I Bet Lady Justice Isn’t Wearing Underwear
September 3, 2010 | No Comments
I really haven’t much time for “scandals”. There’s often little that’s scandalous, and even less that’s newsworthy. However, responses to “scandals” can get pretty irritating. Case in point: Alice Woolley from National Post. Apparently, she’s really interested in the sex lives of judges:
Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas, of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench has temporarily stopped hearing cases pending the resolution of a complaint made against her to the National Judicial Council. As is now well known, the complaint against Douglas arises from the posting of sexually explicit photographs of her in an advertisement on an interracial website. The ad sought a “smooth black male or Mexican” to meet with Douglas and her husband “to seduce her with the intent of getting her enmeshed in the submissive, multi-partner, interracial sex scene.”
At the time the ad was posted, Douglas and her husband, Jack King, were lawyers at the Thompson, Dorfman and Sweatman firm. Douglas was, her husband says, entirely unaware that the pictures had been posted on the Internet. She only learned that the pictures had been posted on the site after one of King’s clients, Alexander Chapman, complained that King was harassing him to have sex with Douglas. In 2003 Chapman and King reached a settlement of Chapman’s complaint. And, two years later, Douglas was appointed to the bench.
All right. This is, perhaps, embarrassing, and is certainly unusual, but I’m still waiting to hear what disqualifies her from being a judge. Prof. Woolley continues:
The problem with the Douglas appointment is not that King took pornographic pictures of her. Nor is it just that those pictures were posted on the Internet. The problem is that her knowledge of those pictures prior to her appointment undermines the already fragile legitimacy of our appointments process. Applicants for judgeships are asked, “is there anything in your past or present which could reflect negatively on yourself or the judiciary, and which should be disclosed?” The question asks applicants to provide the committee with the information necessary to make a fair and appropriate assessment of the applicant’s qualifications to be a judge.
In this instance Douglas had to answer “yes” to that question. The question does not ask “would you in fact be a good judge?” It does not ask “is it fair that these things will make you or the judiciary look bad?” It does not even ask whether it is certain that facts will reflect negatively on the applicant or the judiciary. It asks simply whether there are facts about you that might call the judiciary into disrepute. The fact that pornographic pictures of Lori Douglas were used to solicit black men for kinky sex meets this standard because it calls into question how her judgment and fairness will be perceived by people who appear before her. If Douglas did not answer yes to that question then the process has been undermined by her misleading and incomplete disclosure.
No, Ms. Douglas could have correctly answered, “no, there is nothing in my past or present which could reflect negatively on myself or the judiciary.” Here’s this situation (according to Prof. Woolley’s account), her a–hole husband posted “personal” photos of her online. That’s it. That’s a black mark against her husband, not her. Being sexually confident and having a jerk of a husband do not disqualify you from being able to be a judge.
This puritanical drive to enforce a specific notion of decency on every aspect of anyone even close to being a public figure is quite distasteful. Decency would be better served if we all could just acknowledge that humans are sexual creatures, and stop blaming people for the misdeeds of others.
I think I’d much rather have Chief Justice Douglas judging me than Prof. Woolley.
Tags: Alice Woolley > Chief Justice > Judiciary > Lori Douglas > Manitoba > Sexuality
Comments
Leave a Reply