Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Gilliard showing her feminist hypocrisy

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by toadcat, Apr 6, 2011.

  1. Just noticed this little gem today while reading the news on the bus.

    "Sex Scandal a Betrayal of Trust - Smith"

    Gillard states in the article:
    Now where was she when the entire NRL Twitter scandal happened? Correct me if I'm wrong but her little tirade lambasting the actions of the army Cadet seems extremely hypocritical and applies to the NRL scandal on every single level, the betrayal of trust and going out of their way to embarrass another individual. Why the emphasis on just when it happens to females? It can happen both ways and it did BEFORE this! Where were you then you Knightess, champion of equality... ](*,) Sexism works both ways.

    It's disgusting for this kind of thing to happen to ANYONE.
  2. I agree with the principle, but whats this NRL twitter scandal thing?
  3. If you're in the defence force then you're not a civilian any more.

    If you go outside the system/chain of command, everyone will hate you.

    She's basically ****ed. The correct response would have been for her to one-up the guy, possibly by setting him on fire.

  4. So the PM is not allowed to have stronger opinions on somethings more than others? give me a break. You would probably have given her just as much stick for saying nothing. I don't think many people would say that her comments on this aren't spot on.

    Rudd said something pretty relevent to this. The media will only pick up a slim percent of what any politicean says in public. Just because there is no record of her saying anything regarding the AFL photo scandel doesn't mean she didn't make any public comment on the issue.
  5. We're talking about a future soldier here?
  6. The problem is, what she said was specific to women. She could easily have made it gender neutral with no other impact on the message. And she does not appear to have made any such comments when a similar thing happened to a man.

    The chances of a future in soldiering for anyone involved in it have been greatly reduced:

    Whoever filmed it has almost definitely buggered himself completely.

    The cadets who were having sex a going to at least be in deep shit for it. It is explicitly not allowed, and not something that just slips your mind or happens accidentally.

    The ones watching it will get disciplined.

    The media coverage isn't doing them any good, either. They may not be kicked out immediately or explicitly for this, but I have a feeling that tests are going to be a a lot harder to pass for them from now on.

    It getting filmed and it happening are connected, but also separate. Disciplinary action is inarguably merited for both people involved in the act itself, it doesn't matter if one of them was filmed without her knowledge -- whoever did that will be on the receiving end of the appropriate measures, on top of anything else they're due.

    Its pissing me off a bit that people are saying the girl shouldn't have to attend that hearing about her previous offence; she is subject to military law, and military law is not about fairness, its about keeping things working. Plus, someone who wants to be an officer should damn well be able to deal with emotional stuff well enough to deal with the situation at hand.
  7. I think the point is that NRL is NOT an agency of the estate...
  8. There's a big difference between having nude photos taken with the knowledge of the participant being shared with the public and having a covert camera to broadcast someone having sex without their knowledge.
  9. Aye, there is that. But in that sentence I was mostly just clarifying what other's had said.
  10. The point is that she has no responsibility for the NRL or the AFL - whereas as Prime Minister she does eventually have responsibility for the military.

    In fact, it would probably be inappropriate to make a comment on the NRL twitter photo unless she was specifically asked for her opinion, and even then it should be given as a private person and not as PM (unless it was relevant).
  11. Still, my own point about the wording stands. That is, making it gender specific was unnecessary and making it more inclusive would have been better.
  12. As an ex serving member I feel what has been done to this girl is disgusting these people are supposed to be the future leaders of our military and if they cant respect each other how can they respect thier subordinates. And for f%^& sake it is not illegal to have sex whilst in the military it used to be illegal to be in the opposite sex es quarters but as they are coed now that doesn't apply and whilst you are probably talking about the fraternisation rule if they enforced that you would have 3/4 of the milary charged
  13. Should rules that are counter-productive when enforced exist in the first place?
  14. Let's put this into context:
    - All these cadets are under training and are at the very start of their training.
    - They were specifically ordered - no frat at ADFA
    - They had consensual sex, on Academy grounds no less.
    - They broke the standing orders of the Academy.

    Regardless of whether the rules are right or wrong, it is how it is. It doesn't apply outside of training institutions where the rules are more realistic. But they signed up to be there and as brand new cadets they are in no position to decide which rules to obey and which not to. That comes later once they get a clue about what is a lawful order. If ADFA lets cadets get away with blowing the rules off without punishment how will they ever know what a lawful order is when they start issuing them themselves. And how can they ever discipline a subordinate for blowing their orders off if they have no respect for the orders they are given.

    This is the perspective that is lost on the non-military community. What these male cadets did was abhorrent and in the old days of the military, justice would have been metered out to them via some contact counselling behind the blocks before they were then kicked out. Now they will just get kicked out and will probably do this shit again.

    But this female cadet then went to media before the military had a chance to investigate/punish those responsible. She should have waited to see what the outcome was and if she felt the outcome wasn't good enough then she could have taken it outside Defence through avenues other than the media. As a result, this is now out of control and the bigger spotlight is on what certain senior officer did or didn't do, rather than actually bringing the maggots who did this to her to justice. In the mean time, Defence as a whole has been unfairly dragged through the mud and that is the betrayal that this cadet caused.
  15. Given other revelations about previous incidents then she was right to go to the media. Defence would only have covered it up.

    Interesting that I've just been watching the former Liberal Defence Minister - Peter Reith basically saying that Defence screwed it up and totally agreeing with the current Labor Minister.

    The context is NOT about consensual sex - it's about a creepy little ahole breaking trust.
  16. Is this the same Peter Reith who has been looking for a way to get back at senior military brass ever since they called him a liar on the children overboard saga? In fact...wasn't it Angus Houston that sat in front of a Senate enquiry and flatly refused to back up Reith's made up story. Mmmm, maybe a hidden agenda there.

    The issue was raised that the rule about no fraternisation was stupid. But it isn't about fraternisation per se. It is about brand new cadets blowing off the established rules of the Academy. They are being trained to be officers and one of the first things that needs to be done to new recruits is to instil in them an automatic conformance to established rules. Then when they get some experience, they can start making an appropriate value judgement about what is an appropriate rule and what isn't. Because that sets them up for operating as an officer in the Defence Force and issuing and enforcing those rules.

    I know you won't agree but I'm telling you how it is, not how it appears. I am a Defence Force Officer with over 20 years service and I am an ADFA graduate. Any culture of inappropriate behaviour towards women is no worse than what there is in the general community. In fact, there would be less of it in Defence given the overwhelming majority of members have very high moral values and a sense of what is right and wrong.
  17. footage I saw was shot at RMC...
    Regardless of the outcome of this, this is what we used to call "A Career Limiting Move".

    No one involved will come out of this unscathed, And black marks will also be applied to anyone involved in the Military life and instruction of the cadets involved. All new serving members are told in clear plain english the basic rules. No fraternisation(That's romantic/sexual behaviour to the civvy types), and its repeated numerous times.

    Mind the ADR's can be applied, and in some situations, charges can be laid by the ADF, and referred to the civilian authorities if deemed bad enough.

    So imho, I can see prejudicial behaviour being whipped out among others

    If you want an educated read http://ausmilitary.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=9518 but just read it.
  18. Being married to someone who's regarded as the country's most experienced sexual assault counsellor, I tend to be made aware of a lot of things.

    The fact that the military usually reclassifies sexual assault within the verious services as an ordinary assault so that they can deal with the matter internally is known to be commonplace.

    The classic piece of work here is the attempt to shift the emphasis from the actions of the blokes involved by saying "she broke the rules". Sure, she broke the rules, and there are good reasons for the rules. But that's not the point at all.

    The point is that harping on that tries to make out that she's somehow responsible for the whole business - and that's just bullsh1t.
  19. It isn't common place to reclassify sexual assault as assault. I'm not saying it doesn't happen as there will be rare occasions when someone responds inappropriately to a situation. But any officer who tries to do this is a fool because they know their ass will be grass as soon as the aggrieved member makes use of the various mechanisms by which they can report such instances outside of the chain of command. That's what the media doesn't report - the annual compulsory training every ADF and Defence APS person receives in equity, diversity, harassment and inappropriate behaviour and the mechanisms for dealing with it both within and outside of the chain of command.

    And no-one is trying to shift the blame away from the blokes who did this. Not one single person in Defence has said anything of the sort. What has happened is that purely because of sound bites or snippets of transcripts where someone in Defence has been discussing the fact that she has broken the rules and that will need to addressed sometime down the track, normally after being prompted by a leading question trying to get them to make such a statement, the trash media has focused in on that aspect and is trying to paint Defence as covering it all up. Which is not the case. In fact, in this case, Defence didn't even have any time to try to cover it up even if they wanted to because the cadet went straight to the media before the military even had enough time to establish the facts of what had happened. It seems she made an assumption it was going to be covered up before Defence was able to act on the complaint. Which was a poor assumption.

    Make no mistake, if proven, as it seems like it most certainly will be, the blokes who actively set this up are gone for all money. My personal opinion is that the guys who set this up (the guy having sex and probably at least the other guy who owned the equipment/skype connection) should face criminal charges (if they exist depending on jurisdictions) and will then automatically be kicked out of Defence. As for anyone else who watched, if they didn't actively take part in setting this up and were just invited to watch, they should be subject to criminal law if the Police deem it appropriate but if not subject to criminal charges then at the very least they should suffer near-on the severest punishment able to be issued by a military hearing/court that will stay on their record, the most severe being sacking. They are clearly young and stupid but they can learn from this and following severe punishment they should be allowed to continue in Defence but on a knife's edge in that any skerrick of inappropriate behaviour will see them out on their ass.

    If you want to see some unbiased and reasonable comment on this whole issue and the root cause of it, see if you can get 7.30 NSW this evening on iview. They had a discussion with a sexual assault crisis counsellor and a former NRL player who runs the programs teaching players about ethical behaviour. Nowhere in that discussion was there even one sensationalist reference. It was a level-headed discussion about where this type of behaviour comes from and what can be done about it. Both of these professionals in the field agreed that these issues are not unique to the ADF at all and that they occur across society because it is based on thousands of years of general cultural undervaluing of women. As they said, the vast majority of men are ethical and moral and it is only fringe minority that do this type of awful thing. The ADF is no different in this respect, hence all this media crap about the ADF having a specific culture of devaluing women is rubbish.
  20. aah I must admit geg I do not miss doing those lectures, and the theft and fraud lectures and all the other stuff we used to have to sit through. Not to mention all the ancillary lectures and briefings and discussions held at a small level i.e. unit groups on base.