Farewell Flanagan! uh huh. w/ update

Probably not, he will just hide under a rock until his "advice" is needed.
It always is. He just went too far this time, and needs to disappear for a while.

We shall be seeing Flanagan 2.0 soon enough. He will be suddenly enlightened.... or something. He will never say what he really thinks again. He sits on too many think tanks distributing his brand of politics. and they need his "brand".

Yanno, the Harper govt has a distinct pattern of not protecting children. Sure, fetuses are to be protected, kids? Flanagan has said vile and awful things before, but the Harper Govt is so full of sociopaths and horrible people, that most of his stuff passes.

It's OK to be a sexist pig. OK to be a racist, it's OK to advocate for political assassinations, but saying that child porn is a "victimless crime" stirred too many up in the Harper base. 

Remember this little bit of horrific-ness from the crime all the time crap? The key here, is that no one noticed, (cared) that child rapists would get less jail time than pot growers, until the media noticed. Priorities. 

They only care now, because what he said was so flabbergastedly wrong that it pissed people off. Even in prisons pedophiles are reviled and hated. 

The "media" which has allowed him to spew his garbage for so long with zero interference will be short one corporatist hack.

So. Look out for Flanagan 2.0. A gentler fuzzier version, in a sweater vest perhaps? Cuddling kittens? He will still hate women and minorities, but the new incarnation will be all about saving the kiddies. 

I wonder what is on his PC hard drives? Just sayin

UPDATE :And since the other punditry is freaking out to support Flanagan....

“It is a real issue of personal liberty to what extent we put people in jail for doing something in which they do not harm another person.”

That's what the git said....So, they make something up in defense. This is NOT what he said. 

Though this can certainly be read as a decriminalization argument, it might also suggest that demand-side consumption, while remaining a harmful crime, should be addressed more through treatment than incarceration — that we should jail mainly producers who “harm another person” directly. On this reading, Flanagan’s remarks do not treat any part of child pornography as a “victimless crime.”

Consider this statement, just for a second.....

Cannon believes Flanagan wants to decriminalize the allegedly
“victimless” consumption of child pornography, a view she considers
beyond the pale of reasonable debate.

"she considers".......You can just feel a sneer in there.....
Cluebat: IT IS BEYOND THE PALE OF REASONABLE DEBATE. 

 

Kiddie porn should not ever be considered debatable. Period. FULL FUCKING STOP. 

This was what Flanagan was responding to, BTW.

Flanagan made the comment when questioned about a statement he made to The Manitobian in 2009, saying “what’s wrong with child pornography — in the sense that it’s just pictures?”

So they drag out a case that deals with stories and drawings. Most kiddie porn is actually depicting the victimization of actual children. There was no actual definition of whether the discussion was about stories or dirty drawings....
Flanagan, said pictures, so they are just trying to muck around here.

He knew exactly what he was saying. 

The defenders in the Calgary Harald? So do they. And it is truly disgusting that they are attempting to manipulate the facts to protect one of their own. 

The Canadian political pundits. Making shit up since the beginning of this country. Common sense is not a part of anything they say.

Just pictures. THAT is what he said.
How many children suffered to make the "pictures"? They don't count in Flanagan's universe, they don't pay the think tank fees.
Rainer Knopff and Curtis Eaton, go away. You really suck. You are disgustingly twisting the facts here, and I hope you learn that. slimey.
Signed, a mother of four.

Comments

He is scum.

He and his defense team are full of shit. He said possession of child porn should not be prosecuted to the same extent as the producers and distributors. He and his apologists went on to try to paint a benign picture and muddled very different court rulings to make a point. The artist groups that complained about the changes to the child pornography act were concerned about artistic expression that didn't involve the exploitation of children. Big difference and for him and his allies to drag them into his defense of his disgusting position is an insult.

All of these pundits

Are fishing for red herrings and just plain old making shit up.
And they actually think they are experts and that the Canadian public needs to listen to them. They have a sense of self importance. Mind boggling.

It's a fact: 100% of all the people who ate carrots in 1850, are dead.