The Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, is understandably distressed at the behaviour of some officers who have, on the evidence presented, allegedly sent emails around of them having sex with other women in Defence and the public service.
Obviously, officers should not be sleeping around and then boasting about it.
And this is where the Chief of Army’s good intent fails the logic test.
He is not upset about the first part, sexual promiscuity, just the bit that comes next. It’s perfectly acceptable, apparently, for officers to engage in robust consensual sexual activity with all and sundry. It’s just off limits for them to publicise it.
Now, I accept that sending around emails of women going at it without their consent is not on. What I don’t accept is the logic that if the women involved okayed the emails then it would all be hunky-dory.
So, if the Chief of Army is really interested in building a military force that respects women, then he needs to address the first part as well – sexual promiscuity.
And the Chief of Army really must be cut some slack here. We live in a society where sexual promiscuity is promoted. It’s going to be hard for the Army to rise above the lack of respect men and women show for themselves and others all over Australia.
So the message is this: don’t be surprised that officers and soldiers in the military commit sexual offences if society doesn’t really believe in sexual morals anymore. In fact, disappointing as this is, you should expect more to come.
It’s the only logical conclusion.
Especially if the Army is intent on continuing with policies that actually encourage perverted sexual promiscuity and ignore the basic fundamentals of human nature.
Take the Mardi Gras. You’re probably sick of hearing about it from me. But the truth is that at the Mardi Gras the Army marched proudly along with busloads of topless women and men dressed in leather g-strings. It supported groups who promote perverted sexual activity (their words, not mine). And children watched.
It’s kind of difficult to reconcile the Chief of Army’s intent for his soldiers to respect women when he thinks it’s cool to allow them to parade with topless sheilas who have no respect for themselves at all.
It’s impossible to understand how the Chief of Army can lend uniformed support to groups that campaign for sexual perversion and then get upset when his own soldiers commit their own version of perversion.
Then there’s the actual warfighting part the Army is supposed to focus on. The Chief of Army wants more women in uniform and he wants them on the front line.
I’ll say it right here. This is a recipe for disaster.
It will destroy warfighting capability. It will destroy cohesion and morale. It will destroy families. And it will only increase, not decrease, sexual offences committed by men in uniform.
That is because this stupid plan goes against every fibre of human nature and common-sense.
The military will always be a male-dominated environment. Anyone who wants to change that wants an army that cannot defend Australia.
I don’t think we are so politically correct yet that I cannot state this fact. Women are not as strong as men and, mostly, they don’t want to join up. Those that do are the exception.
Changing recruiting practices to accommodate for a minority of women who do not meet the physical standards of men is, to put it bluntly, a brainless waste of the recruiting dollar.
At most, it will result in reduced standards and a quota-based increase of women in a male dominated environment.
It is an environment where men are sent away from their families for long-periods in stressful environments.
If you don’t believe that this will increase sexual tensions and reduce morale amongst the team, then you don’t understand human nature.
If you don’t believe this will result in battlefield pregnancies, then you haven’t been paying attention to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If you don’t believe this will result in battlefield abortions, then you don’t understand that this will be the crowning glory of the rabid feminist movement.
If you don’t believe this will destroy families when husbands have affairs on operations, then you lack any common-sense.
And if you think this will increase the Army’s ability to wage war in any way, shape or form, then you are simply delusional.
If the Chief of Army really want to show some respect for women, then he might start by taking measures to look after the wives of soldiers. They want their husband’s team to be strong, so he will come home alive. And when he does come home, these wives don’t want it to be with another woman’s arm around him.
June 20, 2013
Well, it’s certain that most gay “marriages” would end in divorce. The gays would be in it for the party and they’d probably do it with every new partner.
June 19, 2013
And what undesirable consequences is he talking about?
A Marriage that would only last 55hrs?….just like Britney Spears?
Or a Marriage that will only last 3 months?…just like Nicolas Cage and Lisa Marie Presley?
They might marry and divorce heaps?…Just like Elizabeth Taylor.
June 19, 2013
Phillip Bernadi said this.
“The next step … is having three people that love each other should be able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society, or four people. There are even some creepy people out there, who say that it’s OK to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?”
To me and to many people he was linking gay marriage to Bestiality.
June 19, 2013
No Paul, that’s you putting your spin on it. The point Cory Bernardi was making was that when you redefine an institution such as marriage you open the door to all kinds of possibilities that are not necessarily foreseeable. So, he’s not linking gay marriage with bestiality, he’s saying that tampering with the institution could lead to truly undesirable consequences.
June 18, 2013
So Bernard on your twitter account you said “Of course Bernardi’s right. Gay marriage will lead to polygamy”
Do also agree with the other statement he made that it would also lead to bestiality?
June 18, 2013
Where exactly did Cory Bernadi say gay marriage would lead to bestiality? What he actually said was this: “There are even some creepy people out there, who say that it’s OK to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?” Those creepy people include one of the founders of Animal Liberation, former Monash ethicist and now Princeton Professor, Peter Singer. It’s quite conceivable that as our moral standards continue to fall and moral relativism grasps us in a fatal chokehold activists will start to demand law reform on bestiality as happened in Germany in 1969 when it was decriminisalised.
June 16, 2013
David Morrison is looking after David Morrison. Julia Gillard is looking after Julia Gillard. Neither of them care about the safety of the women in the ADF.
June 16, 2013
Bruce, I’m not impressed by either Morrison or Gillard. The decision to let personnel march at the filthy Mardi gras where the religious faith of other defence force members was demeaned, vilified and lampooned was contemptible.. If Bernard was homosexual he could write or say whatever he liked about the Catholic Church with complete immunity.
June 18, 2013
The Army should fire the homosexuals who marched at the Mardi gras.
June 18, 2013
‘Fire’ as in give them the sack.
June 16, 2013
Why wasn’t David Morrison so concerned about scandal this 12 months ago when he first knew about it? Why did this champion of moral decency sit on it for so long and release it in the week that Julia Gillard renewed her misogyny attack.? Was it saved for a rainy day? It sure looks that way.
June 15, 2013
“A bloke weighing 100 kg can carry an extra 50 kg of gear much more easily that can a 60 kg woman”. I hope you carry 100kg of gear better than you construct sentences 🙂
June 15, 2013
Mr Gaynor
Unless you’re being wilfully obtuse, you are at base being unpatriotic. You wish to refuse to allow those Australians that YOU (no one else, just YOU) have deemed to be unsuitable, to serve their country. If your opinion on this matter was to be law or government policy, it would lead to a reduction in the numbers and capabilities of the ADF. Despite your own military experience, you appear to be remarkably uninformed about how modern warefare is carried out. As you well know (or should know), physical strength is no longer the defining characteristic of the duties of the frontline solider, sailor or airman.
In fact this whole rant of yours, from your (apparent) lack of knowledge of modern combat field practices to your (lack of) knowledge of military history, reeks of wilful stupidity.
Is this an application for Howard Sattler’s job ?
June 15, 2013
Martin – this is some sort of joke, isn’t it?
You say ” As you well know (or should know), physical strength is no longer the defining characteristic of the duties of the frontline solider, sailor or airman.” You don’t know much about military service, do you? If you did, you would know how heavy all the gear is that every soldier has to carry. I’ll give you a clue: it’s bloody heavy. A small female weighing, say, 60 kg can easily find herself carrying almost the same again in weapon, body armour and equipment. How do you think she will go, charging uphill to shove a bayonet into someone at the top? A bloke weighing 100 kg can carry an extra 50 kg of gear much more easily that can a 60 kg woman trying to carry an extra 50 kg.
If you believe what you have just said, then you’ll believe that women are ready to fill the positions in a rugby or Aussie rules team.
Mate, you haven’t got a clue.
June 16, 2013
Go and sell your knowledge of modern combat field practices to soldiers like Ben Roberts Smith – the real fighters -as opposed to desk-bound budding feminist/gay icons David Morrison and Angus Campbell who are starting to remind me of the Nazi queers in ‘Allo ‘Allo.
June 15, 2013
As an ADF member, and a recently new Christian who had what was a somewhat perverted background (I thought it was good at the time), I can agree with some of what Bernard (and Patrick) says in the sexual promiscuity is considered something accepted in today’s life. Yes, I have done that but now that I have a broader world view, I can see how wrong I was.
Bernard, your ascertation that nothing is being done about it is wrong. I know of several cases where matters have been addressed by senior officers in recent years. One such matter was of an officer who had an extra-marital affair with a soldier who was not their subordinate but nevertheless, it was wrong. The officer’s CO sought to remove the officer from a command position and following a detailed investigation, this happened. The officer’s career has stopped and regardless of how good they are in their duties, their career will never advance. This was one example of a commander making a decision based on moral and ethical standards that whilst correct don’t align perfectly with what is considered ‘normal’ in today’s society. The difference is that ADF members, particularly those privelidged with rank should hold themselves at a higher standard.
What the Chief of Army said the other day fundamentally changed the direction of the ADF. Did it fix all of the problems? No. But it did provide the direction that will start us onto the correct path.
We do need to start with respecting others, not for what they do but for the decisions they make. I do not beleive homosexuality is ‘normal’ but I accept that some choose to live this life. I do not agree with Islam but I accept that people can make their own choice of religion. I do take offence to when people impose their values on me just like I expect they may take if I was to ‘bible bash’ them.
With regards to your comments about the world falling apart if women get in combat roles, the same thing was commonly said when women were permitted in Field Force units in the late 80’s or early 90’s. all of the same garabage was spruiked then but it happened anyway and what do you know, we survived. Yes soldiers have sex but again, that requires moral coaching and character building more then negativity.
One final point that the CA made that some commentators may need to listen to again; if you don’t like the direction being taken, then “Get Out!”
June 15, 2013
Ted: I’m generally sympathetic to the contents of your post, on the basis that “you’re entitled to your opinion”, but Bern is also entitled to his opinion. I disagree, however with your final comment in relation to the Chief of Army. In these times, when Christians are being attacked by the military system that purports to highly value equity and diversity and which allegedly holds respects all religions equally, it is the ADF’s senior sirs who allow ADF members to parade at the Gay Mardi Gras. You know: the public event at which homosexuals dressed up as nuns and bishops run about, mocking the Catholic Church. And at which there is large scale nudity and sexual conduct which is completely disgraceful. What did General Morrison say about having the moral courage to stand against behaviour that was wrong? Fine words indeed. So what did HE do to prevent soldiers attending an event where Christianity was publicly mocked and derided? Nothing at all. Not a thing. He must have fully approved of it, because soldiers in uniform marched there. And so did the CDF. As did, apparently the Chiefs of Navy and Air Force. Bottom line, mate: words from senior sirs are cheap. When they adhere to the same standards they demand of their subordinates, maybe they will have some credibility. Until then, they have none. You say “If you don’t like the direction being taken, then Get Out!”. Bugger that, mate. I say to all ADF Christian members: “If you don’t like the direction being taken, FIGHT BACK!!”
June 15, 2013
Hi Jim,
I totally agree with your recommendation to fight back. I tried this a couple of years ago when I was placed in a work environment with a exchange soldier who happened to be Muslim. I got on well with him and happily keep in contact with him now. That said, I disagreed with his theological view and I discussed this with him. Where I fought back was on a work trip interstate with a group of 10, I was told to share a room with him. Whilst I would be happy to share a room with pretty much anyone, as I have done over the last 32 years, I expressed to our boss concerns that I did not want to do this as I felt uncomfortable being placed in an environment where he was praying according to his schedule. This was not for the fact that he was praying but for the fact that it was in my personal space and again, simply beause I felt uncomfortable with it on the basis that it conflicted with my beliefs. I recieved a stern lecture from a senior officer at the time about the need to be ‘tolerant of others beliefs’. I questioned the hypocracy of this since no tolerance was being shown towards my beliefs, especially as the girls in the work environment had been relocated so as to ‘not offend him’. Tolerance works both ways. My point with mentioning this is that I agree with the need to fight and is was an example of how I addressed the matter, ie, I didn’t just comply with a misinterpretation of policy or a bowing to a noisy minority; I took action. Have you taken action? I don’t ack that wi the expectation that you haven’t. I ask with genuine interest. What action have you taken to fight back?
It is an interesting point about the Mardi Gras. Did anyone write to the CDF, or any of the service chiefs to ask why they allowed this? If so, I would love to see the response.
As for words having little meaning, I did a Google search for the CA’ ‘Rules for a Fair Go’. It is interesting, and I have argued the point in legal terms with senior officers but these turn out not to be ‘rules’ that are enforceable but merely ‘guidelines’. Yes, I have stood up before to stop action being taken by peers that was wrong (breaking civil laws). I made the mistake of doing so by myself as the four peers who were doing wrong told their version of events to the investigator and I told mine. 4 vs 1 resulted in me being counselled and threatened with disciplinary action. I knew I was in the right and that the others would face judgement at some other time but I still hope that they realise what they did wrong and make things right.
I’m starting to go off on a tangent so I will bring it back on track by asking for any comments about how we can address these concerns? I don’t have the answer but hopefully a little input by those more enlightened then me can help us formulate a plan. One thing that I know won’t work is passing snide comments they may see us labelled as being AAAA-phobic as that will only weaken the case.
Oh, here is an interesting story I found when searching for the Fair Go Rules. Note the date. It appears some things take time to eventuate but we need to start taking small steps now. This is just the start, or more correctly, the latest new start. http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1019/story09.htm
June 14, 2013
A very well written commentary on the sexual confusion within our society and the ADF.
June 14, 2013
Shut up Patrick and qwertyuiop. Shut up all you fools who show more outcry against ‘homophobia’ than something like the Woolwich murder.
Gay culture was responsible for Ancient Greece’s downfall and conquest by Rome. And likewise the decadence of Rome saw it fall in turn. If you won’t learn from history, you are destined to repeat it. Decadent Western culture is suffering decline and is being overrun by a morally-stronger Islamic beast. Come to the UK for a visit, or France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, take your pick.
Not the first time it’s happened either. Look at history to see how many times Islamic armies invaded the West. If you think the Crusades were bad, you never once have studied the history of Islam. True story, bros.
June 14, 2013
Thank you Bernard for you insightful words – I find it rather threatening that as a member of the Defence Force one cannot express a negative opinion about gay matters without being ‘counselled’ for publicly stating those opinions where the reverse does not apply. We are becoming a society where the moral and ethical values of one group are being denigrated because they don’t reflect the thinking of minority groups. I have no objections to gay people taking up careers in any sphere they choose but because they are in the minority in society their views should not take precedence over the views of the rest of society who wish to voice their opinions.
June 14, 2013
What is a negative opinion you have about gay matters? that you you claim you can’t express as a defence force member?
And tell me what views do gays have that have taken precedence of the views of the rest of society?
June 14, 2013
The view that homosexual behaviour is normal, to be respected, and even promoted!
June 14, 2013
And what is wrong with Homosexuals going around telling people they should be respected?
June 15, 2013
You don’t think they have an ulterior motive?
June 15, 2013
I’ll answer your question, Paul. Homosexuality is not a sexual orientation and the term homosexual is no more descriptive of an individual than smoker. Both are based on habitual behaviour. So essentially your question is “what is wrong with people going round telling others that their perverted behaviour should be respected.” The answer to that is that it is not worthy of respect.
On the other hand the humanity of the person who engages in homosexual behaviour must be respected. I hope you can see the distinction.
June 14, 2013
Bernard, your constant rants about the GLBTI community are ill informed and offensive. Your rants about the Islam are not helpful and alienates the mainstream moderates who just want to get on with their lives. What are you going to do when one of your children comes to you and says “dad I am gay /lesbien/ Trans”? And all of your neutering gas failed as it is an inate part of their being. Ie nature. And as for the ADF policy on inclusion and your objections to that. I am suprised that you could make defend these men. There is no place for that kind of behaviour in or out of the ADF. You blogg enteries are as offensive to the GLBTI as the actions of the cowards currently under suspension and investigation.
If you have a shred of decency you should remove your offensive content.
June 14, 2013
The chance that of any of Bernard’s children will choose a homosexual lifestyle is much smaller than that of the general public. Kids raised in a stable home with a married mother and father are much less likely to succumb to homosexuality than those raised in any other environment. The chances are further reduced when those kids are taught the truth about homosexuality, i.e. that it is not a normal, acceptable, or healthy way to live or behave.
June 14, 2013
So now its the parents fault that the kids are gay?
People are born gay they don’t “Succumb” to the homosexual lifestyle…why would people “succumb” to be gay when people like you are around telling them its not acceptable to be homosexual?
And you want to know why the young people in the LGBT choose the path of Suicide? its easy people like you.
June 15, 2013
“People are born gay” ———————————— Where is your evidence? What’s the name of these mysterious genes that causes homosexuality? You won’t list them because they don’t exist.
June 15, 2013
How come homosexuals who are involved in a monogamous relationship are 8 times more likely to kill themselves than straight men who are married? Non-married straight men are two times less likely to kill themselves. ——————————– http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20033129 —————————– Isn’t that a sign that gay marriage is wrong?
June 16, 2013
At what point did you “choose” to be straight? It’s an idiotic statement, why would anyone “decide” to be gay or lesbian, look at the vile statements about homosexuals made here on this blog, it is the sort of rubbish a gay or lesbian person deals with daily.
As for Bernard Gaynor…how many fringe parties does he have to get moved on from? KAT, DLP…they seem to be okay with Bernard till they get closer to him…
June 16, 2013
Just in case you don’t know Bob the 1950’s was a decade of incredible scientific advances and discoveries. There was the H Bomb, rockets, the sputnik, the Salk vaccine for polio and others for diphtheria and whooping cough. Antihistamines were discovered. Don’t under estimate the importance of the 1950’s. Another good thing about that era was that people then were not being constantly earbashed by domineering gay activists.
June 16, 2013
People don’t “choose” to be straight. It’s in-built in their DNA. Evolution divided the species into two sexes and programmed them to procreate with one another. Homosexuality opposes the very purpose of living. It’s a mental illness brought upon by environmental factors. Like many mental illnesses, it causes the afflicted to do harmful things to themselves that make no sense. Mental illness can even cause people to override the instincts that are carefully built into their DNA. Maybe you can point out these “gay genes” that you believe to be the cause of homosexuality so that you can enlighten us “homophobes”?
June 15, 2013
Paul – so you reckon kids are born homosexual? That means there must be some specific gene or chromosome etc that leads to this outcome. Excellent! I hope you’re right! Because if you are – then unborn children with that genetic marker will be the next group targeted for abortion – just like dwarves and mongoloids are now. People like Bern, myself and many others are dead against abortion, which will lead to a great, great irony which is this: it will be we who try to save those unborn homosexuals from abortion because abortion is NEVER permissible – and it will be pro-abortion idiots like you who cheer when women choose to abort their homosexual unborn child upon that status being determined. Or is that incorrect? Do you only cheer when heterosexual unborn children are aborted? Will you, all of a sudden, become very much against abortion where homosexuality is an issue? Either way, it doesn’t matter – over the last 50 years or so, history has shown that we pro-lifers have never succeeded in relation to abortion, and that the evil forces promoting abortion have succeeded at every turn. Which means, Paul, that – if you are correct about children being “born gay” – you can expect the great, silent genocide of unborn homosexuals to begin shortly – as soon as you are proven correct. Perhaps this goes to prove that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is correct after all – even if the selection method here could hardly be classified as “natural”.
June 15, 2013
People are not born gay. On the balance of available evidence homosexualism is a behaviour triggered by experiences. Sexual behaviour can be changed which is why adolescents can be successfully groomed by pederasts. Gay men are well aware of this which makes their protests that they were born that way and cannot change transparently false.
June 16, 2013
Wow Philip, was that the “available evidence” of the 1950s?
June 16, 2013
Bob, it’s common for boys who are molested by homosexual paedophiles to repeat the abuse when they grow up. Wouldn’t you say that’s learned behaviour? Homosexual men are obsessed with teenage boys. Paedohpilia is a common theme in homosexual literature. —————————————- http://www.steve-baldwin.com/articles/43-articles/184-child-molestation
June 14, 2013
Wow, Bernard. Just wow. Your views are blatantly homophobic and sexist at a time where conservatives such as yourself have been receiving flack for comments such as yours. your assertion that ‘The Chief of Army wants more women in uniform and he wants them on the front line. I’ll say it right here. This is a recipe for disaster.’ is blatantly false and a strawman argument for being presented as it is on a lack of empirical evidence. For example in the US marines women have been serving on the front lines in theatres such as Iraq and Afgahnistan, and dying for their country. You obviously have not spent much time sparring or training with females from the ADF because they would quite bluntly shove your offensive comments back down your throat where they belong.
You obviously find it admirable to denigrate men who are homosexual as being morally corrupt and inferior to evidently straight blokes such as yourself. After all your idea of masculinity is based upon such noble forebears such as the Spartans of ancient Greece. If this is your ideal of “warriorhood” then it is probably reassuring to have homosexuals in the military seeing as the all homosexual ‘Band of Thebes’ (a group of 300 openly homosexual warriors) were the first to inflict a crushing defeat to the Spartans.
As a father of two daughters I find it frankly offensive that you advocate limiting their ability for them to achieve and engage in whatever they feel free to do. In the year 2013 I find it intensely discouraging that closed minded bigots such as you still exist, let alone hold some form of office. The fact that you preface your argument in terms of the ‘threat’ that women play renders men completely without agency. So, on the one hand men can obviously not help themselves from raping and assaulting women in military circumstances – these men obviously require chaperoning from other men whilst out without their wives and mothers. yet, you contradict yourself by suggesting that women would be responsible for breaking apart families.
Your argument as a whole is contradictory and facile, rooted in fear and, ultimately disappointing to find on somebody, who as a politician, is meant to be a role model for a generation of children.
I dearly hope that you lose your seat, so that you can collapse into the void of insignificance that is currently inhabited by the likes of Michelle Bachmann and Pauline Hanson, you horrible waste of skin.
Regards
Patrick
June 15, 2013
I pity your daughters, Patrick.
June 17, 2013
CoA has ordered the Army to be 12% female by end of his term …. perhaps that’s why the gender reassignment costs are being funded ?
June 14, 2013
Your writing is truthful and clear. I love your blunt honesty.” There are none so blind as those who will not see.” Unfortunately, the world seems full of these blind who will not see.