After ploughing through the reams of reportage and complicated legalese, here’s a statistic about this week’s Supreme Court Brexit case that you may have missed: on Monday, during four and a half hours of court proceedings, men spoke for four hours, 28 minutes and 39 seconds. Women spoke for one minute and 21 seconds.

Negotiating how the perilous exit of Britain from the European Union should be handled, and what role Parliament can and will play, were 10 men and one woman. They were all white and all in late middle age.

They are, no doubt, a collection of some of the best legal minds in Britain operating at the high points of their careers. And given that these lawyers commenced their training some 40 years ago, when women were less equally represented in the profession, there’s some inevitability about these figures. But does that mean that it doesn’t matter? No.

Because although coming to the right and proper legal conclusion over the Brexit case does not necessarily depend on having a diverse audience of judges to hear it, the debate would certainly be enhanced by it. And more than that, the law – just like every profession – is seeking to reflect the community it serves. Here was an example to show how far it has come in doing that, and it has been missed.

Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Show all 13 1 /13 Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Supreme Court Brexit Challenge People wait to enter the public gallery outside the Supreme Court ahead of the challenge against a court ruling that Theresa May's government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London Reuters Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Gina Miller, co-founder of investment fund SCM Private arrives at the Supreme court in London on the first day of a four-day hearing Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge A man waves the EU flag in front of the Supreme Court Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Satirical artist Kaya Mar poses with two of his paintings in front of the Supreme Court Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Pro-Europe protestors dressed as Supreme Court Justices stand outside the Supreme Court ahead of the first day of a hearing into whether Parliament's consent is required before the Brexit process can begin. The eleven Supreme Court Justices will hear the government's appeal, following the High Court's recent decision that only Parliament can trigger Article 50 Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge The eleven Supreme Court Justices will hear the government's appeal, following the High Court's recent decision that only Parliament can trigger Article 50 Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Businesswoman Gina Miller arrives at the Supreme Court ahead of the first day of a hearing into whether Parliament's consent is required before the Brexit process can begin Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Attorney General Jeremy Wright arrives at the Supreme Court in London EPA Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Protesters outside the Supreme Court in London, where the Government is appealing against a ruling that the Prime Minister must seek MPs' approval to trigger the process of taking Britain out of the European Union PA wire Supreme Court Brexit Challenge A protesters wearing a judge's wigs and robes stands outside the Supreme Court ahead of the challenge against a court ruling that Theresa May's government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London Reuters Supreme Court Brexit Challenge A protester holds up a placard outside the Supreme Court ahead of the challenge against a court ruling that Theresa May's government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London Reuters Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Pro-Europe protestors dressed as Supreme Court Justices stand outside the Supreme Court Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge A man waiting to enter the public gallery waves a European Union flag outside the Supreme Court ahead of the challenge against a court ruling that Theresa May's government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London Reuters

It matters even more when you look at the response to remarks made in public about the lack of women representing either side in the case. When my (female) colleague tweeted the statistic above, adding no further comment, the replies – ranging from the facile to the disgusting – were a helpful reminder of why women should be represented in such landmark moments in public life such as this.

Here are just a few examples of the comments her post elicited: “Choice of vocation is just that, choice. If women don’t become lawyers, they don’t speak in court”; “By and large irrelevant. It is a law case not a beauty pageant”; “You raise a good point. Why did the women have so little to contribute?”; “A wasted 1min 21 sec”; “First of all, what was she doing out of the kitchen?”

Fittingly, during the first day of the hearing, Lord Neuberger ordered that the names and addresses of the claimants who had brought the Brexit case to the High Court in the first place could not be published, and neither could the details of their children – all because they had suffered online abuse and threats of violence for challenging the Brexit vote through legal channels.

These are not two isolated incidents, but two facts of the same troubling story. We are becoming a society that not only tolerates but often provokes those who would silence the voice of others with whom they do not agree – whether because, in the case of Brexit, of a fundamental ideological difference, or due to more sinister forces such as sexist attitudes towards women.

The Supreme Court hearing is a triumph of the role of open debate and disagreement, and of democratic rule. It brings into the open our differences, with tolerance and neutrality. It seeks to resolve these differences with fairness; to make a good judgement on behalf of us all.

That’s why, in situations such as these, there is a good argument for some element of positive discrimination.

Brexit battle: Supreme Court hearing begins

There is only one woman in the UK Supreme Court, just as there are only four in Canada, three in the US, and three in Australia’s High Court. That situation cannot endure.

That’s not to say that men and women should be equally represented in court, or on another public platform, in terms of bald numbers, but that women’s voices must be heard and not silenced by circumstance. It doesn’t matter if they are saying exactly the same thing that a man in their position would be saying; it is sufficient that women are seen – with tolerance and respect – to be participating in our democratic structures, and leading in important decision-making processes.