|Coming soon to a politician near you|
In this day and age we are expected to be tolerant of those who are
'different'. 'Different', of course means lots of things, but some of us old timers,
'different' generally meant homosexual.
Like in the footy for instance - where gay footballers have recently been
advised to stay in the closet. Whether closet means 'water closet' or 'locker
room' in this instance isn't clear, but basically it's between them, their
friends, families, and their locker-room shower-mates. It's none of our
business, and most of us like it that that way.
There is, of course, a principle here. The price we pay for keeping people out
of our bedrooms is that we stay out of other people's. And in the case of gay
footy players, most of us are happy to oblige.
But does the same standard apply to politicians? Well, in an ideal world it
would. If a senior state-ALP minister were to, say, frequent gay sex clubs (to
pick a completely random example), would it be anyone's business apart from his
friends, family, gay sex partners, anyone with a video camera, any of his
constituents, those who came under his power as a state politician, and everyone
disgusted with the fact that state ministers continually set themselves up as
the high priests of personal and sexual morality?
Well, probably not, but that's an awful lot of us.
Maybe when NSW Transport Minister and closet homo David Campbell campaigned on
platform of 'family values' he should have let us know whether he regarded
anonymous gay sex partners as 'family'. Maybe calling him self 'Camp Bell'
should have rung a .. well .. camp warning bell with the voters, but such
things are not generally regarded as reliable indicators. Unlike video evidence.
In a more rational world, government would limit itself to stopping murder,
rape, assault and theft. But politicians with power are like drug addicts.
They need more and more control over people's lives.
What do you say to someone who dictates what people can watch on the TV, what
they can access on internet, what they can eat or drink, and who they can
marry, and then blames the media for 'unfair media attention of their private
lives'? Only three words: ha ha ha.
Just because the State displays a keen interest in your personal life, does not
mean the state is your friend.