Tom Flanagan Apologises for Child-Porn Comments

Former Harper adviser, Wild-Rose strategist, professor, and right-wing political commentator, Tom Flanagan speaks without thinking.
Ex-PM adviser Tom Flanagan sorry for child-porn comments - Calgary - CBC News
Thoughts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?”

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

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.

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

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.

Nope.

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

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

Are you seeing how his commentary isn't so out to lunch yet?

Two teens posting their sex acts online is creating a market?

We were discussing the viewership, not the teens, were we not?

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?

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.

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.

As far as I know, it's a mandatory sentence now, non?
I realize that, the law doesn't.

It's called child porn, and the harm comes when they are not yet teens.............AKA Kiddy Porn............anyone under 18 ?....14?.....

Just ask Vick the ****; he apparently has the inside track.

I do not know if Man Mins apply
Also as young offenders the Judge has even more discretion does he/she not?

For the teens maybe.

But not the viewer if he's of age.

You know how the net works, 'just watching' never happens. Every click of your mouse is generating money for someone, somewhere. Net traffic is a huge commodity. To say you 'just watched' something is a cop out. You're taking part in the market.

Criminal Code

ition of “child pornography”

163.1 (1) In this section, “child pornography” means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the **** region of a person under the age of eighteen years;

(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;

(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or

(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.
Marginal note:Making child pornography

(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
Marginal noteistribution, etc. of child pornography

(3) Every person who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells, advertises, imports, exports or possesses for the purpose of transmission, making available, distribution, sale, advertising or exportation any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
Marginal note:Possession of child pornography

(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.
Marginal note:Accessing child pornography

(4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.
Marginal note:Interpretation

(4.2) For the purposes of subsection (4.1), a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, himself or herself.
Marginal note:Aggravating factor

(4.3) If a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court that imposes the sentence shall consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the person committed the offence with intent to make a profit.
Marginal noteefence

(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.
Marginal noteefence

(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence

(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and

(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.
Marginal note:Question of law

(7) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this section, it is a question of law whether any written material, visual representation or audio recording advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

Well.........................................I don't want to speak to harshly vs. the Great Leader, but he seems to (hire?) (people?) who have "issues".
Maybe Tommy is just an ordinary fapper who really likes kids........................give the dumb fukk the benefit of the doubt.........I mean we are all going to vote for the Conbots next time................whether we do or not,,,,,,,,,,,eh!!........Hope they call me.........I forget where my polling station is.

Oh, Wild Rosey as well.................that worked well...........Keeper goin Tommy , you perv................just ask Toews........you see it , you are it..........Vicky said so............You ain't with me, yer with the..............................yep............su re.

No comments on the prof thing....Seems they hand those sheepskins out to anybody.

So how did the viewer access this video?

That isn't what you just stated.

You said...

How is simply clicking on a thumb, paying for the act to take place?

How did you access this site?

Not what I asked. I found it in a very weird way. Spade when he was on that other forum had a phrase (Aether Island if I recall correctly) on his handle. I had no idea what he was referring to and went Google you are my friend.
That is how I ended up here.

If we cross this line, then children would soon get paid money to video tape themselves having sex and post it on line. At which point, adults can exploit children sexually for profit, followed up by live sex shows featuring children...

Now do you see the harm?