Necessarily logically embedded in the call for judicial diversity is a recognition of the fact that the law is a human instrument and that judges bring to it their own values and experiences.
And, in fact, the call for judicial diversity is more than that: it is a recognition that judges have biases and they are likely to be the biases of, for example, their colour or social class or lived experience.
If those with authority and privilege believe they encounter those judicial biases they have, I believe, a moral obligation to speak them, fearlessly, and without regard for the effect of doing so on themselves. That is what the responsible exercise of privilege looks like.
We speak criticism, freely and rightly, of judges whose conduct reveals biases against other structurally disadvantaged classes. There is no logical reason why we should not speak criticism of judges whose conduct reveals biases against trans men and women. Indeed, we should.
The criticism we speak can in turn be interrogated and challenged or criticised. But the notion there is some bar on criticising judges is one that embeds privilege, defies logic, perpetuates injustice - and is also just contrary to basic fact.
Most of my critics know this, of course, and in a discussion about other characteristics protected by the Equality Act would agree with it. But sometimes it is just too tempting to try and dress up your prejudice in high moral clothing.
(Tweeted with reference to my criticisms of the Divisional Court in Bell and Judge Lieven in AB in this discussion with @graceelavery. I would encourage you to read this if you have even a passing interest in the Bell decision grace.substack.com/p/the-division…).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
