Since when does a person's sexual habits become an issue as to whether or not he or she is qualified to sit as a judge?
The story about Judge Lori Douglas in Winnipeg and the fact she removed herself from the bench while an investigation takes place about some racy online photos that her husband put on a website designed for sexual encounters between white women and black men is without a lot of substance after you get through the racy details of what Douglas' husband was trying to do and the, all of a sudden, high moral conviction of this man the husband was trying to get to have sex with his wife.
The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence Douglas knew her pics were going to be posted online, and there is no reason to think a judge should be punished for having sex in a position other than missionary. Sure, the details are juicy and we like to read them because of that, but Douglas committed no crime and she did not knowingly compromise her moral standing if she wasn't party to having the pics posted.
I hope the issue stays with 'did she know the pics were on the site'. That's the only issue. Her ambitious sexual habits should not have anything to do with this.
Here's a story, if you haven't already heard about this