New Zealand lawyer Dr. Rob Moodie, (not to be confused with Victorian politican Dr. Rob Moodie), a 67 year-old with a colourful activist history attended court last week dressed in a skirt and lacy stockings. It’s a form of protest against both what he describes as a “boys’ network” in the courts, and also the nature of the court case, which pits the military as a government agency against his clients, and he has vowed to continue to wear women’s clothing to court while the case lasts: “The deeper the cover-up, the prettier the dresses”.
Dr Moodie, a PhD, is asking that the court address him as Dr. as he argues his case to the bench, and that if they won’t do that he would prefer to go by “Ms. Alice”.
It’s worth noting that his cross-dressing is not solely for the sake of a stunt – Moodie has been in the habit of wearing skirts at home for years, and in the 70s was famous in NZ for wearing kaftans with pearls while he was head of the Police Association.
It’s kinda cute – or kinda something – how nearly every article scrambles to point out he’s an ex-rugby player, happily married and a father of three, whose wife “wears the pants around the house” (teehee).
In all the coverage there is no mention of him being taken to task by the court for the way he was dressed. I can’t imagine a lawyer getting away with that in the USA, where judges routinely berate women lawyers if they dare attend in business dress that doesn’t include skirts and high heels, or if they don’t wear makeup. If a US male lawyer turned up to court in a skirt it would probably cause mass strokes.
I’m not sure how Australian judges rate in enforcing genderised dress codes for lawyers in court, although I don’t think they’re nearly as bad as the States. Is a lawyer’s right to cross-dress in Australia covered by anti-discrimination statutes?
Why is it that I’m starting to get the sense that Kiwiland can be a much more interesting place than Orstraya?
As the boy’s network of barristers already includes a fair bit of dressing-up (wigs, gowns, and so on) I think he’s really only taking it to one logical conclusion.
That’s a good photo of him on the lounge, by the way, ‘showing hose’ in a way that 18th century gentlemen would have envied.
That’s fantastic!
I know a couple of men who are partial to flowing skirts in summer. Liberate your legs boys.
This, I guess, is more a political statement though, rather than a comfort issue.
He needs to develop some fashion sense, though. In the pic on the sofa they’d both look much better if they swapped tops.
mr tog is partial to Fijian pareus in the summertime as a matter of comfort.
I think Moodie bothering to wear a business suit with stockings to court is political, definitely. I expect that at home he usually forgoes the hose.
His legs might be hairy, but they’re in good shape for 67, eh?
Mutton dressed as lamb.
My experience in an ‘unrobed’ court was that women could wear a range of outfits, some quite racy or hideously coloured, while men were expected to appear in suit and tie.
Which I think is an offensive double standard. Personally I’m a fan of the wig and gown, and if I ever become a barrister like Mr Lefty a highlight would be selecting a fine horsehair wig.
He should not be referred to as Dr from the bench though, what a pompous twat. It’s bad enough that senior counsel still get the SC or QC distinction, but at least they are earned (if awarded under spurious conditions at times) by the vast bulk through their skills and experience in court.
I say put every barrister in a wig and gown and call them all counsel, irrespective of rank or degree. Then get on with the case, which is about people and their legal issues not individual grandstanding (well, beyond the obvious grandstanding required for legal argument).
I suspect that’s deliberate twitting of the “boys’ network” and all that SC/QC distinction you mention. It’s part of the stunt.
LeftyE, I think this chap might be a mug lair, even.
Err, PhDs are earned too, Armaniac.
He’s certainly a Lair, Tigtog (I seem to recall the “lair” component denotes a show-off!)
I agree with tigtog, Armaniac.
If you accept that “obvious grandstanding” is “required for legal argument”, then where do you draw the line? Under your own definition, making points relevant to the case (through dress and address) would seem to me to be valid legal argument.
It also seems to be part of his own personal activism, which is not a bad thing if the two goals can coexist.
How’s his thesis writing relevant to the case?
And Mark I agree, very hard earned, as are plumbing, meidcal, architectural and a whole host of other qualifications that are of no relevance to litigation.
I should add, if he was there in his personal capacity or as a witness I would expect the court to call him Dr.
ms lee, regarding the dress part of his statement, I didn’t make it clear in my initial comment but in that regard I wholly support what he did. Assuming it was a suited court- I agree that there are double standards regarding dress and they have no place in court.
Well, Armaniac, my point is just that if someone has a PhD and they’re being addressed formally the normal form of address would be Dr X rather than Mr X or Ms X.
The other thing I like about this bloke is that he’s the anti-Footy-Show footy-player-in-a-frock.
“I will now, as a lawyer, be wearing women’s clothing,” Moodie said. “The deeper the cover-up, the prettier the frocks. I prefer and relate to the gender which is involved in the creation and nurturing of life. My confidence in the male ethos is zilch.”
No wonder the court case has been dragging on for 12 years with representation by a confused individual like his. The guy doesn’t even know the basics of the birds and the bees and is a misandrist to boot.
Message to the Berrymans: Leave him in his mum’s closet playing dress up and get yourselves a reality-based lawyer.