 |
Canadian military policy with respect to LGBT sexuality has changed in the course of the 20th century from being intolerant and repressive to accepting and supportive.
|
Canadian military policy with respect to LGBT sexuality has changed in the course of the 20th century from being intolerant and repressive to accepting and supportive.
In May 1967, due to the passing of the CF Reorganization Act (C-90) the Canadian Forces issued Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 19-20, Sexual Deviation - Investigation, Medical Investigation and Disposal, which required members of the military suspected of being homosexual to be investigated and then subsequently released. [1] These investigations carried out by the Special Investigation Unit made use of the fruit machine, a device created by Dr. Frank Robert Wake of Carlton University in the 1960s. This device was created with the objective of identifying perceived and actual homosexuals in the Canadian military in order to protect the organization from blackmail by Soviet Union spies. [2] Based on the results of the fruit machine evaluation, members of the CF were removed, having their careers ruined, their privacy invaded, and their lives destroyed. [3]
Within the Military Police (MP), a Special Investigation Unit (SIU), based in Halifax, was in charge of purging gay people from the Armed Forces. For the MPs, to chase homosexuals was an obsession in the name of National Security during the Cold War against the Soviet Union.
The procedure against a “gay suspect” started with the local MPs making a complete search of his quarters on the Base or apartment in town—without a warrant. Meanwhile the SIU interrogated the suspect’s co-workers, and anyone who knew him in his hometown, college, or university; asking direct and embarrassing questions.
The gay suspect was then summoned by the SIU for interrogation. The purpose was to obtain a confession of being gay, and, no less important, to name other gay people in the Services. The sessions could last several hours, using various tactics such as insults, comments, and threats of a court-martial, jail term, forced labor (for the Navy), or a dishonorable discharge. The right of an advocate was ignored, while fabricated proofs and false testimonies were common. Questions were asked about private sexual practices. Suspects were offered the possibility of quietly leaving the Service if they cooperated. Most of the time, the gay suspect cooperated to avoid further public embarrassment. But following his written confession, the “suspect“ became ipso facto “accused” of being gay, and therefore received “rapidly” (CFAO, art. 7) a dishonorable discharge from the Armed Forces, which is “almost as bad as a criminal record”. Before leaving, the accused gay military member was given a two-week psychiatric counselling to cure his “abnormal illness”.
If the gay suspect refused to “cooperate“, there was nothing the SIU could do; in most cases, they had no proof outside of rumors, hearsay or lists of names. However, a letter stating that the military member is “suspected” of homosexuality was sent to his Base Commander with a copy in the suspect’s file which would follow him from Base to Base throughout his career. Additionally his security clearance was also reduced from Top secret to Secret, or even to Confidential only.
While this “gay purge” in the Armed Forces was conducted in the name of National Security, during the entire period (1950-1992), not a single gay military was suspected or accused of treason. Nevertheless, it is estimated that 9,000 military members have been discharged from the three Services for being gay or lesbian. The number of RCMP agents also released for the same reasons is unknown.
In the Civil Service, the Memorandum on Sexual Deviation (1967), read in the Commons by Prime Minister Pearson, is applied, but with greater tolerance by the Deputy Minister of the Department who assets each case. Not as many gay employees have been terminated—even at the Dept of External Affairs which had quite a few but discreet gay diplomats. When a “suspected gay” was considered for an embassy posting, he was submitted to another security screening, and his phone was bugged for one week. At the medical exam, the physician would ask politely if he could examine the anus. Finally, the “gay suspect” is sent to a psychiatrist to determine if his “character weakness” is a security risk for an overseas posting.
In 1992, 2Lt Michelle Douglas sued the Canadian Armed Forces for discrimination. In October 1992, just before Douglas' legal challenge went to trial, the Canadian military abandoned its policy banning gays and lesbians and settled the case. Order CFAO-19-20 was repealed, thereby allowing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. While this marked the official end of what was known as the LGBT Purge, 2SLGBTQI+[ clarification needed ] service members and public servants faced overt discrimination throughout the 1990s. [4] [5]
A series of provincial and territorial court decisions beginning in 2003 ruled in favour of the legality of gay marriage, and a national law to that effect was passed by Canada's parliament in 2005 by the Paul Martin Liberal government.
In 2018, the Ross, Roy Satalic vs Canada class action lawsuit [6] was settled. [7] This followed the apology in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and leaders of each party on 28 November 2017. [8] The settlement provided compensation to individuals who faced discrimination in the Canadian Armed Forces as well as other civil service members. The settlement also established a multi million dollar fund, the LGBT Purge Fund, [9] to complete a number of reconciliation and memorialization measures, including the Canada Pride Citation. [10]
Davin Hoekstra was the first to come out nationally as a gay soldier in the Spring 1998 edition of Fab National Magazine. His interview with award-winning journalist Michael Rowe garnered global attention. Davin was subsequently interviewed by Kathleen Petty on CBC Newsworld, Arlene Bynon on Global and his story appeared in newspapers across the country. [11] [12]
In 2004, Jason Stewart was the first member of Canada's military to marry a same-sex partner. [13] In May 2005, Canada's first military gay wedding took place at Nova Scotia's Canadian Forces Base Greenwood. Officials described the ceremony as low-key but touching. A similar wedding has since taken place between two male Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers. Today, the Canadian Forces recognizes same-sex marital and common-law unions, and affords them the same benefits offered to all married or common-law serving members. [14] [15]
During the Divers-Cité Pride parades 1999–2002 in Montreal, a military member and an ex-military member held the banner of the informal grouping MGL, dissolved in 2004 due to the lack of participation of the military community LGBT. During the 2006 Halifax Pride parade, one member of the Canadian Forces marched in the parade, helping to carry the large pride flag. In the 2008 Toronto Pride parade, ten members of the Canadian Forces marched for the first time as a group. One month later, twelve gay and straight members of the Canadian Forces marched in the Vancouver Pride Parade. Lt(N) Steven Churm said, "The message to the public is that the Canadian Forces is an employer of choice."[6] A Facebook group [16] exists where CF LGBT members network and organise as a support group, do socials, as well as plan for various Canadian Pride events dating back to his initial collaboration with Lt (N) Churm at Toronto Pride 2009. [17] In 2015, the Canadian Armed Forces were in the Edmonton Pride Parade with a LAV, Bison, and MRT.
Michelle D. Douglas is a Canadian human rights activist who launched a landmark legal challenge in the Federal Court of Canada against the military's discriminatory policies against LGBTQ+ service members. Douglas herself served as an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces from 1986 to 1989. She was honourably discharged from the military in 1989 under the military's discriminating "LGBT Purge".
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons in Belarus face significant challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Both male and female same-sex sexual activity are legal in Belarus. Households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal protections available to opposite-sex couples. Belarus provides no anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people, nor does it prohibit hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Ukraine face legal and social challenges not experienced by non-LGBT individuals; historically, the prevailing social and political attitudes have been intolerant of LGBT people, and strong evidence suggests this attitude remains in parts of the wider society.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) personnel are able to serve in the armed forces of some countries around the world: the vast majority of industrialized, Western countries including some South American countries such as Argentina and Chile in addition to South Africa, and Israel. The rights concerning intersex people are more vague.
In the Russian Federation, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people face significant challenges not experienced by others. Although sexual activity between same-sex couples is legal, homosexuality is disapproved of by most of the population, and same-sex couples and households headed by same-sex couples are ineligible for the legal protections available to opposite-sex couples. Russia provides no anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people and does not have a designation for hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Transgender people aren't allowed to change their legal gender and all gender-affirming care is banned. There are currently no laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or expression, and recent laws could discriminate against transgender residents.
The "lavender scare" was a moral panic about homosexual people in the United States government which led to their mass dismissal from government service during the mid-20th century. It contributed to and paralleled the anti-communist campaign which is known as McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare. Gay men and lesbians were said to be national security risks and communist sympathizers, which led to the call to remove them from state employment. It was thought that gay people were more susceptible to being manipulated, which could pose a threat to the country. Lesbians were at less risk of persecution than gay men, but some lesbians were interrogated or lost their jobs.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Turkey face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents, though the general climate for LGBT people is considered to be less repressive when compared to most other Muslim-majority countries.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Moldova face legal and social challenges and discrimination not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same rights and benefits as households headed by opposite-sex couples. Same-sex unions are not recognized in the country, so consequently same-sex couples have little to no legal protection. Nevertheless, Moldova bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace, and same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1995.
This is a timeline of notable events in the history of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in Canada. For a broad overview of LGBT history in Canada see LGBT history in Canada.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10450 on April 27, 1953. Effective May 27, 1953, it revoked President Truman's Executive Order 9835 of 1947, and dismantled its Loyalty Review Board program. Instead, it charged the heads of federal agencies and the Civil Service Commission, supported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), with the task of investigating federal employees to determine whether they posed security risks. It expanded the definitions and conditions used to make such determinations. The order contributed to the ongoing Lavender scare of the mid-1950s, barring thousands of lesbian and gay applicants from government jobs.
Gay and lesbian citizens have been allowed to serve openly in His Majesty's Armed Forces since 2000. The United Kingdom's policy is to allow lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) personnel to serve openly, and discrimination on a sexual orientation basis is forbidden. It is also forbidden for someone to pressure LGBT people to come out. All personnel are subject to the same rules against sexual harassment, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
This article gives a broad overview of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) history in Canada. LGBT activity was considered a crime from the colonial period in Canada until 1969, when Bill C-150 was passed into law. However, there is still discrimination despite anti-discrimination law. For a more detailed listing of individual incidents in Canadian LGBT history, see also Timeline of LGBT history in Canada.
Sexual orientation and gender identity in the Australian military are not considered disqualifying matters in the 21st century, with the Australian Defence Force (ADF) allowing LGBT people to serve openly and access the same entitlements as other personnel. The ban on gay and lesbian personnel was lifted by the Keating government in 1992, with a 2000 study finding no discernible negative impacts on troop morale. In 2009, the First Rudd government introduced equal entitlements to military retirement pensions and superannuation for the domestic partners of LGBTI personnel. Since 2010, transgender personnel may serve openly and may undergo gender transition with ADF support while continuing their military service. LGBTI personnel are also supported by the charity DEFGLIS, the Defence Force Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex Information Service.
The presence of LGBTQ officers in law enforcement has a history of controversy. As times have changed, police forces have adapted by adding LGBTQ divisions, officers and committees within their ranks to account for legislation established by governments to protect individuals who previously had little or no voice when it came to laws impacting their own communities.
Barbara Thornborrow is a former private who was involuntarily discharged from the Canadian Armed Forces for being a lesbian in 1977. She later challenged the decision, becoming the first person who was discharged based on their sexual orientation to do so publicly.
In the past most lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) personnel had major restrictions placed on them in terms of service in the United States military. As of 2010 sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military varies greatly as the United States Armed Forces have become increasingly openly diverse in the regards of LGBTQ people and acceptance towards them.
Craig Jones is a former Royal Navy Officer and LGBT rights defender in the UK armed forces. Jones was appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire in the 2006 New Years Honours List for services to Equality and Human Rights in the Armed Forces.
This overview shows the regulations regarding military service of non-heterosexuals around the world.
Occurring between the 1950s and the 1990s, the Gay Purges were a series of mass discrimination and expulsion of Canadian workers in the civil service, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and armed forces due to their suspected homosexuality.
(1) Full text of the CFAO-19-20 at https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/view-the-document-cfao-19-20-banned-homosexuality-in-the-canadian-military-1.3010604 (18) Samuel Mason, My Father, the Gay Purge of the Canadian Military, and Me in Vice, 28 November 2017. The father was an SIU agent while his own son was a gay civil servant. Full interview on the SIU procedures. (19) Emotional scars remain for gay ex-military subjected to interrogations, dismissals at https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/emotional-scars-remain-for-gay-ex-military-subjected-to-interrogations-dismissals-1.3005365 (20) LGBT ban in the military: Ex-soldiers share their painful stories at https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/lgbt-ban-in-the-military-ex-soldiers-share-their-painful-stories-1.3005266 (21) The New York Times (International edition), 25–26 November 2017, p. 5
These two American books describe hundreds of cases of military personnel interrogated for being gay or lesbian. The devious and illegal techniques used by the American MPs have inspired the SIU for the interrogation of gay suspects in Canada.
Paul Norman Jackson, Courting Homosexuals in the Military : The Management of Homosexuality in the Canadian Military, 1939-1945. Queen's University (Kingston). 2002, 866p. Paul Norman Jackson, One of the Boys : Homosexuality in the Military during World War II. McGill University Press (Montreal), 2nd ed. 2010. 338p.
In THE UK, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has apologised for the historical treatment of LGBT veterans who were sacked or forced out of the military for being gay. Homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK in 1967 but a ban continued in the armed forces. According to the report, the Ministry of Defence said at the time that justification for the policy included "maintenance of operational effectiveness and efficiency" - but the report said there had been an "incomprehensible policy of homophobic bigotry" in the armed forces. It was illegal to be gay in the British military until 2000 – and thousands of militaries have been affected. Addressing MPs, the prime minister said: "Many endured the most horrific sexual abuse and violence, homophobic bullying and harassment all while bravely serving this country." BBC News, 19 July 2023
| General | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By country | |||||||||
| By topic |
| ||||||||
| Discharges | |||||||||
