Our grossly overpaid, under worked Co-Legal Affairs Critic/Legal Analyst VJH is back!
Good Day Readers:
We received VJH's e-mail a few days ago and apologize for not getting to this sooner. Since close of the latest phase of the Douglas Inquiry (June 26) we've been swamped with e-mail.Sorry readers we'll get to them as soon as we can. There's a lot quietly happening behind the scenes we simply cannot talk about - yet.
To date we've had a lot of correspondence, mostly from women, about Cher Hazen who presented before the Inquiry Committee on Tuesday. Ms Hazen has written a lengthy rebuttal to the National Post's Christie Blatchford's recent article which we plan to post. But there has been a lot of other mail as well.
Yesterday, CyberSmokeBlog set an all time record of monthly visitors and we're still in June. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Readers.
As for VJH, here's another of his excellent (superbly analyzed and written) articles/comments about the Douglas Inquiry. Should you encounter him undertaking research at The Law Courts be sure to say hello but please don't stare - he really thinks he incognito with that fake nose, glasses mustache and eyebrows. If you have any information you'd like to share confidentially with him he can be contacted online at veritasjustiahonoris@live.ca.
Our response is in blue.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Dear Mr. Pieuk:
I actually clicked on the link in the Winnipeg Free Press article this a.m. and read the entire decision on including the discs forwarded to CJC as evidence for this inquiry. Though, your request for comment was nice to have, and thank you for same.
No, thank you!
Overall, I find I agree with the decision of the Committee that they need to consider the content of the discs as a separate and legitimate complaint and part of this inquiry as it does directly impact on three of the four allegations.
Where I disagree with the CJC is there decision with regard to releasing the content of the complaint to the public as being at their discretion. The order states, “While they are part of the record, they will not be made public unless the Committee expressly orders otherwise” (Page 13, Paragraph 56).
There will be no discretion exercised when taxpayers are asked to pay for the Inquiry. Therefore, partial disclosure is not an option.
It would seem that Justice Douglas’ counsel was vehement in her pitch that the content of the discs does not impact her ability to be a judge, and that the Committee need not engage in investigating “…highly personal, constitutionally protected and lawful acts between the judge and her husband” (Page 7, Paragraph 32). And I would agree with this statement, had those acts remained BETWEEEN THE JUDGE AND HER HUSBAND. It would seem to me, the Judge’s recourse is against her husband, as [according to Douglas] he is the individual who released these photos into the public domain, and if she is not willing to take recourse against her husband, then she is, as my Granddad used to say, SOL.
To counsel for ACJ Douglas on this issue we say, "Balls!" Your Granddad sounds live a very wise man.
Despite the claims that these images do not impact her ability to be a judge, counsel puts forward the argument that the Committee viewing the photographs will “exacerbate the pain that the Judge is experiencing from the knowledge that others and, particularly, some of her colleagues on the Council, have viewed these photographs in discharging their role in the investigatory process” and doing so would result in, “physical deterioration based on fear, panic, humiliation and further isolation from her colleagues” and finally the inclusion of the discs would, “’re-victimize’ the Judge since each instance of the photographs being viewed amounts to a horrific violation of her privacy, a stripping away of her dignity and integrity and what feels like a ‘rape.’” (Page 11, Paragraph 47)
Again to counsel for Lori Douglas we say, "Balls!" If Ms Douglas is so concerned she should resign, cash in her generous severance, pension and benefits package and avoid the public humiliation. When we're presented with the final cost of this Inquiry perhaps we'll be the ones who are raped - financially.
I would argue that a Judge experiencing pain and humiliation from her own actions (she allowed the photographs to be taken and allowed them to remain in someone’s possession other than her own) has engaged in behaviours that are now interfering with her ability to perform her duties. She has stated that she experiences “physical deterioration, panic and “fear” when facing individuals who have seen these photographs and is comparing that to having being raped.
(The irony of which has not since escaped me is that not a favourite game in S&M &BD?). She herself is stating that viewing of this material is “stripping away” her “dignity and integrity,” does that not then contradict the claim that she can do her job? The argument that her actions have not put the judiciary in disrepute when she is claiming to be ‘raped’ every time the photos are seen is contradictory. If they truly did not impact her, and she has no shame of her conduct (which is the foundational claim of those in the lifestyle – safe, sane, consensual) then why care who sees them? If she was ‘in control’ of the situation and proud of her conduct, thinking it to be appropriate – then I beg the question – why are you so humiliated and embarrassed?
Very good arguments - spot on! If this fiasco is causing her pain isn't that what S&M B&D is all about. Whip me more, humiliate me I love it!
While I can understand why the CJC would be stating this evidence should remain in-camera, I believe that because of the claims that Douglas is making to encourage this to happen, form part of the very reasons they cannot remain in-camera. She is claiming them to be an invasion of privacy and that they humiliate her, don’t forget this important element.
The CJC has a difficult balance to strike. Too much in-camera and its credibility will take a hit the last thing it needs.
First, I remind you that the CJC can limit information before the public in a hearing. Section 63, subsection (5) states:
"The Council may prohibit the public publication of any information or documents placed before it in connection with, or arising out of, an inquiry or investigation under this section when it is of the option that the publication is not in the public interest."
However, it is incredibly easy to argue that the publication is in the public interest, BECAUSE IT IS STILL READILY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. Want proof? Google “Lori Douglas” “photos” and then use the images search engine. In a mere 0.32 seconds, I had 11,000 images of Justice Douglas at my fingertips, including the pornographic ones.
Excellent points you've raised VJH! Our story? Approximately, a year and a half ago a criminal defence lawyer and fellow Blogger sent us a copy of an anonymous e-mail they'd received bearing a shaw.ca address - anonymous because the prefix was meaningless. They had not opened it but we did to satisfy ourself whether it was a hoax. It contained instructions to sequence 4-hyperlinks which we did to find 30-photographs of Lori Douglas naked as a jaybird save for various B&D S&M paraphernalia.
It's as though the Judicial Selection Committee just didn't get it - understand how the internet works. Scary don't your think?
Further, much has been made of Trudeau’s landmark legislation, to wit, “there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” yet, when one reads The Criminal Code of Canada, indeed, within the section on Anal Intercourse (which I understand is the subject of some of the photographs – though I may be wrong), The Code states in Section 159 that it remains a crime, unless engaged in by two people, in private and “if it is not engaged in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present;”
Then it is NOT private and indeed is a criminal offence. I beg the question – if two people are engaged in an act of anal intercourse, and a third person is present taking photographs, does that not constitute a criminal offence?
Good point. While Jack King freely admitted to placing the pictures on the internet, has it ever been established he also took them? There's one, for example, where the person would almost have had to have been a contortionist which begs the question .....
Finally, Douglas is claiming an invasion of privacy, yet has not levied any charges against the supposed perpetrator – her husband. Yet, it would seem [I say seem because I have not read the sections in detail] that Sections 122 (Breach of Trust), 162 (Voyeurism), and sections relating to obscene material production and distribution without consent might all apply as potential charges that could be laid, yet have not. Why? Would that not exonerate her? Or, does the remaining shred of ethics and the standard of perjury in a court of law waylay any action against her husband, because at this point, neither she nor her husband have been put under oath have they?
If defence counsel Sheila Block is to be believed in her summation as to how she will proceed when the Inquiry resumes on July 16th, the reason Lori Douglas has not sued Jack King for invasion of privacy, defamation of character, and whatever else, is because wants her husband to be there to help raise their child. We we hear that it was all we could do not to become violently ill.
So you can see I hope, the CJC has given in on her “privacy” issues, however, if Independent Council has any skill with litigation, he has been provided with a cornucopia of material that can be used to discredit her claims of this conduct having no impact on putting the judiciary in disrepute.Her own statements have painted her into a corner – you can’t be humiliated and suffer physical health problems from something that you are not ashamed of, and shame implies an understanding of wrongdoing. Ergo – she is guilty of allegation 3, and by knowing these photos existed and not reporting them in writing (she chose to pose for them and gave over control of them to another person who made them public), she is guilty of allegation 2.
If Independent Counsel cannot get a conviction on at least one of the four counts there should be a Public Inquiry into the Independent Counsel.
My wife wants me to add, that as a professional woman, who fought hard for equal rights, who has fought against the debasement and degradation of women and who has fought for women to stop being seen as objects, possessions and servants – my wife is appalled and disgusted by the actions of Justice Douglas, and as a feminist (and she is to the core, I promise you!) she does not take issue with high standards of conduct and exemplary behaviour being enforced against her gender.
Nor does my wife see removal of Douglas as a deterrent to young women aspiring to positions of power. She feels the reverse to be true, that if Douglas is allowed to stay on the bench it sets women’s rights back 50 years – where a powerful woman secretly wants to be “owned” and is incapable of making responsible decisions for herself, relying on men to protect her from her own inappropriate behaviour.
First, on behalf of our readers thank your wife for giving you enough time long enough from the salt mines to writer this. We take no exception to feminists, in fact, we welcome them with one important proviso - do what you wish and how you wish as long as it breaks no laws and is respectful of others.
We are Big, Big proponents of civil disobedience - protest until the cows come home or you're blue in the fact which ever comes first. However, never place yourself in a position to get arrested although the G20 summit in Toronto of a couple years ago is an exception in that it was the police who were breaking the law.
One of the mistakes young people sometimes make at protests is to get arrested, charged and eventually convicted. Fast forward a little down the road. They are candidate for a position of their dreams and it's down to one or two others and them. Guess what? They didn't get it because they had a criminal record. Not smart, not smart at all.
The only person who can protect you from inappropriate behaviour is you.
We'll share a story with you. On May 19th the first hearing of the Douglas Inquiry the CBC's Marisa Dragani and I were chatting in the lobby of 363 Broadway Avenue chatting when who should happen along but Cher Hazen of later intervener application fame. Ms Dragani was mentioning how we wouldn't believe how much heat she has taken (she's the one who broke the story) since she began covering the story.
We were both rather taken aback so asked, "What do you mean?" Her response, "Several women, some with a feminist bent, who think Lori Douglas is being skewered by the system." Feminism notwithstanding perhaps these individuals should wake up, smell the coffee and get a life.
I am curious to see where these hearings go and…
It's only going to get more and more interesting especially if Lori Douglas hangs tough and refuses to step down.
In the meantime, I remain,
VJH (Veritas Justitia Honoris)
Thank you VJH and your wife!
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 7:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home