Women of Honour

cremeegg

Registered User
Messages
4,134
The #MilitaryMeToo campaign revealed bullying, misogyny and violence within armed forces around the globe. Katie Hannon meets former female members of the Irish Defence Forces.

You can listen here.


And it does not make easy listening.

While I have every sympathy for the women affected and indeed feel vicariously angry at listen to their story, my overwhelming thought is that if they can and would do this to Irish women in Ireland, women who had some standing in Irish society, friends and families in Ireland, what are they doing to completely powerless women in Mali.
 
I note the podcast above was made last January. I listened to the whole lot. I was not surprised but I was disappointed and shocked.
 
what are they doing to completely powerless women in Mali.
That was my though as well.
Google .
There is a long history of accusations of sexual abuse and rape of women and children by UN forces.
Then again up to 2 million German women (one in 15 adult women) were raped by Allied Soldiers after the Second World War and few faced any punishment.
The Americans executed black soldiers who were found guilty but not the white ones. The Russians did the vast majority of the rapes so the proportion of women raped in the Russian zone was probably one in ten.
Rape is used as a weapon of war. Systematic rape of men in Libya during the recent conflict has largely been ignored. The UN mission in Congo was, and is, rife with accusations or rape by UN soldiers. Given that the victims are already vulnerable, probably displaced, poor and uneducated and living in a society in which women and children are very much second class citizens, the fact that there have been over 2000 accusations of rape against UN forces in recent years means that the true number is probably vastly higher than that.
All that without mentioning the child sex ring run by UN forced in Haiti for over 10 years.
 
Last edited:
The Report of the Independent Review Group on Dignity and Equality issues in the Defence Forces was published on Tuesday. A truly devastating report for the organisation, which has shredded its reputation as an employer (certainly nationally and possibly internationally) and for those connected to the organisation (including me), will trigger a deep self-reflection on their complicity (consciously or unconsciously) in perpetuating a "culture of misogyny and disrespect for all things female". For the Women of Honour, though they chose not to participate in the IRG process, they have been vindicated in their call for a statutory enquiry into their experiences. For those that were assaulted or were the victims of criminal behaviour, hopefully the coming process will root out the causes and perpetrators of those acts and also that they get the full justice that they deserve. From a cultural perspective, structures or attitudes that prevented or discouraged people who knew about such behaviours from speaking out need to be determined and rooted out.

At a high level, I certainly don't recognise the characterisation of the culture of the organisation. From reading the report, it is difficult to understand the basis for the strength of language in the findings of the report (though this could be as a result of the way the information was compiled and collated). The report notes that the basis of its assessment is made "through the lens of those who work in [the Defence Forces], have experienced its practices and its culture, and have complained or made judgements or have reflected on their experiences and observations, making those available to the Review".

"[The] IRG-DF was interested in all aspects of inappropriate behaviours against all serving and former members of the Defence Forces. This, together with the cultural focus on the negative, the mistakes, and the impact of wrongdoing, makes it possible that the IRG-DF did not hear as much about the positives that are experienced by members of the Defence Forces". At this point, a statutory enquiry is to be welcomed so that findings of fact can be made, one way or the other.

Notwithstanding, the General Staff (and their successors) will have very difficult decade ahead to right the ship. There are very few officers now who have the tenure and experience to to run the organisation and those that do will have been shaped by the very culture that is assessed to have been/be so reprehensible. Since 2013 the public service pension reforms have made it effectively unviable to maintain a career in the organisation (something like 50% of the organisation has less than 5 years experience), which makes the problems more acute at management level. What little female representation that is there (including the Women of Honour), needs to be maintained, encouraged and their perspectives used to shape the future of the organisation.
 
We either need a proper functioning suitably equipped, training and funded Army or we should get rid of it.
My view is that we should do the former. We spend about a billion a year on our defence forces. We should be spending at least twice that.
What is needed now is outside HR experts to transform the way in which that side of the organisation is run. It should be an attractive profession that people compete to get into rather than a boys club with a toxic environment that can't attract enough suitable applicants.
 
The Report of the Independent Review Group on Dignity and Equality issues in the Defence Forces was published on Tuesday. A truly devastating report for the organisation, which has shredded its reputation as an employer (certainly nationally and possibly internationally) and for those connected to the organisation (including me), will trigger a deep self-reflection on their complicity (consciously or unconsciously) in perpetuating a "culture of misogyny and disrespect for all things female". For the Women of Honour, though they chose not to participate in the IRG process, they have been vindicated in their call for a statutory enquiry into their experiences. For those that were assaulted or were the victims of criminal behaviour, hopefully the coming process will root out the causes and perpetrators of those acts and also that they get the full justice that they deserve. From a cultural perspective, structures or attitudes that prevented or discouraged people who knew about such behaviours from speaking out need to be determined and rooted out.

At a high level, I certainly don't recognise the characterisation of the culture of the organisation. From reading the report, it is difficult to understand the basis for the strength of language in the findings of the report (though this could be as a result of the way the information was compiled and collated). The report notes that the basis of its assessment is made "through the lens of those who work in [the Defence Forces], have experienced its practices and its culture, and have complained or made judgements or have reflected on their experiences and observations, making those available to the Review".

"[The] IRG-DF was interested in all aspects of inappropriate behaviours against all serving and former members of the Defence Forces. This, together with the cultural focus on the negative, the mistakes, and the impact of wrongdoing, makes it possible that the IRG-DF did not hear as much about the positives that are experienced by members of the Defence Forces". At this point, a statutory enquiry is to be welcomed so that findings of fact can be made, one way or the other.

Notwithstanding, the General Staff (and their successors) will have very difficult decade ahead to right the ship. There are very few officers now who have the tenure and experience to to run the organisation and those that do will have been shaped by the very culture that is assessed to have been/be so reprehensible. Since 2013 the public service pension reforms have made it effectively unviable to maintain a career in the organisation (something like 50% of the organisation has less than 5 years experience), which makes the problems more acute at management level. What little female representation that is there (including the Women of Honour), needs to be maintained, encouraged and their perspectives used to shape the future of the organisation.
I have no doubt your desire for self-reflection is genuine, but it is based on a completely misguided view of the defence forces. Which in fairness you seem to recognise.

The defence forces are staffed are staffed by people who like to dress up in uniforms, take and give orders, learn to shoot guns. That is your starting point for self-reflection.

You completely avoided the issue raised by myself and Purple above, what of their behaviour away from these shores.
 
Then having gotten rid of it we should build up cyber defense expertise. To address the actual threat we face.
We certainly need cyber defence expertise but we also need ground based radar so we can see aircraft who have turned off their transponder and we need some Naval capability so we know who and what is in our territorial waters.

We don't need an army capable of large scale offensive deployment but we need to be able to deploy a small number of troops.
We also need some ground to air missile capability but we don't need a fast air (fighter jet) capability.
 
but it is based on a completely misguided view of the defence forces. Which in fairness you seem to recognise.

The defence forces are staffed are staffed by people who like to dress up in uniforms, take and give orders, learn to shoot guns. That is your starting point for self-reflection.

Could you clarify you statement? Are you saying my view is misguided given the emergence of the IRG report or that there is general lack of critical thinking or emotional intelligence or some inherent character flaw with individuals who would be associated with the DF? Otherwise it seems quite pejorative to be honest.

You completely avoided the issue raised by myself and Purple above, what of their behaviour away from these shores.
Well the question is more speculative than reasoned, in my view. It's based on a premise that the DF consist of people that have a tendency to engage in criminality that is greater than the wider population, which I can understand if you read the press coverage.

It also seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of overseas missions, certainly in an Irish context. For example, I'm sure you are asking the question based on reports of wide spread abuse by soldiers operating on behalf of the UN. You mention Mali specifically, but I assume that your statement applies to Africa in general. The DF served in different places in Africa, in different capacities over the years from Morocco/Mauritania, to Eritrea/Somalia, Tchad/CAR, Liberia and currently Mail and DRC. I'm not saying anything hasn't happened or couldn't happen in the future, but each are different circumstances in terms of mission, mission size, security situation and the additional HIV/STI risk, in the context sexual crimes. Obviously the historical situation is different to now, in terms of oversight and supervision, no different to Irish society in general. A motivated individual who has the intent will seek out an opportunity regardless but I think its a reach to extrapolate widespread abuse from certain UN contributing countries, as proxy for the culture in the DF and not reasonable. In fact its the supervisory and oversight regime that is critical to answer this question.

In relation to the latter point, the IRG has called these out as being deficient. Which is fair enough (and blindingly obvious). However, there are a range of historical reports that have attempted to address this specifically and never used the language that the IRG have. I think the statutory inquiry will make findings of fact in that regard so there is no point in opining on them.

The most serious issues in all of this are of course the most serious crimes that have been committed and the question is, does the organisation know about it and do nothing or even cover it up. Its important to note that, from a reporting point of view, there is no impediment to a victim reporting a crime to the Gardai. A victim is not obliged to use the internal process at all. The Gardai have full jurisdiction to investigate any crime committed within the military. So DF personnel at home, have the same access to justice as civilians (I would argue that the discipline regime is stricter given the additional offences in the Defence Act and by virtue of being a member of the DF you relinquish certain civil rights anyway e.g. the recent DNA evidence collection act means your DNA can be mandatorily collected in order to assist military police or Garda investigations). I note that Drew Harris was on Morning Ireland this morning and stated that he had 26 complaints dating back to the 1960's. This seems to be statistically far less than the prevalence of (reported) sexual crimes in wider society. However, he has called for victims to come forward and hopefully all those affected will. There is also an issue with Garda jurisdiction overseas, which has been highlighted by Roslyn O'Callaghan's case in recent days. Overseas, these crimes can only be investigated by the Military Police. Again, the statutory enquiry should investigate the effectiveness or otherwise of those investigations.
 
Could you clarify you statement? Are you saying my view is misguided given the emergence of the IRG report or that there is general lack of critical thinking or emotional intelligence or some inherent character flaw with individuals who would be associated with the DF? Otherwise it seems quite pejorative to be honest.
Yes, the recent revelations would surely prompt anyone 'connected to the organisation' to reconsider their views, as you are obviously doing.

And yes, though those are your words not mine. My impression is that an organisation which expects its members to dress up in uniform, give and take orders, and learn to shoot guns appeals to a certain mindset. I think recent revelations give weight to that impression.
 
Well the question is more speculative than reasoned, in my view. It's based on a premise that the DF consist of people that have a tendency to engage in criminality that is greater than the wider population, which I can understand if you read the press coverage.

It also seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of overseas missions, certainly in an Irish context.
I would accept that the question (what are members of the DF up to overseas?) is speculative. It seems to me that given recent revelations, that speculation is warranted.

It is based on the premise that DF people are as recent revelations have shown them to be.

It is not based on any understanding of overseas missions. Nor should it. The problem arises from the people within the DF and the failure of the culture to do anything to rein them in. That is likely to be a bigger issue away from home.
 
My impression is that an organisation which expects its members to dress up in uniform, give and take orders, and learn to shoot guns appeals to a certain mindset. I think recent revelations give weight to that impression.
I would accept that the question (what are members of the DF up to overseas?) is speculative. It seems to me that given recent revelations, that speculation is warranted.
It is based on the premise that DF people are as recent revelations have shown them to be.

You have your view and you are welcome to it. The DF is an organisation of c. 8k people, over the last 20 years c. 12k people have come and gone. I don't see how its reasonable to consider 20k people, from all over the country (Inishowen to Cork to Kilkenny to Dublin and back), as some culturally and morally homogenous organisation. The recent revelations, while shocking and serious, are framed by those who "have complained or made judgements or have reflected on their experiences and observations, making those available to the Review" as stated in the IRG report. In addition, the IRG surveyed 527 members, 2/3 of which reported no experience of harassment and bullying. Further, you can't extrapolate the 1/3 to rest of the organisation, as the survey wasn't randomised, it was voluntary and interviews were by "open invitation". In fairness to the IRG they do note this "Not controlling the sample left open the possibility that we would not hear from a representative sample", though its unfortunate this fact was lost in all the copy.

As in any workplace, harassment and bullying also occur across a spectrum. If you are on the receiving end of course, you should be entitled to seek full remedy. Of course all instances are unacceptable, and i'm not diminishing the seriousness of the allegations in any way, its more the strength of language in the report has created a certain impression, evidenced by your own comments. Indeed the question is, from a cultural perspective, is the organisation significantly different from the prevalence of such instances in Irish society in general? And if so, what are the effectiveness of/requirements for additional protections that take account of this, given the nature of the work? (HR best practice in the civilian space is not sufficient for the military and neither is translating something directly from another military. So whatever systems are put in place for the DF will be unique and has to be constantly evolving. This is obviously feeding into the challenges).

Would I personally recommend a sister or daughter to not join the organisation, based on these cultural issues, no. Maybe not for other reasons, but that is a different story.

The problem arises from the people within the DF and the failure of the culture to do anything to rein them in. That is likely to be a bigger issue away from home.

Again you would be forgiven for thinking that it is some lawless free for all, if you had read the recent articles and accepted them at face value. This is of course not the case. The conspiratorial language is also dangerous. There's no evidence to suggest that Irish personnel need to be "reined in". You also do need an understanding of overseas missions, as if you did, you would understand that from a governance perspective, missions are multi-national with oversight from other nations with different cultures to ours (i.e. western european countries and others). In addition, there is an entire civilian component to each each mission, with oversight functions. The veracity of some of these can be questionable, granted, but given the thousands and thousands of tours of duty nothing has emerged that would warrant that language.

As I stated, previously, any member of the organisation has the full protection of civil law that applies to any member of society, in addition to the broader range of offences contained in the Defence Act., and the numerous independent (of the Defence Forces) avenues with which to pursue a complaint (which are not available to the general public). Obviously there are issues in the implementation and the functioning of the mechanisms and slow pace of adaption to the changing work environment.

The problem with a non-objective examination of the mechanisms in place are the knee-jerk reactions that will result, to the determent of everybody. Which we can already see happening of course. For example;


We can see the politicisation of the organisation now and the Chief of Staff, who is limited in what he can say publicly, over and above other civil servants. His explanation of why the report was shocking to him (as to me) was turned into an evisceration.


This plan seems like a disservice to victims.

1) They can already report to Gardai 2) If its mandatory to report to Gardai then there maybe instances where people will not/cannot speak to colleagues e.g. to seek support, as it would be putting them in a precarious legal position 3) Victims may not want to involve the Gardai, but seek justice through the military 4) Military Police will still be required to investigate instances overseas, however experience and skills could be deficient as a result of this.


This plan is a disservice to the whole process of examining the culture, oversight and implementation of the change needed. The Dept. are the ones who have set all the ToRs for the reports into the organisation, create the conditions for and implement the oversight processes. They are the ones who failed to implement and oversee the recommendations of all the previous reports they commissioned, for Gods sake!

In any case, hopefully the statutory enquiry will provide the factual information necessary to implement the right structures and the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces will be the basis for resourcing the DF, so the organisation can meet the standards it has set for itself and its staff.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top