PANIC IN THE AIR

Picasso 1910

And then, just when we thought we were free, like swooping magpies they dive bombed him out of the trees. After all that had happened it was impossible not to still dream of Thai assassins stalking him wherever he went, of roving gangs of male prostitutes gathering outside of hotels, waiting for the kill. Nasty, vicious, unpleasant, dishonest and deceitful, these people were being unleashed on unsuspecting tourists; and he was still recovering from the fright. He tried not to think about them; it wasn't as if there wasn't plenty of other things to do, or obsess about; but stories of toxic little thieves kept circling through his brain unbidden; and so he just went on about his days and waited for time to cure all. And in the meantime panicked images kept swooping at him; and in the end he didn't even try to avoid them, because they were inevitable. If he had been so thoroughly frightened, well yes he had, he had also been heart broken by what had happened, and outraged by the malicious, hateful, manipulated criowds. All for a customer. All because some rent boy wanted a car and was prepared to lie and lie and lie and lie about everything, to destroy someone else's life, to threaten to kill them, just for that.

And the aging go go boy became a hero, a celebrated liar and a celebrated thief. And Michael had become increasingly forlorn. And if he hadn't been there he wouldn't be here; he would never have been forced to get the business on a solid footing, he would never have been incensed and disconsolate enough to do what he had already done; to do what he was about to do. And so they had done him a favour. The last laugh; except it wasn't about laughing. It was sadder and more precarious than that. One day the panicked dreams would leave him; one day the pursuit would be over, the assassins retire to easier targets. But it didn't always seem as if they were gone. There were days when he could still feel, or hear them in the air; when, if the sounds of televisions and early morning radios were all that could be heard, he still heard other things, his brain making sense of distant things, of an overload of radio waves.

He had been to the future and come back; and now, in these quiet streets, things began to resolve. He slept more than he had slept in many years, decades. He worked hard, but he had always worked hard. And he made new friends across what had once seemed terrible divides. And all the time, there were the manufactured soap operas of other people's lives. They wached the last of the television series Glen Bogle. He was in to the fourth season of Babylon 5, a series he had always wanted to watch before he died, although he was not about to die. "Unbelievable," he heard them say, and that was it, the brain stitching away. "We had no idea..." Disparate noises, disparate voices, different places, odd circumstance. If he had once been thoroughly spooked, now he was thoroughly determined. There wasn't going to be any easy resolution, not for them. The Chinese bar owner smirked at him when he spotted Michael drinking; clearly hoping he would drink himself to death, waiting to spit on his grave.

In the meantime hundreds of African assylum seekers drowned off the Italian coast. Fleeing poverty or taking advantage of the splendour and the opportunities of the First World. Australia had a new Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who had barely put a foot wrong since ascending to the throne. Who had assumed the mantle with a pre-meditated dignity, with no glimmer that he was assuming his rightful place. Unlike his predecessor Kevin Rudd, he stopped feeding the 24-hour media beast, with its endless demand for stories. News is something new, as he had once been fond of saying, and the ceaseless announcements and re-announcements, the endless photo opportunities of Kevin in schools, were now a thing of the past. He, too, like so many other journalists, had seen this farce played out daily; the little huddle of photographers allowed through into the school to take the Kevin and chldren picture of the day, the reporters coralled in a room where they would be spoon fed garbage, or ignored altogether, a press release being issued later in the day. Kevin in schools, Kevin in Church, Kevin in an industrial yellow safety hat. At last Tony had brought some dignity, and yes truth, back to the role. Even his worst critics appeared to wish him well; hoped he could disentangle the mess left behind, re-ignite the vibrancy that had once been Australia.

THE BIGGER STORY:

You know something's gone haywire when one of the contenders for the Labor Party leadership, Bill Shorten, declares that anyone who doesn't believe in "marriage equality" doesn't have a place in the ALP.

Here's a piece by Dennis Altman which popped up in The Conversation, a university sponsored daily newsletter::

Suddenly, it seems the Right faction of the Australian Labor Party has embraced gay causes – or as we now say, LGBTI ones. On the campaign trail for the party leadership, Bill Shorten floated the idea of a quota for LGBTI candidates, though he subsequently acknowledged some problems with the idea. More recently, union boss Paul Howes argued that ALP parliamentarians should be bound by the party platform to support same-sex marriage.

Those of us with even short political memories might feel cynical about this sudden discovery of gay causes, which represent an attempt by a younger generation to define themselves as “progressive”. The proposals themselves are less interesting than the way in which gay causes have now become a defining point for progressives.

Shorten’s proposal is probably impractical, but at least it acknowledges that queer folk – to use a convenient catchall phrase – are considerably under-represented in public life. However, there are many ways in which governments might address this, not least through appointments to high office.

Australia has had several openly gay judges and ambassadors, although no-one has the public profile of the new US Ambassador to Australia, John Berry. But we have yet to see an open lesbian, gay man or transgendered person head any major government body, let alone a university. Indeed, the private sphere is ahead in this regard, though Qantas CEO Alan Joycedoes cut a solitary figure.

Howes’ argument has more substance, and it is strange that a party that insists on a stricter control of its parliamentarians than almost any other in a liberal-democracy should single out this one issue as a matter of conscience, as if other issues – such as the treatment of asylum seekers and live animal exports – are not.

However, real reform of the Labor Party would mean relaxing – not increasing – discipline, and encouraging MPs to acknowledge there are inevitably a variety of views within any major party. This would make a parliamentary career more attractive than the prospect of becoming a nodding head behind images of the party leader talking to schoolkids or visiting factories.

The larger question is why have queer issues, especially same-sex marriage, become so politically salient. We know that most Australians are relaxed about the prospect, that a small minority have very strong views for and against, and yet the question is constantly raised in almost every public forum. What began as an issue associated with the Greens has now moved to a central issue for the ALP, and a continuing source of vexation for those Liberals who have been denied a free vote on the issue.

I have argued elsewhere that the marriage question is largely symbolic. Indeed, I share Julia Gillard’s critique of marriage as an outmoded institution which is not the business of church and state. Unlike Gillard, however, I don’t want to impose that view on others. Same-sex marriage advocate Senthorun Raj has clearlypointed out the inconsistencies in her position.

But if marriage is a symbolic issue, it represents a yardstick for how comfortable our politicians are with diversity. The major resistance to same-sex marriage comes from religious leaders, but most Australians – including many who are personally religious – believe strongly in a secular state. As long as marriage remains an institution legitimised by the state, there is no reason why religious leaders should have a privileged position in arguing for how it is legally defined.

Shorten and Howes recognise this. But are they prepared to go beyond the easy issue of marriage – which British prime minister David Cameron said he supports because it is a conservative institution – and tackle the much harder issues of homophobia in state-supported fundamentalist schools?