Mona Shindy case: Defence impartiality caught in a Twitter trap

Zimbabwean Muslim cleric Mufti Ismail Menk runs a kind of benign Twitter account that projects a “can’t we just all get along” schtick appealing to Western sensibilities. Menk tweets out statements such as: “Learn to make the most of each day. Once over, it’ll never return. So be wary of what you put in a day. Fill it with good deeds & kindness.”

No doubt it was with such sentiments in mind that Captain Mona Shindy, the navy’s most senior Muslim officer and the naval chief strategic adviser on Islamic affairs, at one stage describing him as “a source of wisdom”, retweeted Menk’s advice not to get “rude abusive or insulting”.

More discreet are his views on homosexuals, whom he calls “filthy”. A recent tour of British universities was abandoned after videos of sermons surfaced in which Menk claimed gays “are worse than animals”.

There is no suggestion Shindy endorses Menk’s views on gays, but it neatly illustrates the trap of social media for a member of the Australian Defence Force.

Shindy’s Twitter account @navyislamic was shut down by Chief of Navy Tim Barrett in December after tweets endorsed the Australian Grand Mufti’s response to the Paris terror attacks, made gibes at Tony Abbott and questioned Australian foreign policy in Iraq. The social media and political activities policy of the ADF demands strict political neutrality from members when commenting in a capacity identifying them as ADF employees.

How does an organisation that has to be absolutely neutral in its political positioning exist in the politically febrile world of social media? How do you engage in identity politics, creating positions such as “Islamic cultural adviser” that almost by their nature attract political comment, without endangering the impartiality of the officer or the ADF?

The position of Islamic cultural adviser was established in 2013 by Barrett’s predecessor Ray Griggs. According to the navy, “the position … was established to help improve Navy’s understanding of the cultural issues of the many Muslim navies/nations that it operates with … Capt Shindy also provides advice on how Navy can become a more attractive employer from an Islamic perspective as part of our broader diversity approach.” At the end of last year, the ADF had 103 permanent members who identified as Muslim, 26 of them in the navy.

Rodger Shanahan (no relation), a research fellow at the Lowy Institute and a former army officer, believes Shindy clearly crossed the line of what is acceptable political comment from an ADF officer. “She showed poor judgment, stepped over the line and should’ve known better,” he tells The Weekend Australian.

He believes the Twitter controversy points to problems the ADF faces in its determination to have a social media presence. “The military is not really allowed to enter into” all the “meaty stuff that makes social media ­interesting and dynamic”, Shanahan says, so “it almost becomes an infomercial”. The second problem is the nebulous nature of Shindy’s role as an Islamic cultural adviser. Shanahan says defence forces can only “be concerned with operational not social outcomes” and it’s unclear what operational benefit is being provided by the role.

He claims the ADF would be better off following a US model of employing foreign area officers, who can be of any religion but trained in particular geographic areas to offer cultural advice.

Neil James, executive director of the Australia Defence Association, says the ADF needs a diversity policy in the interests of a representative workforce, but the Islamic cultural advisory role has failed. “I think the experiment of an Islamic cultural adviser hasn’t worked. They do have indigenous cultural advisers and they do work, but they are advising on culture largely and not religion. In this case they did not have a definition of what a cultural adviser actually did.”

Another problem, says James, are the inconsistencies in the ADF crackdowns for breaches of its social media and political commentary policies.

“One of the problems they have had is that what you might loosely call the right-wing commentators have been punished and what you might call left-wing commentators haven’t been.”

He also says the navy’s excuse for closing the @navyislamic account — that it was attracting “contentious comments” — was disingenuous given that many would regard Shindy’s comments as contentious.

“You have comments on a navy website which a lot of people would consider an apologia for Islamist terrorism,” James says.

While accepting the Shindy case is very different from that of Bernard Gaynor — who was sacked for making a statement about military marching in Sydney’s Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras — experts and former ADF members accept it puts the ADF in a bind over what is considered acceptable political commentary.

The ADF is appealing Gaynor’s recent victory in the Federal Court, which found his decommissioning was invalid on the grounds his comment was made as a private citizen and was protected under the implied right to political communication.

Gaynor has been a long-time critic of Shindy and transgender Group Captain Cate McGregor. He was crowing this week that the removal of the @navyislamic feed was a victory for him and the Australian Liberty Alliance.

It may be galling for it to be lectured by Gaynor, but when the ADF chooses to navigate the minefield of social media and identity politics, allies can just as easily turn out to be enemies.