Tories prepared to stand ground on polygamy ...

[RobinFinderson]

ENOUGH!

It is currently illegal to possess child pornography in Canada. It has always been illegal to possess child pornography in Canada. There was a temporary period of time, between 1999 and 2001 when the courts in a single province were unsure if illegal child pornography included pornographic fabrications in which no minors were involved. This discrepancy did not legalize ALL child porn. There was never any question about photos depicting the rape of children. During the brief period of time, some cases that were working their way through the system were stalled. Stalled cases does not mean that it is legal to possess child porn, and the non-legal opinion you quote was poorly worded to make it seem like that might have been true.

R. v. Sharpe was decided by the supreme court in early 2001. You are right TB, the wording of the ruling is not ambiguous. In fact, it is perfectly clear, and I will stop mincing words (and stop posting in this thread) and just say straight up -- You do not understand the implications of this ruling, or any of the rulings R. v. Sharpe rulings from the lower courts. Video and photographic depictions of child rape have NEVER been legal in Canada.

Now stop slandering my mother country's character.

ciao

[tooblue]

ENOUGH!

It is currently illegal to possess child pornography in Canada. It has always been illegal to possess child pornography in Canada. There was a temporary period of time, between 1999 and 2001 when the courts in a single province were unsure if illegal child pornography included pornographic fabrications in which no minors were involved. This discrepancy did not legalize ALL child porn. There was never any question about photos depicting the rape of children. During the brief period of time, some cases that were working their way through the system were stalled. Stalled cases does not mean that it is legal to possess child porn, and the non-legal opinion you quote was poorly worded to make it seem like that might have been true.

R. v. Sharpe was decided by the supreme court in early 2001. You are right TB, the wording of the ruling is not ambiguous. In fact, it is perfectly clear, and I will stop mincing words (and stop posting in this thread) and just say straight up -- You do not understand the implications of this ruling, or any of the rulings R. v. Sharpe rulings from the lower courts. Video and photographic depictions of child rape have NEVER been legal in Canada.

Now stop slandering my mother country's character.

ciao

Enough already yourself. You are siting wikipedia for hell sakes! I sited the parliamentary library. The ruling is clear and so is factual history since and up until now. There was no law prohibiting possession of child pornography because the previous law was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. This isn't a game Robin. The implications are more than clear. An artist in Toronto, in 1993, painted images of children engaged in sex acts. He was charged under the existing law. The case went before the supreme court and the charges were dropped because the law was deemed unconstitutional.

In 1999 a known pedophile used arguments from the artists court case as a defense of his photos and writings. Some 500 of his photos, taken by him while on a trip to Sri Lanka and Asia, were of boys as young as nine years old. The age of the boys depicted in hundreds more photos still in this man's possession could not be determined so they were not taken from him. The courts could not determine whether the boys were 12, 13, 14 etc. The age of consent in Canada at the time was 14 years old.

The minimum allowable punishment for possession was jail time. The pedophile was give 4 months confinement in his own home and prohibited from contact with minors in 2002. The laws concerning child pornography were rewritten and read into law in 2005, effective 2006! So from 1993 to 2006 there was NO LAW against possession of child pornography. To date the law has yet to be challenged because ... ?

[tooblue]

Where does it say this?

Do the math robin. In your wikipedia article it states that there was a collection of computer discs on his possession when he returned from a trip over seas. The police also found a collection photos at his apartment. 500 of those images were confiscated. How many more were not?

The pedophile in question is an activist for pederastic boylove. And yet he was given a sentence of 4 months house confinement? No jail time?