This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.
While major PC businesses like Qantas threaten Israel Folau, another PC organisation has made its views on rugby and freedom of speech clear.
The Australian Defence Force believes that saying controversial things should be no barrier to participation on the sporting field.
On Australia Day last year, Micqaella O’Shane posted a photo of herself in her naval uniform on Facebook along with these words:
“To be honest I’ve never given two F**ks about ANZAC day or Remembrance Day…I spit on the Australian flag and burn it (if I even owned the disgusting thing) and on ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day…”
Defence has just informed Senate Estimates that not long after this O’Shane was flown at taxpayer expense to Sydney to participate in the Mons Rugby Cup.
She was also flown back to Sydney a few months later and attended the Navy Rugby League Women’s Development Camp.
Total cost to the taxpayer: $736.27.
Perhaps if Israel Folau followed Micqaella O’Shane’s potty-mouthed example Qantas would shell out more funding for Rugby Australia…
Pete, mate. It’s alright. Don’t worry. I’m here. Sheeesh!
Peter FitzSimons seemed a little worried about me in his latest Sydney Morning Herald column so I thought I better let him know I haven’t disappeared. See:
So where are you now, you fierce opponents of euthanasia and the right-to-die?
He also had this to say:
How many of you, honestly, can look at the triumphant – you heard me – passing of the 104-year-old Australian scientist David Goodall in Switzerland on Thursday and say that he got it wrong, that society is on a slippery slope, et cetera?
Which leads the glib side of me to question when Pete will do us all a favour and have his own triumphal moment.
Flippant jokes aside, FitzSimons’ column did get me thinking, particularly in light of the two recent tragic events that have come from Western Australia.
The first was the euthanasia (albeit in Switzerland) of WA scientist, David Goodall, so enthusiastically embraced by Australia’s most well-known wannabe pirate. And the second was the apparent murder/suicide that resulted in the deaths of seven people from WA’s Margaret River region.
According to the moral world-view of Peter FitzSimons, both of these tragedies are equivalent. In the grand cosmic scheme of Atheistic Things, the end results for David Goodall and Peter Miles are exactly the same: absolute nothingness.
Or, in other words, both men’s actions have the same moral meaning and results. This is not so much an injustice, but the inference of a theory that logically concludes that there is no such thing as justice all.
And, as much as atheists may deny this, that is absolutely the implication of a universe without a perfect being with the ability to perfectly judge the actions of men.
If there is no judge, there can be no punishment or reward for breaking or keeping the rules. And if that is the case, then are no real rules at all. It flows, then, that the concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral are meaningless.
Men might have rules. But regardless of whether they are complied with internally through some individual ethical worldview or enforced externally through some societal mechanism, when it comes to the crunch there is no objective judgement, let alone one that lasts.
There can only be a brief life of self-judgement or the enforced judgement of others which, by the way, has no legitimate foundation other than might is right.
In the big picture, these man-made rules are futile and fade to nothing against the moral meaninglessness of the universe.
Given this, Peter FitzSimons is unable to articulate with any clarity why David Goodall is different to Peter Miles.
Sure. He might be able to claim that Goodall’s euthanasia was voluntary and only impacted on himself whereas Miles’ murder/suicide took the lives of others without their consent. He might also argue that Goodall’s death was legal whereas Miles’ ending was not.
The answer, according to strict atheistic logic, is so what?
In an atheistic world, there is simply no reason to judge Peter Miles’ actions as evil. He, for all intents and purposes, is able to kill his wife, daughter and grandchildren without consequence, just as wild bears do. Against the back drop of a godless universe, the concept that ‘consent’ is required for something to be moral is nothing more than a made up idea of some puffed-up men who, ironically, can only claim that their idea has merit by forcing it upon others – whether they like it or not.
And in a world where you like to ridicule the idea of a slippery slope it is very dangerous to get all legalistic about these tragedies. If the only thing that separates Goodall from Miles is an act of parliament passed by a bunch of people who believe they have the power to legislate right and wrong, then I give you one slippery slope, complete with detergent and a torrent of water.
But there’s more to this story. And this is really the shocking part.
Because while Peter FitzSimons might seem to be closer in mind to Goodall than Miles, his beliefs are in fact more in line with the alleged mass-murderer from Margaret River than the now-euthanised scientist.
Much has been made in recent days of David Goodall’s belief that the world is overpopulated and doomed by climate change, as detailed by Philip Nitschke on ABC radio late last week:
ABC presenter: What was your last conversation with David?
Philip Nitschke: Actually it was interesting. It was about global warming and his thoughts, and ah, we were discussing whether or not the world was over-populated. He was of the strong opinion it was and that we’d reached the planet-carrying capacity.
His position was that there was going to be a disaster that would seriously reduce the human race numbers. And then he added that one way to help out would be to allow people like [Goodall] who want to die to have that choice a little easier than what [he] had to go through…
Whatever you might think of Goodall’s last act, his logic cannot be denied. He believed that there are too many people on this planet and that it would benefit the rest of us if he took decisive action to reduce that number.
So he did.
You could quibble that taking 104 years to get to this point was a tad selfish but David Goodall’s last act accorded with the views of a man who believes the human race needed a vast reduction numbers.
Now it is well known that Peter FitzSimons also holds these views. For years he’s banged the climate-change drum and attacked the Vatican like some modern day prophet, claiming disaster is not only imminent but upon us.
And yet he is still here among us.
The only conclusion to be drawn is that Peter thinks the world has too many people other than himself. It is others he would rather see dead.
And in this sense, his outlook is far closer to that of the alleged Margaret River murderer than the old man who took his own life in Switzerland.
This, by the way, is the same Peter Fitzsimons who claims there is no slippery slope and that the states should bring in the euthanasia laws that he so happily champions…
…laws that are based on an ‘ethical’ understanding that it is fine to end a life and that the government has the legitimate power to determine how this will be done, by who and to who.
As they say in the classics, never trust a wannabe pirate with your life.
It’s been a while since this webpage was graced with the words of wisdom from ‘Iffiayah Wazza-Lefte’.
But she’s never far away when social justice is at stake and she’s back in the wake of the Australian Defence Medal kerfuffle, ready to defend progress.
Below our favourite progressive, secular (but Islamic), empowered and LGBT-friendly warrioress gives her take on this situation.
Whenever Bernard writes, a little piece inside me dies. Usually I ignore it and keep on keeping on, albeit wounded and hurting.
But this time I had to respond.
First up, I don’t know why there is any fuss about the Australian Defence Medal. It’s just a medal.
Secondly, this entire situation has been concocted anyway. Not a single word has been changed in the criteria used to award this medal.
Not. A. Single. Word.
Thirdly, the reason some females get the medal after two years is because that is what they sign up to do. Good on them. We need more women in Defence because it has been proven that females increase capability.
Men don’t get the medal after two years because they sign up to serve four years. It is simply nonsensical for men to complain about this when they voluntarily scribbled on that bottom line agreeing to their longer enlistment period.
They are getting exactly what they deserve and are entitled to. If men don’t like it they should take it up with their union rather than seeking to impose their male privilege on others who have for too long been subjugated.
Fourthly, women are clearly better Defence members.
That is why it was completely truthful for the Australian Defence Force to tell the Daily Telegraph that enlistment periods are linked to the time it takes to ensure that a member is proficient in their role.
Data from the Women in Defence 2016/17 Annual Report shows that across all three services women performed better on operations than men. In the Navy, the percentage of women who received honours and awards for operational performance was slightly higher than men. However, the percentage of females in the Army and Royal Australian Air Force who were recognised for operational performance was significantly higher.
Women were 53% more likely to receive an award in the Army and 57% more likely in the Royal Australian Air Force.
As these awards are clearly given to the best performers, it is a proof that females do actually achieve to a far higher standard than men.
And fifthly. Don’t even get me started on fifthly. But this is the most important point of all.
Medals are symbols of male oppression and dominance. They represent the domain of men: violence.
There is not a single war that has been fought by armies that were predominantly female or led by women (discounting the feud between the cast of Sex and the City and we all know that Sarah Jessica Parker was just being a Royal B anyway).
And every single war is a testament to the inability of men to find a peaceful solution to the challenges they faced. Medals just glorify and normalise the violence that resulted from this hyper-masculine incompetence.
So we need to start a debate about abolishing them altogether.
This is the real discussion that we need to have, rather than this chauvinistic huff and puff about the Australian Defence Medal.
True achievements such as the securing of peace agreements and international cooperation treaties are the events that should be recognised. And as these achievements are more in tune with female attributes they should be recognised with symbols that are overtly feminine.
Instead of clamouring for the Australian Defence Medal to recognise a period of service, we should be striving for a military that honours those who have completed a number of theoretical courses in equality and human rights.
The Australian Defence Medal should be replaced with Human Rights Leadership Bangle.
And wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Victoria Cross was replaced with an award that similarly esteemed peace.
Imagine if instead of learning about how Simpson won his Victoria Cross at Gallipoli for being a super-sniper, children learnt that he instead received his Golden Peace Brooch for entering into a dialogue with the Turks that resulted in a peaceful withdrawal and a permanent standing apology for invading their non-violent nation.
This is the kind of world that we can achieve and should aspire to. But we won’t get there until military medals and the male imperialism they embody are deemed to be nothing more than relics of a dark age.
It ended with these words:
As such, members of the culturally dominant group must commit to engaging with resistant imaginings with a critical openness to the other and their testimony, and they must develop their capacities as listeners and a propensity to epistemically esteem the other in recognition of their alterity, if we are to prevent such injustices in the future.
If you don’t understand any of that, don’t worry. I don’t really either.
But let me attempt to unpack it for you anyway.
As far as I can tell, according to Louise Richardson-Self, a lecturer in philosophy and gender studies at the University of Tasmania, I am a racist because I lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding Linda Burney’s statement that opponents to 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act were ‘white men’.
One way of arriving at that conclusion was reading the abstract of her latest work, Offending White Men: Racial Vilification, Misrecognition and Epistemic Injustice:
In this article I analyse two complaints of white vilification, which are increasingly occurring in Australia. I argue that, though the complainants (and white people generally) are not harmed by such racialized speech, the complainants in fact harm Australians of colour through these utterances. These complaints can both cause and constitute at least two forms of epistemic injustice (willful hermeneutical ignorance, and comparative credibility excess). Further, I argue that the complaints are grounded in a dual misrecognition: the complainants misrecognize themselves in their own privileged racial specificity, and they misrecognize others in their own marginal racial specificity. Such misrecognition preserves the cultural imperialism of Australia’s dominant social imaginary—a means of oppression that perpetuates epistemic insensitivity.
The second and perhaps easiest way to get there was the fact that my name is mentioned 21 times in the 25 misery-filled pages of feminist woe that make up this little ‘study’.
Louise also made a few other comments that caught my eye.
For instance, in the very first sentences of her work she implied that the Racial Discrimination Act is flawed because it permits a person of any race to lodge a complaint. No doubt, that’s evidence of some kind of ‘imaginary’ yet all-too-real white privilege and, after all, she did go on to note that white people are lodging complaints because of the ‘ostensibly’ neutral language of the Act.
And she does have a point: what’s the bloody point of a Racial Discrimination Act if white people can complain?
Fortunately, the courts have interpreted the Act in such a way that labelling somebody a white so-and-so is not deemed to be racist because the majority of Australians are white.
That makes sense in a totally progressive way. It also explains, by the way, why the Australian Human Rights Commission did nothing with my complaint against Burney.
It is perfectly fine to claim that the only people who want to get rid of this Act are white but it is decidedly risky to make an assessment about the race of those who want to keep it.
And it’s also racist to ‘celebrate’ Australia Day, but it is hunky dory to get up on a stage on ‘Invasion Day’ and claim that white Australians are responsible for land theft, child stealing, state-sanctioned murder and that the nation as we know it should be burnt to the ground.
And the reason for this is simple: according to Louise, holding the view that all should be treated equally before the law is nothing more than white privilege and fails to understand that such concepts constitute ‘cultural imperialism’.
Louise even went out of her way to make this clear, stating:
Here I am assuming that the complainants genuinely believe that ‘white vilification’ and non-white vilification are qualitatively equivalent.
I’ll take her assumption away.
Racism against a white person is exactly the same as racism against any other person.
Louise obviously disagrees and, instead, yearns for a world where people are treated differently as a result of their skin colour.
There is a word for that worldview. Unfortunately, it has lost all meaning today because it’s been completely high-jacked by feminist loonies intent on cultural suicide…
Later this month one of Australia’s pre-eminent legal academics, Dr Augusto Zimmermann, will launch his latest work, ‘Christian Foundations of the Common Law – Volume 1: England’. Two other volumes will follow, focusing on America and Australia.
I asked Dr Zimmermann for a brief background on his important work. He explains what led to this book below.
My research has revealed that only a few books specifically discuss in detail the Christian roots of our legal system. Books on the history of the common law usually contain a brief discussion of the topic or devote a chapter at best. And, regrettably, the same applies to books on Christian jurisprudence.
This is surprising given the potential reach of the topic to richly inform discussions on legal rights, common-law principles and its paramountcy in legal history – particularly in the law of equity. This topic should – and must – inform discussions on human rights, the creation and interpretation of legal rules and principles and, far from last, the footprints of Western legal history.
Of course, as we well know for quite a long time the Christian foundations of our legal systems have been neglected, no longer common knowledge to the general public and the political and legal elites. So I believe there is a considerable need for a more comprehensive academic work that discusses the philosophical origins of the common law. In other words, there is a huge need for a book that properly discusses the Christian roots of our legal systems.
To achieve this goal, I have finished writing a three-volume collection entitled ‘Christian Foundations of the Common Law’. Published by Australia’s Connor Court, this unique contribution addresses the legal system of three different countries – England, the United States, and Australia. This book is therefore divided into three volumes, each of these volumes addressing the Christian foundations of a particular legal system – England (Volume 1), the United States (Volume 2), and Australia (Volume 3).
This is certainly a comprehensive work and there is nothing like that available in the current market.
Of course, this collection is not intended to invite people to embrace the Christian faith, but simply to re-assert the fundamental importance of Christian philosophy to the development of the legal system known as the common law. It utterly rejects the notion so congenial today that the basic principles of our legal system happened in spite of, rather than because of, Christianity. On the contrary, it is argued that legal concepts that are central to the common law have undeniable Christian roots.
I sincerely hope you enjoy the read!
As the governing Liberal party has just released its 2018-19 Budget for the Commonwealth of Australia, I’d like to take this opportunity to make a few observations concerning government budgets from a Social Credit perspective.
According to Business Insider Australia, the Commonwealth government is currently on track to balance its budget over the 2019-2020 fiscal year and even to achieve a surplus soon after.
The surplus would enable, at least in theory, for outstanding government debts to be paid down and thus for the interest due on that debt to be reduced.
This may sound all very good and attractive, but the handling of government budgets under the rules of the existing financial system involves two systemic problems that are never addressed by any political party.
The first is that, in principle, the government is not required to borrow any money either from private investors or from the private banks (which create the money that they lend out of nothing whenever they buy government securities) in order to cover a budget deficit.
The government could instruct the central bank or treasury to create the money itself and at very low rates of interest (to cover administrative costs) in order to fund whatever public works or programmes have been deemed necessary. If this were done routinely, it would save the taxpayers billions of dollars in interest payments. Certainly, that is all money that we would prefer to have in our own pockets to spend as we see fit.
Apart from any question of theory, the Commonwealth Bank, before its Governor was removed and it was placed under the control of a Board (whose members were chosen for their private banking experience) in the 1920’s, actually succeeded in financing many projects in this manner at less than 1% interest. These included the Continental Railway and the Australian effort during the First World War.
Insofar as taxes are collected to cover the interest payable on privately created monies lent to governments at all levels (federal, state, or municipal) they are unnecessary and indeed a form of theft.
The second systemic problem is this: due to the underlying gap which arises under the current financial system between the rate at which costs and prices are built up in the economy as compared with the rate at which income is simultaneously distributed to consumers, someone has to go into debt to the banks in order to provide the additional income that is needed to fill the gap and to achieve equilibrium.
If the federal government does not run a deficit and if, which makes matters worse, it uses a surplus to pay down bank-held debts, more pressure will be put on other levels of government, as well as on the business world and on the private consumer, to borrow even more money to offset the loss of federal dollars.
In other words, it is mathematically impossible for all economic actors under the existing financial system to have balanced budgets if equilibrium between prices and incomes is to be achieved and recessions or worse are to be avoided. Someone must spend more than they receive in revenue to provide the economy with the extra liquidity it requires. A balanced federal budget does not mean, therefore, that the country itself is more solvent; it only shifts the burden of insolvency on to other economic actors.
Under a Social Credit monetary reform in which supplemental credit was issued to the consumer in the form of a National Dividend and on behalf of the consumer in the form of compensated prices, the price system would become self-liquidating and it would then be possible for governments to balance their budgets without it entailing such dire consequences for the rest of the economy.
M. Oliver Heydorn, Ph.D., is the founder and director of The Clifford Hugh Douglas Institute for the Study and Promotion of Social Credit. He is also the author of Social Credit Economics, The Economics of Social Credit and Catholic Social Teaching, Social Credit Philosophy, and, most recently, Lives of Our Own: Social Credit, Catholicism, and a Distributist Social Order.
To read more about Social Credit, visit www.socred.org.
I am pleased to support the recent launch of a new book by Michael Coates. ‘Manus Days’ recounts his experience working at the Manus Regional Processing Centre. Michael gives this website an exclusive look into the experiences that led to this book.
Just about everybody in Australia has an opinion about this country’s policy of offshore immigration processing.
We’re ready to give those opinions and many of them are held with strength and conviction.
But many who raise their voices on this issue have no knowledge of the hard facts and even fewer have genuine first-hand experience.
Future government policies relating to offshore immigration processing will have a large impact on the social fabric of this nation. Perhaps that is why the issue is so divisive. To some, it is a deeply moral and emotional issue. To others, it is simply pragmatic and practical.
At the heart of the conflict is our innate sense of what is right – compassion to all and the notion of a “fair-go” versus the need for security and due diligence. The one thing that almost everyone has in common, be they an activist or a supporter, is that their view is largely academic. Until the day I first set foot on the humid Pacific Ocean outpost that was Manus Island, I was exactly the same.
So how had I come to be a part of this whole mess? How had I ended up on the literal front-line of the so-called Pacific Solution?
My reason for wanting to work in the centres had nothing to do with the politics, and certainly nothing to do with my own thoughts on its morality. My motivation for signing up to Operation Sovereign Borders was perhaps the most basic of motivations – money. That and the desire to be doing something out-of-the-ordinary.
It was the closing months of 2013, and I was in the midst of a quarter-life crises. I was twenty-seven, and in the year since discharging from the Australian Army I had had my share of highs and lows.
Things had started off very high. I had spent three months road tripping across America, then cruising the Caribbean with rock-stars. Following a quick visit home for Christmas I jetted off again – this time to South Africa. I was still receiving a salary from the army in lieu of unclaimed leave, and spent the next few months in the loving embrace of the bars and beaches of Cape Town, sharing a beach house with Scandinavian backpackers and generally having the gap year that most young Australians these days seem to have a decade earlier in life.
But coming home, the reality of having to start from scratch was a harsh reminder that the real world was not going away.
Who would have ever thought that Julia Gillard’s revamp of the Pacific Solution would have come knocking?
In one of those back flips that politics is famous for, Labour had been forced to reintroduce offshore processing to deal with the influx of unauthorised boat arrivals. Nauru wasn’t the only offshore processing centre being given a new lease of life by this policy back flip of course – word had already began to spread along the grapevine about the reopening of the facilities on PNG’s Manus Island and the subsequent recruitment drive required for that.
I was understandably enthused to open my e-mail to find that they were seeking “security specialists” with a background in defence or law enforcement who were comfortable with remote deployment. Nothing more was said except that it was an “exciting offshore opportunity”.
My South Pacific adventure was about to begin.
While the last days of the Manus Regional Processing Centre unfolded over television and social media, I was able to see things that the average viewer did not.
The man giving an impassioned and well-articulated speech? This was the same man who for years had presented to me as a brain-damaged fool, apparently unable to string two words together or even fathom where he was. What a remarkable recovery.
The forlorn man holding up a sign, denouncing his criminal treatment at the hands of the Australian government and reminding them that they had a responsibility to care for him? The same man’s room I had searched after the riots, where I found child pornography for the first time. The same man I had followed through the streets of Lorengau to shield him from local children.
Activists always like to say that if you met these men and listened to their stories, you could not help but want to bring them to Australia.
These activists have not been to Manus Island.
They have not spent days with them and seen them as their unguarded selves.
Anyone can present a filtered view of themselves when communicating over the internet – just look at internet dating. For a lot of activists communicating with the transferees over Facebook, I suspect that those filters won the day.
I saw behaviour from so-called asylum-seekers that sickened me. Not just the violence, the sexual assaults, the treatment of the locals – but the manipulation of well-meaning but naïve people back in Australia who seemed so desperate to believe what they were being told.
These were the same kind and compassionate folks that set up hate pages on Facebook to identify the homes and families of people like me so they could harass them in an equally empathetic and compassionate ways…
Read Michael Coates’ story about Manus Island at Connor Court publishing.
On 24 May I will be in Townsville to speak at the Townsville Free Speech Forum, hosted by the Young Conservative NQ.
I will be coming straight from Sydney, armed with the latest news about the anti-free speech litigation against me.
On 23 May, the World’s Most Offended Man will be attempting to use new New South Wales laws in an attempt to get around New South Wales Court of Appeal and High Court rulings that the Thought Police attacks against me have been unconstitutional. In other words, they have been breaking the law, not me.
But the lawfare continues. Remember, when it comes to anti-discrimination law the process is the punishment…
I am really looking forward to this event and will be joined by a number of others including Lyle Shelton and Dave Pellowe.
Tickets are $10 and can be booked here. I hope to see you there.
A Defence spokesman (how very gender-specific) was quoted in the Daily Telegraph today stating that:
The length of service is determined by the required training needed to ensure the member is proficient in their role.
And I found this very interesting. After all, this statement specifically related to the fact that the length of service for female infantry soldiers is two years, whereas it is double that for the men.
So either men take twice as long to train as infantry soldiers as women, or the Defence spokesman just made something up to try and avoid answering why female riflemen have a shorter period of service and hence can receive the Australian Defence Medal in half the time as non-females.
And we all know that females are not 100% quicker than men at becoming trained killers because about the only thing we’ve heard from bunches of women since forever is how men are naturally-violent and are killing them all on a weekly basis due to domestic violence.
So that means the Defence spokesman just made it up. And along the way, in an effort to be politically-correct, he gave all males in the military (including himself) a whack where it hurts.
Because, whether he meant it or not, he just told the world that men take twice as long to train as women.
Even though they don’t.
And this is where political correctness and gender theory gets you: to the point where every word you say is contradictory blather and also an embarrassment to all reason and logic.
Of course, in the prevailing environment today I can understand why the poor bugger tasked with answering a simple question with a bald-faced lie did this. He wants a medal too and unless he toes the feminist-friendly party line he probably won’t be allowed to stay in long enough to get one.
Strangely enough, the On the record section of the Defence webpage got a little closer to the truth later today, even if it had to be dragged there after I told the Daily Telegraph that Defence should end its politically-correct social engineering.
Defence’s statement started with this:
Recent media reporting on eligibility for the Australian Defence Medal is misleading. Eligibility for the Australian Defence Medal has not changed.
Technically, the second part of that statement is true (claps all round).
Unfortunately, it is also a pointless technicality that attempted to hide a larger and far more important truth.
No one has said the medal criteria has changed. What has been said loud and clear is that the initial enlistment period for females in numerous positions across Defence has. And this means they get the medal early because the medal is given for four years’ service, or completion of an initial enlistment period, whichever is lesser.
Which, by the way, is what Defence all but admitted when it tried to ‘correct’ the record without answering anything at all. However, it still confessed that females are given reduced periods of service in a number of roles:
The vast majority of these are not gender specific, while eight of these categories offer reduced periods of service to women only. This is to encourage greater participation of women in these roles.
And there you have it. ‘Women only’ were all the words that we needed to hear. Thanks for coming.
But just to stress the point, it is entirely possible that reducing the enlistment period for men may encourage them to greater participation in these roles as well. But, clearly, Defence does not want that which is why I’m happy to call it out for being sexist. And for probably breaching the Sex Discrimination Act.
Ironically, in all this medal madness, it has been the ladies who have spoken up with the most clarity.
This is just one of the more than 1,000 comments I received on Facebook about this issue in the last week:
This makes a f**king mockery of the woman who did their time and were awarded their medals like everyone before them. Enough of this radical PC BS. YOU’RE MAKING THE REST OF US LOOK BAD. When will this end?!
And it was followed up by this:
Don’t get me started. The worst part is no female in the Defence Force that I know has ever asked for this to happen. It will only further divide the genders. Enough of this nonsense!!
I don’t know one female in the military who wants this either. This ridiculous medal meddling is devaluing the awards that many women have worked hard to achieve (and I do acknowledge that hard work even if I am critical of the push for females in Defence).
That’s why it is important to note where this push comes from: the Australian Human Rights Commission and specifically Liz Broderick.
It was Stephen Smith’s hare-brained idea to give her the keys to the military and it was her hare-brained idea that it would be great for military capability to get more women in by getting them out just as quickly.
The Australian Defence Medal has been plagued with problems from the outset. However, as one wag quipped today, Liz Broderick’s plan has achieved something that no one would have dared possible: halving the value of a medal that most soldiers already deemed to be worthless.
To listen to my interview with Chris Smith today about the Australian Defence Medal click on the link below:
“It’s gender diversity gone nuts”.
Female soldiers are being granted ADF medals quicker than men.
— 2GB 873 (@2GB873) May 9, 2018
For those wondering where the ban on military art comes from, I remind you of this cracker: Battling with words.
Defence lavishly funded this research project in 2014 (I wrote about it here) and it deals with all the mean and nasty ways words like ‘courage’ are used to exclude others, both inside and outside of the Army.
Really. It does. I kid you not.
I didn’t realise that courage was to be frowned upon. But, then again, the new age military decided that I was unfit for it, so I am not the best judge of its progressive ways. However, I do tend to agree that the Army’s focus on courage in battle was always a little difficult for the RAAF to handle (TRIGGER WARNING: That was a joke (but it was also kind of true)).
Also, since when was the Australian Public Service a ‘service’ within the Australian Defence Force?
Anyway, now you can understand why modern infantry bureaucrats are no longer focused on battlefield courage and are more preoccupied with female recruitment. This makes it a more respectful organisation including, presumably, of the enemy.
That’s why the new corps role is likely to be amended from its well-known creed to this:
The role of the infantry is to seek out and be close with potential friendlies, to kiss and cuddle them, to seize and hold hands and to show respect both to wrong and to right, regardless of gender, ethnicity or other progressive refrains.
Battling with words also went to war with another set of words: male and Anglo-Australian.
Specifically, it stated categorically that these words were no longer desirable and by that it really meant that the people these words described were less than wanted in the modern military.
In other words, because white males sign up in far greater numbers to serve this nation than others they are racist and the only way this can be combated is by entrenching institutionalised racism against white males (which, technically, is also a form of sexism).
And that idea, of course, is absolutely rolled-gold modern logic and also lunacy of the highest order.
Which brings us to the Chief of Army’s letter banning certain forms of military art, such as helmets.
This letter used words such as ‘values’ and ‘ethical’ and, more humbly, ‘implicitly encourages the inculcation of an arrogant hubris’ but, luckily, did not exclude others by mentioning the word ‘courage’. It’s like it has been drafted right from Battling with words.
So I’m guessing that before this whole military symbol ban broo-hah-ha is over, someone, somewhere will tell the Diggers that the unhappiness they’re feeling is nothing more than a symptom of white, Anglo-Australian male privilege…
…and that care bears are banned too because it’s not funny.