Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Magistrate slams 'misogynist' Setka (Read 3174 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Magistrate slams 'misogynist' Setka

I'm neither a fan nor opponent of unions, and I don't give a stuff about Setka and won't comment because I haven't followed this case at all out of disinterest. Guilty plea or not!

But politics and society I am keenly interested in, if you hadn't already gathered.

While I accept female might perceive herself as best situated to identify misogyny, I'm not sure that makes a female the best choice to sit in judgment, so is having a female magistrate in this case a conflict of interest?

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/magistrate-slams-john-setka-as-he-pleads-guilty-to-harassing-a-woman-20190626-p521b6.html

Surely, it would have been prudent for the solo magistrate to step aside?

I don't see how this can be any different from politicians condemning a socialist judge in a case about democracy, an atheist sitting in judgment of a case about religion, or a pacifist judging events of war!

Maybe they are impartial, but how is that proven, and their word and track record is certainly not really good enough?
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Magistrate slams 'misogynist' Setka

Reply #1 –
You won't find too many Victorians sympathetic to sentences handed out in our courts either.  Much to the chagrin of the police I might add. 

In the overall scheme of things though, I'd imagine some sentences warrant an appeals process.  Some judgements handed down this year however, have me fuming when leniency is extended, and quite a few by female judges.

Interesting discussion though. 
 

Re: Magistrate slams 'misogynist' Setka

Reply #2 –
Quote from: LP – on
I'm neither a fan nor opponent of unions, and I don't give a stuff about Setka and won't comment because I haven't followed this case at all out of disinterest. Guilty plea or not!

But politics and society I am keenly interested in, if you hadn't already gathered.

While I accept female might perceive herself as best situated to identify misogyny, I'm not sure that makes a female the best choice to sit in judgment, so is having a female magistrate in this case a conflict of interest?

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/magistrate-slams-john-setka-as-he-pleads-guilty-to-harassing-a-woman-20190626-p521b6.html

Surely, it would have been prudent for the solo magistrate to step aside?

I don't see how this can be any different from politicians condemning a socialist judge in a case about democracy, an atheist sitting in judgment of a case about religion, or a pacifist judging events of war!

Maybe they are impartial, but how is that proven, and their word and track record is certainly not really good enough?

You could argue that it would be inappropriate for a male magistrate to hear the case.  I think you have to accept that magistrates/judges are impartial.  To do otherwise would open the floodgates and allow everyone who goes to court to have their case heard by someone who reflects their particular identity.

To me, the most important thing to come out of the case was Setka's comment “Times have moved on and people have got to learn that sometimes language like that is just as hurtful as physical violence.” For his family's sake, I hope that he puts that into practice.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!