Historically, men have been sexually dominant. And their view of women was that they be submissive - not dominant, or independently active.
The subject of Alex Chapman’s sex life has come up again, since first being mentioned in July, 2012, informing us that the man who accused Jack King and wife judge Lori Douglas of sexual harassment was a sex performer who sought paying clients online (Chapman was 'online sex performer,' July 19, 2012; ‘Man at centre of Manitoba naked judge case was a sex performer: lawyer,’ Sept 17, 2012). The reality is that both Chapman and Douglas are ‘sexual performers.’ However, only one of them has been legitimized through historically-approved gender roles. Changes in perceptions of gender roles, not fully accepted across social and workplace boundaries, are at the root of this problem facing the Inquiry panel members, brought together to look into the circumstances of Lori Douglas's application for and acceptance as a Manitoba judge.
If the lawyers for Lori Douglas think that treating Chapman and Douglas the same is a way of avoiding bias, they are sadly mistaken. And if they try to have the inquiry ended for the reason of unfair bias, they are, once again, deluded as to what bias actually means, within the larger context of society, tradition, and sexual gender roles.
In July of this year, 2012, it was thought by two of the Inquiry panel members (Catherine Fraser and Guy Pratte) and by Rocco Galati, Chapman’s lawyer, that introducing Alex Chapman’s sex life into the proceedings would be unfair to him, showing him to have had consensual sexual relations despite disapproving of Lori Douglas’s sexual activities. However, Ms Fraser of the Inquiry panel apparently missed the point of consensual relationships by ignoring the power difference between Chapman, a client of Jack King’s, and the power couple of King and Douglas. It wouldn’t have been mutually consensual, for them to meet for the purpose of sex between Chapman and Douglas, not as long as one had more power than the other. As it turned out, the only power Chapman had, and one that made him fearful, was to take the case of sexual harassment to court.
Lori Douglas’s lawyer, Sheila Block, argued over the same point, saying that including that evidence would lessen the impact of Chapman’s claim that he was "shocked" and "damaged" by King's proposal of sex (Chapman was 'online sex performer,' July 19, 2012).
The problem with this kind of logic, as expressed by Lori Douglas’s lawyer especially, is that judge Lori Douglas and Alex Chapman are being treated as equals by members of the Inquiry panel and the lawyers, with no gender-specific or other differences in their beliefs, sexual conditioning, and social status being acknowledged. Trying to equate the kind of sexual behaviours that Lori Douglas engaged in with the kind that Chapman did doesn’t work. They come steeped in culture, gender-specific traditions, and power differences of various kinds. To start with, the images that distressed Chapman, that Jack King showed him, were of Lori Douglas, “naked in various forms of bondage, in chains, with sex toys and performing oral sex” (Judge sex controversy lawsuit quashed, Nov 16, 2010).
I would argue that Alex Chapman’s background, possibly his Jamaican roots, and his male conditioning, could easily account for his horror at seeing pics of the judge in bondage gear. We might assume that Chapman was a traditional man, raised to treat women in a particular manner, and not used to seeing them as dominant.
Journalist Dean Pritchard reports Chapman’s reaction to Jack King propositioning him to have sex with his wife, Lori Douglas, and to the photos of King’s wife and the website, as follows “It was sadistic stuff. I would never treat a woman like that. They were terrible pictures,” and “I went and checked it out and it was a paid website where there were black men raping white women, at least that's how I interpreted it. . . . I was disgusted by that stuff.” (King ‘messed with my head’, July 16, 2012).
Is it conceivable that a man who performs sexually for women online might hold traditional views of sexuality and gender roles? Certainly it is! Is it also a possibility that a man’s country of origin and his race could also affect his view of authority figures and punishment for going against what is expected of him? Of course! So we have one dominant sexual personality coming up against another, but only one of which is a traditional viewpoint. The other is feminist.
In the National Post’s Full Comment, Christie Blatchford writes about Chapman in a tone that suggests she doesn’t understand what it is like to be afraid of those in authority, of not having backup when needed, from one’s employer or even from one’s country. She ridicules and demeans Alex Chapman in a way that suggests she has no real comprehension of how a person might feel about his powerlessness, or how his very real powerlessness affects his life. She writes, quoting Chapman,
“‘Manitoba’s bench is totally corrupted,’ he said at another point. There were very ‘powerful people and they would make my life miserable,’ he said on a different occasion.”
Then she adds,
“The best, and also the worst, moment came when Mr. Chapman said, with a straight face, ‘These are powerful people I was dealing with and they may come and kill me’ (Accuser’s case against Manitoba judge perishing from self-inflicted wounds, Jul 17, 2012).
I can’t imagine that Christie Blatchford has ever felt that way.
As stated by journalist Steve Lambert, the five-member panel overseeing the inquiry has to deal with accusations of bias by both sides, a dispute that threatens to end the inquiry (Man at centre of Manitoba naked judge case was a sex performer: lawyer, Sept 17, 2012). But it isn’t Chapman who is on trial. And if his genuine discomfort with the sexually-dominant female has been misunderstood, it may be because he is surrounded by them, in court and in the media, and it may be these very same women who are reluctant to grant him any empathy for the situation in which he found himself.
On this theme, Christie Blatchford opens her story on the apparent contradiction between Alex Chapman’s pornography collection and his lack of desire for the kind of sexual attention Lori Douglas had on offer (Manitoba judge’s accuser no sexual wallflower, but inquiry astonishingly refused to hear about it, Sept 17, 2012). But there is no contradiction. If all pornography were the same, then it wouldn’t have to be continually created, with different scenarios, different women and men, different props, etc. No one can know why he didn’t take up the offer. Perhaps the reason had something to do with the sexual subject being the wife of the lawyer he had taking care of his divorce, his unwillingness to get involved, and his inability to gracefully exit the situation. The consequences of saying No to someone in power can be devastating, as many women know.
Margaret Wente presents her womanly perspective to this dilemma, arguing that “Of course we should hold judges to a higher standard than other people. But judges live in the real world. They even have sex lives. Lori Douglas's only crime was to choose an unstable spouse, and have sex with him (The persecution of Lori Douglas, July 14, 2011). But Margaret, we all live in the real world, and we all have to pay the consequences of our husband’s actions, their midlife crises or if not them, then those of our employers or colleagues, and so on. There is no end to it. You can’t put all the responsibility for this on Lori Douglas’s husband. As soon as they imposed on someone else’s life, they were involved, and partly responsible for the outcome, at least to the extent that they have to live with it. And as judge, Lori Douglas’s future is at stake, regardless of who was at fault, just as so many other women’s futures depend on the actions taken by those with whom they are in relationships.
Previously it has been stated that all the lawyers in her area knew of the circumstances of Lori Douglas’s photos on the internet, the first time she applied to be a judge (Nude photo controversy was 'well-known' in Manitoba's legal community, husband says, July 25, 2012). These are the people she associates with - her colleagues who accept and understand her, and her sexual habits. But why aren’t they able to understand and accept a man who gives the impression of being traditional, and needing to be dominant sexually? And if they cannot understand and empathize, what kind of lawyers and judges are they, while on the job?
Lori Douglas’s lawyers have asked the Federal Court of Canada to halt the inquiry, before it even gets to the real issue – Lori Douglas’s withholding of the facts of the photos online on the official application to become judge, other possibly misleading situations, and whether or not this will affect her future as judge (She had to know: Chapman, July 17, 2012).
Accuser’s case against Manitoba judge perishing from self-inflicted wounds, By Christie Blatchford, National Post Full Comment, Jul 17, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/17/christie-blatchford-accusers-case-against-manitoba-judge-perishing-from-self-inflicted-wounds/
Chapman was 'online sex performer', inquiry hears, By Dean Pritchard, QMI, Agency, Toronto Sun, July 19, 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/19/chapman-was-online-sex-performer-inquiry-hears
Judge sex controversy lawsuit quashed, CBC News, Nov 16, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/11/16/mb-lawsuit-judge-sex-photos-winnipeg.html
King ‘messed with my head’: Chapman talks at Douglas inquiry, By Dean Pritchard, Winnipeg Sun, July 16, 2012
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/07/16/king-messed-with-my-head-chapman-talks-at-douglas-inquiry
Man at centre of Manitoba naked judge case was a sex performer: lawyer, By Steve Lambert, The Canadian Press, CTV News, Winnipeg, Sept 17, 2012
http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/man-at-centre-of-manitoba-naked-judge-case-was-a-sex-performer-lawyer-1.960225
Manitoba judge’s accuser no sexual wallflower, but inquiry astonishingly refused to hear about it, By Christie Blatchford, National Post Full Comment, Sept 17, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/17/christie-blatchford-manitoba-judges-accuser-no-sexual-wallflower-but-inquiry-unbelievably-refused-to-hear-of-his-antics/
Nude photo controversy was 'well-known' in Manitoba's legal community, husband says, By Steve Lambert
Winnipeg — The Canadian Press, Globe and Mail, July 25, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/nude-photo-controversy-was-well-known-in-manitobas-legal-community-husband-says/article4440460/
The persecution of Lori Douglas, By Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail, July 14 2011, Last updated Sept 10 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-persecution-of-lori-douglas/article625825/
'She had to know': Chapman, By Mike McIntyre, Winnipeg Free Press, July 17, 2012
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/she-had-to-know-chapman-162690136.html
Showing posts with label Manitoba judge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Manitoba judge. Show all posts
19 September 2012
5 September 2012
All stand for the judge: Manitoba’s Lori Douglas
Guy Pratte, the lawyer leading the inquiry into a Manitoba judge, has resigned. Difficulties have arisen over the purpose of the inquiry panel, over whether it is to oversee in a fair manner all sides of the issue, or to examine the testimony and evidence against her; or, as Pratte is reported as saying, “the inquiry committee cannot act as both a referee of the proceedings and an active participant” (Lawyer leading inquiry into Manitoba judge’s nude photos quits after disagreement over questions, Aug 27, 2012).
According to Christine Blatchford, Pratte explained that the problem was Mr MacIntosh, who was “withering in his questions, particularly of Mr. King, and sometimes sarcastic” (Lawyer quits nude judge inquiry, Aug 27, 2012). In the actual news piece on this, however, it isn’t the judge’s husband King who is mentioned as the main victim; rather it is the judge herself (Lawyer leading inquiry intoManitoba judge’s nude photos quits after disagreement over questions, Aug 27, 2012).
A commenter online made suggestions, which seem to be quite appropriate, and probably make more sense than taking this to a judicial review as a general issue about the functioning of the inquiry panel. This is what fg wrote:
“It may be time to close the book on the open-ended overly-broad ‘inquiry’ systems and choose administrative law systems in which fundamental justice features prominently. We need transparency on the appointment of judges and a clear discipline system that sets out a complaint or charge, including exactly how it has breached a specific stated standard. At the moment, we have neither.
Once prosecution witnesses exonerate a judge on some aspect of it, shouldn't that be promptly dropped so other aspects and any remaining complaint or charge can go forward in a clear manner? Shouldn't counsel be able to apply to have it dropped?
The public interest is served by clarity, fairness and fundamental justice. Without these, any decisions will merely be endlessly debated and interpreted on vagaries and innuendo and good law will not develop.
Most Canadians fear going to court because they fear being disregarded, treated with contempt and being overwhelmed by an opaque, confusing unclear system in which money too often seems to triumph over fairness. Canadians want and deserve change.
A pared down hearing with a clear direction and a final decision that answers the question both specifically but also broadly, is required, as case-law is needed here.
In the grand scheme of what must be disclosed in an application to be a judge, I hope the panel creates a specific laundry list of what is always required, even if some other aspects are left open.
Given the known practice of hidden tribunal decisions in Canada, it is fervently hoped that hiding decisions and corruption will make the list, along with being involved in untenable legal conflicts of interest with substantial legal consequences.
We need a legal clean-up in Canada, that will take the process to task, create clarity.
The decision must also protect everyone from being victimized by unscrupulous actors bent on attacking careers.” (fg, in Lawyer quits nude judge inquiry, Aug 27, 2012).
I agree with fg, to a certain extent. This whole matter of the judge has become so complex that one can only wonder if it is intentional to make it so that the ordinary person doesn’t have a chance of understanding the decisions made or why. This latest fiasco was simply a problem of one Mr MacIntosh, a member of the panel whose approach to questioning the judge apparently bordered on harassment, it was that antagonistic supposedly. On the other hand, how are we to know if this impartial member is actually against the judge or subversively on her side, seeking a way to have the entire proceedings dropped? Surely it isn’t in his best interests, as a lawyer, to behave this way towards a judge, no matter what he may feel about her actions. And as a member of the inquiry panel, shouldn’t he know better?
So why isn’t it now Mr MacIntosh who is subject to questioning, and removal from the panel, instead of the panel itself under threat of dismissal and a further legal manoeuvre of a judicial review asked for, to handle the situation.
As others have pointed out, it is odd that the ones who have the responsibility of looking into the matter of the judge Lori Douglas are members of the legal community themselves. Anyone who has tried to get a harassment matter resolved within the university environment knows the futility of engaging in an internal inquiry. The organization itself has the power to manipulate the people involved and the way the incident is understood, in whatever way it chooses. Such internal inquiries surely are next to useless.
For the victims, it is like banging your head against a brick wall – or driving into one. In these most recent pieces about the case, the name of the original victim – Chapman, was it? – the black man – has been left out completely. The case has now been removed a step from the original issue – the questionable behaviour of the judge. The ‘victim’ is now judge Lori Douglas, who has been subjected, ‘allegedly,’ to harsh questioning.
One further matter, suggested by fg, is a “cleanup” of the legal system, or as he says, “We need a legal clean-up in Canada, that will take the process to task, create clarity. The decision must also protect everyone from being victimized by unscrupulous actors.”
It may not always be clear who is getting victimized and whose careers suffer, and if that is the problem in the longterm anyway. Complicate that by having to consider the changing norms of society, in the areas of sex and sexuality, for instance, and how these are related to work and careers, and sorting matters out can be a challenge far beyond the knowledge of members of the legal system. Increasing clarity may not always be possible.
For anyone who has forgotten the original issue, read ‘Lori Douglas is not a victim,’ July 26, 2012. There has been much written between July and the end of August, but this latest problem – of what the judge has had to put up with in the inquiry - is not how the matter started. Let it not end on this note.
Lawyer leading inquiry into Manitoba judge’s nude photos quits after disagreement over questions, Canadian Press, National Post, Aug 27, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/27/lawyer-leading-inquiry-into-manitoba-judges-nude-photos-quits-after-disagreement-over-questions/
Lawyer quits nude judge inquiry, By Christie Blatchford, National Post Full Comment, Aug 27, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/27/guy-pratte/
Lori Douglas is not a victim, By Georgialee Lang, The Star, July 26, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1232405--lori-douglas-is-not-a-victim
According to Christine Blatchford, Pratte explained that the problem was Mr MacIntosh, who was “withering in his questions, particularly of Mr. King, and sometimes sarcastic” (Lawyer quits nude judge inquiry, Aug 27, 2012). In the actual news piece on this, however, it isn’t the judge’s husband King who is mentioned as the main victim; rather it is the judge herself (Lawyer leading inquiry intoManitoba judge’s nude photos quits after disagreement over questions, Aug 27, 2012).
A commenter online made suggestions, which seem to be quite appropriate, and probably make more sense than taking this to a judicial review as a general issue about the functioning of the inquiry panel. This is what fg wrote:
“It may be time to close the book on the open-ended overly-broad ‘inquiry’ systems and choose administrative law systems in which fundamental justice features prominently. We need transparency on the appointment of judges and a clear discipline system that sets out a complaint or charge, including exactly how it has breached a specific stated standard. At the moment, we have neither.
Once prosecution witnesses exonerate a judge on some aspect of it, shouldn't that be promptly dropped so other aspects and any remaining complaint or charge can go forward in a clear manner? Shouldn't counsel be able to apply to have it dropped?
The public interest is served by clarity, fairness and fundamental justice. Without these, any decisions will merely be endlessly debated and interpreted on vagaries and innuendo and good law will not develop.
Most Canadians fear going to court because they fear being disregarded, treated with contempt and being overwhelmed by an opaque, confusing unclear system in which money too often seems to triumph over fairness. Canadians want and deserve change.
A pared down hearing with a clear direction and a final decision that answers the question both specifically but also broadly, is required, as case-law is needed here.
In the grand scheme of what must be disclosed in an application to be a judge, I hope the panel creates a specific laundry list of what is always required, even if some other aspects are left open.
Given the known practice of hidden tribunal decisions in Canada, it is fervently hoped that hiding decisions and corruption will make the list, along with being involved in untenable legal conflicts of interest with substantial legal consequences.
We need a legal clean-up in Canada, that will take the process to task, create clarity.
The decision must also protect everyone from being victimized by unscrupulous actors bent on attacking careers.” (fg, in Lawyer quits nude judge inquiry, Aug 27, 2012).
I agree with fg, to a certain extent. This whole matter of the judge has become so complex that one can only wonder if it is intentional to make it so that the ordinary person doesn’t have a chance of understanding the decisions made or why. This latest fiasco was simply a problem of one Mr MacIntosh, a member of the panel whose approach to questioning the judge apparently bordered on harassment, it was that antagonistic supposedly. On the other hand, how are we to know if this impartial member is actually against the judge or subversively on her side, seeking a way to have the entire proceedings dropped? Surely it isn’t in his best interests, as a lawyer, to behave this way towards a judge, no matter what he may feel about her actions. And as a member of the inquiry panel, shouldn’t he know better?
So why isn’t it now Mr MacIntosh who is subject to questioning, and removal from the panel, instead of the panel itself under threat of dismissal and a further legal manoeuvre of a judicial review asked for, to handle the situation.
As others have pointed out, it is odd that the ones who have the responsibility of looking into the matter of the judge Lori Douglas are members of the legal community themselves. Anyone who has tried to get a harassment matter resolved within the university environment knows the futility of engaging in an internal inquiry. The organization itself has the power to manipulate the people involved and the way the incident is understood, in whatever way it chooses. Such internal inquiries surely are next to useless.
For the victims, it is like banging your head against a brick wall – or driving into one. In these most recent pieces about the case, the name of the original victim – Chapman, was it? – the black man – has been left out completely. The case has now been removed a step from the original issue – the questionable behaviour of the judge. The ‘victim’ is now judge Lori Douglas, who has been subjected, ‘allegedly,’ to harsh questioning.
One further matter, suggested by fg, is a “cleanup” of the legal system, or as he says, “We need a legal clean-up in Canada, that will take the process to task, create clarity. The decision must also protect everyone from being victimized by unscrupulous actors.”
It may not always be clear who is getting victimized and whose careers suffer, and if that is the problem in the longterm anyway. Complicate that by having to consider the changing norms of society, in the areas of sex and sexuality, for instance, and how these are related to work and careers, and sorting matters out can be a challenge far beyond the knowledge of members of the legal system. Increasing clarity may not always be possible.
For anyone who has forgotten the original issue, read ‘Lori Douglas is not a victim,’ July 26, 2012. There has been much written between July and the end of August, but this latest problem – of what the judge has had to put up with in the inquiry - is not how the matter started. Let it not end on this note.
Lawyer leading inquiry into Manitoba judge’s nude photos quits after disagreement over questions, Canadian Press, National Post, Aug 27, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/27/lawyer-leading-inquiry-into-manitoba-judges-nude-photos-quits-after-disagreement-over-questions/
Lawyer quits nude judge inquiry, By Christie Blatchford, National Post Full Comment, Aug 27, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/27/guy-pratte/
Lori Douglas is not a victim, By Georgialee Lang, The Star, July 26, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1232405--lori-douglas-is-not-a-victim
4 August 2012
Here Comes the Judge: Lori Douglas (Manitoba)
The inquiry is examining whether Douglas should lose her job because she failed to disclose the matter of the photos and solicitation of sex partners when she was appointed a judge in 2005 (Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge from prior appointment, July 27, 2012).
That is not the entire purpose of the inquest, but this will be the focus here. Lori Douglas is the name of the lawyer who eventually became a judge in 2005, after at least one attempt previously. Jack King is her husband, whose actions, apparently without her knowing of them, got her into a great deal of trouble. Alex Chapman is the name of the man - the black man – who King attempted to enlist to have sex with his wife, and to whom he showed photos of his naked wife. These are the main players in this scenario, with additional characters consisting of their lawyers and other members of the Judiciary and the legal system – as well as the media, without which we wouldn’t have a story at all. For a brief outline and interesting comments on the case see ‘Testimony expected today from man who complained about Manitoba judge in sexually explicit photos’ (July 16, 2012).
At the end of July, 2012, in the final session before taking a break for several months, until December, 2012, it was revealed that Lori Douglas had previously applied to become a judge, in 2003, before applying and being accepted in 2005 (Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge, July 27, 2012). The first time, someone at the Judicial Affairs Commission, which was responsible for making the decision about Ms Douglas, discovered that nude pictures had been taken of Douglas and made public.
According to this CBC news article, “Manitoba Chief Justice Marc Monnin opposed Douglas's appointment because of the potential risk of embarrassment and blackmail” though who informed him and whether Ms Douglas knew herself about the photos at this time isn’t clearly stated in the article.
Two years later, when Ms Douglas once again went through the process to become a judge, she was required to disclose on the form if there was anything in her past that might embarrass the Judiciary. This same article (Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge, July 27, 2012), doesn’t actually state whether she did or did not disclose this on the form, as required. She did, however, apparently have a confidential conversation about it with Margaret Rose Jamieson, executive director of appointments with the the Federal Judicial Affairs Commission (JAC) from 2003 to 2009. Margaret Jamieson, now retired, said she recalls Douglas told her at the time about photos “that may have been provided to someone or posted on the internet.”
Although Manitoba Chief Justice Marc Monnin had opposed Douglas's appointment due to the possible risk of embarrassment and blackmail, he withdrew his opposition in 2005 under the assumption that the photos “had been destroyed and the matter wouldn't resurface.”
Martin Freedman, Manitoba Appeal Court Judge and head of the Judicial Advisory Committee (JAC) in 2005, said that he had heard a few years earlier that photos of the naked Lori Douglas had been posted online, and heard about the sex solicitation, but apparently the original concerns of embarassment and blackmail had ceased to be, and Douglas was made a judge in 2005.
The claim that there was nothing of concern regarding Lori Douglas having anything she should disclose before her selection in 2005 to be a judge seems to be illogical. Supposedly acting on the belief that nothing would be raised that could embarrass the Judiciary, it was decided it was appropriate to make her a judge. And yet the selection process itself was conducted in a secretive manner, with no official form completed by Lori Douglas on which she declares potentially embarrassing events from her past, such as the photos online and the sex solicitation. It was only on the belief of certain officials of the JAC, rather than on the existence of potentially damaging material and events, that the final decision was made.
One very emphatic comment on this subject, of the potential for embarassment of the photos online, comes from ‘G P’, on July 28, 2012, following the article ‘Man. judge disclosed nude photos, inquiry hears’ (July 27, 2012):
“In assuming these photos ceased to exist because Chapman agreed to destroy the ELECTRONIC COPIES sent to him by King, those responsible for vetting Douglas demonstrate a jaw-dropping ignorance of how the Internet operates. The Internet consists of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of computers around the world, all interconnected. Setting aside the mail servers used, when someone anywhere in the world, views a webpage, a copy, complete with pictures, is saved (cached) on multiple, intermediate servers, to reduce network latency and congestion. Those intermediate servers (and the path can change from one request to the next) are all backed up daily, as a matter of standard operating procedure. Deleting the photos from the original site has absolutely no effect on these cached and backup copies, reducing King’s hush money agreement with Chapman to absurdity. No custodian of an Internet server outside Canada cares about any pronouncement from a Manitoba judge. When the judge’s husband posted them on the Internet he, albeit unwittingly, put them in the public domain. Further, every viewer of a photo King posted had a copy cached on their local machine, automatically by their web browser, plus anyone who liked what they saw had only to ‘right-click, save’ to overtly preserve it for future enjoyment anytime they like, for as long as they choose. For the sake of brevity, I will simply say King’s distribution of the photos by unencrypted email compounds the number of machines with copies. Why is this an issue and why does it matter? It has been established that the existence of the photos was well known in the legal community, thus it was possible for any client to learn of their existence. If such a client was facing a huge distribution of assets and/or contentious child custody issues in a divorce before Judge Douglas, the fact the photos were thought to be secret for seven years left the judge vulnerable to blackmail from EVERY litigant in her court. To find the photos, one need only visit a few Internet chat rooms and discussion boards, anonymously through a proxy server, placing an ad offering $XXXX to anyone who could retrieve them. Even now, I bet I could get copies of the photos within a week, if the reward I offered was sufficient to arouse interest. Making the payment anonymously, the motivated litigant could send the photos to Judge Douglas by mail, maintaining end-to-end, plausible deniability, in case the blackmail effort should backfire” (GP).
I’m sure most people would agree. Once something is posted to the internet it can never be guaranteed that it will disappear completely. And it is this that makes the decision to allow Lori Douglas to become a judge at all seem naïve, or uncaring of the implications of such secrets having to be kept.
It’s easy to say that a person’s personal sex life is nobody’s business, and that what the judge does has no effect on how well she does her job, but we do live in a society that is governed by people’s conformity to norms. While these have changed greatly over the years, the fact is, they exist.
People might heap praise upon the judge, for example, Vivian Hilder, law prof at the University of Manitoba, who wrote in an email that “Lori's professional reputation in my opinion is that she was a top notch family lawyer, is a good negotiator, was a good choice as a Family Division judge when she was appointed and has been a good judge in the Division to date” (Lori Douglas sex scandal inquiry, July 27, 2012). But is it her ability that is in question, or her credibility?
Even if she is found innocent of any attempt to deceive the JAC, after having such photos of herself displayed and her sexual activities made public, is it possible that she would be treated with respect, by the defendants and witnesses in cases she oversees in the future?
This case is about more than just her sex life being an open book. It’s about women’s sex lives being treated like men’s, even though they’re not the same, and even though photos of naked women are much more profitable and desirable and subject to humiliation and/or reward than photos of naked men.
There’s more of a double standard in this area than any other I can think of, and yet . . . . are we ready for this? In one article, the traumatized Alex Chapman tells how difficult the entire process has been, reminiscent of times when women had trouble having their cases of sexual assault and harassment heard (Manitoba judge sex inquiry called 'bloody coverup,' July 17, 2012.)
Something I have noticed among the general population, is that those who are most sexually active often have a heightened sense of themselves as superior to those who aren’t, and often have little understanding of or appreciation for people who are not sexually active. I am reminded of the abortion movement, which for some time was called the Pro-abortion movement, then changed to ‘pro-choice’ which is what it should be about, with neither side - the pro-choice or pro-life - being ‘better’ than the other.
In a similar way, being sexually liberated shouldn’t automatically mean being sexually active or even actively promoting sex for others. Rather, it should mean being aware of what’s right for you at any given time of your life, and being respectful of others’ choices, limitations, and needs and desires. Unfortunately, life’s not like that.
In the case of the judge Lori Douglas, the Judiciary didn’t disapprove of her sex life. They disapproved of it being made public. So is this an example of a woman gaining favour through her sexual activities, or someone who is being punished because of them? Is a rap on the knuckles enough?
What would a solution look like that was neither of these two – neither a favour nor a punishment? Or could it be both?
Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge from prior appointment
CBC News
Jul 27, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/07/27/mb-judge-sex-scandal-inquiry-manitoba.html
Lori Douglas sex scandal inquiry: Manitoba judge and husband Jack King known as standout Winnipeg lawyers
By Josh Tapper , Staff Reporter
The Star
July 27, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1233159--lori-douglas-sex-scandal-inquiry-manitoba-judge-and-husband-jack-king-known-as-standout-winnipeg-lawyers
Man. judge disclosed nude photos, inquiry hears
The Canadian Press
CTV News
July 27, 2012, updated July 28, 2012
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-judge-disclosed-nude-photos-inquiry-hears-1.895203
Manitoba judge sex inquiry called 'bloody coverup'
yahoo.com - CBC News
July 17, 2012
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/manitoba-judge-sex-inquiry-gets-tense-171434157.html
Testimony expected today from man who complained about Manitoba judge in sexually explicit photos
The Canadian Press
National Post
July 16, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/16/testimony-expected-today-from-man-who-complained-about-manitoba-judge-in-sexually-explicit-photos
Additional sources
Canada’s Bondage Judge Faces Judicial Inquiry This Month
By Georgialee Lang
O.Canada.com
May 2, 2012
http://o.canada.com/2012/05/02/canadas-bondage-judge-faces-judicial-inquiry-this-month-2/
Jack King falls on his sword over nude photos of judge wife - plus comments
By Christie Blatchford
National Post Full Comment
July 24, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/24/christie-blatchford-jack-king-falls-on-his-sword-over-nude-photos-of-judge-wife/
Judge sex controversy lawsuit quashed
Nov 16, 2010
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/11/16/mb-lawsuit-judge-sex-photos-winnipeg.html
Manitoba judge upfront about nude photos when screened for bench, judge testifies
Winnipeg — The Canadian Press
Globe and Mail
July 27, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/manitoba-judge-upfront-about-nude-photos-when-screened-for-bench-judge-testifies/article4444288/
Man. judge disclosed nude photos, inquiry hears
The Canadian Press
July 27, 2012, last updated July 28, 2012
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-judge-disclosed-nude-photos-inquiry-hears-1.895203
Man says he never talked sex with Manitoba judge in naked photos case
Steve Lambert, The Canadian Press
The Star
July 17, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1227675--complainant-says-he-never-talked-sex-with-manitoba-judge-in-naked-photos-case
Manitoba judge sex inquiry called 'bloody coverup'
yahoo.com - CBC News
July 17, 2012
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/manitoba-judge-sex-inquiry-gets-tense-171434157.html
Nude photo controversy was 'well-known' in Manitoba's legal community, husband says
By Steve Lambert
Winnipeg — The Canadian Press
Globe and Mail
July 25, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/nude-photo-controversy-was-well-known-in-manitobas-legal-community-husband-says/article4440460/
Photos of Manitoba judge beyond sadness
By Heather Mallick, Columnist
The Star
July 24, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1231212--mallick-photos-of-manitoba-judge-beyond-sadness
Testimony expected today from man who complained about Manitoba judge in sexually explicit photos plus comments
The Canadian Press
National Post
July 16, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/16/testimony-expected-today-from-man-who-complained-about-manitoba-judge-in-sexually-explicit-photos
That is not the entire purpose of the inquest, but this will be the focus here. Lori Douglas is the name of the lawyer who eventually became a judge in 2005, after at least one attempt previously. Jack King is her husband, whose actions, apparently without her knowing of them, got her into a great deal of trouble. Alex Chapman is the name of the man - the black man – who King attempted to enlist to have sex with his wife, and to whom he showed photos of his naked wife. These are the main players in this scenario, with additional characters consisting of their lawyers and other members of the Judiciary and the legal system – as well as the media, without which we wouldn’t have a story at all. For a brief outline and interesting comments on the case see ‘Testimony expected today from man who complained about Manitoba judge in sexually explicit photos’ (July 16, 2012).
At the end of July, 2012, in the final session before taking a break for several months, until December, 2012, it was revealed that Lori Douglas had previously applied to become a judge, in 2003, before applying and being accepted in 2005 (Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge, July 27, 2012). The first time, someone at the Judicial Affairs Commission, which was responsible for making the decision about Ms Douglas, discovered that nude pictures had been taken of Douglas and made public.
According to this CBC news article, “Manitoba Chief Justice Marc Monnin opposed Douglas's appointment because of the potential risk of embarrassment and blackmail” though who informed him and whether Ms Douglas knew herself about the photos at this time isn’t clearly stated in the article.
Two years later, when Ms Douglas once again went through the process to become a judge, she was required to disclose on the form if there was anything in her past that might embarrass the Judiciary. This same article (Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge, July 27, 2012), doesn’t actually state whether she did or did not disclose this on the form, as required. She did, however, apparently have a confidential conversation about it with Margaret Rose Jamieson, executive director of appointments with the the Federal Judicial Affairs Commission (JAC) from 2003 to 2009. Margaret Jamieson, now retired, said she recalls Douglas told her at the time about photos “that may have been provided to someone or posted on the internet.”
Although Manitoba Chief Justice Marc Monnin had opposed Douglas's appointment due to the possible risk of embarrassment and blackmail, he withdrew his opposition in 2005 under the assumption that the photos “had been destroyed and the matter wouldn't resurface.”
Martin Freedman, Manitoba Appeal Court Judge and head of the Judicial Advisory Committee (JAC) in 2005, said that he had heard a few years earlier that photos of the naked Lori Douglas had been posted online, and heard about the sex solicitation, but apparently the original concerns of embarassment and blackmail had ceased to be, and Douglas was made a judge in 2005.
The claim that there was nothing of concern regarding Lori Douglas having anything she should disclose before her selection in 2005 to be a judge seems to be illogical. Supposedly acting on the belief that nothing would be raised that could embarrass the Judiciary, it was decided it was appropriate to make her a judge. And yet the selection process itself was conducted in a secretive manner, with no official form completed by Lori Douglas on which she declares potentially embarrassing events from her past, such as the photos online and the sex solicitation. It was only on the belief of certain officials of the JAC, rather than on the existence of potentially damaging material and events, that the final decision was made.
One very emphatic comment on this subject, of the potential for embarassment of the photos online, comes from ‘G P’, on July 28, 2012, following the article ‘Man. judge disclosed nude photos, inquiry hears’ (July 27, 2012):
“In assuming these photos ceased to exist because Chapman agreed to destroy the ELECTRONIC COPIES sent to him by King, those responsible for vetting Douglas demonstrate a jaw-dropping ignorance of how the Internet operates. The Internet consists of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of computers around the world, all interconnected. Setting aside the mail servers used, when someone anywhere in the world, views a webpage, a copy, complete with pictures, is saved (cached) on multiple, intermediate servers, to reduce network latency and congestion. Those intermediate servers (and the path can change from one request to the next) are all backed up daily, as a matter of standard operating procedure. Deleting the photos from the original site has absolutely no effect on these cached and backup copies, reducing King’s hush money agreement with Chapman to absurdity. No custodian of an Internet server outside Canada cares about any pronouncement from a Manitoba judge. When the judge’s husband posted them on the Internet he, albeit unwittingly, put them in the public domain. Further, every viewer of a photo King posted had a copy cached on their local machine, automatically by their web browser, plus anyone who liked what they saw had only to ‘right-click, save’ to overtly preserve it for future enjoyment anytime they like, for as long as they choose. For the sake of brevity, I will simply say King’s distribution of the photos by unencrypted email compounds the number of machines with copies. Why is this an issue and why does it matter? It has been established that the existence of the photos was well known in the legal community, thus it was possible for any client to learn of their existence. If such a client was facing a huge distribution of assets and/or contentious child custody issues in a divorce before Judge Douglas, the fact the photos were thought to be secret for seven years left the judge vulnerable to blackmail from EVERY litigant in her court. To find the photos, one need only visit a few Internet chat rooms and discussion boards, anonymously through a proxy server, placing an ad offering $XXXX to anyone who could retrieve them. Even now, I bet I could get copies of the photos within a week, if the reward I offered was sufficient to arouse interest. Making the payment anonymously, the motivated litigant could send the photos to Judge Douglas by mail, maintaining end-to-end, plausible deniability, in case the blackmail effort should backfire” (GP).
I’m sure most people would agree. Once something is posted to the internet it can never be guaranteed that it will disappear completely. And it is this that makes the decision to allow Lori Douglas to become a judge at all seem naïve, or uncaring of the implications of such secrets having to be kept.
It’s easy to say that a person’s personal sex life is nobody’s business, and that what the judge does has no effect on how well she does her job, but we do live in a society that is governed by people’s conformity to norms. While these have changed greatly over the years, the fact is, they exist.
People might heap praise upon the judge, for example, Vivian Hilder, law prof at the University of Manitoba, who wrote in an email that “Lori's professional reputation in my opinion is that she was a top notch family lawyer, is a good negotiator, was a good choice as a Family Division judge when she was appointed and has been a good judge in the Division to date” (Lori Douglas sex scandal inquiry, July 27, 2012). But is it her ability that is in question, or her credibility?
Even if she is found innocent of any attempt to deceive the JAC, after having such photos of herself displayed and her sexual activities made public, is it possible that she would be treated with respect, by the defendants and witnesses in cases she oversees in the future?
This case is about more than just her sex life being an open book. It’s about women’s sex lives being treated like men’s, even though they’re not the same, and even though photos of naked women are much more profitable and desirable and subject to humiliation and/or reward than photos of naked men.
There’s more of a double standard in this area than any other I can think of, and yet . . . . are we ready for this? In one article, the traumatized Alex Chapman tells how difficult the entire process has been, reminiscent of times when women had trouble having their cases of sexual assault and harassment heard (Manitoba judge sex inquiry called 'bloody coverup,' July 17, 2012.)
Something I have noticed among the general population, is that those who are most sexually active often have a heightened sense of themselves as superior to those who aren’t, and often have little understanding of or appreciation for people who are not sexually active. I am reminded of the abortion movement, which for some time was called the Pro-abortion movement, then changed to ‘pro-choice’ which is what it should be about, with neither side - the pro-choice or pro-life - being ‘better’ than the other.
In a similar way, being sexually liberated shouldn’t automatically mean being sexually active or even actively promoting sex for others. Rather, it should mean being aware of what’s right for you at any given time of your life, and being respectful of others’ choices, limitations, and needs and desires. Unfortunately, life’s not like that.
In the case of the judge Lori Douglas, the Judiciary didn’t disapprove of her sex life. They disapproved of it being made public. So is this an example of a woman gaining favour through her sexual activities, or someone who is being punished because of them? Is a rap on the knuckles enough?
What would a solution look like that was neither of these two – neither a favour nor a punishment? Or could it be both?
Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge from prior appointment
CBC News
Jul 27, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/07/27/mb-judge-sex-scandal-inquiry-manitoba.html
Lori Douglas sex scandal inquiry: Manitoba judge and husband Jack King known as standout Winnipeg lawyers
By Josh Tapper , Staff Reporter
The Star
July 27, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1233159--lori-douglas-sex-scandal-inquiry-manitoba-judge-and-husband-jack-king-known-as-standout-winnipeg-lawyers
Man. judge disclosed nude photos, inquiry hears
The Canadian Press
CTV News
July 27, 2012, updated July 28, 2012
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-judge-disclosed-nude-photos-inquiry-hears-1.895203
Manitoba judge sex inquiry called 'bloody coverup'
yahoo.com - CBC News
July 17, 2012
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/manitoba-judge-sex-inquiry-gets-tense-171434157.html
Testimony expected today from man who complained about Manitoba judge in sexually explicit photos
The Canadian Press
National Post
July 16, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/16/testimony-expected-today-from-man-who-complained-about-manitoba-judge-in-sexually-explicit-photos
Additional sources
Canada’s Bondage Judge Faces Judicial Inquiry This Month
By Georgialee Lang
O.Canada.com
May 2, 2012
http://o.canada.com/2012/05/02/canadas-bondage-judge-faces-judicial-inquiry-this-month-2/
Jack King falls on his sword over nude photos of judge wife - plus comments
By Christie Blatchford
National Post Full Comment
July 24, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/24/christie-blatchford-jack-king-falls-on-his-sword-over-nude-photos-of-judge-wife/
Judge sex controversy lawsuit quashed
Nov 16, 2010
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/11/16/mb-lawsuit-judge-sex-photos-winnipeg.html
Manitoba judge upfront about nude photos when screened for bench, judge testifies
Winnipeg — The Canadian Press
Globe and Mail
July 27, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/manitoba-judge-upfront-about-nude-photos-when-screened-for-bench-judge-testifies/article4444288/
Man. judge disclosed nude photos, inquiry hears
The Canadian Press
July 27, 2012, last updated July 28, 2012
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-judge-disclosed-nude-photos-inquiry-hears-1.895203
Man says he never talked sex with Manitoba judge in naked photos case
Steve Lambert, The Canadian Press
The Star
July 17, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1227675--complainant-says-he-never-talked-sex-with-manitoba-judge-in-naked-photos-case
Manitoba judge sex inquiry called 'bloody coverup'
yahoo.com - CBC News
July 17, 2012
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/manitoba-judge-sex-inquiry-gets-tense-171434157.html
Nude photo controversy was 'well-known' in Manitoba's legal community, husband says
By Steve Lambert
Winnipeg — The Canadian Press
Globe and Mail
July 25, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/nude-photo-controversy-was-well-known-in-manitobas-legal-community-husband-says/article4440460/
Photos of Manitoba judge beyond sadness
By Heather Mallick, Columnist
The Star
July 24, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1231212--mallick-photos-of-manitoba-judge-beyond-sadness
Testimony expected today from man who complained about Manitoba judge in sexually explicit photos plus comments
The Canadian Press
National Post
July 16, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/16/testimony-expected-today-from-man-who-complained-about-manitoba-judge-in-sexually-explicit-photos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)