Political Correctness watch: Tom Flanagan edition

It is without question that one of the most noxious political diseases of our day is Political Correctness, which is why the recent whoop-dee-doo about Tom Flanagan’s child pornography comments is so dispiriting. Political Correctness first started out as an ideological tool for controlling public discourse, put forward by left-wing theoreticians like Herbert Marcuse in the 60’s. Therefore it is not surprising that the CBC would fire Flanagan, or that the University of Calgary would retire him. It is however disappointing, at least with regard to the university - which should be a champion of free discourse. (With regard to the CBC, I have no expectations, however low. But that is another story.)

What is most depressing about this affair is the extent to which this pox has been revealed to have infected the institutions of the right: organizations which should oppose political correctness with every fibre of their being, both for practical as well as moral reasons. Exhibit A is Andrew MacDougall, the spokesman for the PM, who tweeted, “Tom Flanagan’s comments on child pornography are repugnant, ignorant, and appalling.” Exhibit B is worse, and comes from Danielle Smith, the leader of the Wildrose Party. She said, “There is no language strong enough to condemn Dr. Flanagan’s comments…. To be clear, Dr. Flanagan does not speak for me or the Wildrose caucus and he will have no role — formal or informal — with our organization going forward.” Oh well, so much for gratitude! Tom Flanagan midwifed both the Federal Conservative Party and the Wildrose Alliance into existence. Both owe a huge debt of gratitude to Tom Flanagan’s preliminary work and foresight that they can never repay. Basic loyalty and common decency demanded a lot more from them than Flanagan got.

All they needed to say was this, “We disagree with Tom Flanagan’s opinions on child pornography. It is the policy of our party that child pornography is a serious crime.” Period. Full stop.  No need to elaborate any further, as he didn’t say what he said as their representative.

To demonstrate the appropriateness of my suggestion, let’s conduct a gedankeneksperiment. Suppose that instead of remarking on child pornography he had remarked on murder instead, suggesting that the criminal code is too harsh on murderers. What would have been the reaction?

Doubtlessly, the political parties would have tried to disassociate themselves from the immediate comments while giving him the benefit of the doubt, basically assuming that he had misspoken or was misquoted, all the while hoping that he would clear it up with a clarification. And this would have been the correct response, in spite of the fact that the unlawful taking of human life is a far more serious crime than downloading a jpeg.

In our PC inspired, self-righteous indignation, we should recognize what Flanagan actually said, and, just as importantly what he did not say. He did not say that he favours child molesters, and he did not say that he favours child pornography. He only wondered aloud about the efficacy of jailing people whose only crime is viewing child pornography, suggesting that, perhaps, some form of ‘treatment’ would be better. As a tough-on-crime conservative, I personally favour punishment and deterrence over rehabilitation. But you know what? In a democracy, this is the kind of thing we argue over, and settle by voting – not by scapegoating our opponents and drumming them out on a rail. That is why I accept the fact that there are a significant number of people in our body politic (primarily on the left, but also including some libertarians) who favour rehabilitation over punishment for an entire range of crimes – including murder! And they aren’t drummed out of respectable circles. Nor should they be.

And neither should Tom Flanagan, for tentatively supporting a much less radical proposition.

Comments

[Eric]

Totally agree.

[JoeFrmEdm]

"DITTO"

[Robert]

U of Calagry dumped Flanagan. That is rock solid conservative country. Good grief. This wasn't political correctness. Who wants to associate with a guy in favour of pedophilia and child abuse.

[Cincinnatus]

Dear Robert:

I have news for you, no university campus constitutes "rock solid conservative country" whether the campus be in Calgary or Caracas.

[Fred from BC]

"Who wants to associate with a guy in favour of pedophilia and child abuse."

That's exactly the kind of knee-jerk political correctness that this post speaks about. Think before you post, Robert...

[Dan Mancuso]

I respect Mr. Flanagan for his insight, intelligence and courage to address unpopular issues. I agree with what Canadian Cincinnatus says about the above hysteria surrounding this incident. Mr. Flanagan was correct in asserting people shouldn't be prosecuted for looking at pictures that harm no one. BUT, in this instance - child pornagrahpy - someone is harmed, children!
I believe, deeply, in the right of free speech and free expression. I also acknowledge there are a very few limitations on those rights, or exceptions to the rule, like shouting fire in a crowded theatre AND producing child porn. Since you can't produce child porn with out exploiting and damaging children, child porn is rightfully illegal and should be condemned by society. Mr. Flanagan's mistake was in not clarifying this difference at the time he said it.

[Frank]

Calgary is a hotbed of liberalism? It's knee jerk to avoid associating with pedophiles? What is wrong with you? Do you stand for anything?

[Hamish]

The willies Party fired Flanagan too. They clearly are a bunch of liberal kneejerk reactionaries.

[Cincinnatus]

Dear Frank:

Please read carefully the views of others before you object to them.

Nobody is advocating for pedophilia (including Tom Flanagan); nobody is "associating with pedophiles" (including Tom Flanagan); and nobody said that "Calgary is a hotbed of liberalism." With regard to the latter comment, I was discussing the University of Calgary, which is clearly distinct entity from the City of Calgary.