First, as to characterization of the problem: her husband was a lawyer and this fellow was his client (his divorce lawyer no less), so pressuring him for sex is an ethics violation.
It is possible that the wife did not know about it, but that strains credulity, given that the guy was being pressured into having sex with her.
So that’s one issue - if she was cooperating willingly in this plan, it raises questions about her committment to legal professional ethics, which as Associate Chief Justice for the province raises a problem. Admittedly it is possible that she did not know, but it certainly raises the question.
Second, in any event, after all of this went down (and it stretches credulity to the breaking-point to assume she didn’t find out when her husband was forced to resign, if she did not know already), she was required to sign a disclosure form as part of the process of becomming a judge, listing everything she’s been involved in which could bring the judiciary into disrepute. That’s a problem, even assuming she was a dupe in the event, since very arguably being involved in a plan such as this would qualify.
The usual method in scandals of this sort is to suggest, rather than require, that they resign voluntarily. Otherwise, the process for removing a judge is somewhat cumbersome.
Essentially, it is a federal matter: the complaint would go to the Judicial Council, who would appoint an inquiry committee, who would investigate and make a recommendation, which would then go to the Minister of Justice to recommend removal.
As I said before (and you agreed with), the particular fetish isn’t relevant. The important thing is “her husband wanted to watch her screw a client”, not “her husband wanted to watch her screw a black guy”. The fetish has absolutely no relevance, and there is no legitimate reason to bring it up.
And one could also very well argue that it wouldn’t qualify. If a judicial candidate’s husband had undergone rehab for drug addiction or was an architect (say) who was found liable for negligence, would you insist that the candidate should include that in her responses to the questionnaire? What if her father was a notorious instigator of racial strife? Or her son?
This standard of “Tell us all embarrassing facts that may come to light involving you, your family and your associates” is utterly overbearing and a bridge too far. I am quite aware of the ethics commissions usual protests that such sweeping and intrusive inquiries are necessary “to protect the public.” And yet it doesn’t seem to have made in difference in keeping dishonest practitioners out of the profession.
I would limit the intendment of the questionnaire to disrepute brought on by the acts and omissions of the candidate, and not those of her relations.
Well, if the husband was keen to see his wife doing a dwarf, and he happened to have a dwarf for a client…
The specific characteristic of the client that makes him (or if the story was even more interesting - her) someone the husband wants his wife to get freaky with doesn’t really matter, I figure. I’m actually more concerned that competent judges could be removed because their spouses or ex-spouses are fruitcakes.
“This standard of “Tell us all embarrassing facts that may come to light involving you, your family and your associates” is utterly overbearing and a bridge too far.”
I agree in principle, but it would be a blackmail risk unless you could have absolute confidence it wouldnt result in your dismissal.
And the only way you can do that is by complete disclosure so it ends up being circular.
She’s recused herself pending the investigation. Oh, and a minor point - she’s Associate Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench (the trial court), not of Manitoba (which would be on the Court of Appeal).
Well, how do other important folks, who do not have to complete such questionnaires, withstand the risk of blackmail? Indeed, doesn’t the survey approach increase the risk as much as it decreases it? After all, you might become blackmail-proof as to incidents involving your family members that you do include, but you also become blackmail-susceptible for the ones you leave off—however innocuous they may be.
“That year, eight years ago, your husband forgot to file a return? It was so long ago, you didn’t include it in your responses. Well, wouldn’t the Law Society be interested in hearing about that,” the extortionist wondered aloud.
I think the better approach to the blackmail risk is the one that’s usually adopted. Rather then requiring candidates to confess their sins and peccadilloes, as well as those of the relatives and associates, why not just allow them to go the cops should the threat materialize? Let’s be reasonable, which between these two really is better for the bench, bar, and public that they serve:
(1) requiring a candidate to disclose publicly the existence of blue pictures featuring him or her and that the candidate and his or her spouse are swingers; or,
(2) not requiring such disclosures and if a litigant attempts to blackmail a judge on that basis, report the blackmail threat to the police for discreet handling
“Well, how do other important folks, who do not have to complete such questionnaires, withstand the risk of blackmail?”
My answer would be they generally dont, or these kinds of policies wouldnt exist.
There are usually other reasons why they dont have to complete them, eg if they are elected rather than appointed officials or there are no major precedents for that particular office.
It’s not just the threat of blackmail that’s the issue. Judges are expected to be of high moral character, and posing nude with your legs splayed out wearing a dog collar on a porn site isn’t consistent with that ideal.
Well, if someone tried to blackmail me with pictures of me going airtight with 2 navy guys and a marine being given to mrAru, they would have a tough time of it because he already has a picture like that. If the judge is ok with saying that yes she participates in X fetish behavior, so what … is it a blackmail liability? It seems that her husband already knows about her fetish, and if pictures were put up on the internet, it is already a matter of more or less public record, so again, what blackmail risk? Let her keep the bench. It is time for people to just deal with other people’s sexuality by ignoring it. As long as the participants are humans and over the age of consent, who gives a flying fuck what they are doing, as long as it is consensual.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I’m a government lawyer who sometimes works with investigators and federal law-enforcement agents form various agencies. I once started a new case involving the Defense Department, and the DOD Inspector General agent told me in our first meeting, “By the way, I’d like you to know that my wife and I are polyamorous, and we often go to swingers’ parties.”
For a moment I was flattered, thinking that he was hitting on me, but that wasn’t it. Turns out that his chain of command was trying to revoke his security clearance on the grounds that his alternative lifestyle made him a blackmail risk. His response was to tell everyone about his lifestyle, so there would be no opportunity to use it for blackmail. Great agent, too.
If, after a thorough investigation by the Canadian Judicial Council, the Council recommends removal, the Minister has to decide whether to recommend removal. If so, the recommendation would then go to Parliament. If the House of Commons and the Senate conclude that the judge should be removed, they send an Address to the Governor General, requesting the GovGen to remove the judge, as set out by s. 99 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
No federally appointed judge has ever been removed in Canada by this process. If there is serious cause to believe that the judge had misconducted him/herself, the judge normally resigns rather than goes through the Parliamentary process.