There was once a rock concert and judges were invited. They came in dark suits. It was a time when the fact that judges expressed a lighter shade of black in their attire and a lighter shade of grey in their physiognomy was considered by ultra-conservative persons as an insufficient respect for the rules of aesthetic traditionalism. But judges are neither impressed by ultra-conservatism nor ultra-progressism – whatever that means.

The judges at the rock concert avoided casual dress freely and voluntarily for, obviously, nobody can tell a judge what to wear. However, I believe that ultra-conservative structures wish to practise aesthetic imposition on everyone, including judges, which verges on desired interference with the aesthetic attitudes of one and all – including these intellectual experts of law.

Space prevents me from discussing the relation between liberalism and intellectualism – a term promoted by Emile Zola, who was considered a troublemaker by conservative capitalism during his life while, in 2002, on the 100th anniversary of his mysterious death, the whole European continent considered him a hero.

Personal opinion may suggest that dark-cladding and rock concerts are incompatible. At the same time, there are incredible people in Malta who believe that seriousness and correctness are related to lockjaw, lock-brain, straitjackets and the infamous għonnella (traditional Maltese hooded cloak for women) syndrome.

Some of the most interesting conversations I have ever had were with members of the judiciary, including French Judge Jean-Claude Xuereb with whom I had discussed my PhD thesis.

Some of the most insipid remarks I have ever heard were those expecting the judiciary to wear a permanent sad face and never to leave home except to go to work.

In fundamentalist social structures, people think they may impose a lifestyle on judges, dictating to them what they are supposed to wear, eat, where they are supposed to walk and to whom they are supposed to speak. These few people are wrong, totally wrong. They do not want the country to have judges but zombies. Zombies, of course, do not make good judges, except for the fundamentalists for whom a judge who smiles once in a while is wandering away from seriousness, correctness and self-respect.

The stiff mentality of the judge-bashers is the result of an introverted upbringing of a Victorian nature. It is the bottom line of a puritanical family background – which rhymes with tyrannical. According to some, a judge or magistrate is supposed to go straight home from work, pore over legal work all evening and read the civil and criminal law as bedtime entertainment. In the morning, s/he must go straight to work, staring straight ahead with blinkers and neck support, looking at nothing and no one.

Wrong! A member of the judiciary who lives in a totally airtight legal world is, in fact, not trying to improve him/herself personally and professionally. A judge comprehends the society s/he lives in by participating in its debates and activities.

S/he must not only avoid being discouraged by fanatical fundamentalists from participating in the several activities of society but s/he must actually be encouraged to mix with different people, which is a necessary ingredient of emancipation. In the fundamentalist circle of today’s Malta, there is an uncontrolled anger. Having lost its battle against the civil right of divorce, it has turned its attention to judges. These rarely defend themselves openly and are, thus, considered easy targets of ultra-conservatism, which feeds its courage on its own cowardice.

Above all, let us not forget that morality is a virtue but moralism is a vice. May I suggest the reading of Molière’s very mind-opening play Tartuffe. In it you will meet the moralists of the past and the present, the religious hypocrites who wish to whip the world for smiling… while justifying their own libertinage as necessary for their health – and the sickness of others.

A desire for the return of the Inquisition is no more than a desire. Psychoanalysis explains that an enthusiasm for the stiffness of others is a defence mechanism hiding and suppressing plenty of taboo that imprisons the mind. Emancipation is all about the liberation of the mind.

And to continue with the defence mechanism argument, one might do well to read La Fontaine’s story of the lamb that was blamed for soiling the upstream water from downstream. We cannot blame the Commission for the Administration of Justice for having no teeth when it cannot have more power than decisions requiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority. And, God forbid, that a nation is administered by simple majorities only.

So ignore the sad, boring preachers of Victorianism, Your Honour. Be, remain interesting, intellectual, cheerful, emancipated.

So, have fun Your Honour! Swim, play, sing, dance, travel, chat with all sorts of people.

It will make you a better person… and a better judge.