Originally Posted by finlay666 
......
I feel that to basically say that someone opposed to the extreme pornography aswell is a bit of a jump from one extreme to another. IIRC Child pornography is already illegal so these new laws would not affect it......
Just to clarify, in case you didn't read my opus post earlier, the Bill that contains the extreme porn provisions does indeed contain amendments to the provisions in child porn.
The Bill itself, therefore, does affect those. But G4Z didn't comment to Mr Clelland on or object to the whole bill, just those extreme porn provisions, which are separate sections to the child porn amendments. Mr Clelland seems to have conflated the child porn issue himself. And I wonder why? Perhaps because he thinks (probably rightly) that if you mention child porn, people get emotional and won't actually bother to look as far as to see either whether his constituent mentioned child porn (he didn't) or whether the issues he did raise included the child porn provisions (and they don't).
It therefore seems, to me, to be a devious politician's trick, and a cheap stunt in debating circles. It's the strawman argument, and bears a remarkable resemblance to a salesman's bait-and-switch technique, or a magician's diversionary technique. Any trained illusionist could explain that a large part of the illusion is to get people looking either at the wrong place, or the right place but at the wrong time .... or even at the right place at the right time but to set things up so that they don't believe what they saw.
Either Mr Clelland genuinely misunderstood the points raised, or the whole child porn thing is a straw man diversion, used to move the focus of public and media attention away from where it rightly belongs .... his arrogant and intemperate letter, from a public servant to someone he is
supposed to work for. I know which I'm inclined to think it is, seeing as the child porn assertion came out of nowhere .... from Mr Clelland. Shameful.