The hierarchy of the ADF is up to its armpits in LGBTWHATEVER.
In answers given to Senator Fraser Anning at Senate Estimates, Defence has confirmed it has the following LGBT and gender diversity committees, boards, councils and advisors on the go as we speak:
- Defence Gender Advisory Equality Board
- Army Gender Diversity Executive Council
- Navy Diversity Reference Groups
- Defence Pride Network
- Defence Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Employee Network
- Defence LGBTI Ambassador Network
- Single-service LGBI Strategic Advisors
- LGBT champions within the Senior Leadership Group
Luckily Trump seems to be on top of the North Korea thing because our military is apparently more focused on fighting the Safe Schools war back here in Australia.
And, confusingly, there seems to be a problem with the Gender Advisory Equality Board (GEAB)
Defence says the GEAB is not focused on ‘LGBTI matters’ but concerns itself with ‘gender equality priorities’. This is so, even though non-cis popular opinion would have us believe that LGBTI matters do involve gender, or the bending of gender, or the transitioning of gender because gender is different than sex (or something like that). Just check out the ‘Gender Bread Person’ for details.
Fortunately, we’re only a transgender GEAB Chairhuman away from solving this issue, so we can all rest easy.
For those not aware, all of the head honchos in the military are members of the GEAB, including the Chief of Defence Force’s very own Gender Advisor and six hanger-onnerers from outside Defence.
That’s code for ‘let the Australian Human Rights Commission command the military’.
Unlike the GEAB, the Army Gender Diversity Executive Council (AGDEC) does focus on LGBTI matters and provides advice to the Chief of Army about cultural reform initiatives to broaden the culture, diversity and inclusion agenda ‘within Army’.
AGDEC proudly boasts that it is chaired by the Chief of Army, and includes the Chief of Army Senior Advisory Committee plus selected ‘invited members to ensure a diverse membership’.
The Navy has Diversity Reference Groups (DRGs). There’s one for women, another for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, an ‘Intercultural’ group plus the obligatory ‘Diverse sexuality and gender’ group.
No one else needs diversity so they don’t have a diversity reference group. Thanks for asking though.
Together, they support the Navy Diversity and Inclusion Council (NDIC)
And it’s obvious that the Royal Australian Navy takes diversity seriously, even though the NDIC is only chaired by the Deputy Chief of Navy (DCN), because it has a whole Directorate of Diversity and Inclusion (DDI).
The DDI, I think, sails around the South China Sea ensuring that rainbows are placed on every disputed atoll.
As the Navy’s ‘peak decision making body on diversity and inclusion’, the DDI:
ensures alignment of effort with critical workforce issues; agreement on priorities; resourcing; and accountability and sponsorship. It acts to remove barriers to cultural reform and be a forum for innovation.
Anyway, DCN heads the NDIC which is supported by DRGs and reports to the Chief of Navy Senior Advisory Committee through the Deputy Chief of Navy as Head Navy People, Training and Reputation. That chain of command looks something like this:
Meanwhile, the Royal Australian Air Force just has a Chief of Air Force Diversity and Gender Advisor. This role was recently expanded to include broader diversity matters, including LGBTI.
On top of all of this, the Defence Pride Network was launched in 2015. It is a voluntary, informal employee network which is facilitated by the Defence People Group, Diversity Directorate but it does not yet have a formal arrangement.
That is still coming as it ‘re-establishes its governance and position structures’.
Defence has also appointed LGBTI champions within its senior leadership group. There are only two of them and I’m not sure which letter of the LGBTIWHATEVER they represent. They are the Vice Chief of the Defence Force and the First Assistance Secretary People Services.
The good news for taxpayers is that none of this costs any money according to Defence’s answer to Senate estimates. All of these people do all of this work as part of the normal course of their duties.
In other words, there is a cost to the taxpayer because it seems that an entire Army group, a couple of fleets and some chick from the RAAF are being paid full time to use the Australian Defence Force to promote LGBTIWHATEVER agendas. And in the process it is not clear at all that anyone in Russell Offices is doing anything that the Australian Defence Force used to do.
Given this, it should also be no surprise whatsoever that Defence has also sheepishly admitted that rogue LGBTI elements are operating in the military.
Someone, somewhere launched a program to place little ‘rainbows’ next to the names of LGBTI ‘allies’ on the Defence Corporate Directory. Emails were sent out to Defence members asking them to sign a form acknowledging that they were an ‘ally’ so they could get the rainbow tick of approval. The flip side, of course, is that it would have been immediately clear to the entire Defence Force which members of the military did not want to wear a rainbow.
Now Defence admits:
The initiative to identify Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) allies within the Defence corporate directory was not formally authorised or approved and was launched prematurely. The identifiers within the corporate directory have since been removed.
However, it seems that no action has been taken against those responsible for this attempt to ‘out’ non-LGBTI allies. And I’m pretty sure that if this webpage did not create a stir about this totalitarian attempt to force all Defence members to toe the rainbow line the initiative would still be going.
Well done to those Defence personnel who had the courage to raise this issue with me.
Defence has also admitted that orders were issued to Defence personnel under the title of ‘DEFGLIS’. That is, the Defence Gay and Lesbian Information Service, an organisation that has campaigned for ‘same-sex’ marriage and also seeks to remove freedoms from Christian schools, was named as the authority for orders relating to Defence personnel marching in the Mardi Gras in 2012.
However, Defence states that this was an ‘error’. That ‘error’ was identified by me back in 2012 and when I raised concerns about it, Defence decided that it should respond by booting me from service.
That sounds fair.
And since 2012 Defence has paid DEFGLIS almost $30,000, spent almost another $20,000 on the Mardi Gras and coughed up another $10,000 for rainbow pride pins (which, by a strange coincidence considering the taxpayer has already forked out for them, you can purchase from the DEFGLIS website).
Defence also admits that it consults with DEFGLIS in relation to media releases, allows DEFGLIS to place military ‘orders’ on its webpages, takes DEFGLIS’ complaints about non-LGBT ally Defence members ‘very seriously’, backs DEFGLIS’ calls to weed out ‘pockets of resistance’, supports DEFGLIS activities and is happy for DEFGLIS personnel to use Defence computer networks for DEFGLIS purposes.
Given all of this, I’m not really sure why Defence now admits that it was a ‘mistake’ to allow orders to be issued under the name of DEFGLIS in the first place. This organisation pretty much seems to be in charge.
Thanks to Senator Fraser Anning for asking the questions that elicited these astonishing answers.