Alfred Grixti

Alison Bezzina

Andrew Borg Cardona

Charlo' Bonnici

Fr Joe Borg

Ira Losco

Nikita Alamango

Students' View

Tanja Cilia

Shares

Bonds

Weather

Back Issues

Espresso News

Videos

Webcam

Books

Business

Careers

Classifieds

Life

i-Tech

Junior News

My apologies for leaving the previous edition up for so long, but not to put too fine a point on it, nothing much has been happening that has inspired me. Sometimes, the only items in the news that tickle me refer to issues with which I have a connection in my real life, and it’s been a policy of mine not to mix the business of earning a crust with the pleasure of being something of a pain in the nether regions through my stabs at writing.

Thus, were it not for the fact that I have a bit of an involvement with the way things are done on the legal front (not through any merit of my own, I hasten to add, merely because of a position I occupy somewhat on the “muggins’ turn” basis) I would have had some great sport with the storm in a teaspoon that blew up over the way the Courts’ dress code was laid down in law.

For those of you who are wondering what I’m talking about, there was a flurry of debate provoked, mainly on the part of parties of the second part who wanted to emphasise their non-sexist credentials, by a set of Rules of Court published recently that seemed to refer to what lady advocates may don when appearing in front of the Courts.

Some exponents of non-discrimination were exercised by the use of the phrase “lady advocates” in the first place, while others appeared more worried by the fact that they (the ladies) seemed to be constrained to limit themselves to skirts, those symbols of male oppression and subjugation of womanhood.

A salient fact: the dress code elements of the Rules of Court have been in place for many, many years and this latest edition simply transposed them into a new set of regulations without any change. It was probably moderately remiss of the people involved, including yours truly, not to have noticed that there was a slight sexist tinge to the old phrasing, and with a bit of mental gymnastics (as was gently pointed out to me by a female colleague recently) gender neutral wording could have been found to accommodate the idea that men have to wear ties and jackets (even in the worst scirocco) and are not allowed to wear skirts, while women can dispense with jackets.

But really, to quote President Josiah Bartlet, in some instances you have to say “what does it matter?” I’ve been luxuriating, recently, in The West Wing, an TV show that runs for seven, no less, series, which I have on dvd, and ‘Er Indoors and her dutiful subject have started with Episode 1 of Series One and we’re working our way through the lot.

It’s superbly written and brings home the power of words like few other modern dramas, both through the writing of the shows themselves and through their content, much of which is concerned with the public portrayal of Jed Bartlet’s policies and actions.

In a sub-plot to one episode, Bartlet is confronted with the apparent incongruity of the Great and the Good, including himself, attending the Red Mass while the Constitution is so clear that Church and State are to be kept separate and distinct.

Admitting to this inconsistency, he shrugs it off, pointing out that “sometimes, you have to say, so what?” and I suspect that adopting a less po-faced outlook on life is more likely to lead to a moderately calmer atmosphere.

So while it is true that having a distinction between advocates and lady-advocates does, actually, reflect a mentality that was extant when the original dress-code was published many years ago, was it really necessary for so many column inches to be dedicated to this? Sure, it’s a valuable mental exercise to be on one’s toes against any form of discrimination, but surely, in the matter of ties and skirts, it’s not the end of the world when something slips through?

Having said that, it’s encouraging to see that even amongst the youth of the world, a genus not known for its kow-towing to concepts of political correctness and imposition of standards from on high, the importance of being gender neutral has a raised profile. The Son & Heir recently needed a model for a shoot and advertised for one on his Facebook page, using the phrase “female model”.

He was immediately castigated by some (male) friends for being sexist and sought legal advice. The exchange became predictably tongue-in-cheek and irreverent, but at least they’re thinking the right way.

The thing is, getting back to what started this exercise in my telling you what I shouldn’t be writing about but doing it anyway, as if you hadn’t noticed, the story about women lawyers apparently (and only apparently) not being allowed to wear trousers (they are and were) and men not being allowed to wear skirts (they’re not) became quite the thing, with the papers picking it up, after some pretty eminent politicians got their teeth into it.

Unluckily for them (the eminent politicians) a combination of people reading the regulations who should have known better and then these self-same people encouraging their leadership to make a somewhat forceful argument against that which they had mistakenly seen to be the situation, led to many people going “what the heck are they on about? Aren’t there more important things to make a fuss about?”

On a positive note, the furore led to a clarifying amendment being tabled, even though it wasn’t strictly necessary, which must have come as a great relief to so many who were worried about having to wear a skirt.

Well, folks, that’s why it’s sometimes difficult to fill the 1,000 word space that constitutes this blog – things happen about which it could be awkward for me to write, so I encounter something of a block. No doubt things will get better in the New Year, when our own Great and Good start putting their size nines into it again.

Have a great Xmas – I won’t be sending cards this year, I’m too flippin’ lazy to do it. And I’m looking after the rain-forest.