Skip to main content

View Diary: Huge Canadian Conservative Fail!!!! (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What were the remarks, exactly? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TexMex, Lujane

    I can't access the video right now?

    Because there is a important distinction between harm to the kids involved and fuckwads who might wish to view this shit.

    For example, computer generated child pornography is in a different category than "real" child pornography in the view of some US Courts.

    Is that what this guy was getting at?

    •  ! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy, Lujane

      "I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters, but I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste in pictures," Flanagan responded in the video.
      He explained he is not part of the ruling Conservative Party of Canada and does not agree with all of its criminal justice policies. Flanagan went on to say his email address was added to a mailing list for the Man/Boy Love Association.
      "I started getting their mailings for a couple of years and that's about the closest I ever came to child pornography. So, it is a real issue of personal liberty and to what extent we put people in jail for doing something in which they do not harm another person," Flanagan argued, met with boos from the crowd.

      •  Here's a discussion of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the issue in the New Yorker

        In arguing for harsher penalties for viewing child pornography, lawmakers have tended to conflate the desire to view photographs (a crime that can be detected by tracing a computer’s I.P. address) with actual sex abuse, which is notoriously difficult to prosecute, since young victims are easily silenced.
        Child-pornography sentencing laws have been passed rapidly, with little debate; it’s nearly impossible, politically, to object to harsh punishments for perverts. Melissa Hamilton, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, told me that lawmakers have treated pornography possession as if it were an “inchoate crime.” She said, “It has become a kind of proxy—a way to incapacitate men who we fear have already molested someone, or will in the future.”
        It's really awfully tough to try to simultaneously protect kids from the monsters out there and not step over some ill defined line and start prosecuting innocent adults.
      •  this was not about virtual anything. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy, Agathena

        This is about a man so arrogant he was speaking to First Native Students about doing away with the Indian Act.

        •  OK, that'd probably be something to add to, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and maybe even emphasize, in the diary.

          Again, in case there's somebody else out there (like me right now) who is video-disabled . . .

            •  Thanks, I've kinda gone off the rails here (0+ / 0-)

              no doubt changing the intended nature  of your discussion, I apologize for that.

              Some context, however, is that it is not news that some crazy RWer from Alberta says something incredibly stupid - heck, isn't that a long-time hotbed of Holocaust denialism?  

              I vaguely recall somebody being prosecuted for that in Alberta based on Canadian law back in the 1980s, was it?  While not being subject to prosecution in the USA for similar remarks .. .

              So what is more interesting to me is not the existence of this nutcase, but some of the more subtle nuances of the situation (which, quite frankly, were not clear from the original version of the diary) and how they might pertain to the USA (after all, this is a US-based website . .. . I suppose that Canadians haven't come up with their own equivalent so I don't totally begrudge them trying to horn in on our sites, but still, they hopefully will allow some latitude for trying to expand discussion to how it might apply in the US).

          •  agree: needs more background (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roadbed Guy

            From what the OP quoted, the guy just sounds like a Libertarian type who is making the distinction between prosecuting a child molester and someone who has pictures on their computer, which may have got there without their knowledge. That's not such an extreme position by itself, so what is the context that makes him so outrageous?

            "I don't cry over milk spilled under bridges. I go make lemonade" - Bucky Katt

            by quill on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 08:07:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, I later went to the Globe and Mail (0+ / 0-)

              website and now get that this is a huge issue in Canada and the diarist might have assumed that all such nuances were broadly known.

              But, for dissemination to a US audience (for whatever reason that might have been necessary) a bit more detail right up front really would have been helpful . ..  because, this really hasn't received any play in the US media to my knowledge.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site