Army Against ‘gay’ Soldiers (Press, 20 July 1985)

On 20 July 1985, Lieutenant-Colonel Angus Rivers presented his views to Parliament's Statutes Revision Committee regarding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. He argued against the decriminalisation of homosexual activity in the Armed Services, asserting that allowing such relationships in combat units would damage the soldiers' resolve to fight for their country. He believed it would lead to inappropriate emotional attachments that could compromise the structure of command and the effectiveness of military operations. Rivers insisted that the Ministry of Defence must retain the ability to discriminate against homosexual behaviour to preserve military discipline and effectiveness. He expressed concern that the bill, which seeks to decriminalise consensual sexual activity for adult males over 16 and amend the Human Rights Commission Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, would disrupt the established command hierarchy. Rivers highlighted that military success relies on the clarity of command relationships, which are vital for making critical decisions during wartime. He believed that with the potential for homosexual relationships, no commander could be confident that operational decisions would be free from the influence of personal emotions. Moreover, Rivers raised health concerns related to HIV/AIDS, suggesting that soldiers could be at risk of becoming infected through untested blood transfusions during combat, a situation exacerbated by the absence of normal screening processes in such scenarios. He underscored the importance of maintaining existing barriers against emotional ties in the military, including policies that prevent close family members, such as spouses or siblings, from serving in the same unit. Rivers noted that there has historically been an understanding among service members regarding the consequences of engaging in homosexual acts, which has acted as a deterrent. In summary, Rivers' submission reflected a significant resistance to the proposed changes in the law, highlighting fears about military cohesion and the implications of emotional relationships on duty and command. His comments resonated with the prevailing attitudes within certain military circles of the time, wherein traditional views about sexuality and its role within the armed forces were prominent.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand