(Right Click here to download Audio - MP3)
The latest edition of one of the only two real newspapers in Australia, the Green Left Weekly, arrived in the mail the other day and I settled down with a cup of tea for a read, as one does. I got to page three and an article by Pip Hinman, a regular contributor, caught my eye. The title of her article was “Same-sex couples recognised in new terror laws.”
It seems that our government, while quite willing to terrorise our gay community by passing laws preventing them from engaging in basic human activities, is quite prepared to allow them, via the new terror laws to be recognised as legitimate, co-habiting couples.
Under the new laws, when (not if) a person is detained they are allowed that old Hollywood cliché of one phone call to tell a loved one they won’t be home for dinner. They can’t tell them that the 21st century, Australian version of the Stazi have come and taken them away, or how long they will be away or that indeed, they have been taken away. All they can tell them is, “honey, don’t wait up for me. I could be a while.”
Since last week when ACT Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope put up his copy of the draft legislation there has been a flurry of paper shuffling as we the people have tried to find out what these draconian laws mean for us. In Pip Hinman’s article she includes comments by Green Senator, Kerry Nettle, who said, “The government is happy to legislate away the positive rights of same sex couples, but recognise them when locking up a gay or lesbian.”
A couple of weeks ago the Senate debated the merits of the so called ‘same sex’ marriage legislation. Democrat Senator, Andrew Bartlett rose in the chamber and spoke passionately for the Bill. He asked how the so called ‘honourable’ members might feel if a law prevented them from announcing their love for someone. To prove once more that the snivelling, grovellers we call the Labor party were just as macho as the Libs and the Nats, they took the government’s side and cut debate short.
Just as an aside, I find it terribly disturbing that the Labor party is doing all it can to agree with the government. While they speak an empty rhetoric of opposition, I’ve got to say, since Beasley got back in, they are looking more and more like a cheap copy of the other side of the house. Back to the topic at hand.
The Labor party took the government’s side and cut short the debate thus continuing the inequality afforded to same sex couples under many of our laws. That wonderful example of a small minded, redneck from Queensland, Ron Boswell, rose to his full emotional and intellectual height and peering out from under his desk pronounced, “The people who elected me feel very strongly about this issue”, as he once more threw up that great red herring, that gay marriage would end life as we know it. So insecure in his relationships is Boswell that he feels marriage between heterosexual couples would fade into obscurity if same sex couples were granted equal rights.
What tosh. What a betrayal of the many people who live in his electorate and the many more who live in his state who identify as gay or lesbian and who have fallen in love and want to demonstrate that commitment within the community. So while a same sex marriage is not considered legal, same sex couples are recognised in the proposed anti terror laws.
The last few days focus on these laws has been around the shoot to kill provisions to the almost total exclusion of everything else therein. Here in Victoria we just did a ‘ho hum’, ‘so what’ as our police have been shooting to kill for years. As Howard said way back when it all came out, this is nothing new, most states already have shoot to kill provisions. I’m just waiting for some crazy to come out and say the shoot to kill provisions should be used to kill all gays. That would, to some, ‘fix’ the problem of gay marriage in one fell swoop.
One has to wonder though why the sudden and dramatic turn around by Howard and his sudden announcement that he might be prepared to reconsider the introduction of the bill. Here’s my little conspiracy theory on the matter.
Knowing a little about propaganda techniques, one of the things you try is to set up a diversion. In this case the shoot to kill provisions look mean and nasty and while people are focused on that they don’t look at the bigger picture. Buried deep in the document, page 45, line 34, the proposed legislation allows a detainee to contact another person who is a family member. Under the definitions of “family member” contained in this draft bill, line 34 reads, “the person’s spouse, de facto spouse or same-sex partner.”
At last, under a proposed Australian law same sex couples are recognised. But, and it’s big but, someone like Ron Boswell reads this, because we know he cares so much about his constituents and representing them, and finds this line, nearly chokes on his tax payer funded lunch and get straight on the phone to his mate John and says, “John, we gotta kill it mate. There’s no way I’m gonna lets some fags and dykes sneak this one through. Change it or all deals are off. The people who elected me feel strongly about this issue.”
John, realising his vulnerability as the state premiers, whose minders found the clause about the same time Ron was have his fit, start ringing him (remember he said he had spoke to all state premiers in the last 24 hours) and they say, “Hey John, thanks for fixing this for us. We would never allow the recognition of same sex marriages but you’ve taken the responsibility away from us. Cheers.”
Around the same time Cardinal Pell's boys in black come across the same clause, throw up a few hail mary’s and tell his excellency that he had better get on the case. And so on it rolls. John is besieged by the reactionaries all demanding that the offending phrase be struck from the bill before they will even attempt to agree on it.
John, being the strong, manly leader he is, decides that if Janette is going to wear a white pant the whole time he’s on tour in the land of the fuzzy wuzzy’s, he had better do something but whatever it is he doesn’t want to say its those bothersome gays who are stalling his bill.
Now, call me crazy, call me weird, call me anything you like but late for lunch, I reckon the reason John has backed down a little is to give his people time to redraft this bill to get rid of line 34 on page 45. Why? Because it might potentially be used as a means for arguing that same sex couples do have rights currently denied them.
This one short, definitive phrase could, potentially, get right up Ron and John’s proverbial and finally, allow gay men and women who want to celebrate their love for each other, to obtain the same rights as hetero couples who currently enjoy concessions denied to many others simply because of their sexual preference.
I wait to see if the offending clause is amended when the final bill hits the floor of the chamber. Let's look and see who is smiling then. When we see those smiles we should remember them and remind our children who it was that forever changed the ‘relaxed and comfortable’ nation into the detained and nervous, trigger happy police state.