Canadian judge Justice Robin Camp
"We conclude that Justice Camp's conduct [...] was so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role that public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office," a unanimous recommendation released on Wednesday by the five-person inquiry committee stated.
Justice Camp made headlines globally after it emerged he had aggressively questioned an alleged rape victim in a 2014 case, asking her why she hadn't done more to prevent the incident. At the time, the South African-born Camp was a provincial judge in Alberta, prior to being appointed to the Federal Court, making him one of the most senior legal authorities in the country.
"Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?" the judge asked the plaintiff in the case, a homeless woman who was 19 at the time of the alleged rape. He repeatedly called the woman "the accused," and told her that "sex and pain sometimes go together ... that's not necessarily a bad thing."
Camp ruled in favor of the defendant in the case, saying the complainant did not show "why she allowed the sex to happen if she didn't want it," and had moral values that "leave a lot to be desired."
A year ago, an appeal court overturned Camp's verdict, claiming that he only came to Canada in 1998 and had relied on "stereotypical myths" while not being well-versed in local sexual assault law. An opinion piece by four leading legal experts then brought public attention to the case, and landed Camp himself on the defendants' bench.
In September this year, an inquiry began looking into whether Camp should continue his work as a judge. During the inquiry, the victim of the 2014 rape case testified that she was deeply traumatized by Camp's treatment of her at the trial.
"[Camp] made me hate myself and he made me feel like I should have done something ... that I was some kind of slut," said the woman, claiming the incident made her contemplate suicide. The 64-year-old judge apologized for his remarks, claiming he had not understood the particularities of Canadian laws aimed at sheltering sexual assault victims from discriminatory attitudes.
"I was not the good judge I thought I was. I struck the wrong tone in counsel submissions. I was rude and facetious," he said to the inquiry panel, admitting that he "intimidated" the complainant.
However, despite Camp's apparent remorse, the inquiry committee concluded that his questions showed "an antipathy towards laws designed to protect vulnerable witnesses, promote equality and bring integrity to sexual assault trials," while relying on "discredited myths and stereotypes about women and victim-blaming during the trial and in his reasons for judgment."
"We do not accept that the Judge's conduct was simply use of 'inappropriate and insensitive language' or merely reflective of a lack of understanding of the neurobiology of fear and trauma. Rather, we conclude that his conduct was motivated by his biased belief that women should resist—that they should 'fight off aggression'—or be taken as having consented," the inquiry committee stated in the recommendation. The document will now be submitted to and reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council.
"The inquiry committee expresses the unanimous view that a recommendation by council for Justice Camp's removal is warranted," the panel stated. Justice Camp, however, will have a chance to make written submissions before the council issues a final official recommendation regarding his fate to Canada's justice minister.
Excerpted from Dr. Judith Reisman's, "Kinsey - Crimes & Consequences" downloadable from her site at this [Link] we have, on pg. 221, in the chapter entitled, "Kinsey's Effect on American Law" the following:
NORMALIZING RAPE
Feminist lawyer and former Democratic presidential Campaign Manager for Michael Dukakis (1988), Susan Estrich was perplexed by the influence of the Carnegie/Rockefeller Foundation-funded ALI’s new MPC on rape.114 Before the MPC promoted Kinsey’s research, rape had been punishable by death in almost half of American states. The rape “innovations” of the ALI-MPC confounded Estrich.
Unmindful of Kinsey’s fraud, she was incensed by the liberal changes to rape laws. Reprising our earlier discussion, when as the “weaker vessel,” women’s charges of sexual molestation were commonly believed, men often faced severe — possibly fatal — punishment from their peers. When the “White Slave Trade” was eradicated by moralists, young college men as recorded by the Kronhausens — frequently brought themselves virginally to their brides. This helped men to hold to an ideal of “first love.” The new rape laws dismissed such egalitarian chastity, offering a new vision of who and what was natural to man. Under the new ALI-MPC, “cases of rape and sexual assault only,” [115] protested Estrich, “require corroboration of the victim’s testimony.”
THE FRESH COMPLAINT AND FORCIBLE RAPE
Rene Guyon, Harry Benjamin, John Money (who fraudulently pioneered surgical sex change operations for newborns) and others of the sexology elite edited the influential Sexology magazine. Writing an article in it, Columbia law professor, Beryl H. Levy, LL.B., Ph.D., asked “What is Rape?” He argued that by 1961 the courts recognized “what we may call the “absence-of-consent” theory or the “utmost resistance” theory.” Levy, clearly advocating for leniency in rape notes that in the latter theory:
t must be shown that the woman fought back like a tiger (so to speak). She must be shown to have resisted with all her might and main and with every means at her disposal: punching, scratching, biting, kicking, screaming, etc . . . Some experts have expressed the opinion that it is well-nigh impossible for a man to rape a woman of ordinary good health and strength . . . Women may have rape fantasies: they think they have been raped even though the man may have been nowhere near them…. The law of statutory rape might well bear some re-examination to determine if it is still carrying out the old common-law idea, which was protection of innocent young maidens…. In this field of law, as in many others, we must constantly re-study the law on the statute books to see the extent to which it accords with present day practices and social behavior widely followed and approved . . . [R]espect for the law requires an effort to bring it into correspondence with contemporary values and contemporary ways of acting. [116]
Kinsey’s data defining “contemporary values” were clearly being codified by Levy and Sexology as the means by which “experts” might judge rape and statutory rape. Kinsey saw sexual assaults as easily forgotten by victims. Therefore, rapists were inappropriate for imprisonment. Feminist Susan Brownmiller in, "Against Our Will, Men, Women, and Rape," recalls Kinsey’s statement that “the difference between a rape and a good time depends on whether the girl’s parents were awake when she finally came home.” [117]
===============
Noteworthy is the fact that Kinsey's 'research' was consistently funded by The Rockefeller Foundation, another stand-up stalwart of decency in all relations human.