Liberal-Left favor ARTISTIC child porn, then?

Related Articles

“Safe supply” is itself an addictive drug, and a political ideology

The progressives' insistence on "safe supply" has little to...

The progressives in Ottawa and at liberalvision CTV “News” aim to exhaust us with lies

When even the government-appointed "special Interlocutor" (LOL) is as...

Marco Misinformer

Lots of tweets this morning about Marco ("Misinformer") Mendicino,...

The Article

A couple of years ago, the Canadian Alliance (now merged with the Conservative) Party introduced four motions designed to tighten up child pornography laws which they thought were much too liberal and relaxed and bound to enable something horrible to happen to a young child.

Liberals think people like pornographers should be free to express themselves in any which way, and they apparently think that there is a possibility that such material could maybe possibly have “artistic merit”, the age of the victim notwithstanding. 

Small L liberals are responsible for such governments grants as those that went to artist Chris Ofili who, back in 1999 smeared elephant feces and pasted pornographic photographs on an image of the Virgin Mary and hung it in the Brooklyn Museum of Art.  When normal people complained, they were ridiculed as “radicals”, “right wing zealots”, and “conservatives”.  It was liberals who rushed to his defence and won the day.

That’s a key difference between liberals and conservatives.  No shit.

Towing the governing Liberal Party of Canada line means rather than risk taking away artistic freedom from child pornographers and pedophiles, they decided in Parliament to take the famous Liberal “wait-and-see” and “cross our fingers” approach, much like they do with the terrorism file, health care, national security, the Coast Guard, and, well, darn near everything.

The Canadian Alliance (Conservative) Party worked to close the “artistic merit” loophole that can be exploited in court by those who defend child pornography.

On the heels of a story a couple of days ago in which pedophile Michael Briere pleaded guilty to abducting, sexually assaulting, then finally murdering little 10-year-old Holly Jones, and confessed that he had been driven by an insatiable appetite for child pornography which he had just viewed on the internet, the Conservative Party sent out a topical news release to the media yesterday. It listed four votes Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin cast in 2002 against measures introduced by the Canadian Alliance to outlaw child pornography, including the establishment of a national sex offender registry.

Paul Martin voted against a motion prohibiting creation or use of child pornography (House of Commons, April 23, 2002).

Paul Martin voted against a motion calling for legislation to protect children from sexual predators (House of Commons, April 23, 2002).

Paul Martin voted against making the age of sexual consent higher than 14 (House of Commons, April 23, 2002).

Paul Martin voted against establishing a national sex offender registry (House of Commons, Feb. 5, 2002).

Why would Liberal Paul Martin vote against this?  Because he’s Liberal?  Is that their philosophy?

The motions lost, with most Liberals, the Bloc QuÃ

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel
Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)

You can use this form to give feedback to the editor. Say nice things or say hello. Or criticize if you must. 

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?

    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —spot_img