Tom Flanagan Apologises for Child-Porn Comments

[Niflmir]

Oh I was sure he'd carry the conversation forward from there.

I guess I will take it from here...

As stated, "Watching naked children," is a victimless crime. It is not child abuse if all you are doing is watching. Some images which would be considered child pornography are nothing more than evidence of child abuse, which would make the act being photographed a crime. Are the people who look at those images creating more victims? No. So how can one say it is a crime? Child abuse is a crime. Equating child pornography with child abuse makes light of all of the young survivors of brutal rape.

It might be argued that it is a vice. It might be argued that it perpetuates emotional distress to the individual who was abused, but why the double standard? Why do we not do the exact same thing with the photographed victims of physical abuse as sexual abuse? Visiting that wikipedia article is in no way child abuse, yet even goober is basically treating it like that. At the very least goober is treating it as dubious enough to stay away from, and so goober chooses to remain ignorant because of fear of the child pornography stigma.

The line separating right from wrong here is broad and the line is vague. By the letter of the law, my mom created child pornography. I am no victim, and most prosecutors realize that, so they don't push for my mother's arrest or for those of her peers who likewise took photographs of their young children. I took a picture of myself having sex when I was 17, so I am simultaneously the creator and the victim of child pornography in one single act? A few years I found the picture, freaked out when I realized the implication, and destroyed it. Flanagan is right to point out the absurdity of this situation.

Flanagan made an excellent point, he just wasn't ready for the lack of rationality in the child pornography debate, if there can even said to be a debate. Most people have in mind pictures of 3 year olds being raped when they think of child pornography, but our law does not make that distinction. At the very least, do you agree that there is a very big distinction between that picture of the 3 year old and the picture I took of myself? Should the law not enshrine my own right to possess pictures of myself?

 

[SLM]

I guess I will take it from here...

As stated, "Watching naked children," is a victimless crime. It is not child abuse if all you are doing is watching. Some images which would be considered child pornography are nothing more than evidence of child abuse, which would make the act being photographed a crime. Are the people who look at those images creating more victims? No. So how can one say it is a crime? Child abuse is a crime. Equating child pornography with child abuse makes light of all of the young survivors of brutal rape.

It might be argued that it is a vice. It might be argued that it perpetuates emotional distress to the individual who was abused, but why the double standard? Why do we not do the exact same thing with the photographed victims of physical abuse as sexual abuse? Visiting that wikipedia article is in no way child abuse, yet even goober is basically treating it like that. At the very least goober is treating it as dubious enough to stay away from, and so goober chooses to remain ignorant because of fear of the child pornography stigma.

The line separating right from wrong here is broad and the line is vague. By the letter of the law, my mom created child pornography. I am no victim, and most prosecutors realize that, so they don't push for my mother's arrest or for those of her peers who likewise took photographs of their young children. I took a picture of myself having sex when I was 17, so I am simultaneously the creator and the victim of child pornography in one single act? A few years I found the picture, freaked out when I realized the implication, and destroyed it. Flanagan is right to point out the absurdity of this situation.

Flanagan made an excellent point, he just wasn't ready for the lack of rationality in the child pornography debate, if there can even said to be a debate. Most people have in mind pictures of 3 year olds being raped when they think of child pornography, but our law does not make that distinction. At the very least, do you agree that there is a very big distinction between that picture of the 3 year old and the picture I took of myself? Should the law not enshrine my own right to possess pictures of myself?

Doesn't it all come down to a matter of intent and isn't intent as big a component as the act itself when determining criminal liability? And does common sense not play some role? As for example, a police officer who's job it is to track predators online must come across a lot of images of children being depicted in a sexual manner. I'm sure no one would suggest their act of viewing the images is criminal. But the existence of the imagery is, more often than not, a result of a crime.

Why is this particular law different than any other in that, once the courts apply logic and reasoning to specific cases, it could very well be amended and the broad wording that everyone seems so worried about would then be amended accordingly?

Personally speaking I'd rather see the wording of these laws be a little broader as they come into effect so as to afford the most protection to exploited children, because they are out there, and then whittle away at the terminology as challenges may arise in situations as you've exampled above.

 

[CDNBear]

Challenges on the backs of the innocent?

Mean while you're guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion.

And you can never remove the stigma once it's been applied.

 

[Niflmir]

Doesn't it all come down to a matter of intent and isn't intent as big a component as the act itself when determining criminal liability? And does common sense not play some role? As for example, a police officer who's job it is to track predators online must come across a lot of images of children being depicted in a sexual manner. I'm sure no one would suggest their act of viewing the images is criminal. But the existence of the imagery is, more often than not, a result of a crime.

Why is this particular law different than any other in that, once the courts apply logic and reasoning to specific cases, it could very well be amended and the broad wording that everyone seems so worried about would then be amended accordingly?

Personally speaking I'd rather see the wording of these laws be a little broader as they come into effect so as to afford the most protection to exploited children, because they are out there, and then whittle away at the terminology as challenges may arise in situations as you've exampled above.

Mens rea? The guilty mind? The intent to cause harm to another person? No, that is just not necessary in convicting someone for possession of child pornography. That is why it is so terrible. It is the same with possession of drugs, for instance. If that was actually required, people would never be convicted.

If you pervert mens rea into, "Knowingly committed the act which is illegal," then you can make anything a crime. Criminal law is meant to punish those who would harm other people. There are other tools for shaping society besides punishment.

People who abuse children need to be locked in a cage. People who browse the internet do not. Do CDNBear and I need to be tried as accessories for murder for having seen videos of people being killed? Again, why this double standard? If child pornography laws are protecting children, shouldn't we protect all people by making it a crime to possess images and videos of people being injured or killed?

 

[SLM]

Mens rea? The guilty mind? The intent to cause harm to another person? No, that is just not necessary in convicting someone for possession of child pornography. That is why it is so terrible. It is the same with possession of drugs, for instance. If that was actually required, people would never be convicted.

If you pervert mens rea into, "Knowingly committed the act which is illegal," then you can make anything a crime. Criminal law is meant to punish those who would harm other people. There are other tools for shaping society besides punishment.

People who abuse children need to be locked in a cage. People who browse the internet do not. Do CDNBear and I need to be tried as accessories for murder for having seen videos of people being killed? Again, why this double standard? If child pornography laws are protecting children, shouldn't we protect all people by making it a crime to possess images and videos of people being injured or killed?

I get your point, I do. But do those who seek out such imagery for sexual gratification not contribute to the exploitation of these children? The crime is the production of these images because it's abusive and exploitative to children.

Not that I'm equating the two, because I think prostitution should at least be decriminalized if not legalized and regulated, but it's a crime to sell sex (in some jurisdicitons) not to buy sex (if I understand it right), but johns get busted along with hookers. Although I disagree with prostitution being illegal, for a variety of reasons, that always made sense to me. If the law in that example is designed to prevent/discourage/reduce the instances of prostitution, then it makes as much sense to charge the consumers as it does the purveyors.

 

[Niflmir]

I get your point, I do. But do those who seek out such imagery for sexual gratification not contribute to the exploitation of these children? The crime is the production of these images because it's abusive and exploitative to children.

Not that I'm equating the two, because I think prostitution should at least be decriminalized if not legalized and regulated, but it's a crime to sell sex (in some jurisdicitons) not to buy sex (if I understand it right), but johns get busted along with hookers. Although I disagree with prostitution being illegal, for a variety of reasons, that always made sense to me. If the law in that example is designed to prevent/discourage/reduce the instances of prostitution, then it makes as much sense to charge the consumers as it does the purveyors.

You cannot really compare child abuse imagery with prostitution. Images where children are actually being abused are produced secondarily along with the abuse. The individuals are not abusing the children so that they can sell the images. These are generally guardians or babysitters that decide to go to far, and decide to share their images with others.

Consider a similar crime, possession of marijuana. Some argue that continued criminalization is necessary because the drug dealers are violent, and as creators of the market demand, the users are just as culpable. How are these examples anything other than blaming the gun manufacturer for the murders? Does it actually do any good to lock these people in cages? Where is the evidence of that? Shouldn't we need a lot of evidence of some correlation in the absence of direct victims?

I can watch plenty of violent movies, play violent games, read violent books, and go out and be a gentle soul amongst my peers. People can do the same with child abuse images, else I earnestly would fear the police... Punish the actual crimes, not the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon version of crime. That is my point. That is Flanagan's point.

 

[taxslave]

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.

Don't be giving the family services people any ideas. They could take that and turn it into a multi billion dollar social program.

And fill all the new jails.

 

[SLM]

You cannot really compare child abuse imagery with prostitution. Images where children are actually being abused are produced secondarily along with the abuse. The individuals are not abusing the children so that they can sell the images. These are generally guardians or babysitters that decide to go to far, and decide to share their images with others.

I'm not comparing them, I was only trying to come up with an example of both consumer and producer being equal in terms of perpetuating the crime. You can't have one without the other. If there was no audience for it, it would not be produced.

Consider a similar crime, possession of marijuana. Some argue that continued criminalization is necessary because the drug dealers are violent, and as creators of the market demand, the users are just as culpable. How are these examples anything other than blaming the gun manufacturer for the murders? Does it actually do any good to lock these people in cages? Where is the evidence of that? Shouldn't we need a lot of evidence of some correlation in the absence of direct victims?

So are you suggesting we make child pornography a legal product? The physical act of abuse is over and done, nothing can be done about it now, so we might as well allow people to get their rocks off on it?

I can watch plenty of violent movies, play violent games, read violent books, and go out and be a gentle soul amongst my peers.

Ah but the biggest difference there is that those are not real. So are we talking about fake imagery or real depictions of abuse?

People can do the same with child abuse images, else I earnestly would fear the police... Punish the actual crimes, not the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon version of crime. That is my point. That is Flanagan's point.

I don't disagree that focusing on the end user is not going to prevent further abuse. But I do think they qualify as a contributor in the continued exploitation of children.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about the parent who photographs their child because they're being cute or funny in the bathtub. I'm talking about the person who's masturbating to the sexually explicit photographic images of very young children.

 

[Spade]

More Quintessentially Flanagan.
Julian Assange should be assassinated, former Canada adviser tom flanagan claims - YouTube

 

[CDNBear]

More Quintessentially Flanagan.

Oh, so it isn't so much that you want to discuss the complex nature of his commentary on child porn, you just want to smear him because he's a conservative.

Good to know.

 

[Niflmir]

I'm not comparing them, I was only trying to come up with an example of both consumer and producer being equal in terms of perpetuating the crime. You can't have one without the other. If there was no audience for it, it would not be produced.

So are you suggesting we make child pornography a legal product? The physical act of abuse is over and done, nothing can be done about it now, so we might as well allow people to get their rocks off on it?

Ah but the biggest difference there is that those are not real. So are we talking about fake imagery or real depictions of abuse?

I don't disagree that focusing on the end user is not going to prevent further abuse. But I do think they qualify as a contributor in the continued exploitation of children.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about the parent who photographs their child because they're being cute or funny in the bathtub. I'm talking about the person who's masturbating to the sexually explicit photographic images of very young children.

No, we are not talking about fake imagery necessarily with violence. Lots of books contain real depictions of rape for instance. That is another point, why is only possession of child rape images a crime? If it is about protecting victims shouldn't we do the same with all victims?

Yes, I know what images you have in mind. What I have been spending this whole time trying to say is that the distinction exists in your mind and not in the law. Let me assure you that there are people who would masturbate to those pictures of me and my brother in the bathtub, is that not the intent you were looking for. If a law was made to protect rape victims by making pictures of their rape a crime and that law was as broad as child pornography laws, basically every person on earth would need to be locked in prison: all pornography would be considered "rape imagery."

The fact that you and many others can only see this false dichotomy is the scariest part of the whole issue to me. Either lock people in cages for possession or do nothing? How about we consider what Portugal did with drugs: confiscate the images and ask the person if they want psychological help. Locking people in cages is not going to help the person who was abused. Who is it supposed to help exactly? The idea that somebody finds the images titillating just makes people uncomfortable; people are being locked in cages basically for the crime of creating mental discomfort in others.

 

[Spade]

Oh, so it isn't so much that you want to discuss the complex nature of his commentary on child porn, you just want to smear him because he's a conservative.

Good to know.

Not at all. It is context. Do you feel his comments are fundamentally Conservative? That would be good to know.

 

[Niflmir]

Oh, so it isn't so much that you want to discuss the complex nature of his commentary on child porn, you just want to smear him because he's a conservative.

Good to know.

Honestly, if the Conservatives stuck to their rhetoric when it comes to hate speech legislation and turned that rhetoric on libel and slander, they'd get my vote for a long time.

As I see it, if you can support libel and slander laws, hate speech legislation is even easier to defend with the same arguments. On the other hand, if you can attack hate speech because of its dubious necessity, then libel and slander fall in the same manner.

 

[Machjo]

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.

Did they give him a chance to explain himself at leasty. It would seem from the last few paragraphs that maybe he didn't. Only after that should we really condemn him to be sure we don't misunderstand his intent. But I agree if we take his word at face value without any further clarification, then it is not a victimless crime.

Hmmm... he did say it was a victimles crime. But again, if his excuse was that it was late at night, he'd had a long day ,and his mind was muddy and he apologized or something, I could still forgive that.

Here's an attempt at a defense of his statement. More or less the same as mine, quite simply that people do say stupid things sometimes and don't always mean it quite the way it comes out when it's off the cuff. People booed him and he had no chance to elaborate or retract.

 

[Goober]

Some think that Flanagan was hung and pilloried on the gallows of Political Correctness and the death of Free Speech in Canada. No - Because he was a Conservative- No - because he is a Libertarian- No-
His comments were clear, concise and he has made the same statement in 2009
.
He is an educated man who has spoken to the public on numerous occasions - if he wished to have a discussion on watching Child Porn why did he not see fit to have this in an open and free discussion.

Did he deliberately choose not to do this.Possibly.

Mr. Flanagan has been known to make statements that walk or cross a line now and again. Some would say frequently.
Recall his comment that Assange should be assassinated.

He screwed up in 2009 and nothing was really heard- He thought he could make the same statement again and completely off the cuff, no relationship to what he was there to discuss.
He was wrong.

 

[Machjo]

Some think that Flanagan was hung and pilloried on the gallows of Political Correctness and the death of Free Speech in Canada. No - Because he was a Conservative- No - because he is a Libertarian- No-
His comments were clear, concise and he has made the same statement in 2009
.
He is an educated man who has spoken to the public on numerous occasions - if he wished to have a discussion on watching Child Porn why did he not see fit to have this in an open and free discussion.

Did he deliberately choose not to do this.Possibly.

Mr. Flanagan has been known to make statements that walk or cross a line now and again. Some would say frequently.
Recall his comment that Assange should be assassinated.

He screwed up in 2009 and nothing was really heard- He thought he could make the same statement again and completely off the cuff, no relationship to what he was there to discuss.
He was wrong.

I'll admit I don't know the guy well. If it's clear that he definitely meant it with a clear mind, then I'd have to ask, has anyone questionedd him on how it's a victimless crime? If he should continue to defend and try to explain that it's a victimless crime, then I'd go by his defense of it. I can't imagine for the life of me how it's not a victimless crime, but at least we'd ahve given him a chance to defend himself. If his argument should be totally muddled, then I'd say pity pity his foolish ignorance and walk out on him, but not until he has had a chance to argue his point.

 

[CDNBear]

Mr. Flanagan has been known to make statements that walk or cross a line now and again.

I've always liked people like that...

They sometimes cause beneficial change.

Levant, Whatcott, Flanagan all take their right-wing ideology ad absurdum.

Ummm...

Not at all.

I'll disagree... ;-)

 

[SLM]

I've always liked people like that...

They sometimes cause beneficial change.

That's very true.

I do hate the way in which he was vilified, that was very much a P.R. 'can't be seen as to associate with this guy' P.C. thing as far as I'm concerned. I think any topic, no matter how distasteful it may be, should be able to be discussed, particularly in an academic setting. Issues need to be explored. I just don't happen to think this particular issue is completely harmless, as he's put forth. But I don't hate the man for stating such, nor do I think he's part of the problem by doing so.

 

[CDNBear]

That's very true.

I do hate the way in which he was vilified, that was very much a P.R. 'can't be seen as to associate with this guy' P.C. thing as far as I'm concerned. I think any topic, no matter how distasteful it may be, should be able to be discussed, particularly in an academic setting. Issues need to be explored. I just don't happen to think this particular issue is completely harmless, as he's put forth. But I don't hate the man for stating such, nor do I think he's part of the problem by doing so.

Meh, he's just a right wing ideologue ad absurdum.

He should be pilloried and vilified.

 

[SLM]

Meh, he's just a right wing ideologue ad absurdum.

He should be pilloried and vilified.

LOL. If we're going to be vilifying ideologues then, to be fair, we should vilifying them on both sides of the left-right spectrum.

But this place would be awfully quiet if we did that.