A Manitoba associate chief justice is facing calls for her resignation in a controversy around a series of sexually explicit photographs that were posted online.
The pictures of Judge Lori Douglas were taken by her husband, lawyer Jack King, seven years ago. In July, Alexander Chapman filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council, claiming King gave him the photos—and urged him to have sex with his wife—in 2003.
Chapman, a former client of King’s, went public last Tuesday. Public debate has become fiercely divided between those who believe that Judge Douglas must resign, and those who believe that her private life and her judicial career are wholly distinct.
While Judge Douglas made a risky decision by agreeing to take explicit pictures with her husband, calls that she resign—or be ousted by an act of Parliament, as required by law—are extreme. Judge Douglas has done nothing wrong: the photos her husband gave to Chapman depict activities conducted between consenting individuals.
Some individuals feel that Judge Douglas should resign simply for participating in the photos. Judges, they insist, must be held able to a different standard than the public.
However, judges are held to the same legal standards as a member of the public, and—as of yet—Judge Douglas appears to have broken no laws. Claims that her actions reflect an inability to make sound decisions are equally unfounded. While Judge Douglas helped create the photos, she clearly appreciated the importance of keeping them from the public eye—her husband has since indicated he acted without her knowledge.
Others insist that Judge Douglas must resign because she can no longer command the respect necessary to do her job.
Judge Douglas’ ability to do her job has nothing to do with her reputation, and everything to do with her knowledge of the law and her ability to apply it. Those individuals over whom she exercises judgement do not have to respect her as a person—or approve of her private life—in order to be bound by her decisions.
Where Judge Douglas’ reputation counts most is exactly where it has been severely damaged; not in the public eye, but rather within the legal community and the eyes of Judge Douglas’ coworkers. The impact of this scandal on Judge Douglas’ professional reputation and career is as detrimental as being fired. Whether or not Judge Douglas is obliged to resign from her position permanently, this controversy is likely the end of any future advancement she may have been working towards.
Those individuals who believe that Judge Douglas needs to be reprimanded for her actions should acknowledge that she already has suffered—and will continue to suffer—a profound punishment.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].