Judge fudge

A Canadian judge in hot water over comments in a sexual assault case is forced to give a wimpy apology. You know the kind, it's the I-promise-to-show-utmost-respect type groveling that seem to accompany any 'insensitive' snafu whether from athletes, movie stars or politicians. Judges can be unpleasant and rigid when applying the law but so too can scientists and surgeons be arrogant and dismissive when regarding their skills. We should regard them according to how they do their job. This judge is required to give a verdict by deciding whether or not a victim is telling the truth about being attacked. He used insensitive language that suggests he was skeptical of her claim.

In the 11-page complaint, Elaine Craig, Jocelyn Downie, Jennifer Koshan and Alice Woolley said that in the 2014 case, Camp asked the complainant, "Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?" and, "Why didn't you just sink your bottom down into the basin so he couldn't penetrate you?"

At first glance it sounds rude and dismissive but what is the judge doing ruling on the case if he isn’t allowed to ask these questions? In other words what is a judge’s role if not to question legitimacy of such a case? The letter of complaint fired off by an angry group of law professors at University of Calgary hinges on Judge Camp’s alleged “… ability to respect the equality and dignity of all persons appearing before him.”(11-page complain )It could be that this woman was raped but the judge ruled against her claim, hence the need to drag the man through sensitivity training.  A couple problems with the claim: first the defendant had a sexual history that the judge took into consideration. The letter doesn’t specify what history was presented but makes it clear they find it unfair to consider previous history in deciding the case. What sense does this make in adjudicating the law when other evidence isn’t present? Don’t these types of cases frequently hinge on individual character or is the Canadian legal system radically different from that of the U.S.?

Secondly she was drinking, not just drinking but drunk. The signers of the complaint even mention this in the draft but are worried about the Judge’s lack of seriousness over the prevalence of alcohol. Judge Camp jokes that the girl confuses Absinthe with abstinence. Finally, the girl in question (I am reluctant to call her a victim) asked the man who ‘raped’ her if he had a condom further making this case into a difficult ‘he said/ she said’ scenario. Asking the rapist if he had a condom throws considerable skepticism over the claim of rape itself. Especially when combined with the other factors.  Imagine the difficulty for future cases if judges ruled on what ‘victims’ said and not how they lived or what evidence or lack of evidence was involved. The significance of the letter is to smear a judge who holds a high federal court position. The attack is light on facts and thick on innuendo; it draws heavily on notions of modern thinking on sexual assault and rape, basically that women aren’t responsible for their behavior and anyone who screams “rape” is telling the truth, damn the evidence.

Judge Camp could have chosen his words more carefully but it is hard to believe what could have satisfied the overly sensitive parties. This case was overturned by an appeals court anyway raising the question why they would pursue the attack on a judge who lost out in the end? Nothing is worse than the sin of sexism and old fashioned ideas about legal provability, at least to some. If his legal briefs and opinions can't be taken apart with intellectual rigor call him a old school chauvinist and work to get him dismissed. Too bad it works as well as it does.