judicial sex scandal in Winnipeg

A Manitoba family court judge involved in a scandal over nude photos of her that appeared online has requested to be temporarily relieved of her duties as a sitting justice of Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench.

Queen's Bench Justice Marc Monnin said Wednesday that Lori Douglas, an associate chief justice, will "remain in her position in an administrative capacity" as the Canadian Judicial Council investigates a complaint against her.

Douglas requested to be relieved "in the interests of the judiciary and of the court," Monnin said in an emailed statement

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/09/01/man-judge-steps-aside.html#ixzz0yNMsxBBy

'The test for removal is whether or not a judge has the confidence of the public to discharge the duties of their office.'-Normand Sabourin, Canadian Judicial Council

If that is the test for removal it is far too vague and subject to abuse.

To which "male" outrage are you referring?

This barely rates as infotainment, let alone news of national significance as it is being presented by the MSM.  The issue here though is whether the subject of the review knew about, and consented to advances upon a client of her husband who had sought legal representation, and knew and consented to displaying pictures of that nature on the internet.  I doubt that any public office holder who wields decision making authority over the general public could continue to exercise the full scope of their duties under such circumstances.  In this case, even if she had been unaware of the advances and internet distribution of the photos, the pictures themselves are enough, at least in this society, to warrant her permanent removal from judging cases and individuals who come before her.  She apparently was aware enough to pose for the pictures, which in this day and age means they may as well have conducted their activities on the front lawn.

Quote:

perhaps if it was a white man advertising for, there would not be the outrage?

I suppose that might seem more "normal" to most people, though I suppose it's just as racist, but in a different way, as specifically trying to lure well-endowed black men.

I suspect that the "Black man/white wife" thing is probably some kind of very messed-up consequence of America's very messed-up race relations, but you've got to admit, it's pretty gross.

Quote:

The issue here though is whether the subject of the review knew about, and consented to advances upon a client of her husband who had sought legal representation, and knew and consented to displaying pictures of that nature on the internet.

Agreed. Posing for nudie pics, or even sex pics, should be a non sequitur with regard to being appointed to the bench. Participating in pressuring a man to have sex with you would be a very different story, with much in common with, say, the Toronto immigration judge who tried to use his position to satisfy his fetish for Asian women.

2dawall wrote:

Billions of more important issues than one judge's personal life. Like renewable energy. I sure hope this thread gets closed early.

[wee bit of drift]This is one of those times that I wish there was a thumbs up/thumbs down or agree/disagree option. Someone (2dawall in this instance) makes a succinct post I agree with and I wish there was a way to acknowledge and not unnecessarily add to the length of the thread itself. I could always type in "What 2dawall said", but that would add length, and to some extent make it overly personal (that I, in my infinite smugness, have seen fit to acknowledge the value of what the poster has says) - an agree/disagree option would allow a little, albeit anonymous, postive feedback to the poster...[/wee bit of drift]

Anyway.... what 2dawall said...

[ETA: I didn't originally notice which forum this was located in, I had assumed it was Western or Prairies - apologies for tossing in the inconsequential drift]

I though it was going to be something juicy but some judge with out a robe hardly takes the entire justice system and leaves it exposed.  I SURE could tell some good stories as know plenty about the top fellows who uphold the law but so far it hasn't moved me to do so as somethings are better left unsaid.

the questions that come up in this case to me are:  

why did the guy getting solicited for the pics not just fire his lawyer and get a new one instead of going along with the thing for years on end, taking a 25000 dollar settlement to keep quiet etc?  

also, there are conflicting reports:  in one line he says he was pressured into having sex with the judge, and in the next line he says he didn't have sex with her....which one is it?

to me the racial aspect is disturbing, but if a judge wants to have pictures of her having sex taken who cares?  everyone has sex and many take pics of them doing it, is that wrong?  noone seems to really care about the strange racist aspect of her sex interest, only that she would be into bondage and pictures.

and a 67 million dollar lawsuit??  that is such a ridiculous figure, i get the impression the guy is pretty much out for a settlement.  

milo204, you seem to have missed the very basic point of information that we actually do not know anything about the judge's desires, so "her interest" isn't part of this story. The communication was between the two men.

And many, many women can tell you about being pressured to have sex, yet not having sex. It's not an either / or.

The prudish reaction to the judge's explicit photos is what an increasing number of feminists are objecting to. Why does it matter? And I believe it could be argued that this notion unfairly singles out women, who are more likely to have such images taken of them. Images we don't necessarily control. Are we all supposed to know by the age of 12/13 that we're destined to be judges? Why are bodies and sexuality so shameful, so compromising to professional respectibility, anyway? What is the big deal? I wonder if this isn't generational, too.

The coercive behaviour of the man's lawyer is a real and troubling question. There are a whole host of reasons why people navigate such difficult territory the way they do. It's easy to judge those decisions from afar. But nobody should be put into such a position in the first place. I am glad he has stepped forward.

A reminder: this discussion is in the feminism forum. Posts should be informed by that designation. If you haven't got a particularly feminist take on this story, you might want to stick to reading the contributions of those who do. Thanks.

E.Tamaran , you stay out of this thread too.

The more I hear about this, the less I think it's any of my business.

What do you say folks we get the crown prosecutor on it? 

mybabble wrote:

Talk about poor judgement which was the judge or to quick to judge which was me as I thought it was something between the 3 of them, all private but instead after watching the National I realized she was up on a web site exposing herself to the world. It is really strange that the judge didn't think to mention it before she took on the job as judge.  I guess you can't call it her dirty little secret when it was all over the web and it isn't anything the judge isn't used to as has been exposed more than most and apparently she got a kick out of it so maybe this too will pass.

Certainly with her attributes it shouldn't be to difficult to find suitable employment for a former judge that is hell bent.   How about a porn flick where the judge takes the naughty prisoner into her den and shows him what naughty is all about?  Of course I mean no harm and a judges code of conduct is different than most as judges are representatives of the law and their judgement is held higher than the rest.

I've read several articles on this, and so far there is no real evidence that she "was up on a web site exposing herself to the world".  It would seem that her husband, while going through some emotional disturbance, posted them. 

Unless, of course, you have a link that provides evidence to the contrary.  Meanwhile, you do know this is the feminist forum, right? 

Getting the story right, it appears  the Judge was unaware of what was being done and it was her husband who was acting on his own and it was 7 years ago the pictures were up on the web by her husbands own doing.  That could be, it sure didn't make sense to me that the judge would forget something like that and feel it wouldn't be of importance.  The guy bringing it all out into the open is also preparing a 56 million dollar lawsuit.  Isn't that bizarre because he is suing saying couple tried to lure him into having sex with the judge.  I am not sure were this fellow is coming from we could sue every other web site out there for trying to lure us into their site.  I mean it isn't like he was gaged and forced into bondage to look at the pictures and engage in anything sexual or judge was going to cut him a deal in the court room.  He certainly has been doing a fine job of blowing it up because there was no need to go public.  If there were concerns all he needed was go to the law society and this could have been dealt with.  Things happen, private pictures end up in the wrong places, and peoples lives are not always destroyed.  I was thinking of Hollywood.

Snert wrote:

Quote:

 I sure hope this thread gets closed early.

 

Any reason why? It's not like babble can only have, say, ten active threads at a time or something.

 

Why is it important to you that other people not discuss something you have no interest in? I mean, somewhere on the internet someone, right now, is discussing Kenny Chesney's most recent album. What do I care??

I do not expect to read too much about Kenny Chesney here either (although it is interesting that country music at least in its lyrics relates to more the lives of more people than pop music ...) but the issue is a non-issue. Somebody's sex life should not matter regardless of position.

And seriously, we need to get off oil; we need to start using renewable energy. Seriously. I mean it, like yesterday.

and it turns out the guy suing the judge has a long history with the legal system, including abusing his ex wife and trying to sue people for large sums of money.