Tom Flanagan is okay with child pornography

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

Interesting. I see what you're saying. Would it still be voyeurism if this person happen to be 15 and in the same scenario?

I can't think of a reason that the age of the complainant would be relevant to criminal liability. I imagine that it would be an aggravating factor in sentencing if, however, the accused was in fact guilty of voyeurism (for example, accused was surreptitiously looking up complainant's skirt somehow rather than complainant exposing herself.)

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by evman150

Libertarians make me sick.

So out of touch with reality. I like Alison Redford's comment:

“It turned my stomach. I’m absolutely disgusted by it. I think that it’s a perfect example of people that take ideological arguments too far, and I have nothing else to say on it”

I don't often agree with her; but she is bang on.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I expect them to drag the Wildrose into this, he was involved with them last year. He hasn't worked for Harper for a decade.

Provincial PC lackeys are all over it already. Anything to distract from their own corruption.

https://twitter.com/susan_elliott/st...26343203012608



Susan Elliott ‏@susan_elliott

Flanagan remarks reinforce suspicion that Wildrose values differ from mainstream Alberta values. Election '12 deja vu. #ableg #pcaa #abpoli

[Minnie]

I am absolutely ill over this. Vile. Just vile.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I see the media is falling over themselves trying to drag Harper into it.

Considering the depth of their professional relationship and his status as prime minister... fair game to highlight the ties so long as they don't imply approval.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Provincial PC lackeys are all over it already. Anything to distract from their own corruption.

https://twitter.com/susan_elliott/st...26343203012608



Susan Elliott ‏@susan_elliott

Flanagan remarks reinforce suspicion that Wildrose values differ from mainstream Alberta values. Election '12 deja vu. #ableg #pcaa #abpoli

Stupid and typical for the PC party, lets spread that wide brush that the Wildrose supports Child Porn.

I very much doubt that the Wildrose party is at all on board with the Wildrose, they should be demanding an apology from the PC's.


Flannigan's statement was repulsive, he's going to lose everything and good.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Provincial PC lackeys are all over it already. Anything to distract from their own corruption.

https://twitter.com/susan_elliott/st...26343203012608



Susan Elliott ‏@susan_elliott

Flanagan remarks reinforce suspicion that Wildrose values differ from mainstream Alberta values. Election '12 deja vu. #ableg #pcaa #abpoli

Wildrose lackeys are all over these PC tweets already. Anything to distract from their own links to an idiot named Tom Flanagan.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Wildrose lackeys are all over these PC tweets already. Anything to distract from their own links to an idiot named Tom Flanagan.

And they should be, Danielle Smith's statement about this was pretty strongly worded.

The PC party is once again trying to hide its utter failure by pouring out a smoke screen, what makes it disgusting is linking Wild Rose Values to Flannigan's "Hey Child Porn is just a picture"

[photon]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Ok, let's use this hypothetical to avoid some of the practical issues here. Peeping Tom surreptitiously observes a nude Bathing Bill through Bathing Bill's bathroom window. Bathing Bill is not at any time aware that he is being observed and blissfully continues to bathe himself. Some time later, Bathing Bill dies. Some time after Bathing Bill's death, a neighbour finally summons the courage to report that she observed Peeping Tom in the window outside Bathing Bill's bathroom window that night some time ago. So Bathing Bill never ever becomes aware that he was watched that night. Should Peeping Tom be guilty of a criminal offence?

I say yes. I say so because I think it is harmful to society and to the lives of all Canadians if we cannot bathe and carry on with our most personal actions if we are afraid that someone out there might be observing us. That is a harm to society writ large.

I agree with this, but in this case the peeper was caught so there was actually harm done, and I agree the behaviour in general even if not caught is harmful to society (in that it increases the chance that they'll be caught and bring harm).

But what if they were never caught? What if the peeper saw what they saw, and mentally used it to feed their fantasy life, but never got caught?

What if the peeper didn't actually peep, but drew a picture of someone they knew in the shower and used that privately?

Or took a picture of someone who consented to the photo, then photoshopped someone else's head on it without their knowledge, and used that privately?

It just seems to be so very close to thought crime, and I think harm (direct or in general to society) has to be a factor, we can't just prosecute someone because they're different. Even a pedophile (who didn't choose to be one) shouldn't be prosecuted just because they are attracted to a child they see while walking down the street.

Originally Posted by Makarov

I would also argue (and this is where the SCC and I agree) that the state has a valid interest in criminalizing conduct in order to avoid preemptively avoid harm. In this case, criminalizing the behaviour of Peeping Tom, whether Bathing Bill is aware his privacy is being infringed or not, seeks to avoid Bathing Bill ever having to become aware that his privacy was infringed.

That makes sense, and I think I'd agree with that as well, but I think the lawmakers would bear a great responsibility to ensure that the conduct they are criminalizing does in fact a) lead to harm and b) criminalizing it results in the desired avoidance.

I'm just not convinced that those are the case in this case. Gore sites are a great example, it seems to me that they should be almost identical to child porn in every respect I can think of.

Originally Posted by Makarov

EDIT TO ADD: Interesting discussion btw. I love these sorts of issues.

I like them because while I know how I think and react to scenarios, I want to know why I do, and I want to know that my reasons are good, are they founded in reason, or do I have them just because I gleaned them from the society I live in.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Ok, let's use this hypothetical to avoid some of the practical issues here. Peeping Tom surreptitiously observes a nude Bathing Bill through Bathing Bill's bathroom window. Bathing Bill is not at any time aware that he is being observed and blissfully continues to bathe himself. Some time later, Bathing Bill dies. Some time after Bathing Bill's death, a neighbour finally summons the courage to report that she observed Peeping Tom in the window outside Bathing Bill's bathroom window that night some time ago. So Bathing Bill never ever becomes aware that he was watched that night. Should Peeping Tom be guilty of a criminal offence?

Sure, Peeping Tom should be guilty. But I don't think this example applies. Let's say that Peeping Tom took pictures of Bathing Bill and then showed those pictures to Intrigued Ian. Has Intrigued Ian committed a crime by looking at the picture? Is he morally repugnant if he is aroused by it? If Ian keeps some of the pictures, has he violated Bill's privacy?

It's clear enough that BB had his privacy violated by PT. Harm to BB shouldn't be taken for granted, especially since you have noted that he died unaware of the violation. I think it is much less clear that Ian is guilty of any criminal action and from what I know of the law, the Canadian justice system doesn't either.

I say yes. I say so because I think it is harmful to society and to the lives of all Canadians if we cannot bathe and carry on with our most personal actions if we are afraid that someone out there might be observing us. That is a harm to society writ large.

I agree, but I think this also relates more to the people who produce or are in any way involved with the taking of the pictures than those who simply consume them.

I would also argue (and this is where the SCC and I agree) that the state has a valid interest in criminalizing conduct in order to avoid preemptively avoid harm. In this case, criminalizing the behaviour of Peeping Tom, whether Bathing Bill is aware his privacy is being infringed or not, seeks to avoid Bathing Bill ever having to become aware that his privacy was infringed.

The idea of criminalizing looking at the pictures holds some water because there is an argument to be made that people who look at pictures or videos of something being done may become more prone to acting it out. This relates to the R. v Sharpe case which was about writings and illustrations (I don't remember how compelling the argument of thoughts and viewings leading to actions was in the case, but it seems like a legitimate argument in this context). We are also well into the territory of criminalizing thoughts now, since nobody seems to be distinguishing between acquiring the porn for free and paying for it.

I think that for the sake of protecting children from being victimized, it is acceptable to criminalize possession, even if they had nothing to do with the production of material. I do understand Flanagan's argument though and agree with him that the law is logically inconsistent with every other type of crime I can think of.

It is also worth noting that Flanagan said he didn't think that they should be "jailed". From a libertarian perspective, there is an argument to be made that the deprivation of that persons liberty is too severe a penalty for the harm they are committing. He wasn't clear, so maybe I am giving him undue credit, but he may very well believe that financial penalties or court mandated therapy or something is a more appropriate reaction to that particular offense.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Would it bother you if someone took a picture of your kids and did the same thing?

For all I know it already has, I can't be bothered to fret about things that I don't know and don't have any impact on me (and impacting society is still impacting me, so I count harm to society as part of that).

If someone sees my kid and fantasizes about them it doesn't harm me or my child, if they take a picture and fantasize about them it doesn't harm me or my child either.

The harm of a pedophile being part of society is already done, they are already a pedophiles. Taking pictures of kids doesn't make them pedophiles.

Originally Posted by Rathji

Obviously there are different levels of violation, and doing it while the person was present would be a much more severe level of violation than the circumstances are are talking about here, but that doesn't eliminate the violation that occurs.

How is someone seeing an attractive person at the gym and then going home and using that person in their fantasy life a violation?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by valo403

But it hasn't created child porn, unless we're entering into a realm of thought policing.

Not by the strictest definition of the word but if some pedo is rubbing one out while looking at pictures of kids frolicking at the beach, what would you call it?

[MarchHare]

Stupid and typical for the PC party, lets spread that wide brush that the Wildrose supports Child Porn.

Ironically, that's a tactic they probably learned from...

...Tom Flanagan!

When Flanagan managed Harper's campaign during the 2004 federal election, the CPC issued two press releases titled "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?" and "The NDP Caucus Supports Child Pornography?"

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And they should be, Danielle Smith's statement about this was pretty strongly worded.

It's too bad for her parties sake she didn't show this kind of strength during the election when their nuts came out of the nuthouse. Probably would have won the election if she wasn't so indifferent.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Actually, this is exactly what some libertarians believe.



To be fair, this kind of falls on the Anarcho-Capitalism side of Libertarian theory, but to say it's not in sync with the general belief is false.

The child has the liberty to not be exploited, and child porn violates that. "Liberty" does not include exploiting or using a child for their own sexual gratification.

[Plett25]

As far as I can tell, the Wild Rose Party has the following policy...

If a rank and file Wild Rose Party member says something offensive, that does not reflect on the party itself.

If a Wild Rose Party big muck-a-muck (say Campaign Manager) says something offensive, that does not reflect on the party itself.

In short, anything offensive said by anyone associated with the party does not reflect on the party.

Gotcha.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Stupid and typical for the PC party, lets spread that wide brush that the Wildrose supports Child Porn.

Stupid PC's, playing politics with statements made by an advisor to a political party. Where is their decency?

Poor Wild Rose Party, being attacked for something when we all know that it is the opposition party's job to attack the governing party over trivial matters.

[photon]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Not by the strictest definition of the word but if some pedo is rubbing one out while looking at pictures of kids frolicking at the beach, what would you call it?

No different than them doing the same while looking at pictures of adults frolicking at the beach (with respect to the people in the pictures)?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Not by the strictest definition of the word but if some pedo is rubbing one out while looking at pictures of kids frolicking at the beach, what would you call it?

I'd call it some pedo rubbing one out while looking at pictures of kids frolicking at the beach.

What would you call it if some guy with a foot fetish rubbed one out over a pile of discarded pumps?

[Cole436]

As much as I do not agree with what his viewpoint represents in reality, I think we have to look at it from a critical perspective. If you have a child who is being sexually assaulted by older men or women and it's being viewed in some sort of form, whether video or pictures, then yes, absolutely that is consistent re-victimization and spreads a demand for more of that evil. However, I think what Flanagan was getting at weren't the images depicting sexual assaults, or violations of power. I think he was talking more about the 16 year old girl who posts her boobs on the internet, which then becomes the same legal material as a child's sexual assault.
I no ways am I agreeing with him, but this isn't the cut and dry topic that it's being made out to be. And this is coming from someone who despises Tom Flanagan with every fibre of his being.