Kinky judge sex. Imagine!

Posted on September 8, 2010
Filed Under Commentary | 2 Comments

We have had a titillating judicial scandal here in Canada in Winnipeg. A lawyer and her husband, also a lawyer, seem to have had a proclivity for kinky sex.

He sent some pictures of her inbondage and performing oral sex to a web site dedicated to inter racial sex. He wanted to watch her have sex with black men and take pictures. He also attempted to recruit a black man he wasrepresenting in a divorce at the time to have sex with his wife. He showed him pictures he had taken of her and directedhim to the web site.             The black man complained to someone, I’m not sure who, perhaps just another lawyer becausethe matter was dealt with privately. The husband paid the plaintiff $25,000 and the plaintiff agreed to return the photos he had and never discuss it. I have not read anything that indicates whether or not the wife was aware of this.

Two years after that, the wife was nominated to the Court of Queen’s Bench and was vetted for the position. Part of that includes a personal interview during which one of the questions is whether the nominee has anything in his, her, past which, if revealed, would bring the judiciary into disrepute.

We do not know what she said but wonder if the nomination would have proceeded if she had revealed her sexual activities and, if she knew about it, the contract with the black plaintiff.

Now the black man has gone public with the affair on the grounds he still feels victimized and wants to sue for some$17,000,000. Apparently he did not return all the pictures as per the agreement. I confess, I do wonder if he tried to negotiate another private deal looking for more once the woman was a judge, not just alawyer. The judge has asked to be relieved of her duties while her future is being considered and that request has been granted.

The initial public consensus and some professional opinion seemed to be that, if she knew about what her husband had done and the deal he had made, she should be disrobed. Little play on words there.

I wonder about that.

No one has yet suggested she did anything illegal. Canadian law and policy seems to have more or less adapted to the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau’s opinion that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Might she be justified in holding that the judiciary has no right or expectation that she should tell them about her consensualsexual behaviour? Is it any of their business? Does the fact that it was revealed make any difference?

Might she be justified in holding that, if the judiciary is held in disrepute because of her behaviour, that is their problem and the problem of the people who perceive it as contrary to judicial standards?

I think anyone who has personally known any number of judges knows of quite a few odd ducks with beliefs and habits thatmight strike some as less than solemn. When I was the very young publisher of an Oromocto paper, I met the local magistrate at coffee with a gang of local regulars. Within two minutes of being introduced, he leaned over to me, put a hand on my arm and said, “Dave, it is alright to fondlethe tits of a nun, as long as you do not do it with carnal intent”. I have no idea in the world what brought that up. Perhaps it had been part of a legal decision somewhere in the world but why he thought I should know remains a mystery.

I also wonder how many boomer judges there are who never smoked a joint in university which is, although it should not be, illegal. I wonder how many judges reveal that in their interview.

Some people are damning the media for playing circus with it. I take such folk by the hand and lead them from their position that media do it for the money to the fact there is money in it because people like them (and me) love to read about it. Who are we kidding? Sex is just about the most interesting thing in the world.

Most of us restrict our language and discusson topics in mixed company with our friends although we read the same books and realize we have all willingly exposed ourselves to the most graphic descriptions of sex, survived, and gone back for more. A woman friend of mine talked about that in terms of the pedestal. Women and men pretend women don’t know and that men don’t know that they know.

Friend and former colleague, Rick MacLean, in his Miramichi Leader column, wonders if the media should be giving the story wide coverage. I think it should for two reasons.

One is that it is unusual, the very definition of news, and the public is interested. The media should always be reluctant todecide what the public is and is not fit to know especially when there is a genuine public issue involved.

The other is that sexual and social mores have changed dramatically over the years. There was a time when wife and childbeating was considered a private affair not for public discussion or interference. There was a time when pregnant teachers, nurses and TV announcers were put on unpaid leave for moral and fitness reasons. There was a timewhen the media did not report rape trial details. There was a time when homosexuality was “the sin that dare not speak its name”. There was a time when parents would punish a child who suggested a priest or teacher had made him, or her, uncomfortable.

Our society is healthier because the media gradually dealt with those issues and helped the public reach an informed consensus on a more enlightened position.

A talk show host asked Alec Baldwin about a recording of him berating his daughter on the phone after a bitter divorce and custody dispute.

He said he was abjectly ashamed for his behaviour but asked, “How many people would like to see the worst moment of theirlives broadcast on national television?”

I’m sure most of us would be mortified to see details of our sex lives or emotional meltdowns revealed and discussed in the media. However, with the advent of camera phones and omni present surveillance systems many, many, more of us are going tohave that experience. I am told it is quite common on university campuses now.

I think is worthwhile for there to be public awareness and discussion in the media.

Personally, I don’t really see why the judge should not keep her job. She might be a little harsh on people charged with invading other folks’ privacy but she could recuse herself from such cases.

On we go!                                                      DAC

Comments

2 Responses to “Kinky judge sex. Imagine!”

  1. Sharon Fraser on September 8th, 2010 6:06 pm

    Her husband, “also a lawyer,” was a busy fellow, wasn’t he?
    ___________________________________

    “He sent some pictures of her in bondage and performing oral sex to a web site dedicated to inter racial sex. He wanted to watch her have sex with black men and take pictures. He also attempted to recruit a black man he was representing in a divorce at the time to have sex with his wife. He showed him pictures he had taken of her and directed him to the web site.”
    ___________________________________

    I haven’t followed the case closely but from what I know — and going by your summary here — I am very curious to know why no one is asking for the husband to be relieved of his duties.

    It is not illegal to have kinky sex but is it legal to try to “recruit” a client — whom he’s representing in a divorce case — as a sex partner for his wife? It’s not ethical, that’s for sure.

    I would think twice about having him represent me.

  2. David Cadogan on September 8th, 2010 7:09 pm

    I think it is a different issue and probably not as significant to the public interest as whether the judge can continue to sit on the bench. With regard to the husband, we don’t know whether his wife was interested in a liaison or not. I don’t know what the legal ethics are of a lawyer asking a client if he is interested in something kinky or not. It is not as if a lawyer has authority over a client unless the profession looks at legal counsel as equivalent to medical care. I just don’t know. I suspect the provincial law society will have a fairly clear policy on that although how that might jibe with current morality could also be in question. I’d still like to know your position on whether the judge can continue.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.