AT A TIME when the world seems intent on going back to the past, Justice Frank Seepersad’s ruling on Tuesday on a local police policy which banned recruits from having tattoos was refreshingly forward-thinking.
The High Court judge deemed this policy unconstitutional and illegal, saying it was discriminatory, ill-advised and unjustifiable, especially in a democratic society with respect for basic rights and norms.
“The tattoo policy, in its current form, stands as an archaic, artificial administrative barrier which occasions significant prejudice,” he said.
“It is difficult to comprehend why the recruitment process is concerned about the visibility of tattoos and its attention is not focused upon the character, integrity and ability of potential recruits.”
The ruling came mere hours after Colm Imbert, the Finance Minister, announced the government would fund a trebling of police recruits.
If some have criticised that measure as being inadequate given that new police officers will simply enter an old, broken system, then the tattoo policy gives us a taste of the bigger problem.
The ban on tattoos for recruits – it seems serving police officers already have the right to bear ink – was so antediluvian that describing the court’s ruling as forward-thinking does not really do it justice.
It is simply embarrassing that such an arbitrary policy could have been allowed to remain in place for so long, to the extent that it took a court case to challenge it.
If this points to a wider institutional backwardness within the Police Service, an organisation which often seems synonymous with otiose tradition and hierarchy, it also reflects the aura of colonialism that lingers in the country.
Case in point: another recent lawsuit, which came up in court last month before Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams, highlighting the fact that officials at Customs and Excise seem to spend considerable time invoking old laws to seize items they judge “obscene and indecent.”
Instead of facilitating trade, officials are wasting time policing morals and triggering lengthy court battles.
It is not just police recruits and businesses that are being frustrated. Ordinary citizens must bear the brunt too.
How many times have we heard stories of women at government offices being harassed by security guards who have nothing better to guard against than short sleeves, short skirts or casual tops? Even toes have come under fire as footwear has been policed in the surreal enforcement of old-fashioned dress codes.
Members of the media, as well, have been turned away from government functions by officials for want of jackets – in a tropical country.
Even in Parliament, where at least the Speaker no longer wears a Westminster-style wig, we still subscribe to some old-fashioned practices that have outlasted their usefulness. Does a budget speech really have to take four hours?
The post The right to bear ink appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.
