Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
I think there has to be a certain amount of intent involved, as well, but I would tend to agree with your general point. For instance, if someone clicks an unidentified link and it leads to an image of child abuse pornography which they were not intending to view, I can't see how that could be considered criminal on their part.
That's not what Flanagan was saying at all. I don't see how anyone can agree with his comments at all. They way he phrased it totally dismisses the victims of child pornography, ie the children, and makes the actual pedophiles out to be the victims of a criminal justice system that puts them behind bars.
Child porn is definitely harmful. The children involved would be deeply emotionally scarred for life. As Kirk stated, if there were no demand, there would be no production. It is the duty of government to lower demand of child porn by putting penalties on the possession of it as well as the production.
Now, if we were talking about erotic literature that is perverse, I can see how people would tolerate that because no real people are involved.
Yep, but going even further down this road, what if someone views or creates illustrations of child pornography? Where does that fall on the spectrum?
I'm not saying I agree with Flanagan, because he clearly did not think through the logical endpoint of the cycle that viewing child porn perpetuates, but if the rationale is solely based on the idea of "viewing child porn harms children because it encourages more people to make child porn" would drawings or illustrations be exempt since no kids were harmed in their making?
Yep, but going even further down this road, what if someone views or creates illustrations of child pornography? Where does that fall on the spectrum?
I'm not saying I agree with Flanagan, because he clearly did not think through the logical endpoint of the cycle that viewing child porn perpetuates, but if the rationale is solely based on the idea of "viewing child porn harms children because it encourages more people to make child porn" would drawings or illustrations be exempt since no kids were harmed in their making?
In that case Sharpe challenged the child pornography laws as an infringement of his freedom of thought and expression. In particular drawings and prose that did not depict actual children should not be covered.
The SCOC ruled that the child pornography provisions in the Criminal Code violated freedom of thought and expression but was justified under Section 1 as the government objective of protecting children from exploitation was proportional to the violation.
The SCOC found that the some of the child pornography provisions were too broad for including two types of material that should not constitute child pornography as they do not pose a direct potential harm to children. First, where the written or visual representations were created and possessed by the accused for exclusive personal use, and second, where "visual recordings created by or depicting the accused that do not depict unlawful sexual activity and are held by the accused exclusively for private use."
The key was personal use and McLachlin CJ said this about imaginary persons - which could form the basis for a charge and conviction:
Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.
~ Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Sharpe, Paragraph 38
In that case Sharpe challenged the child pornography laws as an infringement of his freedom of thought and expression. In particular drawings and prose that did not depict actual children should not be covered.
The SCOC ruled that the child pornography provisions in the Criminal Code violated freedom of thought and expression but was justified under Section 1 as the government objective of protecting children from exploitation was proportional to the violation.
The SCOC found that the some of the child pornography provisions were too broad for including two types of material that should not constitute child pornography as they do not pose a direct potential harm to children. First, where the written or visual representations were created and possessed by the accused for exclusive personal use, and second, where "visual recordings created by or depicting the accused that do not depict unlawful sexual activity and are held by the accused exclusively for private use."
The key was personal use and McLachlin CJ said this about imaginary persons - which could form the basis for a charge and conviction:
Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.
~ Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Sharpe, Paragraph 38
Thanks. I seemed to recall a case like this but couldn't remember the specifics.
I'm not so sure I agree with the ruling. It's a tough area morally, since child pornography is such a despicable act, but this seems to be the truest example of a victimless crime.
The Canadian government today introduced a bill aimed at ensuring the Canada complies with the widely discredited Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Despite the European Union's total rejection of ACTA along with assurances that ACTA provisions would not resurface in the Canada - EU Trade Agreement, the new bill is designed to ensure that Canada is positioned to ratify ACTA by addressing border measures provisions.
Looks like the 'grassroots' party for little people is showing its corporate fangs. And even more than a slight disdain for libertarian ideals...not sure but I think even a Liberal Party in power might try to pull this fast one too, so I'm not sure how badly they will diss this. They might for the fun. This is one of those times when we really need conservatives to step up to speak to their party, the govt. won't listen to anyone else.
Fantastic article by the National Post on the dilemma between a student's money and student unions. It does seem as if the right to opt-out is hidden from many students. I am starting to believe the process should be an opt-in, instead. The sense of entitlement is ridiculous.
Fantastic article by the National Post on the dilemma between a student's money and student unions. It does seem as if the right to opt-out is hidden from many students. I am starting to believe the process should be an opt-in, instead. The sense of entitlement is ridiculous.
BC Liberals just got caught doing what, I suspect, all Canadian political parties have done since the beginning of time.
It's all about winning votes, I fail to see the shock in this revelation.
On the radio today (CKNW) the host stated that the memo suggested that the Liberals use their position in government to use provincial funds to run ads to appeal to ethnic groups. To me, that shows that members of the BC Liberal party had intent to misappropriate government funds.
On the radio today (CKNW) the host stated that the memo suggested that the Liberals use their position in government to use provincial funds to run ads to appeal to ethnic groups. To me, that shows that members of the BC Liberal party had intent to misappropriate government funds.
I mean, how much worse could it possibly get for the Liberals anyway? An NDP government with the Greens leading the opposition would be pretty interesting though.
If Christy Clark does resign as Premier, how do the BC Liberals have a leadership convention by May 14th? Surely people aren't going to vote for a party with an interim leader.
Didn't people think that about the NDP after Glen Clark?
It's taken them more than a decade to recover. Liberals will be lucky if they don't go the way of the Socreds at this point. They have no credibility and little support.
It's taken them more than a decade to recover. Liberals will be lucky if they don't go the way of the Socreds at this point. They have no credibility and little support.
This is true, the NDP has the eternal support of the federal party and the unions, the BC Liberals broke away from the federal party (and shifted quite right, unlike all the other provincial Liberal Parties which broke off) and is one of many options for non-union members. It seems similar to the Socreds in the fact that they collapsed when the federal party was long gone.
Not really. They didn't propose anything so brazen as what these Liberals were.
Based on my limited knowledge, it seems like the racial motivations of the Federal Tories, mixed with the tax dollars for party purposes schemes of the Federal Liberals, mixed with the incompetence and setting of the BC Socreds. A recipe for disaster.
Re: BC Liberals. Are people still being surprised by the cynicism of politicians? The misappropriation of public funds for political gains is also pretty widespread. As a voter, I am freaking tired of this, but moral indignation from other parties makes me throw up a little.
Sadly, if the support for a party is strong among its base, it can just shrug this type of things off, and let other topics take over (who still remembers the G20 slush funds?). So, this scandal isn't damaging the BC Liberals, its the rest of their bungling that did that job. It's more that the noise this generates being the reflection of the weakness of the party.
Re: BC Liberals. Are people still being surprised by the cynicism of politicians? The misappropriation of public funds for political gains is also pretty widespread. As a voter, I am freaking tired of this, but moral indignation from other parties makes me throw up a little.
Sadly, if the support for a party is strong among its base, it can just shrug this type of things off, and let other topics take over (who still remembers the G20 slush funds?). So, this scandal isn't damaging the BC Liberals, its the rest of their bungling that did that job. It's more that the noise this generates being the reflection of the weakness of the party.
To be fair, from what I understand the BC Liberals didn't even do anything particularly unethical. They had a staffer or several staffers who advised they do unethical things.
Based on my limited knowledge, it seems like the racial motivations of the Federal Tories, mixed with the tax dollars for party purposes schemes of the Federal Liberals, mixed with the incompetence and setting of the BC Socreds. A recipe for disaster.
Do we set the BC Liberal Over/Under at 2 seats?
I'd take the over on that. Still plenty of fundies who won't park their vote with the - pathetic and irrelevant - BC Conservatives yet. There are Liberal strongholds in the province that the NDP won't be able to get into yet, although they'll get more than a few seats because of right-wing vote splitting.
