TATTS RIDICULOUS: STOP BIAS AGAINST INKED RESIDENTS
Given the Gold Coast look has been colourfully – if somewhat accurately – described as ‘tits, tatts and tans’, why are anti-tattoo dress codes still legal in this city?
FIRST, I better come clean. I’m a cleanskin.
After 46 years in this body, I’ve come close but never quite committed to a tattoo.
It’s a good thing too, considering my preferred design was a dragon on my lower left abdomen which would now resemble a decomposing lizard.
And I have to say I’m happy too to be different. Where once tattoos signified singularity, it now seems an aversion to ink is a true indication of individuality.
Nowhere is this more evident than on the Gold Coast itself. Indeed, one of the most apt descriptions I’ve read of this city tagged it simply as the home of “tits, tatts and tans”.
Truth.
But that just makes it all the more unbelievable that anti-tattoo dress codes are still legal in this city and this state.
Multiple venues on the Gold Coast, including the Star and The Island in Surfers Paradise, state in their online dress codes that visible face, neck or head tattoos are not permitted, while The Bedroom Lounge Bar also says that “gentlemen with sleeve tattoos will need to cover them before entering the venue”.
Look, I am no fan of the face and neck tattoo, and I’ll admit to giving sideways glances to some of the facial “art” I’ve seen … but it’s a trend that has moved far beyond its
“One of the absurdities is that if someone else is wearing a tattoo, they are (often) being barred from licensed premises by a security guard who is wearing a tattoo
old associations with gangs and criminals.
With the Queensland Human Rights Commission reviewing the state’s Anti-discrimination Act, a submission has been made by Gold Coast businessman Daniel Lowry to lawmakers asking them to make anti-tattoo dress codes illegal.
At the moment, they are not covered by Queensland’s 30-year-old Anti-discrimination Act.
Mr Lowry, who has a large tattoo on his neck, told the ABC his push has gained the support of civil libertarians and tattooists, with lawyers saying venue owners with discriminatory dress codes are already breaching existing human rights laws.
In the 34-year-old’s submission, he asked for tattoos to be classified as “physical features” and “bodily characteristics” that cannot be discriminated against.
“It’s not fair for business to say you can’t come in because of your tattoos, the same way that we would expect them not to deny entry to someone because of their weight,
because of a disability
... because of a scar,” he said.
“The subtext of what they’re saying is that you belong to a group, and there are criminals or extremists in that group, and we’re going to exclude all of you because of that."
Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice president Terry O’gorman said despite tattoos not being included in the Anti-discrimination Act, the Queensland Human Rights Act protects “freedom of expression, including by way of art”.
He says the strict dress
codes were introduced across the state as part of the Newman government’s controversial crackdown on bikie gangs.
“Some licensees of licensed premises were leant on by the police to stop people who were wearing tattoos from coming in because they were thought to be associated with bikers,” he said.
“One of the absurdities is that if someone else is wearing a tattoo, they are (often) being barred from licensed premises by a security guard who is wearing a tattoo.”
Truth.
While a report will be handed to the AttorneyGeneral next month detailing proposed changes to the Anti-discrimination Act, the simplest solution is for venues to relax their strict standards.
It’s time to come clean and admit the dress code goes just a touch too far.
Otherwise, should they wait for the official rules to change, they may well find themselves being discriminated against by the very tattooed patrons they once denied.
Call it tit for tatt.