bout de papier, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1998) — Summer 1998 // Été 1998, pp. 27–29
Gay and lesbian members of Canada’s Foreign Service have come a long way since the grim days of McCarthyism and the purge of hundreds of gays from the civil service in the 1960s. Targets among the latter included Canada’s former Ambassadors to Moscow, John Watkins (who died of a heart attack in 1964 after an RCMP interrogation) and David Johnson, as well as John Holmes, former Assistant Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs. Holmes was one of Canada’s foremost foreign policy experts. Even as late as 1969, the then DG for Security concluded a briefing for new recruits with the statement: “Would any homosexuals in the group please identify themselves to me after the meeting and we Will arrange an orderly departure from the Department”
At the time, “deviant” sexual orientation was equated with security risks; today, attitudes and standards have changed. Society has concluded that forcing people into the closet is the real security risk. Judging people by the quality of their performance is the best and perhaps only guarantee of security and productivity. In the Canadian service, acceptance of gays and lesbians as individuals has spread, slowly and reluctantly, to acceptance of same sex couples as well. It didn’t happen overnight and the struggle is far from over.
Looking back, it is tempting to think that Canadians are a kinder, gentler sort and acceptance of gays and lesbians and same sex couples is the result of a predisposition to live and let live. There may be an element of that, but history is more complex. Reforms came about because of the amendment to the Criminal Code in 1969 that legalised homosexual acts between consenting adults. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms also had a profound impact. The latter forbade discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (or was thought to do so) and set things in motion which in retrospect now seem irreversible.
One of the most remarkable changes brought about by the Charter, (and much to the horror of some of our politicians), took place in our Armed Forces. In the Fall of ’92 the ban against gays and lesbians was lifted. Canadians were given the right to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation. The decision was controversial and its implementation was delayed for political reasons. But, ultimately, senior brass recognised that the cost of legal settlements the military then faced left little option but to accept change. Our allies balked, particularly the US and the UK
When the issue of gays and lesbians came to the fore in the early years of the Clinton Administration in the US, a very straight-looking Canadian colonel was interviewed on American television about our “progressive” policy on the matter. He simply said that sex on duty was not acceptable regardless of orientation (to paraphrase, military policy on sexual harassment states that no person will use his or her position or rank to gain sexual or other favours). If people respected that and did their jobs competently, sexual orientation was a nonissue, punto. “Get over it” was his message.
Heterosexuals may not appreciate just how liberating it was for their gay and lesbian colleagues to hear that, to know that in the final analysis Canada’s senior military (many of whom may have resisted change) cared most about professionalism. But the struggle is not over. Gay and lesbian members of the Forces still face major hurdles in the workplace and it is generally understood that it may take 20 years to change attitudes fundamentally.
In the Foreign Service acceptance of gays and lesbians has come about for many reasons. Necessity is one of them. Some years ago an individual now occupying one of the highest positions in the Public Service said that only two kinds of people would survive in the Foreign Service: traditional couples where the spouse (read wife) was prepared to completely subsume her aspirations to her husband’s career, and gays and lesbians (who are single).
Gays and lesbians are well-represented in today’s Foreign Service in part because as “singles” they can better afford to weigh quality of life and interest in the job against meagre pay. Given the paramount importance attached to budget cutting these days, is it too cynical to wonder if gays and lesbians are better tolerated today in part because it is cheaper to run the Foreign Service with singles?
Acceptance of same sex couples also has come about in part by inadvertence. As DEAIT lore has it, a very senior member of the Foreign Service had every intention of taking his common-law spouse on posting, with allowances. He got his way. The unintended consequence of his success was to undercut arguments that no comparable provision could be made for same sex spouses. Once the legally married status of the heterosexual spouse was no longer an issue, the argument that a heterosexual common-law spouse should enjoy allowances but a same sex spouse could not, became unsustainable. It was a blatant case of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Altitudes are
To be sure, when same sex couples began to claim equal treatment with heterosexual couples, roadblocks were put in their way. The stated reason will surprise no one: money. The struggle began in earnest with CIDA’s Stan Moore, who had served in Jakarta as a member of the Foreign Service. He has since transferred to CIDA but proudly remains an FS officer: His life companion accompanied him there (with the attendant cost to his career that every foreign service spouse knows only too well). Stan compared their situation to that of heterosexual couples and calculated that they had lost some $23,000 in benefits that a heterosexual couple in their situation would have been entitled to, which is serious money on our salaries.
Our colleague grieved. PAFSO supported the grievance from the outset. He rejected Treasury Board’s offer to compensate him personally on condition that he drop the grievance. It appears that Treasury Board calculated that it was far cheaper to buy him off than offer same sex couples equal treatment. But Stan was determined to set a precedent for all same sex couples in the service. He would not be deterred. The case dragged on for years. It eventually made its way to the Human Rights Tribunal. A lead
28 bout de papier Vol. witness for Treasury Board was asked if it had ever been explained to him why FSDs should cover heterosexual couples but not same sex couples. The answer was no. The result was historic: Treasury Board was told to cease such discrimination forthwith.
Other decisions of the Supreme Court and provincial courts relating to same sex couples have chipped away at discriminatory practices. The Canadian military have adapted, and members of our Forces in principle are free to lead their private lives in dignity. Suffice it to say that this hard-fought struggle has levelled the playing field considerably. A few years ago PAFSO organised the first ever pre-posting briefing for same sex couples and DFAIT Personnel was there to brief people on the latest! But Foreign Service same sex couples are by no means out of the woods yet.
Attitudes are improving, but some managers at Headquarters and admin officers at posts still find ways of making their displeasure with same sex couples felt. It also remains a problem getting a visa for same sex partners to accompany their FS mates. Today, DFAIT will send a Diplomatic note requesting a visa for a same sex partner (a huge step forward) but not for a same sex “spouse” for reasons that relate to legal definitions under Canadian law. Rather, DFAIT requests a visa for “a member of the family forming part of the household”, which is to say, for a “dependent”. The difference between a spouse and a dependent is significant: if the partner is deemed a “spouse” the receiving country normally would either provide a visa for both or for neither (if they discriminate against same sex couples); if the partner is described as a “dependent” the receiving country may have the discretion to refuse a visa to the partner only.
This problem is not hypothetical. For instance, in the US the State Department will not grant a visa to a same sex “dependent” to allow a same sex spouse to remain in the country for the duration of the posting. Spouses must either apply for a visitor’s visa (normally through DFAIT) which must be renewed every six months by application within the country, or they must leave the US and go through the interview process at the point of entry. If a same sex spouse is from a third country, the risk of complications grows (especially at points of entry). Diplomatic visas are issued only to heterosexual spouses (legally wed or common-law). Moreover, although a heterosexual spouse or a dependent child is entitled to work in the US (under a reciprocal agreement), same sex partners are forbidden from working by virtue of their visitor visa. In Canada, different standards for visas also apply to same sex partners as opposed to heterosexual partners.
Looking at other foreign services, Canada now is among the more progressive. The Scandinavians, Dutch, some other Europeans, as well as the Australians, appear to have dealt with most of the old double standards. However, the Americans are likely to remain far behind for the indefinite future given the reactionary attitude of Congress toward non-traditional families. In fact, the State Department does not recognise common-law relationships, so recognition of same sex couples is even farther off. The US military also has a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which seems to suggest that it is still unacceptable to be gay or lesbian but it is more convenient for the authorities to pretend that gays and lesbians don’t really exist.
Strangely enough, one result of this “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has been a sharp rise in the number of dishonourable discharges of gay and lesbian members of the US military; the policy somehow seems to have become a license to hunt issued to those who object to the presence of gays and lesbians in the military. The obverse of “don’t tell” is that if you do, you’ve almost certainly terminated your career. In some instances, the US military has waited until just before the 20 year retirement point to dishonourably discharge gay and lesbian members, leaving them humiliated and stripped of their benefits (pensions included!). In the State Department the situation is much better. Gays and lesbians breathe a lot easier than they once did. However, they look to our system with envy knowing that the days of full acceptance are still well over the horizon.
Thanks to the courage and conviction of people like Stan Moore and the support of PAFSO, we in Canada have come a long way. There is no question that attitudes and practices are changing. This year Citizenship and Immigration has focused attention on gays and lesbians with the slogan “a respectful workplace starts with an open mind”. Today, the Forces have sensitivity training that includes issues involving sexual orientation. Looking back, one has to wonder what John Watkins or John Holmes would say if they were alive today. But, if ours is a luckier generation than their’s, one is also reminded of Stephen Leacock’s famous line that “…it took twenty years of hard work to get this lucky!”
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1998) — Summer 1998 // Été 1998, pp. 27–29. Read the rest of this issue →
