British yield to Euro-state

By WND Staff

Editor’s Note: In collaboration with the hard-hitting Washington
newsweekly, Human Events, WorldNetDaily brings you the first of a series
of Internet exclusives. For more of this kind of reporting and news
analysis, subscribe to Human Events by taking
advantage of WorldNetDaily’s no-risk offer through our online store.
(See Newspapers & Periodicals.)


Further signaling Britain’s decline from ruling half the world a
century ago toward control by continental bureaucrats and jurists, the
government of Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided to obey a ruling by
the European Court of Human Rights requiring the British military to
accept homosexuals.

The court, based in Strasbourg, France, and staffed by judges from
Britain, France, Cyprus, Lithuania, Austria, Norway and Albania,
overturned long-standing British military policy, despite the official
opposition of Britain’s left-wing Labor government, British military
commanders, and the overwhelming majority of British servicemen.

In a 7-0 decision of 40 pages issued Sept. 28, the court ruled that
the Defense Ministry violated Article 8 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, which has been signed by 40 nations and which says,
“everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his
home and his correspondence.”

English newspapers generally praised this as a triumph for homosexual
rights. For example, a London Independent editorial, Sept. 29, said,
“Today it looks like a long-overdue progressive move. Tomorrow it will
look as natural as the right to vote. But before homosexual and lesbian
personnel are openly integrated into the British armed services — as
the European Court of Human Rights insisted yesterday that they should
be — ministers face a battle with the military. No one should
underrate the challenge. Our armed services remain among the most
reactionary in the Western world.”

“The court took the view that neither the investigations nor the
discharges of the applicants were justified within the meaning of
Article 8,” said the court. “The investigations conducted into the
applicants’ sexual orientation together with their discharge from the
armed forces constituted especially grave interferences with their
private lives.”

Lord Robertson, British Defense secretary, stated, “This government,
like all governments, has to accept the ruling of the European Court of
Human Rights. The details of this complex judgment and its practical
implications are being studied carefully. After consulting the service
chiefs, ministers will be making their recommendations in a timely
manner. In the meantime, cases (against homosexuals) in the system will
be put on hold.”

Richard Ottaway, Tory defense spokesman, said in a statement, “We
back the service chiefs who believe that it will affect morale and
effectiveness and therefore the ban should remain.”

But Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat defense spokesman, supported
the ruling.
After the two major parties, the Liberal Democrats make up a sizable
block of Parliament.

The European court ruling did not come out of the blue. In June
1995, a British High Court judge told the Defense Ministry to rescind
its ban on homosexuals or lose a case in the European court, which is
separate from the World Court based in The Hague. The warning prompted
the Defense Ministry to conduct a survey of military servicemen, which
ended up showing that, in all three branches, opposition to allowing
homosexuals to serve was intense. Each year, the British military
discharges approximately 60 homosexuals.

Four litigants brought the case to the court: Graeme Grady, 36, a
Royal Air Force sergeant who held an intelligence post in Washington,
D.C.; John Beckett, 29, a weapons engineer; Duncan Lustig-Prean, 40, a
Royal Navy lieutenant commander; and Jeanette Smith, 33, an RAF nurse.

The court rejected arguments that morale demanded that heterosexuals’
dislike of serving with homosexuals be respected, or that homosexual
attachments among soldiers could lead to favoritism on the battlefield.
“Those negative attitudes could not, of themselves, justify the
interferences in question any more than similar negative attitudes
towards those of a different race, origin or color,” said the court.

This is not the first time the European court has interfered in Great
Britain’s internal affairs. It has also ordered the island nation to
end corporal punishment in government schools and has expanded
criminals’ rights, including those of terrorist suspects.