How to end political/pundit/academic career in 5 minutes: say that child porn doesn't hurt anyone.

[Northern_Piper]

A former top advisor to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Tom Flanagan, discovered a way to end his political career, his news punditry gigs, and his academic career in under 5 minutes last night.

While addressing a public meeting last night in Lethbridge, Flanagan is reported to have made the following remarks:

One of the audience members, Levi Little Mustache, asked Flanagan about remarks he made in 2009 regarding child pornography. Flanagan had been giving a lecture on aboriginal issues at the University of Manitoba when the student paper reported that he strayed into the issue of child porn. According to The Manitoban report, Flanagan said: “What’s wrong with child pornography — in the sense that it’s just pictures?”

“I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters,” he responded when confronted in Lethbridge.

“But I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste in pictures,” he said as the audience gasped, then booed.

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.

“We put people in jail for doing something in which they do not harm another person,” he said. “So it is a real issue of personal liberty.”

That was last night. By this evening, the following has happened:

• The PMO has tweeted that the comments were: “repugnant, ignorant, and appalling”. Public Safety Minister Toews used the same language.

• The Alberta Wildrose Party, which narrowly missed winning last year’s election with Flanagan as campaign manager, has condemned the remarks and stated that he will not have any role in the party in the future.

• The Premier of Alberta has condemned the remarks.

• The University of Calgary, where he has taught for decades, condemned the remarks and announced that he will be retiring this spring.

• The Manning Centre in Calgary, a conservative think-tank, has dropped him as a speaker at an upcoming conference.

And that’s just the reaction from the conservative wing of Alberta politics. The CBC has also dropped him from one of their political commentary talk-shows.

For a smart man, how could he say something so dumb? And at a public meeting discussing the Indian Act, where many in the audience have likely been affected by the residential schools abuse…

[Nunzio_Tavulari]

Levi had a horrible time in high school after Jeannie gossiped about their date at the drive-in and his “little mustache”.

[pope_hentai]

wheres the part where he mentions pornography?

[Jenaroph]

@pope_hentai

wheres the part where he mentions pornography?

I think it’s the part where he said, “What’s wrong with child pornography — in the sense that it’s just pictures?” I could be wrong though.

Boy, that’s some real tone-deaf stuff, there.

[Annie-Xmas]

Child sex crime expert Andrew Vachss’s views on the subject.

@Andrew Vachss

No child is capable, emotionally or legally, of consenting to being photographed for sexual purposes. Thus, every image of a sexually displayed child—be it a photograph, a tape or a DVD—records both the rape of the child and an act against humanity.

[Boyo_Jim]

Now he’ll have more time to indulge in his hobby of … uh … photography.

[Rachellelogram]

@Annie-Xmas

Child sex crime expert Andrew Vachss’s views on the subject.

For fuck’s sake. Sure, being photographed for child porn is a bad thing. But saying that taking a naked kid’s picture is exactly equivalent to raping that child broadens the definition of rape to practical meaninglessness. I mean, a shitload of kids in the cp circulating these days might never have been aware that those pictures were taken. And that asshole seriously thinks it’s valid to contrast that experience to having one’s genitals physically assaulted? Dude. Kindly get the fuck out.

[drewtwo99]

@Rachellelogram

For fuck’s sake. Sure, being photographed for child porn is a bad thing. But saying that taking a naked kid’s picture is exactly equivalent to raping that child broadens the definition of rape to practical meaninglessness. I mean, a shitload of kids in the cp circulating these days might never have been aware that those pictures were taken. And that asshole seriously thinks it’s valid to contrast that experience to having one’s genitals physically assaulted? Dude. Kindly get the fuck out.

clap

100% on the ball, as usual, Rachellelogram.

[Ambivalid]

Somebodys real name is “Levi Little Moustache”?

[kayaker]

@Ambivalid

Somebodys real name is “Levi Little Moustache”?

Yeah, I couldn’t get past that either.

[Derleth]

@Ambivalid

Somebodys real name is “Levi Little Moustache”?

A number of Native Americans (or, as they’re more commonly called in Canada, Aboriginal people) in the Great Plains have last names that are two common English words. Not a whole lot, perhaps, but it’s common enough that it can’t be called unusual. It’s certainly common enough in eastern Montana, which is also in the Great Plains.

Looking at the people who work at Stone Child College, on the Rocky Boy Reservation, we see Elvira Day Child, Steven Not Afraid, Valerie Sun Child, Helen Windy Boy, and Wilma Windy Boy. The Windy Boy name is fairly prominent in the region, with Jonathan Windy Boy having served as a Montana state Representative and currently serving as a Montana state Senator, in addition to having served a term as the Vice-Chairman of the Chippewa Cree Tribe, that being the tribe that lives on Rocky Boy. And, yes, Rocky Boy and Stone Child are two translations of the same name.

So Little Mustache probably isn’t exactly like Smith around there, but it fits a pattern that’s common enough.

[kayaker]

Cool!

But still, how does a family earn the moniker “Little Mustache”? How could that be the most identifying trait?

[silenus]

Now we know where you-know-who disappeared to after the fall of Berlin.

[Daylate]

Now we know where you-know-who disappeared to after the fall of Berlin.

And we now have a WINNER!

[bienville]

I can’t help but think that in this guy’s mind he was referring to pictures- drawings, water colors, stone carvings, what-have-you- as being distinct from photographs*. I can’t imagine him not recognizing pornographic photographs as being harmful.

Of course, even if one agrees that pornographic drawings harm no one, it’s still an idiot thing to say because most people very often use the words “pictures” and “photographs” interchangeably. If you’re talking about pornographic drawings, you’d better make damn sure that the audience knows you’re not talking about photographs.

And, of course, if you wish to have any kind of political and/or public life it is just a cultural reality that you can’t publicly admit anything other than zero tolerance toward child pornography. So, even if you think drawings or literature are o.k. it’s best to keep that opinion to yourself.

*It’s also possible he was talking about nonpornographic nude photos, but since he himself used the word pornography I assume he actually meant pornography.

[actualliberalnotoneofthose]

If I look at a picture of a murder victim, did I murder him all over again? I’ m not even talking about taking that picture, just seeing it.

[bienville]

@actualliberalnotoneofthose

If I look at a picture of a murder victim, did I murder him all over again? I’ m not even talking about taking that picture, just seeing it.

If there is a market for photographs of murdered people, and people are being murdered specifically for the revenue that will be brought in by the photograph of the murdered bodies, and you contibute to the market for such photographs then you are complicit in the murder.

Not that you really believe there’s anything honest about the analogy you proposed.

[Guinastasia]

And I’m sure the victims out there think it’s just great that someone is still looking at pictures of their abuse! :rolleyes:

[pope_hentai]

@Jenaroph

I think it’s the part where he said, “What’s wrong with child pornography — in the sense that it’s just pictures?” I could be wrong though.

Boy, that’s some real tone-deaf stuff, there.

Sorry.. I missed that part…
My apologies.

I have seen people get busted at the canadian border for comic books, and even various non pornographic items though. They’ve got a worse situation than we do when it comes to “i knows it when i sees it” attitudes. Definitely didnt mean to defend anyone who defended causing actual harm to actual minors though.

[GuanoLad]

I know what he meant. It was wrong, but not really all that stupid.

He couldn’t see why the act of looking is considered the evil part, when it’s the making that is the real crime. It is often exactly equated, when it’s really quite significantly different.

Of course, he didn’t realise that it was being made to be consumed, therefore… etc etc. But that’s just ignorance, and not really a foolish thought on the face of it.