Saturday, September 04, 2010

Justice Lori Douglas did nothing wrong and there is no reason to suspend her

I was shocked to read that Justice Lori Douglas "has requested to be temporarily relieved of her duties as a sitting justice of the province's Court of Queen's Bench", and will "remain in her position in an administrative capacity" as the Canadian Judicial Council investigates a complaint against her. Justice Douglas did absolutely nothing wrong and there is nothing about the situation that warrants an investigation.

The alleged professional misconduct was by Justice Douglas's husband, Jack King, who propositioned the complainant, one of his clients. The complainant was never Justice Douglas's client, and Justice Douglas did not do the alleged propositioning. (In fact, if she had done the propositioning, it would not have been professional misconduct because the complainant was not her client.)

Mr. King has already admitted that he was sharing the sexually explicit photos of his wife without her knowledge (and therefore, we can assume, without her consent). This makes her a victim, just like the complainant.

At this point, some people are thinking "But he's her husband!" Yes, he is. Think about your husband - or wife, or boyfriend, or girlfriend, or whatever else you call your partner. Think of the last time they did something idiotic. Was it your fault? Could you have stopped them even if it were your responsibility to do so? Did this have any bearing whatsoever on your sense of judgement as it pertains to your job?

And at this point, some people are thinking "But did you hear about what she was doing in those pictures? Disgusting!" I agree completely. I find the activities described completely repulsive and worlds away from my lofty ideas of what marriage should be.

That's why I've taken the sensible measure of not engaging in those sorts of activities or marrying anyone who enjoys doing so. However, all married couples engage in activities that not everyone would enjoy within the privacy of their marriage. I know more than one couple for whom foreplay includes taking basal body temperature and verifying the quality of cervical mucus. I can't think of anything less sexy! I know couples who enjoy spending their weekends renovating their home, or growing and preserving their own food. That's no way to live! I know couples who think camping is an appropriate honeymoon activity! Ugh!!

And, really, that's what marriage is for - creating life the way the two of you enjoy, with all your quirks and everything, regardless of what anyone else in the world thinks. There's a beautiful phrase in the bible of all things describing marriage as leaving your family of origin and "cleaving unto" your spouse. It draws up this image of throwing off the shackles and drama and baggage forced onto you in your early life and holding fast to the one you love, the two of you united against everything the world throws at you. And that's what Justice Douglas and Mr. King were doing when engaging in kinky activities that I and many other people find distasteful - cleaving unto each other, creating the life of their choosing regardless of what the rest of us think, just like every other married couple.

Therefore, according to testimony by the subject of the complaint, Justice Douglas did not have a professional relationship with the complainant, did not participate in the act that is alleged to be professional misconduct, and was in fact a victim of the subject of the complaint. The only negative thing anyone has been able to come up with about Justice Douglas is that evidence exists that she engaged in conjugal activities that not everyone would enjoy, with the full knowledge and enthusiastic consent of her husband. Nothing here anything near remotely cause for inquiry by one's employer.

I am confident that the investigation will find no wrongdoing on Justice Douglas's part, but I'm astounded that anyone with the intelligence, worldliness, broad-mindedness, and sense of nuance necessary to be a judge would think an investigation is necessary in the first place.

2 comments:

laura k said...

Thanks for this.

Among other awful things about this uproar, the small-minded prejudice against certain sexual preferences - and the assumptions about people who enjoy them - amazes me.

impudent strumpet said...

I used to think that way when I was in my teens, because I assumed that if people are into X, they either want to do X to me or they think I should do X. I'm not entirely certain about the origin of that line of thinking, but it just kind of went away when I spent some time in the real world and came to realize it's bigger than the high-school cafeteria.

So I always find it strange when grown adults who should have even more of a breadth of experience than I do haven't drifted away from that.