Not The Judge!

Yes, the judge. Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, to be precise. Now that's a lofty title for a lofty profession. Someone steeped in the letter of the law. An individual who proved to be adept at the legal profession, gaining a reputation therefrom, and impressing those who notice such individuals. Particularly when, along with practising the profession, the practitioner also has the smarts to become politically active.

At which juncture a formulaic enterprise takes over with the potential for awarding the ambitious lawyer a prestigious post many would die for. The lawyer applies for a judgeship, their application is reviewed by a judicial advisory committee which then makes its recommendations to the minister of justice who thereupon makes his recommendation to the federal Cabinet. The governor-general makes the formal judicial appointment, at the choice of the Cabinet.

A protocol that appears to have served the country relatively well, and will continue to. But there are always potential hiccoughs when things go awry and procedure looks kind of, well, lacking in due diligence, perhaps? How well are candidates vetted? The assumption appears to be that as part of the process the candidate is questioned as to whether there happens to be any event or circumstance in their past which, if revealed, might bring problems to light.

Something in the past that would prove to be embarrassing, that might impact negatively on the appointment, on the court, on the government approval process, on the individual holding said office. The assumption is that the response will be an honest one. After all these are candidates of high moral standing, else how could they ethically service justice?

Good question, how could they? Who would want to appear in a court of law charged with an indictable offence in the knowledge that the presiding judge has engaged in squalid, tawdry and rather disgusting personal behaviour? A judge, like any high-placed public official, is ordinarily held, in our innocence, to be above reproach.

This is an anomalous situation, one hardly reflective of the calibre of people appointed to judgeships in Canada. It is a reminder that people, whatever positions they hold in society, are fallible. And some people are simply unworthy of the trust placed in them. And when that is revealed it becomes a scandal.

And it is fairly scandalous that a woman trained as a lawyer, and her lawyer husband would stoop to indulging themselves in advertised pornographic activities. Who really wants to see suggestive, nude photographs of Chief Justice Lori Douglas, with an invitation, if you are male, dark-skinned and interested in sex, to become involved in a night of orgiastic capers?

My, but the Internet and the wide-webby-world has changed both society and privacy.