Can't say the same for Ms Fingleton. The person who wants her job back (but she comes close to admitting she is just arguing this for the sake of maintaining a claim for compensation based on her old salary) says:
"ANDREW DENTON: What do you think you did to create such animosity towards you?
DI FINGLETON: I'm not perfect. I am impatient with people. I talk apparently over them a lot. I wouldn't do it with you 'cause you are the God around here. I am not perfect. "
Perhaps aggressive and rude are other ways of putting it to. Just what we want in our magistrates!
And as to why she was appointed a Magistrate and Chief magistrate in the first place:
"I started off being Chief Magistrate with a desire to do something which I explained. I have had a fairly quick rise to it, and I was part of an affirmative action by the then Attorney General, Matt Foley, to appoint women. Some of the magistrates were very conservative. Affirmative action puts a bad taste in people's mouths."
To be honest, I didn't think she would be so up front about this. Back to her personality though, where she talked about arguing with her husband that morning about "everything" ("it's all forgotten now" said jovial husband.) But I like this bit from our Di:
"Unfortunately for [husband] John, it compounded for him and he's actually been off work for a while. I suffered this thing that I hear that women suffer when their husband retires, they're home all the time. Anyone here? For the first two weeks, I said, "You want to use the computer? It's mine." We've got over that, he found the other computer. But, yeah, I suppose, to answer your question, I'm strong woman and I'm proud of it."
Oh yes, she sounds like a real likeable person at home too...
Then back to her comments about how she got the job:
"I want my job back. If that for some reason is impossible or in end I say - we'll be talking. But I know these people, you see. I have a history of involvement with the Labor Party. I don't like Beattie being so harsh with me. He says I'll get justice. They know what I went through. They know me as a person. "
And then this rousing non-sequitur:
"Because it was Queensland, perhaps it always had that colour of I only got it 'cause I was a woman or because I knew the Attorney-General."
Umm, no, it was not "because it was Queensland", it was because, as you said 5 minutes ago, you did get it cos you knew (Attorney General) Matt Foley, and you are a woman.
Perhaps I am a little unfair, because she goes on the say that Foley:
"...knew me very well and knew my achievements. He was not going to put up anyone who would fail, and I was not going to take it to fail. I was ambitious but I'm not silly. So I took the job in the best possible faith and did my job in the best possible faith."
So she got it cos she knew Foley, was a woman and (co-incidentally?) was also the best possible person for the job. Some co-incidence.
This is what has made the case such a pleasure for conservatives like me - how could you get a more perfect example of the dangers of cozy political appointments combined with affirmative action? It blew up in everyone's' face. Even those brave lawyers who took on her case:
"ANDREW DENTON: The High Court made this very clear. They had a go at the judge, the prosecution and your defence team because this immunity lay within the Magistrates Act, the very act that you administer. How did you all miss it?
DI FINGLETON: You don't go around thinking, "I'll need criminal immunity", because more than anyone else you have to set a good example. You should not even be seen speeding or jaywalking.
ANDREW DENTON: Isn't this what you pay a defence team for, though, to find this stuff?
So those lawyers now face possible negligence action, I presume she means. Bet they felt good watching the interview! Let's hope they defend the civil action and we get another High Court chance to kick around some Queensland lawyers. (Remember I already mentioned contributory negligence in my last post.)
In my view, the overall effect of the interview was far from helpful for her public image and her campaign for compensation. For the reasons mentioned in my last post, she should not get any judicial position back, and I am annoyed that Beattie has even offered that to her. (Maybe that is just part compensation tactics too.) I would like to see how she would go at the Magistrate's conferences they have from time to time. Christmas Drinks could be a hoot too.
Peter, give her a job in some harmless post like the Law Reform Commission, where she can be bitchy and aggressive without stuffing up too many people's professional lives.
And for god's sake, don't appoint judges and magistrates just because they are Labor women.
No comments:
Post a Comment