One of the self-perpetuating problems faced by LGBT public servants over the years was the myth that they represented a ‘security risk’. The skewed logic behind this myth was that ‘enemy agents’ might threaten to expose them as gay if they didn’t hand over secret information.

Of course, being exposed as gay wouldn’t necessarily be that much of a threat if it wasn’t accompanied by the possibility that one might lose one’s job because of it. And it’s pretty obvious to most of us that removing the threat of dismissal would remove the risk of blackmail and, consequently, remove the security risk.

But the archaic minds of the British security forces didn’t think like that. In the early 80’s, Britain’s National Security Commission issued recommendations that homosexuality be a bar to recruitment to the UK Foreign Office on the grounds that it was a “character defect”.

In 1985, when various colleges threatened to block the distribution of recruitment literature on the grounds that it was discriminatory, the Foreign Office came up with the most amazing piece of ‘spin’. It wasn’t them that was discriminating, they told the objectors,  it was merely recognition that homosexuality was still illegal in a number of countries so it wouldn’t be possible to post LGBT diplomats there. In consequence, they couldn’t offer those employees the same career opportunities as their heterosexual counterparts! So, if circumstances beyond their control meant that they couldn’t treat all their employees equally, it was felt best not to recruit certain types of people (in their own best interests, of course).

In private, of course, the real story was somewhat different. In 1987 an internal memo stated that, “homosexuals tended to promiscuity which involved mixing with ‘undesirable elements’ with consequent security implications.” It was no better in 1989, when a Security Department document warned that homosexuals were, “open to compromise if they indulge in unlawful activities, or mix with unsavoury elements in louche bars”.

(Interestingly, these views seemed to be focused exclusively on male homosexuals. Whether this was a reflection of the Victorian view that ‘women didn’t do that sort of thing’ or merely an acknowledgement that women didn’t progress very far in this male-dominated field, can only be guessed at.)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was also a hint that the real obstacle to reform was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. As the 1987 General Election approached, a minute from the Foreign Office Security Department suggested, “If there is no longer a Conservative Government [after the election], the time may perhaps have come to recommend something more radical.” Sadly, as we know only too well, Thatcher won the election and further clarified her views on LGBT people by introducing Clause 28.

Thatcher was finally removed as Prime Minister at the end of 1990. In July 1991, her successor John Major quietly but clearly announced the end of the automatic ban on homosexuals in high security posts. As usual, of course, the change wasn’t to be too radical and the ban on gays in the military remained in place: a depressing example of just how deeply entrenched homophobia can be.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This post is based largely on the article ‘The love that dared not speak its name in the Foreign Office’ by Charles Crawford, Independent newspaper, 30th March 2010.