129
FEBRUARY 7TH, 2002, 10:00 A.M.
CONTINUED EXAMINATION OF DONNA LAFRAMBOISE
Q MR. WILLIS: Ms. Laframboise, you
acknowledge you are still under oath?
A Yes, I do.
Q Now, I'm going to be directing your
attention to a number of passages in Item 3 in your Affidavit of Records, Dr.
Christensen's book. Perhaps you might want to have your copy in front of you.
And before doing that, if I can just recall to you again, your statement to Mr.
Bouvier, which is at page FF00505 of Tab 30, your interview with him on the
22nd, and about half way down the page, where you say about in respect of Dr.
Christensen's book, "I think 90 percent of it I don't have a problem with.
I think he actually makes some -- some very good arguments. But there is, you
know, three percent of it, so 95 or 97% of it I would agree with. Three percent
of it, whenever he talks about kids and sex, he says some really disturbing
things." So what I'm proposing to do is to review the passages of the book
that deal with children and adolescence and sex and determine whether you
consider those to be disturbing things. First of all, over the night, have you
had an opportunity to review Dr. Christensen's book, or did you concentrate on
getting some sleep?
130
A No. I got some
sleep.
Q Alright, so if you need -- take whatever
time you need to read the passages to which I refer you. First if you turn to
page 16 of Dr. Christensen's book, there are two paragraphs dealing with the
part with children and sex. The first full paragraph beginning, "The exact
way in which sexual aversion is learned in this culture", going on to the
end of the first paragraph, on page 17.
A Okay.
Q Would you take a look at that and advise me
whether you consider anything in that either disturbing or really disturbing?
A I think there are things that I disagree
with or dispute, but I don't think there is anything in these two paragraphs
which I would characterize as disturbing.
Q Would you next turn to page 23. There is a
-- the last paragraph, beginning "irrational attitudes towards sexuality
caused", and continuing over to the end of this chapter on sex and values.
A No, I would not describe that passage as
disturbing.
Q Now, you will note that there is a reference
there to "loving parents". I believe that's the only reference in the
book, and it's in the context of coersion of a particular kind. That is to say,
131
coersion to prevent the sexual
activity of masturbation. When you were reviewing pages 109 to 113 in coming to
your conclusion that they were such that -- pardon me. When you were reviewing
pages 109 to 113, in preparation for your article, did you have in mind this
passage in terms of part of the context of pages 109 to 113?
A No, I did not.
Q And if I can just direct you a little
further up to the bottom of page 22, you will recall yesterday that we talked
about the three moral principles that Dr. Christensen identified on pages 21
and 22. Correct?
A Yes, I recall them.
Q And then in discussing those principles, if
I could just direct you to the paragraph at the bottom of page 22, and
continuing over to the top of page 23.
A The one that begins, "of
course"?
Q Yes, "of course".
A And ends with
"contrary"?
Q Yes. Would you just take a look at that?
A I have read the passage.
Q And did you understand when you originally
read this book, that this passage sets out in brief form the moral context in
which the whole book is to be read?
A I'm sorry. I don't remember
what I thought when I
132
read that passage several years ago.
Q When you were reviewing pages 109 to 113,
did you understand whether or not you remembered this specific passage that
this was the general moral context in which the author intended his arguments
to be viewed?
A No. As I suggested, I did not review them.
Q And now that you see the expression of this
general principle, among others, but the general statement, the author's
contention that we should apply -- "apply to the issues of sexuality, the
same basic precepts we already employ in most other areas of moral
concern". Do you find that proposal disturbing?
A Not disturbing.
Q This paragraph as a whole in general. Is it part of the 97% you claim to agree with
or -- well, let me ask you firstly, is there anything in that paragraph you
find disturbing?
A Not disturbing.
Q Alright. Is it part of the 97% that you
claim to agree with?
A I'm sorry.
I think it would take me a great deal of time to go through every
sentence very carefully and think about every sentence very carefully before I
could emphatically tell you that I agree with everything in that passage.
133
Q When you spoke to Mr. Bouvier and told him
that you agreed with 97% of it, and the -- and it was only the other three
percent, "whenever he talks about kids and sex" that caused you a
problem, did you have a clearer picture of what was in the book than you do
today?
A No. I was speaking about my general
impression of the argument that's contained within the book. I was of course,
not saying that every single sentence I have examined in depth, I would agree
with.
Q Alright.
Is there anything that jumps out at you in this paragraph that you
disagree with, other than the paragraph that -- that doesn't deal of course,
expressly with children and sex, but it's a general principle that -- it sets
out the general principles that form the context of the argument?
A One of the things that makes me
uncomfortable about the paragraph is that I feel that there are a lot of
declarations being made, and no particular evidence for those declarations.
Q Well, of course, the author says that,
doesn't he? In fact, in the first sentence, he says, "The principles are
highly general and require much further elaboration." This of course is a
general statement, but you don't take exception to this paragraph as a general
-- more as a statement of
134
general moral principles? Is there any -- do you
disagree for example, with the contention that we should apply "apply to the issues of sexuality, the
same basic precepts we already employ in most other areas of moral
concern"?
A I'm
not quite certain what the author means by that line.
Q So
you neither disagree or agree. You're just not quite certain what he means.
Correct?
A Yes.
Q You
would have to really read the book carefully in
order to have an opinion. Is that what you're saying?
You would have to read the book as a whole carefully in order to form an
opinion as to whether you agree or disagree with what's said there. Is that
what you're telling me?
A No. I would have to think very carefully about
that particular line for a while before I could tell you whether I agree with
it, and determine whether I felt that I could discern the meaning.
Q And
it is not something that you have ever thought about carefully?
A No.
Q Now,
if we turn next to page 100, and begin the last paragraph, "a related
problem that needs comment here is that of unmarried pregnancy among
juveniles." I might ask you to read from that
135
paragraph to the end of the
chapter. The chapter is "Alledged
ill effects of pornography". Now, incidentally, if you feel you need to
take time and read more, so as to get the context of the passage to which I'm
directing your attention, feel free to do that.
A Thank you. I
have read the passage.
Q Is there anything in it that you find
disturbing or really disturbing?
A No.
Q If I
could ask you to turn to page 107. Of course, the passage upon which you relied
in the preparation of your article is part of this chapter, but pages 107 to
109, under under the general rubric "harm from anti-sexualism" and
immediately precede the passage on which you've relied. If I could direct your
attention to pages 107 - starting at the top of the paragraph, "to
summarize" just under the heading, "Harm from Anti-sexualism",
and continuing down through page 108, that talks about -- the paragraph that
ends, "that speaks in favour of the sexual openness of pornography".
Could you take a look at that. This chapter, of course, engaging in some
cultural anthropology, and talking about children and how they may be affected
by the attitudes of which the author disapproves, I will just save you one
thing.
136
I didn't know -- if you know what the word
"paraphilias" means, then you beat me in the
reader's digest word competition. I had to look it up.
It means "perversions" basically, so if you could read that chapter
-- pardon me, those passages, and advise me whether there's anything in them you find
disturbing or really disturbing.
A This
is two rather dense pages. Do we want to take a five minute break and give
other people a chance to stretch their legs while I read this? It doesn't matter to me.
Q Well,
we can go off the record and go back on when you've had a chance to read it and
any surrounding passages that you feel you may need for context.
(OFF THE RECORD)
A I
have red the passage.
Q And
you know, I should direct you to the previous paragraph as well, at the bottom
of page 106, because that talks explicitely about child pornography.
A Okay.
The one that begins, "All this raises a question"?
Q Yes.
I failed to note that.
A I
have read the passage.
Q Is
there anything in the passages to which I've just directed your attention that
you find disturbing or really disturbing?
137
A Not
disturbing.
Q In any of the passages to which I've so far
directed your attention, is there anything that you take as a suggestion that
sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing? I'm quoting from your words to Mr.
Bouvier, page 505.
A No, I don't believe so.
Q Now, before we go back to the passages that
-- to which you would have regard, when you are preparing your article, I would
just like to direct you to the subsequent passages which help form the context
of the book. The next passage that I can find that talks about sex and children
is at page 133. It deals with a footnoted reference to the "Danish experience
with legalizing pornography and it's effect on adult/ child sex." If I could direct your attention to the
passage beginning, "It is instructive to contrast this argument with
others", towards the bottom of page 133, and it goes over to the end of
the first paragraph on page 134, "The statistics are highly
significant". Would you read that please.
A I have read the passage.
Q Is there anything in it you find disturbing,
or really disturbing?
A No.
Q Would you agree with me that when you read
that
138
passage, it's clear that the author
approves of measures that resulted in a drastic decline -- namely an 80%
decline in adult/ child sex. In context it's clear that the author approves of
the drastic decline in Adult/ child sex. Would you not agree?
A No. Actually, my reading of that sentence is
different. It says, "They found no comparable change in feelings about
peeping or adult/ child
sex", and the peeping is the 80%
and the adult/
child sex is the 69%.
Q Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, you're right, but the reference is to a
drastic decline in both. Eighty percent in peeping and 69% in adult/ child sex,
and you will agree with me that in context, the author appears to greatly
approve of this decline in adult/ child sex?
A I'm sorry. He reports it. I'm not sure there
is any indication that he approves or disapproves.
Q Well, if we look at the last sentence, the
context being that the concern for pornography stems from fears for childrens'
safety and womens' peace of mind, the statistics are highly significant. The
childrens' safety, in context, I suggest to you, clearly refers to adult/ child
sex and womens peace
of mind, clearly refers to
peeping. Are you
telling me that you can read that and
see it as
139
morally neutral in context?
A Yes, actually, I think you could make an
argument that it is morally neutral.
Q Yes, you can make an argument. My question is, when you read it -- first of
all, you're telling me you're not disturbed by it, but when you read it, do you
not take from that reading it that the author disapproves of sex between adults
and children and is glad to see a drastic decline by sixty-nine percent?
A No. I'm sorry. That's not what I see in the
passage.
Q Thank you. Then let's turn to -- now, if I
can ask you to return to Chapter 12, Sexual Repressiveness and violence which
--
A Which page would that be?
Q Page 147. Now, here it is a lengthy passage.
In fact, that returns to the themes in pages 109 to 113, and it goes from page
147 - Anti-sexual attitudes are still indemic in this culture - to page 150, to
the middle of page 150, "hence there can be no doubt that sexual shame has
had that effect." Again, I understand that this is not a passage that you
have ever read. Correct?
A That's right.
Q Might we go off the record, and if you would
be kind enough to read it.
140
A Thank
you.
(OFF THE RECORD)
A I
have read the passage.
Q You
will note at the bottom of the first paragraph, the sentence that reads,
"This matter was mentioned before in regard to sexual health."
A I'm sorry. Where? Which page?
Q At
page 147. Correct?
A Bottom
of the first paragraph?
Q Yes,
on page 147, the bottom of the first paragraph to which I've directed your
attention, the paragraph beginning "anti-sexual attitudes".
A Right.
Q And
the reference is back to the chapter on "Sex and psychological
health", and you understand that to be a reference back to the chapter
which includes pages 109 to 113, don't you?
A They
seem to be reasonable.
Q Now,
in this extract to which I've just directed your attention --
A Oh,
pardon me. Could you repeat that question again? I understand it to be a
reference --
Q A
reference back to the chapter entitled "Sex and Psychological Health"
which includes pages 109 to 113, to which you have regard?
A No,
I'm sorry. I don't think I could conclude that from that clause. It refers to
something that has
141
come before, but not the particular
pages.
Q So reading it carefully as you do, you
can't be quite certain. You're not going to accept my word for it? You would
really have to read the whole book to see whether it does refer back to that
passage. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And but in this extract that deals with sex,
kids, is there anything that you find in this extract that is disturbing or
really disturbing?
A I would characterize the passages dealing
with sex and violence and now, I don't think there's anything disturbing.
Q Alright. Now, if I can just -- there is one
other general reference on page 153, the last paragraph. Perhaps I can -- it's
a short enough paragraph, so perhaps I can just read it into the record. In
summarizing this chapter on repressiveness and violence, the author says,
"Of course, violent behaviour has many sources. If we are to do anything
significant about all the agression in this society, the remedy must include a
lot of things, such as attacking at socio-economic roots. It must also include
simply doing a better job of teaching morality to children - real morality,
that is: respect and concern for others, and equal dignity for all. If guilt is
to be taught (and it
142
probably must be), let it be only over genuine evils
like agression itself." Now, as a general statement of how morality should
be taught to children, do you find that disturbing or really disturbing?
A A
bit confusing but not disturbing.
Q Can
you say whether you agree with it or not as an enunciation of the general
principle?
A I
think there are a number of remarks that I would dispute or have some concern
about, so I don't think I could say I agree with the passage.
Q This
is however, something that the area of teaching morality to children - sexual
morality and pornography, about which you have thought and written a good deal.
Is that not correct?
A I
have thought very little about teaching morality to children. I certainly have
written a great deal about pornography.
Q You
don't -- and in thinking about pornography, I understand that again, just pause
for a minute, because I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but rather
just save a bit of time. Essentially the
libertarian attitude towards pornography in the book in front of you, is one
which, as you told Mr. Bouvier, you generally agree. Correct?
A Yes.
Q So
you've given some thought to the effect of
143
pornography on children?
A Not a lot of thought.
Q And therefore you have no opinions on this
subject?
A The effect of pornography on children?
Q Well,
for example, let's unpack this. You say you haven't given much thought about
teaching sexual morality to children. May I infer from that that you have no
firm opinions on the subject?
A No. Just that I haven't spent a lot of time
thinking about it.
Q So for example, would you disagree with the
statement that -- the author's statement seems fairly clear. He is saying that
if guilt is to be taught and it probably must be in the teaching of morality to
children, let it be only over genuine evils like agression itself. The author
seems to take the view that teaching children to feel guilty over sexual
activity or sexual feelings is morally wrong. Fair?
A That's certainly an interpretation.
Q Is there any other interpretation that you
can make from that?
A About what the author thinks?
Q Yes.
A So your question is the author seems to feel
that teaching children guilt over sex is bad?
Q Yes. He's saying if guilt is to
be taught, and it
144
probably must be, let it be only over genuine evils like
agression itself, and in the passages that you have read, is that sufficient to
make it clear to you that the author does not think that the children should be
taught to be guilty over their sexual feelings or sexual activities?
A Yes, that's right.
Q And
generally speaking, do you have a problem with that approach or with that
conclusion?
MR. KOZAK: You're
asking the
witness for her opinion?
MR. WILLIS: Do you
find anything
disturbing about that proposal by the author?
A Disturbing, no.
Q
Alright.
A But whether I agree with it, is
another question.
Q Have
you formed an opinion? Have you thought about it and formed an opinion?
A I'm
sorry. I have just lost the train of thought. Have I thought about --
Q That
proposition, namely that children should not be taught to feel guilty about
their sexual
feelings and activities? Have
you thought about
that and formed any opinion about it?
MR. KOZAK: Well,
I'm going to
suggest that given the passage from the interview of Mr.
Bouvier, you're entitled to ask the witness
145
whether or not she finds that passage in the book
disturbing. You have asked her that and she has answered it. Her personal
opinion on that subject, I think is irrelevant.
MR. WILLIS: Well again, as I said, we've already determined
that her personal opinions are relevant to this extent. I have no trouble in
rephrasing my question because by the time we get around to it again, I
respectfully submit that you won't have a problem with it. We will be getting
around to it again. But I'll back off for now, so that the foundation is laid
when I get to it again.
MR. KOZAK: Alright.
Q In
any event, from reading these passages, is it not clear to you that the entire
book is infused with a concern -- indeed a passionate concern for morality in
matters dealing with sex and children? Is that not clear to you from reading
the passages you've read thus far?
A It's
infused with a concern for morality. I would not say that the entire book is
infused with concern of moralities specifically relating to children.
Q Those
passages which do relate to children, I'm suggesting, are in the context of a
book which in fact is all about morality and the author's concern and critique
of morality. Do you agree with that?
146
MR. KOZAK: I'm sorry to
interrupt. I'm going to ask the witness to
answer
that about the
passages to which she's been referred. You're asking about the entire book, but
you've only directed her to a few passages. She has already said that she
hasn't read the entire book.
Q MR. WILLIS: Let's look back at your
article at Tab 13. And you'll understand
perhaps -- I'm
not trying to sandbag you with this question, but perhaps as it's coming a little
bit out of sequence, it's confusing. In your article, you will note that in
referring specifically to pages 109 and 113, or specifically to the chapter on
sexual health, at the top of the second column, you say, "While childrens'
sexuality has decided moral dimensions for most Canadians, in a section
entitled "sex and young people", Professor Christensen discusses
these issues outside of a moral context." Now, you will agree with me that
the context of the section is the context of the book as a whole. Will you not?
The section page 109 to 113. You can't read that by itself. You have to read it
in the context of the whole book to determine whether the discussion is in a moral context.
Correct? Is that a proposition with
which you have any difficulty?
147
A I
think it is certainly possible to look at a particular passage and feel that
that particular passage does not address moral issues, or is not making
profound moral statements -- unequivocal moral statements.
Q Alright,
but you make the statement, "childrens' sexuality has decided moral
dimensions for most Canadians." That's obviously a statement you agree
with. Correct?
A Absolutely.
Q And
you say that while that is so for most Canadians, yet you do on to say,
"In a section entitled sex and young people, professor Christensen
discusses these issues outside of a moral context." That's what you say.
Correct?
A That's
correct.
Q Now,
what I'm suggesting to you is that the moral context of that section must be
the context of the whole book. Correct?
A That
may well be but that doesn't change the fact that the section itself, lacks a
strong, moral statement.
Q So you don't think it's misleading
to your readers to say that contrary to most Canadians, a man discusses
childrens' sexuality outside of moral context?
A In a particular section of the book. [Back]
148
Q Yes, and you don't think it's misleading to
point out that the entire rest of the book and the context in which this
section is nestled is about almost nothing but morality? You didn't think that
mislead your readers?
A No.
Q Did you think it was ethical to make a
statement like that about a complex book, without having read the whole book?
A The issue in question is whether a
community group that assists men, often accused falsely of abusing their
children -- whether that group should be associated with someone who has made
controversial remarks about children and sex. That's the issue. The issue is
not what someone thinks about the larger issue of pornography.
Q Well --
A The book is entitled "Pornography -
the other side".
Q Now, I appreciate what you've said. That
helps me understand your approach to things. Maybe that assists, but that
wasn't exactly my question. You will agree with me that in this passage, you've
given the readers, the National Post, the impression that Professor Christensen
has discussed issues of childrens' sexuality outside of a moral context.
Correct?
149
A In a particular passage.
Q And you didn't tell them that elsewhere or
in the context of the book as a whole, he has discussed those issues in a moral
context and indeed made certain fervent moral pleadings. You didn't mention anything about the book as
a whole, did you?
A No.
Q Now,
my question is, so you knew, when you wrote this, that the people who were
reading this in The National Post, most Canadians believing that childrens'
sexuality would have a moral dimension, would probably infer that Professor
Christensen only discusses this issue outside of a moral context in his book.
Correct?
A I don't think I can speak to what I thought
most Canadians would probably infer.
Q Alright. Did you think you owed it -- so my
question was, in making a statement like this, about what Professor
Christensen's general approach was in his book, and particularly using a word
like "context", didn't you think you had an ethical obligation to
carefully read and conside this book as a whole?
A Sorry. Could you just repeat
the question --
Q Alright. In making a statement about the
context in which Professor Christensen discussed the moral
150
-- pardon me -- discussed childrens' sexuality, did you
not think you had an ethical obligation to read the book as a whole rather than
pages 109 to 113 only?
A No.
Q Now, let's look at pages 109 to
113 specifically.
Oh, there's one more passage. It's in a footnote,
at least that I can find. It's in the footnote at page
173, and it specifically deals with child sex abuse. Perhaps you could just --
that's footnote
14. Could you just
take a look at that?
A Footnote 14.
Q Yes.
A I
have read the footnote.
Q And
do you find anything disturbing or really disturbing about that?
A I
find I would have a hard time agreeing with much of it. Whether I would go so
far as to say it's disturbing, I'm not sure.
Q So
you are not sure whether it's disturbing or not to you?
A Correct.
Q So
we have now looked at extracts from pages 16,
23, 100, 108, 133, pages 147 to
150. Page 153.
You will agree with me that in all of those passages
which deal with kids and sex, you found nothing that was disturbing or really
disturbing.
151
Correct? Those are all the passages that -- with the
exception of the last one, to which I've directed your attention over the past
hour or so?
A If
my memory serves, I think that's correct.
Q And
--
A Sorry,
it's starting to blur a little.
Q Alright,
well, you do recall that until this moment, you didn't find anything that --
about which you were even uncertain. There were things with which you thought
you disagreed, although you didn't specify those, but you didn't find anything
that either disturbed you or really disturbed you up to this footnote 14,
correct, in the passages I've drawn to your attention?
A Yes.
Q And
in footnote 14, you are not sure you agree, but you're not sure you are
disturbed either. Correct?
A I'm
certain I don't agree with some of it. I'm not certain I would go so far as to
say I find it disturbing.
Q So
when you said to Bob Bouvier, at page 505, "Whenever he talks about kids
and sex, he says some really disturbing things", you knew that you had no
warrant to say that, didn't you?
A In
light of the exercise we've just been through, the language is not sufficiently
precise. I should not have said, "Whenever he talks about kids and
152
sex." I should have said, "In a particular
section entitled Kids and Sex, he says some
really disturbing things."
Q In
evaluating a book of this kind, and
in particular, in making the recommendation that a man be expelled from an organization,
it didn't occur to you that one ought to look at the book as a whole and read
the passages and the context of the
book as a whole?
MR. KOZAK: Yesterday, I objected to the characterization
of that as a recommendation of
expulsion, so I don't want your question to be seen as accepting that
assertion.
MR. WILLIS: Well, but, after you had made that objection,
Mr. Kozak, you will recall that the witness agreed with me that that was a
recommendation. Indeed I went through a little mini thesaurus of synonyms for
the word "expulsion" and she agreed with all of them, so may I not
use that word now?
MR. KOZAK: I object to it.
MR. WILLIS: Alright. You objection
is on the record. I don't have any trouble coming up
with an acceptable -- but I do want to point out that -- I would ask you to do
this please. Before we reconvene, if you could review the transcript, and if
you can confirm to your satisfaction that
153
the witness has accepted that she made
a recommendation of expulsion, then we shall get on a good deal better for it. I certainly don't intend to be
arguementative. I only intend to describe what is common ground. Could I ask
you to do that and we'll moot this before we -- before our next round?
MR. KOZAK: Certainly.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
Q Now, don't you think it was wrong to give
Mr. Bouvier the impression that you had read the whole book and that whenever
-- and that you had -- you were able to assure him, a man you knew hadn't read
the book, that whenever Christensen talked about kids and sex, he said some
really disturbing things?
A Okay. The first part of the question was, do
I think it was wrong to give Mr. Bouvier the impression that I had read the
entire book?
Q Yes.
A I think my language was inprecise. I think, however that it's quite reasonable,
after having read a significant part of the book, indeed probably in excess of
thirty percent. After having read a preface
to the book which lays out the arguments contained within the whole. After
having read the dust jacket, which gives some sense of the
154
overall argument, that it was an
understandable thing to have done.
Q So you don't think it was wrong?
A No.
Q And you don't think it was wrong to say,
"Whenever he talks about kids and sex, he says some really disturbing
things", when in fact you now see that on a review of passages somewhat
more than twice as long as the ones that you actually read, that there wasn't
anything which you found disturbing or really disturbing?
A I should indeed have said "in a
particular passage."
Q So that was wrong?
A Yes.
Q Now, will you also agree with me that in the
passages to which I've been directing your attention so far this morning, there
is nothing that suggests that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing?
A I'm not sure you asked me that specific
question about each and every one of the passages.
Q Alright.
A I don't remember or recall anything.
Q Right. May I ask you this. Should you, upon
reflection, conclude that there is anything in any of the passages to which I
have directed your
155
attention that suggests that sex with
kids is maybe not such a bad thing, will you advise me through your solicitor?
A Certainly.
UNDERTAKING
NO. 19
Q As well, if there are any passages which --
I've attempted to isolate the passages that specifically refer to sex with
kids, but if there is anything that I've missed, and you come across it and
believe that it is either disturbing or really disturbing and/or suggests that
sex with kids is maybe not such a bad
thing, will you undertake to advise me through your solicitor?
A Yes, I will.
UNDERTAKING
NO. 20
Q Now, let's turn specifically to the passages
on which you relied, and let's look at the first paragraph. Page 109.
Perhaps you could just let me know when you've re-read that, and I'll
ask you about that. And is there anything in it that you find disturbing or
really disturbing?
A Yes, in fact.
Q What's that?
A The line that says, "It is essential
here to say a few words about one thing. The common idea that there is something
inherently, emotionally unhealthy about children, or even adolescents
156
having sexual knowledge or sexual activity, it is
widely
-- for example, that they are not
emotionally ready for such things, or in regard to
children, that it is not natural for them to have sexual feelings at all",
and then it goes on to the
next paragraph that begins,
"the latter is a
perfect example of rationalization of any logical
pre-induced blindness. It seems clearly motivated by our traditional sex
negative views."
Q Alright. Now, let's stick with
that last part.
The sentence in regard to children, that it is not
natural for them to have sexual feelings at all. That of course, is what is
referred to as the latter?
A M'hmm.
Q And
do you find that sentence disturbing?
A No.
Q So
you would agree that it's natural for children to have sexual feelings?
A At
some point.
Q What
do you mean "at some point"?
A I
mean at some point in childhood, one develops natural feelings.
Q And do you --
A Sexual feelings. Sorry.
Q Yes,
and I mean, you --
A Do
I think it's natural for a two month old to have
157
sexual feelings? I'm not sure, but at some point, people
start to develop sexual feelings.
Q So
obviously you've never really read anything about infantile sexuality, have
you?
A Not
a great deal.
Q Alright.
Is there anything that -- that you have read? Have you read Freuds initial
lectures for example, or anything?
A No.
Q In any event, you don't find the proposition
that children have sexual feelings, to be disturbing?
A That's right.
Q Although
I presume that you understand that many people do take the view that children
don't have sexual feelings? Many Canadians take that view?
A I
think they would certainly like to believe that children don't have sexual
feelings.
Q So
the next paragraph, when Dr. Christensen talks about the idea that it is not
natural for children to have sexual feelings. Is there anything in that next
paragraph you disagree with?
A Sorry.
Which?
Q Now,
Dr. Christensen refers to the idea that it is not natural for children to have
sexual feelings, as a perfect example of rationalization and ideologically
induced blindness --
A That paragraph, I'm sorry, I
haven't read. I just
158
finished reading the preceding paragraph.
Q You actually read that into the
record.
A I
read that one line.
Q Yes.
A And
continued, but I have not read the rest of the paragraph. Shall I do that now?
Q Well,
alright, but I'm just -- I'm just taking that one line that you read to start
with.
A Okay.
Q And
do you have a problem with that?
A One
line which reads --
Q Dr. Christensen's view is that
people who think
that it is not natural for children to have sexual
feelings at all are exhibiting the perfect example
of rationalization and ideologically induced blindness.
Do you find that disturbing?
A I
think it's a rather sweeping statement but it's not disturbing.
Q Well, let's carry on. I had
asked you actually I
think -- well, why don't you read that whole paragraph of
which you've quoted the first sentence and tell me whether there's anything disturbing about
that?
A This paragraph contains a line
in which Professor
Christensen says, "No, their sexual explorations
aren't "just" and "just" is italicized. Curiosity.
"Curiosity" is in quotes. The standard euphemism
159
for childhood lust. I have to say that the term
"childhood lust" is one that I find a little disturbing.
Q Why?
A Because in my view, children do
experiment and
explore. I have a very, very
hard time imagining
that children are lustful.
Q Alright, so we've agreed that you've,
as far as you
can recall, there's nothing about infantile
sexuality that
you've ever read that you can
remember. Correct? ['Infantile'
used here referring to children, not to babies]
A Correct. [Virtually none of the sources listed in her book's
index are scientific ones
involving sexuality; the rare
exceptions she had quite clearly learned of from non-science sources.]
Q And you'll see
that there's a footnote here, footnote 9, in this paragraph. It refers to -- if
you'll look at page 172, where Dr. Christensen says, "In cultures where
they are not prevented from doing so, they begin sexual activity sometimes even
coitus itself, at a very early age." And then he cites a number of books.
MR. KOZAK: If you'll just bear
with us, we just
want to read the passage before referring to the footnote.
MR. WILLIS: Sorry. I thought that
the witness had
just read the entire passage.
MR. KOZAK: We thought you were
going to put the
footnote to her, so we were looking at the footnote.
160
MR. WILLIS: Yes,
and I am. You see there a number of books.
A There is two
footnote 9's on 172.
MR. KOZAK: Which
chapter?
MR. WILLIS: Page
172, footnote 9.
A Yes.
MR. WILLIS: On chapter 8. Sorry. Chapter 8 is the one we're
on.
A Okay.
Q Alright. Now,
here we have books by Malinowski, Berndt, Danielsson, and Elwin, and then
another reference to The Handbook of Human Sexuality by Martinson & Wolman,
and Chapter 10 of the book called Sexual Decisions by Milton Diamond and Arnold
Karlen. Have you read any of those books ever?
A No, I have
not. [Quite
apart from whether children have sexual feelings is this
point: It is shocking for a news
reporter to think such issues are not to be decided by the evidence.]
Q Alright. So in
terms of whether or not children have sexual desires, that could be properly
characterized by lust, by the word "lust", do you have any
information about that, other than your own feelings?
A No, I don't. [Back]
Q Nonetheless,
are you disturbed at the suggestion
that they do,
notwithstanding all those footnotes?
A Pardon me, but those footnotes refer to the
fact there is research which says they begin sexual
161
activity early, and sometimes they even have coitus.
Q Yes.
A Okay.
That's what the footnote is referring to.
Q Indeed.
A And
indeed, the sentence begins, "moreover" as if it is a new thought, an
additional thought. The footnote is attached to that sentence. Not to the
sentence about childhood lust.
Q Well,
that's a very -- that's a point that I can't deny, of course, but would you say
for example, that children could have coitus without something that could be
described as lust?
A Yes.
Yes. They're trying to see if the
parts fit together. [Since erection and penetration without male arousal is
impossible except
in rare pathological
conditions, this desperate piece of invented knowledge is especially strange.]
Q And
so and this opinion that you have that any sexual activity by children is based
on curiosity, rather than on some other considerations that might properly be
described as lust or sexuality. This is
based simply on your own introspection and your own thoughts?
A I
think to use the term, "childhood lust" is a rather interesting
choice of words, and one that I find disturbing, yes.
Q Alright,
and you find it disturbing because your own introspection and your own thoughts
lead you to think that in fact, curiosity is a better term?
162
A A more appropriate and accurate
term.
Q Alright,
but this isn't backed up by any reading or knowledge that you have from any
other source other than your own introspection?
A Correct.
Q And were you moved to do any
such reading? You
know, by for
example, by reading this article? Have
you ever been motivated to do that to determine whether your introspection and
your untutored thoughts are valid?
A No.
Q And
do you think that it's possible you may be wrong and that children do -- indeed
do have sexual feelings that could be characterized as childhood lust and not
just curiosity?
A Sure, it's possible.
Q So it's possible you may be
wrong. Yes?
A Yes.
Q So how is it that you can be
disturbed by -- I'm
just trying to extend this. This may again be a
psychological
peculiarity of yours. How is it you
can be disturbed by a proposition which you agree may be correct?
MR.KOZAK: Well, Mr.
Willis, I'm
not certain that the witness is obligated to answer that
type of question.
Q MR. WILLIS: If it turned out that
163
you were wrong about that. That your
untutored views about childhood sexuality are wrong, would you agree that you
are wrong to be disturbed?
MR. KOZAK: I'm going to instruct
her not to answer that. That's a
hypothetical question.
Q MR. WILLIS: Well, would you agree
that it's possible for you to be
wrongly disturbed about something?
MR. KOZAK: Again, you've asked her
about the effect that passage had on her. She has already said that she finds
that passage disturbing. That links to the issue that you've referred her to
in the - - in her interview with Mr. Bouvier. All of those I think are proper
questions. The question about whether or
not there should be some basis for her
being disturbed I believe is not
something she's obligated to answer.
164
Q MR. WILLIS: In your view, do
anything
in these two paragraphs suggest that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad
thing?
A In the first paragraph, it says, "The common idea
that there is something inherently, emotionally, unhealthful about children or
even adolescents having sexual knowledge or sexual activity". Yes, I think that is suggesting
that perhaps it's not so bad for kids to have
sex.
Q With adults?
A It's not clear. Maybe with adults.
Maybe not. [Back]
Q Alright. And in the context where it talks
about non-adult eroticism, you're saying when you read that, you see it as a suggestion that perhaps children can
have sex with adults?
A Sorry. Where are we here?
Q "The prevailing feeling is still one of great
apprehension
or aversion toward non adult eroticism."
So you are interpreting this passage as meaning perhaps any kind of sex.
Sex with kids
-- with other kids, or sex with adults,
notwithstanding the earlier reference to non-adult eroticism?
A Let me just
re-read that for a second. Yes, I think
I am interpreting it in that way because it would have been very easy for the
writer to have been very clear, and to say the common idea that
165
there is something inherently, emotionally
unhealthful
about children or even adolescents having sexual activity with their peers. It
would have been very easy to put that in and be very clear about what the
writer intended, but he didn't do that. [In fact, it would have been difficult for me to simply add 'with their peers'.
I was talking about knowledge, not just activity, and particularly
concerned about sexual fantasy and masturbation--none of which requires a
partner. By her reasoning here, I should have added a host of other qualifiers too: 'non-violent',
'consenting', etc. But saying 'inherently' makes it all unnecessary. ]
Q So the passage is ambiguous?
A Indeed. [Silence
regarding a topic is not the same thing as ambiguity
about it.][Back]
Q And it would be -- the suggestion that
someone would be thinking that sex between children and
adults is perhaps okay. That is a disturbing suggestion?
A Yes.
Q On the other hand,
the suggestion that sex or sexual activity between peers is not inherently
emotionally
unhealthful, do you find that disturbing as well?
A Yes I do. I do not think five year olds should
be
having sex with
each other. I don't think it's emotionally appropriate or in any other way appropriate.
[In this spot she leaps from 'not unhealthful' to the
value-question of
what is appropriate, what should occur. With her phrase
'emotionally appropriate', she even appears to be trying to combine a fact-term
about emotional state with a value-term.] [Back]
Q So
you find both those concepts inherently -- you find both those concepts
disturbing?
A Yes.
Q Now, let's go on to the next
paragraph. Would you
read that? "As for the
common idea that sexual
awareness and exploration are harmful to children
166
and adolescents.
A I have read the passage.
Q Alright, and do you find anything in that
that is disturbing or really disturbing?
A Yes.
Q And what's that?
A It says, "stories of emotional distress
from early sexual experience are often told in this society, but it is clear
that the real sources of such trauma, other than those involving unwanted
pregnancy, coersion or disease lie in the accompanying social attitudes."
Q And do you disagree with that?
A Yes, I do. I don't think it is clear at
all. It may be a debatable point. I certainly don't think it is clear, and I'm
very disturbed by the implication that there may be -- The suggestion that
there would be no legitimate emotional distress associated with say a brother
and sister who are 8 and 10 having sexual relations on a long term basis, and you know, the suggestion here is that oh well,
only it there's pregnancy or coersion or disease, then is it a problem. In any other case, it's okay. I don't think it's okay. [When I wrote
the
passage at issue I was considering standard sexual scenarios, not something as
rare as long-term
brother-sister
incest between children. (A well-known biological effect makes it very rare.)
She was
stretching
hard to find an exception to my general point; my lawyer's defence below was
unneeded.]
Q Alright. Anything else in that
paragraph?
A Not that I would characterize as disturbing.
Q Alright, so for example, the
sentence just a little
167
ways down that says, "breaking any
serious social taboo can have a devastating psychological impact on those who
do so." Do you disagree with that?
A Yes, okay.
Q So, I'm having trouble at your concluding
from that that the author would be in favour of incest.
A Sorry. Where did incest come from?
Q You just suggested that a brother and sister who have sex between
ages eight and ten is, according to the author, perfectly alright. Three
sentences further down, he says that breaking any serious social taboo can have
a devastating psychological impact on those that do so.
A Right, but he's suggesting that children
having sex with each other, and he's not talked about whether they're brothers
and sisters or not --
Q -- No, you did.
A -- Is perfectly natural.
Q You suggested that that was an appropriate --
A No, no. He's saying, "the notion that
there's something inherently unhealthful about children having sexual activity
is something he's disputing.
Q You then, if you will recall correctly, went
on to say, "A brother and sister, eight and ten who have sex together,
he's saying nothing is wrong with this." Well, three sentences later, he
says, "Breaking any serious social taboo could have a
168
devastating psychological impact on
those who do so." The example that you gave -- you suggested that the
author is in favour of incest, and three sentences down, he says that that
would do -- have a devastating, psychological impact.
A With all due respect, I think the author is
arguing more than one thing at the same time. He's arguing that some things
should not be social taboos. At the same time, suggesting that those who break
things that currently are social taboos will suffer emotional impact.
Q Alright. So, do you find that confusing or
disturbing or both?
A Confusing perhaps. I don't think there's
anything inherent in that that I find disturbing.
Q But it's clear that the example that you
raised is incorrect in the context, is it not? In other words, it's clear to
you that contrary to what you just suggested on the record, the author does believe
that incest would cause potentially devastating psychological impact. That's
clear to you now that you read down a few lines, is it not?
MR. KOZAK: I'm sorry. Allow the
witness to clarify it because she gave
an example of something that relates to a passage that you referred her to.
MR. WILLIS: Yes.
169
MR. KOZAK: Which she finds
disturbing. Now, she happened to choose an example that
you then used to refer her to a later passage.
MR. WILLIS: Right, look. This is no surprise here. My
objection to what the witness has done. A legal objection and a moral objection is that she uses the
word "context" while unfairly taking what the author said out of
context and attempting to destroy his life and career by doing so. I mean, I'm not trying to be sainty about
this, so here I'm attempting to assist the witness to put what she says into
context. That's exactly what of course, she refused to do in her article, I'm
submitting. I'm not trying to argue with her. I'm just trying to suggest to her
that once again, she takes things out of context. And the example that she
gave, she was disturbed because she felt that the logical implication of what
the author had said was that he was in favour of incest, so I point out to her
that two sentences further down, he points out that the breaking of taboos
would cause devastating psychological damage. How does she reconcile that?
MR. KOZAK: But she said the earlier statement was
disturbing.
MR. WILLIS: Right. Out of context. And I'm putting the context in and asking her
if
170
she's still disturbed. That's what I'm
doing. Is that unfair?
MR. KOZAK: Well, when you complete
that process you might ask her whether
she would give another example of why she finds the earlier statement
disturbing.
MR. WILLIS: Well, first of
all,
I need to get her to withdraw an
example which is clearly inappropriate, or to see if she won't. If she won't,
then it will be on the record for trial, but I need to know, whether when I put
the whole context to her, in fairness, she will withdraw her example and
perhaps try another one that disturbs her equally. My point being -- my point
being pretty clear, that we have -- which you and I will have ample opportunity
to explore at trial. Okay. Is that alright?
MR. KOZAK: Sure.
MR. WILLIS: Thanks. So let me just
return to this. You said on the
record, and I can have the court reporter re-read it if this long colloquy has
confused you.
A M'hmm.
Q But you said on the record that you felt
that the implication of what the author had said was that absent coersion,
disease, or unwanted pregnancy and an incestuous relationship between an eight
and ten
171
year old brother and sister would be
perfectly alright. I then pointed out to you that a few sentences later,
"the author says that breaking any serious social taboo can have a
devastating psychological impact on those who do so." Would you now withdraw your statement? In
other words would you now agree with me that in the context of the book as a
whole, and even of this one paragraph as a whole, the logical inference which
you purported to draw was false?
A No, I'm sorry. I would not. I don't agree
with that.
Q Thank you.
Now, let's take the next paragraph which begins, "So the idea that
sex is bad for young people is at best, another self-fulfilling prophecy."
Would you take a look at that and tell me whether you find what is said in that
paragraph disturbing or really disturbing?
A I think the sentence or the idea that sex is
bad for young people, is at best, another self- fulfilling prophecy, is an
absurd statement. But I don't think there's anything in the paragraph that I
would characterize as disturbing.
Q And I presume you would agree with the
statement at the top of page 111 that minors certainly do need guidance and
discipline, especially with all the dangers in the modern world such as drug
abuse?
172
A Yes.
Q Now,
let's go on to the next paragraph. Would you read that please and let me know
when you've finished reading it.
A Yes.
I have read the passage.
Q Is
there anything in that that you find disturbing or really disturbing?
A No,
I don't think so.
Q Well,
perhaps you could assist me here because I understood you to say that you found
the idea of sexual activity between children disturbing?
A Yes.
Q And
doesn't this paragraph make the suggestion citing Dr. John Money's book that
early sexual activity like play in general is a kind of rehersal for adult
roles that may be required for mental health?
A Yes,
except it's talking about "among other primates".
Q Well,
that something similar is the case for humans, has been suggested by sex
researchers, and the author then goes on to suggest that that's so, so you
don't find that disturbing?
A I
don't find it disturbing that there's research about other primates.
Q Do
you find it disturbing that something similar is the case for humans, namely
that early -- which is
173
what the author is suggesting in this
paragraph. He's suggesting that for humans like other primates, early sexual
activity is a kind of rehersal for their adult roles.
A Well, it reads that "something similar
is the case for humans, has been suggested by sex researchers". That sex
researchers would be considering this question? No, I don't find that
disturbing that they would be thinking about it.
Q And do you consider the author's evident
approval of this conclusion disturbing?
A I don't know if the author is approving. He
is describing, reporting on.
Q Alright. But if the world's foremost
authority on sexual development in childhood and youth suggests that maybe sex
between children is for humans like other primates, a necessary kind of
rehersal for their adult roles, although the generality may not understand
that, you as an educated person don't find that suggestion disturbing?
A Well, I would point out that Professor
Christensen says that Dr. Money is possibly the world's foremost -- no, I don't
find it disturbing.
Q The disturbing thing is not that maybe sex
between children is appropriate. That the disturbing thing is the suggestion or
any suggestion that sex between children and adults is appropriate.
174
Correct?
A No. Absolutely not. It is not disturbing
that sex researchers think about and research and write about these subjects.
That's not disturbing to me. That's why I said this particular passage is not
disturbing.
Q So if sex researchers suggest that sex
between children may be okay as a necessary rehersal for their adult roles,
that's alright. Correct?
A It's an academic field that's legitimate. We
ought to be talking about these matters.
Q But if Dr. Christensen says that that
proposition is in his opinion, correct, that's disturbing. You don't seem to
have a problem with what -- the man that Dr. Christensen identifies as the
world's foremost authority, suggesting that early sexual activity like play in
general, is a kind of rehersal for the adult roles of humans, like those of
other primates. You don't have a problem with that, but you have a problem with
Dr. Christensen suggesting that maybe that's right.
MR. KOZAK: I think that the
witness has answered your question
about whether this passage is disturbing. You've gone on to another topic.
MR. WILLIS: No, I haven't. I'm on
the reason that we're suing you for
lots of money
175
because this witness in -- well, I'm
not going to argue. The witness has said that a proposition advanced by
researcher John Money, is not disturbing. Now, I'm simply saying, this same
proposition, however, when Professor Christensen says it, she seems to find it
disturbing, and I'm
querying that.
MR. KOZAK: And while I may be
mistaken, I think that her answer was
the fact that researchers are looking at these issues is not disturbing to her.
You've gone on to ask her --
MR. WILLIS: Now, you mis-state her
answer sir. What she said was, whatever -- the fact that
researchers may say that or speculate that or suggest that doesn't disturb her.
Now, I'm simply saying if Dr. Christensen thinks that those conclusions are
right, does that disturb you? Is that an improper question?
MR. KOZAK: Well, I said I might be
mistaken but I thought her answer was
framed along the lines of, "I'm not disturbed by the fact that researchers
are looking at those issues."
MR. WILLIS: Alright. Let me just
check that again.
Q Ms. Laframboise, the passage
here is this.
"According to Dr. Christensen,
Dr. John Money in his book, Love and Love Sickness, has suggested,
176
"that something similar is the
case for humans". And the something similar is something similar to the
idea that humans, like other primates engage in early sexual activity as a kind
of "rehersal for their adult roles."
Now, this passage says that Dr. Money suggests that. Not that he's
looking at
it. That he's researching the topic,
and that he makes that suggestion, and the fact that Dr. Money makes that suggestion,
as I understand it, does not disturb you. Correct?
A I'm sorry.
That was a rather long question.
I'll try it again. We've got these two
sentences. "Among other primates, early sexual activity, like
play in general, is a kind of
"rehersal for their adult roles, and in at least some species, such sex
play is known to be required for later sexual adequacy. That something similar
is the case for humans, has been suggested by sex researchers", and he
then goes on to cite Dr. John Money. So
Dr. John Money, according to Dr. Christensen, is not merely investigating the
possibility. He's suggesting that humans, like other primates, require early
sexual activity like play in general as a kind of rehersal for their adult
roles, or at least require something similar.
A In some
species.
Q And Dr. Money goes further to
say, "that something
177
similar is the case for humans. Dr. Money suggests that. Now, when Dr. Money
suggests that, that doesn't disturb you. Am I right?
A Right.
Q Now, when Dr. Christensen cites that
approvingly, and suggests that Dr. Money may be correct, does that disturb you?
A Where does he suggest that Dr. Money might
be correct?
Q Well, in the first paragraph, he says,
"The truth may well be just the opposite of the common claim".
A Sorry --
Q So he's talking -- the first sentence of the
paragraph to which we are referring -- the sentence immediately preceding the
two that we have been discussing, the author talks about what the truth may be,
so the author is suggesting that Dr. Money's suggestion may be right. In other
words, just the opposite of the common claim, and that disturbs you.
A No. I said nothing in that paragraph
disturbed me, including that sentence.
Q Alright, so if Dr. Christensen, and here's
my problem. Earlier on, you said, the idea that sex between children can be
okay, disturbed you. Correct?
A Yes.
178
Q Alright. Now, in this paragraph, Dr. Money
is suggesting that the exact opposite is true.
That in fact not only is sex between children okay. He's suggesting that it's necessary for
subsequent sexual adequacy, and Dr. Christensen is saying, well, maybe Dr.
Money is right. And that doesn't disturb you? I don't understand.
A Well, I'm sorry. That's how I react.
Q Thank you.
Now, let's take the next paragraph.
And let me just refer you to the first sentence. "However all this
may be", you'll agree with me that this suggests that the author - - that
the phrase, "however all this may be", when you read that in the
context of the qualifications and what is said before, suggests that the author
is not entirely certain that he's right about the preceding passages. Correct?
A That' who's right about the preceding
passages?
Q Dr. Christensen, in prefacing what he has
next to say with the phrase, "however all this may be", it's clear
that all this refers to the preceding discussion under the rubric, "Sex
and Young People". Correct? And you understood that when you read it? [No. Merely referring to
the preceding paragraph.]
A I'm sorry, I can't tell you what I understood
at some point when I read a particular passage.
Q Well, you understand it now, don't you, when
it
179
says, "However all this may be", you
understand that the phrase "all this" refers back to the discussion
under the rubric "Sex and Young People"?
A I
think it's fair to assume that it certainly refers back to the previous
paragraph. How far it refers back is another matter.
Q And
I suppose that you would consider it -- pardon me. When you look at it now, and
just kind of read it normally, you'll agree with me that common sense tells you
that the words "all this" goes back at least as far as the previous
heading "Sex and Young People"?
A No,
I'm sorry. No, I can't agree with that.
Q Why
not?
A Because
I think it's impossible to know.
Q I
guess you have to -- really, actually to really judge a book of this kind, you
have to read the whole thing quite carefully to be able to get an idea of what
the author means, even such a simple phrase as "all this". That's
your approach, isn't it?
A No,
I don't think that's my approach. I'm just saying that it's certainly
debateable how far back this comment refers to.
Q Thank
you. Now, this sentence, "the
important point for our purposes is that sexual awareness in itself is not
harmful to young people." Do you
180
find that statement disturbing?
A Sexual
awareness in itself is not harmful. No, I don't think it would be disturbing.
Q Do
you agree with it?
A No.
Q Do
you think that sexual awareness in itself may be harmful to young people?
A I
think that's possible in some situations under some circumstances.
Q Well,
would you carry on and look at the rest of the paragraph and tell me whether
apart from whether you agree or disagree with it, is there anything in there
that disturbs you?
A This
line that says, "it may even be the case, as various researchers have
suggested that there is a valuable place for erotically explicit materials in
the education of children." I think that is very dangerous territory.
Q You
find it disturbing?
A Yes.
Q Even
in the context of the subsequent sentence, "This does not apply, of
course, to depictions of deviant sex", and he goes on to say, "But
healthy, happy sexual depictions or descriptions are no more inappropriate for
them than is the case involving other kinds of healthy human behaviour."
A Even
in that context, yes.
181
Q Have you read anything about the sexual
education of children?
A No, but there is research that suggests that
pedophiles sometimes use, and in fact, this is actually referred to. At least
not the research, but this is a known thing, that pedophiles sometimes use
pornography to suggest to children that sex and sexual activity is okay, so I
think you know, I think it's -- this is dicy territory to suggest that maybe
it's okay to be showing kids explicit material, because there is the
possibility for abuse.
Q Well, do you have any -- do you think -- is
it disturbing, the idea that children should have sex education?
A Sex education per say, no.
Q When you say "per say", are you
saying the idea that erotically explicity materials should be used in the
education of children. That's disturbing?
A Yes.
Yes. It's one thing to tell
people, these are your body parts and this is how a baby is conceived. It's
another thing to show them erotically explicit material.
Q Have you ever looked at any of the materials
that schools and sex educators use in the education of sex education of
children?
A Some.
182
Q Like what?
A Drawings.
Q And would you agree with me that they
contain erotically explicit drawings in many cases? For example, depictions of
penetration?
A No. I certainly don't remember that. I
certainly remember lots of illustrations of ovaries and fallopian tubes and
sperm swimming all over.
Q From your education. Correct? Have you studied this at all? This question of the sexual
education of children?
A I conducted
interviews with two of the primary sex education instructors in Toronto.
Q And as a
result of that, were there articles that you wrote and materials that you
gathered?
A We were
talking about the article's focus was about the kind of sex education that boys
receive in school.
Q Who were these
experts?
A Sorry. I can't
give you the names right now.
Q Would you
undertake to advise me through your solicitor who the experts were that you
interviewed, and these are the materials you rely on in forming your opinions
about what's disturbing and not, or in partly forming those opinions, if you would provide me with copies
of any such materials. Either their publications or your
183
interviews
or your notes, or whatever you have?
A Certainly. [As it turned out, her notes contained
nothing about the content of sex
education. (Just concerns about the
lack of it--contrary to the reporter's further
remarks below).]
UNDERTAKING
NO. 21
Anything else that you can think of
that is the
basis of your information about the
sexual enlightenment of children?
A Not at the moment.
Q For example, you wouldn't have read Freuds
initial essay on the sexual enlightenment of children?
A No, I'm afraid not.
Q Now, let's go on to the next paragraph.
"To be sure" -- it starts off "recreational portrayals of sex by
themselves, are no substitute for a well rounded sex education". So you
agree with me that here the author seems to be suggesting that there needs to
be a well rounded sex education, and not merely indiscriminate availability of
portrayals of sex by themselves?
A Yes, that would seem to be
reasonable.
Q And you agree with that?
A I suppose so.
Q And then the author says, "If pornography
is the only source of sexual knowledge young people can get, they can be
mislead in various ways." I take it you agree with that statement too?
A Yes.
Q Then the author says, "But
if they are denied
184
reliable sources, as is so often the
case, they will go on getting it from questionable ones. It is a real tragedy." Do you agree with
both those statements? First of all, that if they are denied reliable sources,
they will go on getting it from questionable ones?
A Well, what I would disagree with is the
clause that says, "as is so often the case". I have a hard time with the notion that at
this point in history, it is often the case that children are denied reliable
sources of sex education. I think we probably do a reasonably adequate job
giving people sex education in school.[Given her own lack of education--a lack shared
with
many others--about child sexuality, this comment is unintendedly and sadly
ironic.]
Q And you don't think that it's often the case
that children are denied reliable sources of --
A No.
Q And what's the basis of that conclusion?
A As I just
said, I think children get a certain amount of sex education at school. I
think it's fair to characterize that sex education as a reliable source, so I
don't think that's a statement that I would agree with.
Q You are not aware that there are many
schools in this country in which sex education is not given? That many people
who strongly object to sex education in schools?
A No, I'm not.
185
Q You're not aware of our Christian schools,
and charter schools in Alberta where often sex education is not given?
A No.
Q You've never studied the problem really,
have you?
A No.
Q But if we assume -- when the author says,
"It is a real tragedy", you would agree that it would be a real tragedy
if children were denied the reliable sources of sex education?
A Absolutely.
Q Now, here is the problem I have. When you
have an emotionally loaded word about it being a real tragedy if children are
denied reliable sources of sex education, I have trouble understanding how you
could say first --
A Sorry. Which --
Q At the top of the second column of your article, that
even this section. Even this section taken by itself discusses these issues
outside of a moral context. I mean,
isn't it clear that the author is making a moral point here, and making it in a
very dramatic way?
A At that
particular point in the section, you're right. He is. [More admissions above and below.] [Back]
Q Well, and isn't he saying at the very
beginning of the previous paragraph that this is the important
186
point for his purposes about sexual
awareness. It's in this -- he's
discussing in the context of what he says is the most important point for his
purposes.
A Sorry. Where
are we back again?
Q Well, we're back at the immediately
preceding paragraph.
A No. The important point for our purposes is
that sexual awareness in itself is not harmful to young people.
Q Yes, and then immediately afterwards, in
the very next paragraph, we have this moral context about the need for reliable
sex education. So I'm trying to understand --
A I don't see how the two relate. Sorry.
Q Even though they follow one on the other?
A There's about twenty lines in between.
Q Isn't the whole context of this sex and
young people paragraph, the kind of education that young people ought to get? I
mean, given that this is a book about pornography, and it is not a book about
the sexual enlightenment of young people, but do you not see the paragraph I've
just read to you or pardon me, the sentences I've just read to you, culminating
in "it is a real tragedy", as the key topic of this whole section?
A No.
187
Q At least you'll agree with me that it lends
in moral context to the section because it talks about what the author feels is
necessary to avert tragedy. Correct?
A I think in that particular line, there is a
moral context. In many other passages, there is no moral context.
Q Right, but you didn't say that, did you?
You said that, "In this section, he discusses these issues outside of
moral context."
A Just because he's doing one thing in one
place does not also mean that he's not doing another thing in another place.
Q Well, so, for example, if we look at the
preceding page, in a paragraph that I -- the second paragraph on page 110,
let's just look at this whole sentence. "Ironically in fact, it is the
very fear and guilt that children are taught to keep them from being sexual
that causes the problems." And he
concludes with that paragraph, "Sexual anxiety that is standard in varying
degrees in this culture is unknown in those where people get only positive
messages involving sex and childhood in youth." Is it not clear from that
that the author is disturbed by people suffering fear and guilt and sexual
anxiety and is taking a moral position?
A Yes.
188
Q And alright, so that's -- and if we look
even on the previous page, page 109, the second sentence, he talks about,
"it is in childhood and adolescence that basic sexual attitudes are formed
and in those years that the foundations are laid for psychological health or
maladjustment." So is it not clear that the author's whole concern is with
psychological health or maladjustment?
A No. I
think that's a rather big leap. To ask
me to speculate about what the author's whole concern is.
Q Well, obviously the author is in favour of
psychological health rather than maladjustment. Correct?
A That's true.
Q And this is part of the topic sentence of
the very first paragraph of this section. In other words, the whole chapter is
called Psychological Health, so the author is making a moral statement about
what he thinks is necessary for psychological health. Correct? It's not a cold,
scientific statement. It's a passionate, moral statement. Wouldn't you agree?
A Sorry. The chapter is called Sex and
Psychological Health.
Q Yes.
A And your question is.
189
Q I'm suggesting to you is not the context,
when you look in the whole context of what the author is doing in this chapter.
Is not the whole context, you'll agree with me on reflection, a moral context,
for the author is arguing as to what is required for psychological health which he favours?
A No. I can't agree that it's the
whole context.
Q Alright. Isn't there at least -- this
particular section that you've read.
Does it not nestle in the course of what is actually a passionate
argument about what is morally right and morally wrong?
A Sorry.
Where are we going back to? What is morally right and wrong?
Q Of course, you didn't read the first part
of the chapter. Let's look at the first sentence. Page
102. "Sex and Psychological
Health". Let me draw your attention to that. "In addition to calling
it morally wrong" -- this is at the beginning of the chapter --
"Humans have another familiar way of denouncing something they wish to
oppose. They charge mental illness or emotional maldevelopment. That's sick and
you're immature, for example, often replace, "That's wrong" and "you're
immoral". So, and then it goes on to talk about medicalizing sin and so
on. Is it not clear from the very beginning of this chapter that the whole
thrust of it is a
190
discussion of what is moral and what
is really moral and what is immoral?
A I think it's clear that he talks about moral
issues in those first two sentences. I
can't speak to what he then goes on, because we have been looking at parts of
it, but not in it's entirety.
Q Alright. Over the lunch hour, I would like
you to read this Chapter 8 in it's entirety, because you talk about context,
but you don't even have the context of the whole chapter, so perhaps we can
supply you with that, and we can carry on.
I -- and I want you to think about whether you can really justify
telling the people of Canada that Professor Christensen discussed these issues
outside of a moral context contrary to the way most of them think about it.
Would you do that? Let's not waste time now. I'll come back to it over the
lunch hour. Is that alright?
A I'm wondering if I'm going to
have a lunch.
Q Well, witnesses do not live by lunch alone.
But by every word that comes from Professor Christensen. Sorry. I'm being
facetious, but it's almost 12:30. I'm sorry. I'm not attempting to harrass you.
A Would you like me to read the
entire chapter?
Q I would ask you to do that so that we can
get the context in which the extract that you relied on is to be found, and,
we'll just -- we can be fairly
191
brief about that I think, when we come back, but rather
than have you read it now, I want to carry on with this extract.
A Sure.
Q So,
could I ask you then to read the next paragraph, the one from which I've just
been quoting. Starts at the bottom of page 111, and it starts, "To be
sure, recreational portrayals of sex by themselves are no substitute for a well
rounded sex education."
MR. KOZAK: Just while she's doing that and off the record.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
MR. WILLIS: I'll just finish with this while we're at it,
and then we'll break.
A I have read the passage.
Q Is
there anything in that passage that you found disturbing?
A No.
Q Alright.
Confirming our discussion off the record, this would be an appropriate time to
break, and then when we come back, I'll carry on with this chapter, and then go
back to attempt to establish the chronology of what occurred.
MR. KOZAK: So we'll reconvene at 1:30.
MR.WILLIS: Sure.
Thanks.
192
(ADJOURN) --
12:15 P.M. TO RECONVENE AT 1:30 P.M.
(EXAMINATION
RECONVENES AT 2:00 P.M.)
Q MR. WILLIS: Ms.
Laframboise, you acknowledge you are still under oath?
A Yes.
Q Now, when we broke, the passage we were
discussing in the article, was that
at the top of the second
column which says, "While
childrens' sexuality has
decided moral dimensions for most
Canadians, in a section titled "sex and young people" Professor
Christensen discusses these issues outside of a moral context." Now, just
to make it clear, before we discuss the rest of Chapter 8, by "moral
dimensions", do I understand correctly that you meant issues of right and
wrong?
MR. KOZAK: Well, Mr. Willis, don't
the words speak for themselves?
MR. WILLIS: Well, not really.
Dimensions is rather a vague word. Can
you help me out here? Did you mean anything different by the phrase "moral
dimensions" and the phrase "moral context"? Maybe that is a
better question to start
with.
MR. KOZAK: The question is, were
you differentiating between two things
in using moral dimensions here, and moral context at the end of the sentence?
193
A I
think in that sentence, we could quite easily replace "dimensions"
with "implications". While childrens' sexuality has decided moral
implications. That would be a substitute.
Q MR.
WILLIS: Well could we replace
context with dimensions? Could we say, "Professor Christensen discusses
these issues outside of moral dimensions"? Outside of any question of moral
dimensions, or without referring to their moral dimensions? I mean,
essentially, these are -- I'm asking you is this elegant variation the comparison between or pardon me.
The contrast between the attitude of most Canadians and the approach of Dr. Christensen?
Or do you mean anything different by those two phrases?
A I
think there is a subtle difference. I'm having a difficult time verbalizing
what it would be.
Q We
agree that morality is that topic that deals with society's concepts of right
and wrong. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And
indeed, that also deals with the issues of what is right and wrong for people
in our society apart from cultural anthropology.
A Yes.
Q When we
talk about a context, we're
talking about -- or when you spoke of a context in this
194
paragraph -- I'm sorry -- in which issues were
discussed, did you mean the context of the book as a whole?
A No.
I very clearly referred to a specific part of the book.
Q So
did you mean the reader to understand that while in the context of the book as
a whole, these issues might be - - the author might have discussed these issues
in a moral context. In that chapter, he did not?
A In
that section of that chapter there is a lack of moral clarity.
Q The
phrase you've just used, "lack of moral clarity". Is that in your
view, what you intended to convey by saying that the issues were discussed
outside of a moral context?
A I
think partly. I would however, add the caveat that you know, you're asking me
to remember what was in my mind when I wrote this. It was some time ago, and
that's difficult for me to recall precisely.
Q Alright.
Today, you would understand the word "context" to mean what? What do
you understand the word "context" to mean today?
A There
is a lack of a moral statement in that
section about children.
Q Alright
then. I appreciate that answer. You're
195
answering the question you think I'm about to ask, but
you've neglected to answer the one I just asked, which is what do you
understand the word "context" to mean, today, as we sit here?
A In
this particular line, or context generally?
Q Well,
perhaps it might be helpful if you explain what you understand the word
"context" to mean generally, and then what subset of meaning this
particular line conveys.
MR. KOZAK: Mr. Willis, can you explain to me how that is
relevant to the issues in this law suit given the fact that in the law suit,
what's in issue is what was conveyed as opposed to what she intended to convey
or what she thought words meant or
what you thought words mean?
MR. WILLIS: I can explain
it to you. I can put it in context for
you easily. I am about to suggest to the witness that in fact, had she
read the
rest of the chapter, she would
have seen -- I believe we've established in the book as a whole, the passage
that she relied on was in a moral context. I'm about to suggest to her that
even if she had trouble to read the rest of the chapter, she would have seen
that the statements made in the section were in a moral context. I want to make sure we're talking about the
same thing. The best way to make sure we're talking
196
about the same thing is to ask her what she meant by a word that
she used so that I don't -- so that I make sure that I'm getting a legitimate
admission, and not getting her to
make an admission based on some meaning that she does not attach to the
words. Fair? That's why I asked her to
read the whole of chapter 8 before she came back from lunch, so if we're
talking about context, perhaps the easiest way to make sure that we're on the
same page, is to find out what she means by it.
MR. KOZAK: Let's go off the
record for a second.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
MR. WILLIS: Confirming our
discussion off the record, Mr. Kozak, I understand that you object to my
asking the witness what she understands by the phrase, "Outside of a moral
context" that she used in the article. Correct?
MR. KOZAK: Right.
MR. WILLIS: Alright, and so we can
defer that to further applications
that we anticipate that we're going to have anyway.
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
MR. WILLIS: Thankyou. Well, now,
Ms. Laframboise, you've now read the
whole of Chapter 8. Would you agree that the -- in Chapter
197
8 as a whole, provides a moral context
for the discussion that is in the section entitled "sex and young
people"?
A Whether Chapter 8 provides a moral
context. I think it's useful to point
out that this discussion about sex and young people does not happen in Chapter
2. Chapter 2 is called "Sex and Values", where I would expect there
is a detailed discussion about moral values. In fact, it appears in the
chapter called "Sex and Psychological Health", and in fact, when I
read this over the break, I found numerous references to health. Again and again and again. This is a chapter
about psychological health. Now, there are a few references to morality, but I
would argue on close review, this is a chapter about, as the title indicates,
about psychological health. [Back]
Q Well, do you understand, from reading the
book as a whole, that the author believes that things that are inimical to
psychological health are bad and that things that promote psychological health
are good?
A Yes, but he makes a distinction between
moral issues and mental health, and in fact, his argument on the first page is about how people try to put the two together
and suggest that what is immoral is
actually mentally bad for your health. So he is
198
very clearly, at the beginning of this chapter, taken
those two issues and said quite distinct concepts. Let's talk about health, and
then proceeds to do that within the chapter.
Q Alright.
I understand that that's how you're reading this, but you understand, for
example, when you -- let me just stick with the first admission.
A M'hmm.
Q But
you understand from the book as a whole that the author feels strongly that
things that are bad for the psychological health of people, whether adults or
children, are morally wrong?
A Well,
not having read the book as a whole, as you've pointed out, I'm not sure it's
safe for me to comment on that.
Q Well,
when you -- you've referred to the beginning of Chapter 8, in which the author
talks about the common accusation that something is sick, immature, wrong, or
immoral. Are you -- I understand you to have suggested that you think the author
is opposing this with some kind of amoral stance?
A Opposing
what?
Q Well,
I just -- I'm not understanding --
A -- okay but let's look at the
first line.
Q Yes.
A The
first line says, "In addition to calling it morally wrong, humans have
blah blah blah blah
199
blah." So this suggests we had a
discussion about moral wrongness, and now we are turning to a new topic. The
new topic is suggesting that people who are doing things -- doing sexual things
may be mentally ill. We're going to the medicalization of sin, which he talks
about actually.
Q Alright.
A So he says we've had this moral discussion,
presumably in the last chapter. He's been talking about it, and now in addition
to that moral discussion, we are going to turn to a new topic.
Q Alright. And so are you saying that you
understand that new topic to be one without a moral dimension?
A Oh, I'm sure every topic in the world has
moral dimension, but he specifically said, "Okay, the moral argument's
aside. Let's have a discussion. That's what
we're going to talk about now. We're going to talk about the psychological
health."
Q Alright. I
understand that that's your interpretation of that. Now, then, for example, if
we look at the last paragraph on page 109, that immediately precedes the
section that says, "Sex and Young People", the last sentence is
"Genuine dangers like this one" - - talking about the AIDS epidemic,
"will not make moral and rational people embrace all the old irrational
and immoral attitudes against positive sexuality, though it is
200
certainly relevant to the question of what is moral and
prudent to do at present." Do you understand that to be a moral argument?
A Yes.
I would point out to you, however, that in that one paragraph,
"moral" and "immoral" appear five times.
Q Alright.
A They
appear only three times in the whole preceding seven pages.
Q Now,
do you understand this? Let me just
appreciate that you haven't read the whole book and in particular, Chapter 2.
But do you understand what the "harm" principle is?
A No.
I think you should explain it to me.
Q Alright. Did you -- do you understand when you read
this chapter that the author thinks that any conduct that involves emotional or
psychological harm is bad? Did you understand that?
A That the author believes that?
Q Yes.
A Sure.
Q Alright,
so then it becomes relevant to the author, for the author to weigh the evidence
as to whether certain conduct does in fact cause emotional harm. Does he have
to repeat at the end of every sentence that if it does, it's bad when he's said
it at the outset and says it at the end? That's my question.
201
Is it not obvious that when he has a
section called "Charges of Emotional Harm", and the next section
called "Harm from Anti-Sexualism", that he's trying to evaluate
whether or not things are harmful, having already made it clear that if they
are emotionally harmful, they are morally bad?
A Sure, but he's
talking about mental health.
Q Right, and is it not -- you see, when you
take it out of context, it looks perhaps that it's a discussion without a moral
dimension, but at the very beginning, he makes it clear, does he not, that that
which is truly psychologically or emotionally harmful is in his opinion,
morally wrong?
A Makes it clear.
Q Does he not?
A No. No, I don't think that that follows. I
think he's making a distinction between the two.
Q Well, are you honestly suggesting that when
you read the topics, "Emotional Harm" that the author is somehow, is
taking an aloof, cold, scientific attitude towards emotional harm, and that he
doesn't think emotional harm is bad, in the context of -- even just the chapter
as a whole. Forget the book as a whole.
A Sorry. Do I honestly think that --
Q Here's a section called
"Charges of Emotional
202
Harm". Right, and the author is evaluating whether
certain matters cause emotional harm or not. Is it not clear that the whole
context is the moral one since anything that causes -- any behaviour that
causes emotional harm, is in his opinion, wrong. Morally wrong?
A It
may be implied. I don't think it is clear as day. If you look underneath at
that text, under charges of emotional health, I see "health". I see
"unhealthy". I see
"health". I see "healthy". I see "mental health". I see "healthy". I see "mental or emotional harm." I
don't see "moral".
Q Well,
you'll agree with me that if one takes statements out of context, that is to
say the entire argument in which they are embedded, one can form a wrong
impression. You'll agree with that general --
A Absolutely.
Q Alright,
so that if we have a context in which the word "harm" is used, you're
under no illusion. The author is against harm. You understand that?
A Yes.
Q And
so the investigation -- so we can conclude without his having to say so at the
end of every sentence that anything that he finds emotionally harmful he would
say is morally wrong.
A Okay.
203
Q And
anything that he doesn't find emotionally harmful, he would say at least is not proven to be morally wrong. Do you
understand that?
A Sure.
Q So
given that he's investigating harm throughout the entire chapter --
A No.
He's investigating psychological health as the title of the chapter suggests. [Harm to
psychological health!]
Q So
when each subsection says "harm", you understand that what's being
investigated here -- sorry, and let me pu11 back from that. You'll agree that
the author is in favour of psychological health?
A Yes.
Q And
the author believes that that which promotes psychological health is good.
Correct?
A Yes.
Q And
that which harms psychological health is bad. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And
so in context, when we talk about the charges of emotional harm, emotional harm
is that which the author has establish, would truly harm psychological health.
Correct? That's what the author said in the very first introductory passage.
A I'm
sorry. Could you just repeat that.
Q Alright.
In the introductory passage to which you referred me, the author has distinguished between
204
people who he says are formulating
morally without any real knowledge.
A M'hmm.
Q And the question of what truly is harmful to
psychological health, and now he's going to go on in the rest of the chapter
and investigate that, so you've agreed with me, have you not, that the topic of
this chapter is psychological health of adults and children, and the effect of
pornography and certain kinds of sexual activity on that psychological health.
Correct?
A Yes.
Q And you've agreed with me that the author
makes it clear that he thinks that what promotes psychological health is
morally good, and what harms psychological health is morally bad. Correct?
A Yes.
Q So that we can understand from the context
that when the author investigates what causes emotional harm and what doesn't
cause emotional harm, he's
investigating what he thinks is good and what he thinks is bad. Correct?
A Sure.
Q So that
in the context of that, if you find somewhere that the author thinks that
something promotes psychological health, you may
205
confidentally infer that he believes it's morally good,
without his having to say that at the end of every sentence. Correct?
A Well,
I'm sorry to sound like I'm being a pain in the neck, but you know, I think
you've described it as an academic book.
Q I
haven't. I have not used that term at any time.
A I
do not assume that I read any book that you know,
there is a very proper -- it's very proper to discuss
ideas to explore notions, without assuming that the author necessarily agrees
with every word they put on paper. You know, that's okay.
Q Well--
A You
know, sometimes you say things because you're exploring. Because you're developing ideas. Because you
are being provocative. Not necessarily because you agree with it all. You know, I'm sorry. I'm probably just
splitting hairs, but you know, I'm having a hard time.
Q Well,
could you just re-read the last question please, madam reporter.
(OFF THE RECORD)
(QUESTION PLAYED BACK)
MR. WILLIS: Back on the record. Unfortunately the reporter is having
difficulty finding my last question, but the reason I wanted it read back was
because, and just pause so that
206
your counsel can jump in. Your answer,
although helpful in revealing your attitudes was what I have to characterize as
not a responsive one. I asked you whether you would agree with me, that when
you read this chapter, it's clear
that when the author finds something promotes psychological health, he finds
that it's good. When he finds it does not promote psychological health, he
finds that it is not morally good or morally wrong, so I asked you that
question. You then, as I recall, went into a disquisition about how you were having difficulty because one need
not always say what one means. One
may say something for the sake of shocking. If I can help you out, as John --
Cane said, "words should always be a little wild, for they are the
assaults of thought upon the unthinking" so you seem to have been taking
that point. Now, while that's an interesting digression, I need to pursue you
on this point. I need you to agree with
me that when you read this chapter as a whole, although the term,
"psychological health" taken in isolation and apart from any context
might appear to be a cold scientific term, this author is clear that he thinks
that what promotes psychological health is morally good, and what does not is
not morally good, or at least is at best, neutral. Can you -- my last question
was to get you to agree
207
with me on that, and then you sort of
went off on what I -- I hope I'm not unfairly characterizing as a tangent,
though an interesting and invaluable one, so can I get you back to my question?
A Is it clear
that - -
Q Do you want me to try again?
A No, no.
Just give me a moment. You're
asking me if it's clear to me what the author intends.
Q No.
A To say.
Q Let me then try again. Did we not agree that we can see that the
author is in favour of psychological health?
A Yes.
Q We agreed that he thought that was good.
A Right.
Q And we agreed that he is against anything
that does not in his opinion, promote psychological health. Correct?
A Sure.
Q And
we see that in the opening paragraphs of Chapter 8, he distinguishes between
people who make wild statements about what is sick and what is not sick, with
what the evidence is as to what promotes psychological health and what does
not. Correct?
A Right.
Q He then goes on in the rest of
the chapter, under
208
the rubrics "Charges of Emotional
Harm" and "Harm from Anti-Sexualism" before he comes to the next rubric "Sex and Young
People" to investigate and identify some things that he thinks promote
psychological health and some things that he thinks are -- do not promote
psychological health or are inimical to it. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And I'm simply asking you to agree with me
that as we've read through that chapter, when we see him concluding that
something promotes psychological health, we can conclude that he thinks it's
good.
A Sure,
Q And when we see him concluding that
something is inimical to psychological health, we can conclude that he thinks it's bad.
A Okay.
Q Right, and that's what I'm saying, so that in context, we even though as you
say, we see the word, "psychological health" many times in this
chapter, and the words "morality" or words that specifically connote
morality only in the headings. No emotional harm, harm from anti-sexualism,
harm being a loaded word of course, and the key word in evaluating morality in
the author's scheme. Yet in context, we see that this whole chapter is about
what the author considers good and bad, right and
209
wrong. Correct?
A That's
certainly one way to read the chapter.
Q Right, that's one way to read the chapter, is
that in the context of the whole chapter, the whole chapter, ironically, is
about good and bad, right and wrong. Is about morals. Not outside of moral
context, but on the other hand, entirely in a moral context. That's another way
to read that chapter, isn't it?
A What's another way to read the chapter?
Sorry?
Q The exact opposite of what you said in your
article. You said, Professor Christensen discusses these issues outside of a
moral context, but does it not follow from the discussion that we've just had
that another way to read that chapter, with respect, the way that you've agreed
with, is that the entire chapter is all about morality and the entire context
is moral.
MR. KOZAK: She hasn't agreed
with that description. She hasn't
agreed that that is clear, She has said that that is one interpretation.
MR. WILLIS: Well sir, I think I've
got enough so that when we get to
court, I will be able to pursue this line of reasoning and see where it takes
us. I think I have the agreements that I require. Thank you. But you're
objecting to my
210
last question on the grounds that it
calls for a conclusion from the witness perhaps?
MR. KOZAK No. That it doesn't
accurately reflect her earlier answer.
She refused to go along with your suggestion that it was clear. She did agree
with you when you said that one interpretation is that this chapter is all
about what is right and wrong. She agreed that's one interpretation. You then
came back to her saying that this chapter is exactly the opposite of what she
stated in her article, and that's wrong. She said it's one interpretation.
MR. WILLIS: Alright. And, I accept
what you say there. What I meant was so if one
interpretation is that this chapter is
entirely about right and wrong, then one interpretation is that the whole
chapter is in the context of the discussion of right and wrong. Correct?
That's one interpretation.
A Sorry. You're asking me, or is this part of
your discussion with --
Q Yes. Given that you've agreed with me that
one plausible interpretation of this chapter is that it's all about right and
wrong, since in the author's eyes, that which is psychologically healthy is
that which is good and right, then another interpretation of this chapter would
be
211
since it's all about right and wrong,
then the entire chapter is in a moral context.
Correct? The entire chapter is in
the context of a discussion about what's right and wrong. Therefore I suggest
to you that you'll agree with me that one interpretation of this chapter is
that everything in the chapter is in the context of a discussion of what's
right and wrong, i.e., a discussion of morality. Agreed? You needn't look at your counsel.
He'll object if he thinks it's wrong.
MR. KOZAK: I did have my hand
up. I did earlier because when you
went back to revisit the issue, you added the adjective, "plausible".
We were talking about one interpretation before. When you revisited it, you
said, "a plausible interpretation".
That's a little different than what she had said before.
MR. WILLIS: Alright. Let me say
that then. You've agreed with me that
since everything in this chapter is about psychological health, and since the
author takes the view that psychological health is good, and that which
promotes it is good, and psychological ill health is bad, and that which does
not promote it is bad, that it could be said that the whole chapter is about
what the author considers to be right and
wrong.
212
A It
could be said.
Q And
you wouldn't disagree with that. In other words, if someone said that, you
would say that's one plausible or valid interpretation, wouldn't you?
A I
would say it could be said.
Q And
would you not go further than that and say it could plausibly or validly be
said or that's a reasonable interpretation of that chapter?
A No.
I don't think I would want to go that far.
Q Alright.
I think you went this far with me. You agreed with me that the entire chapter
is about what the author considers psychologically healthy and what he doesn't.
Correct?
A Right.
Q You
agreed with me that without exception in this book --
A No.
Not without exception in the entire book. I certainly did not make that
agreement.
Q Alright.
Without exception in the chapter, then, that whatever the author considers
promotes psychological health, he considers morally right and good. Correct?
A I
think I agreed to that, but not with the term "without
exception". Before I agree to any
sentence that said "without exception", I would have to go back and
look at this one more time. So
213
if you want to take the "without
exception" out of there, and say, "Generally, that's my
impression", yes.
Q Alright.
Having read this chapter, you can't think of any instance in this
chapter in which that which the author considers to promote psychological
health, is viewed as other than morally right and good, can you?
A No.
Q Similarly, you can't think of anything in
this chapter in which that which the author thinks is contrary to psychological
health is considered to be other than bad and morally wrong. Correct?
A Correct.
Q So that when one reads through this chapter
and one sees the word psychological health, whereas outside of context, that
may appear to be merely a scientific term, in the context that this chapter,
you'll agree with me, that every time psychological health is mentioned, that
you can recall, it's a morally laden term, because it imports moral good and
right. Correct?
A Correct.
Q And similarly, conversely, every time
psychological ill health, or things that are bad for psychological health are
mentioned, this is not a pure cold scientific term the way the author uses
214
it, for it means something that he
thinks is morally wrong and bad. Correct?
A Correct.
Q So now I'm asking you to agree with me. I'm
asking you to go further. I'm saying,
having gone that far with me, are you not obliged to agree as well that the
entire chapter, so far as you can recall, because it deals with -- directly
with psychological health, which for the author is a morally loaded term, is in
context, a chapter that is entirely devoted to what the author considers moral
issues?
A No, I'm sorry. I've gone that far with you,
and that's as far as I feel comfortable going.
Q I can't understand how there could be any
other inference that you could draw. Can you help me out there? If every time,
the word "psychological health" is used, it implies a moral judgment,
then in context, don't we have a chapter that is entirely about morals? How
could we say otherwise?
A No.
It's not entirely about morals.
There may be a moral thread that runs through but it is a chapter about
psychological health. I'm sorry.
Q Well, you keep repeating that word, but now
you've agreed with me that we could substitute for -- the way the author uses
psychological health, it imports moral rightness and good. Correct? So, at
215
least you will agree with me -- having
agreed with me about the author's use of psychological health and ill health in
context, you have to admit, there's no way that you could fairly say that the
section or the chapter discusses these issues outside of moral context?
A I disagree.
I'm sorry.
Q Well, I certainly have your position. Thank
you. Now, there's something else I really need to do to set up our
applications, but let's go off the record for a minute.
MR. KOZAK: Sure.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
MR. WILLIS: Confirming our discussion off
the record, Mr. Kozak, let me state the undertaking that I understand the
witness, and of course, The National Post will be fulfilling. With regard to
the matters that have been redacted because of a claim of confidential source,
they fall into two kinds. The first transcripts which have been collected under
Tab 19, and the second, things that are blacked out which are at various places
throughout the materials, and I understand that you will undertake in the first
place, to identify those materials which have been so redacted. In the second
place, to advise which of them were relied upon in the preparation of the
216
article, and in the third place, to
indicate your reasons for requiring that the source remain confidential.
MR. KOZAK: We will provide you with
that undertaking.
MR. WILLIS: Alright. Now, let's go
off the record for a minute.
UNDERTAKING
NO. 22
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
Q Now, I would like to return you again after
that long digression -- digression upon a digression perhaps, to your tape
recording of Mr. Bouvier which I think we have now agreed was on Thursday,
March 22nd, at about ten in the morning, and that is Number 30. Tab 30. Now, although -- have you got that in
front of you?
A Yes, I do.
Q Now, although we haven't got the timing
exactly straightened around, we do know that by the time you spoke to Mr.
Bouvier, you had spoken to everyone else except for Dr. Christensen. Is that
not correct?
A No. I don't believe that's the case.
Q Is there someone else you hadn't spoken to?
A All I can tell you is that I believe that
prior to speaking to Mr. Bouvier, I spoke to Carolyn Vanee and Brian St.
Germain and Mr. Adams.
217
Q And
Mr. Leberge?
A And
Mr. Leberge directly before. That's right.
Q And
what about of course, Louise Malenfant?
You had spoken to her?
A Some
days before I had spoken to her. Right.
Q And
continually received a barrage of e-mails from her throughout this time. What
about the sources? Had you spoken to all of them?
A I
don't believe so. I believe those came
after, but that's just to the best of my recollection.
Q On
what basis do you think that you hadn't spoken to -- let me stop there. Did you
have a day timer or anything like that? It hasn't been produced.
A I
have a phone pilot.
Q And--
A But
who I would speak to in my phone pilot are my
-- you know,
doctors appointments. Appointments for special guests who are coming in to
speak to us as an editorial board. I would not be putting this kind of detail
in my phone pilot.
Q So
as far as you know now -- of course, we've got an undertaking, but as far as
you know now, we can't really tell when you talked to the confidential sources?
A As
far as I know now, no, there's no records left.
Q When
you approach them to ask them whether they still care to be confidential, would
you also ask
218
them if they can recall when you spoke to them?
MR. KOZAK: Yes,
we'll do that.
UNDERTAKING NO. 23
Q MR. WILLIS: But also, I suppose
that the telephone records will help us too, won't they?
A Yes.
Q Well
now, you see, if you look at -- let's look at 00349. Let me give you some idea
of why I thought that this was before you had talked to Mr. Bouvier. Now, you
will recall that in your -- the transcript of Mr. Bouvier, you told him that
you talked to your editor, and that you got him a reprieve.
MR. KOZAK: What letter are you looking at?
MR. WILLIS: U00349.
MR. KOZAK: Thank you.
Q MR.
WILLIS: Now,
incidentally, just before I get to this, do you have the dates when you
completed the various drafts of the story? I mean, I appreciate that they're
going to be the subject of an application, but how many drafts did you do and
when were they done?
A I
can't tell you how many. I'm sorry. I don't remember. What I can tell you is
that some of the print-outs have in tiny little type along the bottom, a time
and date. Not all of them but some
219
of the hard copies of the various versions of the story
do.
Q What's
the first one?
A I'm sorry. I don't know.
Q Did
you say that you have them here, Mr. Kozak?
Can you look at them and refresh the witness's
memory, while preserving the privilege? I just
want to find out when the different drafts were made.
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
Perhaps we
should take a five minute break. I haven't brought the
privileged documents in and I can get that information for you, and then we can
reconvene in five minutes.
MR. WILLIS: Okay. Thank you.
(ADJOURNMENT)
MR. WILLIS: Okay, I'll put that
to the witness, but you've got some information for me?
MR. KOZAK: Yes.
The dates on the
newspaper articles that we saw were March 26th, March
27th, and March 30th. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q MR.
WILLIS: Okay.
MR. KOZAK: Just so
that you get
a complete picture. There are a
couple of hard
copies that have no date on it. In other words,
220
what appears at the bottom -- so those are the only dates of the articles
that we've got.
MR. WILLIS: But if your computer
is like most of them, it will show
when you did various things on it?
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
MR. WILLIS: Alright. Confirming
our discussion off the record, you've
reviewed the hard copies of the draft articles that you have, and there are
three with dates on them. March 26th,
March 27th, and 30th. There are several others that have no dates on them.
Correct?
MR. KOZAK: That's correct.
MR. WILLIS: And again, confirming
our discussion off the record, we
already have an undertaking with respect to the disks which perhaps you will
give us the dates of preparation of the text that might not necessarily have
been printed out?
MR. KOZAK: That's correct.
MR. WILLIS: Now, I found the
passage I was looking for and that's
U003l9. Now, this is -- this is the first confidential source I think, or is it
the second. Let me see. It's the first confidential source in Tab 19, and at
the bottom of 319, the source says, "Well, when are you going to do this
story? D.L. Well, we'd like to
221
run it this Saturday if I can get it
together in time. Source: Oh, that's -- that's pretty quick. D.L. Yeah, that's
our goal." And then over the next
page, "Because you know, the election was last week, right." So I'm
inferring from this, and does this help refresh your memory, since you told
Bouvier that you had obtained permission from your editor before you spoke to
him, to give E.C.M.A.S. a reprieve for the weekend and a day or so afterwards,
to see what they could do, this must have been before you spoke to Bouvier.
Correct?
A I can't say for certain, but that would seem
to be a reasonable inference.
Q And now, do you recall whether you did these
all on the same day or can you tell from where they are on the tape that they
were --
A No. They were on various tapes, and I don't
know for certain, but I would expect that they were not all done on the same
day.
Q Alright, but at least at this point, you
can't remember anybody that you hadn't spoken to other than Dr. Christensen, by
the time you spoke to Mr. Bouvier. Correct?
A No, no. That's not the case at all. I feel
that definitely I spoke to Carolyn Vanee, to Brian St. Germain, to [Tim] Adams,
to Mike Leberge and it appears this confidential source. The other ones I
222
can't -- the other ones I feel quite
strongly would have occurred after.
Q Right, but you don't have any specific
memory. You can't say for sure?
A No.
Q Let me just run through some of the things
in these sources here. The first confidential source, if I could just draw your
attention to page 302, I just want to ask about your
procedure here. Now,
you started recording the conversation right from the outset, and then when we
get to page 302, the source says, "Are you recording this?" You then
answer, "Um, I'm taking some notes. Would you mind if I turned my tape
recorder on?" The fellow says "no". You say, "okay".
Is it your normal practice not to tell people that you're recording your coversation?
A Yes.
Q And in this
case, so if you're -- so normally you record conversations, but you don't ask
their permission?
A That's right.
Q Now then, as
in this case, if they ask you whether you're recording it, is it your normal
practice not to tell them that in fact, you've already been recording it?
A No. I don't think it's my
normal practice. I
223
think in this
case, I made a split second decision, and I lied, and that was a lapse in
judgment. [Back]
Q So
with regard to this first source, now I read through all of these sources, and
it seemed that every one you spoke to knew before you told them, that [Tim]
Adams was a disbarred lawyer. Is that correct?
A I'm
sorry. I don't know. I would have to go back and review.
Q Alright. I've reviewed it, and I mean, for example, if
you look at this first source on page
26, --
MR. KOZAK: Is
that 326?
MR. WILLIS: 324. Page 324, you asked, "Who tells you
that [Tim] has been disbarred?" The source says, "Yeah, I think I just
asked [Tim], or you know, I can't say for sure if somebody whispered it to me
that I just confronted [Tim]" and so forth, so but as I've read through
here, it seemed that everybody that you talked to already knew that [Tim] Adams
was a disbarred lawyer. Could I ask you to undertake to confirm that for me?
A Sure.
UNDERTAKING NO.
24
Q On
the other hand, nobody that you talked to had read Dr. Christensen's book.
Correct? Except for
224
Louise Malenfant?
A As far as I can recall, I think that's
correct.
Q Alright. If a review reveals to the
contrary, you'll advise me through your solicitor?
A Sure.
MR. KOZAK: I'm sorry. Just off the
record.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
UNDERTAKING
NO. 25
Q MR. WILLIS: As
well, from what I
can gather, nobody that you talked to
had any idea what Ferrell Christensen's views were on the subject of childhood
sex?
A No, I don't think I could agree with that.
Q Alright. Can you -- except of course, Louise
Melanfant. Forgive me. I meant to -- Is there anyone else who seems to have had
any --
A I'm sorry. Again, it's one of those
situations where I have to go back and read the transcripts.
Q Alright. I was unable to find. Now, there is
a passage I can direct your attention to that you may be thinking of. At page
321, your source says, "Ferrell Christensen has some, you know, perhaps
questionable ideas." It doesn't say what they are, but let me put it to
you this way, I think so it's clearer.
There are obviously some people who talked to Louise Melanfant and got
some second-hand
225
idea of what was in Dr. Christensen's
book from Louise Melanfant, but I'm asking you to confirm to me through your
solicitor that prior to the dissemination by Louise Melanfant of her version of
Dr. Christensen's book, you are not aware that anyone you talked to had any
idea of what Dr. Christensen's views were on the issue of childhood sex or
indeed, pornography. Correct? I'm asking
you to make that undertaking. You've
said you think maybe somebody did, but you can't remember who.
MR. KOZAK: And I just want to be
certain what she's being asked to do.
I think that she can undertake to look through these things. That is the
produceable documents, to advise you as to whether or not any of the witnesses
appear to have been aware of Dr. Christensen's views on childhood sex, through
some source other than Louise Melanfant. That is probably all she can undertake
to do. As opposed to going back to them and asking them --
MR. WILLIS:
You're stating the undertaking that I meant to ask for.
MR. KOZAK: We understand and we will
undertake to do that.
Q MR. WILLIS: Now, as I understand
what happened here, the first piece of
information
226
that you had that got you going on
this story actually was what you got from Louise Melanfant on the 14th? The
extract from Dr. Christensen's book?
A No, not at all. Not at all.
What got me interested in the story was the election of [Tim] Adams.
Q Alright, and that you found out in the
telephone call from Louise Melanfant on March 12th or so?
A No. I think it happened on the evening of
March 12th of the election, and I'm presuming that some time in the next few
days, there was a telephone call.
Q Alright.
In fact I see -- you know, the funny thing is that I can only find one
e-mail from you to Louise Melanfant. Are you sure that's all that you ever
sent? I'll point it out to you. The e-mails of Malenfant are -- sorry. There is
two e-mails. One is 17 -- no. That's from Louise Melanfant too. In Tabs 17, 17A and 17B, I have just located
one. I have only located one e-mail from you, and that is one dated March
14th. It's on page S00194. March 14th, 2001, 1:34 p.m. Subject re.
Interesting quotes from an E.C.M.A.S. member. Thank you for everything. Could
you tell
-- and then you blacked out the next
part. Do I presume correctly that the interesting quotes are the ones that were
the copies of the e-mails to
227
Walter Schneider with extracts from
the book. That is at 0184, sent 11:33, March 14th, and 0178, sent a minute
earlier at 11:32.
A Sorry. The only one that I see is not
actually an e-mail that I sent, but a copy that is attached to an e-mail that
Louise sent.
Q Okay. It says, "Original message from
Laframboise, Donna.
A Right.
Q To Malenfant, Louise." You're right.
One of the things that I'm having trouble with is I don't have the originals of
any of your e-mails that I can find here. Even the one where you obviously
e-mailed Louise Malenfant a copy of your questions, to Ferrell Christensen,
because she wrote you back saying how wonderful and insightful your questions
were, but I don't have actual copies of your e-mails.
A I can't tell you how many e-mails I sent.
What I can tell you is that I'm sure like everyone on the planet, I don't keep
every e-mail that's sent to me, and I don't print out every e-mail that I send
to other people.
Q Well, of course, I've asked you to check,
but I can only -- the only record of an e-mail -- there are piles of e-mails
from Malenfant to you, but the only record of an e-mail that I have here is
this
228
one which is contained in her e-mail in which you
thank her for the quotes. Now,
I'm assuming
because it's 1:34 p.m., March 14th, that you're thanking
her for the things that were sent at 11:33 and 11:32, on March 14th, namely the
quotes and
comments from Dr. Christensen's book. Can you
remember that?
A I can't remember that.
Q Alright. Is there anything else
that that could
refer to that you can think of off hand?
A No.
Q Now,
maybe I'm wrong here, but can I -- are there any other e-mails in here to which
you could direct my attention? From you -- see, for example, there is the one
that you must have sent to Louise Malenfant. You must have sent her an e-mail
that contained your questions to Dr. Christensen. Right?
A Right.
Q Can you find it for me? It's
very possible that I
could have
overlooked it. I was looking through last -- off the record.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
Q So
you'll undertake to see and perhaps if you could inquire. I think I sort of
asked you this for this undertaking earlier, but in case I didn't phrase it
broadly enough, if you could ask Louise Malenfant
229
to provide copies of any in correspondence from you to
her, or any notes that she has of conversations between you and her since we
don't have your notes or your copies. Would you do that please?
MR. KOZAK: Well,
we can make that
inquiry.
MR. WILLIS: Alright.
UNDERTAKING NO.
26
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
Q So we have that undertaking on
the record then.
A Yes.
Q That
you'll inquire of Louise Malenfant. Now,
let's look at 321 of the first source who says, --
A Sorry, which tab are we on?
Q Yes.
Now, I'm about to ask you a few questions about what you learned about
E.C.M.A.S. itself as an organization. I forgot to suggest a break this morning.
Do you want to make a few minutes and -- about ten minutes?
A Sure.
Q And
then we'll go to 4:30, if that's alright.
(ADJOURNMENT)
Q MR. WILLIS: Just to follow up,
when we broke, I was asking you
about E.C.M.A.S.
What did you know about
E.C.M.A.S. before you
heard about the election of March 12th?
A I knew it was associated with
E.C.M.A.S. Calgary,
230
and I had previously interviewed a
number of people from E.C.M.A.S. Calgary, actually, over a number of years, and
quoted them various articles, so and I was very impressed by E.C.M.A.S. Calgary. I assumed that E.C.M.A.S. Edmonton was as
marvellous an organization, doing equally valuable things.
Q And had you had discussions with Louise
Malenfant before March 12th, about her move to Edmonton from Winnipeg?
A Yes.
Q Now, you believed Louise Malenfant to be a
reliable source and a reliable
and truthful person, did you?
A Yes, I did.
Q Had you ever checked into Louise Malenfant's background
when in 1998, you did stories based on information supplied by her?
A No.
Q Did you ever
do any check into her background?
A No. [Back]
Q For example, did Louise Malenfant ever
supply you with a pile of materials, references, articles about herself?
A I think at some point she sent me a few
newspaper clippings, probably from The Winnipeg Sun.
Q Did Louise Malenfant ever tell you
about the difficulties she had had with Child Welfare in Winnipeg, involving
the -- involving her daughters
231
being taken by
Child Welfare from her custody?
A Yes. I think she
told me that in the first
conversation.
Q And what did she tell you?
A She told me it was the fact that her
daughter had been taken into care that radicalized her. That
was the germ of
where her activism came from. Obviously I'm paraphrasing but --
Q And did she tell you why her daughter had
been taken into care?
A I think she did, but I don't remember.
Q Did you check to see what sort of conduct
she had
engaged in? That had caused her daughter
to be
taken into care?
A No.
Q Did you ask her about that?
A No, because
I think she -- you know, she had given me details.
I just don't remember now what they
were.
Q Did Louise Malenfant tell you what her
living arrangements were in Winnipeg while she was working for her parents,
helping parents group?
A I can't recall.
Q Did you know what her living arrangements
were?
A I can't recall.
Q Were you aware of any controversy in
Winnipeg about Louise Malenfant's conduct, honesty or lifestyle?
232
A Sorry. Can we just go through that question --
Q Alright. Were you aware -- did you have any
information about
any controversy in Winnipeg about Louise Malenfant's conduct, other than of
course, that which resulted in her daughters being apprehended?
A I don't believe so.
Q Were you aware of any controversy about her
lifestyle?
A I don't believe so.
Q Were you aware of any controversy about her
honesty or reliability in Winnipeg?
A At one point, we had a discussion in which
that issue came up.
Q And what do you recall about that
discussion?
A She told me that she had a criminal record.
Q And did she tell you what it was for?
A She told me it was for theft.
Q Did she explain anything else about that?
A She explained that when that incident had
occurred, that she had had an alcohol problem and that she had since overcome
her addiction.
Q And did you take any steps to verify or
investigate her story?
A I'm not sure what steps would have been
possible.
Q For example, ask her for a copy of her
criminal record?
233
A No, I didn't.
Q Or ask other people what they knew about
her activities or alcohol problem?
A No, I did not. [Back]
Q Did
you know whether there was any connection between her alcohol problem and the
apprehension of her daughter?
A That
may have been part of our discussion but I don't recall.
Q She
of course told you that what radicalized her was that her daughter was wrongly
apprehended. Correct?
A No.
I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that she could --
I'm sorry. The conversation that we're referring
to occurred in 1998, and I have not reviewed it, so I
don't remember.
Q Were
you aware of any emotional problems that Louise Malenfant's daughter had or
continues to have?
A I
think Louise has from time to time made comments
about
her daughter. I don't think that I could
characterize them as emotional problems.
Q Were
you aware of any difficulties with the police that Louise Malenfant's daughter
had?
A I
don't believe so.
Q Do
you have any information about what kind of parent Louise Malenfant has been to
her daughter?
234
A I
don't believe so.
Q Now,
I understand that you yourself, are from a fairly large working class family,
but you don't have any children, do you?
A First
of all, I'm from a working class family, but it's not terribly large.
Q Oh,
sorry. I thought there were -- I mis-read.
A And
what was the second part of the question?
Q You
don't have any children yourself?
A No,
I don't.
Q Do
you have any experience caring for children?
A Nieces,
nephews, friends' kids, children.
Q Just
sort of informally? In other words, you've never worked as a teacher or as a
care giver for children or anything of that kind?
A No.
Q Now,
I presume in your -- have you ever taken any courses that directly bear on the
question of marriages, families, children -- let's put it this way. Courses
which would enable you to assess the value of E.C.M.A.S.?
A I
don't believe so.
Q Okay.
How about childhood sexuality and that sort of thing? Have you ever taken any
courses on developmental psychology or anything that would bear on issues of
childhood sexuality?
A No.
235
Q Now, in this first interview, there's just
one other small point I noticed, and page 334.
Now, the informant is saying, "Promise not to put my name. D.L. - I
promise. Cross my heart. Okay I want to
be your friend, Donna. D.L.: No, no, no, no, no. You can trust me. Okay.
D.L. No, I -- and informant says, oh yeah, famous last words. D.L. says, "Well, what can I say. There are some
journalists who lie and I'm not one of them." Now, when you said
that of course, you remember that you just finished lying to the guy about whether you
had the tape recorder on. Right?
A That's right. I suppose I was making the
distinction between little white lies and premeditated deliberate lying.
Q Well, the reason that you made that split
decision which you have very candidly conceded was a mistake was simply because
you were afraid that if a man knew that you already had the tape recorder on,
without his permission, that he might lose confidence in you and not talk to
you. Right?
A That was certainly a possibility. In my
view or in my experience as a journalist, it's very difficult to call up a
stranger and ask them to start talking to you. Telling them that they're being
taped unfortunately has the effect of making people uneasy.
236
Q So
if you have to tell them a white lie, sometimes that's a regretable necessity
in your experience?
A I
cannot remember committing that mistake on any other occasion.
Q Similarly,
people like to think that they are your friends. For example, you know that
Louise Malenfant thinks you're her friend, don't you?
A I'm
not sure that I necessarily know that.
Q Well,
you certainly have, like all of us, no problem in allowing people to think that
they are your friends, even if from your point of view, they are only sources
or informants?
A No.
I don't think I would agree with that.
Q Alright,
so do you know that Louise Malenfant thinks of you as her friend?
A I
have no idea what is in Louise Malenfant's mind.
Q Well,
the devil himself, they say knoweth not the mind of man, but Louise Malenfant
has expressed herself in glowing terms of adulation to you, has she not?
A I
have no direct knowledge of that.
Q What
about the e-mails that we have here. You have direct knowledge of how she's
expressed herself, do you not? Do I have
to go over them to you? Will you not admit that Louise Malenfant has expressed
herself in terms of great admiration. I almost said "fawning
admiration".
237
A Just
because I admire someone, doesn't mean I consider them my friend.
Q Alright.
When Louise Malenfant phoned you to
recite to you her song lyrics, crying, if I understand
correctly, do you - - did you not think that that was something that she did
because she thought you were her friend?
A My
memory of that conversation is very different. My memory is of a lengthy
conversation in which at one point she recited a song. I certainly don't
remember any crying.
Q So
your testimony is that you don't know whether Louise Malenfant considers
herself your friend or not?
A Yes.
I think that would be fair.
Q Do
you have an opinion? Do you think that she
considers herself your friend?
A I don't want to speculate.
I'm sorry.
Q Okay,
and you don't -- in your own mind, you don't
even
think about it? You don't have an opinion.
Is that what you're saying?
A I don't have. I'm sorry. I
--
Q Do
you have an opinion. I'm simply asking
you. I'm not asking you to speculate.
I'm asking you what you think. Do you have an opinion? Do you think that Louise
Malenfant believes herself to be your friend?
238
A I
think we had a very friendly, cordial relationship.
Q Alright.
Once again you've given a helpful answer, only slightly off point on this
occasion. You've correctly said that how does one really know what is in the
mind of another human being, etcetera, etcetera. True, but one has opinions and
makes judgments, and so my question is, don't you agree with me, that even
though you don't know for sure whether Louise Malenfant considers herself your
friend, you believe that she considers herself your friend. Right?
A I
have no opinion.
Q How
about you? Do you consider yourself Louise Malenfant's friend?
A No,
I don't.
Q You
just consider yourself a person who has a friendly and cordial relationship
with a reliable news source?
A That
would be an accurate description.
Q Thank
you. Have you ever paid -- or the Natiional Post. Has anyone ever paid Louise
Malenfant any money for anything she has done?
A I
can't speak for the rest of the National Post, but I have not.
Q Now,
did you know -- did Louise Malenfant tell you when she was leaving Winnipeg?
Did she call you
239
and tell, you?
A We
had discussions around that time. I don't remember if she called me on the day.
Q And
did you know how much money Dr. Christensen was paying her from his old age
savings?
A I
don't recall.
Q Did
you ask her?
A I
don't expect that I would have asked her.
Q Didn't
you think that was relevant? I mean, you thought it was relevant how much money
[Tim] Adams was making from E.C.M.A.S.
A No,
I'm sorry.
Q You
found out that [Tim] Adams was making about $2,500.00 a year from E.C.M.A.S.,
didn't you?
A I
don't remember that number.
Q Alright,
well, I can show it to you. I guess I'll show it to you later, because [Tim]
Adams disclosed his income to you in your conversation. Didn't you know that
Louise Malenfant was getting paid $2,000.00 a month by Dr. Christensen?
A No.
Q Did
you ever ask Louise Malenfant how much money she made from her activities
either with parents helping parents or subsequently, in Edmonton?
A No,
I did not.
Q You
knew of course, that that was how she made her living, and in no other way,
didn't you?
240
A No.
My impression was that she was collecting social assistance.
Q Right,
but you knew she was collecting social assistance, but you also knew that she
was charging people money for her assistance. She was charging particularly men
money, for her assistance in their custody or maintenance battles, didn't you?
A No,
I don't think I did.
Q Did
you not know that Louise Malenfant was directly competing as a para Legal with
[Tim] Adams?
A No.
Q You
didn't ask?
A No,
I did not.
Q When
you knew from Louise Malenfant that she as she put it, despised Ferrell
Christensen, or had a great hatred for him, didn't it occur to you that you
ought to check her bona fides?
A Sorry.
Because she despises Professor Christensen, I ought to have what?
Q Didn't
you think you should perhaps check her reliability in this case?
A I
had a relationship with Louise that extended back several years. Just because
she has a disagreement with someone --
Q Didn't
you consider that her motives for suddenly attacking Dr. Christensen, and
indeed, [Tim] Adams, whom she had known about for some months, ought to
241
be investigated?
A I
was aware that she had had a parting of ways with Dr. Christensen. She did not make a secret of that.
Q For
example, if it's an important story that a philosophy professor has
controversial views about
custody
matters, couldn't it be equally
controversial that a person who's child was apprehended
is helping people with custody matters? Isn't that part of the story?
A No,
I'm sorry. I did not consider that.
Q Just
because it's mud, you wouldn't necessarily sling it. I mean, why isn't it part
of the story? You've got a picture of Louise Malenfant permanently featured in
your story. Isn't her background, character and reliability part of the story?
A I
have no control over what photograph was used with that story.
Q Nor
did you investigate. That wasn't my question. You didn't -- oh, alright. You
had no control over the photograph, but you've admitted that you made no
investigation of Louise Malenfant's bona fides or background. Correct?
A If
you're talking about a formal investigation, no, I did not.
Q
Are you saying If you had known that there was
242
going to be a big picture of Louise Malenfant in the
story, that you would have made such an investigation?
A No.
Q Didn't
it occur to you that Louise Malenfant had lots of motives to lie and distort
things, both about [Tim] Adams and Dr. Christensen?
A Based
on my long relationship, or you know, reasonably long. Several years in length
relationship, I felt that Louise was a very reliable source.
Q Well,
but you've admitted during the course of this relationship, that you never took
any steps to verify anything she said about yourself, did you? You never
checked it?
A That's
right.
Q She
was useful to you and therefore you didn't care about checking her background.
Correct?
A That's
right.
Q Now,
I would like to just go back to your interview with Mr. Bouvier, and in
particular, oh, but before I do that though. Did you know the difference
between E.C.M.A.S. and Merge?
A I
knew that Merge existed. Vaguely have
some memory of Merge, but it wasn't particularly --
Q Now,
what did you understand the mandate of E.C.M.A.S. to be?
243
A To assist parents going through divorce and
separation with their divorce and separation and maintenance related issues.
Q Of course, we have custody, maintenance and
access.
E.C.M.A.S. -- C.M.A. Correct? So there's all
those things?
A -- as well. Unfortunately under that rubric
comes a lot of false sexual abuse allegations as well.
Q Alright. Now, I think you've admitted, that
as far as you know, until Louise Malenfant took this up as one of her projects,
no one in E.C.M.A.S. knew anything about Professor Christensen's views about
other pornography or childhood sexuality as far as you know. Correct? As far as you can recall at this moment?
MR. KOZAK: Well, that's
the subject of an undertaking.
MR. WILLIS: Alright. How would
Professor Christensen's views on
pornography be relevant to the volunteer work that he did for
E.C.M.A.S.?
A In my view, not at all.
Q Now, how would professor Christensen's
views in his book -- the views that we have been discussing. How would they be
relevant to the volunteer work that he did for
E.C.M.A.S.?
A Sorry. His views on what?
244
Q His
views on childhood sexuality as expressed in his book? How would they be
relevant?
A They're
relevant because when you are trying to convince someone that you are not a
sexual abuser, it is wise to have advocates or people -- a support group behind
you that is very, very, very clear that child sexual abuse is wrong.
Q Now,
that's really interesting, because that's a little bit of a different
slant. You're saying that in some way,
this book suggests that child sexual abuse isn't wrong?
A Unfortunately
I think there are passages where it's very equivocal about you know, about sex
between children and adults. We talked about that. I feel that there is a lack
of clarity.
Q So
let's see now. You will agree with me, of course, that the topic of the book is
pornography rather than childhood sexuality.
A Right.
Q And
you'll agree with me, indeed, that the remarks on childhood sexuality are
specifically prefaced by an indication that there's only some things that can
be said because it would take a book in itself. Correct?
A I'm
not sure I remember specifically that.
Q Okay.
I guess we're going to run out of time before I can draw that passage to your
attention,
245
but of course, you only read a few pages. Well, in any
event, and you know that the book was published
in 1990. Correct?
A I
believe so.
Q You
knew that.
A I
have to double check it.
Q But
you knew that at the time. Well, I can show
you, but --
A Copyright
1990.
Q And did you know that the book had received
awards?
A At some point, I think I read that it
received an
award associated with Professor Money's
organization.
Q Alright.
Did you know that subsequent to the
publication of the book, Dr. Christensen had been
promoted from associate professor to full professor?
A No,
I did not know that.
Q Did
you know that Dr. Christensen had resided continuously in Edmonton since 1990?
A No.
Q Did
you have any informtion that Dr. Christensen had in any way misconducted
himself in any area of his life, other than writing this book?
A I
think I would like you to break that down into two parts.
Q I
won't always flash a red light as to whether I'm
246
being ironic. You
can get that from the context, so I'm just -- did you have any information that
Dr. Christensen had in any way, conducted himself in any discreditable fashion
about anything?
A No, I did not.
MR. WILLIS: Well, it is 4:30
and we shall have ample opportunity to further discuss
these matters, so I will now adjourn.
-------------------------------------------------------
Examination
adjourned sine die
-------------------------------------------------------
(Reporter's
Certificate on Page 247)