Monday, May 19, 2008
Legislating honor
This is nothing if not a sorry commentary on the collapse of Britain's national confidence:
Following a series of incidents in which servicemen and women in uniform have been barred from stores or abused on the streets, a report ordered by the Prime Minister has recommended legislation to outlaw discrimination.
The Nation Recognition of our Armed Forces report, written by Quentin Davies, MP, highlighted one incident in which an officer in full dress uniform was refused entrance to Harrods after attending a Remembrance Sunday parade.
The store, owned by Mohamed Fayed, has insisted on barring troops in combat fatigues which the report said was “quite unacceptable”.
It is very difficult for an American to imagine any business more mainstream than a Left Coast head shop -- much less an iconic department store -- barring soldiers in uniform. Apart from the sheer offensiveness of it, the commercial consequences would be disastrous. Even five years into an unpopular war our most left-wing presidential candidate would denounce any business that dared discriminate against American soldiers in uniform. It is a tragedy for Britain that the same is not true there, and it makes me wonder whether America is indeed alone.
13 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue May 20, 01:19:00 AM:
"...and it makes me wonder whether America is indeed alone."
I, too, have often thought about this. From my perspective (I'm Canadian), the one thing that gives me comfort is that the United States of America is my country's greatest ally, largest trading partner, closest cousin, next-door neighbor, truest friend, and, quite simply, Canada's sole defender.
In fact, you can extend that 'sole defender' statement beyond Canada to the entire globe. If it wasn't for Iron Men and Women like that British soldier... if it wasn't for the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of Western, libertarian democracies... cast in the mold of the 21ST century American serviceman, freedom would be in mighty short supply.
By 
Gary Rosen, at
Tue May 20, 03:07:00 AM:
"The store, owned by Mohamed Fayed,"
No comment.
By SR, at
Tue May 20, 09:30:00 AM:
Time for a platoon of SAS to take lunch in the food court in full battle dress. (OK they can leave the firearms outside).
By , at
Tue May 20, 10:24:00 AM:
before we get too jiggy, I invite the board to think back to how our own servicemembers were treated by the public during the Vietnam conflict.
the Colonel
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue May 20, 10:53:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue May 20, 10:55:00 AM:
Yes, Colonel, somebody spit on the back of my uniform at San Francisco International Airport in 1968.
By , at
Tue May 20, 12:20:00 PM:
The barring of uniformed personnel from any shop probably has more to do with the worry on the part of the shopkeeper of what the rest of the public might think when seeing people in uniform inside. The reasons are not usually anti-military per se, but more about what that uninformed presence might demonstrate. It wouldn't necessarily be seen as "ho-hum".
Some of the attitudes of the Forces themselves towards their wearing uniform in public are rooted in "the troubles", when IRA terrorism was the biggest problem, and servicepeople didn't wear them in the streets even in England. One guy we know who'd been an officer in Northern Ireland in the early 1990s has never gotten over the experience of serving there; once, he told us of a Catholic mate who was himself shocked at how Catholic kids on the streets reacted to him as a British soldier in uniform. (Hint: not well.)
I don't remember if the recent Peterborough abuse incidents have been fully explained publicly, although some stuff had appeared from people who claimed the culprits were refugees from the Middle East. Hence, a reason, again, not to wear a uniform in the street?
But there's more to it. Culturally, when compared to that in the U.S., the British military is in many respects a different world. The gulf perceived between the soldiery and the people is seen as pretty wide, and both "sides" sense it.
The military here feels almost like an exclusive club. It is also the most "royal" of institutions. The wife openly wondered to me during a recent TV special here on the Duke of Edinburgh, as he spoke to a group of elite troops obviously thrilled to be in his presence, what would the Forces' reaction be if a Government attempted to abolish the monarchy without the royal family's agreement? Which side would the Forces take?
In that "club" sense, it is also at times seen as one of the most distant from the "average person". The military here simply does not permeate the British consciousness in a way that the U.S. military does for Americans. Few give it much thought (other than when they get indignant over stories that may appear about poor equipment or underfunding) in comparison to Americans' fascination (be it love or hate) with theirs.
Indeed, having been in the military here is not a key to political advancement as it might be in the States. The notion, for example, that an officer in the army or navy might seek to become prime minister on the strength of that military service would be considered out of bounds. "Public service" and "the military" are, ironically, somehow deemed -- and again, it's hard to know when this first took hold -- as distinctive and generally separate career tracks. (Remember, Dwight Eisenhower became president, but none of Churchill's successful wartime generals -- Montgomery, Alexander, Brooke, Dempsey -- became prime minister.)
All that doesn't mean they aren't appreciated, are disliked by the public and need to cower in corners, hiding. The fundamental attitude about the military is just very dissimilar to that of the U.S. Those who "take the Queen's shilling", also ironically, were raised with it, and so know of the societal attitude before they ever first join up.
By , at
Tue May 20, 01:39:00 PM:
Dec:
Sir, my father received similar treatment. interestingly enough, also in San francisco. I have decided beforehand that if someone spits on me ...its on. No discussion, no words just bidness so to speak. The emotional trigger is "set" so to speak. I'll immediately send the photos to dad with my compliments.
I believe I can blame PTSD for at least one such incident.
Cordially
Colonel.
By , at
Tue May 20, 02:00:00 PM:
Historically, the military was not held in very high regard in England. Read a few Kipling poems.
By , at
Tue May 20, 03:19:00 PM:
In particular try "Tommy" - see here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/arts/ceriradford/dec06/tommy.htm
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue May 20, 06:50:00 PM:
I found that explanation to be enlightening and fair, Robert. Thanks for contributing.
By , at
Wed May 21, 03:12:00 PM:
Before WW II in some city parks they posted signs reading NO SAILORS ALLOWED that was discrimination but after DEC 7th 1941 it all changed
By , at
Wed May 21, 08:27:00 PM:
If a public place attempted this in America, would the denial of entry violate civil rights law? Would it have both civil and criminal consequences?
Are there any civil rights laws in Britain that would protect the military?
Kent Gatewood
