JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Wednesday, June 25, 2025

Enforcing the camouflage laws

by

20130104

I have re­searched the laws per­tain­ing to the pro­hi­bi­tion of cam­ou­flage cloth­ing, with the as­sis­tance of the par­lia­men­tary li­brary. The rel­e­vant Acts are De­fence Act Ch 14:01 Sec­tion 219, and the Sum­ma­ry Of­fences Act Ch: 11.02 Sec­tion 98 (1) and (3).

Both these sec­tions re­fer to a non-mem­ber of the De­fence Force wear­ing "the uni­form or any por­tion of the uni­forms of a mem­ber of the De­fence Force...or any dress hav­ing the ap­pear­ance or bear­ing any of the reg­i­men­tal or oth­er dis­tinc­tive marks of any such uni­form."

On my read­ing, the Acts do not pro­hib­it the pos­ses­sion of any uni­form or any part there­of and I have found no au­thor­i­ty for the Cus­toms' prac­tice of con­fis­cat­ing in­no­cent pieces of cloth­ing-a tod­dler's cap or even a ted­dy bear, or a piece of lug­gage bear­ing cam­ou­flage mark­ings.

A news­pa­per sto­ry of June 30, 2010 by Alexan­der Bruzual fur­ther re­lates that Mag­is­trate Mar­cia Mur­ray up­held the sub­mis­sion of Dale Marthis that his pos­ses­sion of cam­ou­flage pants and jack­et were not con­trary to the De­fence Force Act. For the ben­e­fit of read­ers, I quote the full Sec­tion 219 to con­vey the true in­tent of the Act:

"A per­son, oth­er than a mem­ber of the De­fence Force, who with­out law­ful ex­cuse (the proof where­of shall lie on him)-(a) wears the uni­form or any por­tion of the uni­forms of a mem­ber of the De­fence Force; or (b) wears any cos­tume or any ar­ti­cle of cloth­ing or ap­par­el so close­ly re­sem­bling the uni­form or any por­tion there­of of a mem­ber of the De­fence Force, as may cause such per­son to be mis­tak­en for a mem­ber of the De­fence Force, is li­able on sum­ma­ry con­vic­tion to a fine of one thou­sand dol­lars and to im­pris­on­ment for eigh­teen months."

Un­less the Comp­trol­ler of Cus­toms could pro­vide ad­di­tion­al clar­i­fi­ca­tion, cus­toms' of­fi­cers at Pi­ar­co should stop the fu­tile fuss­ing.

Michael J Williams

Mara­cas, St Joseph


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored