Those who have e-mailed us about Tom Flanagan need to understand something. This was not the first time he’s taken his notorious position on child pornography.
He spoke at The University of Manitoba Aboriginal Students’ Association in 2009 and this was what happened:
While Flanagan was talking to the students, he 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.”
So this guy is already soft on child porn. No organization before it hires someone in a sensitive public position does so without thoroughly researching his/her background. So this was known to the CBC, The Wildrose Party in Alberta, and anyone else who hired him. And they were apparently okay with it. What other conclusion can you come to?
The question we have is, why were they okay with it? Why did it only become not okay now after a major public uproar? And why are some people still defending him?
To cite examples, neo-conservative spokesperson Alise Mills said that Flanagan was a strong supporter of liberty and free speech and it’s a pity he couldn’t come onto the CBC and explain his position better.
National Post right-wing writer John Iveson agreed it was a terrible loss and unfair that he wasn’t allowed to explain his position further on the show.
Both these two people still retain their jobs.
