serving Britain's armed forces
|
|
serving Britain's armed forces |
|
| informing, supporting and sustaining the men and women of Britain's Armed Forces who are unashamedly proud2serve | |
| home :: sitemap :: news :: key
documents :: civil
partnership :: contact :: forum ::
chat :: links :: shopping :: finance :: search ::
guestbook |
|
| Forces for Change
This article appears in the September 05 edition of Attitude magazine. Just a few years ago, gay members of the armed forces were effectively criminalised. Now we’re welcomed with open arms. Attitude examines how this total turnaround came to pass, and speaks to the men who are confounding stereotypes and spearheading this change. A mere five years ago the government formally announced the end of the policy banning gay personnel from serving in the armed forces. Britain lifted this gay ban following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, put under pressure by a group of individuals who campaigned hard for equal rights for all gay servicemen in the UK. It's hard to imagine now, but up until 1994, being gay in the military was actually a criminal act, sometimes punishable with a prison sentence. Until 12 January 2000, the British Services maintained an official policy of discharging all known gay and lesbian soldiers. It was felt that the close living quarters and the stresses of military life precluded the inclusion of homosexual servicemembers. Military commanders argued that "homosexual behaviour can cause offence, polarize relationships, induce ill-discipline, and damage morale and unit effectiveness", A decade later and that attitude is astonishingly different. "We've come a very very long way in a short period of time' says Lieutenant Commander Craig Jones of the Royal Navy, a gay sailor who has done much to educate and inform on the subject. "For a while we had a policy - in the words of Oscar Wilde - 'that dare not speak its name', whereas now we have a policy that we're increasingly evangelical about. The people who forced this change in legislation should be very proud of what they've achieved.” The last time Craig Jones talked to the gay press he had to formally ask the Secretary of State for permission. Today he's having his portrait taken for Attitude alongside gay servicemen from the Army and the Royal Air Force and is free to talk about gay bars, boyfriends and the officers’ mess bar without fear of expulsion. It says a lot about a progressive society when things like this happen, when we can finally bury the prejudices and stereotypes of an older generation and move on in our thinking. Worldwide, every country bar Turkey and the US accepts that gay personnel in the armed forces makes no difference to morale, fighting efficiency, or whatever invalid excuse is used to keep us out. In those two countries (and let's face it, America is one of the most significant fighting forces in the world) they still use a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, a wholly shameful cover-up which merely perpetrates lies and suspicion. In contrast, the men being photographed today have nothing to hide. They are respected officers in their own regiments. They've fought in the Gulf War, been deployed to some of the most dangerous war zones in the world, and being gay hasn't made the slightest jot of difference. You have Stonewall to thank for this remarkable change in history. Back in the early 90s the lobbying group was contacted by Robert Ely, a gay man who had served in the army for 17 years- The discovery of a private letter led to his sexuality being disclosed and he was consequently subjected to a humiliating investigation before being thrown out of the army. In 1992, Ely and Stonewall gave evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on the armed forces. This was the first time that lesbians and gay men had challenged the ban. As a result of that evidence, the Conservative government promised to stop the criminal prosecution of gay armed service personnel. Nevertheless, the dismissals and degrading investigations continued and the Ministry of Defence argued that the presence of lesbians and gay men would undermine morale and fighting capability. In 1998, Stonewall was approached by Jeanette Smith, who had been thrown out of the airforce, and Duncan Lustig-Prean, a naval commander who was also being dismissed. So began the long battle through the courts, with two other servicemen, Graham Grady and John Beckett subsequently joining the case. "lt wasn't for personal gain,” says Craig Jones, "because the compensation these people received was paltry. What they did do, though, is change the lives of gay servicemen ad infinitum.” Stonewall had to go to Strasbourg and the European Court of Human Rights to finally win victory. The judgment of the court was a resounding vindication of the rights of lesbians and gay men and the Labour government immediately announced that they would lift the age-old ban. Since that time there have been no indications of negative effects on recruiting levels, no mass resignations, no major reported cases of gay-bashing or harassment and no perceived effect on morale, unit cohesion or operational effectiveness. Did it ever really matter? Er, no. So what were they worried about? Prior to 1994, the Royal Navy was the only branch of the armed forces that maintained specific guidelines related to homosexuality. As a random example of their determination to keep gays out, they provided the following instructions for medical officers when dealing with suspected gay or lesbian personnel: "...homosexuals are often a source of sexually transmitted diseases... Tears and stains, particularly of the underpants, trousers and shirt, should be examined and, if available, an ultra-violet light should be used to screen the clothing, bearing in mind that semen is not the only substance which fluoresces under UV light.” The guidelines also suggested investigators determine "whether the man may have played the passive role" and recommended the agent "look for feminine gestures and use of cosmetics.” Never mind last century, doesn't that sound like the voice of the Victorians? Military leaders also argued that the intimacy of living together in same-sex barracks made homosexual service impractical. They thought that heterosexual service members would feel uncomfortable showering or sleeping next to a gay soldier. It seems positively Draconian now, but in 1994 the Ministry of Defence cited that homosexuality was considered incompatible with service in the armed forces, not only because of the close physical conditions in which personnel had to live and work, but also because they believed homosexual behaviour could damage morale and unit effectiveness. How wrong could they be? “We still have a long way to go,” says Craig Jones. "The
climate in the armed forces has changed but it needs to continue to change.
The great thing is, I do feel quite genuinely that our senior officers
recognise the importance of accepting gay servicemen. The fact that we’re
recruiting at Brighton Pride and Manchester Mardi Gras is amazing. The
speed of progression is amazing, l just hope that we can continue in
this new progressive vein.” Q & A with the three Services: Capt Gary New, Officer training instructor Lieutenant Commander Craig A Jones. Commander in Chief Fleet, National Command Centre Andy Wasley, Identification Officer in the Fighter Control branch page: news :: 200508-attitude-forcesforchange.htmupdated: 24 Aug 05 |
||
|
||
Proud2Serve.net - serving Britain's armed forces |
||