Let’s be straight about the whole farce: a government that seemingly wants to shirk its responsibilities with regard to the dramatic change in global climate, while at the same time finding the occasion – and having the temerity – to come up with an Iranian-inspired “no trousers for lady lawyers in Court” order, is simply incredible. Priorities are not a favourite theme with this and previous Nationalist governments, but bloomers certainly continue to be a forte.

At a time when the country is feeling the horrible pinch from over-taxation, be it in the form of direct taxes or camouflaged as tariffs, with the undomesticated unions on the warpath and the populace in readiness for an even ruder shock, we get a government minister who issues a legal notice that prohibits women lawyers from wearing trousers and then, on realising he had a certain hit song in the ridiculous charts, re-publishing it with the trousers option frantically included.

It is difficult to understand the motivation behind the whole episode. Was someone against women wearing trousers a sort of throw-back to the innocent Fifties when, according to the mums of my generation, there were many highly-placed people solemnly preaching the wondrous “fact” that the devil could be involved in the belated discovery of trousers for the Maltese female of the species? In fact, at the time they were saying pretty much the same thing about the then new phenomenon of Rock ‘n’ Roll.

There is the counter suggestion that whoever was behind the lunatic legal notice is a sexist who prefers women in skirts. After all, the thinking must have been: all lawyers have legs, but lady lawyers have more beautiful ones. I have to admit there was a time, during the short period I formed part of a rowdy bunch of law courts reporters, when the attraction of a pair of lovely legs protruding from the generous slit on the front of a lady lawyer’s academic gown proved stronger than the story of the cases being dealt with inside those sombre chambers.

We took it in turns – first as to who should be responsible that day to compile the mandatory list and details of “good stories” that were later to be shared by our respective newspapers and then who should keep an eye for the legs. On one occasion, perhaps the best wise-cracker in that forlorn group of young hacks came back to report that a certain popular lady lawyer’s nylon stockings were wrinkled. Anything to kill the boredom, really, so we preferred to ignore the neighbours taking on neighbours over a parking space and the odd case of some miserable youth caught with a marijuana joint in his pockets. The trouble was that, on rushing to that particular chamber for an instant of fun, we discovered she wasn’t wearing any.

It has been heard before that while certain women’s legs do leave something to be desired, all women’s legs leave something to be desired. That is part of their function and all of their charm. It reminds me of the story about the ageing archbishop who had been worried for some time that he would fall victim to a paralytic stroke.

One evening, while playing chess with a very charming young lady, he suddenly became very agitated and, feeling that his presentiment had been fulfilled, he fell back in his chair, murmuring: “Your move”.

Alarmed, his partner hurried to his side, asking: “Are you ill?”

“It has come,” the archbishop replied, “at last it has come; my right side is paralysed.”

“How can you be so sure?”

“I have been pinching my leg,” said the archbishop, weakly, “and there is absolutely no feeling.”

“Oh,” said the charming young lady, probably an up-and-coming lawyer, blushing profusely, “Your grace, I do beg your pardon, but it was my leg you were pinching.”

By the time trousers in Court began to appear more frequently than skirts, we had all moved to pastures new, but conscientious objectors still inexplicably persisted. There were parish priests who initially prohibited them from their churches until they too became a source of embarrassment to their ecclesiastical authorities who were evidently more inclined to move with the times. Just as the vernacular happily replaced Latin during Holy Mass, so did the trousers take over from skirts everywhere, particularly in winter. Practicality was a late 20th-century discovery that no ludicrous legal notice can ever annul.

That we had to have the Leader of the Opposition, on the verge of moving a Parliamentary motion, to scratch the no-trousers legal notice speaks volumes for the present state of mind of this nation’s government. That it had to quickly change it before this could happen and thus save it from obvious embarrassment was yet one further confirmation. I am sure the women MPs we have representing us on both sides of the House would have supported Joseph Muscat’s motion.

Just as we have lawyers with legs, we have Parliamentarians with legs. Legs that need not be hidden, I hasten to add. Had the law courts’ farce been left to unfold completely – your fault, Joseph – we may have had Mr Speaker summoning them to make sure they show up in skirts and not trousers, as they often do.

Then make enquiries about the chador or l-ghonnella....