Freedom to criticise the judiciary

The Times reported Andrew Borg Cardona "marvelling at how people were still accepting appointments to the Bench given the way the state and society eroded the respect due to judges and magistrates". Dr Borg Cardona should marvel no longer. I have chased down the answer for him. It is because the office of judge or magistrate allows authoritarian personalities a full run of the playpen.

It is much the same reason why people decide to become teachers. You think they do it for love of children or out of a sense of societal duty? Don't make me laugh. Many persons now attracted to teaching are profoundly authoritarian and enjoy the low level of celebrity afforded by working a captive audience.

If, as Dr Borg Cardona alleges, lawyers are unwilling to become judges because "the remuneration and pension given to judges and magistrates does not match their commitment, responsibilities, qualities and integrity", then what does that say about the tensile strength and cruising altitude of our lawcourts' morality? Would a more attractive pay packet induce a stampede for the Bench? Shouldn't all this buzz and chatter about money raise a few eyebrows among right-thinking, law-abiding people everywhere?

Dr Borg Cardona's words are not only intentionally naïve; they are also hostile to democratic process. Why does he, for instance, take a swipe at the media for "criticising the Bench and allowing everyone to do the same"? Freedom of the press, if it means anything at all, means freedom to criticise and oppose.

No one is exempt, or should be. Even more pertinently, when's the last time the reader happened upon a TV news report or a newspaper column which put the Bench in a less than flattering light? There is hardly any coverage of the judiciary and the little coverage permitted us is mealy-mouthed and starved of editorial comment.

Commissar-like, he goes on to state that: "There could be nothing but agreement on the material and real respect the judiciary should command". Will this agreement be enforced at the end of a barrel of a gun? If not, then let me disabuse you: such agreement is merely cosmetic.

One final obiter: The report in The Times starts off with the Chief Justice saying the Association of Judges and Magistrates may take action if the problems on the pension and remuneration of the members of the judiciary persists. I think I speak for most people when I label this threat "extremely disturbing". Is the judiciary planning a strike, a protest march with a lot of badly written signs, or a declaration of martial law? I think the country deserves to know.