“I’m disgusted,” no matter how strongly stated, is not an argument.
97 Replies to “Free Tom Flanagan!”
I disagree with Flanagan’s opinion, but I agree he has the right to hold it.
Never forget that these institutions harbor marxists and anti-Semites under the guise of academic freedom.
It’s legal to view a child being murdered on video. It’s legal to make billions in profits dramatizing torture, murder, rape that no doubt give some members of the audience sufficiently strong jollies that they re-enact the crimes. We’re told that violent film doesn’t incite violence, but that child porn incites pedophiles. That’s a contradiction.
Meanwhile, in public schools across North America, children are being exposed to explicit information under the guise of sex education.
That’s the debate that should have arisen from his comments, and had he been a nameless Marxist prof, that’s where it would have gone. But he’s a high profile conservative, so the rules are very different.
Amen, Kate.
I’m waiting for Vic Toews to stand up in the house and say that if you stand with Tom Flanagan you stand with the child pornographers.
This is a teachable moment for the thin-skinned.
If someone says something that you find disgusting, you publicize what the person said and let every one pile on with their own condemnation. You do not run to a fake mommy (aka HRC) and whine that someone hurt your feelings.
I also disagree with what Flanagan said, agree that he has the right to say it – and that every one else has the right to denounce or fire him.
Actually it can be argued that it is necessary for some people to view child pornography. How else can the police prosecute the pedophiles without monitoring what is on the internet and following the cyber-trail to the evil bastards lairs? I understand the police use facial recognition software to compare photos of missing children to the faces of children in such photos. Similarly, academics may have need to access it in order to study pedophilia.
Just because you are on a distribution list means you agree or condone the behaviour depicted. In the early ’90s I was a liberal party member for the purposes of keeping track of what gun control measures they were for or against and I’ve never voted Liberal in my life.
History shows there was a time during Rome’s domination that pedophilia was accepted as normal behavior. So was persecution of Christians, the sale of ruling power to the highest bidder, bread and circus for the people, apathy for the citizens concerns, excessive taxation, a belief in military invincibility and intellectual superiority. Gee,…..it all rings a bell but I just can’t place it. Of course we all know that History never repeats itself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WAgPs9To-8
It’s a sad mark of the breakdown of political discourse that anyone thinking about commenting on this affair has to consider whether he or she will attract the hysterical cries of the Lynch Mob. And, of course, the formal profession of disgust at child pornography is a requisite preface for commenting.
Watching the videotape supplied by the Idle No More questioner to the CBC it looks awfully like a set-up of Flanagan. The questioner raises the “genocide” of Native Canadians and then jumps to the question about the viewing of child pornography. The audience reactions on the tape are from the people surrounding Little Mustache, the self-identified Idle No More speaker.
Flanagan has made no secret of his position on the Indian Act. The question naturally arises as to whether this episode was truly about child pornography viewing or was a deliberate strategy to discredit and neutralize him on the Indian Act issue?
We are getting perilously close to Salem these days. If, courtesy of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, speech can be arbitrarily curtailed as a result of media and special-interest hysteria, how can a society have rational discussion of any matter? Several years of Hate-Harper rhetoric on comment boards facilitated by the CBC, Globe and Mail and now, sadly, the National Post, has lowered public discourse to gutter-level. When issues of serious public policy are decided by the Mob—each such constructed for one purpose—civil society ceases to function.
Kate, you are an idiot. The problem with viewing child porn is that it makes the viewer complicit in the crime of child sexual abuse. Flannagan first mentioned that watching child porn is ok in 2009. He was asked about that comment this week, and even though he had several years to think about what was wrong with what he said, he defended his comment. He is only sorry now because of the negative reaction, nothing else.
Congratulations for supporting a deviant.
Everybody is tolerant of ideas that they agree with.
But the real test of whether you believe in free speech — or in this, academic freedom — is how you react to opinions you find truly repugnant.
But he’s a high profile conservative, so the rules are very different.
Of course they’re different, that’s just a reality. He should have realized that, unless he wants to be where he’s found himself. An odd hill to pick to die on…shows a lack of discipline.
Who else but some stunned academic would give a sh!t about people who view that crap?
Yes, Amen Kate. You make an excellent point about age inappropriate sex “education” being insinuated into the school curriculum
My SDA friends, if you’re wondering why the “conservative” majority government doesn’t just do away with section 13, that’s the clip you wanna watch over and over again.
It is wrong to suggest that the “conservatives” are not doing away with it out of some cynical power strategy, viz., that it could be a handy tool to be used against political enemies. Conservatives, even in scare quotes, just don’t do this. Period.
The real reason is that a “conservative” government doing away with a egregious “hate speech” law will be labelled “pro-hate”, you see, just as Flanagan is, to these zombies, “OK with child pornography”. It will take a principled Liberal leader to achieve this.
True, DISGUST is no argument but neither is LIBERTY today! Just ask Jonathan Kay who’s OK with the highly nuanced SCC decision on Walcott. And for a contrast check out Bruce Bawer’s old-fashioned and principled take on it despite his being gay himself. To these zombies the gay Bawer is pro-gay-bashing!
lberia – if you’re going to play on this thread, you’re going to have to think a little harder than you normally do.
The problem with viewing child porn is that it makes the viewer complicit in the crime of child sexual abuse.
And people who use drugs are complicit in the murders along the way of the chain of delivery.
And those making believe safer sex = safe sex are complicit in the transmission of deadly diseases.
The list is endless…
The knee jerk response of these defenders of freedom, sure shows them up for the posers they are.
Throwing Tom Flanagan under the bus of political correctness, exposes a gutless bunch of ring kissers, practitioners of modern politics, which seems to amount to,
You the public are so stupid, what do you want us politicians to say,any contortions as long as the public will applaud,by voting us into power.
Back to the sacrilege committed by Tom Flanagan, once the court and public start punishing “thought Crimes” we have no freedom.
When an academic raises questions that must be asked,the mob howls for his blood, his friends rush to the microphones to abandon him and all the chattering class congratulate themselves while being seen to stab the heretic.
Pure empty headed show business, shows the contempt these clowns have for the intelligence of the public.
So who are the witches?
And when do we start burning them?
Those students screaming, abuse and their shock at Flanagan, are they really that empty headed?
It is TABOO? to argue the insanity of thought crimes?
These Perverts who obsess sexually over children, are currently beyond my comprehension. But if we can criminalize their viewing of images, where do we stop?
An example of this; I believe I can convince the mob, that all bureaucrats, politicians and similar parasites, plan to steal the fruits of our labours.
Forcing us to file our income and possessions for government inspection each year, is to facilitate the theft of these things from us, the “Thought Crime” is intentional rape of the productive,I can pull up far more “evidence” that this theft is being planned, than the hysterical can produce that all perverts will molest children.
And why do we not execute those that assault the innocent?
There is no cure known and the child molester, porn manufacturer and promoters of aberrant behaviour show no remorse.
But how does an intelligent person, combat this sickness from a position of willful blindness?
How does one combat a social disease, that one must remain ignorant of or face social suicide?
What “education” are they garnering at these universities? How much does their stupidity cost us?Are all our “leaders” hysterical children?
The stupid it burns.
Iberia:
So you can’t tell the difference between supporting someone’s right to express a repugnant opinion, and supporting the actual opinion?
Are you politically that immature?
“Free speech” will cost you a lot; ask Bill Whatcott, it cost him 12 years to get to the SCOC and a $7500 fine, not to mention legal fees and costs.
Tom Flanagan can say what he likes, but ‘free speech’ is not the same as ‘speech free of consequences’.
Flanagan has offered the proposition that ‘we should not jail people who view child porn’.
The audience he addressed didn’t share that opinion, in short the community he was addressing had an underlying moral standard and has rejected his suggestion.
If you go around suggesting that viewing child porn doesn’t have an inherent creep factor, when the photos themselves are clearly exploitative of minors, maybe you would like to take the time to explain yourself. Of course the defenders of such behavior would then have to get around the rather sticky wicket of a minor giving ‘informed consent’
I suppose children would likely have a much greater affinity to playing with GI Joe or Barbie dolls than playing with someone else’s ‘reproductive package’.
So on the one hand we have Bill Whatcott objecting to the indoctrination of children by homosexuals in schools; which is now deemed ‘hate speech’.
On the other hand we have Prof Flanagan suggesting the viewing of child porn should not be criminalized.
In either case, the children are being ‘screwed’ by the supposed ‘adults’ in the room.
Well so much for ‘community standards’, but NAMBLA can stay the hell away from my children.
Do the words “BUGGER OFF” have any resonance for the morally corrupt and compromised?
And Iberia is a joke, who takes an online moniker from one of Stalin’s henchmen? And this dope is going to sermonize on ‘conservative morality’…yeah pile it higher and deeper you will get your PHD yet. When you pick yourself up after tripping over numerous bodies your responsible for executing please let us all know.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Yeah –I saw clips of what he was trying to say, and the heckling started before he could articulate his point. It sounded clumsy –but he started saying “I was put on the NAMBLA mailing list” …and I thought he was going to make a remark about simply viewing child porn shouldn’t be a crime. I totally agree. Let me explain:
I’m a single guy with a computer so…I’ve seen my fair share of porn. Most of the stuff that’s tagged as ‘teen’ is in fact ‘mid-to-late-twenties’ –everyone knows this. But what if I download something that is in fact a 13 year old (where I was expecting a 23 year old in pig tails). Should I be charged with possessing child porn?
There was a porn star years back that got into the industry before she was –whatever the legal age is. Dianne Lords? Stacey Lords (something like that –I’m not going to google it from work). Lets say I hammer whatever her name is into a search engine and whoops….I get some of her work as a 16 year old. Should I go to jail for that?
The answer in both cases is ‘no.’ I think this is part of the argument Flanagan was trying to lay out…rather unsuccessfully as it turns out.
Furthermore, the left has put forward the notion for the last several decades that a person can’t help being what they are sexually (be it gay, bi, curious or the boring old town bicycle) and surely pedophiles can extend that argument to include themselves (deplorable as that may be). Before you jump on me with the ‘consenting adults’ argument –I agree, but there is a strong biological case to be made in the ‘what causes pedophilia’ discussion.
Is it not a reasonable argument to allow these pedophiles access to already-existing child pornography as an outlet for their deranged sexual appetites in an effort to a) control those desires and b). protect children from potential sexual abuse? Is that incredibly naive on my part? And yes, I get the idea of re-victimizing the victims of child abuse, but I’d much rather have a pedophile jacking-off in his basement to a decades old photo than deciding his only outlet was leading a scout troop/joining the priesthood/booking a trip to Thailand.
Isn’t this take on child porn exactly the same argument used for the Insite safe injection houses? IE –still bad –but we’re going to make it as safe as possible?
I dunno. I think Flanagan was trying to begin a discussion on a controversial topic with students too dim to deconstruct and examine piece by piece.
I would like to apologize to all for my numerous hate/thought crimes in this response.
I think L Beria is a plant – no good communist could have such bourgeois viewpoints on pedophilia.
It’s not just at school. Wikipedia has detailed information on just about every sex act and perversion you’ve ever heard of.
Hilarious Mississauga Matt…
Yep, Iberia, with a mass murder henchman moniker, is going to hold forth on ‘conservative morality’ regarding pedophilia.
If the leftoids could somehow tie Flanagan’s statement to PM Stephen Harper as an unrepentant child abuser, they would draw that long bow…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
There are exemptions to the law:
“Defence
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence
(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and
(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.”
Was Flanagan set up?
Apparently he expressed his view, that incarceration may not be an appropriate punishment for viewing child pornography, publicly in 2009. So his views on the subject were known by some. A few days ago, someone asked him again about the issue and video’d the response.
Is there such a thing as a coincidence in politics?
In the same week that the Supreme Court trashes freedom of speech, the media roasts Flanagan for supporting the same. People who believe in free speech should start worrying. Perhaps Flanagan’s biggest crime was, as pointed out above, was his failure to buy into the victimization of Indians and Metis from a historical basis. Flanagan should delay retiring to test the tolerance of the University of Calgary for free speech.
Maybe not. But thanks to the Supreme Court, ‘I’m offended’ is, trumping even objective fact.
Flanagan’s treatment at the hands of the CPC, WRA, and Manning Centre for Insipidity has been absolutely appalling. It doesn’t help that he’s right.
Mr. Flanagan has the right to his opinions. No one is saying he doesn’t.
And the rest of society has the right to be disgusted by those opinions – including breaking all connections with him.
His opinion is flat-out wrong. Viewing CP for recreational purposes does harm. And it should be outlawed because of it, just as smoking contraband cigarettes or ingesting illegal drugs is illegal. And having opinions to contrary gets you kicked out of most conservative organizations.
What a useless hill to die on. Who cares what happens to the creeps who view such stuff?
Well, other than those who breathe rarefied academic air? Apparently they have to air their opinion on everything. Giving the opposition the gun to shoot you probably isn’t that bright.
And that a guy who prided himself on being a well thought out intellectual on all issues (and had/has the ego to go with it) to have so poorly thought through this position demonstrates the opposite. I saw him more as a Peter c Newman type rather than a William f Buckley type.
I find this fascinating as a former employee of the protection racket I can tell you that Mr. Flanagan has suffered a worse fate then most actual Pedophiles and perpetrators of child porn.
Most don’t even have their names published, because it is almost always a family member, in order to protect the identity of the victim. Therefore employers, other family members (unless interviewed by police or told by the immediate family member) don’t even know. These perps hide like the rats they are, often allowed to serve their sentences on weekends, do community service or have a mandatory “treatment” programs.
No one actually knows,( except for the loose lips of a partner or gossiping of one in the know) because it is against the LAW to publish their identity, protecting the victim and leaving the rest of the children in the family ripe for the taking from unsuspecting family members or community.
The real Beria used to cruise around in his limo and snatch children, schoolgirls, off the street in Moscow, rape them and kill them.
I think the direction of his comments was that is there any benefit in putting viewers of child porn in jail? And that is a worthwhile discussion along the same vein as what is the benefit of putting mental ill people who commit crimes in jail or drug addicts – jail does them no good and is costly. Maybe we need to rethink putting people who view child porn in jail. A perfectly legitimate topic for conversation at a university forum, but because he is on the right he is condemned for something that any NDP/Toronto Liberal probably thinks about all the time!
Ok…that was a good round. Now lets discuss how he got on NAMBLA’s mailing list for a “couple” of years.
“The true job of a professor is to raise questions and to foster inquiry into them.” Baloney. The true job of a professor is to teach students.
Free speech is an absolute. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre is wrong unless there is one and can be sanctioned by charges of fraud or conspiracy, not as a limitation on rights.
I happen to agree that incarceration should be limited to violent criminals not deviants enabling the crime. Public knowledge of child-porn customers is likely punishment enough, particularly in redneck neighborhoods. Child abusers (CP producers) is an insidious form of violence and warrants incarceration. Punishment of non-violent criminals should be tailored to the crime and foremost, a means of compensation for the victims (eg, servitude). Victimless crimes shouldn’t be considered crimes.
The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds, they wail and spit in anger at what he said and these are the same folks who want to teach six year olds how to stick a carrots up there backsides so they can experiment with sex. These same leftwing fools are the self same people who support giving under aged minors adult porn to educate them on “Safe sex”. He had a mere opinion but the left on a daily basis use minor children to teach adult sexuality to via sex-ed.
I don’t blame the CPC, the WRP or the CBC for distancing themselves. In our society, what Flanagan said was political suicide in this country. Therefore, as a political commentator, he’s lost his value and credibility, and that’s the reality.
Philosophically and intellectually, he’s welcome to express his opinion on the matter, even if I (and most others) disagree with it. As such he should not have lost his position from the U of C, though I believe he’s better off without them anyway.
Further, his comments are creating a discussion about the limits around prosecuting those exposed to child porn, so obviously, there was some intellectual validity in what he said.
I also agree with Kate that we never hear anything about all the misanthropes, anti-Semites and Marxists on campuses and elsewhere, and that’s unfair. But life isn’t fair, so we move on.
Flanagan stated a very controversial opinion in a hostile public crowd without appropriate context. Thus, he’s paying for it. He should’ve known better.
peterj “Now lets discuss how he got on NAMBLA’s mailing list for a “couple” of years.”
Flanagan has no shortage of people who don’t like him. Take your pick.
Mike McCormick “The true job of a professor is to raise questions and to foster inquiry into them.” Baloney. The true job of a professor is to teach students.”
Never been there?
An engineer?
; nMost of us likely agree that accessing child pornography is not a “victimless” crime. There may, however, be disagreement about whether a jail sentence is the best punishment for the crime. Prof. Flanagan questions the proposition, and Kate is quite right: “That’s disgusting.” is not a very compelling counter-argument.
I have long been interested in the reaction of people to other so-called “victimless” crimes. Advanced liberal opinion holds that people who purchase or seek to purchase the services of a prostitute should be criminalized, while people who seek to purchase illegal drugs should not, while, historically, many people held the opposite view.
It seems that if people who access child pornography are complicit in the crimes that are involved in supplying the product — and I agree that they are — aren’t people who support the sex trade and the drug trade with their purchases complicit in all of the crimes associated with those industries?
Still…, couple of years ? Not difficult to get off unauthorized mailing lists. He’s not a big fish. Now if it was Harper, Mulcair or such I would love to dig into the conspiracy theory. Still, I agree any subject should be worthy of discussion no matter how repugnant to some. Anyway , NAMBLA is where the gay movement was a mere 30 years ago and nature abhors a vacuum. Time to embrace the next perversion. Why do you think educators are teaching 6 year olds how to put condoms on cucumbers ? No ?.
I’d like to say that I am pleasantly surprised by Kate’s reaction. Viewing CP for recreational purposes does harm. And it should be outlawed because of it, just as smoking contraband cigarettes or ingesting illegal drugs is illegal.
1) No, viewing something never does harm 2) Not that you care since you’re also in favor of jailing people for other victimless ‘crimes’ such as contraband smokes or illegal drugs.
People who abuse children are doing harm to children and should be sole focus of law enforcement efforts as pertains to this subject.
“It seems that if people who access child pornography are complicit in the crimes that are involved in supplying the product — and I agree that they are — aren’t people who support the sex trade and the drug trade with their purchases complicit in all of the crimes associated with those industries?”
Yes, they are.
One of the problems with the illegal drug trade is that it is illegal, and so the underground market is controlled by thugs who will operate outside moral and legal means to purvey the trade. If it were decriminalized, then the means of production and distribution would occur more in the open and, as a result, fewer ancillary criminal activity would result.
The same goes for the illegal sex trade where two consenting adults who wish to exchange money for their actions cannot do it openly or face the legal consequences. Therefore, the industry is controlled in large party by criminal enterprises.
Therefore, just as with the viewing of child porn, by using illegal drugs or hiring prostitutes, you are encouraging the criminal activity which fosters the industry.
Without an audience there would be no “product”. So, the focus on both finding the people who watch, and finding the people who make, does make sense. If there is money to be made doing something, legal or illegal, then someone will do it regardless of the cost in human misery.
In the end I find it repugnant the way the media tie his comment to the right, and then trumpet it over and over. When someone on the left does something just as stupid it gets buried.
There would still be a “product” with or without the secondary trafficking of the images. Pedophiles aren’t actors.
Gord Tulk. Amen. And at 2:12 too.
Pity. Another one of the few who understands the importance of property rights (for Indians too) bites the dust.
It has come to a point where someone should stand up and ask: how can society expect us to be willing to contribute to its success, when it does not trust us with the rights to think, speak and defend our lives, while absolving itself from a responsibility to do that?
Similarly to denying people freedom of speech, past and present government goes further and denies the rights to life and safety.
British Columbia court of appeal rules in Moony Vs BC AG that police forces are under no obligation to protect people in harms way just after RCMP removed ‘protection of life’ from the ATC form. This is a precedent setting ruling for all of Canada as of today.
Now we are in a situation where someone carrying a gun for self defense is considered a criminal unless an ATC is issued to them, but ATC is summarily unobtainable.
Back to my original question: how can a society, which denies its members a right to life, safety and freedom of expression expect that members will be willing to contribute to that society? Personally, my will is running thin. So thin, the society should become concerned.
With an IQ above 99% of population and physical strength above 90%, training in many more areas than that of an average person, once pissed off enough I would have become a virtually unstoppable menace. Question is – am I going to. Everything depends on the trends in the society.
Was this Native who the video opens with, a product of the college or university? If so, it definitely looks suspicious, but then, he is playing the victim game. In Vancouver, according to Van Sun columnist, Kim Pemberton, a lawyer (Stephen Bronstein) is said to have hired a Native man, who is a convicted murderer, to process his Native buddies to start proceeding in the residential school compensation probe, while extorting money from them as a kind of “kick-back”. It is said that this fellow Ivon Johnny, had “…encouraged applicants to make false claims to obtain higher financial settlements”.
It is also reported that a Judge Brenda Brown has “..asked the parties involved if they could resolve the matter on their own since a ‘full investigation is very, very expensive'”.
Shucks, you’re so modest that you forgot your modesty score.
I disagree with Flanagan’s opinion, but I agree he has the right to hold it.
Never forget that these institutions harbor marxists and anti-Semites under the guise of academic freedom.
It’s legal to view a child being murdered on video. It’s legal to make billions in profits dramatizing torture, murder, rape that no doubt give some members of the audience sufficiently strong jollies that they re-enact the crimes. We’re told that violent film doesn’t incite violence, but that child porn incites pedophiles. That’s a contradiction.
Meanwhile, in public schools across North America, children are being exposed to explicit information under the guise of sex education.
That’s the debate that should have arisen from his comments, and had he been a nameless Marxist prof, that’s where it would have gone. But he’s a high profile conservative, so the rules are very different.
Amen, Kate.
I’m waiting for Vic Toews to stand up in the house and say that if you stand with Tom Flanagan you stand with the child pornographers.
This is a teachable moment for the thin-skinned.
If someone says something that you find disgusting, you publicize what the person said and let every one pile on with their own condemnation. You do not run to a fake mommy (aka HRC) and whine that someone hurt your feelings.
I also disagree with what Flanagan said, agree that he has the right to say it – and that every one else has the right to denounce or fire him.
Actually it can be argued that it is necessary for some people to view child pornography. How else can the police prosecute the pedophiles without monitoring what is on the internet and following the cyber-trail to the evil bastards lairs? I understand the police use facial recognition software to compare photos of missing children to the faces of children in such photos. Similarly, academics may have need to access it in order to study pedophilia.
Just because you are on a distribution list means you agree or condone the behaviour depicted. In the early ’90s I was a liberal party member for the purposes of keeping track of what gun control measures they were for or against and I’ve never voted Liberal in my life.
History shows there was a time during Rome’s domination that pedophilia was accepted as normal behavior. So was persecution of Christians, the sale of ruling power to the highest bidder, bread and circus for the people, apathy for the citizens concerns, excessive taxation, a belief in military invincibility and intellectual superiority. Gee,…..it all rings a bell but I just can’t place it. Of course we all know that History never repeats itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WAgPs9To-8
It’s a sad mark of the breakdown of political discourse that anyone thinking about commenting on this affair has to consider whether he or she will attract the hysterical cries of the Lynch Mob. And, of course, the formal profession of disgust at child pornography is a requisite preface for commenting.
Watching the videotape supplied by the Idle No More questioner to the CBC it looks awfully like a set-up of Flanagan. The questioner raises the “genocide” of Native Canadians and then jumps to the question about the viewing of child pornography. The audience reactions on the tape are from the people surrounding Little Mustache, the self-identified Idle No More speaker.
Flanagan has made no secret of his position on the Indian Act. The question naturally arises as to whether this episode was truly about child pornography viewing or was a deliberate strategy to discredit and neutralize him on the Indian Act issue?
We are getting perilously close to Salem these days. If, courtesy of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, speech can be arbitrarily curtailed as a result of media and special-interest hysteria, how can a society have rational discussion of any matter? Several years of Hate-Harper rhetoric on comment boards facilitated by the CBC, Globe and Mail and now, sadly, the National Post, has lowered public discourse to gutter-level. When issues of serious public policy are decided by the Mob—each such constructed for one purpose—civil society ceases to function.
Kate, you are an idiot. The problem with viewing child porn is that it makes the viewer complicit in the crime of child sexual abuse. Flannagan first mentioned that watching child porn is ok in 2009. He was asked about that comment this week, and even though he had several years to think about what was wrong with what he said, he defended his comment. He is only sorry now because of the negative reaction, nothing else.
Congratulations for supporting a deviant.
Everybody is tolerant of ideas that they agree with.
But the real test of whether you believe in free speech — or in this, academic freedom — is how you react to opinions you find truly repugnant.
But he’s a high profile conservative, so the rules are very different.
Of course they’re different, that’s just a reality. He should have realized that, unless he wants to be where he’s found himself. An odd hill to pick to die on…shows a lack of discipline.
Who else but some stunned academic would give a sh!t about people who view that crap?
Yes, Amen Kate. You make an excellent point about age inappropriate sex “education” being insinuated into the school curriculum
My SDA friends, if you’re wondering why the “conservative” majority government doesn’t just do away with section 13, that’s the clip you wanna watch over and over again.
It is wrong to suggest that the “conservatives” are not doing away with it out of some cynical power strategy, viz., that it could be a handy tool to be used against political enemies. Conservatives, even in scare quotes, just don’t do this. Period.
The real reason is that a “conservative” government doing away with a egregious “hate speech” law will be labelled “pro-hate”, you see, just as Flanagan is, to these zombies, “OK with child pornography”. It will take a principled Liberal leader to achieve this.
True, DISGUST is no argument but neither is LIBERTY today! Just ask Jonathan Kay who’s OK with the highly nuanced SCC decision on Walcott. And for a contrast check out Bruce Bawer’s old-fashioned and principled take on it despite his being gay himself. To these zombies the gay Bawer is pro-gay-bashing!
lberia – if you’re going to play on this thread, you’re going to have to think a little harder than you normally do.
The problem with viewing child porn is that it makes the viewer complicit in the crime of child sexual abuse.
And people who use drugs are complicit in the murders along the way of the chain of delivery.
And those making believe safer sex = safe sex are complicit in the transmission of deadly diseases.
The list is endless…
The knee jerk response of these defenders of freedom, sure shows them up for the posers they are.
Throwing Tom Flanagan under the bus of political correctness, exposes a gutless bunch of ring kissers, practitioners of modern politics, which seems to amount to,
You the public are so stupid, what do you want us politicians to say,any contortions as long as the public will applaud,by voting us into power.
Back to the sacrilege committed by Tom Flanagan, once the court and public start punishing “thought Crimes” we have no freedom.
When an academic raises questions that must be asked,the mob howls for his blood, his friends rush to the microphones to abandon him and all the chattering class congratulate themselves while being seen to stab the heretic.
Pure empty headed show business, shows the contempt these clowns have for the intelligence of the public.
So who are the witches?
And when do we start burning them?
Those students screaming, abuse and their shock at Flanagan, are they really that empty headed?
It is TABOO? to argue the insanity of thought crimes?
These Perverts who obsess sexually over children, are currently beyond my comprehension. But if we can criminalize their viewing of images, where do we stop?
An example of this; I believe I can convince the mob, that all bureaucrats, politicians and similar parasites, plan to steal the fruits of our labours.
Forcing us to file our income and possessions for government inspection each year, is to facilitate the theft of these things from us, the “Thought Crime” is intentional rape of the productive,I can pull up far more “evidence” that this theft is being planned, than the hysterical can produce that all perverts will molest children.
And why do we not execute those that assault the innocent?
There is no cure known and the child molester, porn manufacturer and promoters of aberrant behaviour show no remorse.
But how does an intelligent person, combat this sickness from a position of willful blindness?
How does one combat a social disease, that one must remain ignorant of or face social suicide?
What “education” are they garnering at these universities? How much does their stupidity cost us?Are all our “leaders” hysterical children?
The stupid it burns.
Iberia:
So you can’t tell the difference between supporting someone’s right to express a repugnant opinion, and supporting the actual opinion?
Are you politically that immature?
“Free speech” will cost you a lot; ask Bill Whatcott, it cost him 12 years to get to the SCOC and a $7500 fine, not to mention legal fees and costs.
Tom Flanagan can say what he likes, but ‘free speech’ is not the same as ‘speech free of consequences’.
Flanagan has offered the proposition that ‘we should not jail people who view child porn’.
The audience he addressed didn’t share that opinion, in short the community he was addressing had an underlying moral standard and has rejected his suggestion.
If you go around suggesting that viewing child porn doesn’t have an inherent creep factor, when the photos themselves are clearly exploitative of minors, maybe you would like to take the time to explain yourself. Of course the defenders of such behavior would then have to get around the rather sticky wicket of a minor giving ‘informed consent’
I suppose children would likely have a much greater affinity to playing with GI Joe or Barbie dolls than playing with someone else’s ‘reproductive package’.
So on the one hand we have Bill Whatcott objecting to the indoctrination of children by homosexuals in schools; which is now deemed ‘hate speech’.
On the other hand we have Prof Flanagan suggesting the viewing of child porn should not be criminalized.
In either case, the children are being ‘screwed’ by the supposed ‘adults’ in the room.
Well so much for ‘community standards’, but NAMBLA can stay the hell away from my children.
Do the words “BUGGER OFF” have any resonance for the morally corrupt and compromised?
And Iberia is a joke, who takes an online moniker from one of Stalin’s henchmen? And this dope is going to sermonize on ‘conservative morality’…yeah pile it higher and deeper you will get your PHD yet. When you pick yourself up after tripping over numerous bodies your responsible for executing please let us all know.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Yeah –I saw clips of what he was trying to say, and the heckling started before he could articulate his point. It sounded clumsy –but he started saying “I was put on the NAMBLA mailing list” …and I thought he was going to make a remark about simply viewing child porn shouldn’t be a crime. I totally agree. Let me explain:
I’m a single guy with a computer so…I’ve seen my fair share of porn. Most of the stuff that’s tagged as ‘teen’ is in fact ‘mid-to-late-twenties’ –everyone knows this. But what if I download something that is in fact a 13 year old (where I was expecting a 23 year old in pig tails). Should I be charged with possessing child porn?
There was a porn star years back that got into the industry before she was –whatever the legal age is. Dianne Lords? Stacey Lords (something like that –I’m not going to google it from work). Lets say I hammer whatever her name is into a search engine and whoops….I get some of her work as a 16 year old. Should I go to jail for that?
The answer in both cases is ‘no.’ I think this is part of the argument Flanagan was trying to lay out…rather unsuccessfully as it turns out.
Furthermore, the left has put forward the notion for the last several decades that a person can’t help being what they are sexually (be it gay, bi, curious or the boring old town bicycle) and surely pedophiles can extend that argument to include themselves (deplorable as that may be). Before you jump on me with the ‘consenting adults’ argument –I agree, but there is a strong biological case to be made in the ‘what causes pedophilia’ discussion.
Is it not a reasonable argument to allow these pedophiles access to already-existing child pornography as an outlet for their deranged sexual appetites in an effort to a) control those desires and b). protect children from potential sexual abuse? Is that incredibly naive on my part? And yes, I get the idea of re-victimizing the victims of child abuse, but I’d much rather have a pedophile jacking-off in his basement to a decades old photo than deciding his only outlet was leading a scout troop/joining the priesthood/booking a trip to Thailand.
Isn’t this take on child porn exactly the same argument used for the Insite safe injection houses? IE –still bad –but we’re going to make it as safe as possible?
I dunno. I think Flanagan was trying to begin a discussion on a controversial topic with students too dim to deconstruct and examine piece by piece.
I would like to apologize to all for my numerous hate/thought crimes in this response.
I think L Beria is a plant – no good communist could have such bourgeois viewpoints on pedophilia.
It’s not just at school. Wikipedia has detailed information on just about every sex act and perversion you’ve ever heard of.
Hilarious Mississauga Matt…
Yep, Iberia, with a mass murder henchman moniker, is going to hold forth on ‘conservative morality’ regarding pedophilia.
If the leftoids could somehow tie Flanagan’s statement to PM Stephen Harper as an unrepentant child abuser, they would draw that long bow…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
There are exemptions to the law:
“Defence
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence
(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and
(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.”
Was Flanagan set up?
Apparently he expressed his view, that incarceration may not be an appropriate punishment for viewing child pornography, publicly in 2009. So his views on the subject were known by some. A few days ago, someone asked him again about the issue and video’d the response.
Is there such a thing as a coincidence in politics?
In the same week that the Supreme Court trashes freedom of speech, the media roasts Flanagan for supporting the same. People who believe in free speech should start worrying. Perhaps Flanagan’s biggest crime was, as pointed out above, was his failure to buy into the victimization of Indians and Metis from a historical basis. Flanagan should delay retiring to test the tolerance of the University of Calgary for free speech.
Maybe not. But thanks to the Supreme Court, ‘I’m offended’ is, trumping even objective fact.
Flanagan’s treatment at the hands of the CPC, WRA, and Manning Centre for Insipidity has been absolutely appalling. It doesn’t help that he’s right.
Mr. Flanagan has the right to his opinions. No one is saying he doesn’t.
And the rest of society has the right to be disgusted by those opinions – including breaking all connections with him.
His opinion is flat-out wrong. Viewing CP for recreational purposes does harm. And it should be outlawed because of it, just as smoking contraband cigarettes or ingesting illegal drugs is illegal. And having opinions to contrary gets you kicked out of most conservative organizations.
What a useless hill to die on. Who cares what happens to the creeps who view such stuff?
Well, other than those who breathe rarefied academic air? Apparently they have to air their opinion on everything. Giving the opposition the gun to shoot you probably isn’t that bright.
And that a guy who prided himself on being a well thought out intellectual on all issues (and had/has the ego to go with it) to have so poorly thought through this position demonstrates the opposite. I saw him more as a Peter c Newman type rather than a William f Buckley type.
I find this fascinating as a former employee of the protection racket I can tell you that Mr. Flanagan has suffered a worse fate then most actual Pedophiles and perpetrators of child porn.
Most don’t even have their names published, because it is almost always a family member, in order to protect the identity of the victim. Therefore employers, other family members (unless interviewed by police or told by the immediate family member) don’t even know. These perps hide like the rats they are, often allowed to serve their sentences on weekends, do community service or have a mandatory “treatment” programs.
No one actually knows,( except for the loose lips of a partner or gossiping of one in the know) because it is against the LAW to publish their identity, protecting the victim and leaving the rest of the children in the family ripe for the taking from unsuspecting family members or community.
The real Beria used to cruise around in his limo and snatch children, schoolgirls, off the street in Moscow, rape them and kill them.
I think the direction of his comments was that is there any benefit in putting viewers of child porn in jail? And that is a worthwhile discussion along the same vein as what is the benefit of putting mental ill people who commit crimes in jail or drug addicts – jail does them no good and is costly. Maybe we need to rethink putting people who view child porn in jail. A perfectly legitimate topic for conversation at a university forum, but because he is on the right he is condemned for something that any NDP/Toronto Liberal probably thinks about all the time!
Ok…that was a good round. Now lets discuss how he got on NAMBLA’s mailing list for a “couple” of years.
“The true job of a professor is to raise questions and to foster inquiry into them.” Baloney. The true job of a professor is to teach students.
Free speech is an absolute. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre is wrong unless there is one and can be sanctioned by charges of fraud or conspiracy, not as a limitation on rights.
I happen to agree that incarceration should be limited to violent criminals not deviants enabling the crime. Public knowledge of child-porn customers is likely punishment enough, particularly in redneck neighborhoods. Child abusers (CP producers) is an insidious form of violence and warrants incarceration. Punishment of non-violent criminals should be tailored to the crime and foremost, a means of compensation for the victims (eg, servitude). Victimless crimes shouldn’t be considered crimes.
The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds, they wail and spit in anger at what he said and these are the same folks who want to teach six year olds how to stick a carrots up there backsides so they can experiment with sex. These same leftwing fools are the self same people who support giving under aged minors adult porn to educate them on “Safe sex”. He had a mere opinion but the left on a daily basis use minor children to teach adult sexuality to via sex-ed.
I don’t blame the CPC, the WRP or the CBC for distancing themselves. In our society, what Flanagan said was political suicide in this country. Therefore, as a political commentator, he’s lost his value and credibility, and that’s the reality.
Philosophically and intellectually, he’s welcome to express his opinion on the matter, even if I (and most others) disagree with it. As such he should not have lost his position from the U of C, though I believe he’s better off without them anyway.
Further, his comments are creating a discussion about the limits around prosecuting those exposed to child porn, so obviously, there was some intellectual validity in what he said.
I also agree with Kate that we never hear anything about all the misanthropes, anti-Semites and Marxists on campuses and elsewhere, and that’s unfair. But life isn’t fair, so we move on.
Flanagan stated a very controversial opinion in a hostile public crowd without appropriate context. Thus, he’s paying for it. He should’ve known better.
peterj “Now lets discuss how he got on NAMBLA’s mailing list for a “couple” of years.”
Flanagan has no shortage of people who don’t like him. Take your pick.
Mike McCormick “The true job of a professor is to raise questions and to foster inquiry into them.” Baloney. The true job of a professor is to teach students.”
Never been there?
An engineer?
; nMost of us likely agree that accessing child pornography is not a “victimless” crime. There may, however, be disagreement about whether a jail sentence is the best punishment for the crime. Prof. Flanagan questions the proposition, and Kate is quite right: “That’s disgusting.” is not a very compelling counter-argument.
I have long been interested in the reaction of people to other so-called “victimless” crimes. Advanced liberal opinion holds that people who purchase or seek to purchase the services of a prostitute should be criminalized, while people who seek to purchase illegal drugs should not, while, historically, many people held the opposite view.
It seems that if people who access child pornography are complicit in the crimes that are involved in supplying the product — and I agree that they are — aren’t people who support the sex trade and the drug trade with their purchases complicit in all of the crimes associated with those industries?
Still…, couple of years ? Not difficult to get off unauthorized mailing lists. He’s not a big fish. Now if it was Harper, Mulcair or such I would love to dig into the conspiracy theory. Still, I agree any subject should be worthy of discussion no matter how repugnant to some. Anyway , NAMBLA is where the gay movement was a mere 30 years ago and nature abhors a vacuum. Time to embrace the next perversion. Why do you think educators are teaching 6 year olds how to put condoms on cucumbers ? No ?.
I’d like to say that I am pleasantly surprised by Kate’s reaction.
Viewing CP for recreational purposes does harm. And it should be outlawed because of it, just as smoking contraband cigarettes or ingesting illegal drugs is illegal.
1) No, viewing something never does harm 2) Not that you care since you’re also in favor of jailing people for other victimless ‘crimes’ such as contraband smokes or illegal drugs.
People who abuse children are doing harm to children and should be sole focus of law enforcement efforts as pertains to this subject.
“It seems that if people who access child pornography are complicit in the crimes that are involved in supplying the product — and I agree that they are — aren’t people who support the sex trade and the drug trade with their purchases complicit in all of the crimes associated with those industries?”
Yes, they are.
One of the problems with the illegal drug trade is that it is illegal, and so the underground market is controlled by thugs who will operate outside moral and legal means to purvey the trade. If it were decriminalized, then the means of production and distribution would occur more in the open and, as a result, fewer ancillary criminal activity would result.
The same goes for the illegal sex trade where two consenting adults who wish to exchange money for their actions cannot do it openly or face the legal consequences. Therefore, the industry is controlled in large party by criminal enterprises.
Therefore, just as with the viewing of child porn, by using illegal drugs or hiring prostitutes, you are encouraging the criminal activity which fosters the industry.
Flanagan deserves the shitstorm if for no other reason than being stupid enough to have made the statement in the first place. What’d he think would happen? Talk about your political naivete!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m2UDPm1kG58/UTDYQFgPamI/AAAAAAAAU8Q/FDLi2o8Xavk/s400/st.jpg
Oh, where do I stand? Bring back flogging…
Without an audience there would be no “product”. So, the focus on both finding the people who watch, and finding the people who make, does make sense. If there is money to be made doing something, legal or illegal, then someone will do it regardless of the cost in human misery.
In the end I find it repugnant the way the media tie his comment to the right, and then trumpet it over and over. When someone on the left does something just as stupid it gets buried.
There would still be a “product” with or without the secondary trafficking of the images. Pedophiles aren’t actors.
Gord Tulk. Amen. And at 2:12 too.
Pity. Another one of the few who understands the importance of property rights (for Indians too) bites the dust.
It has come to a point where someone should stand up and ask: how can society expect us to be willing to contribute to its success, when it does not trust us with the rights to think, speak and defend our lives, while absolving itself from a responsibility to do that?
Similarly to denying people freedom of speech, past and present government goes further and denies the rights to life and safety.
British Columbia court of appeal rules in Moony Vs BC AG that police forces are under no obligation to protect people in harms way just after RCMP removed ‘protection of life’ from the ATC form. This is a precedent setting ruling for all of Canada as of today.
Now we are in a situation where someone carrying a gun for self defense is considered a criminal unless an ATC is issued to them, but ATC is summarily unobtainable.
Back to my original question: how can a society, which denies its members a right to life, safety and freedom of expression expect that members will be willing to contribute to that society? Personally, my will is running thin. So thin, the society should become concerned.
With an IQ above 99% of population and physical strength above 90%, training in many more areas than that of an average person, once pissed off enough I would have become a virtually unstoppable menace. Question is – am I going to. Everything depends on the trends in the society.
Was this Native who the video opens with, a product of the college or university? If so, it definitely looks suspicious, but then, he is playing the victim game. In Vancouver, according to Van Sun columnist, Kim Pemberton, a lawyer (Stephen Bronstein) is said to have hired a Native man, who is a convicted murderer, to process his Native buddies to start proceeding in the residential school compensation probe, while extorting money from them as a kind of “kick-back”. It is said that this fellow Ivon Johnny, had “…encouraged applicants to make false claims to obtain higher financial settlements”.
It is also reported that a Judge Brenda Brown has “..asked the parties involved if they could resolve the matter on their own since a ‘full investigation is very, very expensive'”.
Shucks, you’re so modest that you forgot your modesty score.