Tories prepared to stand ground on polygamy ...

[tooblue]

http://www.nationalpost.com/most-pop...tml?id=1423616

OTTAWA -- The Harper government is prepared to defend the constitutionality of Canada's criminal ban against polygamy, arguing the practice represents a "clear challenge" to Canadian values, newly released federal documents show.

Mr. Blackmore's lawyer has vowed to cite his client's religious freedom as a defence, leading some legal and constitutional experts to speculate the case could go all the way to the Supreme Court.

[tooblue]

As I have stated before, the result of these court cases in British Colombia will be the legalization of polygamy in Canada.

[wuapinmon]

As I have stated before, the result of these court cases in British Colombia will be the legalization of polygamy in Canada.

I wonder if Colorado City will move en masse to Medicine Hat.

[Jeff Lebowski]

As I have stated before, the result of these court cases in British Colombia will be the legalization of polygamy in Canada.

Just to be clear, would you see that as a bad thing or a good thing?

[RobinFinderson]

I wonder if Colorado City will move en masse to Medicine Hat.

Is Medicine Hat known for polygamy? All of my Canadian relatives come from polygamy country in SoAlb, and I used to spend a lot of time in Medicine Hat as a kid (they have a big swimming rec center).

[wuapinmon]

Is Medicine Hat known for polygamy? All of my Canadian relatives come from polygamy country in SoAlb, and I used to spend a lot of time in Medicine Hat as a kid (they have a big swimming rec center).

I just picked the quirkiest sounding Canadian town name I could think of from out west.

[tooblue]

Just to be clear, would you see that as a bad thing or a good thing?

I don't know. The legal team representing the polygamists will use the same arguments that were used to legalize same sex marriage in Canada. Those same rulings were cited by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere. Americans should take note of what's going on.

The courts in Canada are very liberal in their rulings. For example, currently in Canada it is legal to own child pornography just so long as you don't distribute it

[RobinFinderson]

The courts in Canada are very liberal in their rulings. For example, currently in Canada it is legal to own child pornography just so long as you don't distribute it

I kind of find this hard to believe. Please sir, would you be so kind as to provide a link?

[tooblue]

I kind of find this hard to believe. Please sir, would you be so kind as to provide a link?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/li...pubs/843-e.htm

In January 1999, in R. v. Sharpe [169 D.L.R. (4th) 536, 22 C.R. (5th) 129, 58 C.R.R. (2d) 261, 40 W.C.B. (2d) 507], a justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that the prohibition against possession of child pornography in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, although he upheld the prohibitions on the possession of child pornography for purposes of publication, distribution and sale.

The case was appealed, on an expedited basis, to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, where a majority decided, in June 1999 [136 C.C.C. (3d) 97, 175 D.L.R. (4th) 1], that section 163.1(4) – the offence of possession of child pornography – contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was heard on 18-19 January 2000, and a decision was rendered on 26 January 2001. The Court found that the law on child pornography strikes a constitutional balance between freedom of expression and the prevention of harm to children. Nevertheless, the Court read into the law two exceptions relating to expressive material privately created and kept by the accused. It found that possession of such material poses no reasonable risk of harm to children if it is:

self-created expressive material, i.e., any written material or visual representation created by the accused alone, exclusively for his or her own personal use; and private recordings of lawful sexual activity, i.e., any visual recording, created by or depicting the accused, provided it does not depict unlawful sexual activity and is held by the accused exclusively for private use. The Court ruled that the possession of these materials should be excepted from section 163.1(4). It should be noted that in the second instance all parties involved must have consented to both the activity and the creation of the record, and the possessor of such material must have personally recorded or participated in the sexual activity it portrays.

[tooblue]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/li...pubs/843-e.htm

Talk about unintended consequences of rulings ...

It should be noted that in the second instance all parties involved must have consented to both the activity and the creation of the record, and the possessor of such material must have personally recorded or participated in the sexual activity it portrays

This is now being challenged by pedophiles who want the courts to rule that it is possible for a child to consent to sex with an adult in order to be protected by the above statement! Very frightening but true.

Man, I hate slippery slopes ... all of this started because an artist in Toronto painted paintings of child sex with an adult:

A controversial case that arose in December 1993 involved child pornography charges against a Toronto artist, Eli Langer, and the art gallery that displayed his work. Mr. Langer’s paintings and drawings show children performing a variety of sexual acts.

[RobinFinderson]

Tooblue, the stuff described by the Canadian courts there is also legal in the United States. The two exceptions are:

1. Fictitious paintings, drawings, computer renderings, writing etc. depicting sexual acts with children. In other words, artwork that was made without the direct involvement of children.

2. Pornography made where one or more consenting adults pretends to be a minor.

Both of these kinds of 'child porn' are legal in the United States. I can think of two movies that I have seen recently, Towelhead and Let the Right One In, that depict sexually charged nudity of adult actors playing child roles.

Regarding the first example, do you really think that a person who draws a picture of an adult and child involved in sexual acts constitutes child pornography? Even if no child was made to do any of those acts?

As an artist, I'm surprised by your position on this. If I draw two stick figures in a sexual position, that is legal. But if I put labels on that drawing identifying one figure as an adult, and the other as a child, I am in possession of child pornography. I just don't buy that.

Reminder, everything that is protected by this court ruling is also legal in the United States.

[wuapinmon]

Tooblue, the stuff described by the Canadian courts there is also legal in the United States. The two exceptions are:

1. Fictitious paintings, drawings, computer renderings, writing etc. depicting sexual acts with children. In other words, artwork that was made without the direct involvement of children.

2. Pornography made where one or more consenting adults pretends to be a minor.

Both of these kinds of 'child porn' are legal in the United States. I can think of two movies that I have seen recently, Towelhead and Let the Right One In, that depict sexually charged nudity of adult actors playing child roles.

Regarding the first example, do you really think that a person who draws a picture of an adult and child involved in sexual acts constitutes child pornography?

Even if no child was made to do any of those acts? As an artist, I'm surprised by your position on this. If I draw two stick figures in a sexual position, that is legal. But if I put labels on that drawing identifying one figure as an adult, and the other as a child, I am in possession of child pornography. I just don't buy that.

Reminder, everything that is protected by this court ruling is also legal in the United States.

As depraved as it sounds, I don't think it should be illegal. However, I would worry about someone indulging in self-gratification to this artwork if they lived in my neighborhood, because I know that my own prior consumption of adult pornography fueled my desire for sex.

It's not a stretch to assume that someone who views artistically-rendered child porn is going to be satiated masturbating to artwork forever.

[RobinFinderson]

It's not a stretch to assume that someone who views artistically-rendered child porn is going to be satiated masturbating to artwork forever.

One of the dangers of living in a free country is that people might draw something, look at it, and get turned on.

[wuapinmon]

One of the dangers of living in a free country is that people might draw something, look at it, and get turned on.

Which is why I said that I don't think it should be illegal.

[tooblue]

Tooblue, the stuff described by the Canadian courts there is also legal in the United States. The two exceptions are:

1. Fictitious paintings, drawings, computer renderings, writing etc. depicting sexual acts with children. In other words, artwork that was made without the direct involvement of children.

2. Pornography made where one or more consenting adults pretends to be a minor.

Both of these kinds of 'child porn' are legal in the United States. I can think of two movies that I have seen recently, Towelhead and Let the Right One In, that depict sexually charged nudity of adult actors playing child roles.

Regarding the first example, do you really think that a person who draws a picture of an adult and child involved in sexual acts constitutes child pornography? Even if no child was made to do any of those acts?

As an artist, I'm surprised by your position on this. If I draw two stick figures in a sexual position, that is legal. But if I put labels on that drawing identifying one figure as an adult, and the other as a child, I am in possession of child pornography. I just don't buy that.

Reminder, everything that is protected by this court ruling is also legal in the United States.

The initial post and link I cited, and court case with the ruling in question dealt with a pedophile who had hundreds of images of small children being molested by grown men on his computer. THAT IS NOT ART! By rule of law he is allowed to keep those images in his possession as long as he doesn't distribute them. There is NOTHING similar to that ruling and the laws that now exist in the states.

Art, oil paintings, depicting boys having sex with men supposedly from the artist's imagination got the whole ball rolling. NO, I do not consider it art - it is reprehensible and child pornography!