Have tat­too, will serve, but will not be al­lowed en­try

The Courier-Mail - - LETTERS -

ON MANY oc­ca­sions, friends, col­leagues and I have found our­selves sub­jects of dis­crim­i­na­tion, based on our ap­pear­ance and re­fused en­try to venues on the Gold Coast.

We have never been charged with any of­fence, never been banned from any venue for vi­o­lent be­hav­iour, or any rea­son, and we all take pride in our ap­pear­ance and dress to any stan­dard ex­pected.

The cri­te­ria to refuse us en­try and force us to go to an­other venue is due to our tat­toos – pic­tures placed upon the skin. We do not have our faces tat­tooed or have any of­fen­sive words or im­ages. They are a sim­ply a hobby that is worn and dis­played, and noth­ing more.

Now, the added kicker to this vent­ing is that we are em­ployed in the emer­gency ser­vices. Serv­ing the com­mu­nity on a daily ba­sis, and on many oc­ca­sions we have as­sisted some of these very venues, which banned us, without prej­u­dice.

My ques­tion is – in this age of equal­ity and a fair go, how are we as peo­ple still be­ing treated dif­fer­ently be­cause of how we look?

We as mem­bers of a pub­lic ser­vice have all dealt with peo­ple we would not want liv­ing in the same sub­urb as us, yet they can en­ter any venue and dine next to your fam­ily at a restau­rant or bar if they don’t have a tat­too on dis­play. It seems a back­ward con­cept.

I sup­port the no­tion of ban­ning peo­ple from any place if given the right rea­son and cause to do so, but surely we can make things fairer for all.

I am won­der­ing if there’s any­one read­ing this who may have the knowl­edge to look at this from a le­gal stand­point? Josh Bell, Mer­maid Wa­ters

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.