The Merged Thread on Gay/ Homosexual Topics and the CF.

[garb811]

You should read about what the NIS and friends used to do way back in the day to people suspected of being teh gay.

NIS wasn't around when homosexuality was considered a security concern, it was the SIU who did those files.

 

[Slim]

Slim,
so I am on the same page, the person in the above post worked with us in different spots in Gagetown?

Jeez...It's been so long since I chatted on here I actually had to go look you up so that I knew who I was actually speaking to!

Regarding your post...you're right, of course. It's him...Guy couldn't let it go...I still have his phone number in my phone. Can't seem to get around to erasing it for some reason.



It just sucks...



Cheers

Slim

 

[armyvern]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not illegal to sue the gov't while you're still working for it?

Now, the 25 year gap?  Good question...

Well, depends how bad it was I guess.

1982 + 25 year career = 2007 retirement = only 1 year eligible to sue.

I remember the days when CF females were being busted in Shelburne, Cold Lake etc by the SIU and charged because they happened to be lesbians. Apparently we've many young ones around here who don't realize that the CF is not now what it once was.

This girl isn't the first to sue DND for this. It was those women and men who were getting out back in the 80s after putting up with "too" much due to their sexuality sticking up for themselves once they got out - that have resulted in the changes that we see now. We see a change ... there's probably a court order behind it somewhere. It's part of our history - sadly.

From Perception Magazine (page 77)

ARMED FORCES – CANADA
Lesbian arms [including issue of “five women discharged from the Canadian Forces for lesbian activity at the Shelburne, N.S. military base”].
P14 [1985]: 18 (35cm.)

[About 8000 Canadian Forces personnel have been given compulsory questionnaire concerning admitting homosexuals to military]. From Angles.
P29 [1986]: 11 (5cm.)

Tories reject Armed Forces study [which recommends continuing not to employ homosexuals in Canadian military].
P34 (July 22, 1987): 11 (7cm.)

Lesbian sues military [newsnote that unnamed former air force lieutenant has reportedly “taken the military to Federal Court because she was forced out for being a lesbian”].
P55 (v8n2)(Feb. 28, 1990): 12 (11cm.)

Military loses battle [in ongoing attempt to bar gays/lesbians from service; “independent Security Intelligence Review Committee said August 15 that…policy of discriminating…is in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”; result of complaint lodged by Michelle Douglas of the air force].
P59 (v8n6)(Aug. 29, 1990): 17 (47cm.)

Gays no problem [Judge R.J. Marin inquiry says Special Investigation Unit of Canadian Forces should remove any reference to sexual orientation as reason for conducting investigation; also Justice Department appealed Michelle Douglas reinstatement decision].
P60 (v8n7)(Nov. 21, 1990)[dated Oct. 10/90 on cover]: 17 (30cm.)

Lesbian’s battle [Michelle Douglas’s complaint to Security Intelligence Review Committee in 1990 led to finding that Forces violated her constitutional rights; now Canadian Armed Forces has appealed decision to Federal Court of Appeal].
P66 (v9n5)[misnumbered on contents page as v9n4](Aug. 14, 1991): [18] (12cm.)

Fighting the military [“Canadian military continues its overt practise of discrimination against gays and lesbians…”; method used; latest victim, Keitha Coates].
P71 (v10n2)(March 18, 1992): 18 (17cm.)

Queers in the army [Michelle Douglas wins three-year fight with Canadian Armed Forces; monetary settlement; Ottawa agreed also to court order declaring discrimination against lesbians/gays a Charter of Rights and Freedoms violation; some details of Douglas’s career and of the legal case].
P77 (v10n8)(Dec. 9, 1992): 21 (44cm.)

DND won’t come clean [Department of National Defence “unwilling to provide compensation for many gays and lesbians who were drummed out of the Armed Forces when it was discovered they were gay”; additional details].
P79 (v11n2)(March 10, 1993): 20 (18cm.)

Thwaites still fighting [Simon Thwaites still waiting for more than $152,000 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered Canadian Armed Forces to pay him; ruled he was unjustly fired; was dismissed in 1989 after it was discovered he was HIV-positive; etc.].
P83 (v11n6)(Sept. 15, 1993): 13 (33cm.)

PERCEPTIONS: the first twenty-two years, 1983-2004: an index to the Canadian gay & lesbian newsmagazine, compiled by Alex Spence, Perceptions Publications Saskatoon, Canada, 2005.
77

Thwaites gets money [Federal Court judge orders Defence Department to immediately pay Simon Thwaites the $152,000 awarded to him by Canadian Human Rights Commission tribunal; Thwaites fired from navy in 1989 when learned he was HIV-positive].
P84 (v11n7)(Oct. 27, 1993): 22 (19cm.)

Over at last [Simon Thwaites fired from Canadian Forces in 1989 when it was learned he was HIV-positive; appeal to Federal Court led to Justice Frederick Gibson’s ruling that he had been unfairly released; Forces announced would not appeal].
P89 (v12n4)(June 8, 1994): 23 (11cm.)

Airborne bashers [former member of “disgraced and disbanded Canadian Airborne Regiment,” Dany Pelletier, reports hearing many stories of gay bashing when at Petawawa base from 1980 to 1985; tried to present story to federal hearings, but was refused].
P101 (v13n8)(Dec. 6, 1995): 21 (14cm.)

Speaking out costly [newsnote that Lt.-Commander William Glover demoted for addressing anti-bigotry rally in London; demotion called discriminatory; etc.].
P119 (v16n2)(March 18, 1998): 24 (12cm.)

He’d rather switch and fight [Department of Defence criticized for paying for a sex change operation of a male sergeant; Defence Department will not release sergeant’s name; etc.].
P125 (v16n8)(Dec. 9, 1998): 23 (14cm.)

You go, girls! [Canadian Department of National Defence has ordered 26 episodes of  PrideVision’s fitness program, “Urban Fitness,” hosted by “out Derek Noble”; to be aired on closed circuit TV to troops in Europe and Middle East; etc.].
P155 (v20n6)(Sept. 11, 2002): 23 (13cm.)

A mere 10 years ago some of the  "big newsworthy" ones above occured.

 

[Jarnhamar]

How did you get so smart FD? I could not have written better myself.

(Including yourself) I've had some awesome leaders who took me under their wing and learned from

NIS wasn't around when homosexuality was considered a security concern, it was the SIU who did those files.

Ahh right you are thank you.

re: coming forward.
I thought it was a little weird to bring it up 25 years later, then again how many victims of sexual abuse come forward years and years later? I'm not gonna judge them.

 

[TCBF]

- Good luck suing the military for harrassing you for something you were doing which was ILLEGAL.  She was in violation of The Code of Service Discipline and engaging in behaviour which made her susceptable to blackmail and coersion - in other words: A SECURITY RISK.


- The law has changed now, but past actions are judged by the laws of the day - not the laws of today.

 

[armyvern]

- Good luck suing the military for harrassing you for something you were doing which was ILLEGAL.  She was in violation of The Code of Service Discipline and engaging in behaviour which made her susceptable to blackmail and coersion - in other words: A SECURITY RISK.

- The law has changed now, but past actions are judged by the laws of the day - not the laws of today.

Which was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada as being unconstitutional and in violation of Charter rights. The CF was ordered to remove all refs to "sexual preference" from NDA etc, as was the SIU ordered to remove "sexual preference" from it's "grounds to investigate".

In short, the Supreme Court ruled that it was the CF LAWS that were ILLEGAL, ... thus they were nullified. In effect, the Supreme Court has already ruled that being a lesbian or a gay male was NOT illegal and that the CF saying it was ... was the illegality that was occuring.

I think history would show that being a gay male or female and being "blackmailed" about it poses absolutely ZERO more risk to security than being a heterosexual male sleeping with a female. Mata Hari, some Lords in England ... blackmailed - espionage - etc ... all sleeping with the opposite sex.

 

[geo]

Solution to prevent blackmail....
Don't keep it a secret

 

[TCBF]

Solution to prevent blackmail....
Don't keep it a secret

- Works if you're single...

 

[TCBF]

... In short, the Supreme Court ruled that it was the CF LAWS that were ILLEGAL, ... thus they were nullified. In effect, the Supreme Court has already ruled that being a lesbian or a gay male was NOT illegal and that the CF saying it was ... was the illegality that was occuring. ...

- Which is where the Supreme Court stopped interpreting the law and started writing it.  NONE of the surviving authors of the original charter supported the Supreme Court on this.  Some even went so far as to say that gay rights were DELIBERATELY excluded. Let's just say the media pretty much ignored them.

- My REAL beef with the Supreme Court is that it can pick or choose which cases it wants to try.  IN OTHER WORDS, if they refuse to hear a case they defacto AGRREE with the lower court's ruling WITHOUT having to provide a finding and legal JUSTIFICATION for that finding at all.  No doubt, they feel that they can avoid historical responsibility for our slip from democracy.  It won't work...

 

[Teeps74]

Sometimes idiotic laws, which have exactly zero bearing on reality need to get stomped out. The Supreme Court demonstrated intelligence and forthought in doing so in this case.

The fact that Steve may be married to Brian, has exactly zero to do with whether or not Steve can dig a trench, hump the weight, or man the GPMG. There is no sex in uniform, so who anyone is sleeping with regardless of sex has exactly zero impact on the profession of soldiering. End of story, and the courts, the Charter, NDA, QR&O's, CFAO's and DOAD's all agree on this.

 

[geo]

- Works if you're single...

also works if your "spouse" is in the know & supports ya.

 

[garb811]

It's easy to look at past actions from today's viewpoint and go, "That was wrong!"  The fact was, when it was decided that homosexuality WAS a security risk, homosexuality was also a Criminal Offence and completely against societal norms at the time.  Society evolved and so did the laws, as did the CF when it was forced to change.  The CF is many things but a leader in adopting changing societal norms and expectations is not one of them but looking back from "today" and applying our current standards to "then" doesn't do anyone any good. 

I would also point out that DND and the SIU were hardly alone in using sexual orientation as a factor in vetting but the military lifestyle made it much easier to end up being outed.

 

[armyvern]

Bang on, there.

I'm not so sure of that. We're talking about different times altogether.

Perhaps she loved her job, just not some of the people and incidents she had to deal with? During the early 80s --- just being a woman in the CF (or the 'professional' Canadian civil workplace) saw discrimination as tolerable, acceptable, and normal. Women being paid less than men for doing the same jobs etc. These were times when even straight Canadian women were released from the CF due to becoming pregnant. These were times when even civilian employment tolerated and condoned discrimination against the female workplace in the way of wage disparity, hours, stereotyping , promotions etc.

You know - if every one of the women who lived and 'worked' through these times had simply given up and gotten the hell out, the CF wouldn't be where we are today. That doesn't mean that by the fact that they stayed in that they "accepted" what was happening to them or that what was happening to them was "right". It also doesn't mean that what happened to them didn't have "negative effect".

This case in particular happens to be about a female, but this wasn't limited to women - gay men found themselves treated as pariahs by all of Canadian society as well. Some of them made it through careers in the CF - tough as that may have been for them - I am quite sure it has affected some of them for the rest of their lives. Gay men have sued as well.

The fact is, Canadian society as a whole has advanced - in a very good way - on this front. By choosing to "stay" in the CF and tolerate the crap, they simply choose "where they were going to be subjected to the poison". This does, in a way, speak well of the CF - these people loved their jobs and their Country enough to stay in it through the hard times and the discrimination - they just didn't happen to love the abuse and discrimination that occured as parcel to that.

The argument that if one doesn't like discrimination they should just get out else that discrimination is their fault for putting up with it or that by their "staying in" we've somehow proved it didn't affect them, just doesn't wash with me. We have plenty of members in the CF even today who lived through those times, witnessed some of that discrimination, were subject to it, or tossed some of it upon others themselves - male and female (lest there be any mistake that this is a 'female' thing).

I've never found myself to be the victim of discrimination/harassment etc, but I can assure you that I have sat with many a men out in the field, in the mess etc, and we talk about the "days" back when I'd not be allowed to be doing some of the things I've done. Comments such as "I never thought I'd see the day when we'd have a chick in F Troop with us" or "it's not like the old days when the women only came out of the typing pools when coffee had to be served to VIPs". I've heard - from guys who were around when that was the norm. And a great many of them think back and say the same comments as I "thank gawd that times have changed."

I will not be convinced that some people who were on the shitty end of that stick and those times were not profoundly affected by things that happened to them during those times. Plain old statistics and human nature dictate that some of them must have been negatively impacted by events and occurrences.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm not so sure of that. We're talking about different times altogether.

Which was the point of my post. Things were different 25 years ago, he was agreeing with that statement.

 

[armyvern]

Which was the point of my post. Things were different 25 years ago, he was agreeing with that statement.

I misread your post that he responded to. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Right-o 

It's an interesting argument.
Something that was illegal 25 years ago, which is legal now, which now has been decided that making it illegal 25 years ago was deemed illegal itself.

Makes you wonder whats illegal now that will be allowable in 20 years.

 

[armyvern]

Makes you wonder whats illegal now that will be allowable in 20 years.

Or chicks in the field back to being illegal again !!??  >

But, hopefully ... not drugs ... never become legal ... knock knock knock.

 

[PMedMoe]

re: coming forward.
I thought it was a little weird to bring it up 25 years later, then again how many victims of sexual abuse come forward years and years later? I'm not gonna judge them.

How many victims come forward 25 year later?  The scandals in the Catholic church come to mind.
I won't judge them either (walk a mile in their shoes...).

 

[Harley Sailor]

Again the question I ask is "why do they wait so long" and the only answer I could come up with is that they had to wait until society was on their side. 

I understand that it bothered them.  I myself was a Catholic alterboy who drank a lot of wine in the church basement.  I have very little memories of those days, I guess I am one of the lucky ones.  I can list a half dozen cases in Nova Scotia alone that abuse happened and people received money for.  All of which I know people involved.  Shelburne boys school comes to mind, where man after man received money for things that happened to them.  At the time it was the norm to beat boys who were bad.  Now that beating is bad they sued and received money for being punished misdeeds they did. 

Staying with Shelburne, I knew many of the females released for liking other females.  Some were just because they were pushing a life style that was unacceptable in the CF.  Just because it was later deemed legal should not change the fact that it was illegal at the time.  It would be like smoking pot (NOT that I think it should be legal) if it becomes legal does that mean that everyone we have convicted can come back and sue?

Will one day someone sue the school system for giving us the strap?  Will that then give us people who received it once a week a reason to sue for millions?  That seems to be the way it goes.

 

[geo]

many of the females released for liking other females.  Some were just because they were pushing a life style that was unacceptable in the CF.  Just because it was later deemed legal should not change the fact that it was illegal at the time.  It would be like smoking pot (NOT that I think it should be legal) if it becomes legal does that mean that everyone we have convicted can come back and sue?

Though guy on guy or Girl on girl relationships were "illegal" in the past..... harrassment was & is illegal too.

Making people's life miserable was never permissible & it certainly has no standing in law.  If it happened to her, then it was wrong.