Tattoo Thread - including current policy [MERGED]

[Munxcub]

I think that's if you are already a member. I doubt the grandfather there would apply to new recruits.

 

[armyvern]

"Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive" and "Tattoos acquired prior to April 1st, 2004 must comply with paragraph 9."

Sounds like if it's a pre-existing tattoo and it's not offensive (Chinese character for what??) it shouldn't be a problem...

That's members who were already serving on 01 Apr 2004 buckaroo.

The rule was in place when this guy applied...so he needs to have no visible tattoos. (ie...do not approve for service any applicants who do not meet the standard which has been in effect since 01 Apr 2004). Clear enough?

 

[scoutfinch]

Let me first preface this by saying that I have absolutely no idea how the rule is applied.... but a reading of the plain language would lead one to believe that it is the date that the tattoo is acquired that is significant.... which would be ludicrous and leads me to believe that what Vern says is how the rule actually applies and is likely what the drafter of this rule meant to say.  Unfortunately, who ever wrote this did a very poor job.

(That might just be the lawyer coming out in me again!)

 

[ZipperHead]

I'm with the 5th BC Field Regiment, and we just had a applicant DENIED because of a chinese tatoo located on the right front of his neck.  Is this a new law in the CF?  Would like some help quick so I can get back to him before he goes and spends 125$ for 3 sessions to get it removed.

IIRC, they (recruiters) check with local police forces to see if any of the tattoos have gang, racist organization affiliations, etc. This might be the case here, or maybe they checked with a person who can read Chinese (assuming it was Chinese writing, and not art), and the character's spelled out something that fits the profane, vulgar, offensive, etc bill. I recall reading somewhere that there was a tattoo artist (Chinese) who didn't like the fact that it was trendy for Caucasians to get Chinese characters tattooed on themselves, so he changed their "Sweetheart" to "Ass-head" or something along that lines. To them I say "Ha! Ha!".  Nearest link I could be bothered to find on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_tattoos

AL

 

[Michael OLeary]

Let me first preface this by saying that I have absolutely no idea how the rule is applied.... but a reading of the plain language would lead one to believe that it is the date that the tattoo is acquired that is significant.... which would be ludicrous and leads me to believe that what Vern says is how the rule actually applies and is likely what the drafter of this rule meant to say.  Unfortunately, who ever wrote this did a very poor job.

(That might just be the lawyer coming out in me again!)

That may be the plain language interpretation, but Canadian Forces Dress Regulations apply to serving members, not civilians standing outside the recruiting centre.  The regulation which is really required to explore this question is the one which is used by the CFRC and defines what is acceptable for applicants.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Okay, aside from visible racist or vulgar tattoos is the CF really going to throw away a prospective applicant for the sake of some visible body art?

This makes my head hurt.  Here the CF is crying out loud for recruits on one hand and denying them entry on the other because some uptight, pencil necked bureaucrat or overly officious serviceman/woman with a ram rod keeping their spine erect doesn't like their tatts?

There are a lot of serious kick a**, hard core MF that I personally know that wouldn't even have been given the opportunity to serve their country today because of the colours on their skin and this rampant PC tomfoolery.  What a crock!

 

[mover1]

no its all about being and looking professional instead of looking like a prison yard reject.

 

[Reccesoldier]

no its all about being and looking professional instead of looking like a prison yard reject.

Yeah, riiiight.

I'd rather soldier with a competent prison yard reject than an incompetent "professional" any day. 

 

[PO2FinClk]

"Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive" and "Tattoos acquired prior to April 1st, 2004 must comply with paragraph 9."

Sounds like if it's a pre-existing tattoo and it's not offensive (Chinese character for what??) it shouldn't be a problem...

You should of kept reading to para 9.A..

 

[Chris The Pirate]

Question:

Would a wedding ring tattoo on the ring finger be allowed? I don't have that tattoo, but I'm considering getting my wedding ring tattoo'd on my ring finger.

From what I read:
I understand that if you have a visable tattoo, and you were already a member of the CF prior to 2004, and it isn't offensive you can keep it.

Since this law is in place, I understand that no 'offensive' visable tattoo's are allowed; correct? If the tattoo is visable, but isn't considered offensive, is it allowed? (such as the wedding ring tattoo)

Thanks in advance - and please try to refrain from blasting me about the many regrets I may have about the ring finger idea, I've thought about it many many times and am only considering it, and it's my idea to consider.

Thanks again.

Chris

 

[Reccesoldier]

Question:

Would a wedding ring tattoo on the ring finger be allowed? I don't have that tattoo, but I'm considering getting my wedding ring tattoo'd on my ring finger.

From what I read:
I understand that if you have a visable tattoo, and you were already a member of the CF prior to 2004, and it isn't offensive you can keep it.

Since this law is in place, I understand that no 'offensive' visable tattoo's are allowed; correct? If the tattoo is visable, but isn't considered offensive, is it allowed? (such as the wedding ring tattoo)

Thanks in advance - and please try to refrain from blasting me about the many regrets I may have about the ring finger idea, I've thought about it many many times and am only considering it, and it's my idea to consider.

Thanks again.

Chris

Very good friend of mine got his wedding ring tattooed on in Greece at the end of our KFOR tour, very well and tastefully done.  It's not a stupid idea at all especially if you work around heavy machinery. 

 

[KrissyJ]

I just spoke to the Recruiter about this last week as I have a few and plan on getting more. He said as long as they are tasteful and not derogatory then its OK! If the military decides its innappropriate you will have to

a: Alter it at your cost
b: Remove it at your cost
c: If you refuse the above: Consider yourself a civilian (his words)

 

[Hunteroffortune]

How would it look if members of the military, had nose rings, and eyebrow rings, while in uniform? It's just not very professional. College students wear them all the time, but you can bet that they take them out for a job interview, and that companies will not allow them to be worn during work hours. So, tattoo all you want, just make sure it's not visible when you are in your uniform, that seems to be the rule here.

I see the wedding ring tattoo as a great way to show you are married, without the risk of wearing the ring, and maybe getting it caught in some machinery, that one makes sense, just don't know if it would be allowed, but it should be.

 

[The_Falcon]

Question:

Would a wedding ring tattoo on the ring finger be allowed? I don't have that tattoo, but I'm considering getting my wedding ring tattoo'd on my ring finger.

From what I read:
I understand that if you have a visable tattoo, and you were already a member of the CF prior to 2004, and it isn't offensive you can keep it.

Since this law is in place, I understand that no 'offensive' visable tattoo's are allowed; correct? If the tattoo is visable, but isn't considered offensive, is it allowed? (such as the wedding ring tattoo)

Thanks in advance - and please try to refrain from blasting me about the many regrets I may have about the ring finger idea, I've thought about it many many times and am only considering it, and it's my idea to consider.

Thanks again.

Chris

Visible tats are permissible (as long as they comply with the no sexist, racist stuff), on your hands and arms.  Visible tats are not permisible on your chest, neck and head.

 

[Journeyman]

I see the wedding ring tattoo as a great way to show you are married...

"True love lasts forever; a tattoo lasts six months longer"

That was funny...until the training marriage ended.

 

[Hopkins]

His tatoo is the Chinese symbol for "Mother" dedicated to his mother obviously.  And it needs to be removed...

 

[Chris The Pirate]

Thanks for the answers and opinions.

Chris

 

[PO2FinClk]

Hatchett Man is correct, and am re-posting the ref as some people either did not see it or did not read it.

CFP 265 Chap 2 Section 2 Para 9.A.

9A. As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open  collared shirt is worn. Tattoos acquired prior to April 1st, 2004 must comply with paragraph 9.

A “Wedding Ring” Tattoo is perfectly acceptable, as it is not listed as an unacceptable location.

Since this law is in place, I understand that no 'offensive' visable tattoo's are allowed; correct? If the tattoo is visable, but isn't considered offensive, is it allowed? (such as the wedding ring tattoo)

Laws are passed by parliaments; this is a regulation & policy but certainly not a law. Anything on the head, neck, chest or ears acquired after 01 Apr 04 is not acceptable, regardless of what it may be. It really is that simple and para 9.A. quoted above explains quite adequately IMHO.

 

[mike1234]

It's odd to me that the chest is mentioned as a place you can't have tattoos.

I have my entire chest tattooed and across my collar bone.  I was just accepted a couple months ago and all I was told was to keep the tats off my hands and neck and nothing profane etc.  The chest didn't seem to be an issue.

 

[Journeyman]

I didn't suggest that a wedding band tattoo was not acceptable, merely that it might be regrettable.

Of course, if you're getting married, divorce details aren't likely ones' primary thoughts.