Paul Martin THE Monster?

[CAGERATTLER]

Harper now thinks Paul Martin is a monster?

Aren't most people who support child porn monsters?

This Harper is something else.

The Liberals could only wish for one guy better to lead these Conservatives and that would be Stocky Day!

[PocketRocket]

Obviously I've missed something somewhere.

What is the connection between Harper's opinion of Martin, and child porn???

[ScottBrison]

Obviously I've missed something somewhere.

What is the connection between Harper's opinion of Martin, and child porn???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the 2004 election, in one of the lowest things I ever seen in politics (even counting the U.S.) the Conservative Alliance accused Paul Martin of being pro child porn. Which is odd considering he has children of his own.

Obviously that didn't sit well with some Conservative Alliance supporters.

[I miss Reagan]

This is what's so funny to me. In Canada the Liberals get a pass everytime they accuse the Conservatives of the most horrendous insults like being racist and bigoted. But when the Cons play that game it's like the we're the most awful people in the world. I've used this analogy before on here but it's worth mentioning again: It's like the guy in the Roman Colloseum buried up to his head in the dirt. When the lion comes racing out towards him his bites it in the n@ds at which time the lion yelps and runs away. A centurion comes running out and pokes the guy with a spear and says 'hey, fight fair!'.

Although Martin is not against child porn, he refuses to take a strong stand against it (as with everything else), citing reasons of "artistic expression" and "free speech".

[CAGERATTLER]

Although Martin is not against child porn, he refuses to take a strong stand against it (as with everything else), citing reasons of "artistic expression" and "free speech".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See they actually believe Martin supports child porn!

Do they believe everything these Conservatives tell them ?

Hearsay,unproven accusations,lies and a bias Conservative media are the weapons of mass deception of the Conservative Party.

HINT: Paul Martin does not support child porn and he is not one of those monsters Harper's daddy told him about!

[PocketRocket]

In the 2004 election, in one of the lowest things I ever seen in politics (even counting the U.S.) the Conservative Alliance accused Paul Martin of being pro child porn. Which is odd considering he has children of his own.

Ahh. I see. Thanks for the leg up.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Although Martin is not against child porn, he refuses to take a strong stand against it (as with everything else), citing reasons of "artistic expression" and "free speech".

Shit! Artistic Expression?! Free speech?!?!? Repellent concepts!

[I miss Reagan]

No one's for free speech more than I am, but I think there are certain area's where this doesn't apply. The raping of children on film is one of those areas. What do you think? Should we allow Nazi's the right to burn crosses and express their hate everywhere? How about serial killers? Should they be allowed to artistically express themselves by detailing their attrocities and making money off it?

Oddly the radical left is very protective of similar behaviour. Like the embracing of Eminem and his talk of killing his wife, homosexuals, the president and his mother. Another great example of art in it's purest form .

[The Terrible Sweal]

No one's for free speech more than I am, but I think there are certain area's where this doesn't apply.  The raping of children on film is one of those areas. 

Surely you know that the raping of children on film is already thoroughly illegal in Canada.

Should we allow Nazi's the right to burn crosses and express their hate everywhere?

I think Nazis should be allowed to carry out any otherwise legal act irrespective of their political opinions. I do not support hate crime legislation. (Though I support laws against inciting violence or victimisation.)

How about serial killers?  Should they be allowed to artistically express themselves by detailing their attrocities and making money off it? 

No. Sensible public policy requires that criminals be prevented from obtaining any benefit from their crimes.

[I miss Reagan]

Wow Sweal I'm actually pretty impressed with your answers. Perhaps you really are a classical liberal. I'm curious, why you are so opposed to the CPC?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Wow Sweal I'm actually pretty impressed with your answers.  Perhaps you really are a classical liberal.  I'm curious, why you are so opposed to the CPC?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, I'm a classical liberal, alright. (Thanks for noticing.)

I think I may have mentioned some objections to the CPC already ... but anyway, basically I don't find the party program coincides well with liberal policy. For example:

-Law and Order policies of the CPC tend to be overly statist and class biased;

-social conservatism and theocratic influences;

-economic policies which favor (unmeritorious) entrenched interests at the expense of individual opportunity (to exercise merit); and

-a tendency to draw upon non-Reasonable criteria or analyses.

BTW, I am not intending to imply any comparisons to the Liberal Party here.

Footnote: the economic problem with entrenching unmerit is that it sacrifices efficiency and therefor destroys wealth. Think of Eatons.

[Argus]

Obviously I've missed something somewhere.

What is the connection between Harper's opinion of Martin, and child porn???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the 2004 election, in one of the lowest things I ever seen in politics (even counting the U.S.) the Conservative Alliance accused Paul Martin of being pro child porn. Which is odd considering he has children of his own.

Don't most child molesters have children of their own? In fact, aren't most children molested by their own relatives?

In any event, I do agree that it is absurd to accuse Martin of being pro-child porn. However, I also agree that there is little difference between this sort of accusation and the Liberal accusations against the Tories which presume that if you are not 100% in support of some policy then you are against the stated aims of that policy. Ie, if you don't support their policies towards Quebec you must hate Quebec and be in favour of sepratism. The Liberals have called the Tories, and before that, the Alliance/Reformers, "anti-canadian" for not supporting them before, or for questioning their lack of leadership and clarity on Quebec and seperatism. So really, the Tories nonsense about child porn is no different.

But it is nonsense, of course.

[Argus]

Although Martin is not against child porn, he refuses to take a strong stand against it (as with everything else), citing reasons of "artistic expression" and "free speech".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Canada has some of the most stringent anti-child-porn legislation in the world, much of it overly broad, in my opinion, and indefensible by any measure of logic.

[Argus]

No one's for free speech more than I am,

I'm afraid that is demonstrably untrue.

but I think there are certain area's where this doesn't apply.  The raping of children on film is one of those areas.  What do you think? 

I think this is emotional hyperbole. Sexual activity with children has always been illegal and punishable by severe sentences (that our judges rarely hand out severe sentences is another story). Actual videos showing sexual molestation of children have always been banned, the sale, distribution and, obviously, production illegal.

All without any kind of "child porn" law.

The child porn law was hastily forced through parliament in the dying days of the Mulroney regime so they could use it as an example of how tough they were on crime. The Liberals opposed it at the time, as did Canadian civil liberties groups, libraries, museums, galleries, writers and artists groups, and various bar associations (do you really think they were all pro child porn?). Basically, they all felt it was unneeded, and badly crafted, as well as being so broad that it took in far more than just images of actual children being molested or abused.

My understanding of the present continuing witch hunt over child porn is that 95% of it is stuff dating back to the early seventies, when child pornography was briefly legal in the US. The rest is largely byproducts of molestation shared among perverts. Note that byproducts are not the cause of the molestation, merely the witness to it. If you think back to Nick Ut's Pulitzer winning picture of Kim Phuc and other Vietnamese children running from napalm burns. Was taking the picture the crime or was it merely a witness of the crime?

Should we allow Nazi's the right to burn crosses and express their hate everywhere?

The problem with banning Nazis from expressing their opinion is you set a precedent which allows you to ban anyone from expressing their opinion if you or a significant portion of society doesn't like those opinions. If we ban Nazis why can't we ban Communists? If we ban White pride hatemongers can't we ban Black pride groups?

I don't know about you but I don't feel I need to be protected from the opinions of idiots. I'm quite capable of realizing these opinions are idiotic and either dismissing or challenging them.

How about serial killers?  Should they be allowed to artistically express themselves by detailing their attrocities and making money off it?

Is that happening a lot?

Frankly, serial killers should be in a grave, or chained in a yard breaking rocks all day long.

[Shakeyhands]

This is what's so funny to me.  In Canada the Liberals get a pass everytime they accuse the Conservatives of the most horrendous insults like being racist and bigoted.  But when the Cons play that game it's like the we're the most awful people in the world.  I've used this analogy before on here but it's worth mentioning again:  It's like the guy in the Roman Colloseum buried up to his head in the dirt.  When the lion comes racing out towards him his bites it in the n@ds at which time the lion yelps and runs away.  A centurion comes running out and pokes the guy with a spear and says 'hey, fight fair!'. 

Although Martin is not against child porn, he refuses to take a strong stand against it (as with everything else), citing reasons of "artistic expression" and "free speech".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IMR, I find it hilarious that you say the Liberals get a pass when they point out the blatently obvious? There are a fair number of fanatical neo cons within the CPC that are demonstrably bigoted and racist, this is exactly why they are unfit to lead. As far as Harper stating that Pual Martin is in Pro Child Porn... its just another indicator of how power starved he is. Dispicable. :angry: