MLJ Volume 36-1.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
MLJ Volume 36-1.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law MLJ Volume 36-1.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
194 MANITOBA LAW JOURNAL|VOLUME 36 ISSUE 1 common-law countries have recently passed regulations either banning the display of tattoos completely or limiting their display subject to the discretion of the Chief of Police. Such bans are intended to maintain a public image of neutrality and bias free policing. 2 In late 2007 Menno Zacharias, then Deputy Chief of the Winnipeg Police Service, recommended the Service explore drafting such a policy but the recommendation was not acted upon. According to Zacharias: Image and branding are important in both the private and public sector. Organizations such as police agencies should and are concerned with the public image they project. The use of uniforms and the stress placed on uniformity of action by members of the organization are intended to project a particular image that not only projects the authority of the position but also reinforces the values of the community police serve. Criminal gangs have long projected their image by decorating themselves with tattoos. Police officers openly displaying tattoos in my view undermines the image police agencies should be trying to project. 3 With the coming into force of the new Manitoba Police Services Act on June 2, 2012, and the creation of municipal police boards that are empowered to establish policies for the effective management of the police service and to ensure that police services are delivered in a manner consistent with community needs, values and expectations, 4 the intent of this paper is to review the issues that have arisen, or could arise, as a result of such a directive being put forward again. The intent is not, however, to provide an in-depth analysis of all the substantive and procedural rights and remedies involved. 2 A sample policy from the East Palo Alto P.D. can be found online at . Similar “no show” policies exist in Los Angeles (CA), San Diego (CA), Honolulu (HI), Houston (TX), Baltimore (MD), Dallas (TX), St. Louis (MO), Huntsville (AL), New York State (NY), Des Moines (IA) and Orland Park (IL) to name a few. Rules in all 43 police forces in England and Wales prevent officers showing tattoos which could cause offence to colleagues or the public. Similar regulations were recently introduced in several Australian states as well. 3 Menno Zacharias, personal communication, October 25, 2012. 4 Police Services Act, SM 2009, c 32, CCSM c P94.5 ss 28(1)(a) and 28(2)(c). For background on the Act see Jason E Roberts, “Bringing the Thin Blue Line into Line: Bill 16, The Police Services Act” (2010) 34:3 Man LJ 72.
Tattoos and Police Dress Regulations 195 II. TATTOOS AND THE CURRENT GENERATION Tattoos date back thousands of years and reflect an affinity for humans to mark their bodies to reflect their social, cultural and individual identities. They also reflect one of the earliest known forms of communication. A tattoo could identify the wearer with a certain group while distinguishing him from others. Moreover, the tattoo could symbolize or reflect status and place within the society. While it may simply be “body art”, it could also be a means by which people express their cultural or religious identity, their sense of individuality or their personal thoughts, opinions and beliefs. While only a few generations ago tattoos were associated with criminals, gang members, and other delinquent or marginalized groups, 5 several recent surveys have shown that tattoos have become mainstream in today’s society, particularly among the current generation. Tattoos are to this generation what long hair was to their grandparent’s generation. But like those generations before them such self-expression has been viewed by some as “freaky” and unacceptable in some workplaces—conveying with it unacceptable images of laziness, disrespect and/or unprofessionalism. In 2010, the Pew Research Center released the results of a comprehensive survey into how the current generation in the United States viewed their lives, futures and politics, which found that nearly fourin-ten (38%) of Millennials (adults coming of age in 2000 or later) have at least one tattoo. In that same report, thirty-two percent of Gen Xers reported having tattoos, while only 15% of Baby Boomers and 6% of Silents (adults born before 1946) had tattoos. 6 5 See e.g. Mark Burgess & Louise Clark, “Do the ‘Savage Origins’ of Tattoos Cast a Prejudicial Shadow on Contemporary Tattooed Individuals?” (2010) 40 J App Soc Psych 746 at 746-747 and Margo DeMello “Not Just for Bikers Anymore: Popular Representations for American Tattooing”, (1995) 29 J Pop Culture 37. 6 The Pew Research Centre, Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next (February 2010) online: . See also “One in Five U.S. Adults Now Has a Tattoo”, The Harris Poll (February 2012) online: , which found that 30% of American adults aged 25-29 and 22% of those aged 18-24 had tattoos, while only 11% of those aged 50-64 and 5% of those over 65 did [Pew Research Centre].
- Page 155 and 156: The Trial Judge’s Four Discretion
- Page 157 and 158: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 159 and 160: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 161 and 162: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 163 and 164: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 165 and 166: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 167 and 168: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 169 and 170: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 171 and 172: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 173 and 174: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 175 and 176: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 177 and 178: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 179 and 180: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 181 and 182: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 183 and 184: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 185 and 186: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 187 and 188: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 189 and 190: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 191 and 192: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 193 and 194: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 195 and 196: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 197 and 198: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 199 and 200: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 201 and 202: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 203 and 204: The Trial Judge's Four Discretions
- Page 205: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 209 and 210: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 211 and 212: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 213 and 214: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 215 and 216: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 217 and 218: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 219 and 220: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 221 and 222: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 223 and 224: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 225 and 226: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 227 and 228: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 229 and 230: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 231 and 232: Tattoos and Police Dress Regulation
- Page 233 and 234: Social Incrimination: How North Ame
- Page 235 and 236: Social Incrimination 223 on Faceboo
- Page 237 and 238: Social Incrimination 225 obtained a
- Page 239 and 240: Social Incrimination 227 authorship
- Page 241 and 242: Social Incrimination 229 convenient
- Page 243 and 244: Social Incrimination 231 enforcemen
- Page 245 and 246: Social Incrimination 233 should suf
- Page 247 and 248: Social Incrimination 235 prevents s
- Page 249 and 250: Social Incrimination 237 the eviden
- Page 251 and 252: Social Incrimination 239 arrest whe
- Page 253 and 254: Social Incrimination 241 prosecutio
- Page 255 and 256: Social Incrimination 243 used to re
194 MANITOBA LAW JOURNAL|VOLUME <strong>36</strong> ISSUE 1<br />
common-law countries have recently passed regulations either banning the<br />
display <strong>of</strong> tattoos completely or limiting their display subject to the<br />
discretion <strong>of</strong> the Chief <strong>of</strong> Police. Such bans are intended to maintain a<br />
public image <strong>of</strong> neutrality and bias free policing. 2<br />
In late 2007 Menno Zacharias, then Deputy Chief <strong>of</strong> the Winnipeg<br />
Police Service, recommended the Service explore drafting such a policy but<br />
the recommendation was not acted upon. According to Zacharias:<br />
Image and branding are important in both the private and public sector.<br />
Organizations such as police agencies should and are concerned with the public<br />
image they project. The use <strong>of</strong> uniforms and the stress placed on uniformity <strong>of</strong><br />
action by members <strong>of</strong> the organization are intended to project a particular image<br />
that not only projects the authority <strong>of</strong> the position but also reinforces the values<br />
<strong>of</strong> the community police serve. Criminal gangs have long projected their image<br />
by decorating themselves with tattoos. Police <strong>of</strong>ficers openly displaying tattoos in<br />
my view undermines the image police agencies should be trying to project. 3<br />
With the coming into force <strong>of</strong> the new Manitoba Police Services Act on<br />
June 2, 2012, and the creation <strong>of</strong> municipal police boards that are<br />
empowered to establish policies for the effective management <strong>of</strong> the police<br />
service and to ensure that police services are delivered in a manner<br />
consistent with community needs, values and expectations, 4 the intent <strong>of</strong><br />
this paper is to review the issues that have arisen, or could arise, as a result<br />
<strong>of</strong> such a directive being put forward again. The intent is not, however, to<br />
provide an in-depth analysis <strong>of</strong> all the substantive and procedural rights<br />
and remedies involved.<br />
2<br />
A sample policy from the East Palo Alto P.D. can be found online at<br />
. Similar “no show” policies exist in Los Angeles (CA), San Diego<br />
(CA), Honolulu (HI), Houston (TX), Baltimore (MD), Dallas (TX), St. Louis (MO),<br />
Huntsville (AL), New York State (NY), Des Moines (IA) and Orland Park (IL) to name<br />
a few. Rules in all 43 police forces in England and Wales prevent <strong>of</strong>ficers showing<br />
tattoos which could cause <strong>of</strong>fence to colleagues or the public. Similar regulations were<br />
recently introduced in several Australian states as well.<br />
3<br />
Menno Zacharias, personal communication, October 25, 2012.<br />
4<br />
Police Services Act, SM 2009, c 32, CCSM c P94.5 ss 28(1)(a) and 28(2)(c). For<br />
background on the Act see Jason E Roberts, “Bringing the Thin Blue Line into Line: Bill<br />
16, The Police Services Act” (2010) 34:3 Man LJ 72.