Judicial committee unanimously recommends to remove Judge Camp
November 30, 2016 5:58 PM   Subscribe

Federal Court Justice Robin Camp, who asked a woman during a rape trial why she could not keep her legs together and called her 'the accused' several times, has been recommended to be removed from the bench, after an initial request from Alberta Justice Minister Kathleen Ganley. (The report is quite long but written in clear English.)

Of the 21 allegations against him, 17 were found fully substantiated, and 2 partly. The decision was strongly written:
But where judicial misconduct is rooted in a profound failure to act with impartiality and to respect equality before the law, in a context laden with significant and widespread concern about the presence of bias and prejudice, the harm to public confidence is amplified. In these circumstances, the impact of an after-the-fact commitment to education and reform as an adequate remedial measure is significantly diminished.
[...]
When Justice Camp's various comments are read together, an underlying and unifying theme reveals itself, namely that he regarded the evolution of the law of sexual assault (which was designed to rid the law of discredited sexist stereotypes and myths) as misguided and as a product of what he dismissed as “contemporary thinking”. We do not accept that Allegation 2(a) is not evidence of biased thinking on his part. It clearly is part and parcel of his resistance to changes in the law meant to protect vulnerable witnesses, to promote women’s equality, and to bring integrity to the way in which sexual assault cases are dealt with by the justice system. Taken alone, the various comments might be seen as merely an unfortunate way of expressing himself, but taken in the context of his other related utterances, it is clear that Justice Camp held a bias, whether conscious or unconscious, in the form of an antipathy towards the present laws governing sexual assault trials.
[...]
We conclude that, in this exchange, the Judge was advancing a discredited view that if a woman is not actively resisting or vocally objecting, she is either consenting or has some oblique motive to lure her assailant into a trap.
[...]
Throughout his Reasons, the Judge’s numerous comments reflect the discredited rape myth that a woman can always resist a sexual assault if she really wants to. Secondly, Justice Camp’s rumination to the effect that the complainant’s failure to object (when the accused entered the bathroom) was “foolish” and that she’s not a “total idiot” implies that a woman who does not actively resist when confronted by the prospect of a sexual assault is responsible for her own victimization. His comments reflect a classic victim-blaming attitude.
[...]
The complainant had testified that she was poor, was living on the street, and was struggling with drug and alcohol addictions. In our view, the Judge’s unnecessary condemnations of the complainant would convey to a reasonable person that such experiences make people amoral or are equivalent to amorality. His comments reflect a prejudicial attitude towards those who are socio-economically marginalized and vulnerable, and send the message that they are less deserving of respect than other Canadians. While the Judge later commented that the complainant was entitled to the full protection of the law despite her criminal record and addiction problems, this statement does little to attenuate the harshness of his earlier comments, which, in our view, constituted misconduct.
[...]
Justice Camp’s evidence shows that he is not as remediated as he professed. He resiled even from the evidence of Dr. Haskell and Justice McCawley regarding his sexist attitudes and gender biases, preferring instead to refer to his beliefs as “old-fashioned”. Most troubling of all, when he apologized to the complainant he commented on her “fragile personality”, which is language suggestive of stereotypical thinking or perhaps speaking without thinking; and
h) Justice Camp’s own words throughout the inquiry call into question the extent of his learning, the extent of his understanding, and his fitness to serve on the Bench.
[...]
We find that his impugned questions and comments and his choice of words were rooted in his antipathy towards legislative and jurisprudential reforms designed to preserve the integrity of the justice system, foster women’s equality, and protect particularly vulnerable and often disadvantaged witnesses.
The argument that his misconduct should be considered less harshly as other judges are equally bad was called out as arguing for a race to the bottom in the judiciary.

Macleans also does some excerpting.
posted by jeather (19 comments total) 40 users marked this as a favorite
 
Federal Court Justice Robin Camp, who asked a woman during a rape trial why she could not keep her legs together and called her 'the accused' several times...

God help me, I thought the next clause was going to start with "has been put forward by Donald Trump as ___________."

Secondly, Justice Camp’s rumination to the effect that the complainant’s failure to object (when the accused entered the bathroom) was “foolish” and that she’s not a “total idiot” implies that a woman who does not actively resist when confronted by the prospect of a sexual assault is responsible for her own victimization. His comments reflect a classic victim-blaming attitude.

At least Canada gets it right.
posted by mudpuppie at 6:13 PM on November 30, 2016 [20 favorites]


In a letter presented to the inquiry, Camp's daughter, Lauren Camp, defended her father, writing that he is "old-fashioned in some ways" and that "there are gaps in his understanding of how women think and experience life," but adding "he is not an inherent or dedicated sexist."

the saddest (not the most horrible, just the saddest) thing is that this probably was not an intentional ice burn. but if it was, it would have been a very fine one. that's brutal if you take it seriously.

("knowing that by god's mercy all things are possible, I choose to believe that my father is not wholly irredeemable." "my father is an amateur sexist and though he is thus eligible for the sexism olympics, his laziness and lack of dedication cast doubts on his ability to medal above bronze." "my father, despite his shocking ignorance of the law and contempt for both the human race in general and crime victims in particular, has been a judge for several years without anyone seeing anything the matter with him." is how I would have done it.)

what a pile of human garbage, though.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:15 PM on November 30, 2016 [26 favorites]


If you want to get a fuller understanding of Camp's transgressions, read this (pdf). The crown appealed the original (knees together) trial, and in the process put his most egregious comments together in one infuriating-to-read package.

The appeal was successful, and a verdict on the second rape trial is expected in late January.
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 6:34 PM on November 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oops, wrong link. The above is the full CJC decision.

Here is the appeal.
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 6:43 PM on November 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


JFC. Camp said, in court, during the trial, "Sex and pain sometimes go together, that — that's not necessarily a bad thing." The following year, he was appointed to the Federal Court of Canada.
posted by furtive_jackanapes at 6:52 PM on November 30, 2016


That's pretty impressive that the prosecution was able to appeal a not guilty verdict, I wasn't aware of that feature in Canadian law. If this happened in America (and it most certainly does in some capacity) the victim's only hope for justice would be a civil suit against the rapist which of course rarely
happens and is usually not worth it.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 6:54 PM on November 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's pretty impressive that the prosecution was able to appeal a not guilty verdict, I wasn't aware of that feature in Canadian law.

You need to have a pretty big fuckup for it to happen but yes, it can happen. Some countries will only allow the prosecution to appeal an acquittal from the bench and not from a jury.
posted by Talez at 7:06 PM on November 30, 2016


From the appeal linked by Orange Pamplemousse: "Well, she doesn’t have to do any of these things. She doesn’t have to say don’t lock the door. She can take her chances. Foolishly she could do that. If she sees the door being locked, she’s not a complete idiot, she knows what’s coming next. In our law she doesn’t have to say unlock the door I’m getting out. She can take her chances, perhaps in the hope of getting him into trouble. …"

Turns out the "keep you knees together" comment wasn't the worst thing he said, just the shortest soundbite.
posted by polychromie at 7:23 PM on November 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


Wow! Good riddance.
posted by shoesietart at 8:13 PM on November 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Paula Simons' column has some good background on Camp and oblique reference to other judges appointed under the former PC government without appropriate oversight, as well as some questionable ties to former Premier Redford.

Her reference to "not the only ruling overturned" is probably at least in part inspired by the judge of (already completely bungled) Vader trial, who after (very unusual in a Canadian court) had his verdict recorded by video cameras, orated over the court (and audience), only to cite a section of the Criminal Code long declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and have his verdict questioned by a local law professor on Twitter while it was still being read.

I am told by a few law-talking friends that for a long time, you didn't necessarily even need to be a practising lawyer to be appointed a provincial judge. I believe that most (maybe all?) of the non-lawyer judges have retired by now, but I've been told that some of them exhibited behaviour and attitudes that make Camp seem almost quaint.
posted by Kurichina at 8:38 PM on November 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


From Orange Pamplemousse's link to the CJC decision above:

In regards to the prospective nature of the test and public confidence, Justice
Camp argued that a reasonable member of the Canadian public is a person informed
about his remorse and rehabilitative efforts, as well as the other evidence the Committee
heard during the inquiry. As such, Justice Camp cautioned against relying on the
complaint letters and media articles, many of which rejected his apologies and
rehabilitation efforts, when considering what the reaction of the reasonable informed
members of the public might be to his comments.

[269] Judge’s counsel submitted that there are now two Justice Camps who should be
taken into account. The first is the Justice Camp who made the reported comments in the
Trial, and who was taken out of court for a year, roundly denounced, and characterized
as a misogynist. This Justice Camp apologized and reformed himself. The second Judge
is the future Justice Camp, who could sit upon the bench as an example of what can be
achieved with continuing judicial education.


You know, as a member of the Canadian public who knows a Crown attorney and a provincial court judge (i.e., who tries criminal cases), I can look at decisions that make me go "Huh. I disagree with that, but I understand the legal reasoning."

In this case, fuck the hell off, "Justice" Camp. You do not represent justice in this country. Or maybe you do, for all of the missing and murdered indigenous women in this country, and the justice they and their families and friends have yet to see. You are a rape apologist and used the bench to advance that view. You further victimized a rape victim from the bench, you smug piece of shit.

supra:

In the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Judge’s misconduct was
not simply using inappropriate and insensitive words in exploring legitimate areas of
inquiry. We find that his impugned questions and comments and his choice of words were
rooted in his antipathy towards legislative and jurisprudential reforms designed to
preserve the integrity of the justice system, foster women’s equality, and protect
particularly vulnerable and often disadvantaged witnesses.


Yes. There were "no complaints" about his conduct...until there were. Does this sound familiar?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:47 PM on November 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Mr.Encyclopedia: "That's pretty impressive that the prosecution was able to appeal a not guilty verdict, I wasn't aware of that feature in Canadian law."

It's a double edged sword of course; it's been used to essentially harass defendants into accepting a plee in the past.
posted by Mitheral at 9:56 PM on November 30, 2016


I didn't learn unrltil the news today that the woman who he addressed these appalling questions to was a teenager.

I didn't think it could get worse than victim blaming, but jeez, she was also just a kid. How brave of her even to be on that witness stand.
posted by chapps at 11:48 PM on November 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


Ironic that he was much less into all the expectation that people should magically foresee the future when he was promptly facing being sacked for his own actual choices in making deplorable comments. Wait, not ironic. Pathetically predictable. That's what I meant to say.

Well, he didn't have to say any of these things. He can take his chances. Foolishly he could do that. He knows he's in court, he knows what's coming next. He doesn't have to say anything sexist at all. He can take his chances, eh?

My sympathy cup, it runneth dry.
posted by jaduncan at 12:37 AM on December 1, 2016


Looks like a good decision and good riddance to Mr. Camp.

I do have one question: Mr. Camp studied law and practiced as an attorney in South Africa then moved to Canada and immediately began practicing law there. How does that work? Surely there are significant differences between the laws of Canada and South Africa. How hard is it to learn the laws and legal protocol for a country other than the one where you received your original training?
posted by tdismukes at 6:03 AM on December 1, 2016


Wow! Good riddance.

It's not over yet; this recommendation goes to the full Judicial Committee, who will pass their own recommendation to the federal Justice Minister, and that might result in a vote in Parliament on whether or not he stays. Apparently the only two previous judges who have gotten to this point in the process have resigned before things progressed; not sure what Camp will do.

How brave of her even to be on that witness stand.

A law professor on the local news last night pointed out that the young woman has now testified three times: the first trial, the hearing for Camp, and now at the second trial. I'm not sure what to call it.
posted by nubs at 8:30 AM on December 1, 2016


Courageous?
posted by Malingering Hector at 9:54 AM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


That, from her side, surely. Abusive, from the side of the system that required it.

Anyway, here's hoping that it all leads to a misogynist being removed from the bench. (This type of thing should probably happen more.)
posted by darkstar at 9:59 AM on December 1, 2016


I do have one question: Mr. Camp studied law and practiced as an attorney in South Africa then moved to Canada and immediately began practicing law there. How does that work? Surely there are significant differences between the laws of Canada and South Africa. How hard is it to learn the laws and legal protocol for a country other than the one where you received your original training?

Canada and South Africa are both countries in the English common law tradition, which means that a great deal of our legislation and our jurisprudence are likely very, very similar. A lot of what we study in Canadian law schools is actually decisions of the British courts, because they are the precedents for the current state of our national law. So, the overlap is likely considerable. Not to mention that law school teaches you how to approach researching and analogizing about law far more than it does what the actual law is, since "what the actual law is" is such a nebulous concept to begin with in a common law system. So those skills would heavily overlap, as well.

All of that said, in the current era, there is a defined process for converting foreign credentials to local ones to practice in Canada. It includes mandatory studies in some basic areas of Canadian law that they consider essential to localizing legal knowledge.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:40 AM on December 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


« Older Creator of the Big Mac Died   |   jude law sex pope Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments