Most Australians hearing of the scandal going by the name, The Skype Affair, would be familiar with the basis of the story which is centered on the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) and revolves around a young female cadet named ‘Kate’ and the antics of a male cadet, with whom ‘Kate’ became a little too familiar.
While this incident would have not been made public by the Commandant at ADFA and would have been, as all other non-criminal incidents are, dealt with through a system of disciplinary channels – which is necessary in any military establishment that wishes to maintain a disciplinary standard – a standard required for military cohesiveness, or esprit de corps and morale purposes. However, and despite this fact, cadet ‘Kate’ decided to breach protocol and go ‘public’ with her story, which the public are now familiar with as the Skype Affair, which not only brings into question cadet ‘Kate’s’ fitness to become an officer in the Australian military, there are also several details about this story that have not been made public.
One of those details is that Stephen Smith, the current Defence Minister, is an affirmative action man and a person who believes quite strongly in social engineering through political means. He also believes that women should have the ‘right’ to serve alongside their male counterparts as front line soldiers in combat zones. Anyone who has been following the Skype Affair would also know that on the same day that Smith publicly lambasted the Commandant of ADFA over his perceived handling of cadet ‘Kate’s’ complaint, Smith also chose to launch his political agenda of affirmative action by emphasizing the role that he wished women to play as front line soldiers. In short, Smith used the perceived ‘crisis’ of the Skype Affair to his political and ideological advantage, by choosing, and not based on any facts relevant to the case, to stand down ADFA Commandant, Commodore Bruce Kafer, who was resisting Smith’s and other politicians interference into ADFA, and the military in general. It must be stressed here that none of the politicians now advocating front line roles for women have had any military experience!
Those readers who have no military experience, unlike the author of this article, must realize that in order to have a strong and effective fighting force that can guarantee this nation’s preservation in times of conflict, there are certain traditions that must be adhered to, and that having females in combat roles, in submarines, on ships, or other places where males and females share working and living quarters is a recipe for a dysfunctional military. To date, there has been recorded over 774 incidents involving issues based on gender or a sexual nature within the Australian Defence Force, where both genders co-habit and have done since affirmative action was first introduced in the 1990’s.
Those who are also familiar with how ineffective our police forces have become since affirmative action was begun around the same time, and how feminizing the police has also increased crime levels and anti-social behaviour, particularly by our young ones, and across the board, would also realize that once time-tested traditions are abandoned on the altar of affirmative action no good can come of it!
The Australian Labor Party is heavily into all things politically correct and the Human Rights industry. The Liberal-National coalition are also embracing some of these destructive to Australian culture policies and are really no better than the rabid left wing radicals when it comes to not being seen as a ‘traditionalist-conservative’ political parties. The coalition also supports affirmative action for women in combat roles, yet the question has never been answered by either party: what military fact agrees with women serving on the front line and as apart from rear echelon roles?
While the APP does not support the use of women in front-line combat roles in the Australian military, the party does recognise the reality of international relations and believes we must learn from history. There are numerous examples around the world which show the necessity of women being trained to acquire the skills used on the front-line, but for the purpose of defending the homeland should the situation dictate. The formation of National Guard, armed forces Reserves and Militia groups in many countries for the purpose of ensuring the freedom of the homeland in event of military attack shows there is a place for women to have the skills and preparedness of frontline troops. However, to avoid women troops being misused by any future government, their role should be strictly limited by law, such as by constitutional amendment.
The APP does not support women in combat roles in any branch of the Australian military, and apart from those positions that were once held by female soldiers, sailors and airmen, prior to the destructive policy of affirmative action, does not envisage women risking their lives in place of their male counterparts. No nation has women serving in combat roles and a precedent in 2005 has already been set by the Israeli military which withdrew their female soldiers from the front line during the war with Lebanon and have since refused to reinstate their role. A valuable lesson was learned in this exercise and our current crop of ‘progressive’ politicians would be wise to learn from it!