New allegations aimed at Manitoba judge -

New allegations aimed at Manitoba judge

Explicit photo revelations might lead to more complaints


There are new allegations against Lori Douglas, the Manitoba judge at the centre of that eyebrow-raising story of a sexual harassment complaint involving explicit photos of the associate chief justice of the province’s Queen’s Bench. A Winnipeg woman has reportedly filed a formal complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council. She says she unsuccessfully applied for a prevention order against her estranged husband, a lawyer who admits to being a “sex addict,” before Douglas in 2008. The recent revelations about Douglas’s personal life have led the woman, whose name isn’t being released, to suspect she didn’t receive a fair hearing. Those revelations are sensational: a Winnipeg computer programmer claims he was sexually harassed when Douglas’s husband, lawyer Jack King, tried to coerce him into having sex with Douglas while representing him on a divorce case in 2003. The programmer says King sent him explicit nude photographs of Douglas. Sources in the justice system told the Winnipeg Free Press they fear the controversy swirling around Douglas might lead to a flood of complaints from people who appeared before her in family court and will want their cases reopened.

Winnipeg Free Press

Filed under:

New allegations aimed at Manitoba judge

  1. douglas and her husband are sexual deviants. douglas is adding to the racist, degrading body of pornography out there. She is unfit and a disgrace, esp. to women. The news of this woman who endured her tainted ruling coming forward is not the least bit surprising to me.

    so, just waiting and waiting and waiting for the deets on HOW she scored that gig as a judge. Please.

    And kudos to the CBC.

  2. Moral absolutes of the prudish aside, I suspect you'll see a number of people come out of the woodwork to take advantage of this situation to benefit themselves.

    I have no doubt the case in question here will be reviewed and the verdict upheld. Judges have to write summaries on every case giving the reasons for their judgements, and as such I find it highly unlikely that anything is out of place.

    Disagreeing with someone's lifestyle is one thing, but inferring that this makes them unfit for their day job is just plain prejudiced.

    People have private lives, and as long as they're within the law and demonstrably keep those lives separate from their work lives, I don't think we have any right to judge their private lives.

    • I could not agree more with what you have said, Phil.

  3. "People have private lives, and as long as they're within the law and demonstrably keep those lives separate from their work lives, I don't think we have any right to judge their private lives" says phil.

    do you not think that the details of this case are relevant to your point? and that the point is EXACTLY that this was not kept private? putting yourself on a racist pornographic website is pretty UNprivate.

    Frankly, I could care less what these people do in their private lives. But when it comes to a white princess judge actively seeking out domination by a black man, I think it raises a few questions as to her fitness, ie. her self control or lack thereof. Phil.

    • This is a pretty sick case.

      Ms Douglas cannot say her husband, who was out there pimping her, was the guilty party. She was the one who posed for the nude photos and the film that was posted on a porn website. She was also the one who met with Chapman, along with her husband, and tried to persuade him to go home with them for sex. She must have known about the settlement paid by her husband (or the firm Filmore Riley where thay were both employed).

      Come on folks – she's got dirty hands just like her husband and Chapman. She cannot be allowed to continue in her job as head of Manitoba's Family Court. She has ruined her own reputation & must take the consequences. I doubt very much if the law society in Manitoba would even allow her to practise law there now either.

      • I have not heard of her going out with her husband meeting Chapman to solicit sex. You must be very close to the couple to be in the in. So many conjectures and allegations, and yet the only strong thing so far is her pictures and costume while having kinky sex with her husband. It might not be mine and your cup of tea, but there is really nothing illegal about it. To start moralizing sex between husband and wife, is even weirder and sicker than having pictures of kinky sex with one's husband/wife.

        • Hey Ariadne, why don't you try reading a few articles. All that stuff was on the CBC website, so nice try. Prairecutter is only outlining the actual details. Douglas is a sex addict. The activities that her and King are involved in are misogynistic, racist, degrading….why do people defend a JUDGE for this? I think this case and the reactions are a real barometer for the downward spiral of our culture.

  4. I completely agree with Phil and MYL, but think she might as well resign now. It is one thing to have a private life. Do whatever you like. It is another thing to get caught out posting your nude picture on a website. I don't imagine her private life had anything to do with her rulings and it is a shame to lose a good judge, but posting a nude picture of yourself isn't what I'd call good judge-ment

    • Hold on a sec. Suppose a fifty-something male judge celebrated his, um, Pride by Parading down Toronto streets (wearing a shoelace for a loincloth) in a most affectionate embrace with his S.O. Suppose this pair became the poster couple for Pride Day above the fold in the Star the next day. Suppose, further, that there were howls of outrage calling for his removal from the bench. The arguments and claims will be there (lacked objectivity; his lifestyle clouded his judgment of the issues in my case, he's lost the respect of the lawyers appearing before him, etc., etc.). Would you tolerate calls for him to "might as well resign now"?

      And I will anticipate that the answer is no. And it should be. If one person's sexuality is a non-starter, why shouldn't another's be?

      If she's a good judge, it stops there. Don't give in, Jenn.

      • If the 50-something judge participated in the parade down Toronto streets with his partner, good on him. If he did it nude (and I don't know what a shoelace would cover so you might as well not even include it) I have a problem with that. If he did it in a speedo, we're good again. Because public nudity is still a crime, yes? And the law doesn't state "unless you are gay, in which case this law doesn't apply to you" does it?

        If this judge and her husband get off with her having sex with other men, that's fine by me. But I am positive you can do such a thing a lot more discreetly than advertising with nude pictures to people not demonstrably known to be into that sort of thing. (For example, I guess an ad in a swingers magazine/website or something wouldn't be too horrible, but I'd still say a tasteful teddy/artfully arranged scarf or something would do the trick)

        Is it requiring a judge to live up to a higher standard? Maybe, depending on how low your standards are, I guess. I expect my boss wouldn't think this is a higher standard than average.

      • Hey, I just learned something I didn't know, which I think changes my mind on this.

        She wasn't a judge at the time.

        If as a judge, she behaved discreetly I don't know that I agree with past behaviour having a bearing on anything. After all, how many new doctors would we have to get rid of because of how they earned money to put themselves through medical school? (Not picking on doctors as somehow 'less moral' than others, just length of schooling and we need doctors! I don't even believe prostitution or exotic dancing is immoral.)

        • I still can't let you off the hook entirely, Jenn. Judges are entitled to a life and to explore their sexuality as they see fit, just like doctors and just like anybody else. And, I may be going too libertarian for many, but if she wants to flash her assets on websites, that's an exploration of her sexuality and irrelevant to her capacity as a judge, too.

          If she didn't use her authority/position as a judge to curry sexual favours from otherwise unwilling persons, and if she hasn't broken the law, then please, everyone, grow up, and leave her alone.

    • As myl says, "Don't give in, Jenn."

  5. Oh, and i just love it when people accuse anybody who questions what the idiot judge was up to of being a prude.

  6. O.K., how many here are in favor of having their fates determined by a pervert? A pervert who does not see how the contribution she is making to the misogynist, racist world of pornography is just eroding further the fabric of society by playing up patriarchal fantasies of women as submissive sluts, black people as sex objects, and making this garbage accessible to all, especially young impressionable people.

    Oh, and don't play the victim card on this woman's behalf either. Not buying it.