The judiciary, the media and democracy

Andrew Borg Cardona gives me too much credit (Respect, Independence And Impartiality, October 13). Baboons snarl. Mountain lions snarl. Jackals snarl, as they chase down their prey. I do not snarl. I fear 15 years of formal education have bred that out of me. The most I can manage is an occasional whimper at all the political grandstanding and rhetorical gallivanting now masquerading for informed debate in our country.

Dr Borg Cardona states that "a strong and respected judiciary is the single most important pillar of a democratic society based on upholding the rule of law." I disagree. It is a strong fourth estate charged with ensuring a free and fair exchange of opinions and with delivering round unvarnished news reports into people's homes that is the ganglion of a vibrant democracy. It is when the media is taken to task for such matters as "criticising the Bench and allowing everyone to do the same" that the turbines of democracy go silent and the body politic starts choking up blood. As Benjamin Franklin said in 1787: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

Those who believe in eating meat would not attempt to find arguments which would seem valid to a sheep. Dr Borg Cardona states that "It is in front of a member of the judiciary that I and Mr Gatt and any other member of society would rush to have our rights upheld in the event that any of the other branches of the state seeks to deny us these rights." This is a statement plucked from the soil of innocent ideology, and doesn't even pass the giggle test.

Anyone who's ever been through the blast furnace of the legal process would scoff at it, because it ignores the realities on the ground i.e. the cynicism with which most people view the judicial process; the inaccessibility of justice to all those who can't afford it; the absurd duration of most court cases; the litigation culture now sprouting like a fungus all over the country; and despite Dr Borg Cardona's allegations to the contrary, that the judiciary is in fact beyond accountability.

The Times proved as much when it reported that Judge Lino Farrugia Sacco and Magistrate Antonio Mizzi defied calls to abide by the judiciary's code of ethics and that no steps were taken to redress the situation.

Dr Borg Cardona says that our democratic tradition abhors "people's courts", and yet some of our court verdicts are reached by a jury of our peers. The "mob" is also allowed to vote for our elected officials once every four years. He follows this up with the supposition that "if a judge or magistrate is given what may be defined as almost extraordinary respect, he or she would give equally extraordinary respect back." What is needed is not respect, but awareness of the vagaries of the human condition, and a capacity for mercy and understanding that knows no equal. It is unfortunate, but as things stand what you get is toadyism or resentment at one end, and loftiness at the other.

The occupation of judges and magistrates removes them ever further from the daily scrimmage of life in the trenches, and leads to a dislocation in the way the judges and the judged perceive reality. Those who judge are never themselves judged, and therefore become ever more judgmental. The judged, on the other hand, live with their stigma hanging over their heads like a guillotine. For all parties involved, only neurasthenia and paranoia can follow.

Dr Borg Cardona appeals "to the relevant components of civil society to take up the task of ensuring that we continue to have a judiciary that upholds our democratic aspirations". To this I would like to add "Go not for every thirst to the bottle, for every grief to the physician, and for every quarrel to the lawyer," because "a fool and his money are soon parted".