The American trial attorney Anne Bremner says that we are living in an age of judgement rather than justice. Her book, Justice in the Age of Judgment, examines trials in recent history that heralded in a new era of trying cases in the court of public opinion.

This is not a new phenomenon. The trial by the British Raj of the Karachi Seven at Khalikdina Hall in 1921 was a very public affair and reported daily in the press. Medieval Inquisition trials conducted across Europe were held in secret but punishments were public, including the burning at the stake of women accused of witchcraft. The Sufi figure Mansur Hallaj, after being confined for 11 years on political and religious charges, was brutally executed in public in the 10th century. Why are people so keen to see justice being done? Is it an assurance of a safer future? Is it a reminder of the limits imposed by society?

While courts make judgements, the question may be raised: was justice done? Doing the right thing is justice, while a judgment is the decision of the court based on arguments presented. Judgements can be perverse (iudicium perversum), or rash (iudicium temerarium). Compassion and forgiveness are an essential part of justice, while court judgements follow prescribed laws.

Seeking justice for others is seen as a moral obligation. There is, however, the danger that mobilising the oppressed to seek justice may turn them into the oppressors they condemn. The idiom “judge, jury, and executioner”, originally a necessity in the remote wild west of America, is now a phrase that suggests the denial of the due process of justice. In Islam, the burden of proof is placed on the accuser, and a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty. As Jesus Christ said when a mob was about to stone a woman for adultery, “Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone”, after which all the people stepped back.

All major religions, civilisations and societies have stressed the importance of enacting true justice. But seeking justice is different from doing justice

Philosophers from ancient times to today have debated the true nature of justice. It is a divine command in all religions. There is no justice in nature — only adaptability. Justice seems to be a purely human concern. The philosopher John Rawls said, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.” Al-Kindi, the Arab polymath, regarded justice as central and above all human virtues. He said that it embodies the task given to humans as representatives of Allah to implement adl [justice] on earth.

Justice in Islam means placing something in its rightful place and bringing back the equilibrium [mizan]. Everyone is responsible and answerable for their actions. Adl holds society together and transforms it into one brotherhood, where each is responsible for the welfare of all. Plato similarly says justice is about balance and harmony — important for the smooth functioning of society and for equality. Taoist sage Lao Tzu stated, “When the original harmony was lost, laws arose.” Human intervention by formulating laws was needed to restore harmony.

The belief in resurrection on the day of judgement in Islam brings a more subtle question: can one be unjust to one self? The soul will not be able to deny what the body has done — its eyes, tongue, hands and feet will testify its acts of injustice to itself. Wronging another is really wronging the self.

But man’s judgements have always fallen short, and seeking justice is different from doing justice. There have been some bizarre trials. Pope Formosus was taken out of his grave, dressed in his robes and tried and judged in court at the end of the 9th century. Socrates had to pay the price with his life for the actions of his students — the Thirty Tyrants of Athens. In everyday life, journalists judge people and state policies. Artists judge society, such as the paintings of Otto Dix or Rashid Rana, and then society judges the artist. Manto was judged for judging society.

Women are probably the most judged members of society, which is ironic given that the symbol of justice has always been represented by a woman — from the Egyptian goddess Maat, to the Roman goddess Justitia. The symbol has persisted to our times, holding the scales of balance in one hand and

the sword of enforcement in the other. The image of justice being blindfolded first appeared in a statue by the Swiss sculptor Hans Gieng in 1543. Originally a satirical comment to show justice as blind to the injustice carried on before her, it was later reinterpreted as impartiality.

Establishing justice is not a comfortable act, even if its intention is to redress an imbalance.

Published in Dawn, EOS, September 15th, 2024