And Toni Abela may wear a dress to court, as long as it has a sober neckline
The leader of the opposition promises to move for the repeal of a legal notice which bans women lawyers (please, oh, please – not ‘female lawyers’, as reporters insist on describing them) from wearing trousers in court. He told a gathering in Zurrieq that even though 2009 is upon us, women are not free to wear what they want to. I’ve said before that I think his cleverness is of the street-smart variety, and has precious little to do with real intelligence or quick wit. So here’s another one. He described the trousers business as a “small but nonetheless important matter” and said that equality laws are useless unless men and women are treated the same way.
What this means, though Joseph Muscat doesn’t have the wit to see it, is that lawyers who are men will be able to wear dresses and skirts in the courtroom, as long as they are sober and black (no minis and no plunging necklines). And why can’t Joseph Muscat see it? It’s because, like almost all men and very many women, he sees equality between the genders in terms of women being able to do what men do, and not vice versa. This is because it is taken as a given that women want what men have, while having nothing that men want.
But logic and honest thinking on equality dictate that when you legislate to allow women who are lawyers to wear trousers in court, the same law must by definition allow men who are lawyers to wear skirts. The argument that trousers are an accepted form of dress for women outside the courtroom while skirts are not worn by men undermines the very principle of equality that any such legal notice might wish to shore up. You cannot define equality in the context of what is traditionally acceptable for men and what is traditionally acceptable for women. That’s no equality at all. Equality means, and the leader of the opposition should take note of this, that both men and women should have the choice between trousers and skirts. True, not one man will take advantage of Muscat’s proposed changes to turn up in front of Silvio Meli wearing something tasteful and pleated to below the knee, but any law that gives women a choice should also give men a choice. We can’t have a situation where women are more equal than men, can we?
D Muscat told supporters in Żurrieq this morning that the notice was making it compulsory for female lawyers to wear skirts to court. Although 2009 was round the corner, he said, women were not being left free to wear what they wanted.
This was a small but important matter for it was useless to have equality laws unless males and females were treated in the same manner.
30 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Actually, he got it wrong – the Rules of Court, which on the matter of dress code have been in place for many years (the new Rules changed nothing in this area) never really banned women from wearing trousers. In any event, a clarifying amendment has already been issued.
Dr Muscat has a small amount of egg on his face because he was advised incorrectly and/or because he chose to listen to the wannabe trendies who didn’t bother to check their facts.
It’s a small matter, as you (and he) said, but symptomatic. Symptomatic of what, I’ll leave to others.
Is it really necessary to have to regulate what lawyers should wear or not wear at the law courts ? Are we not mature enough to know automatically what is correct to wear depending on the type of work?
It is much evident that the writer of the above article is very anti-Labour but to turn GENDER EQUALITY an ANTI-JOSEPH piece of cheap propoganda is beyond anyone’s decency.
The Misinformation in this article is much worse then cheap propoganda.Maybe the writer of the above article,prefers to play deaf and dumb as Gonzi and his fragile team are playing on the matter/subject.
Watching painting dry is much better then writing the above article. Please note…..
Daphne, now you’re being pedantic! While most women (lawyers) would have no problem wearing a trouser suit (correct me if I’m wrong), most men (lawyers) would object to wearing a dress.(again correct me if I’m wrong). So while I’m not trying to protect the leader of the opposition, insisting that he should rephrase his wording to imply that men lawyers can also wear dresses is a little absurd.
Having said that if any men lawyers did want to wear a dress, then they should be allowed to. Current tradition (and this may change) means they are unlikely to be taken very seriously in court.
[Daphne – That’s exactly what I said, so I really don’t get your point. If you base equality on tradition, then it’s a non-starter. Give men the option to wear skirts, and then it’s up to them – just as they have the option to stay home and change nappies and bottle-feed while their wife goes to work, but none of them do.]
Issa anka fid-dress code jrid jindahal. Sorry ta, imma miskin Joseph ghax vera imdawwar b’qabda cwiec. ic-cejiet bit-tikka of-course………….:)
What I find worrying about this is that once again a Labour leader has again spoken before checking all the facts. The Legal Notice mentioned only skirts but this was immediately corrected by a subsequent Legal Notice to include “trousers” in the attire that women lawyers can wear. So, either Joseph Muscat did not know all the facts or else he was going after some cheap propoganda.
lets go naked to court daph what you think?
[Daphne – That’s against the law for both genders.]
All I can say is that he was the talk of the town yesterday. At the local kazini in the evening they were questioning how come this guy has nothing better to say? Is it possible that he came here to Zurrieq to talk about skirts? Kulhadd dahaq bih, u l-kelma li smajt l-iktar hija “buffu”. Minghand niesu stess dan!
Just as an aside on the new tariffs, however:”Quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat”. The governmnet must be crazy to think that small businesses can possibly cope with these tariffs, and not raise prices to high heaven.
There is going to be a National Business Conference tomorrow at the Hilton, organised by GRTU. All welcome, of course, space permitting. Maybe TOWN would like to cover it, Daphne?
[Daphne – It’s a magazine, not a newspaper, and the GRTU gets on my nerves. Only recently they told us they’re expecting their worst Christmas ever. Talk about talking yourself into one.]
“That’s exactly what I said, so I really don’t get your point” I’m not exactly sure what my point was. I just agree with the sentiment (if women lawyers can wear trousers then men can wear dresses), but I don’t think we need to specify it! I’m not even sure why I’m discussing it here!
Sorry Ethel, but having a professional warrant doesn’t mean that the holder is ‘mature’ enough to know what is and what isn’t appropriate for work, unfortunately. I have seen too many ‘professionals’ wearing clothing more appropriate for the night club, or the garage, rather than the office, classroom or clinic.
I’ve seen girls (I cannot possibly call them women, though legally that’s what they are) dressed up in jeans that are so low waisted, that the moment that they bend down to pick something up, they project the very chic, very professional “Plumber Look”. And, no, they haven’t updated with the current high-waisted trend yet, as high-waisted trousers do not attract the same level of interest. I’ve seen guys similarly attired, with their jeans worn so low, that half of their boxers (thankfully not tightie-whities) are exposed.
Where do I see these classy sights? At my office, where we are ‘allowed’ to dress casually for work. I’m not saying that all of the girls and guys at work dress like this, far from it, the absolute majority of us dress sensibly, but there is always one or two who need ‘guidance’, poor things. And yes, we do have a dress-code at work, amongst other things, there is a clause stating that ‘proper foundation garments are to be worn’. No points for guessing why this clause was inserted.
Why do men have to wear a tie in court, whilst women aren’t required to do so. Clearly we’re not being equal there.
Daphne
Nothing to do with the above, but did you notice that
three of the medal recipients on Saturday were old
girls of the Sacred Heart?
[Daphne – What medals?]
If Joseph wanted to hit on gender issues he should have asked why shouldn’t men be treated like women on the pension age.
According to the times, the original legal notice said:
“Lady advocates appearing before the said courts shall wear black or blue or charcoal grey suits, or a white blouse and a black skirt under a black gow”
How did that get interpreted as a trouser ban? Where does is say that the “blue or charcoal grey suit” has to have a skirt and not trousers?
MikeC: It doesn’t. But I guess you knew that already. Joseph Muscat didn’t, it seems.
Vanessa-Clair Farrugia: ‘proper foundation garments are to be worn’
I don’t imagine they mean long-johns and corsets so why don’t they just say “no strings”?
I am not being sarcastic in any way, does anyone know if Scotsmen are allowed to wear kilts in court?
During the war I attended a court-martial where the defending officer was a female wearing uniform trousers whilst the prosecutor was an officer from the Black Watch wearing a kilt – so there!
For the last time ever: propAganda
“[Daphne – That’s exactly what I said, so I really don’t get your point. If you base equality on tradition, then it’s a non-starter. Give men the option to wear skirts, and then it’s up to them – just as they have the option to stay home and change nappies and bottle-feed while their wife goes to work, but none of them do.]”
Just because you do not know any does not mean that there are not.
[Daphne – Yes, of course; they’re all over the place, aren’t they? Every time I go out on a Monday morning I see several men with prams….]
Midalja qal Qadi tar-Repubblika
[Daphne – I’m trying to keep up, but it’s a little difficult at the moment.]
“and the GRTU gets on my nerves. Only recently they told us they’re expecting their worst Christmas ever. Talk about talking yourself into one”
Being a member of council of GRTU and president of one of its divisions, and heavily involved in retail, I can say that we were expecting a bad Christmas, but so far its been disastrous. Daphne, no one talked himself into anything, much less GRTU.The anxious wait for the new tariff structure plus a whopping Super 5 prize put paid to retail shopping in the beginning of December. There is nothing guaranteed to depress consumer spending like a threatened energy hike. Or the threats of layoffs. These two, along with the constant stream of bad news, is making people run for cover and make do with less, much less. I have had reports, and have seen it with my own eyes, that people are buying a half-box of the medicines they need and buying the rest later. And here you are, telling us that we have talked ourselves into a recession. We also survey like mad. The figures that we have gotten make me quiver with fear, and that’s saying a lot. It really is bad out there, and don’t tell me that you, with all the advertising you depend on, are not feeling it. GRTU has 7,000 odd members, all SME’s and with a few big SME’s thrown in for good measure. No one can say we don’t say the truth, or that we are politically motivated, because a diverse bunch of people, politically and otherwise, run this organisation, and it’s this diversity that is the ultimate strength of GRTU. Who would you prefer to speak for businesses? The puliti above our heads, whose membership base is smaller and much less representative than ours? Please don’t judge GRTU because of a spat you had with our Vince Farrugia, who, despite living in the same lofty heights as you do, has feet and ears firmly planted in the ground. Maltese businesses would be poorer without him.
For the first time ever, I can say this about the persons(s) who invented these tariffs…Quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat. It’s crazy. If you had to see what we have to now pay, there is only one way forward. Not pay the increase. The governmnet should also do its bit. Why is there no policy of hire and fire, and why did we not do away with the PSC? Government employee productivity is still low compared to private industry.
Allow me to include a quote from our latest press release, for the benefit of the readers of this esteemed blog.
Il-GRTU tibqa ssostni bl-iktar mod iebes li l-istrategija tal-Gvern li ggieghel 41,324 klient zghir u medju, jissusidjaw 531 klient kbir li juzaw iktar minn 200,000 Unit hi strategija mhux biss ingusta imma bi ksur sfaccat tal-Electricity Directive tal-Unjoni Ewropeja li ma tippermettix dan it-tip ta’ cross-subsidazion. Dan ma jfissirx li l-GRTU ma tridx li l-industrija l-kbira tkun meghjuna pero l-GRTU tghid car li din l-ghajnuna ma ghandiex tkun a skapitu tan-negozji zghar u medji. Din kienet mill-ewwel oggezjoni kbira tal-GRTU u hu nsult lis-sidien tan-negozji zghar u medji kollha li l-Gvern qed jibbaza t-tariffi godda fuq dan il-kriterju hekk zbaljat.
Good day to you all!
[Daphne – You have described exactly what I meant about talking yourself into hard times. Nobody has lost their job. Unemployment has decreased. The number of people in full-time employment is actually higher than it was last year. I work in the very business that’s the first to feel any pinch, because it’s extremely sensitive, and this in a sector-specific way. For example, when the government dilly-dallied over the car tax promise made in the last election, we lost most of our car advertising. When the financial services crisis broke a few months ago, we lost a lot of advertising in that sector. As for the rest, it’s buoyant. And it’s not just the magazines I publish – look at all the others pouring out of the newspapers. They’re jam-packed with advertising. Advertising is the first thing that is cut in a REAL economic crisis, and it’s one of the best indicators of how things are really doing, as opposed to going by our fears and imagination. Before the last election, I met a former editor of the Sunday Times, who told me how worried he was because economically, things don’t seem to be going so well (they never are, in Malta, apparently). What? I said: just look at your old newspaper. It’s full of advertising. Unfortunately, Maltese merchants, traders and shop-keepers have a tendency to get locked in little boxes. They expect things to carry on as they were despite the changes in people’s behaviour and the competition for their products and services. Only yesterday, I was looking at the comments posted beneath an on-line report of my dear friend Pierre Fava’s remarks about a bad Christmas. They were all from consumers who didn’t agree with him, which at first seemed odd because many of them are the very same ones who are on-line all the time posting anti-government remarks and you would have thought they would have relished this opportunity. They said they’re not buying because prices are so much higher in Malta. They’re going to UK to take advantage of the weak pound; they’re buying over the internet. I disliked their anti-‘businessmen’ sentiment, but I could see that they were talking about real behavioural patterns. If you want to know what a real crisis is, go elsewhere, where people are losing their jobs in the hundreds of thousands, and where the currency is weak: the UK, the US, Canada, where I am now. On the smartest section of Toronto’s Bloor Street, the shops have huge sale signs up, with prices knocked down by 40% and 50%, and still nobody is buying. Prada, Chanel, and Hermes are just next to our hotel, and in the four days I’ve been here so far, I haven’t seen a single person go in other than the salespeople. There are no hordes of people raiding the racks in the less upmarket shops, as there would have been ordinarily, given that this is the equivalent of the January sales and before Christmas too. Add to that the weakness of the Canadian dollar. People are travelling more, Mario – just check out how many Maltese are popping off to London for a few days to take advantage of the pre-Christmas sales and the weak pound. The Maltese have money, and they’re using it to buy elsewhere, either physically by travelling or using the internet. Yes, I can see that some people have been scared by bad talk into scrimping their cents, but for heaven’s sake, don’t let your organisation contribute even further to it. As one of my best friends – a very canny merchant – told me when he saw the report of Vince Farrugia’s ‘worst Christmas ever’ statement in the newspaper some weeks ago: what does he hope to achieve by this? An increase in sales? Those who have any business sense at all know that even when things seem bad, they’ve got to talk them up, not down.]
amrio: I don’t see why it shouldn’t be allowed. There is no legal notice against kilts and the word ‘suit’ doesn’t say anything about what the lower half should consist of and is therefore open to interpretation…hence the latest storm in a tazza tat-te.
“[Daphne – Yes, of course; they’re all over the place, aren’t they? Every time I go out on a Monday morning I see several men with prams…”
But you’ see plenty in places like the supermarket , in a queue at the post office or bank or in the waiting room at a doctor’s or dentist’s surgery or hanging out the washing on some rooftops.
[Daphne – I think you’ll find they’re unemployed shirkers or men who work shifts, as so many do in Malta.]
…this discussion at a time when there are far more important matters that, tackled, might see the bench command a greater degree of respect.
Sorry for the delay in replying. Corinne, the term ‘proper foundation garments’ was used by HR as a euphemism for all sorts of underwear. Some girls took it upon themselves to report to work in summer sans bra. Not even a bikini bra. Nada. Also, one of the girls was renowned for coming to work knicker-less. Funny? Maybe, but it is certainly unprofessional. And please don’t ask how everyone knew that Ms X didn’t wear knickers… remember that Sharon Stone scene?
Some people have to have EVERYTHING explained to them, to the last punto e virgola; common sense is not so common after all!
Just for the sake of comparison, here in Austria Christmas shopping is expected to be as good as, or slightly better than, last year’s, when a total of €1.4 billion was spent. Austria’s population is around 8 million, so that works out at around €3,500 per person. In fact the caption to a recent newspaper article about this was ‘Crisis. What crisis?’
Maltese retailers do not encourage you to spend money in their stores. First of all, prices are astronomical. I have heard certain retailers state that they prefer to make one sale at a high margin rather than several ones at a lower margin. The service is appalling – no eye contact, no thank you, retailers make you feel that they’ll doing you a service, etc etc. The only money I spend in Malta is on services and groceries, and again, it’s not a big pleasure either, except for a few restaurants. The concept of ‘consumer is king’ does not exist in Malta at all.
I always thought that the principal aim of the GRTU should be to boost competition, trade, and eliminate unnecessary regulation which stifle trade and business in general. However, my observations lead me to believe that the GRTU is warped in a socialist mindset. They try to block anything that has any trait of competition in it (no big supermarkets, no liberalisation of pharmacies, no this, no that). They are completely oblivious to the concept of free movement of goods and services within the EU. Sometimes I suspect that if given the chance, they would prohibit any e-business activities, so that they keep on protecting all the ‘dying breeds’ (travel agents, insurance agents, etc who have already disappeared in the USA). The concept of a free market, with no barriers to new entrants, simply does not exist.
@ P Shaw. Your arguments regarding demonstrate how little you know about GRTU, and business in particular. GRTU was actively involved in the e-malta commission that spawned our IT industry, and is actively involved in promoting online business, so much so that we already have a large number of online retailers in our ranks, totalling roughly 200. GRTU actively promotes parallel trade, of which I am proud to be a proponent and practitioner. We actively work towards the liberalisation of the most difficult sector of all, the fuel market, and indeed were instrumental in the opening up of many other markets.We don’t believe in monopoly, even natural ones, which is why we are not accepting the new electricity tariff structure. We question the “big supermarket” mentality because we want to see many operators, not just one dominant one that kills everybody off then makes free with prices. We are the ONLY organisation that intensively participates in the EU space as regards the free movement of goods, and that, my dear friend, includes cars. Pharmacies, for your information are restricted in number across the whole of the EU because of health constraints and to ensure the availability and accessibility of medicines to patients, something the EU endorses wholeheartedly. By the way, we are also in favour of increasing government worker productivity and have asked the government repeatedly to adopt a “hire and fire” policy similar to the one in private enterprise. Before putting envious pen to paper, you could at least check our website, and the website of organisations like Eurocommerce and UAPME, of which we are members. We call a spade a spade, P Shaw, something that no other business organisation does with so much gusto and enthusiasm. Its because we are very diverse that people take us seriously, and the government knows this, and acts accordingly. Your comments are facetious to say the least.
[Daphne – I think you’ll find they’re unemployed shirkers or men who work shifts, as so many do in Malta.]
The ones I know personally took the decision that the one earning the better salary should work full time outside the house and the one earning less should stay at home, at least till the kids grew up to take care of kids, house and manage the family and business accounts at home. In these cases the man became the househusband whilst the wife became the main bread winner. I am referring to couples, both of whom are professional people or with high-flying careers and a good standard of living. And it isn’t just young couples doing this. When I was very young I remember a family friend, a very busy pharmacist who worked full time whilst her husband, who in those days was a high-ranking civil servant, gave up his job in order to stay at home and bring up their own son and take care of the house and everything to do with it. These arrangements work fine too so long as there is plenty of give and take between the couple concerned and one is ready to sacrifice a bit here and there so long as it is for the good of the whole family.These arrangements aren’t rare at all and the man is not necessarily a skiver or a bum either.
[Daphne – I don’t know what world you live in, Sybil, but among the hundreds of families I know or who are known to me, there is just one where the wife works while the husband is the housewife. And I use that word advisedly, because he has turned into the worst example of the kind, concerned with trivial talk about the neighbours and the price of cabbages, fiddling and fussing, a situation which clearly causes his wife considerable distress, added to the pressure she has of paying all the bills. And the reason he is at home while she works, in the first place, is not because she had a higher salary, but because three months after they married, and before they had children, he developed a psychosomatic problem that he claims left him unable to sit for long hours at his desk. He said he would work at home – he does the kind of work that makes this possible – but within another few months, he gave that up too. When their first child was born, he hadn’t worked for a couple of years.]