No, Seriously: Harper’s Ex-Chief Of Staff Defended Watching Child Porn. Yes He Did.

Rosie mentioned it in his post this morning. I thought he’d cracked because this is too bizarre to be real. But it is! It IS true!

And, and, holy shit! Tom Flanagan’s on the mailing list of the North American Man Boy Love Association! (And that’s a real thing! I thought NAMBLA was a South Park joke!)

It looks like my old student paper, The Manitoban, is at the root of this, getting Flanagan to hint at his, um, bold views on kiddie porn back in 2009. Money quote:

Before making his comments about context in the media during his first lecture, Flanagan digressed for a moment and spoke about the misinterpretation of the beliefs of lawyers, due to the people they defend in court. Flanagan cited the example of Stockwell Day suggesting that a lawyer by the name of Lorne Goddard, who had defended a client accused of possessing child pornography, believed the same thing as their client — “that the lawyer himself believed that it was OK to have child pornography.” Flanagan then continued, saying “But that’s actually another interesting debate or seminar: what’s wrong with child pornography — in the sense that it’s just pictures? But I’m not here to debate that today.”

Good for them! Proud to have once tarnished that noble fishwrapper with my idiocies.

More on this story here and here and here. Wonder if any search warrants will be issued for Flanagan’s personal computers.

About Stephen Whitworth

When he was a kid, Stephen Whitworth didn't like people who kicked over snowmen. He likes them even less now that he's a grown-up.

10 Responses to No, Seriously: Harper’s Ex-Chief Of Staff Defended Watching Child Porn. Yes He Did.

  1. Stephen LaRose February 28, 2013 at 1:41 pm #

    I’m half expecting the Deputy Prime Minister to sign out a Messerschmidt ME-110 and fly to Scotland before the week is out …

  2. the regina mom February 28, 2013 at 3:22 pm #

    Oh, ew! Flanagan has always had the capacity to creek me out, but oh, nothing like this story does! Ew!

    But yay to cracks in the ConArmour!

  3. the regina mom February 28, 2013 at 3:23 pm #

    *creep

  4. pat steel moyer February 28, 2013 at 6:25 pm #

    What a sicko!

  5. Carle Steel March 1, 2013 at 11:42 am #

    These people are truly amoral. Good analysis here: http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/28/where-does-tom-flanagan-think-child-porn-comes-from/

  6. T.D. Ward March 1, 2013 at 3:52 pm #

    So he “accidentally” ended up on the NAMBLA mailing list and recieved the mailings for a COUPLE OF YEARS!?! Guess he was so busy getting off that he forgot to get off the list. And what moron doesn’t understand that the creation of child pornography requires the sexualization and molestation of children, and that viewing it supports such acts and further victimizes the children in the images. It’s like cheering someone else on while they rape a child and then claiming you did nothing wrong because you did’t “hurt” the child yourself. Wow, he is in some serious denial.

  7. the regina mom March 1, 2013 at 4:50 pm #

    I sure hope some intrepid reporter digs deeper into that accidentally getting on the NAMBLA mailing list bit…

  8. Brian Mouland March 2, 2013 at 2:27 am #

    Flanagan is a sick puppy but trying to tie anything to his former employers which by the way includes the CBC is partisanship at its worst and misses the point

  9. johnnyboy March 6, 2013 at 1:37 pm #

    I think he was just trying to say that its weird that simply looking at something can land you in jail… Not that child porn is acceptable.

    It’s like if today the gov’t of canada announced that anyone caught looking at the painting of the Mona Lisa would result in jail time.

    Obviously we cannot allow any form of child pornography to exist because it only supports the creation for more of it, but the idea of throwing someone in jail because they looked at something is a bit interesting.

    Sad that people are ignoring his point and instead are trying to judge him as if he supports and/or views child pornography himself.

  10. the regina mom March 6, 2013 at 4:46 pm #

    Oh, johnnyboy, that’s a very terrible comparison!

    No one was harmed in the creation of the Mona Lisa. A child is harmed in the creation of the photo. The child is sexualized, manipulated and abused in various degrees. To look at the image is to participate in the abuse.

    If there were no people to look at it, there’d be no child porn.

Leave a Reply