You are attributing and assigning things to Flanagan that are not right. Then bringing political belief and that he had a belief that God was on his side completely and utterly destroys any valid point you may have made
Tom Flanagan Apologises for Child-Porn Comments
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
You are attributing and assigning things to Flanagan that are not right. Then bringing political belief and that he had a belief that God was on his side completely and utterly destroys any valid point you may have made
I thought the point Flanagan was trying to make is that yes, making kiddie porn is harmful to the kiddies involved, but once the stuff exists, does it do any more harm for me to look at it, and should I be held criminally responsible just because I saw it? I don't know what the answers to those questions are, and I think the issue is more subtle than people want to deal with, I'm seeing a lot of knee jerk "Kiddie porn! Wicked! Hang him!" reactions. What he said was very clumsily phrased, an extemporaneous remark rather than a position he'd thought carefully about, but I think this might be a case of a complex question having an answer that's simple, direct, obvious, and wrong.
The God part suggests he is just so arrogant he cannot understand opposition, although there is no need for God to be arrogant. Lots of atheists were and are pedophiles. Some questions are open to debate, others aren't. For a man who makes a living off his words, Flanagan chose his words very very poorly. It suggests, like many judges do, he lives in a cloistered world of dated opinions.
But you cant say to someone, "I watched some kiddie porn yesterday." Its not allowed and decent people think you are perverse. The existence of it in this world is toxic and incendiary upon contact. It needs an intro before you talk about it. Far far worse than race.
"Harm" was in italics, followed by a question mark, Karrie. Maybe purple ink might have been better.
I fail to see the lack of harm in kiddie porn. Children as young as one year are exploited. Nope., "no harm there".......purple.
Thanks God for free speech. It enabled us to see what a douche Flanagan is - if we already didn't know. The Great Leader picks his dil dos wisely, no ?
I absolutely agree they are not the same thing.
But, I also don't think Flanagan made a great point, and I think that 'double standard' is not what you think it is.
If and when I find out about a market that is based on taking photos or video of children being punched in the face so that 'friends' can gratify themselves to the images, I will tell you that participating in that underground market is something the police and government should prevent. That holding onto an image that was created through victimization, for the purpose of people gratify themselves to it, is wrong indeed. That's what child porn is. It's not harmless pictures of something someone else did. It's a participation in a market that perpetuates the cycle.
Once the images are on the internet, they continues to harm the child. If you doubt that the read these stories:
Her teen committed suicide over
Suicide of B.C. girl in YouTube clip sets off police probe | Toronto Star
If you come across questionable images on the internet, you should report them here:
https://www.cybertip.ca/app/en/
So the police can take action.
More comment from the National Post.
Vic Toews draws line on lawful access: You’re with us, or the child pornographers: Jesse Kline | Full Comment | National Post
Vic Toews draws line on lawful access: You’re with us, or the child pornographers: Jesse Kline | Full Comment | National Post
I think most politicians would be better off if they'd just have their mouths clamped shut. Maybe we would be, too.
Even Conservatives cannot stand that idiot. Even his party. He is waiting to receive an appointment as a Judge. Hope that does not happen.
Politicians should be obligated to tell us what they think and believe. Our votes should be based on what comes out of their mouths.
Academics should be able to say whatever they want and not fear career altering repercussions. He should have been taken to task by another academic, not by the Politically Correct Thought Police.
So an academic could be in favor of ethnic cleansing (mass murder- deportations- Gulags) for certain groups. According to your post that would be legal. Not contravene any Hate Speech. Academics would be excluded from the law.
Academics must have freedom to express their opinions. Academics are in a different arena where all ideas are open to debate, including ideas which are based on hate and prejudice. I trust that other academics will defeat these sorts of opinions by truth and logic...
An open mind is the ability to consider an idea without embracing it.
An open mind is the ability to consider an idea without embracing it.
I believe if you tried to eat that it would taste a bit like bull sh it. I saw the question being asked, and heard his reply. The only trap was of his own making in his little weasel mind.
Where does the great leader dredge these arseholes up?
Academics should be able to express their opinions including unpopular ones associated with hate. That means ethnic cleansing, racism... the academic arena of debate should be the like the UFC of ideas, where few rules limiting freedom of thought and expression exist. The academics can regulate themselves by points of logic and peer review.
If Jim Keegstra limited his rants to academic forums, then he should have been able to say what he wanted. I'd leave it to the other academics to discredit his ideas by points of logic. But he went into the public domain. Even then, his ideas should only be crminal if it can be proved that his actions threatened people or property.
If Jim Keegstra had made similar statements regarding Muslims rather than Jews, he'd be a regular commentator on Fox News where irrational Islamaphobic hate propaganda against Muslims is accepted and rationalized.
People should be able to deny the holocaust happened. Historians should be able to examine the evidence and draw conclusions without fear of legal consequences. But hate laws have stifled research in this area. If you don't think hate laws have gone too far regarding this event than consider what would happen if someone denied the Rwanda genocide? If someone denied the Rwandan genocide, they'd never see a day in jail. Instead they'd be ridiculed as fools, which is what should have happened to Keegstra.. But Keegstra denied the holocaust and he went to prison???? That's ridiculous... Of course the holocaust happened and anyone denying it can be just as easily ridiculed as anyone denying the Rwandan holocaust.
Tom Flanagan expressed an opinion off the cuff, which defied critical thought. His statement was an opportunity to debate the merits of various aspects of the child pornography laws... parts of which I share Tom Flanagan's opinion. I support all parts of the child porn law regarding the protection of children. I oppose the child porn law where it goes beyond protecting children and criminalizes thought and morality. Morality should be strictly the domain of religion and belief systems.
Protection of people and property should be the sole concern of the criminal justice system.
When laws stray beyond protecting people and property and delves into morality, then the laws have crossed a line that should not be crossed.
If Jim Keegstra limited his rants to academic forums, then he should have been able to say what he wanted. I'd leave it to the other academics to discredit his ideas by points of logic. But he went into the public domain. Even then, his ideas should only be crminal if it can be proved that his actions threatened people or property.
If Jim Keegstra had made similar statements regarding Muslims rather than Jews, he'd be a regular commentator on Fox News where irrational Islamaphobic hate propaganda against Muslims is accepted and rationalized.
People should be able to deny the holocaust happened. Historians should be able to examine the evidence and draw conclusions without fear of legal consequences. But hate laws have stifled research in this area. If you don't think hate laws have gone too far regarding this event than consider what would happen if someone denied the Rwanda genocide? If someone denied the Rwandan genocide, they'd never see a day in jail. Instead they'd be ridiculed as fools, which is what should have happened to Keegstra.. But Keegstra denied the holocaust and he went to prison???? That's ridiculous... Of course the holocaust happened and anyone denying it can be just as easily ridiculed as anyone denying the Rwandan holocaust.
Tom Flanagan expressed an opinion off the cuff, which defied critical thought. His statement was an opportunity to debate the merits of various aspects of the child pornography laws... parts of which I share Tom Flanagan's opinion. I support all parts of the child porn law regarding the protection of children. I oppose the child porn law where it goes beyond protecting children and criminalizes thought and morality. Morality should be strictly the domain of religion and belief systems.
Protection of people and property should be the sole concern of the criminal justice system.
When laws stray beyond protecting people and property and delves into morality, then the laws have crossed a line that should not be crossed.
Theoretical discussion have their place, I suppose, but not when they are based on burying and ignoring the facts and context. For example, if you watch the video of Flanagan he also states that he was on the National Man/Boy Love Association for a couple of years, implying that it was by accident. It's hard to imagine how someone can be on a mailing list for a couple of years by accident, but he has never explained this, nor been asked to by reporters. For some reason, the media has avoided including this statement in its discussions. The fact is that the NMBLA only puts members on its mailing list and all members have to pay dues. Clarification and facts on this would be important, I would think, because NMBLA is an organization that exploits theoretical debates on freedom of speech, children's rights, and civil rights to advocate the legalization of child/adult sex, despite the facts and science that show all child/adult sex is sexual abuse in that the victim suffers serious psychological, and often physical, lifelong harm. As well, it is surprising that a professor and political advisor such as Flanagan would not base his theoretical comment on the facts. There is research that shows that a very high percentage of those who view child porn have sexually abused a child. There is also an overwhelming amount of research that points to a very low success rate in therapy for pedophilia and sexual abusers. When advocating therapy instead of prison sentences for those convicted of viewing child porn, doesn't it make sense to take into consideration that the high occurance of actual sexual abuse among this group as well as lack of success of therapy? Theoretical discussions often compare apples with oranges. The fact is, child porn are videos and photographs of crime scenes against the most vulnerable of citizens: children. Those who view child porn don't do so out of curiosity about something in the headlines. They do so because they are sexually aroused by watching a child being victimized. Because child porn is illegal, they are willing to break the law, willing to pay, willing to seek out underground links and groups to connect with that porn. The reality is that children who are sexually abused to create child porn suffer the added trauma of knowing there are countless other abusers out there, enjoying their suffering and humiliation and psychological destruction that in many cases will cost them their lives, if not by suicide or early death due to self medicating addictions, then by lifelong trauma-related mental health problems. Those who view child porn are willing to take great risk in order to access images of children being victimized. As well, it's a little mind boggling to read Flanagan advocating for therapy for those convicted of viewing child porn when he is an advocate of getting "tough on crime". Our prisons are full of youth who were sexually abused and received no treatement. The link between sexual abuse and drug use and addictions as well as delinquency in youth is overwhelming and well researched. With brain scan research we now know that sexual abuse actually affects the brain's neuropathways and how it functions, which leads to poor emotional self regulation, rage, self destruction, poor cognitive function, etc. We also know, though, that if youth are provided with therapy early on, the success rate is quite high. All in all, a little less of the theoretical that does seem focused on the rights and needs of adults who view child porn, and a little more on facts and analysis on this very real issue would be important, I think.
Academics are educators. Promoting lies and denial, such as that the Holocaust didn't happen, is contrary to their role, which is to teach young people to gather knowledge, facts, and then apply critical thinking and analysis to those facts. Child porn laws are about protecting children. Stopping the viewing of horrific torture and rape, which is what sexual abuse of a child is, by others who enjoy it is critical to protecting that child. Imagine if you were raped, humilated, destroyed and a video of that taken and then sold to people who enjoyed that. Do you think stopping others from viewing that video would not be protecting you from that? As well, all crimes and laws are based to some extent on morality. We consider it immoral to murder another human being for our own satisfaction. We consider it immoral to rape another. We consider it immoral for an adult to sexually abuse a child. The very idea that we should protect people and property is based on morality. I think what you mean is that laws should not be about morality that is victimless.
Academics are educators. Promoting lies and denial, such as that the Holocaust didn't happen, is contrary to their role, which is to teach young people to gather knowledge, facts, and then apply critical thinking and analysis to those facts. Child porn laws are about protecting children. Stopping the viewing of horrific torture and rape, which is what sexual abuse of a child is, by others who enjoy it is critical to protecting that child. Imagine if you were raped, humilated, destroyed and a video of that taken and then sold to people who enjoyed that. Do you think stopping others from viewing that video would not be protecting you from that? As well, all crimes and laws are based to some extent on morality. We consider it immoral to murder another human being for our own satisfaction. We consider it immoral to rape another. We consider it immoral for an adult to sexually abuse a child. The very idea that we should protect people and property is based on morality. I think what you mean is that laws should not be about morality that is victimless.
O,
I agree with you and disagree with Flanagan regarding the resulting harm from viewing child porn. But I am not an academic.
However I disagree with you regarding restricting the freedom of expression of academics. Laws change because people speak out against them. At one time, homosexuality was illegal in Canada. Academics on both sides of the issue debated the laws and eventually the laws changed.
Our drug laws are another area where the law may actually be a bigger problem than the problems they supposedly address.
I believe academics should be able to debate whatever they want without censorship or restrictions. They should be able to debate all sides of the child porn laws and even statutory rape laws. I have no fear that our laws will change to remove protection of children from adult exploitation, precisely because of critical thought will determine the outcome of those debates and the evolution of our laws.
For example, manga animations and cartoons are technically child porn, even though no children were involved in their production. It is debatable in my opinion whether outlawing this material protects children. This material is legal in Japan and I don't believe Japan has a worse child exploitation problem than we do in Canada.
I agree with you and disagree with Flanagan regarding the resulting harm from viewing child porn. But I am not an academic.
However I disagree with you regarding restricting the freedom of expression of academics. Laws change because people speak out against them. At one time, homosexuality was illegal in Canada. Academics on both sides of the issue debated the laws and eventually the laws changed.
Our drug laws are another area where the law may actually be a bigger problem than the problems they supposedly address.
I believe academics should be able to debate whatever they want without censorship or restrictions. They should be able to debate all sides of the child porn laws and even statutory rape laws. I have no fear that our laws will change to remove protection of children from adult exploitation, precisely because of critical thought will determine the outcome of those debates and the evolution of our laws.
For example, manga animations and cartoons are technically child porn, even though no children were involved in their production. It is debatable in my opinion whether outlawing this material protects children. This material is legal in Japan and I don't believe Japan has a worse child exploitation problem than we do in Canada.
You know as well as I do, he gets them from the carton of *******s the money supplys him with. They all wear approved suits and they all fit in the box cuz their all the same caliber. You can't get there unless you fit in the box and you pass through all the sieves. He's got a certain religious taste for innocent flesh like his masters. Once bitten you belong to them forever. They say two-hundred and fifty thousand children disappear in North America every year and that has been the case for decades. Child slavery is a habit of the ultra rich and the their bond to evil.