The US Congress is poised to get rid of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which prevents gay and lesbian people from serving openly in the armed forces. The proposed repeal has been tucked into a defense-spending bill that is to be considered soon by the Senate, having already passed the House of Representatives. Lingering anxieties about the change can be seen in the results of a recent survey commissioned by the Pentagon to assess likely attitudes toward it. Among other things, the survey seeks to find out if troop members have ever shared a room or shower with a homosexual colleague.
The discussion in the US mirrors what took place in the UK before the European Court of Human Rights’ decision on Lustig-Prean and Beckitt v the United Kingdom in 1999 that eliminated the service ban on gay and lesbian people in the military. In 1994, the Armed Forces’ Policy and Guidelines had stated that homosexuality — whether male or female — was “incompatible” with service in the armed forces, citing “the close physical conditions in which personnel often have to live and work.”
A Homosexuality Policy Assessment Team, established by the UK Ministry of Defence, reported in 1996 that gay and lesbian people were “no less physically capable, brave, dependable and skilled than heterosexuals.” Nevertheless, the team recommended that the ministry “must deal with the world as it is” and that “service attitudes, in as much as they differ from those of the general population, emerge from the unique conditions of military life and represent the social and psychological realities.” As such, the report concluded that there was “military risk from a policy change.”
The Lustig-Prean and Beckitt decision acknowledged that the government had a “legitimate aim” in ensuring the operational effectiveness of the armed forces. The court, however, ruled that the assessment team represented “predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority” and that these negative attitudes based on sexual orientation would not sufficiently justify an interference with one’s private and family life, any more than it would if the interference were based on race, origin or color. The court also noted the developing views and associated legal changes in the domestic laws of other states within the European Convention on Human Rights system.
In the context of such a supra-national system, the reference to practice in other member states is significant in understanding how gay rights have developed in the UK. Robert Wintemute, a professor at King’s College London, has argued that a “European consensus” theory plagues the jurisprudence concerning gay and lesbian issues in that court decisions do not fall wholly on juridical logic, but are heavily influenced by what already constitutes practice in other member states.
Because it is a court of several nations rather than a national constitutional court, its judgments consider the best management of sensitive matters — called the margin of appreciation — with some amount of political expediency. Critics say this has spawned a “minimum standard of European human rights” rather than affirmed a natural progression of juridical reasoning.
The repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is advancing through the US federal legislature and not the courts. There is a school of thought in the US that a significant change such as this is appropriately made in Congress — reflecting democratic will — and not through the courts by “activist” judges. According to the terms of the repeal, the date for giving effect to the end of this policy is contingent on completion of a Pentagon study certifying how best to integrate openly serving gay and lesbian people in military ranks.
Clearly, massive political considerations always follow major gay rights reforms everywhere in the world. Whether these questions are being decided in the legislature or courts, the most important point is that the substantive human rights arguments win the day. On that score, the US should look to the UK and repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” expeditiously, without any reservations.
Philip Dayle is a lawyer who has worked in human rights at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington and the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva, Switzerland
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry