Box 12.4 The UK Approach: Prior Discussion of Racial Discrimination Claims206 General legislation preventing racial discrimination was extended to the armed forces in 1996 and allows members of the armed forces to bring allegations of racial discrimination before an (civilian) employment tribunal. Before they do so, however, they must make a complaint under an internal service procedure (known as a complaint for redress). It is possible for the armed forces to request that tribunal proceedings be deferred until the conclusion of the internal procedure, which is the course usually followed in practice. The advantages of this approach are that it encourages internal resolution of these cases and allows for allegations to be taken up as a matter of military discipline where discrimination is the result of actions of other service personnel. There are, though, important differences between the complaint for redress (which may also take on a disciplinary focus according to a criminal standard of proof) and the tribunal (where proof is to the lower civilian standard). Furthermore, tribunal proceedings will be brought against the armed forces as the employer responsible for the discriminatory actions of its employees, whereas internal procedures may lead to disciplinary proceedings against other service personnel. The disadvantages of this approach are that it may involve substantial delay while internal procedures are completed, and the requirement to complain via the chain of command may inhibit servicemen and -women coming forward with complaints. 206 Sometimes allegations of racial mistreatment focus on harassment or bullying by other members of the forces. The armed forces are, of course, responsible for maintaining a nondiscriminatory, racially tolerant, and safe working environment. Racial harassment may be regarded as a form of discrimination for which the armed forces are vicariously responsible. Apart from discrimination law, however, there may be added measures of protection or signals of official disapproval under offences of military discipline. In the UK, for example, a military court or superior officer must treat racial or religious aggravation in a violation of military law as an aggravating factor. This will be reflected in potentially more serious punishment. 207 208 Box 12.5 Defining Racial Harassment208 Harassment shall be deemed to be discrimination … when unwanted conduct related to racial or ethnic origin takes place with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. In addition, institutions that address complaints of unfair treatment and abuse (such as military ombudsmen or an inspector general) may have jurisdiction over issues related to ethnicity. One noteworthy model is the German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces (see Chapter 22, “Ombudsmen”), which has the power to receive and investigate complaints concerning the actions of other soldiers. 206  Appendix 11 to the Minutes of Evidence, “Special Report of Armed Forces Select Committee 2001”, 2001 HC (House of Commons Papers) 154, Vol. II; Race Relations Act 1976, Section 75; Race Relations (Complaints to Industrial Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations 1997; Armed Forces Act 2006, Sections 334-339. 207  Under Section 240 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. 208  EC Directive 2000/43, Art. 2.3. 106 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel