New attack on gay soldiers
The head of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has labelled Australian gay soldiers destructive to unit cohesion and mateship.
ACL managing director, retired Brigadier Jim Wallace, asked if Australia was prepared to sacrifice fighting effectiveness for political correctness by allowing gay men to serve in combat.
If you introduce into that 10 men a love or lust relationship, you immediately damage the phenomenon of mateship, Wallace told the American AP.
There is some discrimination that has to be done to maintain the effectiveness of society or the effectiveness …units.
He said gay men should be barred from combat roles, like the current ban on women serving on the front-line.
Do you want an army which is already likely to be outnumbered wherever it fights to be fighting at its most effective or its least effective?
Wallace is on leave and could not be reached for clarification.
ACL chief of staff Lyle Shelton confirmed for Sydney Star Observer that Wallace’s views were those of the Christian lobby.
The Australian Defence Force lifted its ban on gay and lesbian members in 1992. A Defence Gay and Lesbian Information Service (DEFGLIS) spokesperson said they were very disappointed by Wallace’s comments.
Sexual orientation has absolutely no relation to ability, and Wallace is out of touch with the inclusive and harmonious environment in which our members serve very effectively.
The suggestion of introducing discrimination based on sexual orientation or the idea that sexual orientation in any way impacts the effectivess of our members and their units is most offensive and unhelpful.
The RSL was initially opposed to the decision to let gay men and lesbians serve, but has since dropped its objection.
Women are still banned from some dangerous roles such as Navy clearance divers, Army infantry, and Air Force ground defence guards. The policy was last reviewed in 1998.
A spokesman said the ADF supports diversity and opportunities for career progression were based on merit, ability, performance and potential.
The sexual orientation of ADF members is not recorded and it is not a consideration when decisions are made by ADF career managers and posting personnel. Gay and lesbian members of the ADF are able to serve in any position for which they are qualified.
I am a gay male, and am in the process of becoming a soldier, to serve this country with my life, then be told something like this hurts. Sorry but if I met this man I will break his nose.
David Collins – “It may also interest readers and the ACL that the ADF introduced it’s inter-dependant partnership policy in 2006 providing the same benefits for same-sex couples as heterosexual defacto/married partners”
– sorry but how can we be equal if out relationships are considered interdependant ?
It may also interest readers and the ACL that the ADF introduced it’s inter-dependant partnership policy in 2006 providing the same benefits for same-sex couples as heterosexual defacto/married partners. A clear step ahead of the policy the Australian Government has brought in for civilians in 2008/09. This adds to the ADF’s ethics that an equitable workplace is ESSENTIAL for military operations. Discrimination is the MAJOR cause of incohesive work environments. The ACL has clearly made statements and formed views based on no evidence or understanding of the Australian Defence Force and it’s men and women.
This article shows ignorance from the ACL as to the Australian Defence Force culture and the ethics of the men and women serving our country. There are many gay men and women within the ADF who operate in a professional, adaptable and cohesive manner. You must realise that when it comes to the military ALL differences are set aside whether it be religion, sexual orientation, or other beliefs. The ADF values equity and diversity. Any soldier would put his life on the line to protect his mates whether he is gay, straight or bi-sexual!
I must say, I am a homosexual currently serving in the Australian Defence Force. And it is well known that a member serving their country, be they gay or straight knows their job and their mission, regardless of outside influences inflicted upon the regement or crew. I know now as I always have that my MATES will undoubtably cover my back as I will thiers.
As for the comment… -œIf you introduce into that 10 men a love or lust relationship, you immediately damage the phenomenon of mateship,… the introduction of anybody into a new group of men including hetrosexuals, there is the possibility of damage to mateship. For example, the possibility of one hetro to committ adultry with one of his team mates wife. This being another of your religions unprecedented sins, correct. This I also know to be happening in many society’s and organisations, defence and beyond. So this I put to you Sir, Birgadier Jim Wallace, I am proud to be serving my country just as I am proud to be a gay Australian, so maybe a little pride from yourself in the men and women, straight, gay or lesbian, young and old, also some incouragment from yourself and your church for the members serving equally to protect this country…
Mr. Wallace said, “-œThere is some discrimination that has to be done to maintain the effectiveness of society or the effectiveness -¦units.
I wonder what Mr. Wallace means by the, “effectiveness of society”.
Australian society appears to function just like any other modern western society and in Australia anti-discrimination laws operate to protect many different groups of people from discrimination, one of those groups being gays and homosexuals.
However, Mr. Wallace holds the view that, “there is some discrimination that has to be done” and Mr. Shelton confirmed that the ACL shares that view with Mr. Wallace.
The discrimination to which Mr. Wallace referred was the “barring of homosexuals from combat roles”.
Mr. Wallace implied that if a gay or homosexual was posted to a 10 man unit what would develop would be a, “love or lust relationship” and the consequence of that would be the, “immediate damage to the phenomenon of mateship”
From this point on the reader needs a good imagination to work out the possible dynamics of what Mr. Wallace is trying to say. The reader has to try and think like a Christian Fundamentalist.
Here is my attempt;
Ok, there is a unit in the army, 9 men, and in that unit are two blokes who are good mates. A replacement is posted to the unit and he is queer as a two bob watch. One of the mates becomes infatuated with the poofta and starts fucking him. The other mate is totally disappointed and the friendship is over. The phenomenon of mateship is immediately damaged and the unit is less effective.
What makes the unit less effective?
The moral of the mate is destroyed and he doesn’t give a fuck any more and you can’t trust the pooftas because they might decide to fuck each other just when you need them. They do not have the confidence of the other men in the unit and those other men know they are three men down.
So the unit is less effective.
Should readers take heed of the warning given by Mr. Wallace and and agree with him that homosexuals should be barred from combat roles?
I do not agree with Mr. Wallace because an army is a large organisation and lots of things happen in any large organisation to both reduce and improve the organisations effectiveness.
The best unit in the army is useless if its truck brakes down and they cannot get to their destination. Lots of things can happen to reduce and improve the effectiveness of any organisation both large and small.
If a person believes that their vocation is the military and that part of the military which is deployed in combat operations it is up to that individual to become proficient in their profession. It is up to the individual to avoid or refrain from any activity which is likely to prevent them becoming proficient at their chosen profession.
The scenario I described above would indicate that those individuals were not seriously interested in becoming proficient at their profession. All organisations have to deal with personnel who behave in an inappropriate manner.
The Armed Services are no different from any other organisation in that they are also required to deal with the inappropriate behaviour of their members and the consequences of that inappropriate behaviour.
I do not agree that gays and homosexuals who believe that their vocation is the military and that part of the military that is assigned combat roles should be barred from assignment to combat roles. I think they should be given the same chance to prove themselves as a heterosexual.
To the Editor Scott,
Is there a way to get a full formal apology each from ACL and Brigadier Jim Wallace who made those disgraceful, demeaning, embarrassing and rude comments? I am very concerned as to this will or might encourage hatred or homophobia. Soldiers should be congratulated and fully respected for standing up to be brave and dedication to their work. If the members of the ACL were soldiers they would run like little girls crying to their mommas – while big brave gay men and heteosexual men, would in fact not run away at all and fight back!!!
Paul Mitchell.
I happen to know someone who is a gay soldier and I only hope he and ACL will say sorry (formally) to him and many other gay men who serve their country in the Navy, Army and Air Force – while this twat sits on his behind contributing nothing for our country making silly 1950 comments he knows nothing about. The irony is that both gay men and heterosexual men who work together as a strong-based team who serve our country to the best performance are the ones fighting for our freedom and our right to say such comments (even when at times we disagree with policy structure of invading countries such as Iraq based purily on merit), but the point is is that soldiers fight for our rights to say what ever we wish at home.
I only hope all members of the Australian Christian Lobby and Brigadier Jim Wallace formally apologise for their silly, embarrassing and stupid comments.
I don’t get tough – I get even.
Using the ACL’s logic (I use the term very broadly indeed), soldiers who practice different religions would not be able to serve as they’d only fight amongst each and therefore destroy army cohesion. Christians are supposed adhere to the commandment “thou shalt not kill”. Any self-styled Christian who still wants to serve in the military should be regarded as untrustworthy and prohibited from enlisting.
Oh my. Can’t remember anything about gays in the army in the Bible. Although I do remember a thing or two about “Thou shall not murder”. Who is Wallace to be espousing this hypocritical tripe? Perhaps the ACL should concern itself with peace not who’s fighting wars…