It is not uncommon to see on flyers for biker-run events the legend “No Patches”. This is not to indicate no one with visibly repaired clothing should attend but it is a dress code. Here “Patches” refers to the formal insignia of particular motorcycle clubs [MCCs and MCs], also known as their “colours”, usually worn as a decorated patch or set of patches on an over-jacket or jerkin.
The purpose of banning such patches from events is to prevent friction that may exist between particular clubs becoming an issue at an event open to all. No one is expected to renounce their club membership, they are just required to recognise the event as being neutral and to leave any grievances or rivalries outside.
The simplest way to avoid trouble arising from anyone taking offence at or disrespecting anyone else’s patch, even by accident, and things kicking off and ruining the event for everybody is to insist that no such patches should be worn on the site at all. Anyone arriving with their patch on display or displaying it at the event would be asked to remove and stow it out of sight or to leave site.
In UK law this kind of thing comes under the umbrella heading of the prevention of a Breach of the Peace. If necessary, police can arrest anyone refusing to agree to remove or cover any slogan or insignia deemed likely to provoke an incident, whether in private or public.
For example, in the aftermath of an attack by one club upon another’s clubhouse while there was a party going on, particularly if it resulted in loss of life, the police would quite rightly want to prevent anyone badged as a supporter of the attacking club from being in the vicinity of that clubhouse and provoking any further incident.
Last month France held public parties countrywide to celebrate Bastille Day. One of the larger parties was held in Nice and it was attacked by a man in a lorry. 86 people died from the attack, ten of whom were children or teenagers, and hundreds more were injured. The attack was carried out in the name of a worship club.
So why was anyone surprised or upset that a mayor in the region ruled that in the interests of public order no one should wear the uniform of that worship club on the beach for which he is responsible?
If someone wants to be covered-up in the sun or in the sea it is not a problem, they should just do it in a such a way that they are not an immediate reminder of the attack. There are myriad combinations of trouser, shirt and hat that can be worn and I don’t think it is unreasonable that a dress code insisting no one wears one that might cause offence or upset be enforced.
A court has just decided the dress code imposed by this mayor should be removed because there is no evidence of tangible public order issues having arisen. There is, however, no way of measuring offence or upset caused.
I still think it is wrong to treat worship clubs and their uniforms any differently from any other clubs and their insignia.
