NEWS
Monday, November 17, 2014 3
A Tale of Two Sex Scandals
Douglas, Ghomeshi, and Process in Sexual Assault
esther mendelsohn › staff writer
T’
wa s t he be st of times for sexual
predators, t’was the worst of times for
the women upon which they prey.
A female judge faces removal from the bench
for an incident involving nude photos which were
shown and distributed online without her knowledge
or consent. She has been the subject of a pernicious
and protracted inquiry for over two and a half years.
Meanwhile, in the Twitterverse, Jian Ghomeshi’s fans
and supporters are decrying the supposed lack of due
process in his termination from the CBC.
Court of Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice
Lori Douglas has been at the centre of a nude photo
scandal that has rocked the Manitoba judiciary for
over four years. Her trespass? Allowing her husband
to take nude photos of her. Her husband, Jack King,
who was also a lawyer and has since passed away,
then showed the photos, without her knowledge or
consent, to a male client in a bid to entice him into
having sex with his wife—again, unbeknownst to her.
After Justice Douglas was appointed to the Manitoba
bench, the client claimed Mr. King’s actions constituted sexual harassment and filed a $67 million law
suit and a formal complaint with Canadian Judicial
Council, but he settled for $25,000 with a promise to
destroy and never distribute the photos. He then proceeded to distribute the photos.
Before the scandal broke, and leading up to her
appointment, Justice Douglas duly disclosed the existence of the photos to the appointment committee.
In fact, it was a well-known secret. She is now being
accused of not disclosing this fact and of altering her
personal diary when she learned of the inquiry.
The inquiry, set up by the CJC, has been plagued
with accusations of bias and mass resignations. The
new panel consists of three senior judges—all male.
Delays and debates about costs have characterized the
inquiry, and there seems to be no end in sight. Even
though the panel has admitted that the allegations are
weak, they insist on marching on.
Now the panel wants to see the photos. To show
them again, even to the panel members alone, would
be a gross infringement on her privacy, a fresh violation of her sexual integrity, and utterly irrelevant to
the matter at hand. The main problem with her conduct, ostensibly at least, is that she allegedly tried to
cover up the existence of the photos. (Even if she did,
she did so in the context of a society which devalues
women’s work, misunderstands and misrepresents
women’s sexuality, and simultaneously sexualizes
and objectifies women while demanding that they
remain chaste.) Seeing the pictures will not elucidate
any proof of whether or not Justice Douglas disclosed
their existence.
The chill effect is glaringly obvious. How are we
supposed to have a representative bench (and bar)
if a female judge is being lambasted for things she
chooses to do in her private life wh