02.28.2013 02:34 PM

Child pornography, real or imagined, is hate pornography

There can be no defence of it, in any context.

My long-held view:

“Possession of child pornography, whether the product of a camera or one’s imagination, does two terrible things. First, it legitimizes the sexualization of children. Decades of expert analysis shows that child pornography more than occasionally prompts pedophiles to attack children.

Secondly, as any student of capitalism will know, the desire to possess something inevitably creates a market. In this terrible case, the product of Robin Sharpe’s dark imagination creates an actual market for his ilk to violate, and destroy, those children Justice Southin referred to – the ones found on the dirty back streets of Brazil.”

That said, I’ll be fascinated to see who condemns Flanagan tomorrow. Particularly the ones who have previously published, say, this guy.


  1. Christian says:

    Totally agree with you Warren.

  2. smelter rat says:

    There’s a real piling on happening today. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. It’s been a bad month for Dear Leader and his band of Reformacon thugs.

  3. Kevin T. says:

    Seriously, who was on Harper’s donor list, because in the long run, he’s appointed and surrounded himself with quite of bit of scumbags and all-around POS, from fraudsters to drunk drivers to homophobe bigots to bullies to spousal abusers to child pornography defenders to Mike Duffy and Charles McVety. You’d think Con central would love it if they could MAKE this stuff up on the opposition, but this reality is aimed square at them and has their name writ large all over. Eventually, even though it should’ve happened a long time ago, shit will stick.
    Someday, when the Dear Leader’s hold on power disappears (karma’s already in the corner waiting to wallop him with a Trudeau already) and all the fires he’s kept simmered down through sheer affronts to democracy and bullying will erupt, this country is going to be faced with a lot more shame then it would even have been thought possible.

  4. G Betts says:

    And they had the gall to say what about Paul Martin? They cannot run fast enough from this guy to escape decades of his service.

  5. KP says:

    As smelter rat said, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. Well.. except possibly Jason Kenney, Vic Toews or any of the other moral majority dropouts we are saddled with as cabinet ministers.

  6. Publius says:

    Child pornography is being promoted on the World Wide Web, and all pornography apparently represents about 2/3rds of all internet traffic. Also the greatest traffic for internet pornography is to Asia and it mostly involves Eastern European children, girls and women. That’s the demand and supply paradigm for internet porn.

    Canadians must be protected, immunized against child porn because it encourages exploitation, incest, even abduction and rape. Sexualization of innocent children is an abomination.

  7. Steven Sands says:

    The pile of HarperCon hypocrisy has reached the point of fermentation.

    Time for the LPC War Room ( assuing there is one) to start giving as good as it has taken from the HarperCons for the last 7 years.

  8. jack says:

    You can probably assume that a bunch of people got off of the man boy love (or whatever it is) mailing list today. The cops should have that list. As for his apology, if he didn’t believe in what he was saying, why did he say it? Harper’s past or is it current inner circle sure has a bunch of sketchy characters.

  9. Wanda says:

    I’m kinda surprised, you the PR guy, haven’t pulled down the thing from your side bar … seems Flanagan is really the “bat-shit crazy” one …

    of course, in terms of actual action against this kinda thing, we are pretty much muzzled by libel chill and as of yesterday, less free speech … just saying

  10. I do find it interesting that orthodox libertarians are joining the chorus against Flanagan. If viewing child pornography can be prohibited because viewership may cause a small minority of people to commit bad acts (i.e. create more child porn), then surely hate speech can be prohibited for the same reason — that is, because it may cause a small minority of _listeners_ to commit bad acts. The two cases seem roughly analogous to me, in that both involve restricting an action at least in part because of what that action might lead others to do.

  11. Which is to say, every argument orthodox libertarians raise against hate speech laws could be raised against the laws that prohibit viewing child pornography. Which makes their condemnation of Flanagan somewhat confusing to me

  12. smelter rat says:

    He’s toast. Resigned from U of C

  13. PSP says:

    It appears that Mr. Permanent Campaign is going to have a lot of extra time on his hands. Perhaps he’ll write another book. (Yawn.) Perhaps he’ll move back to the United States. (Yes!)

  14. Windsurfer says:

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch. I’ve said that all along.

    High-water mark, my friends.

  15. Elijah says:

    Note two things: one of the top Reform/Alliance/Con thinkers reveals the true underbelly of Neo-Conservative laissez-faire thought and by extension, the Prime Minister – the very heart of the executive branch; two, the Supreme Court evidently has placed sexual “rights” worlds above the rights of children. As our legislative branch is the slave of the executive, assume the whole State is poisoned and at the service of deviants. To support it, is to support them.

    Lest, Liberals and NDPers gloat, may I remind them that in light of the Residential School era and the worldwide Catholic Church scandal (the Pope knew!), for over a hundred years there has been a systematic, widespread conspiracy of sex abusers at the very highest levels of power. To support these, is to support them.

    God is not mocked. The Almighty is kindling a cleansing fire. A fire that will sweep across this land burning the wicked and corrupt and all who prey on the innocent.

  16. Campbell says:

    umm… Flanagan’s endorsement of Fight the Right is still up on the right hand side bar of this here website. Will it be removed?

  17. MCBellecourt says:

    I always thought Flanagan was a nut job, but this confirms it, in addition to his advocating the murder of Julian Assange.

    No doubt Harper and Co. are pulling their hair and gnashing their teeth big time here…hmmmmmm…..any guesses on how many chairs got broken in the PMO when this whole thing broke?

  18. Kelly says:

    Harperteam(TM). Wheels. Falling off. Etc.

  19. Anne Peterson says:

    So who’s friends of friends of child pornographers now? Is this the extreme symptom of the culture of entitlement in which the conservatives seem to swim? They have such boundary issues regarding public money and resources, don’t they? Everything is theirs to do with as they choose. No moral issues about it. And Mr. Harper has such an incredibly long list of pals who wallow around in sleaze.

  20. s says:

    Would Vic not say this was probable cause to look at some hard drives?

    • Willian Stephenson says:


      The Jeff Rense network (http://rense.com/general81/rxk.htm above) has featured The Political Cesspool host James Edward and as per Edwards it has been simulcast on Stormfront Radio. *

      If your site is truly an elite anti-National Socialist gathering, please get up to speed on the basic networks.

      Thank you.

      * According to its statement of principles, the show stands for the “Dispossessed Majority” and represents “a philosophy that is pro-White.”It has attracted criticism—including from The Nation, The New Republic, the Stephen Roth Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the Anti-Defamation League—for its promotion of anti-semitic, white nationalist and white supremacist views. According to the SPLC, the show has featured a “Who’s Who of the radical right”, including members of the Ku Klux Klan; they say Edwards has probably done more than anyone in America to promote neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and other extremists.

      • steve says:

        Hi William,

        I had no idea, I just googled Jack Cram. I did not even open the link. Jeff may be a peice of work, but that does not mean he is wrong on this topic.

  21. dave says:

    All I saw on tv was the clip of Flanagan saying that he did not think that a person looking at pictures did anyone harm, and he asked whether or not we want to jail people for looking at pictures.
    Kids are abused in in all kinds of ways, often by other kids. Were we to use the same criminal code we use to protect adults to protect kids we might start getting somewhere.
    There is something obnoxious and hypocritical about the reactions to Flanagan’s flannel mouth comments…almost sounds like compensating.
    I worked with kids who were victims of abuse, some sexual abuse…including a couple of young kids who were used for photos. The expressions of outrage and ‘We must save the children’ just piss me off.
    As with other incidents like this, I doubt that all the sound and fury will help kids at all. (Might elect a couple of Libs or so, which is actually the aim here, isn’t it!)

    • Ed Frink says:

      I think that police should be allowed to look at everyone’s computers to check for pornography that objectifies women and children and to see if there are any hate materials on them.

      It is the only way to stop the demand for such materials.

      • Jason King says:

        So innocent until proven guilty eh Mr Frink? Why should I allow the police to search my computer for said materials if I havent given anyone just cause for concern. You believe that I should give up my privacy rights just so the police can look at everyone’s computers?

        FYI pornography objectifies women. So that point is kind of moot to search for.

  22. frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

    Tom Flanagan was key in bringing about the ascension of the Harper cabal……I rejoice in the man’s downfall……….
    I cant believe an erudite man such as he could be so clueless in making the kind of statement he made….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *