What do you think a “moral law” is in the context of community standards?  At what point are you willing to bring into question to character of another person or even consider condemning them as an immoral human being?  I suppose murder is pretty much something we can all agree is immoral but what about stuff related to sex?  Oh yes, it can be a bit hazey can’t it?

Maybe a different question.  Do you consider yourself to be a sexually moral person?  I would bet dollars to doughnuts that in many cases, even the most outwardly adamant and righteous people may have strong doubts as to their own moral integrity regarding their sexual habits or preferences.  Shucks, I can tell you until I’m blue in the face that I know exactly what I like about sex and that my opinion of my sexual habits are just rockin’ hot n’ awesome but the only person who knows if I believe what I am saying is me.  We can talk all we want but in the end, the arguments we make regarding sexual morality are either coming from a place that would be, if light were ever to shine on it, either hypocritical or notably consistent.

I could for instance condemn sex with turkeys but secretly be the worst turkey chaser this side of the two hemispheres, though I can’t imagine I rank that high…er, that I would rank that high.  Yeah…

So anyhow, believe it or not, I’m going somewhere with this.  Just let me re-rail myself.

I’m spurred on to think about this kinda thing after reading a lengthy CBC article about a certain Judge in Manitoba, one Lori Douglas.

It seems that Douglas has had a complaint launched against her detailing how her husband (Jack King, the subject of a separate complaint from the same complainant) attempted to solicit a fellah of the darker skinned persuasion (calling dark skin a persuasion here makes no sense by the way) as a sexual partner for Justice Douglas.  The story is kinda murky in a he said, she said, he said kinda way but the bottom line for a great number of people seems to be that the fellah who launched the complaint, one Alexander Chapman, included some pretty racy photos in the details.  It would seem that he was presented with pictures of Douglas in bondage play with various sex toys and so on that, according to him, made him want to puke.

The part that makes sense to me is that Chapman says King, who was representing him in divorce proceeding at the time, acted in a manner that was unprofessional and made him feel as though he was being pressured into something.  Here he was being egged on by his lawyer to have sex with his lawyer’s wife and he contends that he figured if he said no, his lawyer may have not represented him properly.  Add to that, he also contends that the judge had told him his case needed to proceed quickly and he hadn’t enough money to change lawyers and sure, it sounds like he felt trapped.  all this is good cause for launching a complaint.  To some, it may even sound like good cause for launching a complaint against Kings wife, Lori Douglas but to me it seems like a bit of a stretch.

So that’s the sensible part.  The part that doesn’t make sense to me is that whole bit about Lori Douglas’ credibility being shot by appearing in photos showing that she clearly has a taste for leather that may make a bovine shake in its hooves.  So Lori Douglas likes bondage, can I ask why this is of any concern?

From an internet message board, I pulled the following from an anonymous user.

It is exceedingly hypocritical for a Justice to get up on high and destroy people with the Sword of Justice when she herself is a transgressor of the moral law.

I don’t get that.  Who decides what a moral law is and to add to that, there’s no solid evidence that she actually did anything with the guy who has launched his complaint.  What moral law did she break if her husband tried to solicit a sexual partner for her, possibly without her knowledge?  This is either an assumption on the part of the commenter or a focus on the bondage stuff.  Again, I don’t get it.

On the website for the Montreal Gazette, another anonymous poster says:

When your personal life exposes your professional life to ridicule, humiliation or blackmail then you should not be in any position of public trust .

In other words when people know about your unethical lifestyle you become a public liability.

And your role as a public official (judge) can be compromised … and has it?

This is not hard to figure out …

This confuses me further.  Ok, so Douglas is in pictures of her with sex toys and bondage play.  If this is something that will expose her to humiliation or ridicule, isn’t that a problem that the public at large has?  I mean, it’s the public bringing her into judgment for the pictures, not her crying about how she hates herself for liking bondage right?  The commenter implies that she leads an unethical lifestyle but again, I don’t understand that implication.  Her Husband may have acted unethically, but what did she do that was so wrong?

The blackmail thing I can agree with to a point I suppose but to me, it seems that the potential for blackmail material like this is a result of general public prudishness and a propensity for rushing to judgment.  I don’t see how pictures of this sort are a commentary on her character.  I don’t have any personal experience I can assure you but I imagine people both good and bad can be bondage fans.

Clipped from the National Post’s website, ‘MIKEMURPHY’ this one:

We have many women getting the benefit of these appointments not because of ability but more because of their gender. This one is a classic example. She is unfit to sit in the bench and perhaps will be the first in Canadian history to be removed by the Judicial Council, if she does not resign in infamy first. The cream does not always rise to the top when gender politics is involved. Many of these female lawyers are also active feminist ideologues whose judgment would indeed be impaired when dealing with gendered issues such as family court. Not one of them will say yes it will interfere with their judgment – but it will.

Why is she unfit to sit on the bench and who on earth ever mentioned anything about her being of the no penis club?  What does that have to do with this???  Oh, and of course we obviously can’t forget to throw in the feminist ideologue bit.

Really?

Perhaps the only thing people harping on this poor woman have is that she may have known that these pictures were out there and potentially answered in the negative to a question all people apply for judgships are asked.  “is there anything in your past or present which could reflect negatively on yourself or the judiciary, and which should be disclosed?” Without even actually knowing how she answered, I guess we can assume she simply said no but again, we don’t even know that much but assuming we did and she indeed said ‘no’ in reply, the argument seems to go that since this attempted hook up, pictures included, happened before Douglas was appointed to her judgeship, she knew about it and should have disclosed it to the panel that was evaluating her eligibility to be a judge.  Even if this is indeed the case, since a confidentiality agreement had been signed with Chapman, doesn’t that mean the situation would be null?  Certainly she can’t be the only gal or guy who’s attained a judgeship that likes leather right?

Ah, it just all seems like such an overblown issue to me.  Chapman receiving unprofessional legal representation and being pressured is definitely a cause for complaint but all this sex stuff?  Can you say non-issue?

Up to this point, Justice Douglas has temporarily stepped down taking up administrative duties while this complaint works its way through the system.  Chapman has been ordered to return the racy photos he has apparently kept in his possession as evidence for his complaint.

Yes, I’m touting this notion that some particular job losses are great.  You see, the loss of these jobs indicates a healthier society, saved money and beyond that, in fact, an apparent opportunity for the Dutch government to make some extra cash off of Belgium.

Fun fact before continuing on.  Though the Netherlands is often referred to as Holland in its entirety, Wikipedia tells me that in fact, North and South Holland are just two of the twelve provinces that make up the country and thusly, referring to the Netherlands as Holland is a sure sign that people like me have probably never been there.

So anyhow, it seems that Holland…err…The land of de-facto cannabis legalization is closing a few prisons.  As the result of a declining crime rate, it seems that the Netherlands has room in its prison system for about 2,000 more prisoners than police and the courts can currently produce.  Also, unlike their neighbours in Belgium, The Dutch also expect the declining trend in crime to continue and see a future with 1,200 fewer employees in the prison system.  Since Belgium still has trouble with crime rates, there is a deal in the works that may see the Netherlands benefit to the tune of 30 million Euros to play babysitter to about 500 Belgian prisoners.

Oddly enough, it would seem that despite cannabis being made publicly available making it a popular cannabis consumer’s tourist destination, the Dutch haven’t been dealing with addicts robbing houses to get their next fix, murders, rapes or who knows what.  No, in the land of legal weed, prisons are shutting down.

Of course this has to do with much more than just legally available cannabis.  Dutch society has formed in its own way and the low crime rate is a result of cultural developments in that nation.  But honestly?  Can anyone tell me that giving up at least some of the war on weed in the Netherlands doesn’t have a great deal to so with this type of thing as well?

Now this one strikes me as exceptionally stupid and though I have a propensity for blaming police for this kind of stupidity, I don’t mind shoveling a bunch of my discontent on top of local politicians in this case as well…actually they get it way more often but I feel a need to point them both out this time around.

The subject of the above linked news story was driving around in an area frequented by sex trade workers. He was being tailed by officers in three unmarked police cars, none of whom later testified that the guy ever propositioned a street walker or even attempted to park. None the less, one of the cruisers pulled the fellow over and issued a ticket for driving around in the area. Apparently, he had turned his head and looked at a couple of sex workers and this is what prompted the police to pull the guy over.

Now, the police in the story say that the fellow has a history in the area and it’s not elaborated on. Frankly, I don’t care if he was cruising for hookers or not, the fact of the matter is that he hadn’t actually done anything wrong but the police used a tool at their disposal to detain and charge this fellow anyhow. Thats one of many things that don’t sit well with me here. The charge is spurious as well. I know where the sex trade is and I have driven through there before. I have even hawked at street walkers before and as a young single male in a car all alone, I imagine I would be the perfect suspect in regard to some one potentially picking up hookers. It seems to matter not that I don’t intend to buy sex, this tells me that simply driving about and turning my head could end up in my being issued a stupid ticket.

Add to that, my views that laws banning solicitation of sexual favor are both destructive and anti-freedom, I’m just a big ball of unhappy about this kind of thing. A stand up comic who’s name escapes me asked a pertinent question in regard to prostitution. Isn’t the ultimate test of ownership in wether or not you can sell whatever it is you own? Don’t we own our bodies?

Not to get off on a tangent here, I’m just upset that some one can get pulled over and then charged for driving about somewhere. Just because some idiots pass a law that clearly violates mobility rights in the charter and just because some one has a hard on for issuing a ticket no matter what the reason, some one is going through the court process just to defend themselves against the use of piss poor logic.

I’m continuously appalled by governments and how they approach their citizens in respect to showing that they care about those things we are told so often, we’re so damned lucky to have. You know, those things we call rights, liberties and sometimes freedoms?

Now, I’m not one for lefty, independent media but I’m glad it exists because even though these fools advocate for a powerful and overbearing government, they usually do a good job at effectively utilizing their ideological bias in holding the authoritative state to account. Case in point, this video below from a group called Press For Truth based in Toronto.

I’m really not a fan of this guy’s world view but from where I sit, it’s an incredible demonstration as to why I have trouble thinking of police in a positive light. When police encounter cameras, the reaction is almost always the same. It’s either “please don’t film me” or “stop filming me now or I’ll take your camera!” of course police have the right to ask that some one stop filming them but so long as they’re in a public space, if the person behind the camera keeps rolling, they gotta deal with it. It’s like this in almost any instance these cases go to court and yet police either remain uninformed, wilfully ignorant or decide that a slap on the wrist in the courtroom is worth violating some one’s right to film.

Even though she never follows through, officer Cochrane in this video seems to assert at1:51 that she can just take a guy’s camera until she’s done talking to him and at 1:42, she assaults the guy by moving his camera. If you think that’s overblown, let’s have a chat about being charged with resisting arrest when you voluntarily go limp under the knee of an arresting officer. She forcibly moves the camera again at 2:33 and at 3:12, again makes an impotent threat to turn the camera off.

It’s clear that either these police don’t know the most basic rights of the cameraman or are willing to at least threaten to violate those rights. Either way, there’s no honour in it. Does this piss me off? Yes, yes it really does but this is just the light stuff.

This guy was walking about with a camera to document what he saw as abuses of power either on the part of police directly or on the part of government through their agents on the ground. He was present at the arrest of some one who refused to show ID. This is exceptionally upsetting because it says something terrible of police and government. It says that a government can pass a controversial law by order in council when the legislative body is in session thereby bypassing any debate in the house. It also says to me that thousands of police can be bought to an area, told that temporarily, a constitutional right has been suspended in a certain area and that seemingly without exception, none of them bat a gad danger eye! I’m sorry, these are smart people deserving of a firearm why? This shouldn’t have me seeing red why?

But wait there’s more!

The cameraman walks about some more and is right at cherry beach when he’s asked to produce ID again. The claim that he’s more than three kilometres outside of the “security zone” is truthful. I know because I’ve actually stood in the same spot he was filming. It’s waaaay outside of the security zone. While you can be asked for ID under the sketchy law mentioned above up to five meters outside of the zone (I still have major problems with that of course) the temporary law absolutely didn’t extend three and a half kilometres outside of the zone. The harassment where the cameraman Is followed and then asked for ID again by the same police who had him present ID a block away doesn’t really engender that feeling of admiration and respect so many police seem to think they deserve either.

You know, I understand that people don’t like being filmed. I mean shucks, I had a little bit of a problem with it as an entry level worker in some businesses. Of course, I actually understood the right of the employer to film their own property and the people on it. I also understand the right of others to film me if I’m in public. You know all those news reels with chunky people’s heads cropped out? News organizations could make a really good argument for keepin’ those puffy cheeks of yours in full view so…just saying. But without straying too far, let’s just point out that if I understand these rights as afforded to me as a Canadian citizen, shouldn’t my publicly provided protectors know how those rights work too? I kinda figure they should and why should I respect them if they don’t?

So yeah. I’m kinda pissed. I suppose I could focus on the idiots who destroyed private property during protests in Toronto and why I’m suspicious of police even in that regard but blogging on an iPad takes a little getting used to and overall, I think this is a slightly more important topic. Maybe the rest can be blogged about tomorrow.

I blogged some time ago about a law in Alabama that, according to some interpretations, afforded police the extraordinary power to ask American citizens for ID and proof of citizenship justified in the flimsiest of fashions. While that interpretation was potentially incorrect, (I don’t believe it is) a new and secret law was passed in Ontario by the McGuinty Liberal government that is even worse. How was it so secret? Well, it was passed by an order in council rather than in the legislature. This is usually done when the house in the legislature is not in session but it actually was in session. And so, the story of this law begins on very unsure footing for one is compelled to ask why they felt the law should be passed so secretively if it was at all justified.

So what’s the deal?  The deal is that the new law turns a portion of down town Toronto into some kind of protective zone under another law from the 30′s meant for places like a power sub station.  If you come within five feet of this zone, you can be compelled under this new law (effective for about a week) to show your identification to police.  The tricky part of that is that an office building is not a protected public works of some sort and this tricky method of skirting the boundaries of our constitution is just flatly unconscionable.

This law is absolutely unconstitutional but it also exposes such an incredible weakness in our justice system relative to its non-viability as a law.  The government can maintain very little worry that this law will be challenged before it is expired.  There’s almost zero chance that it will be heard in court until long after the law has been utilized and done away with.  The fact that it even takes an arrest for opposition law makers to hear about to attests to how shady the blasted thing is in the first place and so it should be struck immediately but that’s not going to happen.

So to sum up.  The law compels people to show identification to police upon request.  Flatly unconstitutional.  The law was passed by order in council while the legislature was actually in session.  No one (including opposition Members of Provincial Parliament) really knew about the law until some one was arrested under it, prompting the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to challenge it though who knows when a challenge will be heard.

Again, I actually wonder about police that “follow orders” in enforcing these laws.  It’s most certainly a negative character trait in my eyes…though not nearly as negative a development as what goes through the heads of political leaders it would seem.