4 ms·

Interestingly enough, Australian Defence Force personnel are not allowed to wear their uniform in public unless performing official duties. The reason for this

Interestingly enough, Australian Defence Force personnel are not allowed to wear their uniform in public unless performing official duties. The reason for this though is terrorism concerns, as wearing the uniform could make them a target.

rdtsc 9y ago
> The reason for this though is terrorism concerns, as wearing the uniform could make them a target. Curious, what is the background of that. Basically who would be attacking them and for what reason? I can't think of as Australia as an overly aggressive military power. Does it have to do with the treatment of Aboriginal Australians somehow?
- fractallyte 9y ago
  Fear of Islamic terrorism. Here's one recent news item: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42146664 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42146664
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cyberferret 9y ago
  Australian armed forces have a presence in the Middle East and in Afghanistan etc. We have troops on the ground in firefights, and F/A-18s from our air force conducting missions dropping lethal munitions. Our forces have fought alongside US and other allies in nearly every major conflict, so our flag and slouch hat regalia would be well known to most on the 'other side'.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    That applies to a fair few other countries with far more interfering governments, yet they don’t have laws like this that I am aware of. Do the rules even apply on home turf?
    - michaelt 9y ago
      It doesn't have to be a law - just a line in a dress manual, or 'advice' given to personnel. Next to the rules on haircuts and fingernail length.
- zykl0n 9y ago
  > Basically who would be attacking them and for what reason? ... Aboriginal Australians somehow? kek'd hard i suspect the aborigines of peace
sandworm101 9y ago
>> the uniform could make them a target. In typical canadian fashion, with us it was non-violent attacking, mostly verbal insults. But a few years ago I heard an interesting perspective from a US base commander after a real terrorist attack at a recruiting center. He said in short: "bring it on". He would rather have his base, his people, attacked than a school or stadium full of civilians. His view was that it was the job of soldiers to stand between terrorists and civilians even on home soil. I think I agree with his point, but only if we assume that the terrorist attack was inevitable.
- Aloha 9y ago
  If you presume a terror attack is inevitable no matter what preparations are taken, you just took all the power of the terrorists away.
  - sorokod 9y ago
    By transforming a society into a militarized one, you have given the terrorists much of what they wanted.
katastic 9y ago
The bad guys might wear military clothes... How does that stop terrorism? The bad guys could just say they're doing official duties.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  That's not why they're not allowed. It's because the bad guys might target people wearing military clothes.
  - katastic 9y ago
    WHAT?! Then shoot those people, or, less hyperbolicly, throw them in prison. If your cops or military have to live in fear of being murdered for merely wearing their clothes, then your/their country has incredibly serious problems and needs to start treating them directly instead of hiding the consequences. I have zero frame of reference to understand that kind of environment. I literally can't imagine going out to the store and thinking, "Well, I better not wear that shirt, or I'll be murdered."
    - toomanybeersies 9y ago
      Bit late to shoot them or throw them in prison once they've stabbed someone to death. It's not like soldiers carry guns around everywhere they go (unlike the police).
chewz 9y ago
Australia also banned building of a synagogue because of fear of islamic terrorism. I had been always under impression that things are a little upside-down there. [1] http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue-ban-over-terrorism-risk-leaves-jewish-community-shocked-and-furious/news-story/6ec6252d613583df7797c7cac2b25de4 http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue...

rdtsc 9y ago

> The reason for this though is terrorism concerns, as wearing the uniform could make them a target. Curious, what is the background of that. Basically who would be attacking them and for what reason? I can't think of as Australia as an overly aggressive military power. Does it have to do with the treatment of Aboriginal Australians somehow?

fractallyte 9y ago
Fear of Islamic terrorism. Here's one recent news item: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42146664 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42146664
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cyberferret 9y ago
Australian armed forces have a presence in the Middle East and in Afghanistan etc. We have troops on the ground in firefights, and F/A-18s from our air force conducting missions dropping lethal munitions. Our forces have fought alongside US and other allies in nearly every major conflict, so our flag and slouch hat regalia would be well known to most on the 'other side'.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  That applies to a fair few other countries with far more interfering governments, yet they don’t have laws like this that I am aware of. Do the rules even apply on home turf?
  - michaelt 9y ago
    It doesn't have to be a law - just a line in a dress manual, or 'advice' given to personnel. Next to the rules on haircuts and fingernail length.
zykl0n 9y ago
> Basically who would be attacking them and for what reason? ... Aboriginal Australians somehow? kek'd hard i suspect the aborigines of peace

sandworm101 9y ago

>> the uniform could make them a target. In typical canadian fashion, with us it was non-violent attacking, mostly verbal insults. But a few years ago I heard an interesting perspective from a US base commander after a real terrorist attack at a recruiting center. He said in short: "bring it on". He would rather have his base, his people, attacked than a school or stadium full of civilians. His view was that it was the job of soldiers to stand between terrorists and civilians even on home soil. I think I agree with his point, but only if we assume that the terrorist attack was inevitable.

Aloha 9y ago
If you presume a terror attack is inevitable no matter what preparations are taken, you just took all the power of the terrorists away.
- sorokod 9y ago
  By transforming a society into a militarized one, you have given the terrorists much of what they wanted.

katastic 9y ago

The bad guys might wear military clothes... How does that stop terrorism? The bad guys could just say they're doing official duties.

toomanybeersies 9y ago
That's not why they're not allowed. It's because the bad guys might target people wearing military clothes.
- katastic 9y ago
  WHAT?! Then shoot those people, or, less hyperbolicly, throw them in prison. If your cops or military have to live in fear of being murdered for merely wearing their clothes, then your/their country has incredibly serious problems and needs to start treating them directly instead of hiding the consequences. I have zero frame of reference to understand that kind of environment. I literally can't imagine going out to the store and thinking, "Well, I better not wear that shirt, or I'll be murdered."
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    Bit late to shoot them or throw them in prison once they've stabbed someone to death. It's not like soldiers carry guns around everywhere they go (unlike the police).

chewz 9y ago

Australia also banned building of a synagogue because of fear of islamic terrorism. I had been always under impression that things are a little upside-down there. [1] http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue-ban-over-terrorism-risk-leaves-jewish-community-shocked-and-furious/news-story/6ec6252d613583df7797c7cac2b25de4 http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue...