Judicial Free Speech Under Fire: Is Political Expression a Threat to Our Judges?

In recent days, a storm has brewed over a seemingly innocuous encounter between District Court Judge Emma Aitken and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters at the Northern Club in Auckland. The discourse surrounding this event has spiraled into a controversy that raises questions about political expression among judges and the nature of public discourse in New Zealand. Emma Aitken is a well-respected figure within the judiciary, noted for her work with the Alcohol and Drug Court, which has garnered praise for effectively aiding individuals grappling with addiction. Her partner, Dr. David Galler, an esteemed intensive care specialist, shared the same venue as Aitken when she allegedly questioned the veracity of Peters' statements regarding NZ First's policies, particularly those promoting smoking. Understandably, a physician of Galler’s caliber might take issue with political decisions that adversely affect public health. However, the reactions to Aitken's remarks have been disproportionate. Critics, particularly from the right, have taken to social media and public forums to decry her comments as a breach of the judicial code of conduct. Winston Peters has even threatened legal action against Aitken, while Judith Collins expressed her outrage, calling the situation appalling and in need of serious attention. David Farrar, a notable figure in conservative circles, has gone so far as to demand Aitken’s resignation, arguing that judges should maintain political neutrality even in private settings. While it is essential to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, the expectation that judges, who are also members of society with personal views, should eschew political opinions entirely is unrealistic. The Northern Club, known for its exclusivity, is often perceived as a refuge for political and social discourse among the influential. The idea that Aitken's comments should remain within those walls, or that they should be scrutinized in the manner they have been, seems excessive. The backlash against Aitken hints at a larger cultural war narrative, pitting so-called "activist judges" against a political establishment that is increasingly wary of dissent and critique. This atmosphere fosters a climate in which expressing critical opinions about government policies—especially those that contravene public health—becomes a contentious issue. Judith Collins, in her denunciation of Aitken, would do well to reflect on her own political history, which includes controversial affiliations and actions that have raised eyebrows about her judgment and ethics. Her past, marked by questionable conduct as a minister, undermines the moral high ground from which she has launched her critique of the judge. The reality is that many judges, like Aitken, possess strong personal convictions shaped by their extensive careers in pursuit of justice. The expectation that they should suppress their viewpoints, especially when faced with policies that threaten the well-being of the public, is an affront to the very principles of democracy and free speech. Ultimately, the uproar surrounding Judge Aitken's comments seems less about a breach of judicial conduct and more about rallying political support against perceived liberal elitism. In a climate where political figures are under scrutiny for their decisions and policies, it is vital to ensure that all voices—especially those of seasoned professionals like Judge Aitken—are allowed to be heard without the threat of reprisal. In doing so, we might foster a healthier political discourse that prioritizes the welfare of the community over the egos of its leaders.