Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-28-2013, 05:09 PM   #101
mikey_the_redneck
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lethbridge
Exp:
Default

Flanagan is typical of the sociopathic ruling class. I'm surprised he was so upfront about it.
mikey_the_redneck is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 07:59 PM   #102
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
How? I don't understand this.

If the victim knows person x is viewing the video then I guess that would make sense, but if they don't, then how is the victim harmed?
In this case I believe the harm is introducing the potential of harm, in a similar manner to negligence.

It's too bad that so few can take their emotions out of the issue and actually look at it objectively as you are doing, though. Kudos to you for that. Heck, it takes guts just to take the side you are taking given how most people would react emotionally to your position.
SebC is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SebC For This Useful Post:
Old 02-28-2013, 08:59 PM   #103
nfotiu
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post

It's too bad that so few can take their emotions out of the issue and actually look at it objectively as you are doing, though. Kudos to you for that. Heck, it takes guts just to take the side you are taking given how most people would react emotionally to your position.
Yeah, I agree. It is completely ok to have to have concerns about such laws, and not want to trust authorities judgements on these matters.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/news/story?id=1794781

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/pa...ory?id=8622696

And when does the act of viewing such pictures become a crime. A guy who signs up for some underground porn site that has 10 year old boys on it, and is actively trading, sharing pics, or paying for access, then yeah, there should be a law to send him to jail.

What about a guy watching what he thought was adult porn on an unscrupulous porn site that got busted for using 16 year old girls who looked older. I bet you'd find a lot less guys agreeing he should be labelled a sex offender and locked up in jail. But, I imagine those 16 year old girls are just as much victims, maybe moreso than the boys in the other site.

There are all sorts of ways for pictures to end up on your pc without intention of getting them there. The wrong google might bring up some pictures that get cached. Is that all it takes to be locked away and forever labelled a sex offender? What if you didn't even see those pictures, is that illegal?
nfotiu is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 09:00 PM   #104
Slava
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce View Post
Trying to ask some questions here, so bare with me.
Nice try, but in this thread we're going to have to see some ID before there'll be any baring!
Slava is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Old 02-28-2013, 09:35 PM   #105
Thor
God of Hating Twitter
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Exp:
Default

I wonder if there was access today to Star Trek holodecks that could simulate real life perfectly, if you let loose serial killers, pedo's and dangerous people into those holodecks if that would placate their need to kill, rape or whatever.

I mean would Dexter be all murdery if he had a holodeck he could go into when his dark passenger gets antsy.
__________________
Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Thor is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 10:18 PM   #106
longsuffering
First Line Centre
 
longsuffering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
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
Oh, are we just going to pretend that the Wildrose didn't lose the last election because Smith supported her candidate's rights to speak out against homosexuality?

Damn right it's fair comment to question whether the Wildrose party shares the same values as most Albertans when one of their founding and influential members comes out with this "libertarian" beauty of a remark.
longsuffering is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 10:22 PM   #107
Jacks
Franchise Player
 
Jacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

Obviously the federal Conservatives and the Wildrose do not share these views, trying to claim they do makes you sound like a moron.

In related news Flanagan is now "retired" from the U of C.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle9152587/
Jacks is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 10:36 PM   #108
vanisleflamesfan
Powerplay Quarterback
 
vanisleflamesfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Your Mother's Place.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by First Lady View Post
He used to be a respected U of C prof.
BWA HA HA HA HA!!! This is the funniest thing I have EVER read on CP!!!

Flanagan's "academic" work is a pile of hot, steaming garbage so vile, reactionist, poorly researched and unsubstantiated that it actually makes me physically sad to realize that anyone would ever consider taking him seriously.
vanisleflamesfan is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 11:10 PM   #109
kirant
Franchise Player
 
kirant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan View Post
BWA HA HA HA HA!!! This is the funniest thing I have EVER read on CP!!!

Flanagan's "academic" work is a pile of hot, steaming garbage so vile, reactionist, poorly researched and unsubstantiated that it actually makes me physically sad to realize that anyone would ever consider taking him seriously.
Anybody got a link ot his articles? Now I'm curious.
__________________
kirant is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 11:21 PM   #110
First Lady
First Line Centre
 
First Lady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering View Post
Damn right it's fair comment to question whether the Wildrose party shares the same values as most Albertans when one of their founding and influential members comes out with this "libertarian" beauty of a remark.
He was not a founding member and possibly not even a member.

He was hired as a co-campaign manager during the 2012 election.


And sure you can ask the question. But really 99.99% of people are going to side with the child victims and not Flanagan.

Our Premier said it best:

Quote:
“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”
First Lady is offline  
Old 02-28-2013, 11:23 PM   #111
Kjesse
Retired
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirant View Post
Anybody got a link ot his articles? Now I'm curious.
The post you quoted is not even slightly accurate. His articles and comments (example: Julian Assange is justifiably assassinated) are often offensive, but his academic work has value.

He started being criticized in the early 90's as a shill for his political ideas as opposed to being an academic, and as time went on he deserved that title more.

I'm fully behind censuring him for his comments and the issue that spawned this thread, but to suggest he's always a nutbar is not accurate.
Kjesse is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
Old 03-01-2013, 12:05 AM   #112
kirant
Franchise Player
 
kirant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar View Post
The post you quoted is not even slightly accurate. His articles and comments (example: Julian Assange is justifiably assassinated) are often offensive, but his academic work has value.

He started being criticized in the early 90's as a shill for his political ideas as opposed to being an academic, and as time went on he deserved that title more.

I'm fully behind censuring him for his comments and the issue that spawned this thread, but to suggest he's always a nutbar is not accurate.
Ah. Thanks.

I haven't been able to track down anything...I'll check the U of C library tomorrow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
What's the difference between someone viewing a rape video that's "in the wild", someone viewing a movie that depicts rape, or someone drawing a cartoon depicting rape?
Hate to drag in a comment from so early on, but an offshoot of this has always interested me. Do these sorts of "wild" movies and cartoon movies have any effect on the crime rate? Can they increase it? Or if it at that point comes down to some guy getting his jollies (and have no net change on crime)? Or, that in a result of psychology that I'm not comfortable with, that it actually reduces the crime rate (the line of thought being that "if they can get their satisfaction at home, on video, they won't try to enact it in reality")? Of course, I should point out at this point that it's purely about "wild" video and cartoons, where the concept of a victim is minimized.

And if these cartoon and "wild" movies have no effect, what should the action be on them? The action on a decrease or increase in actual crime based on the videos seems more clear cut...but in the scenario where the crime level does not change (which I think is pretty possible), what should we do?

I really wish society had the money to fund endless studies...this sort of topic is probably worth knowing, but is so far down the priority list (and to some degree, deservedly so given the difficulty in measuring such values and getting reasonable results), that it'll likely not be investigated.
__________________

Last edited by kirant; 03-01-2013 at 12:08 AM.
kirant is offline  
Old 03-01-2013, 06:13 AM   #113
T@T
Lifetime Suspension
 
T@T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan View Post
BWA HA HA HA HA!!! This is the funniest thing I have EVER read on CP!!!

Flanagan's "academic" work is a pile of hot, steaming garbage so vile, reactionist, poorly researched and unsubstantiated that it actually makes me physically sad to realize that anyone would ever consider taking him seriously.
Just wondering as this name rings a bell, Is he the idiot a few years back that said to students it was proper for the first north american settlers to kill and slaughter the NA aboriginals because the european civilizations were far more advanced,thus it was natural selection?

If this is the same guy,how on earth did he get so strong in politics?.
T@T is offline  
Old 03-01-2013, 06:42 AM   #114
Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu View Post
Yeah, I agree. It is completely ok to have to have concerns about such laws, and not want to trust authorities judgements on these matters.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/news/story?id=1794781

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/pa...ory?id=8622696

And when does the act of viewing such pictures become a crime. A guy who signs up for some underground porn site that has 10 year old boys on it, and is actively trading, sharing pics, or paying for access, then yeah, there should be a law to send him to jail.

What about a guy watching what he thought was adult porn on an unscrupulous porn site that got busted for using 16 year old girls who looked older. I bet you'd find a lot less guys agreeing he should be labelled a sex offender and locked up in jail. But, I imagine those 16 year old girls are just as much victims, maybe moreso than the boys in the other site.

There are all sorts of ways for pictures to end up on your pc without intention of getting them there. The wrong google might bring up some pictures that get cached. Is that all it takes to be locked away and forever labelled a sex offender? What if you didn't even see those pictures, is that illegal?
In order to be found guilty of a criminal offence in Canada, an accused person must have the required mens rea. In the case of possession offences, the minimum mens rea is knowledge. This means to say that the accused person must know that they possess the prohibited thing and that they know what the prohibited thing is (note: they do not need to know that the thing they possess is prohibited.)

So, in all of your hypothetical examples, the person in question would not be guilty of an offence.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Makarov is offline  
Old 03-01-2013, 07:38 AM   #115
Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
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?
As we already discussed, I would argue that this situation, at the very least, creates the risk that the victim will learn that his or her privacy has been breached and creates the risk of harm to the complainant. Therefore I think that the state/society is justified in prohibiting this behaviour if it so chooses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
What if the peeper didn't actually peep, but drew a picture of someone they knew in the shower and used that privately?
In a circumstance like this, I think that, objectively, the risk of harm is so negligible (i.e., if a person discovered that a neighbour had drawn a sexually suggestive picture of them, most people would be creeped out but would not feel nearly as violated as they would in a peeping tom situation; deeply personal information has only been imagined, rather than "stolen".)

Interestingly, the s. 163.1 definition of "child pornography" includes written material and "any visual representation", which would include drawings, etc. The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that validity of the prohibition of fictional written material (and by extension, fictional drawings, etc.) on the grounds that the active inducement or encouragement of sexual activity with persons under the age of 18 may come from a message in the stories/drawings themselves. (R. v. Beattie)

This might seem like a bit of a stretch, but I think that it is clear that Parliament enacted the child pornography regime in order to protect a very vulnerable group (children) and that the Courts recognize this as a valid legislative purpose that justifies a minimal infringement on our freedom of expression (especially considering the very low societal value that child pornography "expression".)

I would note too that, in an effort to make that infringement as minimal as possible, s. 163.1 limits the definition of child pornography to "any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under 18 years. This is clearly intended to exclude works of artistic merit (such as Nabokov's Lolita, for instance) or legal, psychological, social science works regarding child sexuality or child pornography, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
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?
Without doing any research on this issue, my gut feeling is that this would not constitute any criminal offence. Perhaps the victim might have some civil remedies? They would likely have to prove that they suffered some actual damages however (beyond just embarrassment). Alternatively, most (all?) provinces have enacted legislation creating a new statutory tort of "breach of privacy". Generally, this cause of action does not require proof of damages and which might capture this sort of photoshopping situation (I have no idea; I'm not very familiar with the breach of privacy tort.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
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.
But all of the criminal offences that we have discussed require more than just thought crime. No one can be convicted of an offence for simply daydreaming about children having sex, or for being sexually attracted to children, or for considering accessing child pornography. Every criminal offence requires the offender to intentionally take some action, some step (we call this the actus reus). For example, the actus reus of possession of child pornography requires that the offender actively save a data file to his or her computer (so, for example, just viewing an image, or even the automatic caching of an image onto a person's hard drive, is insufficient to make out the offence.)

Simply put, although all of these offences require some sort of "criminal thought", they are not "thought crimes".



Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
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.
Where Parliament (or the Legislature) enacts legislation which infringes on someone's Charter rights, the infringement must be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (see s. 1 of the Charter). The SCC set out a (now famous) test for determining whether the infringement is justified in a decision called R. v. Oakes.

There are two parts to the test. First, the objective of the infringing legislation must relate to societal concerns that are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society. Second, the infringing measures must be reasonable and demonstrably justified, in proportion to the importance of the objective. This proportionality test has three components: (1) the measures must be fair and not arbitrary and must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question (we call this the rational connection test) (I would note however that this does not require that the measures actually be effective in practice as you suggest in your proposed test); (2) the means should impair the Charter right as minimally as possible; and (3) there must be proportionality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective (again, note that the focus is on the actual effect on the right, not on the actual effect in terms of achieving the objective.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
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.
Firstly, I think that Parliament has chosen to enact stricter criminal legislation regarding child pornography because it recognizes that children are a particularly vulnerable group in our society.

Secondly, s. 163 of the Criminal Code does indeed make it an offence to distribute or publish (or intend to do so) obscene material (note that this does not include simple possession). Material which is sexually explicit and either includes violence or is degrading and dehumanizing is usually considered obscene.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Makarov is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Old 03-01-2013, 07:39 AM   #116
valo403
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov View Post
In order to be found guilty of a criminal offence in Canada, an accused person must have the required mens rea. In the case of possession offences, the minimum mens rea is knowledge. This means to say that the accused person must know that they possess the prohibited thing and that they know what the prohibited thing is (note: they do not need to know that the thing they possess is prohibited.)

So, in all of your hypothetical examples, the person in question would not be guilty of an offence.
Isn't possession of child pornography a strict liability offense? Maybe I'm mixing up jurisdictions.
valo403 is offline  
Old 03-01-2013, 07:44 AM   #117
Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403 View Post
Isn't possession of child pornography a strict liability offense? Maybe I'm mixing up jurisdictions.
No, in Canada, possession definitely requires knowledge (indeed, apart from Charter applications to exclude evidence, lack of knowledge is probably the most common defence.)
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Makarov is offline  
Old 03-01-2013, 08:24 AM   #118
valo403
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov View Post
No, in Canada, possession definitely requires knowledge (indeed, apart from Charter applications to exclude evidence, lack of knowledge is probably the most common defence.)
That makes sense, I must be mixing things up. Back to the coffee maker.
valo403 is offline  
Old 03-01-2013, 08:25 AM   #119
PsYcNeT
Franchise Player
 
PsYcNeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T View Post
Just wondering as this name rings a bell, Is he the idiot a few years back that said to students it was proper for the first north american settlers to kill and slaughter the NA aboriginals because the european civilizations were far more advanced,thus it was natural selection?

If this is the same guy,how on earth did he get so strong in politics?.
It is the same guy.

I don't know why anyone would defend Flanagan's early career (or his late career). His ethnocentrism isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to his crazy ideas on white/colonial supremacy, his authoritarian ideals on the free market (Heyekian) and the fact this isn't even the first time he's touched on libertarian free speech re: child exploitation.

How did he get so strong in politics? He taught/preached in Alberta, where there are thousands of people willing to lap up your bull#### as long as it's shrouded in a guise of fiscal conservatism.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm View Post
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
PsYcNeT is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
Old 03-01-2013, 10:24 AM   #120
Stay Golden
Franchise Player
 
Stay Golden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: STH since 2002
Exp:
Default

Flanagan said he is wwas on the mailing list for "the national man boy love association for a couple of years" ? wtf

Let me guess he was on it for research

I don't know if it was me i would be off that list the second i saw i received an email.
The police need to do a thorough invetigation into old Tom's computers, home storage lockers and all properties.

If you watch the clip its even more disturbing than what the news has shown.

__________________
Stay Golden is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:05 AM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy