Debe graphic artist challenges police body-art policy

A graphic artist with a life goal of becoming a police officer is challenging the service’s body art policy, as he was unable to apply because of a Shuriken (ninja star) tattoo on his left hand.

Dillon Ramraj, of Cuchawan Trace, Debe, says a revised body art policy in 2021 and an earlier one in 2011, “stifles his expression and identity.”

“It makes him feel muzzled. Furthermore, it is frustrating and depressing because no one has given a reasonable explanation for this continuing ban on visible tattoos. “

Ramraj said he applied in 2019, but was told of the 2011 policy which completely prohibited recruits from having tattoos. This policy was replaced in 2020, permitting tattoos, but there were certain areas where they remained prohibited –the head, face, neck, ears, scalp or hands – and must not be visible beyond the collar or sleeve cuff of the service’s grey uniform.

That policy was revoked in 2021 and although it still permits tattoos, they must be covered by the uniform, makeup or temporary skin camouflage material. However, tattooing is still prohibited on the face, neck or hands.

The 2021 policy also says trainees cannot have tattoos, branding, body piercing, body art of modifications that are “offensive in nature and/or is gang related and/or gang affiliated.”

These policies apply to new recruits.

Ramraj’s lawsuit said he enquired on May 2022 about his eligibility to apply, but was told “the recruiting process still had as one of its rules, no visible tattoos.”

He was also told his was “still very much visible.”

“Even if the 2021 policy is viewed as permitting tattoos once they are covered…the claimant’s constitutional rights are nevertheless breached,” his constitutional claim says.

Presiding over the matter is Justice Frank Seepersad who said the filed motion was an “interesting one” which will give the court an opportunity to consider the TTPS’s tattoo policy.

And, “in particular, determine whether the policy, or any aspect thereof, is unreasonable and/or violates enshrined constitutional rights,” he said at a virtual hearing on Thursday.

He will rule on the constitutional claim on July 18.

Seepersad said “these reviews” were important, “especially as we still operate in an environment in which inherited colonial regulations and archaic policies and processes still form part of our operational framework and many of them really ought not to be factored into life in a modern democratic society.”

Ramraj said he has tried to have the tattoo removed. but cannot.

“In this regard, barring the claimant from joining the police service has breached and continues to breach his right to equality of treatment from a public authority in the exercise

of its functions and freedom of expression,” the lawsuit says.

“In a democratic society, it is dangerous for the Commissioner of Police to continue to implement and uphold policies which violate fundamental human rights,” it added.

The claim alleges the policies sought to prohibit anyone with visible tattoos from joining the police service on the “false premise that the mere presence of a tattoo would somehow compromise and/or adversely affect the image of the police service.”

The lawsuit contends that while Ramraj has no doubt offensive tattoos could adversely affect the image of the TTPS and should be regulated, a blanket prohibition was unreasonable.

“The continued practice and acceptance of allowing police officers who are already within the service to wear and show their tattoos, reflects that tattoos do not conflict with the TTPS’s vision statement, To make every place in TT safe and its motto, To protect and serve with P.R.I.D.E.”

“There is no rational connection between such a policy and the maintenance of the professional image of the TTPS. This, more so in circumstances where many senior officers proudly display their tattoos without any fear of repercussion. This is plainly discriminatory.”

Ramraj’s lawsuit said he also found it alarming the police would adopt a restrictive and archaic approach to tattoos when there was a shortage of police officers, referring to newspaper articles on this issue and the high murder rate.

“The claimant is of the view that the perception of tattoos has changed over time and similar to the aforesaid policy, it ought not to prohibit him or anyone from joining the police service unless it “could reasonably and objectively be interpreted as discriminatory or offensive and/ or indicate attitudes or views inconsistent with the” values of the TTPS.

“In this regard, the claimant strongly believes that there is no way that his Shuriken tattoo could be interpreted as discriminatory or offensive.”

Ramraj, who practises martial arts, said the Shuriken was a symbol he always loved as a child and would draw it before deciding to get it tattooed.

He also provided a list of police officers who have tattoos.

“The claimant strongly believe that it is in the public’s interest to ensure the appointment and recruitment process of officers to the TTPS is done fairly…It is highly ironic and almost nonsensical that the Commissioner of Police permits members of the TTPS to possess tattoos openly and in full view of the public but bar potential new applicants from becoming recruits and then police officers on the basis that they wear tattoos.”

Ramrajalso says he will make more money as a police officer than as a graphic artist.

Last year, two SRPs who also challenged the policy’s body art policy lost their lawsuits agains the State. Both had challenged the 2020 policy, but the judge said departmental order would not have applied to them because of the years they were rejected, which were before that policy was made.

Ramraj is represented by a team of attorneys led by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan.