What is the main point of the paragraph? Explain why it is important. What is the central Concept? Explain the purpose.

According to Sex, Sexism, and Judicial Misconduct: How the Canadian Judicial Council Perpetuates Sexism in the Legal Realm, the author discussed the judicial sexism in sexual assault cases is often associated with the conduct of sitting judges and their tendency to engage in victim blaming, requiring female complainants to qualify as 'ideal victims' to receive the law's full protection. Though victim blaming has long been a problem among members of Canada's judiciary, in March 2017, Justice Robin Camp became the first federally appointed judge to be recommended for removal by the Canadian Judicial Council for conduct in a sexual assault case (CJC). The complaint against Camp J concerned his behavior in 2014 when he infamously asked a victim: "why didn't you just sink your bottom down into the basin so he couldn't penetrate you" and "when your ankles were held together by your jeans, your skinny jeans, why couldn't you just keep your knees together?". 1 While Justice Camp resigned before Parliament could vote on his removal, his case seems to have had a limited impact on the conduct of other federally appointed judges, who continue to rely on myths and stereotypes in adjudicating sexual assault cases. In April 2018, Superior Court Justice Alissa Mitchell acquitted a man accused of sexually assaulting his sister-in-law for 15 hours because the victim fought back inconsistently, weakening her credibility (Beattie 2019). A month later, Superior Court judge Gary Tranmer acquitted a man accused of sexually assaulting his partner's daughter when she was between the ages of 11-14. Tranmer J found that the girl's interest in sex created credibility issues for her. That same month, Superior Court judge Rick Leroy upheld the decision of a trial judge who faulted a victim for wearing pajamas with no bra or underwear in the presence of the accused (Hughes 2019). And, in June 2019, Justice Robert Beaudoin acquitted an accused because the judge found it hard to believe that no one heard the victim's cries for help (Beattie 2019). As the body that regulates the conduct of federally appointed judges and participates in their education and professional development, the CJC plays a crucial role in addressing the use of myths and stereotypes in sexual assault cases. Yet when Justice Camp defended himself before the CJC, he offered two responses. The first was that he was unfamiliar with Canadian sexual assault law, having received no training on the subject. The second was that he could name twenty-one other justices who had "displayed bigotry or antipathy towards a person or a category of people" without having been removed from office.2 Among those named was Justice Robert Dewar of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, another judge whose courtroom conduct in a sexual assault case had sparked outrage. This paper seeks to examine the role of the CJC in perpetuating sexism in the judiciary. Why are there persistent problems in the application of sexual assault law among judges under the jurisdiction of the CJC? And why, after nearly 50 years of hearing complaints, is Justice Camp the only judge whose behavior in a sexual assault case warranted removal? The answer, I propose, is that members of the CJC hold many of the same problematic beliefs about female victims of sexual abuse as the judges discussed above. In support of this claim, I will examine the CJC's handling of the Dewar complaint alleging that he exhibited bias against women in the course of carrying out his judicial duties. I will then juxtapose the outcome of that complaint against a second complaint in which a female judge, Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas, found herself on the brink of removal when graphic, sexual pictures of her were placed on the internet without her knowledge. Douglas' private conduct was deemed to undermine public confidence in the judiciary such that a formal inquiry was necessary to consider her removal. Dewar's sexism in the court room raised no such concern; no formal inquiry to consider removal was ordered. Examining the complaints against Justices Dewar and Douglas shows that the CJC is complicit in perpetuating sexism in the judiciary in two ways. First, its handling of the Dewar complaint helps explain why sexism in the adjudication of sexual assault cases continues in Canadian courtrooms. Second, a comparison of the two complaints reveals the CJC's gendered record in judicial misconduct cases and its role in perpetuating sexism among members of the judiciary. Despite the disparate outcomes of the two complaints, they are tied together by one common factor: the belief that only women who qualify as ideal victims are worthy of protection from sexual abuse. As I will argue, neither the victim at the heart of the Dewar complaint nor Justice Lori Douglas could claim ideal victim status and, as a result, neither received the full protection of the law or the CJC. This discussion proceeds in five parts. The paper begins with an examination of the notional ideal victim and the role that the standard plays in sexual assault cases. The second part of the paper sets out the role and structure of the CJC, including its ethical rules of behavior. In the third part of the paper, the literature on ideal victims is used to examine Justice Dewar's disposition of the Rhodes case. The subsequent complaint lodged against the judge is also discussed here. While the CJC's handling of the complaint against Douglas ACJ is the subject of the fourth part of the paper, the final part returns to the notional ideal victim to understand why the CJC handled the Douglas complaint as it did.