which are, in turn, underpinned by factors such as mutual trust and respect, and a requirement to avoid conduct that offends others.292 After 2000, the operational effectiveness of the armed forces did not collapse or decrease as was feared by UK defence policy makers. On the contrary, an internal government report that appraised the British change in policy characterized it as a solid achievement with fewer problems than might have been expected.293 Furthermore, the Royal Navy recently started a campaign to hire gay service members and to promote fair treatment of gay, lesbian, and bisexual recruits.294 ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy As evidenced by the US practice, the third approach to homosexuality and military service is based on a differentiation between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour. The law permits gays and lesbians to serve in the armed forces as long as they do not declare and/ or manifest their sexual orientation by engaging in homosexual acts. Therefore, while a person’s sexual orientation is considered a private matter, homosexual conduct, even by simply making a statement, provides justification for barring entry to, or continued service in, the armed forces. Along with restrictions on the speech and conduct of gay and lesbian service members, there are restrictions on official inquiries into their sexual orientation and private lives and a prohibition on hostile treatment. According to a Defense Department directive, “Commanders or appointed inquiry officials shall not ask, and members shall not be required to reveal, whether a member is a heterosexual, a homosexual, or a bisexual.”295 The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has met severe criticism from human rights groups within the United States. According to Human Rights Watch, ‘“Gay and lesbian service members are discharged without regard to their skills, training, commitment or courage — victims of the irrational fears and stereotypes some heterosexuals have about them.”296 As part of its oversight responsibilities, the Congress of the United States regularly publishes reports on the current state of affairs concerning gays and lesbians in the armed forces. For example, in 2005 it published a Congressional research report that covered issues such as legal challenges brought forward by gay and lesbian service personnel, harassment and even murder of gay and lesbian personnel in the services, recruitment policies, homosexual marriages, and foreign military experiences.297 292  UK Ministry of Defence, “Homosexuality and the Armed Forces”, Ministry of Defence website, Equality and Diversity Section, available at <http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/Personnel/EqualityAndDiversity/HomosexualityAndTheArmedForces.htm>. 293  Belkin, op. cit., note 273. 294  “Navy’s new message: your country needs you, especially if you are gay”, The Guardian, 21 February 2005, available at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1418932,00.html>. 295  “Guidelines for Fact-Finding Inquiries into Homosexual Conduct”, Department of Defense Directive No. 1332.4, Enclosure E4, 21 December 1993, available at <http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133214p. pdf>. 296  “U.S. Military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy Panders to Prejudice: Anti-Gay Harassment Flourishes”, Human Rights Watch, 23 January 2003, available at <http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/us012303.htm>. 297  David F. Burrelli and Charles Dale, “Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues”, CRS Report for Congress, Washington, DC, 27 May 2005. For a comment on this report, see N. Frank, “Research Note Assessing ‘Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues’”, The Michael D. Palm Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, July 2005, available at <http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/ research_note_assessing_homosexuals_and_u_s_military_policy_current_issues>. 136 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel