maplesyrup Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 The Conservatives have accused the NDP, and now Martin and the Liberals of promoting Child Pornography. Tory release questions Martin's stand on porn This is the second wheel that has fallen off the Conservative bus today. I guess the duct tape has come off the Conservative mouths. Watch for the Conservatives to issue an apology within 24 hours and to start dropping in the polls. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
Stoker Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Did the NDP and Libs vote against a Conservative proposal to toughen laws against child porn maplesyrup? Yes or No? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Sully Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Sorry Maple this an issue where the vast majority of Canadians are conservative. No apology necessary. People will agree with Harper's stance. So then you must like the NDP or Liberals saying that because the Cons are not on board with Kyoto they are anti-environment, yet they are not, thats ok with you right. Its ok for your side to slant the information their way, yet if the Cons call Martin on this issue its wrong, hahahahah keep dreaming MS. Quote
Stoker Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 The NDP Caucus Supports Child Pornography? Eleven members of the NDP Caucus voted against prohibiting the creation or use of child pornography. (April 23, 2002) NAYS: Blaikie, Comartin, Davies, Desjarlais, Godin, Martin, McDonough, Nystrom, Proctor, Robinson, Wasylycia-Leis.NDP MP Dick Proctor said (Hansard, March 9, 2004): • “It is difficult, and it ought to be difficult, to criminalize expression.” • “The concern that I and other members of our Caucus have is that the government has caved into the politics of fear.” • “Without reinstating the artistic merit in this bill, I will reluctantly and sadly find myself voting against Bill C-12.” I can't even fathom why anybody would try and turn this around on Harper......sick Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Sully Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 What is your view MS, do you see artistic expression or will join the Cons that this is digusting and should be outlawed with the harshest of penalties? Lets hear you, be loud and proud on your views!!!!! Quote
Stoker Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Good point Sully, MS do you have your own opinion wrt child porn or do you tow the party line? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 I am not going to research this issue but I can bet that these comments are taken out of context and edited to show a view other than that intended. We do have child pornograpy laws already. It is my guess , that the complete bill was too broad and could indict innocent pictures. I did hear of one parent somewhere being arrested for taking the traditional naked baby pictures. We go too far sometimes in the interpretation and innocent people have their good name ruined. Laws must be well thought out to ensure that it does not go too far. Quote
Stoker Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Bill C-12 In the aftermath of the Supreme Court of Canada’s broad interpretation of the “artistic merit” defence in child pornography proceedings, Bill C-12 eliminates existing exemptions for material with “artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose,” leaving the single statutory defence of “public good.” Amendments also broaden the scope of the offence by eliminating the need to show that written materials advocate or counsel illegal sexual activity with children. To satisfy the definition of child pornography, it will be sufficient to establish that the “dominant characteristic” of any written material is the description, “for a sexual purpose,” of sexual activity involving a person under 18 that would be an offence under the Criminal Code. Bill C-12 also adds child pornography offences to the list of those for which a sentencing court can make an order prohibiting the offender from attending at public places ordinarily frequented by children under 14, from seeking paid or volunteer employment that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons of that age group, and from communicating with them by computer. Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Michael Hardner Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 I could see why someone might vote against bill C-12. The law is a nebulous thing, and a few words taken out of it could have unintended effects. Those of you who are against the excessive leeway that the Charter of Rights gives will know what I'm talking about. I do think it's tasteless to politicize this issue. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
BigGunner Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 What is your view MS, do you see artistic expression or will join the Cons that this is digusting and should be outlawed with the harshest of penalties?Lets hear you, be loud and proud on your views!!!!! one does not need to join the conservatives to express outrage at kiddie porn or paedophelia, that is not exlusive to the conservative party. I'd go a step further though...If I wrote the laws, I'd have convicted paedophiles excecuted...its a crime far worse than murder Quote
Alliance Fanatic Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 I am not going to research this issue but I can bet that these comments are taken out of context and edited to show a view other than that intended. Yeah people on the left don't know anything about taking comments out of context and then showing a view not originally intended . I think that the fact is that Paul Martin and Jack Layton have always been able to find some type of loophole in these child porn laws, if artists want to create something about children getting sexually "liberated" as they call it, then it should be illegal. If I wrote the laws, I'd have convicted paedophiles excecuted...its a crime far worse than murder I'd have to agree with you on that one, however does'nt the NDP consider that a pro-american, and bigoted view. If I had it my way I would have people that rape, molest children, and murder police officers executed. Quote "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" - George Orwell's Animal Farm
BigGunner Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 I am not going to research this issue but I can bet that these comments are taken out of context and edited to show a view other than that intended. Yeah people on the left don't know anything about taking comments out of context and then showing a view not originally intended . I think that the fact is that Paul Martin and Jack Layton have always been able to find some type of loophole in these child porn laws, if artists want to create something about children getting sexually "liberated" as they call it, then it should be illegal. If I wrote the laws, I'd have convicted paedophiles excecuted...its a crime far worse than murder I'd have to agree with you on that one, however does'nt the NDP consider that a pro-american, and bigoted view. If I had it my way I would have people that rape, molest children, and murder police officers executed. Hey dumbass, didn't you read a previous poster suggesting that it is tasteless to politicise this topic? Quote
Goldie Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Paul Martin Killed Homeless people via his policies This was supposed to hurt Layton, I don't think it did. Paul Martin supports child pornography as his record would seem to suggest This is supposed to hurt Harper, I don't think it will. At least it was retracted. Both have expressed passion about something they would like to see come to an end. Both went over the top in expressing their frustration at given government policy. It's cool you know they are human. How many Canadians have said worse things over the GST, et.all. If it is explained in this way Canadians will understand. Quote
maplesyrup Posted June 19, 2004 Author Report Posted June 19, 2004 How to lose an election I've been travelling and won't catch up to the Conservative child-porn blowup until tomorrow. But the discussion forum on Andrew Coyne's blog (I know, I know, I don't have a discussion forum; that's why God made Andrew Coyne) shows that even some conservatives understand what a major blunder Stephen Harper has made.Yes, Stephen Harper. Not, pace Andrew, some anonymous junior Conservative staffer. Seven hours after the first email linking the NDP to child porn, the Conservative war room was still sending the same email out. Informed of the attack emails, Harper promptly claimed ownership of their argument and refused to apologize. Fine, then. He's going to wear it. What an absolutely huge blunder Harper has made. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
Goldie Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 ya we know Paul Wells is hoping for a Conservative screw up. Turnaround?SES daily tracking shows a pretty substantial drop in Conservative support. UPDATE: Cancel the party. Monday's numbers are up and — to the limited extent any of these daily numbers mean anything at all — they show the Liberal comeback has stalled Quote
maplesyrup Posted June 19, 2004 Author Report Posted June 19, 2004 Goldie....Harper is dead wrong. When you make a mistake, you need to admit it. Stop trying to blame other people for Conservative party blunders. :angry: Tories try to connect Martin to child porn DRUMMONDVILLE, QUE. — The federal Conservatives accused Paul Martin yesterday of condoning child pornography, rocking the party's election campaign as it strove to show a moderate face to voters.The charge came in a news release issued by the party's Ottawa election headquarters. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper had the missive reworded and reissued about an hour after it was released. He did not disavow the release, nor did he say he would stop attacking Mr. Martin for not doing enough to stamp out child pornography. A sombre Mr. Martin asked for an apology last night. "Look, this is personal. I am a father and I am a husband. And he has crossed the line. He should apologize." The release, headlined "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?" included this statement: "Today, Martin says he's against child pornography. But his voting record proves otherwise." Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
Argus Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 one does not need to join the conservatives to express outrage at kiddie porn or paedophelia, that is not exlusive to the conservative party.I'd go a step further though...If I wrote the laws, I'd have convicted paedophiles excecuted...its a crime far worse than murder The problem with this issue is that no one is using their brains. It's all emotions. You'd execute paedophiles? Paedophilia is a psychological condition. Nobody ever asked to be a paedophile. And so far as I know most of them never actually do anything with children. They resist these urges. Perhaps at most they look at kiddy porn on the internet - presuming they can find any, but that's about it. Would you execute Schizophrenics too, because some of them commit acts of violence? Someone who lusts after children because he can't control himself should be treated and watched. Someone who acts on those urges should be locked away forever. But let's not be silly. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 The NDP Caucus Supports Child Pornography? Eleven members of the NDP Caucus voted against prohibiting the creation or use of child pornography. (April 23, 2002) NAYS: Blaikie, Comartin, Davies, Desjarlais, Godin, Martin, McDonough, Nystrom, Proctor, Robinson, Wasylycia-Leis.NDP MP Dick Proctor said (Hansard, March 9, 2004): • “It is difficult, and it ought to be difficult, to criminalize expression.” • “The concern that I and other members of our Caucus have is that the government has caved into the politics of fear.” • “Without reinstating the artistic merit in this bill, I will reluctantly and sadly find myself voting against Bill C-12.” I can't even fathom why anybody would try and turn this around on Harper......sick I intend to vote Conservative, but Harper and the Tories are dead wrong on this issue. They're either acting out of politics or emotion. Our child porn laws are already ludicrously broad and unreasonable. Did you know that you can go to jail for up to ten years if you are found with naked pictures of 17 year olds? But it's all right to have sex with them! Or with sixteen or fifteen or fourteen year olds! The law explicitly states that pornography which uses adults who "appear to be under eighteen" is to be treated the same as that which uses kids. Ie, a video some pervert took of him having sex with a six year old is exactly the same, under the law, as a video of a couple of twenty two year old women dressed in schoolgirl uniforms, playing at the old fantasy of schoolgir/teacher. And that's idiotic. What the tories want to do is remove the artistic defence, which has already been watered down. That is to say since the book Lolita features sex between an adult and a child it will be considered kiddy porn. Likewise, anyone who possess it will be put in prison for up to five years. Think of all those summer teen sex movies, from Porkys to Fast Times at Ridgemont High. They all featured adults in the actual roles of sex and nudity. But that doesn't matter under our law. Those are kiddy porn movies, and anyone who owns them can to go prison - except for the artistic merit defence, which the Tories want to withdraw. And for what? Is there a torrent of kiddy porn out there? I've been on the internet since there WAS an internet, and I openly admit I have visited a lot of porn sites during that time. I have never come across kiddy porn. I don't doubt there's some out there, but it's hidden awful, awful deep. Let's worry about the safety of children in real life. Let's crack down on child molesters and sex offenders, and stop worrying so much about the evidence of their crimes. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bionic Antboy Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 one does not need to join the conservatives to express outrage at kiddie porn or paedophelia, that is not exlusive to the conservative party.I'd go a step further though...If I wrote the laws, I'd have convicted paedophiles excecuted...its a crime far worse than murder The problem with this issue is that no one is using their brains. It's all emotions. You'd execute paedophiles? Paedophilia is a psychological condition. Nobody ever asked to be a paedophile. And so far as I know most of them never actually do anything with children. They resist these urges. Perhaps at most they look at kiddy porn on the internet - presuming they can find any, but that's about it. Would you execute Schizophrenics too, because some of them commit acts of violence? Someone who lusts after children because he can't control himself should be treated and watched. Someone who acts on those urges should be locked away forever. But let's not be silly. Well said, Argus, which is odd since we're rarely in agreement on issues. It WAS stupid of the Conservatives to come out with a release that in big letters says "Does Paul Martin Support Child Pornography?" The law is confused and overly broad in it's definition. The Conservatives REALLY dropped the ball on this one. Good observation on the accessibility issue as well. I've been online for well over a decade (since the early 80's if we go to the BBS days ) and I've NEVER come across kiddie porn. It's not like we're being spammed with it in the same way we get penis enlargement and low mortgage rate pop-ups and emails. And the timing of the release couldn't be worse, what with the Holly Jones case. I expect some backlash on this one... Quote
Argus Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Someone who lusts after children because he can't control himself should be treated and watched. Someone who acts on those urges should be locked away forever. But let's not be silly. Well said, Argus, which is odd since we're rarely in agreement on issues. It WAS stupid of the Conservatives to come out with a release that in big letters says "Does Paul Martin Support Child Pornography?" In what context? It was a political effort to exploit this issue. It was unfair, but then the Liberals have set the tone on that, and the NDP followed. "If you're not 100% in favour of this issue then you are against everything we say this issue represents!"Ie, if you're not 100% in support of the Canada Health Act you want to "dismantle the public health system". The law is confused and overly broad in it's definition. The Conservatives REALLY dropped the ball on this one. Good observation on the accessibility issue as well. I've been online for well over a decade (since the early 80's if we go to the BBS days ) and I've NEVER come across kiddie porn.This issue is all emotion, no thinking. Last night I witnessed a CTV story on it where the announcer spoke of "the rising flood of child pornography on the internet". Huh? What flood? Where?You have to remember that the origins of our kiddy porn laws had nothing to do with protecting children. They were rushed into place just before an election designed to serve as a "motherhood and apple pie" plank. "Look what we did to protect children!". The law was harshly criticised by almost every legal authority from the Ontario and Quebec bar associations to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (of which I am a member) as overly broad, unneccesary and confused. And yet it has actually been broadened and toughened since then. Go out and have sex with a thousand 14 year old virgins and the law doesn't care. Take a video of you and your 20 year old girlfriend having sex where she is pretending to be a kilt wearing schoolgirl and you can go to jail. Huh?! Worse than that, actually, If you write about it in your diary you can go to jail. Is that idiotic, or what? People have been arrested for the most innocent of pictures featuring their own children because nudity was involved. THE CAS actually took away a local immigrant family's kids after the father took pictures of his babies in the bath in to be developed. It took months to get the kids back and have the charges dropped. Even then only public pressure made it happen. The Crown and CAS were adamant to the last, wanting to put this guy in prison. Artists have been arrested as well, for legitimate works of art. The law has a reverse onus requiring you prove artistic merit, an the Tories want to get rid of even that. Why? Because one stupid old pervert in BC wrote really bad porn stories featuring children? Big deal. Want to see what will be child pornography if the Tories remove the artistic merit clause? Here it is. I'm going to post kiddy porn pictures! Child Pornography Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
takeanumber Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 I'm against Kiddie Porn too, just like I'm for anti-Hate legislation, even if it is just writing. It's hatred against Children. It does them harm. (See the recent case where Child Porn influenced a guy to do the real thing.) It's a social 'bad'. And I'm all for banning it. I can't handle that level of entropy in society. It's hate speech against Children. (Literally, in the most grutesque form), and I just can't handle that. And I know I'm an anti-liberal for being anti-Free Speech when it comes to Hatred. But that's a contradiction I can live with. I'd like to see Argus or AF resolve the contradictions in their positions though. They're against C-250 and hate crime legislation. It harms their freedom of expression. Their freedom of speech. But they're all anti-free speech on this subject. Anyway. It's contradictory. Quote
Argus Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 I'm against Kiddie Porn too, just like I'm for anti-Hate legislation, even if it is just writing. It's hatred against Children. It does them harm. (See the recent case where Child Porn influenced a guy to do the real thing.) It's a social 'bad'. That some cretin decided to blame kiddy porn for what he did is of no relevance. People have been trying desperately to show that pornography causes violence for decades, especially the bluenoses and feminists. They have all failed miserably. As distasteful as some elements of pornography (incl child pornography) are no one of any scientific credibility has ever shown that it inspires violence against anyone. I'd like to see Argus or AF resolve the contradictions in their positions though.They're against C-250 and hate crime legislation. It harms their freedom of expression. Their freedom of speech. But they're all anti-free speech on this subject. Can't speak for AF, but I have already written that I am opposed to the child porn legislation, and opposed to expanding it and removing the artistic merit defence. So there is no contradiction. The Ontario and Quebec bar associations are also against this legislation, as is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
takeanumber Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Wow. I'm impressed. Such consistency. Quote
Bro Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 The Liberals are always using the charter as a way to protect their inane policies.In the case of child porn, they use it as an excuse to allow persons to claim it as freedom of expression,or art,and therefore ,maybe not individually,but as a party,they fully allow and support child porn,along with many other issues that could be viewed as being out of the norm,but they use the charter as a bible,instead of a reference tool,with some common sense being applied. Quote
Stoker Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Did you know that you can go to jail for up to ten years if you are found with naked pictures of 17 year olds? But it's all right to have sex with them! Or with sixteen or fifteen or fourteen year olds! That kind of logic is akin to having a cut on your hand but to treat it, you cut off your arm........there should be tougher laws against having pictures of a youth, but even tougher laws against sex with a youth....... What the tories want to do is remove the artistic defence, which has already been watered down. That is to say since the book Lolita features sex between an adult and a child it will be considered kiddy porn. Likewise, anyone who possess it will be put in prison for up to five years. Think of all those summer teen sex movies, from Porkys to Fast Times at Ridgemont High. They all featured adults in the actual roles of sex and nudity. But that doesn't matter under our law. Those are kiddy porn movies, and anyone who owns them can to go prison - except for the artistic merit defence, which the Tories want to withdraw.Artists have been arrested as well, for legitimate works of art. The law has a reverse onus requiring you prove artistic merit, an the Tories want to get rid of even that. Why? Because one stupid old pervert in BC wrote really bad porn stories featuring children? Big deal. Want to see what will be child pornography if the Tories remove the artistic merit clause? Here it is. I'm going to post kiddy porn pictures! Artistic defence? I guess in this case, one persons "art", is another persons filth. In this case, I'd be in favor of having a nation wide referendum to decide this issue. I don't mind being "lax" in some areas such as aboration or gay marriege, but when it come to anything even close to a form of abusing children, I prefer to "error" on the side of caution..... Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.