Dialogue: Outcry against judge puts public morality in the dock

BRUCE LOGAN* asks how we can criticise judges over internet sex sites when we are no longer clear on the virtues that sustain society.


How do we judge a judge? The fuss over Justice Robert Fisher, and now five more district court judges who have apparently admitted looking at dirty pictures on their work computers, is loaded with double-think.

The most compelling issue is not whether Justice Fisher and the others accessed the internet or what they saw. Rather, it is the public outcry of indignation.

National's justice spokesman Wayne Mapp says Justice Fisher should be suspended until the outcome of an inquiry into his actions is known. Law Society president Christine Grice sees no illegality, but does not condone the judge's actions.

The Cabinet is to consider a Crown Law Office report on his actions, commissioned by Associate Minister of Justice Margaret Wilson and Courts Minister Matt Robson. Not without some irony, Ms Wilson is working on a project to enhance judicial accountability.

Wellington's women's refuge wants Justice Fisher dismissed. It says he is not capable of judging crimes that degrade women, such as sexual abuse and rape.

However, this same organisation supports the proposal to decriminalise prostitution in New Zealand, which is likely to be voted into law by Parliament early next month.

In the eyes of MPs and the Wellington women's refuge, then, it is presumably okay for the judge to visit a prostitute, but not to look at pictures of a naked woman.

It should be pointed out, too, that Justice Fisher could have viewed similar images by visiting his local movie theatre, video shop, corner store or by subscribing to Sky TV. So we can only assume that the real argument is whether a judge is not permitted to do what anyone else in the country over the age of 18 can do.

It is certainly doubtful that our MPs would accept the same standard of public morality being applied to themselves.

What is being lost in the whole debate is the fact that we are rapidly being desensitised about sex.

The present Bill to normalise prostitution aims to improve the condition and human rights of prostitutes, and reduce violence towards sex workers.

But Sheila Jeffreys, Associate Professor of Politics at Melbourne University, says any form of prostitution is institutionalising the abuse of women, and creating an ever-expanding industry which normalises that abuse.

Now touring the country is a play which only six months ago played in Washington DC. In The Vagina Monologues the actors desensitise the audience by an aggressive use of descriptive language. The play says it is rescuing the female genitals from cultural neglect.

It is ironic that a judge should be at the centre of a dirty pictures debate on the internet. Our Government, with most Western governments, has said it does not want to try to impose censorship on the internet except in the case of child pornography.

These and countless other decisions show we have thrown out most of the taboos about sex that were held up to even a few years ago.

Modern New Zealand is increasingly unsuccessful at combining law and shame harmoniously and productively.

Not only is there a trend to ask too much of the law, when an informal social remedy will work better, but law is even undermining the operation of shame.

The Prostitution Law Reform Bill will quite clearly do that.

In criticising Justice Fisher, MPs and the women's refuge are saying he should be ashamed. But there are no longer any laws to back up their case. There is only a general and somewhat vague feeling that he ought to be ashamed.

We expect judges to be men and women of character. But do we have the right to expect that when every day on the TV screen, in the theatre, or in the laws we pass, we continue to knock over the virtues of character?

In a nation that is no longer clear on the virtues that sustain civil society, on what grounds do we criticise the judges? We are forced to go to public opinion. We are cast back to the vox pops of the street.

Judges, certainly the condemnation of them, can hardly operate on the basis of public opinion which is likely to be uninformed on the details anyway.

If it is not yet apparent to New Zealanders, then it should be. With the erosion of civil virtue it is difficult to find leaders, people of character, who we can trust. Good character, and that means good leadership, can thrive only in a society that respects private and public virtue.

* Bruce Logan is director of the Maxim Institute, a social policy and research organisation in Christchurch and Auckland.