Monday, March 4, 2013

Tom Flanagan explains

The National Post newspaper has published a piece in which Dr. Tom Flanagan explains his comments regarding the penalty for “people who are pornography voyeurs, but not child molesters.” (h/t Blue Like You blog.)

I’ve had my say about the professor’s comments, and won’t repeat myself here. I notice, though, there is more push-back now from those who believe the professor has been shabbily treated by those who have not been content with condemning his comments, but who are attacking him personally and even firing him from various jobs.

I believe the motive behind much of the attacks on Dr. Flanagan is to tarnish Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s reputation through association with his former chief of staff and political advisor. Too bad some need to stoop so low.

Push-back I’ve seen comes, notably, from academia and from Jonathan Kay, comment pages editor of the National Post, who was quick to write:

At the very least, Mr. Flanagan’s many years as a respected public intellectual have earned him the right to be given the benefit of the doubt about the meaning of his remarks. But no one seems willing to give him that benefit. That is more than just wrong. It is a species of mob cruelty.”

I echo Mr. Kay’s sentiment. Bravo! to him and others who have the intellectual integrity to allow this well-respected political scientist to express an opinion. Please read Dr. Flanagan’s explanation, before reaching any final conclusion.

1 comment:

  1. Seems to me that many of the people,institutions and media outlets that are condemning Mr Flanagan are the very same that supported the age of consent as being 14 yrs or as I call it child abuse.
    Seems a wee bit hypocritical to me, but then many of the same also support the idea that unless your 18 your too immature to understand the implications of blowing someone's head off or committing rape and should be treated as a child by the courts.
    Also seems to me the so called intellectual media and political class have the moral convictions of a weasel in a hen house, the debating skills of an illiterate narcissist (hence political correctness and fascist human rights tribunals)and the same sense of self entitlement as royalty.
    Why people give a shyte what these people say or think is beyond me, half the time they don't know themselves until they are told, what to think or say.