“I’m disgusted,” no matter how strongly stated, is not an argument.
97 Replies to “Free Tom Flanagan!”
Does the CBC or a University have the right to fire someone for simply expressing an opinion about an issue? I am not sure they do. He did not say he doesn’t support the jailing of viewers of pedophile material; he said he questions whether that should result in jail time. For that he is fired? So you no longer have the right to be wrong…ever?
I disagree with him about the harm etc, but it does seem like he could sue actually. I don’t know how this one will play out.
For some reason, this makes me think of the Harry Potter series where, in an effort to stave off evil, it was unthinkable to even mention the name “Voldemort”. Molesting kids, distributing photos, and viewing the photos–these are sordid, harmful and despicable. But are there not degrees of “bad” here? What if the images were paintings or drawings and did not involve actual children? Does feeding the appetite make it larger? Does it lead to acting out? Is there any difference between those who look at pictures and those who commit the acts? I’m not overlooking the fact that the market for photos perpetuates crimes on children. I don’t think Flanagan did either. Flanagan was either brave, overconfident or clueless when he stepped into that minefield, but he did. What is the best way to defend kids? We’re not going to find out unless we allow the discussion ventured by Mr. Flanagan.
When it comes to contentious issues (non facts) teaching students is not stating an opinion and having them adapt it. YTeaching is posing questions to the students in order to facilitate their developing the ability to propose a position and support it. That is where most educators miss the true benifit of higher education. they need to go back and study Aristotle and Plato and the concept of university during their times.
“1) No, viewing something never does harm ”
LAS….I think some people who watched Stalin,Moa,Iberia,etc may tend to diasgree. But then I can only hope to view you being sent to the gulag,because it will harm me from all the gut-wrenching laughing I’ll be doing (and soul searching afterwards,a foreign concept, to athiests like you)
Adios Kate, Flanagan exercised his right to free speech, how wonderful for him that your subtle endorsement will mitigate his deserved denunciation. This is not an issue of left or right. It is an issue of recognizing that the consumption of child porn creates a market for sexual abusers of children.
In Canada we don’t cane, we don’t electrocute, we consider ourselves more civilized. We deprive of liberty, we jail.
Those who gain pleasure from the sexual victimization of kids deserve jail at the very least.
Been a fan for years. It’s over. The blind adherence to forgiveness for the blatant misconduct of someone on the “right” side of the political spectrum shows how easily the truth can be sacrificed for the sake of political bias.
It’s been fun, but not anymore. I am out.
This was a trap, IMO. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t (answer) moment. Tom should have done a Davy Sazooky and stormed off the stage!
Obviously, children are harmed by the making of child porn and the viewing of it drives demand for the harm. Mr Flanagan said something wrong (very wrong) in saying that children are not harmed by viewing child porn and is bearing the social consequences of his opinions. He is not, however, suffering legal consequences for his opinions. The problem with the HRCs and the Whatcott decision is that they empower the state to sanction opinion through taking of property; that is a different matter.
A more interesting take on the Flanagan story is how hard the media is trying to connect this with PM Harper. Mr. Flanagan is a professor, has helped other political campaigns and presumably has done many other things in his life but there is no headline reading “Professor Flanagan …” or whatever. It’s all about trying to wire this to PM Harper, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Harper is conencted to this issue. Tells you where the media’s mind is at.
After watching that video several times I agree that it was a setup. What I can’t understand is why he walked into that trap willingly and then proceeded to give the information re: NAMBLA as well as his personal opinion on a taboo subject that was not the subject of debate. The man is not a novice at this game and this was certainly a lapse in judgement. He may not have committed any crime but that was certainly a great attempt at political suicide.
Little late to the debate, but did no the Supreme Court already rule it’s OK to look at pictures, including kiddie porn?
Flanagan played it wrong and should have put it on the Supremes.
Quite a few comments were caught in the spam filter, so for those following the thread, it may be worthwhile to review it. To avoid the spam filter, choose your words wisely.
I think you support his comments because you share his perversion. To view the product of criminal assault is to be complicit in it’s crime. Most of you on this page are certainly of the boy loving variety and I have made CSIS aware of you.
I know you won’t publish this comment because you are cowards.
Enjoy jail and public humiliation.
Wow! So you think it is OK for folks to be fired for their beliefs, even when those beliefs have no impact on the workplace. Nice. Hope you never disagree with your boss. I also hope you are ok with public institutions housing only people of one mindset because that will inevitably result. People always like the idea of public shaming and even punitive firing when they are on the winning side.
Where did he say it was ok to watch child porn? I read that he commented on whether it warranted jail time. Is that the same thing in your book?
To view the product of criminal assault is to be complicit in it’s crime. And people who use drugs are complicit in the murders along the way of the chain of delivery
Absolute immoral trash. You people are enemies of freedom.
Anyone involved in politics should steer clear of this topic. There is no reason at all to talk about this subject other than to say that child porn is bad. Amazing that Tom Flanagan didn’t know this.
Mike, a fool has only answers, an intelect know only questions, and U appear to qualify for the fool position!!!
some people fail to grasp the concept that individuals have the right to decide to break the law, and that it is only breaking the law that is wrong, not the decission to do so!
Dumb, but truth and freedom has also died a little more all of this week, and the media is running out of tar and feathers.
Soon it will be grey smocks and whispers.
LAS and Phil
Complicit perhaps not. But it is abetting a crime. http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=abet
And that is immoral and often illegal.
Now Phil can spout off about those who support having narcotics etc remain criminalizing as being the immoral ones but that is a shallow, simplistic viewpoint (typical of phil) as many who want to keep it illegal have sound reasons for doing so – not the least of which have to do with assessing impairment.
Lets use a more clear cut example: most humans like to and arguably are genetically hard-wired to like the taste of meat. That doesn’t make the consumption of meat that was knowingly poached or from an endangered animal not immoral or illegal.
The same goes for the viewing of child p for personal gratification.
That Mr. Flanagan couldn’t think his opinions on the issue far enough to see that the argument of “no harm” is folly and coming from a “scholar” such as himself repugnant and deserving of public reaction similar to that of neo-nazi utterances shows an amazing lack of judgement.
I Disagree Gord.
Syncrodox:
Make the case.
Of course he was set up. It should bother everyone that the main. Objective was to destroy his reputation such that he is not someone people will listen to regarding revisions to the Indian act. Too bad. He brings a lot to the table on that one.
The reality is with friends like Mr. Flanagan we don’t need enemies. He died on this hill and took a bunch with him.
Maybe ‘disgusting’ isn’t a good argument but it’s good enough to destroy his credibility. Doesn’t matter what should be, that’s what is.
Repulsive and abhorrent thoughts should be heard…uncomfortable conversations are answered…
No. My drug purchases do not abet crime. Prohibitionists abet crime though. Prohibition is crime in itself and empowers the criminal element prohibitionists complain about.
I find this notion that child porn consumption leads to its production pretty weak. Ever heard of copy, paste? Once it’s out there and digital there’s really no end to its copying and distribution, so supply is basically infinite.
“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” Proverbs 18:17. I am writing to communicate that I was present at the Lethbridge event featuring Tom Flanagan. I want to give you a fuller picture of what happened that night because I feel there has been a miscarriage of justice in the portrayal of Tom Flanagan in the media concerning this matter. I am sending the below summary to the media to get the word out about what really happened that night.
Flanagan spoke from 7:00 pm to about 7:45 pm on the Indian Act and the last 140 years of the history of the Canadian government and its dealings with the Natives. He spoke of the Indian Act itself, the failures of various grand visions, the incrementalism we’ve been seeing in the last 30 years and the possibility of an overhaul to membership, land, governance and education sectors of the Indian Act for the future.
At 7:45 pm the floor was opened up to a question and answer period. Up to this point, the lecture had gone like any other. Once the q/a period began the rabble rousers of the audience made their presence known for the next two hours. Talks like these usually attract about 20-40 listeners in Lethbridge, from my past experiences. The q/a period goes on for about 30 minutes. A question usually takes 30 seconds to two minutes to present with a two to five minute response.
The night Flanagan spoke the room was filled to capacity, perhaps 120 people. There were people from Calgary who drove down to attend. 60% or so were Native, not typical demographic representation, and 80% pro Idle No More supporters. For the next two hours the “audience” controlled both the question and answer portions of the period. The atmosphere turned from academic presentation to town hall forum airing of emotionally driven grievances. Very few were interested in what Flanagan had to offer. Some so called questions took up 15 minutes of time. In many instances, Flanagan was treated like the PM and accused of all sorts of things and was even attacked personally. The audience booed, hissed, and hollered over each other in attacking Flanagan for the two hour q/a period. Towards the end it was visible that he was frustrated, worn out and tired. It is in this context that the child pornography comments need to be placed.
There are many other videos covering the event available on youtube which corroborate my testimony. I’ve included the links with some commentary below.
People did not leave in disgust at what Flanagan said, as has been suggested by Little Mustache. Most of the audience was disgusted by Flanagan’s very presence, which did not incite them to leave. By the time child pornography came up, it was well past 9 pm and people were leaving because of the time. You can see six people leave during a tirade about drinking water on reserves. You will also get a sense of the disorder of the q/a period in the following clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY1fmEaMjGI
The following video shows Patricia Kelly attacking Tom Flanagan personally saying, “This man is evil to the indigenous peoples. He is anti-Idle No More” (3:06). Her tirade spans six minutes uninterrupted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lWotVbgfRA
Niitsitapi video demonstrates the inability of Flanagan to adequately respond to the comments posed because of the barrage of comments made by multi “audience” members’ verbal ejaculations and the inability of the moderator to control the q/a period. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D_Rxy52obg
Flanagan cannot get a word edgewise in. At one point you can hear the video recorder say, “That really threw him off” (1:54). There was a deliberate attempt to hijack the question and answer period: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvHlDIEkHlI
I have read the rhetorical question in articles published on Flanagan’s child porn remarks, “How Flanagan got onto the child pornography topic from the Indian Act, we’re not sure…” I hope after reading and viewing the above clips you will know now.
As for the issue of child pornography, it does warrant academic and theoretical consideration. From the outset, I have moral issues with all forms pornography, whether the person is 7, 17, or 77. But there is a hyper sensitivity when it comes to child pornography. Canada’s child pornography laws are very broad. Suppose a “girl”, nearly 18, sends you a photo of her bare chest via her cell phone to your cell phone, you are now in possession of child pornography. Receiving this picture on your phone could possibly land in you jail, because you are in possession of illegal material. Suppose the same “girl” one week later turns 18 and becomes a “woman.” On the day of her birthday she sends me a similar bare chested picture on her phone to my phone, I am not in possession of child pornography and do not possess illegal material. There are several other nuances which could be elucidated to be sure. There is a paradox and hypocrisy in the Canadian justice system in its treatment towards pornography. I suspect Flanagan was trying to unpack some of these things during his failed attempt that tragic night.
For anyone who is conservative, and pleased with a Conservative government, a debt of gratitude is owed to Flanagan. Throwing Flanagan under the bus demonstrates a high degree of political expediency, which is indeed, diametrically opposed to the conservative principles by which many conservatives aspire to live. There should have been a thorough investigation before the back peddling and distancing. Many owe Flanagan an apology for their shoddy journalism and knee jerk reactions. Canada will lose out if we do not hear what Flanagan has to say. Many of the Natives cried during the q/a period, “Give us a voice.” What is more appropriate is to give Tom Flanagan a voice.
Jason Michael Hastings
Graduate from U of L 2000, 2003.
‘Free Tom Flanagan?’
Kate makes the comparison of billion dollar movies depicting murder, rape, etc., with the idea that people might be tempted to perform similar acts. She actually thinks that’s the issue here.
It isn’t.
Since children by definition cannot consent to such acts, what needs to happen for these videos to exist is for them to be abused and raped.
That’s what the viewer is complicit with.
Why on earth else would a viewer of these videos watch them other than to be sexually aroused by something any normal person would find – no, not just disgusting – but morally abhorrent — more than just about anything could be on this planet?
So save the ‘oh he’s a high-profile conservative so it’s different’ pity party stuff. No individual of whatever political stripe could expect to make such a remark – repeatedly – and expect to survive.
It’s always been known that Flanagan is an intemperate extremist. Now we see that he is an idiot, as is anyone who supports him.
“A more interesting take on the Flanagan story is how hard the media is trying to connect this with PM Harper.”
Which is really the reason for the story, isn’t it, since Flanagan is a national figure because of his role in the rise of Stephen Harper? Of course, the media wouldn’t bother to mention that Stephen Harper basically threw the 2004 election over some intemperate remarks or other about Paul Martin being weak on child pornography, or that Stephen Harper has specifically stated his abhorrence of child pornography at various times since his return to elective politics. Or that Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper basically had a falling out, etc., etc., etc.
Unfortunately, Tom allowed the impression to be created that his opposition to jail time is the same thing as his condoning child pornography, and for that I think he alone is responsible — he didn`t even claim misquotation or contextual misrepresentation, and just apologized, which is worse, since it`s pretty much the same as pleading guilty in something like this.
It`s a sad way for his career to end, made even sadder by another element of media hypocrisy, which is that it`s okay that incarceration reduction has been a deliberate and sustained thrust of Liberal governments and their supporters in the legal and, er, “social science“ communities since the 1960s (hardly worth discussing at all, really; just sort of a given since it`s the right thing to do), and that Stephen Harper is a neanderthal for suggesting, let alone legislating, otherwise, but for a leading conservative like Tom to suggest that it might be appropriate demands a universal chorus of excoriation.
So what’s worse? The prof taking early retirement, or exposure of the CBC activist conspiracy to destroy him? Methinks the high fives across the aisle will be short lived.
No one conspired to destroy him. he destroyed himself. And he did exercise his free speech, while Wildrose, CPC, CBC etc. exercised their right not to have anything to do with someone who condones the sexual exploitation of children.
As much as I support free speech, I also support the right of others to throw him under the bus.
But it took a very long time for Ryerson to to try to throw Gerald Hannon under the bus. But the author of “Men Loving Boys Loving Men”, a member of NAMBLA did not talk about child porn. He was advocating pedophilia, and framed it as a gay rights issue. Do that and you get a pass.
Thank you David for a well thought out comment on this.
Not like some just before and after your comment.
Repulsive and abhorrent thoughts should be heard…
They were heard…and condemned. Anyway, free speech doesn’t include the right to be heard.
I wonder how much a drug addled mind has to do with repulsive and abhorrent thoughts and actions? Drugs seem to be quite important to many self-described libertarians who are smarter in their own fantasy world.
I have to come down on Kate’s side, also Kathryn, Me No Dhimmi, John Hastings, David Southam, Mike S.
Everything Kate said about him being a high-profile conservative being the reason for this furor is true. The media are gleeful, the leftist U of Calgary are happy, that they now have a stick to whack someone associated with Harper. And for that reason every single individual joining in this witch hunt it complicit in playing into the hands of the left. Like Kate said, universities are filled with communists yet that is tolerated. Flanagan is an academic, it’s his job to express opinions, it’s his job to avoid being politically correct.
It is a legitimate question whether viewers of child porn should be in jail, and someone can hold this position while maintaining that it is a crime to view child pornography.
However, you can disagree with his opinion without joining in the witch hunt. In fact, Flanagan’s treatment from the CBC and the U of C should be condemned, because he is being singled out.
It is interesting to see that this is one issue that divides Conservatives. And how does that saying go? Divide and conquer.
All but one of these comments shows no awareness that “child pornography” is a category that comprises many different kinds of work. It might include novels like Lolita, or (if we confine ourselves to pictures) comic strips, drawings, paintings, and animated cartoons. There are photos, too, that could be labelled “child pornography,” like those of the well-known Sally Mann, whose photos of her pre-pubescent children are certainly “erotic” and could quite easily be called pornographic. All of these may be offensive to varying degrees, but they do not necessarily exploit children, or not in precisely the same ways. As Mr Flanagan did not clarify his position effectively, I can’t tell whether he meant to defend only the kind of child pornography that does not feature live children, or all of it. I would be inclined to think he meant the former, but I can’t be sure.
Yeah, stickin’ it to conservatives, that’s all the media does. That’s why First Nations leader David Ahenakew got a free pass from the media for his anti-Semitic remarks…
Before anyone finds a sturdy tree and some rope, the whole discussion and all the contexts of what each side said needs to be examined. The butterfly of Alberta politics now, was the butterfly of disbanded schoolboards/butterfly of Calgary Herald editorials/ butterfly of some think tank whatever, could not wait to chuck Tom into the volcano, then Redford did the same thing without getting all the facts. The man deserves a decent hearing people, we have scumbags out there acting this garbage out that everyone is raging about, and they get less jail time or abuse from the public than Mr. Flanagan. Get the facts first, follow the money and the people who taped this, find out their motives, remember people the left never sleeps, they will only be happy when every conservative is broke or dead, then who will feed these miserable useless humanoid zombies of the left.
@iberia I fail to see your analogy or connection or your point wrt Ahenakew.
// Sally Mann, whose photos of her pre-pubescent children are certainly “erotic” and could quite easily be called pornographic. //
Which doesn’t mean they are. The subjective response of some people isn’t enough. There has to be some objective, or at least intersubjective, characteristics. Otherwise reality becomes like the old joke about some guy being shown Rorschach inkblots. On everyone he is asked, he says it reminds him of sex.
When the tester remarks that he seems obsessively concerned with sex, he responds angrily —
“What do you mean I’m obsessed. You’re the one showing me all these dirty pictures.
Not to say it has been easy. There is a great book on the history of obscenity laws =– Girls Lean Back Everywhere.
As always, it is about “Where do we draw a line?” question that has to be answered about almost each Canadian law. This situation proves my own verdict, delivered as soon as I became familiar with Canadian mentality and Canadian way of thinking, which was quite a few years after becoming Canadian landed immigrant.
Canadian mentality and Canadian way of thinking dictates: emotions and good intentions supersede logic. Thus Canadian laws are drafted with good intentions, but with complete, utter and overwhelming lack of logic and scientific, statistical justification.
And once those laws are enacted, the same bleeding heart types who pushed for enacting them, crow over those laws and peck any criticizer. Been there done that: I’ve been pecked quite a bit for speaking out, even lost a job (or two, who knows) for merely speaking about a law (or two) near a coffee maker.
Thing is, formal logic is not a part of curriculum at most education institutions. Thus it does not matter to this country. You’d rather crucify the critic.
No, no coincidences. Who benefits? Redford’s PCs have their despicable financial situation pushed to the back burner. A tweet by Lucasuck seems to have started it. CBC gets to pile on Harper. Children saved by all this? Zero?
So how was he condoning the exploitation of children? Your remark verges on the libellous.
Child abuse is wrong if conservatives do it, but it’s on the agenda as the next thing for the left.
One of the better things about Christianity (going all the way back to the Didache) is that it has attempted to define child abuse as evil.
“We’re told that violent film doesn’t incite violence, but that child porn incites pedophiles. That’s a contradiction.”
Certainly it’s not.
Scientific studies have quite strongly shown that violent depictions – movies, clips, games, etc. – do not cause viewers to then act more violent than they would normally act.
But – studies have also shown that a male who is viewing adult hetero porn is very strongly and directly incited to sexual lust by that porn. The fact is that violence seems to not incite violence, but lust does incite lust. There’s no contradiction here.
So basically … you get a mob of primates barking at the stranger.
Then some one says this makes said stranger the problem.
Wrong.
The mob of primates ARE the problem. Along with the activist media mouthpiece who uses the mob behaviour to validate the warped world view.
Just an excuse for racism. The Idle No More people caught him, recorded him – so of course the racists who follow Flanagan have to argue against the entire population of Canada, so as not to agree with a First Nations person.
Does the CBC or a University have the right to fire someone for simply expressing an opinion about an issue? I am not sure they do. He did not say he doesn’t support the jailing of viewers of pedophile material; he said he questions whether that should result in jail time. For that he is fired? So you no longer have the right to be wrong…ever?
I disagree with him about the harm etc, but it does seem like he could sue actually. I don’t know how this one will play out.
For some reason, this makes me think of the Harry Potter series where, in an effort to stave off evil, it was unthinkable to even mention the name “Voldemort”. Molesting kids, distributing photos, and viewing the photos–these are sordid, harmful and despicable. But are there not degrees of “bad” here? What if the images were paintings or drawings and did not involve actual children? Does feeding the appetite make it larger? Does it lead to acting out? Is there any difference between those who look at pictures and those who commit the acts? I’m not overlooking the fact that the market for photos perpetuates crimes on children. I don’t think Flanagan did either. Flanagan was either brave, overconfident or clueless when he stepped into that minefield, but he did. What is the best way to defend kids? We’re not going to find out unless we allow the discussion ventured by Mr. Flanagan.
When it comes to contentious issues (non facts) teaching students is not stating an opinion and having them adapt it. YTeaching is posing questions to the students in order to facilitate their developing the ability to propose a position and support it. That is where most educators miss the true benifit of higher education. they need to go back and study Aristotle and Plato and the concept of university during their times.
“1) No, viewing something never does harm ”
LAS….I think some people who watched Stalin,Moa,Iberia,etc may tend to diasgree. But then I can only hope to view you being sent to the gulag,because it will harm me from all the gut-wrenching laughing I’ll be doing (and soul searching afterwards,a foreign concept, to athiests like you)
Adios Kate, Flanagan exercised his right to free speech, how wonderful for him that your subtle endorsement will mitigate his deserved denunciation. This is not an issue of left or right. It is an issue of recognizing that the consumption of child porn creates a market for sexual abusers of children.
In Canada we don’t cane, we don’t electrocute, we consider ourselves more civilized. We deprive of liberty, we jail.
Those who gain pleasure from the sexual victimization of kids deserve jail at the very least.
Been a fan for years. It’s over. The blind adherence to forgiveness for the blatant misconduct of someone on the “right” side of the political spectrum shows how easily the truth can be sacrificed for the sake of political bias.
It’s been fun, but not anymore. I am out.
This was a trap, IMO. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t (answer) moment. Tom should have done a Davy Sazooky and stormed off the stage!
Obviously, children are harmed by the making of child porn and the viewing of it drives demand for the harm. Mr Flanagan said something wrong (very wrong) in saying that children are not harmed by viewing child porn and is bearing the social consequences of his opinions. He is not, however, suffering legal consequences for his opinions. The problem with the HRCs and the Whatcott decision is that they empower the state to sanction opinion through taking of property; that is a different matter.
A more interesting take on the Flanagan story is how hard the media is trying to connect this with PM Harper. Mr. Flanagan is a professor, has helped other political campaigns and presumably has done many other things in his life but there is no headline reading “Professor Flanagan …” or whatever. It’s all about trying to wire this to PM Harper, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Harper is conencted to this issue. Tells you where the media’s mind is at.
After watching that video several times I agree that it was a setup. What I can’t understand is why he walked into that trap willingly and then proceeded to give the information re: NAMBLA as well as his personal opinion on a taboo subject that was not the subject of debate. The man is not a novice at this game and this was certainly a lapse in judgement. He may not have committed any crime but that was certainly a great attempt at political suicide.
Little late to the debate, but did no the Supreme Court already rule it’s OK to look at pictures, including kiddie porn?
Flanagan played it wrong and should have put it on the Supremes.
Quite a few comments were caught in the spam filter, so for those following the thread, it may be worthwhile to review it. To avoid the spam filter, choose your words wisely.
I think you support his comments because you share his perversion. To view the product of criminal assault is to be complicit in it’s crime. Most of you on this page are certainly of the boy loving variety and I have made CSIS aware of you.
I know you won’t publish this comment because you are cowards.
Enjoy jail and public humiliation.
Wow! So you think it is OK for folks to be fired for their beliefs, even when those beliefs have no impact on the workplace. Nice. Hope you never disagree with your boss. I also hope you are ok with public institutions housing only people of one mindset because that will inevitably result. People always like the idea of public shaming and even punitive firing when they are on the winning side.
Where did he say it was ok to watch child porn? I read that he commented on whether it warranted jail time. Is that the same thing in your book?
To view the product of criminal assault is to be complicit in it’s crime.
And people who use drugs are complicit in the murders along the way of the chain of delivery
Absolute immoral trash. You people are enemies of freedom.
Anyone involved in politics should steer clear of this topic. There is no reason at all to talk about this subject other than to say that child porn is bad. Amazing that Tom Flanagan didn’t know this.
Mike, a fool has only answers, an intelect know only questions, and U appear to qualify for the fool position!!!
some people fail to grasp the concept that individuals have the right to decide to break the law, and that it is only breaking the law that is wrong, not the decission to do so!
If you haven’t read this…did you miss the debate..?..
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2002/03/26/sharpe020326.html
Dumb, but truth and freedom has also died a little more all of this week, and the media is running out of tar and feathers.
Soon it will be grey smocks and whispers.
LAS and Phil
Complicit perhaps not. But it is abetting a crime.
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=abet
And that is immoral and often illegal.
Now Phil can spout off about those who support having narcotics etc remain criminalizing as being the immoral ones but that is a shallow, simplistic viewpoint (typical of phil) as many who want to keep it illegal have sound reasons for doing so – not the least of which have to do with assessing impairment.
Lets use a more clear cut example: most humans like to and arguably are genetically hard-wired to like the taste of meat. That doesn’t make the consumption of meat that was knowingly poached or from an endangered animal not immoral or illegal.
The same goes for the viewing of child p for personal gratification.
That Mr. Flanagan couldn’t think his opinions on the issue far enough to see that the argument of “no harm” is folly and coming from a “scholar” such as himself repugnant and deserving of public reaction similar to that of neo-nazi utterances shows an amazing lack of judgement.
I Disagree Gord.
Syncrodox:
Make the case.
Of course he was set up. It should bother everyone that the main. Objective was to destroy his reputation such that he is not someone people will listen to regarding revisions to the Indian act. Too bad. He brings a lot to the table on that one.
The reality is with friends like Mr. Flanagan we don’t need enemies. He died on this hill and took a bunch with him.
Maybe ‘disgusting’ isn’t a good argument but it’s good enough to destroy his credibility. Doesn’t matter what should be, that’s what is.
Repulsive and abhorrent thoughts should be heard…uncomfortable conversations are answered…
No. My drug purchases do not abet crime. Prohibitionists abet crime though. Prohibition is crime in itself and empowers the criminal element prohibitionists complain about.
I find this notion that child porn consumption leads to its production pretty weak. Ever heard of copy, paste? Once it’s out there and digital there’s really no end to its copying and distribution, so supply is basically infinite.
“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” Proverbs 18:17. I am writing to communicate that I was present at the Lethbridge event featuring Tom Flanagan. I want to give you a fuller picture of what happened that night because I feel there has been a miscarriage of justice in the portrayal of Tom Flanagan in the media concerning this matter. I am sending the below summary to the media to get the word out about what really happened that night.
Flanagan spoke from 7:00 pm to about 7:45 pm on the Indian Act and the last 140 years of the history of the Canadian government and its dealings with the Natives. He spoke of the Indian Act itself, the failures of various grand visions, the incrementalism we’ve been seeing in the last 30 years and the possibility of an overhaul to membership, land, governance and education sectors of the Indian Act for the future.
At 7:45 pm the floor was opened up to a question and answer period. Up to this point, the lecture had gone like any other. Once the q/a period began the rabble rousers of the audience made their presence known for the next two hours. Talks like these usually attract about 20-40 listeners in Lethbridge, from my past experiences. The q/a period goes on for about 30 minutes. A question usually takes 30 seconds to two minutes to present with a two to five minute response.
The night Flanagan spoke the room was filled to capacity, perhaps 120 people. There were people from Calgary who drove down to attend. 60% or so were Native, not typical demographic representation, and 80% pro Idle No More supporters. For the next two hours the “audience” controlled both the question and answer portions of the period. The atmosphere turned from academic presentation to town hall forum airing of emotionally driven grievances. Very few were interested in what Flanagan had to offer. Some so called questions took up 15 minutes of time. In many instances, Flanagan was treated like the PM and accused of all sorts of things and was even attacked personally. The audience booed, hissed, and hollered over each other in attacking Flanagan for the two hour q/a period. Towards the end it was visible that he was frustrated, worn out and tired. It is in this context that the child pornography comments need to be placed.
There are many other videos covering the event available on youtube which corroborate my testimony. I’ve included the links with some commentary below.
People did not leave in disgust at what Flanagan said, as has been suggested by Little Mustache. Most of the audience was disgusted by Flanagan’s very presence, which did not incite them to leave. By the time child pornography came up, it was well past 9 pm and people were leaving because of the time. You can see six people leave during a tirade about drinking water on reserves. You will also get a sense of the disorder of the q/a period in the following clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY1fmEaMjGI
The following video shows Patricia Kelly attacking Tom Flanagan personally saying, “This man is evil to the indigenous peoples. He is anti-Idle No More” (3:06). Her tirade spans six minutes uninterrupted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lWotVbgfRA
Niitsitapi video demonstrates the inability of Flanagan to adequately respond to the comments posed because of the barrage of comments made by multi “audience” members’ verbal ejaculations and the inability of the moderator to control the q/a period. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D_Rxy52obg
Flanagan cannot get a word edgewise in. At one point you can hear the video recorder say, “That really threw him off” (1:54). There was a deliberate attempt to hijack the question and answer period: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvHlDIEkHlI
I have read the rhetorical question in articles published on Flanagan’s child porn remarks, “How Flanagan got onto the child pornography topic from the Indian Act, we’re not sure…” I hope after reading and viewing the above clips you will know now.
As for the issue of child pornography, it does warrant academic and theoretical consideration. From the outset, I have moral issues with all forms pornography, whether the person is 7, 17, or 77. But there is a hyper sensitivity when it comes to child pornography. Canada’s child pornography laws are very broad. Suppose a “girl”, nearly 18, sends you a photo of her bare chest via her cell phone to your cell phone, you are now in possession of child pornography. Receiving this picture on your phone could possibly land in you jail, because you are in possession of illegal material. Suppose the same “girl” one week later turns 18 and becomes a “woman.” On the day of her birthday she sends me a similar bare chested picture on her phone to my phone, I am not in possession of child pornography and do not possess illegal material. There are several other nuances which could be elucidated to be sure. There is a paradox and hypocrisy in the Canadian justice system in its treatment towards pornography. I suspect Flanagan was trying to unpack some of these things during his failed attempt that tragic night.
For anyone who is conservative, and pleased with a Conservative government, a debt of gratitude is owed to Flanagan. Throwing Flanagan under the bus demonstrates a high degree of political expediency, which is indeed, diametrically opposed to the conservative principles by which many conservatives aspire to live. There should have been a thorough investigation before the back peddling and distancing. Many owe Flanagan an apology for their shoddy journalism and knee jerk reactions. Canada will lose out if we do not hear what Flanagan has to say. Many of the Natives cried during the q/a period, “Give us a voice.” What is more appropriate is to give Tom Flanagan a voice.
Jason Michael Hastings
Graduate from U of L 2000, 2003.
‘Free Tom Flanagan?’
Kate makes the comparison of billion dollar movies depicting murder, rape, etc., with the idea that people might be tempted to perform similar acts. She actually thinks that’s the issue here.
It isn’t.
Since children by definition cannot consent to such acts, what needs to happen for these videos to exist is for them to be abused and raped.
That’s what the viewer is complicit with.
Why on earth else would a viewer of these videos watch them other than to be sexually aroused by something any normal person would find – no, not just disgusting – but morally abhorrent — more than just about anything could be on this planet?
So save the ‘oh he’s a high-profile conservative so it’s different’ pity party stuff. No individual of whatever political stripe could expect to make such a remark – repeatedly – and expect to survive.
It’s always been known that Flanagan is an intemperate extremist. Now we see that he is an idiot, as is anyone who supports him.
“A more interesting take on the Flanagan story is how hard the media is trying to connect this with PM Harper.”
Which is really the reason for the story, isn’t it, since Flanagan is a national figure because of his role in the rise of Stephen Harper? Of course, the media wouldn’t bother to mention that Stephen Harper basically threw the 2004 election over some intemperate remarks or other about Paul Martin being weak on child pornography, or that Stephen Harper has specifically stated his abhorrence of child pornography at various times since his return to elective politics. Or that Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper basically had a falling out, etc., etc., etc.
Unfortunately, Tom allowed the impression to be created that his opposition to jail time is the same thing as his condoning child pornography, and for that I think he alone is responsible — he didn`t even claim misquotation or contextual misrepresentation, and just apologized, which is worse, since it`s pretty much the same as pleading guilty in something like this.
It`s a sad way for his career to end, made even sadder by another element of media hypocrisy, which is that it`s okay that incarceration reduction has been a deliberate and sustained thrust of Liberal governments and their supporters in the legal and, er, “social science“ communities since the 1960s (hardly worth discussing at all, really; just sort of a given since it`s the right thing to do), and that Stephen Harper is a neanderthal for suggesting, let alone legislating, otherwise, but for a leading conservative like Tom to suggest that it might be appropriate demands a universal chorus of excoriation.
So what’s worse? The prof taking early retirement, or exposure of the CBC activist conspiracy to destroy him? Methinks the high fives across the aisle will be short lived.
Christie Blatchford, one of the few columnists worth reading, offers a typically common-sense take on the matter:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/01/christie-blatchford-tom-flanagan-paying-a-high-price-for-his-outdated-view-on-child-porn/
No one conspired to destroy him. he destroyed himself. And he did exercise his free speech, while Wildrose, CPC, CBC etc. exercised their right not to have anything to do with someone who condones the sexual exploitation of children.
As much as I support free speech, I also support the right of others to throw him under the bus.
But it took a very long time for Ryerson to to try to throw Gerald Hannon under the bus. But the author of “Men Loving Boys Loving Men”, a member of NAMBLA did not talk about child porn. He was advocating pedophilia, and framed it as a gay rights issue. Do that and you get a pass.
Thank you David for a well thought out comment on this.
Not like some just before and after your comment.
Repulsive and abhorrent thoughts should be heard…
They were heard…and condemned. Anyway, free speech doesn’t include the right to be heard.
I wonder how much a drug addled mind has to do with repulsive and abhorrent thoughts and actions? Drugs seem to be quite important to many self-described libertarians who are smarter in their own fantasy world.
I have to come down on Kate’s side, also Kathryn, Me No Dhimmi, John Hastings, David Southam, Mike S.
Everything Kate said about him being a high-profile conservative being the reason for this furor is true. The media are gleeful, the leftist U of Calgary are happy, that they now have a stick to whack someone associated with Harper. And for that reason every single individual joining in this witch hunt it complicit in playing into the hands of the left. Like Kate said, universities are filled with communists yet that is tolerated. Flanagan is an academic, it’s his job to express opinions, it’s his job to avoid being politically correct.
It is a legitimate question whether viewers of child porn should be in jail, and someone can hold this position while maintaining that it is a crime to view child pornography.
However, you can disagree with his opinion without joining in the witch hunt. In fact, Flanagan’s treatment from the CBC and the U of C should be condemned, because he is being singled out.
It is interesting to see that this is one issue that divides Conservatives. And how does that saying go? Divide and conquer.
All but one of these comments shows no awareness that “child pornography” is a category that comprises many different kinds of work. It might include novels like Lolita, or (if we confine ourselves to pictures) comic strips, drawings, paintings, and animated cartoons. There are photos, too, that could be labelled “child pornography,” like those of the well-known Sally Mann, whose photos of her pre-pubescent children are certainly “erotic” and could quite easily be called pornographic. All of these may be offensive to varying degrees, but they do not necessarily exploit children, or not in precisely the same ways. As Mr Flanagan did not clarify his position effectively, I can’t tell whether he meant to defend only the kind of child pornography that does not feature live children, or all of it. I would be inclined to think he meant the former, but I can’t be sure.
Yeah, stickin’ it to conservatives, that’s all the media does. That’s why First Nations leader David Ahenakew got a free pass from the media for his anti-Semitic remarks…
Before anyone finds a sturdy tree and some rope, the whole discussion and all the contexts of what each side said needs to be examined. The butterfly of Alberta politics now, was the butterfly of disbanded schoolboards/butterfly of Calgary Herald editorials/ butterfly of some think tank whatever, could not wait to chuck Tom into the volcano, then Redford did the same thing without getting all the facts. The man deserves a decent hearing people, we have scumbags out there acting this garbage out that everyone is raging about, and they get less jail time or abuse from the public than Mr. Flanagan. Get the facts first, follow the money and the people who taped this, find out their motives, remember people the left never sleeps, they will only be happy when every conservative is broke or dead, then who will feed these miserable useless humanoid zombies of the left.
@iberia I fail to see your analogy or connection or your point wrt Ahenakew.
// Sally Mann, whose photos of her pre-pubescent children are certainly “erotic” and could quite easily be called pornographic. //
Which doesn’t mean they are. The subjective response of some people isn’t enough. There has to be some objective, or at least intersubjective, characteristics. Otherwise reality becomes like the old joke about some guy being shown Rorschach inkblots. On everyone he is asked, he says it reminds him of sex.
When the tester remarks that he seems obsessively concerned with sex, he responds angrily —
“What do you mean I’m obsessed. You’re the one showing me all these dirty pictures.
Not to say it has been easy. There is a great book on the history of obscenity laws =–
Girls Lean Back Everywhere.
As always, it is about “Where do we draw a line?” question that has to be answered about almost each Canadian law. This situation proves my own verdict, delivered as soon as I became familiar with Canadian mentality and Canadian way of thinking, which was quite a few years after becoming Canadian landed immigrant.
Canadian mentality and Canadian way of thinking dictates: emotions and good intentions supersede logic. Thus Canadian laws are drafted with good intentions, but with complete, utter and overwhelming lack of logic and scientific, statistical justification.
And once those laws are enacted, the same bleeding heart types who pushed for enacting them, crow over those laws and peck any criticizer. Been there done that: I’ve been pecked quite a bit for speaking out, even lost a job (or two, who knows) for merely speaking about a law (or two) near a coffee maker.
Thing is, formal logic is not a part of curriculum at most education institutions. Thus it does not matter to this country. You’d rather crucify the critic.
No, no coincidences. Who benefits? Redford’s PCs have their despicable financial situation pushed to the back burner. A tweet by Lucasuck seems to have started it. CBC gets to pile on Harper. Children saved by all this? Zero?
So how was he condoning the exploitation of children? Your remark verges on the libellous.
Child abuse is wrong if conservatives do it, but it’s on the agenda as the next thing for the left.
One of the better things about Christianity (going all the way back to the Didache) is that it has attempted to define child abuse as evil.
“We’re told that violent film doesn’t incite violence, but that child porn incites pedophiles. That’s a contradiction.”
Certainly it’s not.
Scientific studies have quite strongly shown that violent depictions – movies, clips, games, etc. – do not cause viewers to then act more violent than they would normally act.
But – studies have also shown that a male who is viewing adult hetero porn is very strongly and directly incited to sexual lust by that porn. The fact is that violence seems to not incite violence, but lust does incite lust. There’s no contradiction here.
So basically … you get a mob of primates barking at the stranger.
Then some one says this makes said stranger the problem.
Wrong.
The mob of primates ARE the problem. Along with the activist media mouthpiece who uses the mob behaviour to validate the warped world view.
Just an excuse for racism. The Idle No More people caught him, recorded him – so of course the racists who follow Flanagan have to argue against the entire population of Canada, so as not to agree with a First Nations person.