Source. For what it's worth, I agree with Schwartz. After all, if we accept Grammond's argument, where do you draw the line? Suppose, for instance, that someone posts Photoshopped images of you online? After all, the viewers probably wouldn't know whether they were real or not. Does the fact that someone in the courtroom might conceivably have seen those pics undermine your credibility as a judge?
Bryan Schwartz, a law professor at the University of Manitoba, agreed. He said the existence of embarrassing material on the Internet shouldn't disqualify somebody from being a judge if they're the innocent victim of a marital breach of trust.
"It double-victimizes you. People should have sympathy for you. It's a pretty reprehensible thing to do to a spouse," he said. "It sounds to me like people should be very slow to come to any judgments about this."
"If people were doing something that wasn't unlawful and somebody breaches that and blabs it to the public, I don't see how that disqualifies you from being a judge."
Of course, if the allegations against Douglas' husband are true, there's good reason to go after him. But should Douglas suffer for her husband's follies? I don't think so.
Edited to add: Brian Oakley at Just Damn Stupid does make an interesting point:
Hmm. It does complicate the situation...
Now. If King paid Mr. xDNA $25,000 to keep his mouth shut, and that action is in fact extortion – did the Judge know that idiot husband caved to extortion?
It is an uncomfortable, but important question.
For it can not be appropriate to have a Judge willing to turn a blind-eye to such an infraction of the Criminal Code of Canada.
On a human level, I sympathize 100% with Ms. Douglas, but can we have Judges ignoring criminal activity?