Professional Pomposity

curmudgery, as I understand it, in the military people salute the rank, not the person. That is the whole point. Saluting is not optional depending on whether or not you like or respect the individual. It is recognition of the legitimacy of the chain of command.

Magistrates deserve to be formally respected, because their courts deserve to be formally respected. Jack Waterford’s silly article fails to take into account what happened when the Family Court abolished wigs, robes and respectful behaviour in the Family Court. It just meant that litigants behaved even worse than they usually do, and judges were threatened and in at least one case, murdered.

John’s complaint seems egalitarianism misplaced.

Consider this: I, too, was once a Corporal in the Army. Officers in full uniform were saluted because ‘they held the Queen’s Commission’. It was also called ‘paying compliments’. If they weren’t wearing their hat, there was no salute because they weren’t in full uniform. Now, if you draped a full uniform over a chair, would you salute it? No, silly, it’s a chair! So, are you saluting the person or their Commission (or rank or position)? The answer is ‘both’.

In well-ordered societies (narrow or broad) we simply acknowledge the importance of certain foundational services and provide a mark of respect to persons who represent that service at the time. That’s all it is. It has nothing to do with class or worth.

It’s not a difficult concept: you just have to be older than 12, realise that you’re not working down the mines, and be able to cope with ideas that may not have algebraic precision.

If you want pomposity and arrogance, however, I suggest you watch out for anyone who uses a huge signature block in their correspondence – some PAs and Receptionists are notorious for it. Avoid, too, people who have ‘their colour’ – pink, purple and green seem to be favourites. Lastly, keep an eye on those who sign or initial every document in sight – it screams ‘Me!’

Yep, it shows respect for the court, not the person. Just like when the defendant is expected to stand when being addressed by the presiding judicial officer. Just like the honorifics and formalities used in Parliament, which include standing when you are speaking, and addressing the presiding officer (and other MPs) by their title, not their name.

Outside that context, I agree that it is up to individuals how they are addressed – for example, once he took the wig off, everyone called the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court “Terry”, including the garbo, the cleaner and the bar attendant 🙂

I don’t think it’s at all fair to generalise about other kinds of professionals, either. When I had dealings with a very distinguished medical specialist a few years ago (as his patient), we were on first name terms. But when I was in hospital, when talking to other staff, I referred to him as Dr X.

Context is everything.

So then John, how did you address the speaker in the Legislative Assembly?
Would you be happy with Katy coming out with a casual “G’day Vicki”?

notdingers said :

I think there needs to be some level of formality to reflect the seriousness of the context.

Yes, good point. But I think that what the OP is referring to is that some people believe that the deference is due to them and not simply to the institutions they represent. I think you should salute a General, obey him and call him ‘Sir’ while you’re serving in the army, but that same general should be just Frank when you see him at the pub on the weekend.

In my opinion, egalitarianism is one of the more endearing features of Australian culture, as is our general dislike of the idea of ‘putting on airs’. (and I’m looking at those barristers who cross London Circuit for coffee all gowned up.)

notdingers said :

I know I will get flamed for this but I have to add it to the conversation.

Your Honour (or you worship or whatever) is used when addressing the court or the bench to show respect for he institution of the courts. The judge or magistrate is there as a representative of the “court” (i.e. the institution) and embodies the authority of the legal institution. So when calling them your honour, you are really showing respect for the court system, not them personally.

Judges don’t expect to be called your honour when they are outside the court, you call them Judge (like you call a doctor Dr).

Maybe it is an out of date practice (like wearing wigs and gowns) but do we really want people rocking up to court and saying “g’day mate, not guilty”?

I think there needs to be some level of formality to reflect the seriousness of the context.

Agreed 100%.

I know I will get flamed for this but I have to add it to the conversation.

Your Honour (or you worship or whatever) is used when addressing the court or the bench to show respect for he institution of the courts. The judge or magistrate is there as a representative of the “court” (i.e. the institution) and embodies the authority of the legal institution. So when calling them your honour, you are really showing respect for the court system, not them personally.

Judges don’t expect to be called your honour when they are outside the court, you call them Judge (like you call a doctor Dr).

Maybe it is an out of date practice (like wearing wigs and gowns) but do we really want people rocking up to court and saying “g’day mate, not guilty”?

I think there needs to be some level of formality to reflect the seriousness of the context.

You really do find the most inane things to “discuss”, John.

For a very long time in the English speaking world, magistrates, judges, and justices have been referred to as “Your Honour” or “Your Worship”. I don’t think there’s a problem with that. They get to their position by working hard, and being good at what they do. Is it really such a drama to refer to them in that way? The response from people like yourself is far more telling of who has a complex about superiority.

justin heywood said :

I don’t know about that. I’ve found that many of the most pompous have huge egos, probably combined with a niggling doubt as to their true worth. I’d say that insecurity is a more accurate reason.

You would think (or hope) that power would bestow some wisdom on people, but there is little evidence of it. The trouble is that we don’t give the power to the best of us, we give it to those who want it the most.

My experience is that the extent to which attitudes like this are experienced are about as variable in judicial groups as the general public. Some people in everyday life are great people, and some are jerks – and this extends to judiciary as well. I’ve met and dealt with over 100 personally over the past decade or so, and some have been the most lovely, down to earth people you’ll ever meet. Some have been difficult and demanding. Same goes for the non-judicial staff I’ve dealt with too. I’ve dealt with regular staff who were rude and didn’t want to give me the time of day – even when I’m helping them – and I’ve dealt with judiciary who refuse to allow you to use anything but their first names, and are happy to help in any way possible.

I think generalising about the attitudes and manner of the judiciary is a waste of time. They’re as individualistic as everyone else.

justin heywood said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

What is it that makes men and women need to feel superior to others?

A sorry lack of self confidence would have to be one of the reasons.

I don’t know about that. I’ve found that many of the most pompous have huge egos, probably combined with a niggling doubt as to their true worth. I’d say that insecurity is a more accurate reason.

You would think (or hope) that power would bestow some wisdom on people, but there is little evidence of it. The trouble is that we don’t give the power to the best of us, we give it to those who want it the most.

Justin. Absolutely right! Those who want it most do unmentionable things to achieve it. Principles are compromised, bullying enters the field of human interaction,

Every now and then though, principled people rise to positions of influence. If they are really strong, they survive, if not, they are dealt with by those with more power or influence and shoved aside.

I don’t know if it is the human condition or something we can prevent…

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

What is it that makes men and women need to feel superior to others?

A sorry lack of self confidence would have to be one of the reasons.

I don’t know about that. I’ve found that many of the most pompous have huge egos, probably combined with a niggling doubt as to their true worth. I’d say that insecurity is a more accurate reason.

You would think (or hope) that power would bestow some wisdom on people, but there is little evidence of it. The trouble is that we don’t give the power to the best of us, we give it to those who want it the most.

What is it that makes men and women need to feel superior to others?

A sorry lack of self confidence would have to be one of the reasons.