Only in Quebec is this allowed though, not the rest of Canada [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28c...
EDIT: turns out I'm wrong, disregard this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28c...
EDIT: turns out I'm wrong, disregard this.
Anton Piller orders are under common law, so already completely legal in the 'rest of Canada' as you say
Yet another wonderful law funded by the IP lobby. Buying instead of pirating is rapidly becoming indefensible, when the profits are used to buy laws like this.
When corporations bribe politicians to strip you of your rights, they should be considered hostile.
Would you argue that propaganda glorifying the extermination of a community of a real religious or ethnic group, say Jews, would be ok if the community depicted was fictional?
There is first a key difference in the kind of material I am talking about. You are talking about propaganda, I am talking about even private possession of drawings. Further, I think that it depends on if the cartoon in your scenario acutally calls for violence, or if it is merely a scene drawn in disgusting taste. I would find it disgusting, as would many others - but does that mean it ought to be illegal? To distribute on the street perhaps, but what about privately on the Internet? Or publicly on the Internet?
The key is intent. The intent of child pornography legislation is to prevent its circulation and production, for its production necessarily requires the abuse of a child, and market effects can demand more to be produced, necessitating more child abuse. As such I think it absurd to consider, for the purposes of child pornography legislation, a fictional character to be a "person". What harm is done by drawing on paper? What of keeping that paper to oneself in private? What of giving that paper to your friend? What of selling that paper for a price? What of giving it away for free?
It would be strange, though I accept, that you want the propaganda you describe to be illegal to possess or share. I however cannot agree on that principle, for I view it as a violation of one's rights of freedom of expression. In the same way, illegalising a disgusting pornographic comic I believe is also an infringement.
Finally there is no real victim being hounded in your example. There is no call to violence, threat etc. and I judge it hideous that one would prevent me from owning such material.
In other words I think child pornography is a form of propaganda glorifying the sexual abuse of children.
Until there is sufficient evidence, I will tend to err on the side of freedom. Unfortunately in my country (England) such depictions are illegal and I have campaigned online for the past couple of years for its repeal - though God forbid I do it in person.
I think we are living in a very strange world in which drawings are illegal because they might cause people to do bad things.
With regard to the idea that drawn CP is a form of propaganda, I must disagree. In propaganda there is intent, and there is no intent I can see in lolicon hentai manga to encourage abuse. In fact, many manga contain warning notices saying that such things in real life are hideous crimes.
And even in the instances in which it is propaganda, so what? People must be shielded by the law from propaganda?
The HN mods have put a flag on my account which says that I'm not allowed to post very often because once I was posting in quick succession on a political topic. As such, if you reply to this, my reply may be an addendum to this comment.