Channels
Ramon in court
Photo: Niv Calderon

Judges need lesson in democracy

Ramon judges' attack on media shows failure to grasp meaning of democracy

In 1952 the New York Post reported that Richard Nixon, a candidate running for vice president on behalf of the Republican Party, was suspected of keeping a business fund for personal use.

 

Presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower, on whose ticket Nixon was running, demanded that Nixon appear on TV in order to clear his reputation. After the broadcast, they said, a public opinion poll would be held to find out whether he had succeeded in convincing the public.

 

Nixon appeared on TV while his wife Pat sat in a corner of the studio and argued that he was being persecuted for political reasons. His public appearance prevented an investigation and also won him a political appointment.

 

The 1952 broadcast became a model for imitation in the US for politicians under investigation or suspected of wrongdoing. The test was not just a legal one but also a public one.

 

Bill Clinton faced an impeachment hearing at the House of Representatives in the 1990s for charges of perjury in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Clinton extensively used the media to convince the American public that a lie pertaining to denial of sexual relationships did not justify his impeachment. Senators and members of congress concluded that public opinion does not back impeachment and thus ruled against it.

 

The involvement of the media in legal and investigative procedures is a natural phenomenon in the world's largest democracy. Politicians' fates can be sealed for good or bad following complaints or suspicions against them, even if they are ultimately acquitted.

 

The media, therefore, serves as both the politicians' attack dog and watchdog.

 

The Ramon affair

The judges' attack on the media in the Haim Ramon affair attests to their detachment from democratic society. The judges were not only required to rule on legal issues but also on social and moral questions.

 

Where should the justices obtain the knowledge required for such rulings? Perhaps they should have looked to the media to get a feel of the mood prevalent in Israeli society regarding the questions that surfaced in the Ramon affair - for example, the argument that his acts would prove to be detrimental to women's rights in Israel.

 

There is a real debate over this issue. Amnon Rubinstein and Shulamit Aloni, two top attorneys and respected authorities on individual rights, think differently than the judges.

 

Why for example, was the defense not permitted to publicize the photograph of Ramon with the complainant, where she is seen putting her arms around his waist while her breasts are touching his body?

 

Can the judges, based solely on their experience, determine that her behavior is innocent, or perhaps they should have also listened to the voices rising from the public via the media, arguing that her conduct can be seen as inviting?

 

The verdict in the Ramon case not only seems detached in its severity from key moral and social views in Israeli society, the judges are also attacking the media that tried to point it out. The people against a hostile media is a slogan that characterizes right-wing radicals for whom public discourse in a democratic society is alien.

 

Judges against hostile media is a slogan that attests to the fact that there are judges for whom free and democratic public discourse is alien.

 


פרסום ראשון: 02.04.07, 23:59
 new comment
Warning:
This will delete your current comment