Britain’s most senior judge, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers,
announced on Thursday that, starting Jan. 1, the wigs would no longer be worn
in most trial courts; neither would gowns. Ending (at least for now) a long,
hot debate over whether and how to modernize and simplify the elaborate
standards of formal court dress, Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, decided
to dispense with the wigs and with court robes entirely in all civil and family
cases, and to simplify them in criminal court.
Also gone will be the especially elaborate full-bottomed
wigs worn on ceremonial occasions; the smaller, cheaper and much less
uncomfortable bob wigs that will still be worn in criminal trials will do. And
a single, simple robe design will replace the five different sets of formal
robes that judges had to maintain for different court sittings and times of
year.
The white, curly horsehair wigs have been in use in court
since the 1600’s, when they were fashionable in society as well, and they long
ago became the visible emblem of the British legal system. The Times of London
reports that they remain popular with the public, and especially with
defendants, who are said to favor being represented by “a proper lawyer with a
wig.” And some in the legal profession liked the link with history, as well as
the measure of disguise they provided, making barristers and judges who are
seen wigged in court harder to recognize unwigged on
the street.
But many others despise wigs as hot, smelly, and more to the
point, elitist - they make all too obvious the caste system in British law,
dividing the more numerous solicitors, who do most of the day-to-day work of
representing clients, from the more prestigious barristers, who for centuries
had a monopoly on the right to speak (and to wear a wig) in court. These days
the functional distinction between the two kinds of lawyer is eroding, and the
solicitors, at least, want the sartorial distinction to vanish as well.
As for Lord Phillips, he apparently was simply annoyed with all
the rigmarole, and wanted to save the government some of the considerable
expense (upwards of $3,000 apiece for the full-bottomed wigs, for example) of
fancy court dress.
Cost is not the issue in the Netherlands, but anonymity and
separation from society very much are.
The country has already seen a government brought down by a
proposal it made in 2006 to outlaw wearing of the burqa
or naqib in public. Now, a conservative party in
parliament is trying once again, introducing a bill that would impose penalties
of up to 3,350 euros (almost $5,000) and up to 12 days in jail.
One rationale put forward is public safety, and the risk
posed by having people regularly moving about in society with their identities
completely hidden. (The Lede took note last week of
some recent attempts to exploit the burqa for various
ends.)
But it seems clear that ostentatious other-ness is the real
complaint. The P.V.V., the party that proposed the law, acknowledged as much
when it described the garments as “an expression of the rejection of
fundamental Western values” and argued that the veils hinder the integration of
Muslim immigrants into Dutch society.
A prominent spokesman for Dutch Muslims, Ayhan
Tonca, told The Associated Press that Geert Wilders, the P.V.V. leader, was actually trying to do
that himself: the proposal, he said, was “totally out of proportion” and was
meant to widen the rift between Muslims and other Dutch people.
The P.V.V.’s proposal exempts some
face-covering items worn for secular reasons, like full-visor motorcycle
helmets. Many politicians of other parties who support the ban are telling the
Dutch news media that it should apply to those as well, and that a narrow ban
on religious face coverings has little chance of passage.
