AFLAGA - A HISTORY

The Armed Forces Lesbian and Gay Association began its history as the Support Group 'Rank Outsiders'. The following is a potted history of how it all began: the highs and lows, the good times, the bad and the accolades along the way. RANK OUTSIDERS Rank Outsiders was co-founded in 1991, around the time of the Parliamentary Select Committee Review of the Armed Forces Bill, by Robert Ely and Elaine Chambers, both of whom were dismissed from the Armed Forces on account of their sexuality. Following the trauma of forcible discharge for no other reason than that they were Gay and Lesbian, Robert and Elaine placed an open letter in Gay Times inviting other former members of the Services, who had faced a similar trauma, to make contact and the organisation was born. Initially meeting in members' homes, Rank Outsiders had grown rapidly from humble beginnings to become a national support and campaigning organisation; recognised by all major political parties, by the Ministry of Defence, by the Gay Community and by the wider public at large as the only organisation to offer specific and dedicated support to Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Service Personnel. AIMS Rank Outsiders was a national organisation of serving and former Armed Forces Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual Personnel, their friends, families and other supporters. The aims of the organisation were two-fold. Firstly, to offer support, advice and information to all Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual people, whether serving in the Armed Forces or not, but especially to those who found themselves undergoing investigation by military authorities into their sexuality and being discharged from the services in consequence. Secondly, to campaign, within the limitations of UK Law and on an apolitical basis, to overturn the blanket Ban on homosexuals serving in the British Armed Services, to seek justice for all those who have, and would be affected by the Ban, and to challenge discrimination and ignorance regarding sexuality wherever it was encountered. Where necessary, Rank Outsiders would seek legal counsel in circumstances where it was believed that the needs of the individual may have been compromised by, the then, existing legislation. In pursuing those aims, Rank Outsiders recognised and respected the views of all those in the wider community, many of whom did not believe or support the principal of Military Forces. However, the consequences of a successful campaign against the military Ban would have wider implications since a ruling that the Ministry of Defence were in breach of the European Equal Treatment Directive in maintaining the Ban would affect all UK Employment Legislation. Overturning the Military Ban would, in effect, set the legal precedence that any discrimination in any employment on the grounds of sexuality alone was not lawful, raising the issue of sexuality to the level of race and gender so far as employment rights and discrimination were concerned. Rank Outsiders also recognised the strength derived from cooperation and strove to lend support to other Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual organisations in the common fight against prejudice, bigotry and discrimination. In turn, Rank Outsiders actively sought the support of the wider community in furthering its aims to help the victims of institutional discrimination and fought legislation that not only failed to protect the rights of Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual people but positively required the State to violate them. ACTIVITY Rank Outsiders operated a National 'Help-line' for 2 hours on a Wednesday evening to provide immediate support and advice, in complete confidence, to those facing the crises of a military investigation and discharge, as well as an initial point of contact for general enquirers. Outside of these times, messages could be left on an answer-phone, again in complete confidence, which was checked on a regular basis. In support of the Help-Line, Rank Outsiders provided a personal Support and Befriending Service, both at a national level and through a network of regional contacts. The Service offered support, advice and information on an on-going basis, as and when needed by the individual, as they proceeded through the investigational process and subsequent discharge from the Armed Forces. This support continued for as long as it was necessary after discharge as the individual came to terms with the loss of their career, finding new employment at short notice in a, then difficult job market and potentially coping with being 'outed' to family and friends, and the associated distress that this caused. Where problems arose during an investigation into alleged sexuality, Rank Outsiders could intervene on behalf of the individual to ensure that correct procedures were followed and that the individual received all of their Service rights to which they were entitled. This was dome at Unit level however, where the Military seriously broke their own regulations, Rank Outsiders could, and did, take an individual's case up at Ministerial level. Through quarterly meetings, Rank Outsiders provided a safe environment for Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual Service Personnel to meet and socialise without fear of being 'outed' to Service Authorities, and for ex-Service Personnel, the opportunity to recreate and enjoy the comradeship and banter among like-minded people which is both so characteristic of Service life and so sorely missed by those who had been forced to leave the Services. On a national basis and through the regional organisation, Rank Outsiders provided a focus to its members for other social activities ranging from participating in Pride Events to local get-togethers and fund-raising. A national quarterly magazine, Breaking Ranks, provided members with news and information and many of the regional organisations provided their own periodical newsletters and information locally. Through contact with Ministers, Politicians and others, Rank Outsiders campaigned to overturn the Ban on Lesbians and Gay men serving in the Armed Forces. Rank Outsiders also supported and advised the 'High Court Four' which had brought a test case through the British legal system and which, at the time, was being considered by the European Court of Human Rights. At the same time, Rank Outsiders supported a further test case, that of Terry Perkins, which had been referred by the High Court to the European Courts of Justice for a ruling under the Equal Treatment Directive. Both cases proceeded with the results anticipated sometime around the year 2000 and in late 1998 respectively. Through regular contact with the Ministry of Defence, and as a result of a Ministerial Directive, Rank Outsiders was consulted on all matters relating to Military Lesbian & Gay issues. These consultations ranged from ensuring that the Ban, whilst it remained, was administered in the most humane manner possible, through issues of confidentiality relating to Service Doctors and Chaplains, to advice and training given to Service Welfare Organisations. Rank Outsiders would continue to advise, argue and cajole the Ministry of Defence to respect the rights of dignity of Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual Service Personnel be they closeted or otherwise. Through political contact and media campaigns, Rank Outsiders sought to raise the awareness of Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual issues, particularly relating to the Military and the Ban. In 1991, as part of Stonewall’s team, and in 1996, in its own right, Rank Outsiders gave evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill regarding the Military Ban, its effect on the victims of the Ban and proposals for a code of social conduct prohibiting all inappropriate sexual behaviour within the Armed Forces that would allow the Military to lift the Ban. FACTSHEETS As part of its work to keep members and other interested parties informed, Rank Outsiders produced a number of Factsheets that were reviewed and updated on a regular basis. These Factsheets were produced as follows: THE MILTARY BAN ON LESBIANS AND GAY MEN The British Armed Services maintained a blanket ban on Lesbians and Gay Men serving in the Military. This policy applied to anybody who was not exclusively heterosexual without distinction and therefore included Bi-Sexual Men and Women, and Men and Women who had sex with other Men and Women but would otherwise have regarded themselves as heterosexual. A Service person who was proved to be, strongly suspected of being, or voluntarily admitted to being homosexual would be discharged. There was no mitigating circumstances, no offence (either civil or military) need be committed, nor was any account taken of past service, military record, training, expertise or any other factor. The Ban was absolute, inflexible and rigorously enforced. The Services' standard statement was that: "Homosexuality, whether male or female, is considered incompatible with service in the Armed Forces. This is not only because of the close physical conditions in which personnel often have to live and work, but also because homosexual behaviour can cause offence, polarise relationships, induce ill-discipline and, as a consequence, damage morale and unit effectiveness" Recent legal proceedings and the need to present evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in 1996 required the Armed Forces to justify the statement above. This factsheet summarised the principal arguments put forward by the Ministry of Defence (MoD): 1. The MoD argued that the presence of known homosexuals would result in animosity, harassment, bullying and assault. In evidence, the MoD pointed to very few instances where homosexuals had been bullied as a result of their sexual orientation becoming public knowledge, usually following inappropriate sexual behaviour. It was certainly possible for inappropriate behaviour, whether homosexual or heterosexual to affect morale and damage unit effectiveness. However, to extend this argument to sexual orientation raised two issues. Firstly, the MoD produced no factual evidence to suggest that knowledge of homosexual orientation alone produces all the negative results indicated. Secondly, on no other issue is the threat of violence policed by excluding the victim, it is the perpetrator of the criminal act who is restrained and punished for their actions or threats. To pursue a different policy on homophobic violence than that pursued on racial or sexual violence was inconsistent and unjustified. The MoD were effectively condoning the threat of violence to justify their policy. 2. The MoD argued that known homosexuals would be ostracised, form cliques and relationships. This argument was not supported by any factual evidence but by the opinion of Service Personnel only. Ostracism and cliques existed in the Armed Forces for many reasons, not least racism, and with the introduction of women into front line service, relationships between Service Personnel had become an unavoidable reality to Service life. The Services coped adequately with these pressures without detriment to unit effectiveness and there was no reason why they should not do so also where homosexuals were concerned. The MoD argument had substance but did not justify a blanket ban on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces. 3. The MoD argued that homosexuals might prey on younger Service Personnel and demand sexual favours from them. In evidence, the Mod pointed to very few instances of homosexual abuse without reference to the far more widespread instances of heterosexual abuse. Their argument relied heavily on the stereotypical misrepresentation that all homosexuals were predators and had no factual basis whatsoever. The MoD did concede that sexual harassment would not be a major threat to fighting power. 4. The MoD argued that shared use of communal washing and toilet facilities by homosexual and heterosexual personnel would cause offence. This argument was not supported by any factual evidence but by the opinion of Service Personnel only. Since time immemorial homosexuals have shared communal facilities with heterosexuals without causing offence. The reality of the situation is not that 'outed' homosexual Service Personnel had continued to use those facilities without encountering hostility, nor do any foreign Armed Forces who permitted homosexuals to serve report any difficulties - something that the MoD notably failed to comment upon. The argument was an excuse without rational foundation. 5. The MoD argued that the presence of known homosexuals would increase suspicions among heterosexuals and cause friction. This argument was not supported by any factual evidence but by the opinion of Service Personnel only. Again, the reality of the situation is that Service Personnel who had been ‘outed’ to colleagues had continued to serve without any difficulties for periods of up to six month or more before being discharged. 6. The MoD argued that permitting homosexuals to serve would compromise their responsibility to act as loco parentis to young Service Personnel. This argument was not supported by any factual evidence and the MoD accepted that possible concerns of the families of Service Personnel would not be a major threat to fighting power. 7. The MoD argued that instances where homosexuals were apparently 'tolerated' in the Services were exceptional and should be discounted. The MoD failed to appreciate that under the policy of discharging all suspected homosexuals any instances where homosexuals were 'tolerated' would inevitably be exceptional. The MoD refused to investigate why homosexuals should be 'tolerated' in certain circumstances, presumably because it would not support their current policy. 8. The MoD argued that permitting homosexuals to serve would damage public opinion of the Armed Forces and make a military career less attractive to potential recruits. In evidence, the MoD pointed out that fewer members of the general public believed that the Armed Forces should accept homosexuals than, for example, the Police. The results were actually 62% and 72% in favour of homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces and Police respectively (Guardian ICM poll 14 Dec 95). The MoD conveniently failed to point out that there were nevertheless a sizable majority of the public in favour of homosexuals being permitted to serve in the Armed Forces. Such statistical misrepresentation was characteristic of the entire MoD argument. 9. The MoD argued that permitting homosexuals to serve would result in an explosion of the numbers of homosexual people in the Armed Forces accompanied by militant demands for equal rights and that the MoD would not be justified in pioneering the way of homosexual rights and permitting more than society in general allows. The MoD did admit that the evidence from foreign Armed Forces was that very few homosexuals, in practice, 'came out'. The MoD offered no reasons as to why the UK experience should not be different nor why they believed they would need to go further than anybody else in accommodating homosexual rights should they change their policy. The argument was basic scare tactics and had no rational foundation whatsoever. 10. The MoD argued that the cost of maintaining the Armed Forces Ban was insignificant. Since the MoD claimed that they were unable to calculate the cost of military police investigations into alleged homosexuality and were unable to quantify the cost of loss of training caused by discharging homosexuals, they could not claim that the cost of maintaining their current policy is insignificant if they did not know what the cost was! 11. The MoD argued tat because the UK was different to any other country that permitted homosexuals to serve there was no reason to lift the Ban. Since each of the countries that did permit homosexuals to serve were as different from each other as they were from Britain, there may have been a valid argument that none of their specific policies should not have been adopted in toto, but it did not mean that the Ban could not be lifted and a suitable policy tailored to British needs be introduced in its place. 12. The MoD argued that because a change in policy in other countries had not resulted in large numbers of homosexuals serving openly in their militaries, there was no reason for the MoD to pioneer a policy to produce large numbers of openly serving homosexuals. This again was MoD scare tactics. No one was asking the MoD to recruit hundreds and thousands of homosexuals - just to stop dismissing those who were found out or had 'come out'. 13. The MoD argued that permitting homosexuals to serve would cause unacceptable problems for Service Personnel serving on exchange with foreign Armed Forces that had a more restrictive policy. In the same breath, the MoD argued that any problems caused by current British policy to foreign Armed Forces that did not permit homosexuals to serve were regrettable but unavoidable. The MoD could not have it both ways. Either discrepancies in policy on homosexuals caused unacceptable problems for operations between British and foreign Armed Forces or simply a few difficulties which were regrettable but unavoidable. In either case, lifting the ban would have solved the problem, completely! 14. The MoD argued that permitting homosexuals to serve might result in foreign countries requiring mass HIV testing of Service Personnel prior to a visit to that country. If this was an area of concern to the MoD, why didn’t they ask countries that did permit homosexuals to serve whether or not this was an issue and, if so, what they had done about it? The MoD either did not ask or did not make public the answer because it did not support their argument. The MoD also dismissed their own Surgeon General's report that there were no medical reasons as to why homosexuals should not be permitted to serve, that all possible medical procedures, checks and controls were already in place, and that there was an urgent need for greater medical awareness of HIV, AIDS and other related issues within the Armed Forces. 15. The MoD argued that those who sought to lift the Ban were predominantly civilian and therefore ignorant of Service issues and the nature of Service life. Curiously, the leading organisation that campaigned for a lifting of the Ban was Rank Outsiders, which was made up almost exclusively of Service and ex-Service personnel who were anything other than ignorant of Service issues and the nature of Service life. The MoD argument simply highlighted the degree to which the MoD was out of touch with the issues. 16. The MoD argued that Service Personnel who expressed support for a lifting of the Ban may themselves be homosexual. This was perhaps one of the most insidious arguments employed by the MoD to suppress support for a lifting of the Ban from within its own ranks. Fear of being accused of being homosexual and potentionally facing investigation and discharge almost certainly distorted the results of the survey into Service opinion (HPAT Report 1995) THE HUMAN COST OF THE MILITARY BAN Prior to 1994, homosexuality was a criminal offence for Service Personnel in the British Armed Forces. A person need not even have engaged in any sexual activity, simply being homosexual was sufficient for the full weight of the Military Machine to swing into action. Being homosexual did even require the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Being seen and reported entering a 'Gay' venue, being found in possession of any literature or object that could be remotely defined as 'Gay' orientated, or simply not acting in 'sufficiently masculine or feminine manner' (as appropriate) could all result in investigation and discharge from the Armed Forces on the grounds of being homosexual - an admission was not required. Although, at the time, homosexuality was no longer a criminal offence, very little had changed so far as the military was concerned and personnel continued to be discharged. The following information explains the way in which the Military Ban was policed and the effects it had on its victims: REMAINING IN THE CLOSET 1. Service Personnel could not risk venturing out onto the Gay Scene close to their place of duty for fear of being recognised and reported. For many, any sort of social life meant travelling, often great distances, and even then there were always the risks as Service men and women were usually identifiable, even in civilian clothes. Partners could have only the most cursory involvement with the Services, could not attend functions or events, could not take advantage of Service Welfare Facilities yet they were made to cope with long periods of separation and the other demands of the Service on their partner who would often be taken advantage of as a 'single' person. 2. Service Personnel were unable to approach their Doctors since all Service Medical Officers were required to break the normally accepted rules on medical confidentiality and to report personnel who even alluded to their sexuality during counselling, personal discussions or in seeking medical treatment. This policy risked Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual Personnel delaying seeking treatment for medical conditions, even life threatening ones, for fear of losing their career and it was a risk that became a reality on a number of occasions. 3. Service Personnel were unable to seek advice, counselling or leave for compassionate reasons from their Commanders. In two cases, Servicemen were faced with the situation of their civilian partners being ill with HIV. Neither could turn to anyone at work for support, nor give the true reasons for needing time away from the Service. In both cases, the individuals opted to retire voluntarily to look after their partners, one of whom died 2 days before the Serviceman's last day of Service whilst he was in the middle of turning over his busy department to his successor - no one was any the wiser, but should have been for the sake of the well-being of the individual and the Service. 4. Service Personnel were also unable to approach their Chaplain (Priest) since, as with Medical Officers, Chaplain's were required to break pastoral confidentiality and to report suspected homosexuals to Service Authorities. Although directives had gone to all Service Chaplains to respect pastoral confidentiality it would still be a long time before they were trusted. Often the only avenue open to Service Personnel in distress or requiring advice, in circumstances where they did not wish to confide in their military commanders, was still not fully available to them. SURVEILLANCE TACTICS 5. Not content with dismissing those few who had come to notice of the authorities through admission or unfortunate incident, the Services actively spent time and money to root out homosexuals. It was reported that, a photographic observation point was used by Naval Investigators in the benefits Agency opposite Drummonds in Portsmouth to catch Service Personnel and entering and leaving the Gay Pub (which has since closed). Military Police made occasional surprise visits to Gay establishments, as they did to the South Western in Aldershot, under the guise of anti-terrorist operations - and without informing the Landlord as was required. 6. Where suspicions were aroused as to a person's sexuality, surveillance tactics increased considerably. Military Police were known to shadow Service Personnel off-duty to record their movements as was the case of two RAF Aircrew, who were followed over 300 miles to Manchester and watched various Gay Pubs and Clubs there. Telephone lines may have been tapped, mail intercepted, civilian friends and acquaintances discretely watched - not to establish whether or not a criminal act was being committed, but purely to establish whether the person was 'possibly' homosexual? A total unwarranted invasion of privacy. Despite the statement from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Nicholas Soames MP, given in the House of Commons during the debate on the Armed Forces Bill of 1996, stating that Service Police would not be used for covert surveillance operations to uncover homosexuals but more properly employed investigating criminal offences, undercover surveillance of homosexual Service Personnel continued - the incident at the South Western occurred several months after the Minister's statement. INVESTIGATIONS 7. Once Military Authorities believed they had evidence that a person may have been homosexual, which could have been as a little as an anonymous tip-off, that person would be formally investigated. Before homosexuality was decriminalised this involved the same and arrest and interrogation procedures used to investigate serious offences such as drug abuse, violent assault or worse. Before the lifting of the Ban in 2000, Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual Service Personnel should simply have been interviewed by their own unit personnel without any Service Police involvement. In reality this was the exception, not the rule, and most units still relied upon the Service Police to investigate alleged homosexuality. 8. Although the person would not be formally arrested they would be confronted by police and detained. Their living areas and all personal possessions on Service Property would be thoroughly searched for evidence of homosexuality before being subjected to a lengthy and often hostile investigation. The person would be repeatedly questioned on intimate details of their private lives including what sought of sexual activity they enjoyed and with whom - simply admitting to being Gay was not enough for Military Investigators. Service Police would attempt to get the person to reveal details of Service Personnel who were homosexual suggesting that such honesty would be taken into account when deciding their future. Nothing could have been further from the truth - honesty would not prevent their discharge, it simply ensured that the Services could uncover and discharge more suspected homosexuals. Since the investigation were not criminal per se, and was not conducted under Police and Criminal Evidence Act Procedures. No caution was given; the person had no right to legal advice and was extremely vulnerable to unintentionally incriminating themselves. Using trained Police Investigators in this manner without the normal checks and controls to safeguard the rights of the 'so called' accused was the worst of all worlds. DISCHARGE AND DISMISSAL 9. When the investigation was complete and the report written the person was discharged from the Service. In virtually all the cases before 1994, but only if a Service offence had been committed since then, then it was likely to involve trial by Court Martial and dismissal from the Service with loss of benefits, including pension rights, and the creation of a criminal record. The Service offence need not have been an offence under civil law. In all other cases the person would have been administratively discharged, potentially within a few days. Before discharge was approved the person would be invited to make whatever Representations they wished to state their case against being discharged – this would however, have no affect whatsoever since discharge was automatic and judged against an unswerving and predetermined policy although it may delay discharge for up to 6 months or so. Once discharge was approved, the person could make a complaint against the decision to discharge them but would not have been retained whilst the complaint was dealt with - again this would have no effect sine the complaint was made to the same authority that made the decision to discharge them and may take over a year to be processed. Although this was procedure, the right to complain was hardly ever mentioned whilst individuals were going through the entire process. Not only that, any right of redress or grievance was omitted from any instructions given post investigation, or at anytime after the person was discharged, therefore negating the possibility of any 'Tribunal' procedures. There was no independent complaints authority, such as the Police Complaints Commission, to regulate the actions of Military Authorities and, as UK Law had currently stood, no recourse to law either. LONGER TERM CONSEQUENCES 10. For most Lesbian, Gay and Bi-sexual Service Personnel, a military career mattered sufficiently for them to conceal their sexuality, and, as a consequence, few would have many (if any) Lesbian or Gay friends to turn to for support. They may have had to cope with talking about their sexuality openly for the first time in their lives. Despite security regulations and assurances to the contrary, within a matter of weeks of investigation, the person's sexuality would have been common knowledge among friends and colleagues within the Service, and potentially to their families as well. The Military viewed this forced 'outing' without shame and, as one senior officer described it, "regrettable but inevitable". Fortunately, the experiences of most Service Personnel were that colleagues were generally supportive, however, families could be a very different matter altogether. Military Welfare Services offered no support in this respect. 11. Service Personnel would face unemployment and, in view of the speed with which discharge could proceed, would have had little or no time to consider a second career, seek the necessary re-training or qualifications, or take advantage of Services' Resettlement Training (if it was offered them at all). Gaining employment could be a traumatic experience in deciding what to tell potential employers and, for those with a criminal record (even when no offence was committed), could prove almost impossible. 12. Service Personnel faced loss of income - but financial commitments remained. Additionally, the total loss or severe reduction in pension rights would have dramatic consequences in later years. Debt and severe emotional and practical problems due to financial hardship caused by the speed of discharge (without any safety net of a redundancy package) were common. 13. Service Personnel would be deeply traumatised by their investigation and discharge, and the sudden loss of self-esteem, career, accommodation, income, friends and a way of life they loved following many years of faithful service. Many would contemplate suicide. All would have to cope with anxiety, depression, uncertainty and to rebuild a shattered life over many years. 14. And what of the Military? Service Authorities would have spent considerable time and effort and money to discover that a person was homosexual in order to discharge them; they would have spent an enormous amount of tax-payers money, potentially many millions of pounds for aircraft pilots and other specialists, in training only to waste money by throwing away qualified and proficient people, they would have been adding to their, already acute shortage of personnel by discharging enthusiastic, professional, dedicated and experienced people - exactly the sort of people the Services said they needed so desperately; they would be adding to the eventual cost of compensation claims for unfair dismissal, likely to top the £50 million awarded to women discharged for being pregnant, in which the Services could ill afford when the Defence Budget was stretched (and is) to breaking point; and all because Senior Military Officers did not like homosexuals. The Military Ban made no sense and was too costly in financial terms, but most importantly, in human terms.

The AFLaGA web site is sponsored by