Politically-correct Defence loses again

The Australian Defence Force is filled with decent, brave Australians. Unfortunately, they are led by generals and admirals who are more concerned about winning diversity awards than winning wars.

As we all know, Defence has not participated in any ‘Victory in Iraq’ or ‘Victory in Afghanistan’ parades recently.

Instead, the efforts and sacrifices of those who served have been replaced with this over there:

Islamic State

And this over here:

Hyde Park

However, while the war has been raging Defence has accumulated an impressive cabinet of other glitter-coated baubles. Here are just some of them:

170201 - Politically-correct Defence loses again

Of course, who could also forget these Defence diversity champions:
David Morrison

Mona Shindy
I guess that gives a good indication of the hierarchy’s priorities. It has not gone unnoticed.

The Australian newspaper criticised this focus in April 2016 after this website and the Australian Liberty Alliance forced Defence to shut down an official Islamic Navy Twitter account that was promoting radical Islamic beliefs, criticising the government’s border security policies and attacking conservative politicians.

This is part of what The Australian had to say:

“The navy’s Islamic affairs strategic adviser role reflects a cultural change strategy that has institutionalised identity politics in the Australian Defence Force. Since her appointment, Captain Mona Shindy has come under fire for promoting views associated with Islamists. The navy’s response, to shut down her social media, was a political decision, not a military one. It did little to address the culture of division engendered by identity politics that threatens the military cohesion required of a national defence force.

Across the West, defence forces have been targeted by cultural change agents who sow division as they preach social inclusion. Citing discrimination law, they pressure defence leaders to accept political agendas with dubious military benefits on the threat of non-compliance. Such agendas can undermine military capability…

…The rise of minority fundamentalism as mainstream military policy diminishes Western defences by redirecting resources to impotent causes. The ADF should concentrate on fortifying critical combat capabilities, beginning with restoration of the nation’s infirm submarine fleet.”

Defence fired off a letter which said, in part:

“In the Australian Defence Force we strive to create an environment where all of our people can feel valued, included and empowered to bring innovative ideas to the table. Our goal is to foster a workplace that encourages great ideas, attracts the best talent and creates a sense of pride in all that we do.”

So a few days later The Australian went further:

As we have reported, the Chief of Navy’s strategic adviser on Islamic cultural affairs, Captain Mona Shindy, has engaged in questionable activity as part of her official duties. Her social media was shut down after she praised Mufti Musa Ismail Menk on Twitter. Menk is a cleric so hostile to Western values he was forced to cancel a tour of British universities after describing homosexual people as “filthy”. Captain Shindy praised him on Twitter as “a source of wisdom”. Other tweets and retweets on Shindy’s account questioned foreign policy, terrorism and attitudes towards Muslim Australians. The profile was created to promote diversity in the ADF.

Under her official title, Shindy also published an article last year replete with contentious statements about Islamist terrorism. She claimed the media “overplayed” Islamic extremism by connecting terrorism and Islam. Instead, Shindy recommended “the word ‘Islam’ needs to be removed from reporting on ISIS/ISIL or Daesh”. She locates the root causes of terrorism in “a strong belief among some members of the Islamic world that certain Western governments and institutions have a specific agenda against them, treat them as ‘second class’, and act in ways and make decisions that compromise their freedom of speech and expression, human rights and civil liberties”.

Such problematic statements are not addressed in the defence force chiefs’ letter to The Australian, which omits reference to Shindy. Instead, it contains a series of motherhood statements praising the ADF’s culture of inclusion without any supporting evidence. Disturbingly, the chiefs describe military capability as an “intangible concept”. An intangible concept might be deployed to fight an abstract war against a postmodern idea but it won’t restore the submarine fleet or deter Islamic State.

The last sentence of the defence force chiefs’ letter states “our mission (is) to safeguard the security of this nation and its interests”. It is time to restore that mission to pride of place.

Being the inclusive, non-critical and non-offensive head honchos that they are, the military’s top brass were rather taken aback by this broadside. So they duly complained to the Australian Press Council.

A decision was handed down today, and just as recent operations have been failures, this one was as well. Defence was smacked down:

The Council considers that the first editorial was an expression of opinion about the ADF’s diversity programs and the risk of compromising the capacity of the ADF in the future. The Council is satisfied the publication took reasonable steps to ensure it was not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or an omission of key facts concerning what the complainant referred to as evidence of its successful operations and ongoing investment in military and submarine capability. The Council considers the editing of the letter preserved the essence of the points made by the ADF, omitting only details of the points made in support. Publications have a broad discretion to edit letters, provided it does not change their meaning or tenor, which the Council considers did not occur in this instance. The Council considers that in editing the letter as it did, the publication took reasonable steps to ensure that it was an accurate and not misleading reflection of the complainant’s submitted letter.

As to the second editorial, the Council notes that while the letter as submitted provided details of successful operations and ongoing investment in capability, it did not refer to the Islamic affairs strategic adviser and whether that role and the actions of the adviser reflected a cultural change strategy which institutionalised identity politics. Also, while the second editorial referred to a portion of the submitted letter which had not been published, it referred accurately to the omitted portions. In the circumstances, the Council considers the publication took reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in the second editorial was accurate and fair and balanced, and that the opinion was not based on inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. The Council also considers that the letter as published amounted to a fair opportunity for the complainant to reply.

Accordingly, the Council does not uphold the complaint.

In a nutshell, Defence lost this war because The Australian’s reporting and editorials were factual, whereas Defence’s pouty letter to The Australian omitted to mention the Islamic Twitter account or the divisions it was causing at all, which was the reason for The Australian’s editorial in the first place.

I guess the key take away is that Defence should save the propaganda for the enemy. Oh, and it might want to improve on it as well. After all, it is coming across with all the scariness of a huffily offended wet lettuce leaf.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. The ADF, as the Civil Service, are children of Canberra. Are they not already fatally compromised in a war against Islam, domestic and foreign? Are we not seeing it play out in the USA? Is the attempt to reverse course too little too late?

    Post a Reply
  2. It looks like the ADF was chosen by the (((Political Elite))) to spearhead and model both the promotion of Islam and the gender war on Australia. The entire PC apparatus, its legal structure, its Committees of Public Safety, its tribunals and enforcement is giving top priority to the gender war on traditionally lived social roles for male and female identities as understood by the majority of White Australians.

    With Mona, it looks like the Correctoids have a ‘two-fer’. As an Islamic in a military position she models for the minions the importance of Islamic representation at all levels of Australian official bodies. As a Muslima in a non-traditional role she models she the spearhead of the gender war which is against the male and female identities as lived in all traditional cultures and the majority White Australian society.

    This is not just about how the Muslim woman can break out of her Islamic cultural role and hold a non-traditional job.

    This is about the identities known as mum, dad, the teenage daughter who gets crushes on boys and wants to be a hairdresser, the boy who likes to work on cars and teases his little sister (who plays with dolls). I refer to the dog, the bitch and their puppies (as bad role models for the younger children giving them the offensive idea that the dog can not have puppies). I refer to the male and female budgies who are engaging in bad budgie behaviour by courting and building the nest. The school PC officer will expect a full report on that.

    Or to put it in the terms of the cadre: ‘binary, cisnormative’ fascists transphobes, homophobes and haters. If you are not on board with where the LGBT offensive in Australia is headed with the war on gender, you probably think – ‘Well. I have friends who support ‘marriage equality’ and I don’t abuse or bully anyone because of their gender. Hey, I even use the gender neutral toilet – the cadre isn’t talking about me’. Wrong. The cadre is talking about you.

    Most will not wake up to this until their former son comes home from school with the announcement that he is now a ‘nonbinary, noncisnormative genderqueer’. And a letter from the school counsellor to that effect mandating the correct pronoun to use when addressing him or speaking of him – together with a long list of do’s and don’ts that the school will be monitoring. He will not be allowed to call his mother – ‘mum’ because that is offensive to transgenders.

    The Political Correctoids are positioning their infernal columns in the workplace and the school with the entire array of ‘Diversity’ managers, gender counsellors, Political Correctness Officers, Multi-cultural advisors, Gender Counsellors and Trainers to ensure compliance with PC social engineering.

    The entire PC industry must go. Like this –
    The Ents attack Isenguard

    Post a Reply
  3. How can her loyalties be split between Australia and their enemles?

    Post a Reply
  4. Well done Bernie,so pleased with the outcome you have achieved.That problem has been a concern to me for some time.A few of our top brass I feel do not have Australia’s best interest at heart and should be removed.

    Post a Reply
  5. and I recall the racist shit I copped because I was from “Greek” parentage even though I was born here and great grand dad came here almost 100 years ago. But I do have a strong belief that those who parade with signs extolling beheading should meet their maker immediately

    Post a Reply
  6. Bernie well done, we are so proud of you and what you have achieved.

    Post a Reply
  7. Well done Bernard and a great outcome. This politically correctness has gone to far. Also cant say I approve of the headdress of Capt Shindy. Was not allowed in my day in the RAN

    Post a Reply
    • I wonder if she has to don anti-flash gear on top of her headwear or if its come as you are.

      Post a Reply
  8. Well done Bernard. If only we could transfer your common sense to our Defence Leaders. Why are we so obsessed with trying to find intelligent life on other planets, when it’s lacking here ?

    Post a Reply
  9. This is brain washing political correctness BAPC … in our defence department ..is disgraceful, an eexample of what happens when Pandora’s lid is opened . Well done you zealots in the ALA..

    Post a Reply
  10. its not just terrorism that is the problem. There are many other reasons people are annoyed with Muslims. This is something most of the Australian population are sick of. The Muslim community using the thin edge of the wedge all the time. Always claiming islamophobia to get they’re own way. They creep their laws and their ways into society and then demand they are allowed to use them. After a while they demand that we follow them as well or it will offend them. Islam is a religion that has many rules that don’t fit our communities and they are trying to force that religion on our society. While we’re at it I thought the idea of uniform was for everything to look the same not for veryone but the Muslims to look the same. Again the Muslims want special treatment.

    Post a Reply
    • Exactly correct !

      Post a Reply
  11. It is fatal for an organisation to believe its own propaganda and PR. Getting high on his own supply is the quickest way for a dealer to get dealt out.

    Post a Reply
  12. By their own inflexible standards Muslims cannot be included in our defense forces.

    If you cannot stand in our court of law because it is considered to be paying homage to other than Allah, then how can they put allegence to our country above all else?

    In fact the only reason for them joining our armed forces is as subversives, spied operating for their cause not our country.

    Our naivety will be our downfall.

    Post a Reply
  13. The betrayal of serving soldiers past and present seems to be the result of poor judgement by the military leaders. The Military leadership should not be involving itself on social issue. The military should remain neutral in such things. The evidence shown, demonstrates a destructive attitude to divide the military personnel on purely social agenda issue. Gender, sexual orientation, religion and discrimination to those who oppose their to playing politics within the military family.

    Post a Reply
  14. Great article and fantastic outcome too. Thanks Bernard.

    BTW, I’m curious as to what all those medals, which Mona Shindy is wearing, represent.

    Post a Reply
    • What do those medals represent love to know how she earn them hopefulsth.eastly it’s not exagerated tokenism

      Post a Reply
    • Hi Sharon – from left to right the medals are:

      1. Conspicuous Service Cross
      2. Australian Active Service Medal
      3. Iraq Campaign Medal
      4. The new Operational Service Medal
      5. The Long Service Medal (with 2 x stars)
      6. The Australian Defence Medal.

      I understand that Captain Shindy received her CSC for work with the new frigates. She has served in the Navy for at least 25 years and has probably done a tour at sea in the Middle East. All up, her contribution to the Navy would have been something to respect if, in recent times, she had not begun pushing for radical protection of Islam in Defence.

      Post a Reply
  15. It is about time that someone put a fine point on this sorry situation. I congratulate you for handling a very sensitive issue with poise, respect, accuracy and understanding.
    As an ex-serviceman myself I do find that we no longer have an effective leadership and we certainly do not have the right attitude towards returning servicemen. It is no different now than it was after the Vietnam War when returning soldiers were told to keep quiet about where they had served and what they had done to avoid upsetting people.
    When our brave men and women put their all on the line, they have a right to know the loyalty and the determination of their leadership.

    Post a Reply
  16. So glad I exited the RAN in 2002. I would not be able to stay under the present heirarchy. My attitudes would be polar opposite to the new touchy feely, lets hug a muslim and a gay person mentality

    Post a Reply
    • How on Earth do you equate the military embracing Islamism (which, as this article says includes the hatred of LGBT people – in fact, actually murdering LGBT people under Shariah law) with ending hatred of and bullying of LGBT people in the military? The first is extremely undesirable, while the second is extremely desirable, and yet you treat them both as if they were the same thing. The military cannot have any sense of purpose if it embraces the evil ideology of Islam within it. And it cannot function properly while it is divided by hatred of LGBT people by non-LGBT personnel, as it is therefore at war with itself. Your phobias of LGBT people are both irrational and as evil as when it originates in Islamism.

      Post a Reply
      • So why in the whole “Homophobic” LGBT hate issue is it always implied that only “non-LGBT” (i take it that’s the new trendy way to refer to straight/heterosexual people, like your either a gay person or a non person?) are the only ones ever guilty of hatred? Why can LGBT people have loud vocal demonstrations about SSM, sexual equality demanding they get what they want, while at the same time not “Hating” the “non-LGBT” who appose their demands? If it is not hate to stand up for your LGBT convictions/choices why then do the LGBT instantly brand the “non-LGBT” as homophobic haters when they express their opinions.

        Also ANZAC’s have fought on land,sea and air with great courage and distinction from The Boer War, WWI, WW2,Korea, Malaya and Vietnam and it functioned perfectly fine not having to carry the rainbow flag into battle.

  17. Well done Bernard… you truly have what makes our country proud!

    Post a Reply
    • Absolutely agree!

      Post a Reply
      • Well said Sir.

    • Thank you Bernie. Excellent material & well written.

      Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest