In the absence of any cogent reason to think otherwise, and we've been given none at this stage, the direct cause of HMNZS Manuwai running onto a reef while on a simple survey, then catching fire, and then sinking, looks like nothing less than blithering incompetence. And an inquiry by the Navy about the Navy doesn't give confidence we'll ever know much more.
The author of a history of the Royal Navy in the Pacific, John McLean, observes that
The sunken Manawanui was a survey/research vessel. It was doing survey work in Samoan waters when, under the control of Yvonne Gray, it went to the bottom of the ocean. Surveying has been an important function of the Royal New Zealand Navy since its creation in the Second World War and before that hydrographic surveys were carried out by the Royal Navy which defended the seas around our coasts until the 1940s. The centuries old principle of surveying is that the surveying vessel - or "mother ship" if you like - stays out at sea while the inshore surveying is done by the ship's small boats. That way they can get in and out of shallow waters, reefs and even river mouths. They then return to the survey vessel where the charts are drawn up. So why did Commander Gray take the large and valuable ship so close to the reef?
Given that this was a survey vessel whose commander appeared to have no idea of how to safely survey, and no clue where the ocean floor was, is there any reason not to think blithering incompetence?
To which, in the absence until then of any cogent reason to think otherwise — and in a climate of "diversity hires" — readers, writers and commentators (including Mr McLean) have been raising the issue of Commander Gray's lesbianism. Not that being a lesbian makes you unable to command a ship. But, in an era of widespread diversity hires — when the recently retired Chief of Navy Rear-Admiral David Proctor feels the need to boast that "having wahine (women) as commanding officers on more than 60%of our ships as well as heading up other important portfolios, is a realisation of that goal ['to celebrate the diversity of our personnel']" — it surely makes you more likely to be promoted to command one before you're fully competent to do so.
Which we're entitled to think has happened here. Particularly when Gray's colleague, Fiona Jameson, captain of the frigate HMNZS Te Kaha, is not just another poster girl for "inclusiveness," but also for sheer blind incompetence. As McLean observes:
Gray's ship sank while Jameson crashed Te Kaha into Auckland's Kauri Point ammunition depot, leaving a gash of more than half a metre that cost $220,000 to repair. At the time of her appointment to Te Kaha Jameson gushed, "Now as I take command with three other women [commanding officers], I get....a greater normality around wahine toa leadership". The poor thing can't even speak English properly let alone steer a ship without hitting a wharf.
Observing this from Britain where he's exploded many a PC pomposity himself, author Peter Boghossian sums up:
Highlighting that the captain of the sunk ship is a lesbian and implying that’s the cause of the crash is grossly irresponsible. Yet we will increasingly find ourselves in this predicament as we hire and promote people on characteristics other than merit. And it’s only beginning.
So it is.
4 comments:
Court Martial...when?
I understood that, as a matter of course once, a captain would always face a court martial for the loss of a naval ship — not least to clear their name publicly should that be the case.
Mr McLean doesn't comment on that, but does add this interesting historical note:
"Her defective command of the vessel risked the lives of the crew who fortunately managed to reach the shore on rafts virtually without injury. Their lives had been endangered but with their good training they got themselves off safely.
"And yet the Minister of Defence, Judith Collins, called this a 'triumph'!!!! And she went out of her way to praise Gray. ... for 'saving lives' - lives that would not have to be saved if her captaincy had not put the vessel on the seabed.
"Compare Collins' effusive praise ... with the words that the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord George Hamilton, used in the House of Commons in 1889 when there were calls for the British government to bestow some sort of honour on Captain Kane who, with great competence, dexterity and courage, had steered HMS Calliope safely out of the hurricane in Apia harbour that had wrecked two American and three German warships. Lord George Hamilton replied that no honour would be conferred on the captain because the courage and skill displayed by him, his officers and men 'was not rare in the British navy and did not deserve any special recognition.' And Captain Kane had saved his ship and not sunk it!"
Totally agree with this post , especially the last paragraph. Unintended consequences. This has unclothed those pretending to be liberartian as the homophpbic and sexist folk they are, especially on Kiwiblog. Ryan Bridge also commented on it
The most likely relevant characteristic is not that she’s a lesbian, but that she’s a woman. It’s highly unlikely you’d have so many female captains if it was all about merit, even without the crash and sinking they were responsible for. I can’t help but think there’s a connection here with my son being recently knocked back by the NZ Air Force, something he was passionate about and passed easily all the physical and competency based tests. The reason apparently given was that he couldn’t express his thoughts verbally well enough for them during a 2 day gathering for final selection. It’s a skill he certainly needs to develop, but seems off they placed so much emphasis on this when assessing a teenage boy for a highly technical position. It suggests to me our armed forces are placing too much emphasis on soft typically feminine strengths, and not enough on hard typically masculine strengths.
Post a Comment