Dubai immigration refuse entry for tattooed Brit, says he will never return

[rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

But.. it seems many on this forum are dead against anyone who differs from the mundane norm...  I get that, face tattoos are somewhat 'alarming' for some to look at, they may indicate some on the fringes of normal society and that makes people uncomfortable...  But, if they are so open in their behavior I wonder whether judging a book by its cover is correct....

 

I agree with your rationale. I find it too radical, however it would be interesting to have a conversation with a face-inked person and have their take on things.

 

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

... A guy who lives near mean is covered in tatts... no face tatts, but all over his body...  he's a lovely guy, doting father, clearly a good husband, works hard etc...      But some on this forum would see a photo of him and pass an extreme judgement....  

 

Definitely agree.

[rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, Nid_Noi said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21425704/

 

Tattoed faces and facial recognition algorithms are not best friends.

Passport biometrics and facial recognition camera need to match. If not you don’t get in.

 

This is where my mind went immediately too. Also, over the years, I have seen several IOs in various countries explicitly look up and down from the face to the passport photo to see if they match. This is obviously one of the security points they are meant to check, in addition to biometrics, and implies they have discretion to refuse entry if they have a valid reason to doubt the traveller and the picture are the same person – the fact that he was allowed in twice before lends credence to this.

Though the article mentions he started getting facial tattoos nine years ago, he might have visibly less on the passport photo than what he has now. It is an extreme body modification which could warrant further investigation (and ultimately denial).

[richard_smith237]

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

They already do. I have several visible tattoos, but facial ones I find very disturbing, IMO there has to be some underlying psychological issue for someone to do something so radical.

 

Isn't this all just part of a broader spectrum of personal expression?

 

I often arrive at the same conclusion as you: there seems to be, in many cases, an underlying psychological impulse driving someone to make such a permanent and radical alteration to their appearance...   particularly when it involves scarring or marking the skin through tattoos.

 

And yet, when we look back through history, tattoos - facial and otherwise - have been an integral part of numerous cultures. From the Māori moko to the ancient Egyptian and Nubian tattooed mummies, and the warrior tattoos of the Samoans or Celts, body modification has long served as a symbol of identity, status, spirituality, and belonging.

 

That said, the context we're discussing is modern Western society, which brings with it a particular set of social expectations and norms. In this setting, facial tattoos, in particular, still carry significant stigma. They're often associated with criminality, marginalisation, or anti-social rebellion - despite the growing popularity of tattoo culture in general.

 

I constantly find myself caught in a philosophical tug-of-war, particularly with folk locked in their ways, or unable to self reflect on their prejudices...   

 

On one hand, I find myself defending what many criticise as the 'nanny state' - the inclination of governments and institutions to impose regulations for the collective good, provided those measures are proportionate and reasonable. On the other, I advocate for individual liberty, particularly when the choices people make pose no tangible harm to others.

 

Facial tattoos lie precisely at this intersection: a deeply personal decision that inevitably clashes with prevailing public perception. The question is, should society evolve to embrace such expressions of individuality, or is it justifiable to preserve certain aesthetic standards - especially within professional or formal contexts? It's an ongoing tension, a balancing act between the right to self-expression and the unspoken rules of societal conformity.

 

If this individual had been a Nobel Laureate in Physics, we'd likely be celebrating his eccentricity - a maverick mind with an unshakable independence of thought. Or imagine him a musical genius: the tattoos would be seen not as rebellion, but as a visual extension of his creative brilliance. In one context, he's lauded for his uniqueness; in another, he's judged for the same traits.

 

Then again, he might just be a Benidorm or Magaluf regular... drawn to sun, cheap lager, and the chaos of a full English at 2am. But equally, he could be a perfectly ordinary man whose sense of identity simply doesn’t conform to the mainstream.

 

Not everyone wears their self-expression on their sleeve - some wear it on their face.

 

The irony, of course, is that we know far less about him than the judgmental loudmouths who've rushed to condemn him with such casual bigotry. Their assumptions say far more about them than they ever will about him.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

3 hours ago, Nid_Noi said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21425704/

 

Tattoed faces and facial recognition algorithms are not best friends.

Passport biometrics and facial recognition camera need to match. If not you don’t get in.

 

This is where my mind went immediately too. Also, over the years, I have seen several IOs in various countries explicitly look up and down from the face to the passport photo to see if they match. This is obviously one of the security points they are meant to check, in addition to biometrics, and implies they have discretion to refuse entry if they have a valid reason to doubt the traveller and the picture are the same person – the fact that he was allowed in twice before lends credence to this.

Though the article mentions he started getting facial tattoos nine years ago, he might have visibly less on the passport photo than what he has now. It is an extreme body modification which could warrant further investigation (and ultimately denial).

 

It's certainly a possibility - but what's most striking is that he appears to have been given no benefit of the doubt, no opportunity to clarify or defend himself.

 

I recall a personal experience in Singapore, where an immigration officer nearly denied me entry because she felt my passport photo didn’t sufficiently resemble me. Rather than argue the point, I asked her to call a supervisor. Suddenly, it was no longer an issue, and I was stamped through without further delay.

 

In this gentleman’s case, verifying his identity should have been relatively straightforward. Between driving licences, credit cards, previous digital entry records, and other standard documentation, there are numerous ways to establish who someone is.

 

Which leads me to believe that ‘facial recognition’ wasn’t truly the issue at all. Rather, it seems the decision rested with the discretion of the immigration officer - who may have made a subjective, and perhaps unfair, judgment. In cases like this, personal bias can easily masquerade as protocol.

[rattlesnake]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Isn't this all just part of a broader spectrum of personal expression?

 

I often arrive at the same conclusion as you: there seems to be, in many cases, an underlying psychological impulse driving someone to make such a permanent and radical alteration to their appearance...   particularly when it involves scarring or marking the skin through tattoos.

 

And yet, when we look back through history, tattoos - facial and otherwise - have been an integral part of numerous cultures. From the Māori moko to the ancient Egyptian and Nubian tattooed mummies, and the warrior tattoos of the Samoans or Celts, body modification has long served as a symbol of identity, status, spirituality, and belonging.

 

That said, the context we're discussing is modern Western society, which brings with it a particular set of social expectations and norms. In this setting, facial tattoos, in particular, still carry significant stigma. They're often associated with criminality, marginalisation, or anti-social rebellion - despite the growing popularity of tattoo culture in general.

 

I constantly find myself caught in a philosophical tug-of-war, particularly with folk locked in their ways, or unable to self reflect on their prejudices...   

 

On one hand, I find myself defending what many criticise as the 'nanny state' - the inclination of governments and institutions to impose regulations for the collective good, provided those measures are proportionate and reasonable. On the other, I advocate for individual liberty, particularly when the choices people make pose no tangible harm to others.

 

Facial tattoos lie precisely at this intersection: a deeply personal decision that inevitably clashes with prevailing public perception. The question is, should society evolve to embrace such expressions of individuality, or is it justifiable to preserve certain aesthetic standards - especially within professional or formal contexts? It's an ongoing tension, a balancing act between the right to self-expression and the unspoken rules of societal conformity.

 

If this individual had been a Nobel Laureate in Physics, we'd likely be celebrating his eccentricity - a maverick mind with an unshakable independence of thought. Or imagine him a musical genius: the tattoos would be seen not as rebellion, but as a visual extension of his creative brilliance. In one context, he's lauded for his uniqueness; in another, he's judged for the same traits.

 

Then again, he might just be a Benidorm or Magaluf regular... drawn to sun, cheap lager, and the chaos of a full English at 2am. But equally, he could be a perfectly ordinary man whose sense of identity simply doesn’t conform to the mainstream.

 

Not everyone wears their self-expression on their sleeve - some wear it on their face.

 

The irony, of course, is that we know far less about him than the judgmental loudmouths who've rushed to condemn him with such casual bigotry. Their assumptions say far more about them than they ever will about him.

 

 

 

I understand where you're coming from. Ultimately, I'd have to spend an hour with him to form an opinion on him and who knows, maybe he's a great bloke…

 

What I am sure of is that by doing this, he is closing 90% of society's doors, so he'd better be confident that he is able to thrive and maintain stability on all levels within the 10% available to him.

 

Another thing is that there is lots of black on his neck and arms, which implies several layers and ultimately a complete cover-up, which is pretty unusual – at least his girlfriend has quality tattoos and actually looks pretty good (though slightly OTT for my liking).

[rattlesnake]

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

It's certainly a possibility - but what's most striking is that he appears to have been given no benefit of the doubt, no opportunity to clarify or defend himself.

 

I recall a personal experience in Singapore, where an immigration officer nearly denied me entry because she felt my passport photo didn’t sufficiently resemble me. Rather than argue the point, I asked her to call a supervisor. Suddenly, it was no longer an issue, and I was stamped through without further delay.

 

In this gentleman’s case, verifying his identity should have been relatively straightforward. Between driving licences, credit cards, previous digital entry records, and other standard documentation, there are numerous ways to establish who someone is.

 

Which leads me to believe that ‘facial recognition’ wasn’t truly the issue at all. Rather, it seems the decision rested with the discretion of the immigration officer - who may have made a subjective, and perhaps unfair, judgment. In cases like this, personal bias can easily masquerade as protocol.

 

Yeah, and reading the article again, the fact that he was detained for four hours – which is extremely long – and that a senior officer ultimately confirmed his deportation because of the tattoos indicates that this issue was escalated and discussed, and that there was a consensus on the matter.

 

Basically, if you have face ink, don't go to the Middle East.