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?
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.
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,
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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
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?
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.
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?
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?
Q Would you agree with me that when you read that
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
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.
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".
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
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?
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
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?
Q So you've given some thought to the effect of
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?
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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?
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]
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?
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?
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?
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
-- 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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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
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?
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
overall argument, that it was an understandable thing to have done.
Q So you don't think it was wrong?
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?
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.
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
attention that suggests that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing, will you advise me through your solicitor?
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
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?
Q And do you find that sentence disturbing?
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
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?
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
finished reading the preceding paragraph.
Q You actually read that into the record.
A I read that one line.
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.
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
for childhood lust. I have to say that the term "childhood lust" is one that I find a little disturbing.
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.
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.
MR. WILLIS: On chapter 8. Sorry. Chapter 8 is the one we're on.
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
activity early, and sometimes they even have coitus.
A Okay. That's what the footnote is referring to.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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
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.
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?
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
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?
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?
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?
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
A I have read the passage.
Q Alright, and do you find anything in that that is disturbing or really disturbing?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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
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.
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
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
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,
"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
similar is the case for humans. Dr. Money suggests that. Now, when Dr. Money suggests that, that doesn't disturb you. Am I 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?
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
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
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?
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?
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.
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?
Q Like what?
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
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?
Q Then the author says, "But if they are denied
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 --
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.
Q You're not aware of our Christian schools, and charter schools in Alberta where often sex education is not given?
Q You've never studied the problem really, have you?
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?
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
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?
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?
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.
A And your question is.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
(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?
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
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?
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?
Q And indeed, that also deals with the issues of what is right and wrong for people in our society apart from cultural anthropology.
Q When we talk about a context, we're talking about -- or when you spoke of a context in this
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
A The first line says, "In addition to calling it morally wrong, humans have blah blah blah blah
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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
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 --
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?
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.
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?
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?
Q And the author believes that that which promotes psychological health is good. Correct?
Q And that which harms psychological health is bad. Correct?
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
people who he says are formulating morally without any real knowledge.
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?
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?
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?
Q So that in the context of that, if you find somewhere that the author thinks that something promotes psychological health, you may
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.
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
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
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.
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?
Q We agreed that he thought that was good.
Q And we agreed that he is against anything that does not in his opinion, promote psychological health. Correct?
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?
Q He then goes on in the rest of the chapter, under
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?
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.
Q And when we see him concluding that something is inimical to psychological health, we can conclude that he thinks it's bad.
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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?
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?
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?
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
it, for it means something that he thinks is morally wrong and bad. 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
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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?
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,
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
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
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?
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?
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
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
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?
UNDERTAKING NO. 24
Q On the other hand, nobody that you talked to had read Dr. Christensen's book. Correct? Except for
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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
A I can't remember that.
Q Alright. Is there anything else that that could
refer to that you can think of off hand?
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?
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
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
MR. WILLIS: Alright.
UNDERTAKING NO. 26
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
Q So we have that undertaking on the record then.
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?
Q And then we'll go to 4:30, if that's alright.
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,
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?
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?
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
being taken by Child Welfare from her custody?
A Yes. I think she told me that in the first
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?
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
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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".
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?
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
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?
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?
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?
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
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
going to be a big picture of Louise Malenfant in the story, that you would have made such an investigation?
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?
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
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
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?
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.
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,
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?
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
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)