As an outsider, but coming from a police service, interesting development. My reaction would be similar to my reactions when police services started allowing beards, earrings, tattoos and the like, and reflected my generation - I didn't like it. I have this notion that professions should look, well, . . . professional, that cops shouldn't look like bikers, but fully realizing that my preferred image is pretty much undefinable. However, I recognize that, at the time, concerns that our constituency - rural and small town residents who actually pay the bills - would not accept the changes, did not happen in any significant way.
I suppose my bottom line is that the image being projected shouldn't be the individual's, it should be the organization that they are very visibly representing, and if the organization is okay with it, then fine. I have my doubts that it will increase recruiting, but I guess that remains to be seen.
Will the public care? Considering that, outside of the media and typically on certain 'ceremonial days, the vast majority of the population never encounters a member of the CAF, I doubt they will notice, with the exception of vets. The one exception may be those ceremonial events. Purple hair and tats may be a tougher sell in ceremonial dress, standing guard at the Tomb or being eye-candy at a photo-op with the PM, than in day-to-day uniform.
I do have a few of concerns:
- The notion of interpretation being driven down to lower leadership does strike me as a cop-out. If a lower level makes a call that doesn't get supported up the chain, they will likely make that mistake once, and if they don't feel supported, may just say 'screw it' to many matters of dress and deportment. The OPP has (or at least had) rules that beards must closely shaven and hair must be a natural colour. Members looking like ZZ Top and purple hair on a senior commander pretty much negated the effectiveness of every policy point.
- With finer detailed interpretations being driven down, does it create problems with members passing judgement on appearance matters of the opposite sex? It sounds like every local interpretation will have to be accompanied by a treatise on it operational impact.
- I do have a problem with facial tattoos. The significance of the 'human visage' in human interaction is hard-wired into out brains, and we have no cultural history related to facial tattoos unlike, say, New Zealand. The whole idea of 'appropriate' visible tattoos strikes me as problematic. I await the debate on whether the bearer of a swastika is a Nazi sympathizer or channeling an ancient middle-eastern religion. Besides, if you get a tattoo that is later ruled as inappropriate, isn't it a little late?