kairos Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) “I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters, but I do have somegrave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste inpictures,” said Flanagan. “It’s a real issue of personal liberty and to what extent we putpeople in jail for doing something in which they do not harm anotherperson.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/02/28/calgary-tom-flanagan-child-porn.html Edited February 28, 2013 by kairos Quote
guyser Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) “I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters, but I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste in pictures,” said Flanagan. Of course I too have no sympathy for pedo's either, however being convicted on the basis of a photo , or a couple of photos' that inadvertently got on someones harddrive is to me not the right way to go about things.No idea where the line is drawn. For instance.... -a teenage girl who sends a topless pic to her BF..... -same photo gets recirculated amongs students and winding up on an adults phone..... -someone goofing on the 'net and a couple of pics wind up cached..... Things like that.. ETA- the guy used the words "taste in pictures" which denotes one having an interest in underage child photos of which Icannot believe anyone in their right mind woould agree, including me. Edited February 28, 2013 by guyser Quote
shortlived Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 It is a waste of money to send people to jail, send them to work camps. Quote My posts are sometimes edited to create spelling errors if you see one kindly notify me. These edits do not show up as edits as my own edits do, so it is either site moderation, or third party moderation. This includes changing words completely. If a word looks out of place in a message kindly contact me so I can correct it. These changes are not exclusive to this website, and is either a form of net stalking by a malicious hacker, or perhaps government, it has been ongoing for years now.
guyser Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 It is a waste of money to send people to jail, send them to work camps. Great, costs more money to send them to work camps than a prison/jail and that would save.....wait what? Quote
shortlived Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) Great, costs more money to send them to work camps than a prison/jail and that would save.....wait what? Yeah we should make "work camps" you know harvesting resources, building stuff, doing roadwork, just get RV's or something ATV's etc.. there is a low cost solution no need for expensive stuff. You know farming, raising caribou who knows the possibilities are endless... Get some monitoring bands etc.. just send them to work. I think this should really be for distributors and people who don't report the clear child porn. But if police know people are viewing the stuff the police should shut it down. People who repeatedly come up on the radar might clearly be looking for it.. I think there is a difference between being exposed to child porn and looking for child porn. But yeah the prisons are a waste of money. they should be shut down or converted to new use such as emergency homeless shelters, and government sleep overs in place of motel/hotels billings... people with medical problems could go to the infirmaries though, as well people who refuse to do the work program could be put to a block. Limit the staff to military instead of a complex corrections system. Edited February 28, 2013 by shortlived Quote My posts are sometimes edited to create spelling errors if you see one kindly notify me. These edits do not show up as edits as my own edits do, so it is either site moderation, or third party moderation. This includes changing words completely. If a word looks out of place in a message kindly contact me so I can correct it. These changes are not exclusive to this website, and is either a form of net stalking by a malicious hacker, or perhaps government, it has been ongoing for years now.
guyser Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 Yeah we should make "work camps" you know harvesting resources, building stuff, doing roadwork, just get RV's or something ATV's etc.. there is a low cost solution no need for expensive stuff. You know farming, raising caribou who knows the possibilities are endless... Get some monitoring bands etc.. just send them to work. . IOW, let them go free.....except for the monitor around the foot. Yea....not sure how thats going to work out. Quote
shortlived Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) IOW, let them go free.....except for the monitor around the foot. Yea....not sure how thats going to work out. .. UHM remote areas aren't totally free but they both provide public protection and let them live a non unrealistic lifestyle that prison hand feeds them. you know the 40000 people in Canadian prisons costing Canada $350 a day each that is 14 million a day.... is just a waste of money. We could be spending far less and having them create goods, provide them with an income.. even $50 a day is a very decent wage with board and lodging brought in.. mobile homes could be bought for the cost of 10 days in prison.. It is just horribly managed and not made efficient. The people just want them to sit in jail and do nothing but watch TV and socialize, and work out, free meals, free dental and medical. Why are we paying for them to do that.. they should be put to work, earn a living, and have money saved for them for when they get out so they have a chance at starting and continuing a real life free from crime. Worse yet this money is just being diverted now to US prison companies. Freedom comes from within anyway... prison just creates more dysfunction. Why just dump the money down the drain. I think most criminals would stop being criminals for less than $350 a day. Edited February 28, 2013 by shortlived Quote My posts are sometimes edited to create spelling errors if you see one kindly notify me. These edits do not show up as edits as my own edits do, so it is either site moderation, or third party moderation. This includes changing words completely. If a word looks out of place in a message kindly contact me so I can correct it. These changes are not exclusive to this website, and is either a form of net stalking by a malicious hacker, or perhaps government, it has been ongoing for years now.
Sleipnir Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) - added more information in further post - Edited March 1, 2013 by Sleipnir Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
The_Squid Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 Tom Flanagan admit to being a subscriber to the man-boy love association for few years....I think someone should check his computer >_> No he did not. Don't exaggerate what he said. Quote
guyser Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) .. UHM remote areas aren't totally free but they both provide public protection and let them live a non unrealistic lifestyle that prison hand feeds them. Except no protection for the people who may live close.So thats a non-starter. We could be spending far less and having them create goods, provide them with an income.. even $50 a day is a very decent wage with board and lodging brought in.. mobile homes could be bought for the cost of 10 days in prison.. With no security , no meals, no health care, no dental,no stimulus, no....nothing. How wonderful. >&nbs p; It is just horribly managed and not made efficient. The people just want them to sit in jail and do nothing but watch TV and socialize, and work out, free meals, free dental and medical. Why are we paying for them to do that.. they should be put to work, earn a living, and have money saved for them for when they get out so they have a chance at starting and continuing a real life free from crime. You get medical, dental and they should too. They have lost the right to freedom , none else. Plenty are put to work for peanuts, plenty of them re-hab (plenty dont too) and make themselves better. And if recividism numbers are correct, we are doing a pretty good job. I think most criminals would stop being criminals for less than $350 a day. Some of the drugs addict spend more than that in a day so I suspect this to be wrong. You havent really thought this through have you? Edited February 28, 2013 by guyser Quote
Sleipnir Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 No he did not. Don't exaggerate what he said. Why don't you try doing a bit of research? Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
jacee Posted February 28, 2013 Report Posted February 28, 2013 Oops! Posted another thread here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=22390#entry884963 This story isn't about whether he's wrong. He's wrong. And TOM FLANAGAN IS HISTORY!!! YAHOOOO!!!!!! ... The comments drew heavy criticism from the PMO's office and the Wildrose, as well as the University of Calgary where Flanagan works as a professor. ... Tom Flanagans comments on child pornography are repugnant, ignorant, and appalling, tweeted director of communications Andrew MacDougall. The Wildrose released a statement saying that Flanagan would have no role with the party going forward. There is no language strong enough to condemn Dr. Flanagans comments, reads the statement. ... Flanagan was a member of the Power & Politics' Power Panel. The CBC announced Thursday he would no longer be appearing on the program. The U of C also released a statement Thursday distancing themselves from Flanagan and the comments. ... Flanagan was scheduled to speak at a Manning Centre conference next week but has since been dropped And ... " Tom Flanagan retires from university post after child porn comments" Quote
kairos Posted March 1, 2013 Author Report Posted March 1, 2013 http://www.globalnews.ca/update+politicians+condemn+controversial+child+porn+remarks+made+by+wildrose+strategist/6442818539/story.html Quote
Argus Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 Tom Flanagan admit to being a subscriber to the man-boy love association for few years....I think someone should check his computer >_> That's called libel, I believe... 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 March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) I've been a long-time proponent of freedom of speech, and I accept very few limitations on it. With regard to pornography, there have been longstanding attempts to ban it under various guises. Since simply saying you don't like it won't work, the bluenoses, the perpetually self-righteous, have tried time and again to show it was a danger to society. Hell, we even had two presidential commissions in the US trying to prove it. All have failed. Pornography does not inspire violence or sexual violence, nor does it make its readers/watchers more prone to committing sexual crimes. No one has been able to show any evidence of this with child porn either. I've written about this before. I am old enough to have been around when child porn was simply considered obscene material under the criminal code. It was illegal to sell, but that was it. The Tories introduced the first bill to criminalize possession, and it was done as a bated hook. They didn't really care about it, but wanted to make the NDP and Liberals vote against it so they could use it to beat them with in the upcoming election. Most liberal organizations were against the new law. That includes most bar associations, most cultural and media groups, the Canadian Civil Liberties Union, etc. Most said that it was unneeded and far too broad. But the NDP and Liberals voted for it anyway, for tactical considerations. Since then it's become a motherhood issue for the hysterics. No one has ever actually shown how having it or not having it makes children safer or less safe. No one has shown the law serves any useful purpose. It certainly doesn't have any impact on actual crimes against children. It's been amended repeatedly to make it even more broad, to make it even more severe, entirely for political reasons, and no one ever really dares oppose such attempts anymore. Tom Flanagan shows why. You don't need to show the law is needed. You don't need to show the law is of any use. You don't need to do anything but react in horror and "disgust" whenever anyone dares challenge it, however mildly. Flanagan made the mistake of not speaking carefully enough when he suggested it was dumb to lock up people for, essentially, downloading a few dirty pictures and looking at them. For that he's been all-but burned at the stake. I think people would have been less outraged and offended if he'd killed someone. Edited March 1, 2013 by Argus 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
Peanutbutter Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 What about the children in the porn? They are being harmed. Are they not Argus? Quote Ah la peanut butter sandwiches! - The Amazing Mumferd
shortlived Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 What about the children in the porn? They are being harmed. Are they not Argus? Oh and what about the addict pornwomen the feminists proports. What about sweatshop labour Should regular porn and goods produced places that pay little or no wages be banned too? Quote My posts are sometimes edited to create spelling errors if you see one kindly notify me. These edits do not show up as edits as my own edits do, so it is either site moderation, or third party moderation. This includes changing words completely. If a word looks out of place in a message kindly contact me so I can correct it. These changes are not exclusive to this website, and is either a form of net stalking by a malicious hacker, or perhaps government, it has been ongoing for years now.
Sleipnir Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) That's called libel, I believe... How is it libel if the very person admit it? For some reason I can't post links to back up my claim >_> I'll just post a quote. Flanagan responded that he personally does not view child pornography. But then he bizarrely added that it was a “long story” but he was on the mailing list of the national Man Boy Love Association for several years. Edited March 1, 2013 by Sleipnir Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
The_Squid Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 How is it libel if the very person admit it? For some reason I can't post links to back up my claim >_> I'll just post a quote. Where did he say he was a subscriber? That's not what he said. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 Why don't you try doing a bit of research? Perhaps you should: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/politicians-condemn-tom-flanagan-for-suggesting-child-porn-viewing-is-ok-1.82379 He went on to explain that he doesn't look at such pictures, but was once put on a mailing list of the National Man/Boy Love Association. http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/rights/240.aspx What is libel? Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like a newspaper, a letter, a website posting, an email, a picture, or a radio or TV broadcast. If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence (see the section on defences below), then a court will presume that you suffered damages and award you money to pay for your damaged reputation. But going to Supreme Court is expensive and even if you win, you may not get as much as it costs you to sue. In deciding on damages, the Court will consider your position in the community. For example, if you are a professional, damages may be higher. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forum-weblog-rules LEGAL ISSUES/ACTIONYou remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Mapleleafweb with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s). By participating in the forums and weblogs, you grant us the right and licence to use, reproduce and display any submissions to the forum without compensation to you or any one else. We at Mapleleafweb also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you. Quote
jacee Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 Comment of the day: Harper appointed Brazeau,Duffy, Wallin,Carson,Porter & his mentor? Tom Flanagan Maybe he's not such a brilliant strategist. Quote
Sleipnir Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Where did he say he was a subscriber? That's not what he said. Mailing list = subscriber. Its inconceivable that someone would be on a mailing list for few years with an illicit organization and not call themselves a subscriber. No offense Derek, but you don't seem to grasped what going on. I'm just relying information coming from numerous credible news sites with a prominent source (Flanagan himself), therefore it isn't libel. Edited March 1, 2013 by Sleipnir Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
Guest Derek L Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 Mailing list = subscriber. Its inconceivable that someone would be on a mailing list for few years with an illicit organization and not call themselves a subscriber. No offense Derek, but you don't seem to grasped what going on. I'm just relying information coming from numerous credible news sites with a prominent source (Flanagan himself), therefore it isn't libel. Can you indicate where he said he was a subscriber? Perhaps inconceivable to you, but that doesn’t give you carte blanche to label, and in turn libel, a person/public figure. Your wording (As evident by several other posters response) conjures an image of Mr Flanagan actively seeking out such organizations, as opposed to say a disgruntled or disgusted student signing him up for said newsletters………. Free advice, tread carefully in what you say……….Do or don’t as you please, it’s not my nose (or website), but as I said, a clear example of both libel and breaking of forum rules and guidelines on your part. Quote
jacee Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Another example of the University oc Calgary 'school' of political 'thought' ... http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/story.html?id=8029677 Despite Thursdays widespread denunciations, U of C political scientist Barry Cooper criticized the rush of organizations distancing themselves from Flanagan, who he said was simply trying to debate a taboo topic. "Its stupid. You can see that it adds to the stupidity rather than to the public education or enlightenment by doing things like that, said Cooper, a longtime friend of Flanagans, I do know why they did it. Its because people are stupid. Not them not the Manning Centre, and Danielle and CBC specifically but people in general." The more I learn about the UofC political cabal, the more I wonder about people who support Harper: They think the rest of us are the "stupid" ones? Meanwhile, Harper toils away implementing Flanagan's imported agenda on us, without consultation and without our consent. Edited March 1, 2013 by jacee Quote
Sleipnir Posted March 1, 2013 Report Posted March 1, 2013 Free advice, tread carefully in what you say……….Do or don’t as you please, it’s not my nose (or website), but as I said, a clear example of both libel and breaking of forum rules and guidelines on your part. Quoting the media and the primary source itself doesn't constitute as a libel. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
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.