Anger among military veterans at ‘offensive’ Women of Honour report

There is “palpable anger” among Defence Forces veterans over the recent report detailing allegations of widespread abuse in the military, a group of former officers has told Tánaiste Micheál Martin.

The Independent Review Group (IRG) was set up to respond to allegations by a group of female veterans, known as the Women of Honour, that harassment, discrimination and abuse was rife within the Defence Forces.

In its final report, the IRG concluded there was a toxic culture in the military that “barely tolerated” women. Sexual abuse, physical abuse and bullying were common, with the problems enduring to the present day, it said.

On foot of the report, the Government has committed to establishing a tribunal of inquiry which will have the power to compel witnesses to attend. Mr Martin, who is also Minister for Defence, is due to bring the terms of the tribunal to Cabinet in the coming weeks.

New navy ships to be named after ‘important female leaders’ in response to misogyny allegations

---

Senior military officer being investigated over alleged inappropriate behaviour

---

Women of Honour member expresses concern that tribunal ‘comes across as a paper exercise’

---

Concern raised over inquiry into Air Corps’ personnel exposed to hazardous chemicals

---

Both the report and the Government reaction have caused significant anger within some sections of the military community who felt it unfairly impugned the organisation and its members, regardless of their culpability.

The Association of Retired Commissioned Officers (Arco) recently made a submission to Mr Martin stating “palpable anger now dominates the discourse within the broader veteran community and their families” regarding the report.

It stated this is a result of “offensive” parts of the report which “are apparently based on unchallenged and untested allegations from a small number of personnel who served in the Defence Forces”.

The submission followed a message sent earlier this year by the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, which represents serving military officers, stating Defence Forces personnel were “practically defamed” by the report.

In its submission, Arco criticised the methodology used in the report and said this rendered it problematic “and most likely flawed”. It said the people the IRG interviewed were “self-selected” and that the sample size was far too small.

The Defence Forces has its problems and there must be a zero-tolerance approach to abuse, Arco said. But it reflects the society it serves and there will always be some level of wrongdoing, it said.

The retired officers group said military culture must be robust and energetic to prepare personnel for dangerous situations while also protecting the dignity of individuals. Failure to strike this balance could lead to ill-discipline and a lack of preparedness or, on the other hand, low morale, resentment and wrongdoing.

It said the report appeared to treat allegations are proven facts. The group also strongly criticised the Government for accepting the findings “without question”. It said “knee-jerk and populist” reactions have not gone unnoticed by the veteran community.

Arco was particularly frustrated with parts of the report alleging classism and snobbery on the part of military officers. It said officer positions are open to everyone and that Defence Forces leaders come from diverse backgrounds.

The report produced no evidence to support the contention that officers’ primary loyalty is to their cadet class and colleagues, Arco said. Officers take an oath of loyalty to the State and then the Constitution, it added.

It accused the IRG of confusing bonds between comrades with “disloyalty”. It also accused the review group of having no evidence to support the “defamatory” statement that military leaders are frequently dishonest.

Arco said many of its members will likely be compelled to appear before the upcoming tribunal. Any former officer called to give evidence should be provided with legal representation of their choosing, paid for by the State, as well as copies of documents and specific allegations, it stated.