The media and other coverage that is
forthcoming whenever there is a female appointment to any position of power
sounds like some kind of "engendered attack" to me. The power brokers just
seem to lose it when a woman, especially a minority woman is appointed. We
have seen the hysteria that surrounded the appointment of Michaella Jean to be
Governor General of Canada. Canada allows dual citizenship but that was seen
to be a betrayal among other disqualifications when it came to a minority
female appointee. The dual citizenship concept was developed by Anglos who
wanted to be Australians, Canadians, South Africans, Rhodesians, Kenyans etc
while maintaining their English citizenship. It never hurt them in any way.
But let me not stray from the topic under discussion: ENGENDERED ATTACK. A
sideshow to this spectacle is the lack of legal journalistic skills of most
journalists who attack women who get appointed to the judiciary and I should
limit my comments to this sideshow for now. The media needs to be educated on
how to fairly report legal issues involving female appointments and the
judicial decision-making that goes on in the courts. Douglas Fisher for
example wrote an article on Sunday September 12th, 2004 entitled "Politics
and the Supreme Court" that demonstrates the need to educate the media about
many things that they do not understand, among others the following: (1) a lot
of reporters need to be educated about legal journalism and legal affairs, (2)
the media needs to be educated about accountability in its coverage of
stories, and (3) many reporters, both male and female are sexist- as against
women judges.
Now for the elaboration. (1) Fisher says this of
Justice Bertha Wilson's decisions, "She made a bundle of rather radical
decisions, some of which I believe were most ill-considered, given their
costly consequences". Fisher does not seem to realize that there are 9 Judges
on the Supreme Court and any majority decision by Justice Wilson means that 5
or more judges supported her. Therefore, it was not a decision by Justice
Wilson alone, it was the Court's decision. It goes the same for the decisions
of Justice Abella when she was at the Ontario Court of Appeal- she was in the
majority in those decisions that carried the day. A little legal journalism
and legal affairs training would help the likes of Fisher not to personalize
judicial decisions that constitute the majority opinion of the court.
(2) Journalists ought to be accountable for their
reporting, the same accountability they call for judges. Fisher libels and
slanders Justice Wilson by stating without attribution and accountability that
some lawyers "dismissed her as ignorant of both criminal and corporate law".
How do we really know whether Fisher got this information from some lawyers or
if he made it up? A little lesson in accountability and maybe a dose of libel
and defamation suit would educate the likes of Fisher.
(3) When are male judges as ferociously attacked
as female judges are by journalists? Fisher calls Abella "lefty" and is
regarded as being influenced by "political and ideological considerations".
When have journalists the likes of Fisher called a male judge "right winger"
or "reactionary"? Sexism creeps into the journalism of people like Fisher and
others. We have a long way to go towards legal equality.
Recently, another right wing journalist, and this
is not limited only to right wing journalist, Michael Coren stated in his
article in the Toronto Sun of September 17th that "Too many journalists
clamour for Orders of Canada and political appointments from a ruling class
with which they should be barely on speaking terms". But who does Coren pick
out of the crowd? Michaella Jean. He says, "We saw this recently when a
journalist was made governor general by a PM clouded in allegations of
backroom deals and incompetence". The article by Coren was about the recent
book on former PM Brian Mulroney by Peter Newman, but he found time to digress
and trash Michaella Jean. He never mentions whether Michaella Jean solicited
the appointment. He never mentions the numerous appointments of male
journalists like Bruce Phillips who was appointed by Brian Mulroney or Sydney
Blumenthal of the New Yorker who was appointed by Bill Clinton or numerous
others. He had to attack a woman.
The same applies to another right wing journalist,
Bruce Garvey writing in the National Post on September 16th, 2005. He was
talking about the differences in the method of judicial appointments between
the US and Canada. But he found time to attack female judges in Canada who had
been appointed to the Supreme Court. Talking of Justice Abella, he said,
"while her left-wing activist background makes her a darling of Toronto's
liberal Rosedale set (never heard of this creature-MH), Canadians know
precious little about her beyond superficial newspaper reports (why can't or
wont real journalists investigate deeper?-MH)". Garvey never talks about
right-wing male judges who dominate the judiciary.
But he wasn't finished trashing female judges. He
even attacked a retired justice, "Needless to say, such respect for lawmakers'
powers cannot be reconciled with the activist agenda embraced by the likes of
recently retired supreme court justice Mme. Claire L'Heureux-Dube". Garvey
does not mention that the William Rehnquist court in the US, presided over by
a right-winger was the most "activist" court in US history, that both left and
right wing judges engage in activism, Garvey only sees and fears left-wing
activism. See Cass Sunstein's recent book, RADICALS IN ROBES about right-wing
activism of the US, especially of the US Supreme Court. Garvey does not even
mention that Chief Justice nominee John Roberts is an extreme right-winger in
the mould of William Rehnquist, his mentor.
All is brushed aside for the purpose of a
supposedly well-timed engendered attack. Our mission is to expose such
chicanery.
Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, Barrister and Solicitor. For
more information, address, phone numbers visit our web site:
www.MunyonzweHamalengwa.ca
