The Re-Education of Judge Robin Camp: Feminists Descend Upon Judge to Change His Logical Ways

It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the Canadian judicial system be impugned. I adapt this quote from the same quote referring to English law by the English lawyer, Lord Denning. Lord Denning, out of concern for a discourse within the English justice system, adapted this from Benjamin Franklin’s original and proper quote, “That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”. As typical with today’s Social Justice Warrior complaints, there were comments or words taken out of context in the case at the heart of the Judge Robin Camp controversy. This controversy revolves around bringing the Canadian justice system into disrepute. However it is the feminist social justice warriors of the ‘scholarly’ kind that are worried about their ideology not convicting enough men.

In the re-education of Judge Camp, what we are witnessing is one example of the attempt to establish feminist ideology across the entire Canadian judiciary. What all the media has led us to believe is that Judge Camp is an incompetent misogynist that should never judge another criminal case again, let alone sexual assault cases.

• Vice.com: 'Keep Your Knees Together' Judge Robin Camp Is Too Incompetent to Remain on the Bench
• Cosmopolitan: Judge Who Told Survivor in a Rape Case to "Keep Her Knees Together" Could Be Fired: Get slut-shaming out of the courtroom
• Ottawa Citizen: The case of Justice Robin Camp: Bigotry does not belong on the bench
• Globe & Mail: Judging the judges: The process must change

 
The argument against him is that he does not know the law. What that argument reveals is that there already exists a special area of sexual assault law that when applied, amounts to a lower standard of proof in criminal court cases, which in turn, deprives the accused of a meaningful defence and a fair trial, and puts the accused at risk of a wrongful conviction. Judge Camp knew this. This fact reveals itself in the trial transcript of the case in question: R. v. Wagar. After reading the entire trial transcript I came to the conclusion that Judge Camp rightfully challenged the feminist legal precedents and criminal code provisions, also known as the Rape Shield laws, as unfair to the accused. Cherry-picked unhelpful comments he made aside, what I saw was a judge who was actively and fairly participating in judging the case while trying to ensure he came to the correct and just verdict by ensuring he understood fully the arguments from both the crown and the defence. If he felt there were some points that needed clarification, he would question the witnesses and the accused directly.

Regarding the ‘knees’ question, the judge was trying to visualize the actual alleged rape scenario based on the testimony given by the complainant. He questioned her because his visualization wasn’t making sense, therefore he needed to be sure whether or not her claim of how the rape took place made sense, or in other words, if she was lying about actually having consensual sex with him. He was inquiring to determine whether or not the complainant’s story was credible. When it came to the closing submissions, the crown essentially argues that the judge must convict the accused based on what is said in the R. v. Ewanchuk precedent (I highlight the Ewanchuk precedent here and I why I think it should be overturned).

All in all the judge admitted that none of the witnesses in this case were particularly credible, given they were all homeless alcoholics and drug addicts with criminal records having a party on the night in question. Nevertheless, the crown pressed on despite the complainant’s story being full of contradictions, despite two other witnesses supporting the defence’s version of events, and despite the onus being on the accused to prove he obtained consent, essentially proving his innocence. All these things go against the fundamental principles of justice and would all be grounds for a miscarriage of justice in the context of any other criminal case. It’s already accepted that a woman who was drunk at time of alleged rape is legally considered to be a credible victim of no-consent, rather than what one would reasonably consider an unreliable source of testimony to give a reliable account of what happened while she was in a drunk & high stupor. A reasonable person would expect a ‘she said-he said’ case, like the one Judge Camp heard, to never make it into a courtroom. An unfairness that is also accepted in Canadian law is that a woman’s unsavoury history cannot be used against her when she’s claiming rape to imply she might by lying. Yet an accused’s unsavoury history can be used to paint a picture of an unlawful man who is more likely to lie in his denial and his attempt to prove he did obtain consent becomes neutered by all the feminist-fuelled preconceived notions. So Judge Camp asked all the questions he did to ensure he wouldn’t be committing a miscarriage of justice against the accused, regardless of the crown’s assertions of feminist laws that insist he must convict.

In my view, Camp’s only mistake in this trial was that he outright challenged feminist laws as being contradictory and unfair to the accused. Here’s how he does this:

1. He challenges s.276 (forcing a judicial ruling to admit previous sexual history of complainant) as a law that hamstrings the defence. The crown expresses concern about ‘dangerous thinking’ engendered by the defence’s line of questioning, while the judge quips “we’re not talking about dangerous thinking, we’re talking about the law”, and he continues to say that “the law doesn’t stop people thinking”. The exchange continues on and at one point the judge states “I’m concerned about interfering with a proper defence”, and that “one should be careful of how to apply” s276. (Pgs 57-64)
   
   
2. He challenges the fact that it’s an historic case and goes against the ‘recent complaint doctrine’ that was “used for thousands of years by civilized legal systems around the world”. He recognizes it is ‘currently not the law’. (Pages 145 & 394)
   
   
3. He challenges the crown’s ‘antiquated’ and ‘Victorian’ thinking when she says it’s “very strange” that two people would have sex in a bathroom the first night they met. (Pg 319)
   
   
4. He challenges the unfairness of the Rape Shield law (Pg 217)
   
   
5. He challenges the lack of the criminal code definition for sexual assault.  (Pg 368) I discuss this in an older video "Sexual Assault Statistics: Reality vs. The Cult of Belief in Canada" & a blog post "Prevalence of Sexual Assault in Canada: Does it Justify Rape Culture Hysteria?". Currently any definition applied to sexual assault level 1 (or s.271) is a result of interpretation by researchers/academics/lawyers summarizing previous case law. There is currently no legislated criminal code provision describing the criteria required for a crown prosecutor to prove a sexual assault level 1 crime took place, unlike sexual assault levels 2 & 3.
   
   
6. He challenges the crown’s suggestion on how to apply the W.D. test for beyond a reasonable doubt – this discussion lays bare how the W.D. test can easily be misapplied by a judge taking direction by a biased crown. (Pgs 370-403). I’ve highlighted the W.D. case and why I think it should be overturned in a previous video.
   
   
7. He challenges the extreme consent law and how it goes against “the way of the birds and the bees” (Pg 384-403)
   
   
8. He challenges whether or not the accuser in the case saying she didn’t want to have sex without a condom constituted as a no-consent issue (Pg 390-393)
   
   

Judge Camp’s method in coming to his verdict was essentially to soak up as much as he could about the unfair and contradictory feminist laws so that he could craft his acquittal verdict in a way that would be appeal-proof. He makes no secret of this (on page 418). I agree that in that process a few things he said could be considered out of line, of which he has apologized for. But nothing that, in my mind, constitutes a removal from the bench or sexual assault trials and nothing that constitutes the public defamation and humiliation campaign currently under way. What resulted from this trial judgment was a band of academic rabid feminists wanting to put a halt to the possibility of an acquittal like this ever happening again, wanting to ensure they can re-educate judges like him to view the feminist laws as the law of the land, to replace judges like him with feminist judges, and wanting to ensure that it gets easier and easier to convict innocent men and get away with perverting the course of justice by making such miscarriages of justice the new normal.

As of the day of this blog post, the fate of Judge Camp’s judicial standing has yet to be decided. But with the few nuggets that have been released by reporters from this inquiry demanded by feminist scholars, it is implied that they are not satisfied he is has been sufficiently re-educated on feminist law to get back on the bench. Interestingly but not surprisingly, it turns out that Lori Haskell, the same feminist psychologist who told CBC some quackery that counting the number of holes in a ceiling tile can prove a woman was raped, which I highlighted in Part 4 of my series, “Evolution of Feminist Theory, Moral Panic & the Law” -  Lori Haskell is the therapist assigned to re-educate Judge Camp. So we shall see what the outcome of Camp’s inquiry will be.

In the meantime, the Globe and Mail has reported that a total of 4 Alberta judges are under fire for similar circumstances. My comment on this is that it is becoming painfully obvious that there is an inconsistency within our judicial system in terms of adhering to feminist legal precedents in criminal court judgments. There is also an inconsistency in crowns submitting to judges feminist laws they say dictate a conviction. In other words, not all crowns demand a judge convicts based on feminist precedents, and not all judges will convict based on feminist precedents, as we saw with the Jian Ghomeshi case. But some do, as we saw with the Mustafa Ururyar case. What we have right now is a sweeping attempt by academic feminists and opportunistic lawyers to push for a judiciary and a prosecutorial system that only tries sexual assault cases with special feminist ideology that ignores the rule of law and the fundamental principles of justice. Essentially feminists are currently on a rampage to ensure every man accused of perceived sexual misconduct on any level gets convicted and goes to jail, and feminists want to encourage any scorned, delusional woman to lodge a complaint to police, whether true or false, to help solidify these laws as permanent fixtures within our legal codes.

Why aren’t we seeing the mainstream media question this injustice in the making? Thus far I’ve only seen a unanimous consensus that Judge Camp was out of line with a few comments he made and should be punished for it, minimizing the whole entire context of this issue and without questioning the nefarious discourse against the fundamental principles of justice that’s really going on. The feminist factions are proving themselves to be a fascist faction by denouncing Judge Camp’s use of reasonable common sense to come to an obvious acquittal verdict. His brand of everyday logical reasoning and common sense, like yours and mine, goes against all the myths & stereotypes created by feminist scholars that essentially say when a woman claims rape she is never lying because the man is inherently in a position to overpower her for his uncontrollable sexual desires, and they remove every opportunity for an innocent accused to successfully defend himself.

Whether or not men and boys can be raped too has nothing to do with this. That’s a red herring used to justify the continuous use of feminist theory to convict anyone accused of sexual assault. In fact all of it is a red herring to justify the continuous arrests and prosecutions of innocent people who cannot prove that something didn’t happen in the face of an accusation against them that comes with zero material proof and no corroboration.

Simply put, these theoretical laws are in place to justify jobs, bureaucrats, and government funding that only enrich the corrupt and the fraudulent. A judge like Robin Camp, who plainly saw through that, is a threat to them. The mobilization of the rabid feminist campaign to re-educate him and other judges like him is a clear sign of that. Just look at the crown's appeal factum that was accepted by the appeal court to overturn Camp's acquittal verdict– it reads like a women’s studies thesis based on a high school drama. It is ridiculous. And the fact that the appeal court agreed the crown should have another shot at convicting and jailing this man, and the fact that the judge is being publicly shamed, is disgusting.

Why does this feminist faction feel the accused needs to be further harassed and jailed? Because they can’t allow the judge’s verdict to stand and be used as a benchmark for other future acquittals in cases where credibility is the only deciding factor. Which might also explain why the reasons for judgment are not available for the public, law students and lawyers to read on the CANLII.org database. The unavailability of this document supports the claim these feminists make that judges need to be educated on feminist sexual assault laws that subvert the age-old fundamental process of deciding a case based on provable evidence and the absence of provable evidence. Keeping logically reasoned acquittal verdicts away from the eyes of others are an effective way to systematically force the dominance of illogical feminist theory into the legal landscape.

Watch my narrated version of this post on YouTube: