I guess I'm an executioner after seeing Saddam hanged on video.

Did you see me say the two in the scenario had a director?

I said two underage teens videotape themselves having sex and post it online.

Under the law today, they are guilty of a crime.

Somebody of age watches it, they're now guilty of a crime.

Yet there is no harm, in the context the law is trying to prevent.

Indeed with this scenario I find it odd that it'd be criminal. Its a bit weird that an adult would want to view it but there wouldnt be harm in this case. The harm would come when the couple in the video are charged for what they did, which could potentially happen. At 16 they can consent to have sex but cant consent to be in a video involving sex til 18. The law is a bit odd on that issue.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Did you see me say the two in the scenario had a director?

I said two underage teens videotape themselves having sex and post it online.

Under the law today, they are guilty of a crime.

Somebody of age watches it, they're now guilty of a crime.

Yet there is no harm, in the context the law is trying to prevent.


It causes harm by creating a market that WILL cause harm.

So, I'm guilty of being an accessory to murder because I watched some deranged loon cut up another drug dealer with a chainsaw?

You're an accessory to murder if you pay for a murder to occur, if you create a market for it.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
You're an accessory to murder if you pay for a murder to occur, if you create a market for it.
But that isn't what a lot of the people who've been charged and convicted have done.

You are guilty if you simply watch something you glean from the net.

When did payper view and scripting child molestation enter the equation?

We were discussing the viewership, not the teens, were we not?
No, we were discussing the harm, the law is supposed to prevent.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the harm in the scenario I presented.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
But that isn't what a lot of the people who've been charged and convicted have done.

You are guilty if you simply watch something you glean from the net.
Under what law?
The examples you used regarding consenting teens if charged the Judge has discretion in sentencing does he/she not?
Other than the very low percentages of consenting teens that you refer to the vast majority are non consensual and as such a crime.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Under what law?
The examples you used regarding consenting teens if charged the Judge has discretion in sentencing does he/she not?
As far as I know, it's a mandatory sentence now, non?
Other than the very low percentages of consenting teens that you refer to the vast majority are non consensual and as such a crime.
I realize that, the law doesn't.