I'm reading "Ban culturally insensitive wigs, says black barrister with afro hairstyle" (London Times).
Leslie Thomas, QC, said that wigs were “fashioned for caucasian hair” and look “ridiculous” on black advocates. He was speaking after Michael Etienne, a black barrister who has an afro... wrote to the Bar Council to seek clarity over what would happen if a barrister with an afro declined to wear his wig before a judge....
Etienne found out he could be held in contempt of court.
Those who support the wigs, we're told, say they are "a symbol of authority and solemnity" that give the barristers "a degree of anonymity."
Thomas dismissed the justifications for them as “nonsense” and called for wigs to be scrapped from the legal profession entirely. “Wigs are 17th century male fashion,” he told The Times. “To have them in the 21st century is nonsense.”
I can see that Thomas is trying to help, but why did he say the wigs look "ridiculous" on black people? Maybe they look ridiculous on everyone, but those who want to keep them believe they lend solemnity to one's appearance. So, are they serious or silly? How could that have to do with black and white?
Or is it just that a particular male barrister is choosing to wear his hair long, and wigs work best with short hair (or baldness)? Note the references to "a barrister with an afro." A wig may look "ridiculous" if it's pushing down the top of big hair and distorting the overall shape. What about women? It seems that the wig requirement applies to them too and that if there's a race discrimination claim to be made, there's a sex discrimination claim too. There's at least disparate impact, but the retention of the requirement could be said to serve the needs of traditionally groomed white men.
By the way, the wigs are only worn in some situations. Read this Wikipedia page if you want to know the picky/revered details.
पोस्ट्स
४४ टिप्पण्या:
Note that the individual is not seeking a personal exemption, but wants to control what everyone else does. “Wigs off, masks on!”
Closed Circuit (2013) has an open session and a closed session of the court; at the start of the closed session (not open to public) the judge says we're in closed session, wigs off.
Rebecca Hall, a good action/spy/mystery flick which disguises a romcom.
A tradition is an imposition and a choice.
if there's a race discrimination claim to be made, there's a sex discrimination claim too
Feminist evergreen…
Do you want to he’s barrister or do you want to keep your Afro? Choose!
The wig requirement is neither racially discriminatory or fashion nonsense. It is tradition, a recognition that “The past is never dead, it’s not even past.” This is something that fools fail to understand.
Today's theme seems to be "racism and sexism are over, you can tell by the absurd examples being pushed."
He just needs to wear a durag. Same as women who have to put their hair up or men with poufy hair have to tamp it down.
I appreciate that the British still believe that ceremonial clothes are significant.
Stephen St. Once: Great point that supports the concept of white male Privilege. The past where Africans we're enslaved, tortured and murdered indiscriminately is not even past as you say. Another solid reason supporting reparations. Bravo, Sir.
What about other "white" hairstyles - should those be allowed for POCs? Isn:t that cultural appropriation?
I am one of the bewigged; indeed, I am one of those charmingly known as One of Her Majesty's Counsel, so I even have a silk gown for Court. Wikipedia is, as often, unreliable - the statement that Court dress, including wigs, is "worn at hearings in open court in all Senior Courts of England and Wales and in the County Court" is an oversimplification. Court dress is not worn in the Commercial Court (a division of the High Court) which deals with some of the biggest cases, which can go on for months, and most interesting of all, it is usually not worn in the highest court of all, the Supreme Court (formerly the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords), where if both sides agree, one can request that Court dress be dispensed with, a request that is always accepted by the Court. Court dress is also not worn at interlocutory hearings, such as applications for injunctions, or simply if the judge directs that the hearing be "unrobed".
The black barrister's annoyance with wigs is nothing new at all; the only novelty is in his tedious playing of the race card. The hair problem is also a problem for women, but they have always coped. Female barrister accept that you cannot have "big hair" and surely the same issue would arise for a surgeon with an unruly Afro. Aesthetically, I think wigs look better on black barristers; the contrast between their skin and the wig looks sharp and striking. For the last 30 years or so there have been periodic outbursts about wigs within the profession, and some of the exceptions indicated above are the result of the ensuing debates, but it is generally accepted that in matters where the solemnity of the legal process needs to be publicly displayed, most obviously in criminal trials before a jury, wigs and gowns are a symbol worthy of preservation. They also confer a certain anonymity on the wearer, who will not be so easily recognised by an aggrieved litigant or defendant outside Court. For those reasons, the last time this came up for debate, the criminal Bar remained in favour of retaining wigs.
They're silly and silly-looking, but keep in mind this is in a backward country with a hereditary monarchy, just not as bad Saudi Arabia.
If they're "a symbol of authority and solemnity", like a clown's red nose, they don't belong in courtrooms.
Anything that is “traditional” needs to be vanished.
I cannot see myself on the side of defending the wearing of those stupid 'legal' wigs in this day and age. It has looked ridiculous- on everyone- for over two centuries.
Off with their wigs!
Having head lice at that time was pretty common as well as the issues of unwashed hair. Couple that with hair loss as men aged at that time too. Most wore their hair short as they became older and just used a wig for appearance. Contrast that with the elaborate hair styles of the women at that time taking literally hours to form and shape. So it was practical at the time and the custom persists - just like wearing robes imparts the image of authority too to the judge.
From the link:
"Since the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009, the Justices of that court have retained the Law Lords' tradition of sitting unrobed."
I don't *think* they mean "disrobed", at least I hope not.
.
Of course it's racist. What isn't these days? Look no farther than than yesterday when some of us were debating the awful racism inherent in Simpson colored emojis.
I have no opinion on this foreign matter but want to point out to everyone that our word "wig" is derived from the "uke" syllable in "peruke."
So much nonsense in the world these days. So much bullshit.
The wig of barrister Cleaver in that classic Ozy series Rake always looked akin to a disgusting MLB Players baseball cap never cleaned for superstition.
That photo looks like a Leporskaya painting (with the face drawn on by a bored guard).
Do the UK Starbucks employees have to wear them too?
*ba dum dum*
Now do robes and suits and ties. Barristers should be wearing Bermuda shorts.
“Wigs are 17th century male fashion,” he told The Times. “To have them in the 21st century is nonsense.”
Hard to argue with that. Like having to put legal documents on 8 1/2 x 14 inch paper instead of 8 1/2 x 11.
Here's a job. Here are its rules.
Do you not want to do what the job requires?
Then don't take the job.
Now, FOAD, you entitled asshole
Black barristers in Commonwealth countries have coped with perukes for centuries. Perhaps Messers Thomas and Etienne should ask them how they do it.
Howard said...
Stephen St. Once: Great point that supports the concept of white male Privilege. The past where Africans we're enslaved, tortured and murdered indiscriminately is not even past as you say. Another solid reason supporting reparations. Bravo, Sir.
Howard the ignoramus racist pig is here!
News flash, Howie: essentially all the black slaves that made it to America or the UK were sold by black males
Their is no skin color that has any monopoly on evil, you racist piece of sh!t
Here is America's favorite Judge, the right, honorable Samuel Davis, Jr.
"Here Come the Judge! Here come the Judge!"
Sooo....underwear. Still optional in all social situations?
Asking for a friend.
Didn't this dude know it was part of the job description?
It's like me visiting an orthodox temple and complaining about the yarmulke...
'Do the UK Starbucks employees have to wear them too?'
Which reminds me...what if you have the required number of flair, but don't go above and beyond with extra flair?
"a symbol of authority and solemnity"
A whole lot of viciousness and stupidity is cloaked in such symbols. Tradition doesn't grant you legitimacy, competence and integrity does. Ditch the wigs.
Clearly a case of rabid diversity (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) engendered by albino hirsutism. #BanAlbinos in skin and cover
Everyone wearing the same wig and uniform means the attention goes to the strength of the argument and not the personal qualities of the speaker.
Much the same reason why private schools often mandate uniforms. Takes attention away from personal looks and economic status and redirects it in more appropriate ways.
He can put a stocking over his head first to make the wig fit better.
Maybe he could solve his problem by bleaching his Afro.
From the Wiki page AA gave us:
"Until the 1970s, morning dress was required of all attorneys appearing before the United States Supreme Court by the Court's rules. Even after the Court abolished the requirement, the Office of the Solicitor General maintained the practice."
I did not know this.
As one who was in and out of courtrooms for almost 40 years, I found the manner of dress and appearance for attorneys - along with the cultivated solemnity of the physical surroundings - had a profound effect on those present in a courtroom. This includes the attorneys themselves.
Wigs are dumb AF. If the courts where these are used are not solemn enough without them, then they should get rid of the courts too.
I say fashion the perukes on a wire and wear them like kids' Christmas-play halos.
Tradition saved, and it works for women with big hair or men with Afros. Not to mention the added visual amusement for court attendees.
The past where Africans we're enslaved, tortured and murdered indiscriminately is not even past as you say. Another solid reason supporting reparations. Bravo, Sir.
As long as the reparations are demanded of real slave owners in Africa and Arabia, I'm all for it. The share of African slaves, captured and sold by tribes of fellow Africans, that came to America was about 3%. Those sent to Brazil mostly died there. Those sent to America survived and multiplied. Slavery was common in the pre-industrial age when human and animal power were the only forms. The Greenies are working hard to get us back to that.
Imagine a white person immigrating to a African nation and demanding their traditional clothes they wear for special occasions be changed to English suits. Why are only “white” cultures allowed to be degraded and destroyed by “minorities”.
BTW white people are a minority on earth. There are fewer white people than either descendants of sub Saharan Africans or Asians. Yet the MINORITY culture/race is always the one that they seek to destroy.
This is exactly what the elites tell you deplorables that results in hysterical machinations and lustful oaths of violent revenge.
Blogger Greg The Class Traitor said...
Here's a job. Here are its rules.
Do you not want to do what the job requires?
Then don't take the job.
Now, FOAD, you entitled asshole
Howard said...
This is exactly what the elites tell you deplorables that results in hysterical machinations and lustful oaths of violent revenge.
No, shit for brains, it's not. When I took my job, no one told me "if you say anything that some asshole on Twitter decides to get upset about, we're going to fire you."
So that's not part of my job.
Someone who sets up their own wedding business gets to define what they want to do, and who they'll do it for. Because it's THEIR business, and no, the government "allowing" you to be in business ONLY if you do X is not even remotely the same as the government will only do business with you if you do X.
Are you morally wretched, or just really stupid?
@Nancy - ""Since the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009, the Justices of that court have retained the Law Lords' tradition of sitting unrobed."
I don't *think* they mean "disrobed", at least I hope not."
Haha. The Law Lords sat there looking like your grandfather, often with cosy cardigans under their suits, since strictly speaking, they were not a Court but a "Judicial Committee" of the House of Lords. However, the barristers appearing before them wore the full Court robes, an anomaly perhaps, but then Parliament is the one place outside courtrooms where wigs were also worn - if you look on YouTube for clips of proceedings in the House of Commons from back in the 1990s, the Speaker wore not just a wig but a full-bottomed wig, one much longer at the sides than is worn by barristers in Court.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा