That was my reply when a friend emailed me the news of Tom Flanagan’s remarks about child pornography.
When a high IQ individual tries to have a detached, theoretical debate with his intellectual inferiors, situations like this result.
Pearls, swine, rinse, repeat.
This is why I don’t believe in “debating” people or going on mixed TV/radio panels:
My opponents are too stupid to understand my ideas.
Exhibit A: Just listen to this typical liberal woman, if you can.
Plus there’s nothing to “debate,” because I’m right.
It’s one of those “…and it annoys the pig” dealios.
PS: The same leftwing people who always insist they’re “just asking questions” about 9/11 are the FIRST ones who want to censor anyone who dares to questions their pet causes.
I am writing to communicate that I was present at the Lethbridge event featuring Tom Flanagan. I want to give you a fuller picture of what happened that night because I feel there has been a miscarriage of justice in the portrayal of Tom Flanagan in the media concerning this matter. (…)
The night Flanagan spoke the room was filled to capacity, perhaps 120 people. There were people from Calgary who drove down to attend. 60% or so were Native, not typical demographic representation, and 80% pro Idle No More supporters. For the next two hours the “audience” controlled both the question and answer portions of the period. The atmosphere turned from academic presentation to town hall forum airing of emotionally driven grievances. Very few were interested in what Flanagan had to offer. Some so called questions took up 15 minutes of time. In many instances, Flanagan was treated like the PM and accused of all sorts of things and was even attacked personally. The audience booed, hissed, and hollered over each other in attacking Flanagan for the two hour q/a period. Towards the end it was visible that he was frustrated, worn out and tired. It is in this context that the child pornography comments need to be placed. (…)
As for the issue of child pornography, it does warrant academic and theoretical consideration. From the outset, I have moral issues with all forms pornography, whether the person is 7, 17, or 77. But there is a hyper sensitivity when it comes to child pornography. Canada’s child pornography laws are very broad. Suppose a “girl”, nearly 18, sends you a photo of her bare chest via her cell phone to your cell phone, you are now in possession of child pornography. Receiving this picture on your phone could possibly land in you jail, because you are in possession of illegal material. Suppose the same “girl” one week later turns 18 and becomes a “woman.” On the day of her birthday she sends me a similar bare chested picture on her phone to my phone, I am not in possession of child pornography and do not possess illegal material. There are several other nuances which could be elucidated to be sure. There is a paradox and hypocrisy in the Canadian justice system in its treatment towards pornography. I suspect Flanagan was trying to unpack some of these things during his failed attempt that tragic night.
