Quick Links

news
public forum
(read this first)
military documents
civil partnership
lifestyle
advice and help
interviews
networking
finance
shopping
humour
gallery
guestbook
contact us
links
search
site updates

RN homepage
Army homepage
RAF homepage

advertise on
proud2serve

Research

index

Nov 00 Study
- exec summary
- methodology
- context
- history
- cases
- policy
- assessment
- conclusion

VII. BRITAIN’S PRESENT POLICY CONCERNING SEXUAL MINORITIES

In their development of a new policy, the Ministry of Defense emphasized the need for: 1) compliance with the ECHR ruling, 2) regulations that were non-discriminatory; 3) the preservation of operational effectiveness, 4) accordance with the general requirements of the military, and 5) protection of individual rights under the Human Rights Act (Ministry of Defense, 2000). Homosexuality is no longer a bar to military service. Gay and lesbian soldiers are not, however, eligible for married accommodations, spousal pension or other partnership rights. In addition, a code of social conduct establishes rules of behavior that apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. Soldiers, regardless of sexual orientation or sex, are prohibited from engaging in social behavior that undermines, or may potentially undermine, the trust and cohesion, and therefore the operational effectiveness, of the Services. Enumerated inappropriate behavior includes: unwelcome physical or verbal sexual attention, overfamiliarity with the spouses of other service personnel, displays of affection which might cause offense to others, taking sexual advantage of subordinates, and behavior which damages the marriage or personal relationship of other service personnel. The code of conduct further covers other types of "social misbehavior" that have not been enumerated. Discretion is left up to the commanding officer to determine if behavior constitutes a threat to the cohesion of the unit or the military command chain. Abuse of authority, trust or rank, or taking advantage of a person’s separation, are deemed particularly serious types of misconduct (Ministry of Defense, 2000a) [33 - See also The Star Tribune (2000), Reid (2000), and The New York Times (2000)]

The new guidelines for social conduct are general and involve considerable discretion. The code therefore provides a "service test" for commanding officers to use in their assessment of the need to "intervene in the personal lives of personnel" (Ministry of Defense, 2000a, p. 1). Commanding officers must consider each case in light of the following question:

In the event of an affirmative answer, commanders are instructed to take prompt and decisive action to minimize damage to the effectiveness of the unit. If the misconduct is sufficiently serious, commanders may institute immediate administrative or punitive action. Such action may include a formal warning, official censure, the posting of the parties involved, or other disciplinary action. If the behavior is sufficiently serious, or if the servicemember has a history of social misconduct, termination of service may occur (Ministry of Defense, 2000a).

The Ministry of Defense also issued guidelines and speaking notes for commanding officers to help them explain and enforce the new policy. The speaking notes emphasize that the lifting of the ban brings the Armed Forces into greater concordance with the general society. A person’s sexual orientation is to be considered a private matter, and every servicemember has a right to personal privacy. The speaking notes exhort service personnel to "[r]espect that right, and do not try to make their private business your concern" (Ministry of Defense, 2000c, p.2) Commanders were further advised to stress the continuity of the policy:

Continuity is emphasized with respect to the new code of social conduct as well. The speaking notes explain that the code "largely reflects existing policies" and "does not mean a tightening up on heterosexual relationships" (Ministry of Defense, 2000c, p. 2)

The notes for commanding officers state that their actions should be guided by the following principles:

1. Sexual orientation is regarded as a private matter for the individual.
2. Knowledge of an individual’s sexual orientation is not a basis for discrimination.
3. Incidents which involve the possible commission of civil or military offences, or which come to a Commanding Officer’s attention through a formal complaint, should be investigated and dealt with in accordance with Service disciplinary or administrative procedures.
4. The Service Test … should be applied when there is any doubt about the impact on operational effectiveness of any particular incident.
5. The Armed Forces value the unique contribution which every individual makes to operational effectiveness, regardless of their sexual orientation.
6. The Armed Forces … will only intervene in the private lives of individuals where it is necessary in the interests of preserving operational effectiveness.
7. The new policy makes no moral judgements about an individual’s sexual orientation.
8. There is no place in the Armed Forces for harassment, bullying or victimization.
9. Commanders have a duty of care towards all those under their command. (Ministry of Defense, 2000d, p. 1)

The guidelines also include a list of questions and answers that commanding officers might encounter under the new policy. The list provides responses to such situations as:

What to do regarding someone who wants to ‘out’ themselves [34 - It is a personal matter whether or not to publicly announce one’s sexual orientation.  Servicemembers should be advised to “bear in mind that sexual orientation is a private matter”, and they should:

particularly consider how such a declaration might be received by the colleagues …, and what impact it might have on their future working relationships.  If they decide to go ahead, they should be advised not to make an issue of their sexuality and to go no further than a simple acknowledgement of it. (Ministry of Defense, 2000d, p. 4]

Whether homosexual personnel will be able to bring their partners to ‘semi-official’ functions [35 -The Mess Presidents are to exercise discretion, as they do for all Mess guests.  “In general, however, it would be appropriate to extend to homosexual partners the same arrangements as apply to unmarried heterosexual partners in respect of the particular function” (Ministry of Defense, 2000d, p. 5).  The guidelines add:

Where partners wish to dance together, the circumstances will need to be judged: on some occasions this might pass virtually unremarked and cause no difficulty, on others it could cause offense (with, perhaps, further consequences).  Where necessary, those responsible for the function should intervene as discreetly as possible with a view to minimizing any disturbance.  It will always be appropriate for couples attending such functions to bear in mind that any overt displays of a partner’s affection can cause offence. (Ministry of Defense, 2000d, pp. 5-6)]

How they should handle a situation in which a person is unwillingly ‘outed’ [36 - It is up to the individual to decide whether or not to acknowledge their sexual orientation.  If they decide to acknowledge their homosexuality, “they should do so with the minimum of fuss and not make a major issue of it” (Ministry of Defense, 2000d, p. 6).  Knowledge of one’s sexual orientation should not be reason in itself to move a servicemember.  The commanding officer should be alert for any harassment or bullying (Ministry of Defense, 2000d, p. 6).];

Whether an individual has a legal right to refuse to share accommodations with a homosexual [37 - Individuals have no legal rights to do so under either the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act.  Accommodations and facilities will be assigned without regard to sexual orientation (Ministry of Defense, 2000d, p. 3)];

and how to deal with an extra-marital relationship between heterosexual servicemembers [38 - Commanders are instructed to first assess whether an offense has occurred and then apply the Code to determine whether administrative action is necessary.  “The most serious cases, especially where there has been an abuse of position or trust, may warrant the most severe consequence and result in discharge, resignation or retirement” (Ministry of Defense, 2000d, p. 4)].

With respect to a question about protecting young soldiers from predatory homosexuals, the guidelines declare that "It would be wrong to assume that homosexuals are predatory" and remind commanding officers that they must be "particularly alert to ensure young people are protected, regardless of their sex" (Ministry of Defense, 2000d, p. 5). Commanding officers are advised to remember that an open display of sexual behavior of any kind can cause offense, and to respond quickly to defuse situations before they spread (Ministry of Defense, 2000d).

When the new policy was announced by Secretary of State for Defense Geoff Hoon on January 12, 2000, he highlighted the fact that the chiefs of staff were completely involved in the creation of the new policy and endorsed the changes. Secretary Hoon stated that the code would apply to all members of the Forces, regardless of "Service, rank, gender or sexual orientation" (Ministry of Defense, 2000b, p. 2). He further stressed that the code complemented existing policies, including "zero tolerance for harassment, discrimination and bullying" (Ministry of Defense, 2000b, p. 2). As for the use of the service test, Secretary Hoon declared that:

Shifting gears from the public statements in support of the ban before the European Court ruling, Chief of the Defense Staff General Sir Charles Guthrie went on record at the time of the announcement of the new code of conduct to say that lifting the ban was likely to lead to some difficult situations for commanding officers, who would be required to decide if conduct was damaging to a unit’s operational effectiveness. He added, however, that "As CDS (Chief of the Defense Staff), I don’t believe that the operational efficiency of the Services will be affected, although I’m not saying we won’t have some difficult incidents". He acknowledged that some people would still be against the ban "because they are homophobic or on religious grounds", and that his assessment of the new policy differed from that of former service chiefs and ministers. But he added that "times have changed", and he doubted that the change in policy would have any effect on recruiting (Evans, 2000). General Guthrie characterized the new code of conduct as "sensible and pragmatic" and said that it would be up to commanding officers to reassure their subordinates. "We think we can make it work". (Evans, 2000)

Discussions on the code of social conduct and the importance of equal treatment for heterosexuals and homosexuals have since been integrated into training at the Tri-Service Equal Opportunities Training Center, the training site for the Services’ Equal Opportunity Advisors (Ministry of Defense, 2000c). In February, the Royal Air Force became the first service to include tolerance toward homosexuality in its officer training courses. The training course discusses the issue during the "beliefs and values" session, which is conducted by chaplains and staff. Officer candidates are informed that homosexuality is compatible with service and does not damage team morale. They are also taught that overt displays of affection, whether heterosexual or homosexual, threaten team discipline (Butcher, 2000). The other Services have since followed suit.

In October, 2000 it was reported that a naval lieutenant-commander had won the right to some of the partnership benefits previously reserved for heterosexual personnel. The companion of Lieutenant-Commander Craig Jones will be flying out with other naval spouses to visit the HMS Northumberland in the Mediterranean. Spousal flights are subsidized by interest-free loans from the Navy. Jones’ partner has also been invited to a black-tie dinner and other mess dinners on shore and aboard the ship (Gilligan, 2000).

This research is reproduced with the kind permission of Professor Aaron Belkin and can be found in its original context on the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military website.

<< court cases :: assessments >>

page: research :: 200011-CSSMM-5policy.htm
updated: 26 Aug 05