By MORGAN ADDERLEY

Tribune Staff Reporter

madderley@tribunemedia.net 

ACTIVISTS have criticised the Department of Immigration’s new dress code for entry as “gender-based discrimination” and “irrational”.

The issue became topical after women reported being turned away from the facility for wearing shorts or sleeveless dresses.

Marion Bethel, an attorney who currently serves on the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (CEDAW), and Alicia Wallace, director of Equality Bahamas, both spoke out against the policy yesterday.  

In recent months, Caribbean countries such as Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda have distanced themselves from a rule that many consider to be outdated and a vestige of colonialism.  

In August, Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness suspended the country’s own “no sleeveless” policy, a “long-standing practice of prohibiting women wearing sleeveless attire from entry into government buildings,” according to the Jamaica Gleaner.  

Days later, the Antigua and Barbuda government ordered its own “comprehensive review” of dress code policy in government buildings, the Antigua Observer reports. 

In response to criticisms raised last week, Immigration Minister Brent Symonette told The Tribune people must be “properly dressed” when coming to the facility. When asked to elaborate, Mr Symonette said this meant “respectable clothing” and added the rules are applicable to men and women. 

On Friday, The Tribune visited the Department of Immigration and witnessed one woman have to borrow a sweater to gain entry, as she was wearing a sleeveless dress.

Activists have criticized these occurrences.  

“Because what I’m understanding is that women are predominantly affected by this code… even though the code does say it applies to men and women, my sense is that this is really targeting women and our clothing,” Ms Bethel told The Tribune. “And so in that case, yes, it is misogynistic and it is prejudicial and biased against women and policing of us and our bodies and our clothes. (It) is outrageous and not acceptable.

“I think any public entity like immigration, like health services, social services, the Labour Board, National Insurance, all of these kinds of agencies that have a public service; any kind of public code that they want to enact, it has to be based on some principle, it has to be rational, it has to be reasonable, and it has to be non-discriminatory,” Ms Bethel continued. 

Describing the practice as “deplorable,” Ms Bethel noted that taxpayers finance for the services these government agencies provide, and thus should be able to enter “without policing of our clothes.” 

“And so the fact that that’s happening and it seems to be happening disproportionately with women in regard to our clothing, to me it’s really discriminatory,” Ms Bethel added. 

For her part, when asked if the Bahamas should follow the steps taken by Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda, Ms Wallace noted all these countries have a similar climate.  

“I don’t see what a sleeveless blouse or dress has to do with my going into a public agency and asking for a particular service that I may be paying for or not be paying for…What morality is trying to be asserted here and who’s morality? I just don’t understand that it’s anybody’s business that I wear sleeveless blouse or dress.

 “Whose standards, who’s setting up this public code that does not have broad buy-in, that seems to be peculiar to a department in government, and it seems to be very unreasonable, given the circumstances of the…nature of the country that we live in, where shorts and where sleeveless blouses are common.” 

She said government services should be accessible to everyone, regardless of gender or socio-economic status.

“There are people whose uniforms are shorts, and it is not unreasonable to expect that people dress comfortably on their days off,” Ms Wallace said.

“General orders for civil servants is one thing, but denying residents’ access to services – and we know this has frequently come up at the Ministry of Education as well – is discriminatory, irresponsible, and obviously to the discretion of whomever is controlling building entry.  

“. . .We need to address the sexualisation of women’s bodies, linked to the desire to make women invisible under the guise of ‘professionalism,’ and recognise the danger of denying access to services, especially on such weak grounds that create an unnecessary barrier particularly for women and people living in poverty,” Ms Wallace said.