Editorial

The law is a language, it is a culture, it is a world unto itself. And, as many articles in this issue of Polemic attest, it is the mythology which surrounds law which has allowed it to operate despite its abstraction from the society it seeks to govern.

Traditionally we associate myth with fantasy, with story telling and with escapism. But David Dixon, in his discussion of the right to silence, reminds us of the very concrete and practical ends to which myth has been employed. Myths about the functioning of the legal system have specific historical causes and effects. With the same emphasis on utility, Harley Wright shows how myth hides inconsistency and provides coherence in the face of apparently opposed ideas.

For all of the pleasant notions that myth conjures up, the articles collected here have, on the whole, viewed myth as a negative tool for distorting reality and obscuring the truth. In the wake of State election fever Bernadette O’Reilly and Jenny Bargen examine the rhetoric of “law and order” and its impact on juvenile justice. Danny Kennedy examines the real price of free trade. While Hans Van Leeuwen demonstrates how the picture of the courtroom, created by Hollywood, the great mythmaker, merely replaces one unreality with another equally illusory and misleading representation. Given its power and influence, does Hollywood have any responsibility to portray events realistically?

If the legal system “benefits” from the maintenance of a mythological veneer, it is those who must engage with it who are the losers. Alienated, by anachronistic jargon, procedure and ceremony, the individual loses respect for the court and its decisions. The task of perpetuating the mythology blinds the institution to the fact that it actually exists for the very people that it is alienating. Kath Mogg focuses our attention on the complex set of legal rituals, discourses and modes of behaviour which keep the system separate from its users. Such a chasm poses a problem as more and more people resort to the law as a means of problem solving.

In this issue Alida Stanley has reviewed The Happy Couple, acollection of essays about law and literature. Her review suggests that the union, while interesting and productive, is probably not a case of “true love”. Also reviewed in this issue is Henry Reynolds’ latest book, Fate of a Free People. Michael Mansell’s examination of the consequences of Reynolds’ work are perhaps most interesting because of what they suggest for Aboriginal people in Tasmania today. Admission about the genocide in Tasmania was the first step. The recognition that an indigeneous people and culture continue is proving more problematic.

Also in this issue, Justice Sackville in an interview with Alida Stanley and Amber Cemey, comments on the future of law reform, while Dale Tolliday explains to Miiko Kumar the success of a program which seeks to treat child sex offenders outside the traditional system. Finally, Mayoral candidate Kathryn Greiner outlines her view of the City Council to Sam Tormey and Miiko Kumar.

The individual is bound to have their view of law coloured by myths which have been created by the legal system, the media and popular culture. Real information about the way in which the Australian legal system functions should be more readily available. Information technology has an obvious and important role in opening up the legal system to scrutiny and allowing ease of access to information. At present the respective governments hold copyright to legislation and judgements and license their use to publishing companies. This hinders easy access and cements user-pays. The increased use of the world wide web by individuals should prompt the advent of on-line access to legal information. There is no myth more central to the functioning of a democracy than that of the informed citizenry. Information technology provides a chance (whose limitations I will readily admit) to make the myth more of a reality. Yet, access is under further threat. Information technology threatens to undermine rather than enhance open access to legal information by tying up electronic law in copyright. The government has an opportunity to open up access; it must now realise that it also has an

Suzanne Christie

3