Manitoba Judge "Sex" Scandal

[DogOnPorch]

she claims it was her husband who put the pictures online without her consent which is certainly possible (it happens often)...it wouldn't effect my view of her in any case as in regards to her job...

If he did it and she didn't know about it then it's not her judgement that is the issue. Lots of folks enjoy all sorts of different types of sex. If you're into the crazier stuff, you might need to network to find like-minded people...couples...football teams.

[Shwa]

Why? Whose "moral standard" is being invoked here? This kind of subjective thinking was used to exclude homosexuals from many government and private positions. I am purposely challenging the knee jerk mindset on display here by some members, all while pretending to be liberal minded, "multicultural" folk. LOL!

Your moral standard is being invoked here, the news article makes it plain upon whose moral standard they are devising the story for - and that is the local public from whom this person was selected to assume a position that the same local public deems worthy of a higher standard of private and public conduct.

Now whether you feel any outrage or indignation at the details or the way they are presented is not in question here, unless you would like it to be. The facts are that the news organization believes this sort of story is "lurid" enough to generate revenue. And by 'lurid enough,' we are considering the very subjective observations of editors towards what such standards might mean to a particular 'local public.' Know your market.

I highly doubt a detailed description of the mundane sex lives of typical lawyers in Winnipeg would phase too many people and some might find it rather invasive that such details were made public. But sex websites with Judge Blowjob photos and gang bangs by young black studs? Now THAT is a story! And THAT is the "morality" of a group of editors that know how to play the game in their neck of the woods. (Or praire as the case may be.)

We can examine the minutae of personal opinion all day on this one, but it boils down to a common sense view that if you choose to lead a public life then you have chosen a different "standard" by which you are viewed. And if you don't like what the public does to you, oh well, too bad, so sad. Judges, politicians, sports and movie stars, they make the choice and it is incumbent on them to ensure that their background is mundane enough to pass muster when it comes to public scrutiny. Because, you know, we all love a good story.

And the news corps are more than happy to oblige. Slap down your two-bits and read all about it.

[msj]

then why worry about it until the law society makes a decision...

I'm not worried about it.

I am commenting in a forum where people comment on things.

it's not, it only becomes so when we(the public) make it an issue, I don't care what they do...

Well, if the husband pressured a client to have sex with his wife, that is a concern. It may be illegal and it is certainly unethical to use his position over his client in this way if found to be true.

Then it's a matter of what the wife/judge knew and did to see if she should face any charges or disciplinary action.

if it interfers with them doing their job yes but that hasn't been demonstrated it all hearsay...

Of course it's hearsay.

That's why the proper authorities will look into it to see what merit the story has.

Then appropriate action will be taken (or not taken).

That's what investigations do.

subjective, I'm sure my lawyer has sex that I find out the details of it doesn't make him less professional...

It is not the sex that is in question. It is whether or not the husband pressured his client which is definitely a lapse of ethics.

It is about a vetting process whereby the judge to be should be open and honest about her skeletons to ensure that nothing is going to come out against her (in particular, in a way that could lead one to question her partiality).

Her conduct, depending on the facts (of course - and this should really be considered a given so a big fat to that) may be lacking.

I'm willing to wait to see if there is merit in any of this.

if you have group sex with whipped cream it wouldn't matter to me as long as you found all my tax deductions, your private life is yours alone...

Don't like dairy.

But you're right - this doesn't really apply to accountants which is why my ethical code doesn't have much to do with sex.

Now, if I was having sex with the CEO of one of my clients that I audit then that is relevant because it impairs my independence and I either should not be doing the audit or should be documenting in the file what I have done to ensure that my independence is not impaired (maybe the sex isn't good enough to impair my judgement?).

So, yes, sex even works its way into an accountants' life now and then.

For a person who holds a position that renders judgement on others - well, sex is big.

The reason lawyers and judges are subject to higher standards (hence codes of conduct and ethical principles) is because they are put into positions where they must be unflappable and above reproach.

There are enough details to this story where one wonders if she is above reproach.

That's the beauty of being a professional - even perception can be enough to screw you (pardon the pun).

And, yes, we agree to abide by these higher standards when we pay our dues.

[bush_cheney2004]

The reason lawyers and judges are subject to higher standards (hence codes of conduct and ethical principles) is because they are put into positions where they must be unflappable and above reproach.....

How noble....why doesn't this apply to plumbers or child care workers?

I like this Slog Blog entry:

And how does having naked pictures of yourself on an internet site undermine your credibility? How does it impact your legal opinions? Because it is evidence of poor judgement—la la la—and displaying poor judgement isn't something that judges are supposed to do outside their legal opinions. The Canadian media is also insisting that the judge—Lori Douglas—should have disclosed all of "this" before her appointment to the bench. Not disclosed the fact her husband may have sexually harassed a client—this is shaping up to be a big he said/he said—but disclosed the existence of the nude photos and personal ads.

Because judges—even long before they're judges—aren't allowed to pose for nude photos, be kinky, take out personal ads, or seek extramarital sex partners. Only the vanilla, monogamous, and camera shy are fit to be judges. Because... well, just because.

http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/mobile/2010/09/01/sex-panic-in-canada

[bush_cheney2004]

Somebody finally dug up the nude judge photos that were deleted from DarkCavern.com:

[DogOnPorch]

Somebody finally dug up the nude judge photos that were deleted from DarkCavern.com:

Baby...(drool)

[msj]

How noble....why doesn't this apply to plumbers or child care workers?

If a judge is blackmailed it has repercussions on society as a whole. Justice isn't served and all that.

When a plumber is blackmailed you get a really nice toilet and vanity installed.

Just like I'm not supposed to sleep with the CEO or CFO of an audit client that I audit - it has nothing to do with being noble and everything to do with independence (perception and real).

Because my lack of judgement can have an effect on many other people I need to be held to higher standards than the plumber getting a blow job from some MILF.

So, who's gonna scream for me and my right to screw my clients (literally rather than monetarily that is)?

[bush_cheney2004]

Because my lack of judgement can have an effect on many other people I need to be held to higher standards than the plumber getting a blow job from some MILF.

..you ignored the more serious example of child care workers. Truth is that any such professional codes of conduct are only as noble as its members, with no real legal liability.

So, who's gonna scream for me and my right to screw my clients (literally rather than monetarily that is)?

I don't think it would survive a Charter Rights challenge unless malfeasance were proven.

[msj]

Well, more details are coming to light and it does not appear to be as "lurid" as first reported.

The husband may have been suffering from depression and posted the pictures without his wife's knowledge.

It appears that his wife did disclose the existence of the pictures during the vetting process.

She has stepped aside while an investigation continues so she is definitely being professional about it.

Good to see the process working like it should.

Her husband may be able to use the depression defence (which is not to say that it is not legitimate - it certainly is if proven).

So, this could be much ado about nothing.

Just reporters looking for "lurid" tales to get us plebians all riled up.

It was fun while it lasted.

I was hoping for more "lurid" details but it appears that our lawyers and judges really are as boring as a bunch of accountants, which is a little sad.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It was fun while it lasted.

Yea...for one shining moment...Manitoba wasn't boring. Oh well.....Quebec still has Julie Couillard.

[msj]

..you ignored the more serious example of child care workers. Truth is that any such professional codes of conduct are only as noble as its members, with no real legal liability.

Don't know much about the rules. I think criminal checks are required.

I just don't see this type of activity being a problem for a daycare worker.

Is the daycare worker going to be blackmailed?

Is she/he meting out justice?

Is he/she rendering opinions on financial statements that are being used by banks/shareholders/members/funding agencies?

Does the daycare worker belong to a professional organization that has a code of conduct about such things?

I don't think so.

I don't think it would survive a Charter Rights challenge unless malfeasance were proven.

The discipline for such an offence would not be worth challenging in the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, there are certain expectations and if I wanted to screw one of my audit clients so bad I'm pretty sure I would pass the audit over to another partner to do or I would pass on it to another firm.

Gawd knows, an audit client would only sleep with me in order to use me to try and hide their fraud anyway.

[BubberMiley]

I think the only reason she stepped down was because of the bribery allegation, not because she apparently likes black men. While one could argue the imprudence of allowing your husband to take nude photos is grounds for dismissal (because of the high standards of the judiciary), ultimately those actions weren't illegal.

[msj]

I think the only reason she stepped down was because of the bribery allegation, not because she apparently likes black men. While one could argue the imprudence of allowing your husband to take nude photos is grounds for dismissal (because of the high standards of the judiciary), ultimately those actions weren't illegal.

I was more concerned with bribery and potential for blackmail.

By admitting to the photos during the vetting process she undermines any blackmail argument which is a relief.

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't know much about the rules. I think criminal checks are required.

Correct...no messing around with self-policing societies and sham investigations.

Nevertheless, there are certain expectations and if I wanted to screw one of my audit clients so bad I'm pretty sure I would pass the audit over to another partner to do or I would pass on it to another firm.

Doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, etc. all have the same conduct "expectations"....the public rarely sees the inner workings of transgressions and loss of credentials is even more rare.

Would it be a violation to have sex with a client's dog?

[BubberMiley]

Would it be a violation to have sex with a client's dog?

You keep asking permission, but it's still illegal to abuse animals. Sorry.

[bush_cheney2004]

You keep asking permission, but it's still illegal to abuse animals. Sorry.

Ummmm....OK...what if the dog was dead!

[msj]

Correct...no messing around with self-policing societies and sham investigations.

Doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, etc. all have the same conduct "expectations"....the public rarely sees the inner workings of transgressions and loss of credentials is even more rare.

That's starting to change.

You have to hang out at their websites and, gasp, find the documents and read them yourself.

Would it be a violation to have sex with a client's dog?

I agree with Bubber on this one.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's starting to change.

You have to hang out at their websites and, gasp, find the documents and read them yourself.

Sure...and often they are sanitized to protect privacy rights. So we still have licensed professionals on the loose with very un-public disclosure of misdeeds.

I agree with Bubber on this one.

Gee....you mean that 8mm film I saw of Linda Lovelace and a cocker spaniel was illegal? He didn't seem to mind.

[msj]

Sure...and often they are sanitized to protect privacy rights. So we still have licensed professionals on the loose with very un-public disclosure of misdeeds.

Maybe.

The Law Society of Manitoba gives full names and lots of details.

My professional accounting society in BC also gives members names and details of the case.

Perhaps you're thinking of a time before the intertubes?

[charter.rights]

Doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, etc. all have the same conduct "expectations"....the public rarely sees the inner workings of transgressions and loss of credentials is even more rare.

That is not necessarily true. While each of them is held to a slightly higher standard than say a dock worker or a grocery store clerk there are certain tolerances allowed by their licencing societies, and penalties and sanctions that can be invoked to correct inappropriate behaviour. However, judges go well beyond that level of expectation and must be beyond reproach. What you don't seem to understand is that judges represent the "Honour of the Crown" a term that provides that not only are they representatives of the Crown's fair and just system of law, but that their behaviour in public must always be above suspicion and doubt - honourable and exemplary.

I see no problem with a judge that wants to engage in bondage or any kinky behaviors. As Pierre Trudeau often defended, the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. However, once her behavior reached beyond the bed - through her husbands solicitation for sex from a client, or from the publishing of the pictures on the internet - her behaviour became a public domain issue. And again if her husband did those things (sex advisor Dr. Sue Johansen says she probably initiated the requests) without her consent, she was obligated the minute she found out about it to disclose this information to the vetting board.

She no longer has the public confidence required as a jurist. Time to boot her out of there officially.

Edited September 2, 2010 by charter.rights

[bush_cheney2004]

However, judges go well beyond that level of expectation and must be beyond reproach. What you don't seem to understand is that judges represent the "Honour of the Crown" a term that provides that not only are they representatives of the Crown's fair and just system of law, but that their behaviour in public must always be above suspicion and doubt - honourable and exemplary.

Oh please....spare me from the "Honour of the Crown"....that's a whole other thread of contention. "Their behaviour in public" implies that private matters are just that, including nude photos before she was ever a judge.

.

I hope that Playboy Magazine is working on a Canadian Judge Portfolio to take advantage of the scandal. Something with those cute red robes!

[GostHacked]

Oh please....spare me from the "Honour of the Crown"....that's a whole other thread of contention. "Their behaviour in public" implies that private matters are just that, including nude photos before she was ever a judge.

.

I hope that Playboy Magazine is working on a Canadian Judge Portfolio to take advantage of the scandal. Something with those cute red robes!

It's not the pictures, but their actions after the fact that are the reasons for the investigation. Are you upset it's not sensationalized like it would be in the US media?

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not the pictures, but their actions after the fact that are the reasons for the investigation. Are you upset it's not sensationalized like it would be in the US media?

Are you kidding? It is very much sensationalized and I am having a great time with it. Whatsa matta....don't like all the attention in the opposite direction?

[GostHacked]

Are you kidding? It is very much sensationalized and I am having a great time with it. Whatsa matta....don't like all the attention in the opposite direction?

Nah, you are the one really wanting to sensationalize it. And I don't have a problem with the direction of the post, just the poster himself.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nah, you are the one really wanting to sensationalize it. And I don't have a problem with the direction of the post, just the poster himself.

Just count the Google hits inside and outside Canada, and try to focus on the subject instead. Or just ignore it...if you can.