Fortitude Valley bar denies entry to Indigenous woman over cultural face tattoos

A 23-year-old Papuan woman was refused entry to a Fortitude Valley bar on Saturday night because of her cultural facial tattoos. Moale James was turned away by security at Hey Chica! on Brunswick Street while attempting to celebrate her partner’s birthday.

James stated the security guard explicitly told her he would not let her in because of her face, despite her explanation that the marks were traditional. The incident has sparked a public debate regarding the bar’s blanket policy on tattoos and the Queensland Liquor Act.

The incident and the cultural significance

James received her facial reva reva tattoos only a month ago during a trip to New Zealand. She travelled there with her mother to meet Aunty Julian, a family marking artist, because COVID restrictions prevented a trip to Papua New Guinea. According to NITV News, these marks signify her graduation from university and her entry into her career.

The 23-year-old received her first reva reva at the age of 15. She explained that every mark on her body signifies a specific moment in time, such as entering high school or working on a story about sexual assault. The facial marks hold a higher responsibility as they acknowledge ancestors and “Old People”.

James told NITV News she felt a profound sense of pride in carrying these stories on her face. She noted that everyone she meets will see not just her, but also her Elders. Despite this, she had been prepped for potential backlash by her family before leaving the house that night.

Hey Chica!’s policy and response

James handed her license to the security guard at the door of Hey Chica! and was immediately rejected. The guard looked at her license, then at her, and stated he was not going to let her in because of her face. James explained the cultural nature of the tattoos, but the guard maintained his refusal.

The bar later responded to James via a message that she described as short. The venue stated that staff were following procedure and enforcing a blanket policy that prohibits head and face tattoos. They claimed this policy is enforced under the Liquor Act alongside other conditions of entry.

Hey Chica! acknowledged the rule caused unintended distress but insisted they would continue to enforce it. James reported that the business has since turned off comments on their social media posts and will not allow her to tag them. NITV News contacted the venue for comment but did not receive a response.

Historical context of venue policies in Brisbane

The Liquor Act in Queensland allows licensees to refuse service on four specific grounds. These include if the law requires it, for the safety of the patron, for the safety of others, or if the licensee considers it warranted provided it is not discriminatory. James and her family, including friends who are lawyers, found the specific clause the bar cited to be confusing.

James noted that the law appears to be older than she is and was written during a time when Queensland had significant issues with bikie gangs. This historical context suggests the strict policies on visible tattoos may have originated from an era focused on gang identification rather than modern cultural expression.

The bar’s refusal to engage further on the legalities of their policy highlights a gap between old regulations and current multicultural realities. James stated she asked about the legalities of the policy the bar was trying to refer to but received no answer. This silence leaves the community questioning the application of these laws in a diverse city like Brisbane.

Community impact and the fight for change

James decided to take the matter to the Queensland Human Rights Commission. She initially sought a written apology for the discriminatory treatment but noted the venue was not interested. Her goal has shifted to forcing an amendment to the policy to make it less confusing and more conscious of the multicultural society they cater to.

The incident resonated deeply with the local community, as James described it as a long fight. She explained that for her family, standing up against such systems is a known burden. Her grandparents were married in a time when Black women and white men were not allowed to marry, illustrating a long history of fighting systemic barriers.

James challenged those who question the racism of the incident, stating that if someone cannot figure out how it is racist, the fault lies with them. The event underscores the tension between venue policies and the rights of Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander peoples to express their culture in public spaces. It also raises questions about how security staff are trained to handle cultural markers versus criminal identifiers.

What happens next

James is now proceeding with a formal complaint through the Queensland Human Rights Commission. This legal pathway is the mechanism available for patrons who feel they are subject to discrimination by licensed venues. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how face tattoos are treated in Brisbane nightlife.

The community is watching to see if Hey Chica! will amend their blanket ban on face tattoos. James has stated she wants a policy that is clear and respectful of cultural diversity. Until a resolution is reached, the debate over the interpretation of the Liquor Act in relation to cultural tattoos remains active in Fortitude Valley.

Sources

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/indigenous-woman-refused-club-entry-over-cultural-face-tattoos/rzuofqdrs

Fortitude Valley bar denies entry to Indigenous woman over cultural face tattoos