FTA Lawyer

Argus, I await your criticism of how every person in this article is biased and / or a religious anti-porn crusader, but the Fifth Estate is an acclaimed documentary medium and I'd say the bolded portions of what I have posted pretty much fully back up everything I have said in my last couple of posts. Read the whole article and try to tell me again that "there is NO industry, or anything which passes for an "industry" or that there is no research that indicates a connection between viewing child pornography and "real-world behaviour". The Fifth Estate HOW MUCH CHILD PORN IS ON THE INTERNET? The internet is a sordid playground for people who are interested in accessing, sharing and selling child pornography; it's estimated that there are more than 100,000 child porn web sites. According to Terri Moore, a Texan prosecutor involved in the Landslide case, (see more) it's an international problem. Her investigation into one child pornography portal revealed the names and credit card numbers of 300,000 subscribers from 37 American states and 60 countries. "The numbers are huge and the demand is enormous," she says. PORN FOR PROFIT The Internet Watch Foundation in the U.K. finds some 80 to 85 new pay sites each month. Before Landslide Productions - a popular child porn portal site - was closed down in 1999 (see more) the owner Thomas Reedy was making approximately $1.4 million U.S. each month. And the problem is growing. In 1995, a Manchester police unit found only 12 images of children on the Internet. Now there are millions. COPINE, a research group at the University of Cork in Ireland, that studies child pornography is seeing an average of three to four new faces of abused children each month. About 40% of the girls and 55% of the boys are between the ages of 9 and 12. The rest are younger. They estimate that there are 50,000 new child abuse images being posted to newsgroups every month. That doesn't include pictures traded in e-mails or listed on peer-top peer sites commonly used to share music which are other ways to share child porn. COLLECTORS OF PORNOGRAPHY COPINE research has shown that collecting has become an obsession for many. Pornographic images are collected in series and labeled by a child's name, like 'the Heather series' or 'the Michael series' and feature children in various stages of abuse. Some offenders acquire many images to increase their bartering power so that they can trade with other pornographers to obtain images of a particular child that they are attracted to. The more rare and complete a collection is, the more highly regarded the offender is by his on-line peers. Some people have enormous collections. After the Orchid Club bust (see above) the investigation revealed another more sophisticated group, the Wonderland Club, another internet club, that required 10,000 child porn images as a membership fee. One affluent Toronto home contained 13 safes filled with some 500,000 pornographic images. During Operation Snowball (see more) Toronto Police raided a million dollar home in an upper middle class neighbourhood. Behind a door with four locks they found a vast collection of pornography. Inside the room were 13 safes of every size and description containing some 500,000 images. "I've never seen anything like that. So much in one place," said Ian Lamond, a member of the unit involved in the bust Yet, the largest collection of child porn ever seized in Canada was much larger - 1 million images were found in one house. PORNOGRAPHY IS LINKED TO ABUSE Various studies have shown that between 35 - 50% of child porn collectors have a history of abusing children. In the last three years 44% of the people arrested in Toronto for possessing child pornography have also been charged with or convicted of sexually abusing children. "Everybody we arrest says 'I don't do anything other than look. I would never abuse. I just do it for my own personal pleasure.' Well, I know that almost 50% of those people lie," says Detective Sgt. Paul Gillespie. Texas prosecutor Terri Moore used Landslide's subscription list as a way to track down paedophiles. When the Landslide investigation broke in the U.S. in 1999 (see more), Texas prosecutor Terri Moore was anxious to find exactly who was buying the pornography. "The Holy Grail on the case was to get the list of subscribers that were buying this...because these are the people that could actually be paedophiles." USING PHOTOS TO MANIPULATE CHILDREN According to studies done by the COPINE Project in Ireland, the easy availability of child porn on the internet can fuel a paedophile's fantasies. It can also be used to start the cycle of abuse. Their research shows that paedophiles will often manipulate young children by showing them pictures on the internet. It's a way to make them believe that sex with adults is acceptable. They'll also use the photographs to teach the children to do what they want. And finally they may use the images to blackmail victims for their silence. Where did I ever get the outlandish idea that there was anything that could even remotely be referred to as a "child porn industry"? Face it, all of these people are not making these things up...this is an increasingly rampant problem and I stand by my earlier comments that people who download pictures of children being raped by adults ought to spend some time behind bars. FTA

Seriously Argus, why won't you read the Sharpe decision? It is 75 pages long so I can't post it here, but Sharpe expressly carves out constitutional exceptions to the law as it was drafted...your criticisms about the "crude law" carrying "substantial threats to freedom of speech and expression" with no "coherent reasoning as to why it ought to be allowed to override Charter protections" would all have been completely valid BEFORE SHARPE...(the case is 5 years old now). I wasn't in Ottawa when they argued Sharpe, so I can't show you the actual evidence relied on, but come on pal...there were countless intervenors, it was a huge hearing with loads of evidence put before the court, and the quote I gave you demonstrated that the SCC was satisfied that the social science evidence it heard led to the conclusion that the law against possession of child porn was necessary to protect children from potential harm. You may not agree with it, but this is a completely coherent, evidence-based justification of the law. And, for someone who repeatedly demands "evidence" and criticizes for lack of "substantiating fact" where is your so-called evidence that most child porn images of today come from 30-year-old magazines??????? This is a discussion board, not a court of law...and even though I provided you with actual evidence that was submitted in actual court cases you continue to cry out that no evidence exists (except of course whatever you are apparently relying on in support of your statements). You seem to profess to be quite knowledgeable, so much so that you have me pegged for writing "emotional rants" in support of my "innate beliefs" of "self-righteous censorship". Well, here is an excerpt from my argument before the Alberta Court of Appeal: 45. A very important distinction exists between pre-pubescent and post-pubescent children in Canadian law such that what is commonly understood to be “child pornography” is material which involves the former but not the latter. Sharpe, supra, at para. 41 [TAB 6] 46. Indeed, one of the most common quotes from the Sharpe decision is where McLachlin, C.J.C. discusses Parliament’s intent in this legislation: Parliament’s main purpose in passing the child pornography law was to prevent harm to children by banning the production, distribution and possession of child pornography, and by sending a message to Canadians “that children need to be protected from the harmful effects of child sexual abuse and exploitation and are not appropriate sexual partners” [Emphasis added] Sharpe, supra, at para. 34 [TAB 6] 47. By necessary implication, this comment was directed at the “common understanding” of child pornography as involving pre-pubescent children, because in fact, in Canadian law, “children” as defined in s. 163.1 can lawfully be “appropriate sexual partners” if they are 14 years of age or older. 48. The learned Sentencing Judge could not have made this fact any more evident: Oh, clearly, if it had been a case of sexual intercourse with consent, we wouldn’t be here. (SAB 50/18 – 19) 49. In excluding private-use recordings of lawful sexual acts where the accused’s partner is over 14 but under 18 from the ambit of s. 163.1, McLachlin C.J.C. states: …this material poses little risk of harm to children. It is privately created and intended only for personal use. It depicts only lawful sexual activity. Sharpe, supra, at para. 76 [TAB 6] If it is not evident from this spliced section, I was arguing to the Court of Appeal that the true intent of the child pornography laws was to punish adults who molest young children as opposed to punishing adults who take or view pictures of teens like your beloved Traci Lords... What do you know, I'm not a self-righteous censor after all!!!! My point being Argus, I make arguments on this board for the purpose of furthering debate and discussion...not so I can go home and pat myself on the back for being right about my personal beliefs. Was I a bit rhetorical or condescending? Maybe. (I didn't really expect you to go out and talk to judges you know) But the credit for the "emotional rant" goes to you my friend. FTA

Well said, Wilber. FTA

Well, I thought you might be able to do educate yourself a bit Argus, but it appears I will have to do it for you. And my apologies to the others on the forum for the length of this, but Argus demands evidence and refuses to look at cases like R. v. Sharpe so I guess I have to quote at length to keep him up to speed. As if the dismantling of the international porn ring that is the starting subject of this thread were not enough...In a recent case in Alberta called R. v. Anderson, 2005 ABPC 99 (Alberta cases can be found in full text on the Alberta Courts Website) the defendant admitted the following statement of Crown allegations (such admissions being proper formal evidence pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada): Her Majesty the Queen alleges, and the accused Walter Roy ANDERSON admits, the following facts: 1. The Internet is a worldwide computer network that connects computers and allows communications and the transfer of data and information across geographical and political boundaries. A user accesses the Internet from a computer network or Internet Service Provider (ISP) that connects to the Internet. The ISP assigns each user an Internet Protocol (IP) address. Each IP address is unique in that no two computers connected to the Internet may have the same IP address at any given time. 2. On Monday, May 17, 2004, Detective Krawczyk was at his work at Toronto Police Headquarters in Toronto, Canada. At 12:55 hours EST Detective Krawczyk accessed the Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Detective Krawczyk was working in an undercover capacity and his nickname was `lill luver'. Detective Krawczyk joined the IRC channel entitled `#100%PreTeenGirlsSexPics'I, as he knew this to be an IRC channel where people trade Child Pornography images. 3. While in this channel an unknown person using the nickname `prehunter' indicated that they were operating an f-serve. They indicated that the `trigger' for this f-server was `!Pre-me', that the ratio was 1:2, and that the starting credit was 5000 bytes. At 13:05:26 hours EST Detective Krawczyk connected to this f-server by typing the `trigger' command. When connected to the f-server Detective Krawczyk was connected directly to that user's computer and the Internet Protocol (IP) address for that user was displayed. The IP address for this f-server was 24.64.125.141. The Detective was able to trace this IP address using a computer software program that reveals the registrant of an IP address. Shaw Communications was determined to be the registrant of this address. 4. Upon entering the f-server, the following was given as a description of the f-server (spelling errors are by operator of the f-server) ''''Fast hardcore preteen server. - only rule - pics/movies must be hardcore preteen action ie. Having sex with adults or each other'''' no exceptions Located in Alberta Canada. Local or active families welcome to contact me. Double credits for boys taking mens cocks or dildos deep.'''' The f-server was organized into four main directories. These were named: 1) Animals 2) Anime-Toon 3) Boys 4.) Girls Detective Krawczyk entered the directory entitled Girls. It was further organized into two directories 1) Movies 2) Pics Detective Krawczyk had a credit of 5000 bytes and attempted to locate image files that were less than 5000 bytes so that he would be able to download files but could not locate any. The Detective attempted to upload a corrupt file in order to gain credits but was unable to do so. He exited the f-server at 13:11:41. 5. Detective Krawczyk entered the same f-server again at 13:11:52 hours. This f-server was still operating from IP address 24.62.125.141. In order to obtain credit the detective uploaded a corrupt movie file entitled `8yo.mpg'. This movie file does not display anything when opened by a user and is used to obtain credits in Child Pornography trading investigations. 6. Detective Krawczyk was informed by the f-server that the file was uploaded successfully and this his credit was 2165640 bytes. Detective Krawczyk was able to download the following images; i. !!!!!!!!!!kidsux preteen girl sucks dads dick sex porn(2).jpg. This image is a girl who appears to be approximately 12 years old performing felatio on a male. ii. #goodgirl23.jpg: This image is of a prepubescent girl performing felatio on a male. iii. !rapegan.jpg: This image is of a naked young girl being pinned down by 4 naked males. The girl appears to be screaming. iv. pedo kiddy boy tastes 1st cockxxx.jpg: This image is of a young prepubescent boy performing felatio on a male. These 4 downloaded images are all child pornography as defined by the Criminal Code. Detective Krawczyk exited the f-server and IRC at 13:15:36 EST. 7. On Monday, May 17, 2004, Detective Krawczyk spoke with a representative from Shaw Communications Inc. and asked that the subscriber information for the IP address 24.64.125.141 for May 17, 2004, between the hours of 13:05:26 EST and 13:16:36 EST be saved in anticipation of a warrant. The representative advised that they have the information for the unknown person(s) using the IP address and time period noted and that the records would be available at 630 Third Avenue S.W., Suite 800, Calgary, Alberta. 8. On May 19, 2004 Detective Krawczyk forwarded a copy of his investigation to Detective Martin. 9. On May 18, 2004, Detective Martin contacted Shaw Communications Inc and pursuant to the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Act (PIPEDA) made the request for the users name of the IP address 24.64.125.141 for May 17, 2004 between the hours of 13:05:26 EST and 13:16:36 EST. 10. On May 19, 2004 Detective Martin received a reply back from Shaw advising that the use of the above IP address at that above noted times is Walter Anderson of 16 Hunter's Crescent in Okotoks, Alberta. 11. On May 20, 2004, Cst. Wattie received the same information as noted above from a Detective Wickins of the Edmonton Police Service. Detective Wickins did not obtain any photos as he did not send a corrupt file. 12. On May 26 a warrant was executed at Anderson's residence in Okotoks, Alberta. Four computers, Zip disks and CR-R disks were seized at the residence. There were a large number of adult pornography and dildoes [sic] not seized. The RCMP Technical Crime Unit on scene completed a preview of two of the computers and numerous images of child pornography were found. Two of the four pictures that were sent to Detective Krawczyk were also found on the computer. 13. Walter Anderson resided in the house with his wife and 2 daughters, Chelsea (6 years old) and Aeryn (3 years old). Neither the wife nor daughters had any knowledge of the child pornography. The accused had changed the password on his computer a week prior to his arrest and his wife was not able to access his files. 14. Analysis of the seized items was performed by Cst. Jackson and Cpl. LaFontaine. Child pornography was located on 2 of the computers. With respect to all of the computers an image of the hard disk was created using the Encase forensic software and the hard drive's integrity was protected using a hardware write blocker. 15. On the first computer a search of the hard drive revealed 9 images depicting child pornography. These images were stored in one of four different locations on the hard drive. The locations are areas that one would store files that they wished to save for an indefinite period of time e.g. `My Pictures' and `My Documents'. Five of these images had been deleted from the computer five days prior to seizure but were recovered with the names and associated dates. 16. The above computer contained two different peer-to-peer sharing programs - Kazaa and Imesh. Both the Kazaa and DBB files were extracted. DBB files contain the names of files that users downloaded using these two programs. Large numbers of files had been downloaded that depicted child pornography. 17. 59 entries for movies, which depicted child pornography, were found. There were 14 movie files depicting child pornography. More entries were recovered as the user had moved the movie around from one folder to another. When this is done repeated entries are made in the Master File Table. The significance of multiple entries is that the user was aware of the files on the computer. The 14 digital movie files were created between 20th and 23rd of May 2004. 18. There were a further 18 digital movies in video format called WMV of Windows Media Video. These are named with file names descriptive of child pornography and were not viewable as the WMV format allows them to be copyrighted and protected unless a license is purchased. 19. Link files were examined. These are created automatically by the system without been known to the user. There were three link files of interest indicating that the user used the program Real Player to play the video files with names descriptive to child pornography. The files were first played at the beginning of May 2004. One of the link files points to one of the copyrighted files, which indicates that the user had obtained a license to view the WMV 20. The second computer was also analyzed and shown to contain child pornography. There was one hard disk within the computer that was 10 GB in size. This hard drive contained 91 images of child pornography and the images were stored in one of the five different locations on the hard drive. Two of the areas are not areas where images would have been downloaded by any program. There were images that were found in areas that are receptacles for downloaded files. This included the default destination folder for Kazaa and MIRC, which are programs that facilitate the sharing of files. 21. The source of the child pornography was the peer-to-peer sharing program Kazaa and MIRC. Anderson had been using the MIRC to operate the server that the Toronto Police Service Member had connected to and downloaded child pornography from. The user was using Kazaa to download child pornography. When it arrived on his computer it went to the Kazaa/My Shared Folder. The MIRC program then utilized the contents of that folder to distribute the child pornography to other users on the Internet. 22. Two of the four images downloaded by the Toronto Police Service member were located. A MD5 binary comparison indicated that the downloading images came from Anderson's computer. 23. There were a further 10 digital files depicting child pornography found. The movies ranged in length from several seconds to 7 minutes and 38 seconds in length. These movies were stored in folders that Anderson had created to specifically store the images. 24. No child pornography was found on any of the other seized items. 25. Item 1 computer contained both child pornography images and digital movies. There were 9 images and 14 movies. The source of the movies and images were the peer-to-peer sharing program Kazaa. 26. Item 2 computer contained both images and movies - 91 images and 10 movies. The source of the movies and images were the peer-to-peer sharing program Kazaa. These images and movies were shared or distributed to other users of the Internet using MIRC (F Serve) 27. Examination of the DBB files associated with Kazaa and Imesh indicated that Anderson had extensively downloaded hundred of files, which are named in the fashion indicating child pornography. 28. The RCMP Encase computer Analysis Report of names of files/movies seized from 1 and 2 will be exhibited. 29. The images were extremely graphic and an example of these will be filed as an exhibit. The images include children performing sex acts on children, (boy-boy, girl-girl, girl-boy), children performing sex acts on adults, and vice versa (boy/women, girl/man, woman/girl, man/girl, man/boy). Also included is an adult male attempting to penetrate baby. Page 1 and page 10 depict the two recovered pictures sent to Toronto. 30. A list of the movies will be filed as an exhibit. The titles of these movies are self-explanatory. 31. On May 26, 2004 a written statement was obtained from Walter Anderson who admitted that he has had a problem with pornography since he was 11 years old and that it has been getting progressively worse over the years and that child pornography is one of the types of pornography that he views. The f-serve was set up so that he could access the images faster and obtain a larger variety of photos to satisfy his need to view them at a moment's notice." Anderson was a minor player, and so was actually in contention for a community sentence (but was denied due to the societal harm his behaviour caused). Examples of more "industrious" participants include R. v. Larocque, 2004 ABPC 114, whose Admissions included: AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS ¶ 4 Counsel filed an Agreed Statement of Facts. Part 1 of the Agreed Statement of Facts sets out the background relating to the Internet. Part 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts, sets out the facts relating to the offence. PART 11: FACTS RELATING TO THE OFFENCE "7. The "roundtable" chatroom was a private IRC chatroom that was password controlled. Members were registered by nicknames and by IP addresses. Members had to be reconfirmed time and time again by offering fresh material. This chatroom was known to the law enforcement as being one that was used for the dissemination of child pornography. An international police operation known as "Project Artus" was coordinated through Interpol to infiltrate this chatroom. On November 27, 2001 German police arrested Rolf KRAUSEL, the channel operator, while he was actually connected and online. This provided police the opportunity to infiltrate the group posing as KRAUSEL. While investigators were online with the other roundtable members, they logged the chats. The accused, James LAROCQUE, was one of those members. When KRAUSEL was arrested, LAROCQUE stepped up to run the group as "Super Operator" ("SOP"). At this level, he had the most control over what happened in the group as far as membership and participation. Ultimately, a total of 12 people in 10 countries, including this accused, were arrested in a coordinated effort by police around the world. 8. All of the members of the group circulated child pornography amongst themselves; that was the very reason for the group's existence. The logs show many instances where the accused, using various nicknames, provided files to other members of the group. The logs also provide proof that the accused downloaded child pornography from other members of the group. When his two computers were seized by R.C.M.P. in Red Water, Alberta they were sent for forensic analysis. This analysis revealed well over a thousand child pornography images and approximately 250 child pornography video clips. There were also images which, though not "child pornography" within the definition of the Criminal Code, depict children in sexually suggestive poses, various stages of undress, and/or are part of a series of photos which culminate in child pornography. All of these materials--images and videos--are being submitted separately as Exhibits. 9. KRAUSEL's statement to German police describes the involvement of members of the roundtable group, including the accused. In it he notes: * the SOP had the ability to allow entry to the chatroom or to ban; * members were allowed entry only after KRAUSEL had received child pornography video from the applicant or they had been given a reference by one specific member of the group nicknamed "sunrhone"; * the applicant's video files had to be "up-to-date and relatively new recordings of sexual exploitation of children" (KRAUSEL's words, translated from German); * the roundtable group eventually comprised about 15 persons; * for "confidence-building" measures, everybody had to offer something every now and then; * the members were afraid of police informers, so they only welcomed as members people who had dealt with quality child pornography previously; * without exception, all roundtable members were required to set up their computers as file servers so that every member could access each other's computer; the password was either well known or could be asked for. 10. The logs make it clear that the accused was a frequent participant in the group. 11. The accused was cooperative with investigators. The accused was also cooperative with the police from Victoria, B.C. who were investigating a member of the roundtable group from that city, Larry Keith SMITH. LAROCQUE provided a sworn K.B.G. statement wherein he detailed how the group was set up and SMITH's participation in the group. SMITH was charged and prosecuted. LAROCQUE had been subpoenaed as a witness for the prosecution, however SMITH pleaded guilty before the accused was required to travel to B.C. for court. 12. There is no evidence to suggest that LAROCQUE was involved in manufacturing any child pornography." Another example from a couple of years earlier is R. v. Hewlett, 2002, ABCA 179, some of the facts of which were as follows: ¶ 7 We begin with the facts before this Court. It is clear that Hewlett and Turnbull incorporated a company for the purposes of setting up a triple-x Internet website. Hewlett placed an ad in the paper soliciting models 18 and over. Three young persons (two girls, aged 15 and 16, and a young man, aged 17, all of whom were roommates and in a difficult financial position) responded to the ad. Before meeting Hewlett, the three planned to lie to him about their ages and say that they were over 18. However, at no time did Hewlett ever ask for any ID, nor did the three ever give him any. While release forms had been prepared for execution by the three young persons, these were never completed by any of them. ¶ 8 Hewlett arranged for Hunt to photograph the three young persons. A number of the resulting photographs showed the three young persons engaged in explicit sexual activity. In addition, the dominant characteristic of many of the representations is a depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ of a person under 18 years of age. Photographs in either or both categories clearly fall within the definition of child pornography under s. 163.1(1) of the Code. While not an issue before this Court, we wish to confirm that we did view all of the photographs. Since the offence here is making and possessing child pornography, the photographs, being part of the actus reus, are relevant to sentence. ¶ 9 The first photo shoot took place at Turnbull's home where food, alcohol and marijuana were offered to the young persons. The marijuana was declined. The shoots were all directed by Hunt; Hewlett was there for the first. In total, 31 photos were taken of the young man alone, 55 of the 15-year old alone, 150 of the 16-year old alone, 23 of explicit sexual activity between the 15-year old and the 16-year old and approximately 215 depicting explicit and graphic sexual activity between the 15-year old and an adult female, including graphic depictions of oral genital contact and the vaginal insertion of an object. ¶ 10 Prior to the last shoot involving the 15-year old and the adult female, the trial judge concluded that Hewlett was put on express notice that the three young persons were all under 18. During a telephone conversation with the 15-year old, Hewlett assured her: "If you're not 18, we can work around it." Thereafter, she confirmed that she was only 15 and her two friends were only 16 and 17 respectively. ¶ 11 Hewlett took possession of the photographs from Hunt for the purpose of creating the triple-x Internet website through which the photos were to be distributed and profits realized. ¶ 12 Turnbull's involvement was considerably less than either Hewlett or Hunt. While he was a joint owner of the company, his direct involvement was apparently limited to providing his property for the taking of the photos and being present at one of the shoots. Counsel also advised that Turnbull had no actual knowledge that the young persons were under 18. ¶ 13 While Hunt was the photographer, he had been assured by Hewlett that Hewlett had checked the ID of all three young persons and that age was not a concern. This is obvious from the agreed statement of facts entered at Hunt's trial which was provided to the Court during oral argument on this appeal. ¶ 14 By contrast, the trial judge in this case expressly found that Hewlett had actual knowledge of the young persons' ages, certainly from the time of the subject phone call, and that prior to that, he had taken no steps to confirm their age. The trial judge also found Hewlett to be a liar, with no remorse for what had occurred. During the course of the sentencing, Hewlett expressed his disdain for the young persons, stating at p. 11 of the Sentencing Appeal Digest: "I didn't tell them to answer the newspaper ad. Where are the fuckin' parents in all this? Nowhere, cause they don't give a shit." ¶ 15 Further, the trial judge effectively found Hewlett to be the primary actor in this scheme. It was Hewlett who arranged and ordered the taking, printing and reproduction of pornographic photographs of the three young people. He advertised for the models; he met and interviewed the three young persons; he retained Hunt; he attended at the time of one of the photo shoots; he assured both Turnbull and Hunt that he had taken ID from all three of the young persons when this was not so; he spoke to the 15-year old girl before the shoot involving her and the adult female at which time he was expressly advised that she was only 15 and her two friends 16 and 17; he said nothing about this to Hunt before the final shoot; and he said nothing on this subject before he attempted to upload the photographs onto the triple-x Internet website through his Internet service provider. I could go on and on and on in Alberta alone, and repeat the same for many cases in every jurisdiction across Canada...but it's not necessary...Argus will either accept that the evidence CLEARLY exists or will remain in his own little world rambling about religious conspiracies against pornography. (But hey, we all know how often an INTERPOL investigation leads to double-digit arrests when there is NO EVIDENCE of any child-porn industry, right Argus?!?!?) Ask any of the numerous judges in Canada who have had to view this repulsive material in ruling on these increasingly common cases and they will tell you that your assertions of the odd 30 year-old picture floating around cyberspace are nothing short of complete ignorance. Well, if you would have read Sharpe, you'd see some of these choice bits of what the SCC found: ¶ 28 This brings us to the countervailing interest at stake in this appeal: society's interest in protecting children from the evils associated with the possession of child pornography. Just as no one denies the importance of free expression, so no one denies that child pornography involves the exploitation of children. The links between possession of child pornography and harm to children are arguably more attenuated than are the links between the manufacture and distribution of child pornography and harm to children. However, possession of child pornography contributes to the market for child pornography, a market which in turn drives production involving the exploitation of children. Possession of child pornography may facilitate the seduction and grooming of victims and may break down inhibitions or incite potential offences. Some of these links are disputed and must be considered in greater detail in the course of the s. 1 justification analysis. The point at this stage is simply to describe the concerns that, according to the government, justify limiting free expression by banning the possession of child pornography. ¶ 78 Crown counsel has conceded that criminalizing possession of child pornography limits the right of free expression. The question we must answer is whether that limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. To justify the intrusion on free expression, the government must demonstrate, through evidence supplemented by common sense and inferential reasoning, that the law meets the test set out in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, and refined in Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, and Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877. The goal must be pressing and substantial, and the law enacted to achieve that goal must be proportionate in the sense of furthering the goal, being carefully tailored to avoid excessive impairment of the right, and productive of benefits that outweigh the detriment to freedom of expression. ¶ 94 I conclude that the social science evidence adduced in this case, buttressed by experience and common sense, amply meets the Oakes requirement of a rational connection between the purpose of the law and the means adopted to effect this purpose. Possession of child pornography increases the risk of child abuse. It introduces risk, moreover, that cannot be entirely targeted by laws prohibiting the manufacture, publication and distribution [page101] of child pornography. Laws against publication and distribution of child pornography cannot catch the private viewing of child pornography, yet private viewing may induce attitudes and arousals that increase the risk of offence. Nor do such laws catch the use of pornography to groom and seduce children. Only by extending the law to private possession can these harms be squarely attacked. That's a rather stunning admission of unprofessionalism on your part, you know. And another example of the hysteria over this. You'll proudly defend a mass-murderer, but not a guy who downloads dirty pictures. That's amazing, when you think about it. And the idea that a person who looks at a picture or image is as guilty as the person who commits the crime is patently ludicrous by any logical judgement. Again, your ignorance abounds...No criminal lawyer can be forced nor is he or she ethically obligated to accept any case that he or she does not feel comfortable defending. I'm not sure where you get your "facts" from, but I'm quite certain that I have never professed to "proudly defend a mass murderer". Take all of the "lawyer cheap shots" at me that you like, but I've argued possession of child pornography law in front of the Alberta Court of Appeal and I know a bit more about the subject than what you think you know. FTA

I unhesitantly condemn the molestation, abuse and mistreatment of children. As for kiddy porn - you'll have to tell me what it is. Is it Tracy Lords in Penthouse? Is is it Porkys? How about Blue Lagoon? Is it a webcam image of a sixteen year old girl flaunting her breasts? Is it a thirty year old image from a nudist magazine? How about an eighteen year old dressed up in a schoolgirl outfit with her hair in pigtails? These are all CHILD PORNOGRAPHY under our laws, and I don't believe looking at them should be criminalized. As for the real child porn, that is, kids (as opposed to older teenagers) involved in sex acts by pervert adults, I certainly agree its exploitive and should be banned. But I don't agree with those who want to lock up the people who download it. Yes, I'm afraid it's a slippery slope argument, guys. Sorry. You say regular porn is okay and we don't need to worry. I can just about guarantee that many of the same people who campaign for child porn laws support more sringent porn laws. Let's examine one type of adult porn in particular simply because it's illegal. Bondage. You know, tie-up games. This is illegal in Canada, and to a lesser extent in the US, even though it involves entirely consenting adults. Why? Because some people are disgusted by it, and because campaigners were able to convince the government of the day - entirely without scientific evidence, btw - that it engendered violent attitudes towards women. Even the mildest of bondage erotica or porn is illegal. You don't get arrested for owning it - yet, but you can be arrested for selling or distributing it. The thing about banning images, videos and words which make many people squirm, is that the shrill minority can get its way because most of the majority either doesn't care, or because they're too uncomfortable with it and don't want to be associated with defending it. So no, I don't think porn or erotica is safe from the ever present big brother attitude out there, and I think that the child porn advocates, if they can convince people that they're arguments are sound - will simply transfer those same arguments over to other things they want banned. If we ban child porn because it can lead to violence against children then we should certainly ban pornography because it can lead to violence against women. That's an entirely sound, logical argument which works if one accepts the original premise. And there's really no stopping it from there. I've seen some of these people who call the likes of Glamour and Cosmpolitian "pornography" and want them banned. As I said, most child porn is not about child rape. But I certainly agree that those who rape children should be castrated and locked away for a very, very long time - like forever. I believe one should be punished for harming others, but not for having a psychological disorder which causes one to be attracted to children - or sheep. That's a matter for doctors. Argus, I have implored many people on this site a number of times to read the SCC decision in R. v. Sharpe...and I would suggest to you the same. The SCC thoroughly examined many of the issues being tossed around here, and in many ways answers your comments about making it legal to download true child porn (i.e. sex acts with pre-pubescent children). For you to say that most people are simply downloading old images from 30 years ago is a pathetic demonstration of your lack of knowledge of this industry. An entire illegal economy has developed with the currency being images and videos of children as young as 6 months old in sexual acts with adults. The web-sites operate such that you need "credits" to download material, and in order to get credits you must contribute to the site...not just download. And, if you just contribute old stuff that everyone has seen you get no credits...adding new content is how you feed your deviant desires to "merely" download child porn. The "slippery slope" argument is simply an unintelligent one. Believe me, I understand full well the dangers of eroding rights and concepts slowly over time...but my response to that is we remain vigilant any time we are looking at restricting the right to ensure we are not going too far. To say we should not hold downloaders of child porn criminally responsible because it could, possibly make it easier for religious prudes to restrict adult porn is ridiculous. Once again, the Sharpe case is a perfect example of how our system works to prevent overbreadth in criminal law while still protecting those who need protection. Consumption (i.e. downloading) of child porn necessarily causes harm to children because it allows paedophiles to normalize or rationalize their deviance and makes them more likely to actually commit a "real" offence. Add to that the fact that at least some of the pictures and videos are created simply to feed the on-line demand, and it is not hard to see how "mere downloading" is directly linked to harming actual children. As a criminal defence lawyer you won't see me giving the slightest second thought to locking up people who download videos of babies being raped by grown men. Our society ought not to be ashamed to say that is a line in the sand we are prepared to draw...regardless of those warning us about a "slippery slope". FTA

For me, what is being completely missed here is the failure to discharge the duties of a public office in a professional manner, and in keeping with the best interests of the public being served. Personally, I don't have a lot of problem with the specific criticisms being made by Senator H-P, BUT...put this letter in context and you can see the incredible impropriety of her conduct... A former-resident family who feels strongly about an issue going on in their previous home decides to embark on a highly commendable form of political protest...no jihads nor threats nor bribes nor slanderous media pandering. They simply communicated by letter to the Upper House (all Senators got the letter) that they disapproved of the seal hunt and that as a result they would spend their vacation dollars in a country other than Canada. These are concerned citizens of another democratic nation simply participating in the democratic process. Instead of responding in a statesmanlike fashion, our Senator blames these concerned citizens for all of the bad things that their new country's government has been doing. I'm pretty sure (without having read the letter) that it didn't start with, "On behalf of the current U.S. Administration..." nor did it say "the U.S.A is infallible and we don't hunt seals so your country is shitty compared to ours..." So, Senator H-P, the next time a police officer pulls me over to give me a speeding ticket, I should scream at him about all of the recent incidents where the cops have breached Charter rights or used excessive force or done some other inappropriate thing? Such behaviour is so stupid it's embarrassing to think about it let alone to actually do it. Her letter should have thanked them for their concern, pointed out the misinformation they had about the hunt (if any) and respectfully put forth the arguments in favour of the hunt in an effort to persuade them to change their thoughts on the issue...this isn't rocket-science, it's how professional people conduct themselves. Instead, this Senator, acting officially on behalf of our government, insults the proactive citizens and manages to trash-talk the U.S. Government in the process. If you want to write these kinds of letters, resign your post and write to your heart's content to every editor of every paper in the entire continental U.S. Otherwise, grow up, have some small inkling of personal pride and integrity and act like someone with the title "Senator" ought to. FTA

Well, not having seen the swirly piece of plastic I guess I should reserve the right to change my opinion, BUT... GIVE ME A F--KING BREAK!!! :angry: "this is my jihad"...SERIOUSLY!?!?!? I consider myself a moderate, tolerant and generally respectful person...but this kind of shit is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. OOPS! Now I've done it...I said 'camel' which can only mean one thing...I am offending muslims because there are camels in muslim countries! A pox on my family and may a fiery jihad descend upon me... F--KING PATHETIC!!!! FTA

This is just plain funny! BBC News Looks like we elected a conservative government just in time to avoid the "slippery slope"... Have a good week-end everyone! FTA

95% clear that he did the crime and will plead guilty? I was in the courtroom yesterday when he appeared to submit to the court's jurisdiction on the murder charge and his lawyer told the judge that it was expected he would plead not guilty, elect trial by judge and jury and waive preliminary inquiry (usually pre-lim is waived to get a speedy trial date). Pleading guilty and walking into a life sentence for murder is rarely done...even by someone who might well have been ready to plead guilty to the criminal negligence charge. I wouldn't be putting this one in the win column for "justice for the grief-stricken familes" just yet... FTA

I'm not saying be blissfully ignorant...but anyone who is interested will be able to research the background of any nominee (including their previous case decisions) and draw their own conclusions about what they find. I'm not sure what asking direct questions will do to assist. I know several very intelligent and superbly qualified judges who are very poor public speakers and could quite easily be made to "look bad" by a skillful questioner. How does this display have any relevance to their ability to be a good SCC justice? Above all, my concern is protecting one of the pillars of our system - unbiased and impartial courts. Why would I want a nominee to answer a question like "Do you support the traditional definition of marriage"...a question that very well could be put to them...when that very issue might need to be decided by the SCC in the foreseeable future. Justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done...and having judges on record about contentious issues before the cases are heard in the SCC gives the appearance of an unfair hearing...or no "hearing" at all. This has been the basis for a number of "non-answers" in the U.S. confirmation hearings and has also lead to much of the public's dissatisfaction with the process...becuase they expect to get answers and don't really understand the importance of the reason for a refusal. Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't try it, just saying I'm a bit worried about the result we might be setting ourselves up for. FTA

I support the Olympics as a method to bridge the gap between nations...I agree that the drugs issues are problematic and that commercialism is getting awful, but the basic concept of the world getting together to compete against each other peacefully and with the "Olympic spirit" is alive and well and should be fostered. I hate to harp on media as it seems I've done quite a bit lately, but there was not much coverage of the story of the Canadian skier who broke a pole and within seconds was handed a new one by the coach of the competition from Norway (compared to various stories of athletes failures to meet expectations, unrelated legal "scandals", modified bobsled runners etc etc.) The Canadian went on to win silver...and simply would have been bringing up the rear without that pole. The media did everything short of physically accosting Pierre Leuders trying to goad him into trash-talking the German bobsled team for allegedly modifying their runners rather than talking what he wanted to talk about...his team's silver medal. I guess my point is that there is alot more good going on at an Olympic games than the average spectator will ever know or hear about, and I doubt that you will find many of the athletes, volunteers or attendees of evets who will say that the games are "useless". FTA

Why would a prospective judge refuse to answer questions? Isn't providing some transparency to the process the rationale for public questioning? One of the valid reasons for not answering specific questions is that to do so could give the appearance that a judge has pre-decided or does not have an open mind on cases that will inevitably come before the court. I'm uneasy about this new development. I don't want to shout it down because increased transparency is generally a good thing, but I am quite fearful that this process will become a political and therefore media circus. Consider the concern put this way...if you don't ask questions that have a tendency to make a nominee look like they have pre-decided issues, then what are you asking questions about? And if the answers are fluid statements that only apply for now and the judge maintains an open mind about cases that will come before him or her (as should be the case) then why do we need to get such answers at all? For now I am prepared to sit back and watch before I draw any conclusions about this reform...but, unfortunately, I think whether or not it succeeds will depend on the media's ability to report as opposed to sensationalize the proceedings...and in that ability I have little confidence. FTA

You making an really interesting point here. And I agree the car analogy falls apart. Let bring in another one though. How about exotic animals like snakes and tigers and whatever. People keep them in the privacy of their own homes but are still required to register them. I just have to point out that the right to bear arms has not been enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. So it's not a right to be taken away. Maybe confrontational is a better word. You have to understand the 99% of the people who have any support for the gun registry don't own guns. So, no they don't understand the ins and outs of the registry like a gun owner simply because because it doesn't apply to them, but they do understand the idea of guns, they understand what they can do and the idea of having them registered. And it doesn't sound so bad. You've got this blanket dismissal for any opinions that differ from your own. You say they're just plain wrong. Thesse people have an opinion and view of society as well... it may differ from yours but it isn't any less valid! You've got our ear and we're all hanging around waiting for you to make some sort of logical argument that gun registration (in the general sense) is a bad thing. No one is going to argue that the Liberal's gun registry was well done, but why are you opposed to the idea of gun registration in general? The idea of registration in theory is not objectionable...the problem for most gun-owners is that we already had full registration of handguns since the 30's, and of gun owners since the late 70's (through the former FAC and now PAL licenses). The long-gun registry was seen as a significant step towards government confiscation of firearms. This concern was not just from the paranoid...former Justice Minister Allan Rock specifically stated that, in his view, only police and military should be able to possess a firearm in Canada. The government was fully able to see that I had a Firearms Acquisistion Certificate (FAC) by searching their records, and the public at large should be satisfied with that. I cannot see a need for nor benefit from having each of my firearms registered individually that would justify establishing a whole new massive bureaucracy where one already existed. I had to take a training course, pass a government-regulated exam, interview in person with an RCMP firearms officer, disclose any mental health or criminal history as part of a thorough background check and have memebers of my family I was living with at the time confirm they were okay with me owning a gun in order to get my FAC...all of which I'm okay with...as are almost all law-abiding gun owners. The laws that were in place regarding safe use and storage of firearms were some of the most restrictive and comprehensive in the world. I've posted them in detail before and don't intend to repeat myself. In this context, when one acknowledges that criminals don't register (as you have intelligently done) there really is no functional purpose for the gun registry aside from making future government confiscation possible...THAT's what has law-abiding gun owners in a real tizzy over the long-gun registry. Add to this the inconceivable deception by the government in respect of its costs, and you can hopefully better understand the desire to end the registry ASAP. Also, keep in mind, that us law-abiding gun owners, who actually do intimately know the "industry" told the powers at be over and over that they had grossly underestimated the number of gun owners and guns, warned that many would not voluntarily comply with registration and made all of the arguments we are still making now (put more cops on the street, more money into prosecuting and jailing actual offenders etc. etc.) Too bad it has taken blowing a couple billion dollars for the largely urban-dwelling non-gun-owning population to listen to what we were saying. Unfortunately, all too often events like the killing of the Mounties in Mayerthorpe are used as rallying points for tighter gun control, including maintaining and expanding the long-gun registry. Logic tells you though that no such measures would have or ever could have prevented the tragedy. Rosko was in possession of prohibited weapons (i.e. illegal for ANYONE in Canada to possess) and was under a current firearms and ammunition prohibition at the time that he unceremoniously gunned down those officers. In spite of it seeming like a waste of the money already spent to scrap the registry now, pouring 90 million dollars of good money after bad EACH YEAR from now one just makes no sense. End it, end it now, spend money on things that might actually have a positive effect on gun violence. FTA

Wow...I'm not the only one who gets it! Thanks for the reply. I have a gong-show story of my own with the registry. I own a WWII training rifle that was manufactured by Springfield Arms...but because it was made for the military it wasn't given a serial number! This is not an unusual scenario, and even worse, Springfield bought out a few other arms makers over the years and as it did, it continued to use up inventories before fully converting to its own manufactuing so, there are hundreds of rifles out there with identical serial numbers, and hundreds more with two different manufacturer's stamps etc etc. Anyway, I too had to deal with pictures, affidavits and months of my own fighting to prove that my gun actually existed before I could register it. And then, once Miramichi was convinced the gun was not imaginary, they sent me a sticker with a CFC generated serial number with instructions to place it on the barrel of the gun. Yes, my gun is properly registered by way of a STICKER on the barrel. And the best part is that the instructions required me to place the sticker in a location which, on this particular gun, means that it is completely hidden from view unless you literally dismantle the firearm. I can't wait for the first time a cop wants me to prove its legal! Thankfully out here in AB the provincial gov't is simply ignoring the enforcement of the registry, so I should be safe until Harper has managed to do away with the insanity. FTA

You are so right, firstly a lot of the cost overrun was created by people who diliberately freeped the site to create chaos. How do we know that this was not done in large part by the American gun lobby. I do not need a gun, the only person I know who needs a gun in their house is a farmer who must protect his livestock from predators. Cottages and homea are being broken into in our area just to steal guns, It they were not there it would not happen. Hand guns should be prohibited to everyone except police and law enforcement, no one needs a hand gun under any circumstances. This was a make-work program for Miramichi...plain and simple. How do you "re-tool" something that is a complete failure? Consider this...if the extra 998 million dollars was due to things like internet sabotage and intentional mis-filing of applications etc., what makes you think that people have complied with the registry? Trust me, there are tens of thousands of guns out there (that were 100% legally owned before the registry, and are now illegal only because unregistered) that are not in the system...not to mention the tens of thousands more that are in the hands of criminals and will NEVER BE REGISTERED!!!! (why can't people get this?) Even if the theory of registration leading to safety wasn't fatally flawed (which of course it is) the registry is a total failure because of non-compliance (and the refusal of Provinces like Alberta to enforce the registration laws). And...who do you think most of the registrants of firearms are?? They ARE farmers and ranchers...followed next by hunters (many of whom are also farmers and ranchers) and sporting shooters (including Olympic athletes and hopefuls). And...if guns are being stolen as rampantly as you allude to, it is because they are not being stored safely (and we already had safe-storage laws before the billion blown in the registry) AND...unsafely stored guns will be stolen whether or not they have a registration certificate. Seriously, are people that mind-numbingly stupid? What the hell does a gun registry do to prevent theft of firearms? NOTHING!!! No one who tries will steal guns from me. They are stored inside a several hundred pound steel safe inside a locked room the keys to which are themselves safely stored away from anyone who shouldn't have access to the room. AND FINALLY, handguns are virtually banned in Canada...the fact is that 99% of Canadians who are not police / law enforcement or military cannot qualify for the licensing requirements to own handguns. And handguns have been registered for decades prior to the long-gun registry, and oh...'lo and behold...handgun crimes still happen? Could that mean that registration doesn't prevent crime? I'm not sure why I still bother to educate people on this issue... FTA

Here is a prime example of how disgusting the mainstream media is: CP News Item The story is purportedly an update of Canada's medal count at the Olympics, with an absurd segway into the fact that Steve Moore has filed a lawsuit against Todd Bertuzzi...but that's not the disgusting part... As though one bad segway demands another, the story then goes here: Now, even if we pretend that this article is just all about sports news so it makes sense to link a bronze medal win in speedskating to a lawsuit between NHL'ers to the big bad gambling scandal...nobody can possibly defend the fact that the story doesn't even mention Rick Tocchett...the only NHL guy who's alleged to have done anything wrong...BUT, it does talk about some guy who is Wayne Gretzky's assistant coach at the Phoenix Coyotes. Yeah, that's principled and professional reporting...not just trying to make a buck off of a guy with a more recognizable name than the guy who the story is actually about...nope, MSM would never prostitute itself in such a way. Let's face it, the only reason that the Canadian Olympic campaign is "dealing with the distraction" of the gambling issue is because the MSM whores are not interested in reporting about the actual Olympics and the athletes. Sensationalism at its finest... FTA

I don't think it's fair or logical to compare the poor behaviour of Christianity in the distant past with the poor behaviour of Islam today. All our ancestors and all our institutions behaved poorly in ancient times - by modern perceptions. We have progressed. They, unfortunately, have not. Well, shouldn't that mean that we give them time and help them to develop and progress rather than ban their ideas? No pun intended, but it gets harder and harder on this board to play Devil's Advocate because everyone seems to have so much trouble getting that you can argue a position even if it isn't the one you personally believe. FTA

It sounds like you advocate the legalization of 'victimless crimes', which is a can of worms unto itself. The Jersey Mob makes gruesome examples out of 'welchers'. This is why they are saying the punters weren't breaking the law, only those that profited from said illegal gambling are being named and prosecuted. Well, the NHL has been relatively untainted by scandal like the rest of the major sports, and with the wife of the most recognizable hockey name in the world being involved (amongst his vast number of trophies and records held, he won the 'Lady Byng' Trophy aka. Most Gentlemanly Player Trophy, 5 times) stories like this tend to have at least artificial legs. Well, there was a bit of tongue-in-cheek in my post...just trying to fire up some discussion. I like the anti-Canada just before the Olympics angle...seems to me the NJ Police press conference was a story about nothing...a big chart with Tocchet's face connected to a whole bunch of unnammed co-conspirators...hardly the way a law-enforcement agency "breaks a story". No stack of arrests, no naming of names...just innuendo and supposition from the authorities which has led to an embarrasing media "firestorm" of speculative "reporting" about rumours, leaks, maybes and we don't knows. But it has had the convenient side effect of totally consuming the head of the Canadian Olympic Hockey team in the days just before the games... FTA

Is this really that big of a story on it's merits? Seems to me the biggest impact is going to be felt when the IRS gets finished levying back-taxes and penalties. I say let the rich play with money like it's going out of style...who are they hurting? As far as "The Rocket" Rick Tocchet, I'm sure he'll let this all roll off like cocaine off a whore's back...oops! I mean, water off a duck... FTA

Does anybody else out there feel as though they've entered the Twilight Zone?? I sure do. FTA

History has seen much horrible bloodshed justified in the name of Christianity, but we don't ban the religion. What I am saying is that banning things is contrary to the ideology of free speech and expression within a democracy. I hear your concerns, but freedom is an inherently risky proposition. If you want security, becoming a military police state is actually not a bad way to get it. When citizens are free to move, associate, think, speak and to a large extent act, you import a significant level of uncertainty...it is one of the costs of democratic freedom. Do radical muslim fundamentalists pose a risk? Absolutely. Do we respond by banning the muslim religion? Makes no sense to me. FTA

Argus, I'll generally agree with your response...particularly in your view that it is absurd for non-muslims to somehow feel compelled to comply with muslim doctrine...but as absurd as it is, the people protesting (without violence) in favour of such idiocy should be given every opportunity to do so. thelonius, I can live with your amendment of "supported" to "tolerated". Leafless, I'm not sure you understand the line I was drawing...it wasn't between events by Iraqis and events by Muslim fanatics...what I'm saying is that burning a flag on its own is not an act of terrorism but a valid form of protest (a.k.a. freedom of expression). Obviously dragging corpses through the streets or burning embassies or suicide bombings are forms of terrorism which must be condemned...hopefully that clears that up. You wrote, "Hopefully countries will realize Muslims are a risky proposition in combination with a free democratic country." This I can't understand...you want freedom and democracy so long as all Muslims are banned? Logically inconsistent. I think Jehovah's Witnesses are crazy but I don't advocate they be forbidden to live their lives in total subservience to their religious beliefs...it's not for me to say how they should live. There are plenty of Muslims who don't burn embassies, don't behead their neighbours and actually appreciate the society in which they live...why are they a "risky proposition" because they have chosen to guide their actions according to the teachings of their Prophet? I don't get it. FTA

No, that's not my point. Senators don't matter all that much anyway. My point is that he must NOT appoint cabinet ministers! Senior cabinet ministers are the dozen or so most powerful politicians in the country and they have control of hundreds of billions of our tax dollars. Cabinet ministers MUST be elected! There are 100 Conservative ELECTED MPs, he MUST choose from. Why isn't Diane Ablonczy in cabinet for example? She's been on the front benches of the Conservative caucus forever. He threw her in the backbenches to put a friend in cabinet? The optics of this are just terrible! He's enraged voters and his own caucus! This goes against everything he campaigned on. If Fortier performs admirably in controlling "hundreds of billions of our tax dollars" (which we will have to wait and see) is that not better than an elected Minister losing track of a billion (Jane Stewart HRDC) or than a bunch of elected Ministers telling Parliament 2 million for the gun registry and failing to tell the House when the number was actually at 2 billion etc. etc. What is your view of the Prime Minister of Canada being "elected" (read appointed) by a few hundred members of his or her political party when there is a leadership change? (a la Paul Martin if you'll recall). In my view it's no different than what is happening here...temporary appointment, with ratification in front of the people of Canada to come. Also, the fact that "senators don't matter all that much anyway" is exactly one of the reforms Harper hopes to make happen, and as Sage points out, until that reform happens, he has to use the current system. FTA

I'm disappointed Leafless...freedom of expression means accepting and promoting expression that goes against everything you fundamentally believe. I think burning flags is ridiculous and frankly juvenile, but if I want to print cartoons of Mohammed, then the trade-off is I sit back and watch the polyester flare. And, in response to my caution to distinguish between expression we just don't like versus that which is violent or terrorist in nature you equate burning a flag with dragging a dead soldier's body through the streets??!!?? Puke all you want (is that a form of protected expression?) but I will defend the burning of a flag even if it is done by a "fanatical Muslim". FTA

In my view, if it really came down to it, the Liberals would support the government on a "something is better than nothing" approach. If the childcare issue was important enough to the electors, they would have voted against the Conservative plan...they didn't...so to try and go back to them WEEKS after an election and tell them the reason is the CPC childcare policy is bad...Yikes! The NDP is to be commended for keeping things interesting, but on this one, Harper can act like a majority and get away with it. FTA