Once confined to century-old frames on the second floor of a courthouse, photographs of judges are now on the web and can be featured on the front pages of major daily newspapers. With the right to use it, however, comes the duty to do so responsibly.
It has always been accepted that everyone has the right to criticize a judgement, even a judge whose comments or behavior are inappropriate. In recent years, however, we have been witnessing more and more frequent gratuitous attacks on the impartiality of the courts, in a clear attempt to play politics on the backs of judges.
Too often, the jurist who reads these attacks remains silent, so as not to add fuel to the flames of misinformation and demagoguery. How many jurists have been outraged over the past year by the irreverent remarks of certain columnists and politicians towards the judiciary, wishing to react, but concluding that it was better not to play in this bad film, not to make it a blockbuster ?
However, there comes a time when you have to speak up, because a point of no return has been reached. This summer, a columnist accused the Chief Justice of Canada of “brazen blackmail,” blaming the Supreme Court for handing down Jordan “in order to get more money” for the justice system. This is a purely gratuitous attack.
While many deplore the effects of the Jordan decision—no one wants to see murderers avoid prison—no one can seriously argue that the Supreme Court wanted to establish a judicial dictatorship. All lawyers know that the justice system is underfunded and know the delays and costs faced by their clients who face the numerous postponements caused by the glaring lack of support staff, rooms or judges.
Recently, the same columnist accused the judge who suspended certain articles of Law 96 of being “intrinsically biased” because she had supported No in the 1995 referendum. Another purely gratuitous attack, with a photograph of the judge in prime. If some lawyers disagree with the judge’s decision, no one is surprised.
At this preliminary stage, it was entirely conceivable, without in any way presupposing the outcome of the litigation, that the court favored the protection of the rights of the public over those of the State. To assert that a 30-year-old political allegiance could have influenced a decision, where the law alone can explain it, is pure sophism.
The obligation of impartiality does not mean that judges must have had no public opinion or involvement before their appointment. On the contrary, our society needs a diverse judiciary, made up of people who come from and represent all spheres of civil society.
The gratuitous attacks on the impartiality of the courts must stop. They erode public confidence and have the effect of weakening our justice system, whose role is to uphold the rights and freedoms of all of us. In the coming months, the courts will have to rule on several matters of great importance for the rule of law. We hope that they can deliberate in complete serenity, on the basis of the facts and the law, protected from baseless attacks.