Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Tolerance and Reform

This October, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military to stop enforcing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, the law that has been used to discharge openly gay service members since 1993. The federal judge ruled that the policy was unconstitutional, and pushed for equal rights for gays in the military. However, while the Obama administration claims to favor an end to the law, their course of action for the future remains ambiguous.

Days after the federal judge’s ruling, the Obama administration filed a request for a stay on the policy. In other words, “don’t ask, don’t tell” will remain in practice. Individuals that oppose the policy, as well as the Log Cabin Republicans, the group that filed the lawsuit against the legislation, have expressed their disappointment but don’t seem surprised. While Obama campaigned against “don’t ask, don’t tell,” his attempts to change the policy have been considered insufficient, causing many to find his promises unconvincing.

Obama defended his position, stating that, while he agreed members should not have to lie about their sexual orientation, a change in policy would take time. He addressed the public, stating that his administration is moving in the “direction” of ending the policy. If Obama holds true to this claim, we can infer that at best, it will take several months to train service members and revise regulations to protect the rights of gay members in the military. However, his decision to hold the policy for now suggests any movement for change will face further delay.

While the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy underwent heated debate in Washington, riots broke out in Belgrade as anti-gay protestors sought to disrupt a gay pride march, the first since 2001. In the past, the city has experienced little success with gay pride marches: while the march came under attack by protestors in 2001, the scheduled march in 2009 was canceled due to public safety concerns.

Vincent Degert, head of the EU mission in Serbia, addressed a crowd of about 1,000 participants before the march. He stated the purpose of the march was to, “Celebrate the values of tolerance, freedom of expression and assembly.” However, despite his optimism, the government took precautions - CNN reported that about 1,000 gay pride participants were guarded by 5,000 police officers. While the march progressed, protestors confronted the heavily guarded participants, throwing rocks at armed police, intensifying the confrontation.

Protestors carried Serbian flags, linking nationalism with anti-gay views. Others were seen carrying religious icons, arguing that homosexuality goes against Serbian religious beliefs and family values. While Serbian government officials claim the riot was carried out by individuals that used the march as an excuse to act out in violence, it is clear that the march failed to demonstrate the “tolerance and freedom of expression” Dergert had hoped for.
As BBC reporter Mark Lowen stated, this is, “not the image Serbia wants the world to see. A successful gay parade was supposed to be an indication of how far this country has come from the ultranationalism and violence of the 1990s.” Nine years after its first march, Serbia has yet to prove to the international community that it has reached the desired stage of maturity and development. Rather, its recent riot has demonstrated the clash of opinions and inability to peacefully resolve issues. However, its attempt to continue with the march, despite great obstacles, suggests the country is taking steps towards protecting the interests of minority groups.

The struggles of both countries reveal steps towards change - while the U.S. strives to change its “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” and defend gay rights in the military, Serbia has taken measures to protect the rights of minority groups. Although the attempts of both countries have not been completely successful, they demonstrate hope for future progress and reform.