(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;
Tom Flanagan Apologises for Child-Porn Comments
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
(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;
ha. I think there are a fair number of people who would argue these films are not art. Art is a vague enough term that anyone can call something art.
D'y' think ol' tommy will get a senate seat,after all he preached the party line on all fronts ?
That could be an interesting question. I agree with Bear, there are problems with the way the laws are written. If the vid came up on your facebook page and you watched it you are most likely guilty under the law. The fact that the teens made this willingly and were stupid enough to post it on facebook is irrelevant.
This is no where near the same as adults forcing sex on little kids but the law is the same I think.
Not sure if I agree....but an opinion piece in support of Flanagan
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Flanagan+reason+apologize/8035348/story.html
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Flanagan+reason+apologize/8035348/story.html
While I disagree with Flanagan, I also feel his treatment was unfair. He's an academic and should be able to state his opinion, defend it in a debate and then change his mind if he wants or stick to his guns. Academics must be given considerable leeway to express their ideas.
I don't believe Flanagan was promoting or advocating child porn. He was taking issue with our law regarding possession of child porn.
I disagree with Flanagan if the images were made using children engaged in sexual activity. But if the images were complete fabrications, or animations or something else that doesn't involve children in sexual situations, then Flanagan may have a point... I'm uncertain how I feel about this as I strongly believe in freedom of thoughts, ideas and expressions, but at the same time I strongly agree that children must be legally protected against sexual exploitation. But the law is clear. Even animations and fabrications depicting children is child porn even if children had nothing to do with their creation.
Ultimately, this area is one where the police and judges should be allowed considerable leeway to use judgement.
The main purpose of this law is to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. Once the law goes beyond that to include images that don't actual involve children then the law is no longer protecting children, but regulating morality and might unreasonably infringe on individual rights and freedoms.
For example, Japanese Manga (violent sexual comic books) depicting children in sexual sitations is legal in Japan, but I'm pretty sure it would be illegal in Canada:
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewconten...child pornography:a matter harm or morality?"
I could see how this material could actually assist police investigations if it was legalized, registered and tracked by authorities. If a child is sexually assaulted, then the police could consult the manga registry and find out who in the area possesses this material and check their alibis.
If his statements proved he was a pedophile, he'd have been arrested.
I agree with Mark Mercer's opinion. He makes many good points.
I don't believe Flanagan was promoting or advocating child porn. He was taking issue with our law regarding possession of child porn.
I disagree with Flanagan if the images were made using children engaged in sexual activity. But if the images were complete fabrications, or animations or something else that doesn't involve children in sexual situations, then Flanagan may have a point... I'm uncertain how I feel about this as I strongly believe in freedom of thoughts, ideas and expressions, but at the same time I strongly agree that children must be legally protected against sexual exploitation. But the law is clear. Even animations and fabrications depicting children is child porn even if children had nothing to do with their creation.
Ultimately, this area is one where the police and judges should be allowed considerable leeway to use judgement.
The main purpose of this law is to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. Once the law goes beyond that to include images that don't actual involve children then the law is no longer protecting children, but regulating morality and might unreasonably infringe on individual rights and freedoms.
For example, Japanese Manga (violent sexual comic books) depicting children in sexual sitations is legal in Japan, but I'm pretty sure it would be illegal in Canada:
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewconten...child pornography:a matter harm or morality?"
I could see how this material could actually assist police investigations if it was legalized, registered and tracked by authorities. If a child is sexually assaulted, then the police could consult the manga registry and find out who in the area possesses this material and check their alibis.
The university has forced Flanagan to accept retirement.
If his statements proved he was a pedophile, he'd have been arrested.
Yes but notice the movies do not show any sex or sexual depictions. Its always implied, hinted at... and therefore legal.
Everyone's an art critic... but ultimately what is and isn't art defies definition. Porn movies technically are art, otherwise they'd be illegal and the actors would be charged with prostitution.
I agree with Mark Mercer's opinion. He makes many good points.
Tom Flanagan has been here before | Full Comment | National Post
There are hardly any bones left to pick over this morning, but l’affaire Flanagan calls for some sober reflection after a pretty spectacular flame-out and the virtual supernova of Schadenfreude that followed it.
So rapid was Tom Flanagan’s implosion that it reminded me of a similar one a few years ago: First nations leader David Ahenakew spewed a few words of anti-Semitic hatred into a reporter’s microphone and lost everything — his standing in his community, his Order of Canada. A lifetime of achievement was erased in a moment. In the same way, Flanagan lost his university post, his CBC gig, his wise counselor status for the Wildrose Party, a speaking engagement at the Manning Centre, and his reputation. In a matter of hours he became a creepy old has-been.
“Obviously?” Not, it seems, to an ideologue like Flanagan. As Michael Harris asks, where does he think child porn comes from? It’s just pictures, right? The radical immorality at the heart of libertarianism is brutally revealed.
Flanagan has actually been beating this drum for quite a while. In 2009 he uttered similar sentiments; I blogged about it at the time.
Flanagan speaks - The Manitoban
Before making his comments about context in the media during his first lecture, Flanagan digressed for a moment and spoke about the misinterpretation of the beliefs of lawyers, due to the people they defend in court.
Flanagan cited the example of Stockwell Day suggesting that a lawyer by the name of Lorne Goddard, who had defended a client accused of possessing child pornography, believed the same thing as their client — “that the lawyer himself believed that it was OK to have child pornography.”
Flanagan then continued, saying “But that’s actually another interesting debate or seminar: what’s wrong with child pornography — in the sense that it’s just pictures? But I’m not here to debate that today.”
There are hardly any bones left to pick over this morning, but l’affaire Flanagan calls for some sober reflection after a pretty spectacular flame-out and the virtual supernova of Schadenfreude that followed it.
So rapid was Tom Flanagan’s implosion that it reminded me of a similar one a few years ago: First nations leader David Ahenakew spewed a few words of anti-Semitic hatred into a reporter’s microphone and lost everything — his standing in his community, his Order of Canada. A lifetime of achievement was erased in a moment. In the same way, Flanagan lost his university post, his CBC gig, his wise counselor status for the Wildrose Party, a speaking engagement at the Manning Centre, and his reputation. In a matter of hours he became a creepy old has-been.
“Obviously?” Not, it seems, to an ideologue like Flanagan. As Michael Harris asks, where does he think child porn comes from? It’s just pictures, right? The radical immorality at the heart of libertarianism is brutally revealed.
Flanagan has actually been beating this drum for quite a while. In 2009 he uttered similar sentiments; I blogged about it at the time.
Flanagan speaks - The Manitoban
Before making his comments about context in the media during his first lecture, Flanagan digressed for a moment and spoke about the misinterpretation of the beliefs of lawyers, due to the people they defend in court.
Flanagan cited the example of Stockwell Day suggesting that a lawyer by the name of Lorne Goddard, who had defended a client accused of possessing child pornography, believed the same thing as their client — “that the lawyer himself believed that it was OK to have child pornography.”
Flanagan then continued, saying “But that’s actually another interesting debate or seminar: what’s wrong with child pornography — in the sense that it’s just pictures? But I’m not here to debate that today.”
The man was trying to make a point in an intellectual discussion in a higher place of learning,
the situation they were discussing was a hypothetical one to start with, secondly if he had in
fact posed his response in the form of a question I doubt there would have been an uproar.
I understand that, however here is a man used to being in the intellectual arena and knowing
the difference he chose to take a hypothetical situation and gave it a specific meaning. Once
he did that he opened himself up to a firing range of criticism and lost of a career. he should
have known how to answer this question, especially as a man of his caliber
the situation they were discussing was a hypothetical one to start with, secondly if he had in
fact posed his response in the form of a question I doubt there would have been an uproar.
I understand that, however here is a man used to being in the intellectual arena and knowing
the difference he chose to take a hypothetical situation and gave it a specific meaning. Once
he did that he opened himself up to a firing range of criticism and lost of a career. he should
have known how to answer this question, especially as a man of his caliber
I agree whole heartedly.
I disagree with Flanagan's conclusion, but I equally disagree with his rail roading.
Flanagan hit the nail on the head, two points he made:
The question is, why doesn't the Canadian police do something to block this obvious child pornography containing website, wikipedia?
- Child abuse is definitely not ok.
- Strict liability for viewing pictures of naked people is too egregious a confrontation with freedom of expression.
The question is, why doesn't the Canadian police do something to block this obvious child pornography containing website, wikipedia?
You will always have things that border on the legal lines. Perhaps reporting it to Wiki and the Police would resolve the issue. I did not open the link so I cannot comment on it.
Is it a victimless crime to watch Child?
But Flanagan did not bring it forwards for a public discussion? He was making commentary- and he has mentioned this before - same words- in 2009- so why did he not set it as a public discussion on the penalties etc.
My opinion- He saw no harm in viewing it or he thought it to severe a punishment under the CC for Jail time - or he completely agreed with his statement.
So why did he not set it up for a public debate?
Professors defend Tom Flanagan
Mr. Flanagan has every right to publicly discuss his views on child porn, said Prof. Mercer. And creating controversy isn’t a bad thing.
“It’s certainly a question and, if you think that Flanagan is wrong, the task is to produce evidence and argue – not to denounce him for actually having an opinion on the matter.”
Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Calgary’s Mount Royal University, describes Mr. Flanagan as one of the top political strategists, authors and commentators in the country.
Prof. Bratt said some professors, such Mr. Flanagan, are intentionally provocative and play the devil’s advocate to stir debate. But he said he has closely watched the YouTube video of the Lethbridge lecture and doesn’t think that’s what happened.
The topic of discussion was the Indian Act, and although Mr. Flanagan was asked questions about other topics, he chose to answer the one about his views on child pornography. And he crossed the line doing it, said Prof. Bratt.
“Where he gets into real difficulty is saying there are no victims here. To say that we can’t treat consumers of pornography the same as the producers of it, that’s a debate I think we can have. But to say that it’s victimless – that’s a bit tough to stomach.”
Last edited:
I'm confused. I was under the impression that the topic was asked of him, not something he posed, in a pblic forum. So I don't really understand how he wasn't having a public debate/discussion on the issue.
You really should have clicked on the link. It explains the situation in detail. Wikipedia knows about the article, knows about the picture, and knows about the controversy. All of wikipedia was banned in the UK at one point in time because of that picture.
But more to the point, I have seen that image. Does that not make me a criminal? Do you really think that I am a danger to children because I know about that image?
Yes, it is a victimless crime to watch naked children. Otherwise, my mother and millions of mothers before her would have made victims of their children just by giving them a bath. Heck, my mom took a picture of me and my brother in the bathtub because she thought we were cute. Does that make a criminal out of her and a victim out of me? No, to acknowledge the idea is to make fun of it.
That's the issue. That line is broad and vague.
They're aware. And thankfully they took a stand.
I did, and you know what? It was an illuminating read.
I can't help but think that's an overly simplistic view of child porn. Anyone working with that definition in their head is kidding themselves as to the bigger picture.
Although I agree with you (And I highly suspect Nif does too), I don't think that is what Nif was getting at.