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 |
|
24 Jan 07 HQ PTC (DDPol(Emp)) 22 JAN 07 MEETING AT CHQ TO DISCUSS CURRENT RAF LGB ISSUES Reference: A. Brief: ‘Current RAF LGB Issues’ dated 17 Oct 06. INTRODUCTION 1. This brief concerns current issues relating to the LGB community within the RAF, as discussed at a meeting at CHQ on 22 Jan 07 where the following topics were discussed: the proposed establishment of a Sexual Orientation Working Group (SOWG); areas of concern for the LGB community; RAF participation in pride events; RAF membership of Stonewall; and the Tri-Service LGB Conference to be held on 26/27 Jan 07. Most of the topics were updates of those contained in Reference A. SOWG 2. Background. It has been suggested that the creation of a SOWG could support HQ PTC in identifying and dealing with the LGB community’s concerns. 3. Current Position. DDPol(Emp) believes that the establishment of a caucus or standing cttee of LGB pers could enable PTC to refine and test policy by referring to the target audience. Any such group would be purely consultational and would have no campaigning or policy-forming capabilities. 4. Proposals. DDPol(Emp) has proposed an open day for RAF LGB pers at a central location (possibly in Lincolnshire); this will enable E&D staffs to engage directly with the LGB community, and will facilitate the selection of pers for the group. In order to prevent needless discussion or delays, any group will be limited in number (between 6 and 10). Prior an open day, a notice would be posted on P2S in the RAF section requesting volunteers to come forward. 5. Decision. As proposed, a message will be posted on P2S requesting volunteers. Further discussion was postponed until after the Tri-Service LGB Conference so that DDPol(Emp) could gauge possible support for the group. AREAS OF CONCERN FOR LGB PERS 6. Discrimination. There is no solid evidence that indicates widespread harassment or discrimination against LGB pers. However, some jnr pers seem to be more reticent to ‘come out’ due to perceived prejudice against them by the SNCO cadre. Due to the length of time many SNCOs have spent in the Service – pre-dating the change of policy regarding LGB pers – some of them may have had some difficulty adjusting to the required attitude. There are 4 possible tactics to deal with the problem: a. Complaints Procedure. All personnel have the right to make a complaint where they feel they have been discriminated against or bullied by virtue of their SO. This is, ideally, to be used as a last resort to prevent the perception that LGB pers expect or receive different treatment from the rest of the serving community. b. Mediation. This is the preferred option. The forthcoming edition of JSP 763 will contain policy details concerning the role of Equality and Diversity Advisors and their ability to bring the complainant and alleged perpetrator together to discuss issues. c. Internal Publicity. If it is possible to definitively identify a problem in the SNCO cadre then the issue could be passed to CASWO to be dealt with at his conference. There will be an increased emphasis on personal stories to show the wider SNCO cadre the effects of discrimination and those of acceptance. d. Building Confidence. Many jnr pers may lack the confidence, by virtue of their inexperience and rank, to stand up against bullying and use the complaints procedure. It is necessary, therefore, to ensure that recruit trg contains clear advice about the recruits’ rights in the event of harassment both during and after initial trg. 7. Myths. There is an ongoing myth that LGB pers are ‘more’ entitled to Service housing than heterosexual personnel, and that they may also be considered for promotion due to alleged ‘positive discrimination’. Policy is extremely clear concerning rights to Service housing, and LGB pers are no ‘more’ entitled to a house than heterosexual pers. There is also a persistent rumour that some heterosexual personnel had discussed the possibility of entering into a Civil Partnership (CP) in order to obtain a house; whether this myth is true or apocryphal, it indicates a lack of understanding of the serious legal implications of CPs. There is no evidence that there is ‘positive discrimination’, nor would it be feasible given the impersonal nature of appraisal reporting. 8. Acceptance. DDPol(Emp) is concerned that some LGB pers may feel unwilling to take their partners to social functions in messes due to the possibility of discrimination. As a gauge of the LGB community’s feelings, this situation will be monitored and any problems will be highlighted. RAF PARTICIPATION IN PRIDE EVENTS 9. Background. The circumstances leading up to the Europride parade in 2006 are detailed at Reference A. The Service’s position is that it is not appropriate for uniform to be worn at pride events as they are considered to be political in nature. DDPol(Emp) will continue to apply the principle whereby all official actions are judged by their capacity to increase or maintain operational effectiveness. No change in the policy is anticipated. 10. Proposal. It has been proposed that the RAF could participate in pride parades on an official basis but not in uniform. Instead, in order to maintain the corporate image and show a common appearance, pers could be issued with RAF-branded garments. It has been mooted that such garments could carry an advertisement from an appropriate sponsor in order to lower costs. 11. Decision. The Service’s policy is highly likely to remain firmly against the wearing of uniform in pride marches. The possibility of purchasing branded garments, and of securing commercial sponsorship, will be considered. Any information will be passed to DDPol(Emp) at the earliest opportunity. STONEWALL 12. Background. Details on the Service’s initial approach to Stonewall are at Reference A. The Service has joined the Diversity Champions programme, and this fact was leaked to the media before an official press release. Although this surprised E&D staff and Stonewall, there seemed to have been very little negative publicity, although some claims that the Service was paying in excess of £50 000 to Stonewall remain to be dealt with. The actual registration fee was £1700. 13. Current Position. The Service and Stonewall will meet to discuss what is required now that the RAF is a member of the Diversity Champions Scheme. The initial meeting will be held on 19 Feb. It is anticipated that membership of Diversity Champions will enable the Service to refine policy to ensure that nothing is done that inadvertently discriminates against LGB pers. The RAF is expected to resist monitoring of the size of its LGB community due to the inherent difficulties and legal issues with polling the Service to establish the data, opposition to the concept from within the LGB community itself, and the lack of any reliable data on the size of the UK’s LGB population. TRI-SERVICE LGB CONFERENCE – 26/27 JAN 07 14. Background. DDPol(Emp) will attend the Conference to brief pers on the RAF’s progress with LGB issues alongside his counterparts from the RN and army. RAF pers have been polled via P2S to see whether there are any topics they would like to see discussed, but there were very few who decided to make any proposals. 15. Current Position. DDPol(Emp) hopes to be able to gauge support for a standing cttee or working group at the conference. There will also be an opportunity to decide whether there is sufficient support within the Service to ‘host’ the Conference in 2008. Any decisions will be made following the 2007 Conference. SUMMARY 16. SOWG. A SOWG or caucus of LGB personnel could help PTC to refine policy. DDPol(Pers) supports the establishment of such a group and will decide how to proceed following the Tri-Service LGB Conference. (Paragraphs 2-5) 17. Areas of Concern for LGB Pers. There is no evidence to indicate widespread discrimination, although it is accepted that some jnr pers feel unable to ‘come out’ due to the SNCO cadre’s perceived lack of understanding of LGB issues. It should be possible to deal with this issue through the formal complaints procedure, mediation, internal publicity and building confidence in the LGB community. There are several concerning housing and promotion that need to be addressed. DDPol(Emp)’s gauge of the acceptance of LGB pers is whether they feel comfortable taking their partners to Service-related functions. (Paragraphs 6-8) 18. RAF Participation in Pride Events. The Service’s position remains that it would be inappropriate for pers to march in uniform at pride events. However, the possibility of pers marching in RAF-branded civilian clothing is currently under consideration. (Paragraphs 9-11) 19. Stonewall. The Service has joined the ‘Diversity Champions’ programme. RAF and Stonewall representatives will meet in Feb to discuss the way ahead. DDPol(Emp) is opposed to the introduction of any form of monitoring of the size of the Service’s LGB community, and there is widespread opposition to such monitoring from the community itself. (Paragraphs 12 and 13). 20. Tri-Service LGB Conference. DDPol(Emp) will attend the conference to gauge support for a SOWG or similar group. There has been little interest in proposing topics for discussion from within the LGB community. (Paragraphs 14 and 15) A J WASLEY you can contact the author of this report via the proud2serve.net public forum as wazzer for details of previous meetings which discussed matters of interest to the LGBT community within the RAF, go to the RAF community consultation page. discuss this subject in the proud2serve.net public forum
page: Royal Air Force ::
20070122-RAF_LGBT_community_consultation |
|||
|
|||
Proud2Serve.net - serving Britain's armed forces |
|||
