Category Archives: politics

Melbourne by-election – meet Fiona Patten, Cathy Oke, Maria Bengtsson

This is the final instalment in a report on the Carlton Meet the Candidates forum for the Melbourne by-election.

Fiona Patten: ‘We wanted to call ourselves the liberal party but that was taken.’

Patten looked tough and fit, and seemed in fine spirits, starting by praising all the other candidates: ‘I kept thinking Transformer Man: take a little bit of them and form this amazing man.’ I agree; for me, many of the minor candidates had something good to offer, but unfortunately this potential was offset by too many other loopy or weak ideas.

The Sex Party, Patten explained, was formed to campaign against the web filter proposed by the federal Labor Government in 2008. ‘We wanted to call ourselves the Liberal party but that was taken’, she said. Bet it’s not the first time she’s wheeled out that quip. ‘Then we thought about calling ourselves the common sense party.’

Patten mentioned the need for drug reform and solutions to congestion: ‘More roads won’t solve congestion’, she said. It seems she’s against the East-West tunnel; there’s nothing on her website about it, but I tweeted a question to the Australian Sex Party account and it replied: ‘no I think there are better solutions than the east west I want to c more trains in tunnels rather than cars.’ So it seems Fiona is operating their Twitter account herself?

One thing to note about the Sex Party is that they had the best ad during the 2010 Victorian state election.

Cathy Oke, Australian Greens

There are no juicy bit in my notes on Oke probably because the sugar low was really taking me over by the time she took the floor at 9pm.

Notes as follows:

‘Emphasised role of local councillor: things that done as councillor.

Policies:

1) Transport. Fixing congestion: Doncaster, 402, Cycling – not about a zero: ask the Premier to provide at minimum $5 million dedicated funding.

2) Public housing: security of tenure, rents don’t rise

3) Planning: giving power back

4) Education: too many teachers on short-term contracts.’

When she got to bikes, I slapped my head. Turned out she’d seen me do it, I found out from later. I felt pretty bad and apologised; it’s a rude and graceless way to show discontent.

I have been a bit disappointed with the state Greens on bikes – for example, why would they only come up with a bike policy for the City of Melbourne, when their other policies span the whole state? Or why not come up with some specific proposals that bike riders can actually get excited about? Maybe making cycling too big an issue would have had risks for the Greens. After all, there’s still a perception, possibly including in the seat of Melbourne, that cycling is a hobby or a Green thing, rather than a serious mode of transport, so maybe it wouldn’t have been great for their perceptions of being a ‘serious party’ to go to town on it? Not to mention that there are other important policy priorities. I guess a $5m commitment is modest, costed, and contained – which is what the Greens seem to be going for in this election.

One thing I noticed about Oke on council, mainly from bike advocacy stuff, is her ability to get on with people from different political backgrounds, not least Doyle, and to talk them around. I wonder how she will go in state politics, which in my experience, is a far more adversarial ‘throw rocks at the fortress’ type environment. I guess, as the Federal Greens/Labor alliance shows, things are a bit different if you get the balance of power.

The Greens have released 10 policies so far, and they’ve promised to release costings this week. I hope they do it towards the beginning of the week, so there’s time to examine them.

Maria Bengtsson, Australian Christian Party

There must be a lack of quality candidates in the Australian Christian Party because I have to say, Bengtsson didn’t seem overly sharp. The last of the candidates to speak, Bengtsson said she was standing because she supported Freedom. ‘This is Freedom of Speech (repeat the Religious and Racial Tolerance Act). Amend the Charter of Human Rights to protect the freedom of conscience for faith-based organisations [no detail given here; I'll find out for you later]. And abortion legislation: freedom to not be in abortion.’ Bengtsson said that she knows people want better infrastructure and safe bike tracks, but ‘we are more concerned about protection of human life: the unborn and the elderly.’

Apparently some churches are unhappy that the Australian Christian Party were able to register a political party name purporting to cover the entire banner of their religion.

The others

The Family First candidate, Ashley Fenn, wasn’t at the forum, and neither was Michael Murphy of the Democratic Labor Party. But you can read about Michael here and Ashley here. Family First’s policies are here, and the DLP’s here. Let me know if you see anything interesting there.

Leave a Comment

Filed under politics, Uncategorized

Melbourne by-election: meet Kate Borland, Adrian Whitehead

Kate Borland, public housing advocate: ‘Public housing is a good community value that we must respect and uphold and adhere.’ 

Kate Borland said she’s standing to highlight the public housing issue. She told us that her Dad designed a number of housing commission homes and the Olympic pool, so she knows about structure and architecture. Labor and Liberals are trying to privatise public housing, Kate explained, and through KPMG, the Liberals are trying to overhaul it.

Context: a Victorian Auditor General report found that the operating model for public housing was unsustainable, as costs ballooned while revenues declined. The AG explained as that rent is set at 25% and the department understandably prioritises housing to those in greatest need, who are generally on welfare benefits, the pool of revenue that comes from rent is shrinking. It’s a vexing problem: how does the state ensure that it can afford public housing in the long-term, without imposing unreasonable conditions, or limiting access to, the most needy?

The AG said that faced with knowledge of public housing’s increasingly parlous financial situation, government departments failed to take action. You surprised? Over half of properties are over 30 years old and 14% were approaching the point of no return, yet government didn’t have an adequate asset management strategy, with departments often lacking accurate information about the conditions properties were in.

Earlier this year, the Baillieu Government increased rents for pensioners early this year by almost $10 a week for some people, so that rent didn’t fall below 25 percent of their income in rent after a Federal pension increase. The Government has also developed a discussion and options paper on ‘Pathways to a Fair and Sustainable* Social Housing System’ , which was written by KPMG, hence Borland’s reference to them.

In Labor candidate Jennifer Kanis’s campaign materials, she says the Baillieu Liberal Government is considering increasing rent above the current 25% of income, limiting the time residents can live there, and selling public housing. The Greens are also campaigning on similar concerns. The fact is that nothing has been done yet; these are just options raised (in more anaesthetised but unequivocal language) in the discussion and options paper, which admittedly seems to be ideologically skewed towards that kind of ‘self help’ mentality that underpins Tony Abbott’s comments about dole bludgers.

Borland didn’t go into detail about any of this though, instead she spoke about her background (she’s a nutritionist, works in drug and alcohol, and finished her degree while bringing up a child and breastfeeding) and the value she places on community. Safety is community, for her, Borland says. At one point it feels like she’s almost yelling, ‘I have African neighbours, Indian neighbours, Vietnamese neighbours!’ It’s a bit overwrought, but I respect her passion.

Borland says her father designed renovations for Bob Hawke’s house man-years ago, and she grew up a staunch Labor voter. I found it quite strange how Borland mentioned her Dad so often. Actually, her whole speech felt like someone following the form of a candidate’s speech (the rousing appeal to conscience and shared humanity, the story of how your family inspired you, and your struggle against adversity) but strking slightly the wrong note.

During question time, this little kid from up the front asked: ‘My question is for Kate. What are your views on public housing?’ Me and the guy next to me simultaneously groaned, and he muttered ‘Oh no, the cute kid. Well too bad, you can’t vote!’ Kate then explained why public housing was so important to her and at the end of her spiel, said, ‘Thanks for the question my dearest darling daughter.’

Adrian Whitehead, climate activist

Adrian was wearing a sparkling white No New Coal T-shirt. It had an apple with a bite taken out of it. I don’t understand the significance of that: is it a reference to Apple computers being environmentally devastating?

‘I want to start out by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land’, Adrian said, ‘but also acknowledge that the part of our culture that crushed and killed at wiped out a culture – for the sake of greed and money – still persists today in the large corporate entities that control political life, and manifests itself most concerningly in the area of climate change.’ Fair enough, but I find this level of generalisation in theme-finding almost meaningless, in a similar way to Socialist Equality Party candidate Patrick O’Connor’s attempt to draw parallels between the Arab Spring and the movement against social inequality in Australia.

Overhead gas heaters lit up above the pews as Whitehead started talking about the devastating environmental impacts of climate change. ‘Who will save us?’ he asked. ‘Not the policies of the Liberals, not the policies of the Labor, not the policies of the Greens. The Greens know what we need to do, but won’t say it. We have to go for zero emissions by 2020.’ At this point, Whitehead made an analogy between climate change and quite a sad personal story about a friend with serious skin cancer, at which point he lost me.  I did put him first on my ballot paper though.

11 Comments

Filed under politics

Melbourne by-election – meet Patrick O’Connor, Joseph Toscano, Stephen Mayne

This is the third part of a report on the Melbourne by-election Meet the Candidates forum run by Carlton Residents Association on 9 July. See here for part 1 and here for part 2.

Patrick O’Connor, Socialist Equality Party: ‘We need an independent movement of the working class, to establish a working class government, committed to socialist policies.’

The Socialist Equality Party are not registered as a political party in Victoria, so O’Connor is running as an independent. He spoke about uprising in Tunisia, Egypt, and throughout North Africa and the Middle East as an example that the workers were starting to rise up against the ruling classes, and presumably he is looking for the same kind of thing in the Melbourne electorate. He attacked the Baillieu government’s cuts to the public service and education as ‘draconian’ austerity measures similar to those taken by governments in Greece and Spain. O’Connor said that many Australians were struggling to stay afloat, while people at the top enjoy unprecedented levels of wealth. He described the Greens as a pro-capitalist party, pointing out Tasmanian Greens senator Nick McKim planned to shut down 20 public schools as part of state budget cuts (he subsequently backed down). O’Connor’s policies include taking back the banks, mining companies and major corporations into public hands; and establishing a major public works program. You can get a feel for him here if you’re interested.

Dr Joseph Toscano (anarchist): ‘I’m not hear to ask for your vote, I’m hear to stimulate your imagination.’

Judging by his Wikipedia entry, Toscano’s story is pretty colourful. He broadcasts Anarchist World this week on 3CR, campaigned for the removal of two women’s skulls from a display at Melbourne goal (this section reads like it’s been heavily edited and re-edited, and intrigues me because I think there must be more to the story). In the 2004 Federal election, he ran as a candidate in the Senate on a Don’t Vote campaign, urging people to vote informally to show their lack of faith in the system. This time, however, he did issue a How-To-Vote handout although ironically, he has never voted himself though, possibly because as an anarchist, he’s opposed to any form of Government. I was just looking over Toscano’s recommended preferences, and noticed that it was pretty similar to how I actually voted, in pre-poll this week!

This is my favourite sentence in his black and white A4 campaign handout:

‘As we move from a period of relative abundance to scarcity as a consequence of the dominance of the world economy by corporate capitalism an economic system based on the creation of ever increasing profits irrespective of the human, social and environmental costs, the ever increasing consumption of finite resources, increasing population growth and increasing greenhouse gas emissions as a result of human activity, we require radical changes to the way we govern overselves, what we produce, how we produce it, and how we live.’

Toscano wears a T-shirt, has grey straggling hair and a familiar face. He begins by telling us that he’s not here to get our vote, but to stimulate our imagination.

This is his call to action: ‘Real power doesn’t lie in parliament, it lies in the hands of unaccountable corporations. There is not one independent in the Victorian upper house or lower house, let alone a radical independent. I’m asking you to set the cat amongst the pidgeons – elect a radical independent!’

His voice booms, and you get the impression of someone used to firing up the troops at mass rallies and public meetings. He promises us that if elected, he will use his parliamentary power to ‘encourage people to take direct action’ and ‘to bring attention to all those secret deals. Send a message, like the people of Greece, that change is needed. Make the break now!’ he urges.

Here is the accompanying image to Toscano’s slogan ‘Let the cat amongst the pigeons.’ The cat turns out to be a tiger. The slogan scares me a bit.

Stephen Mayne (Anti-gambling crusader): ‘I’m standing for Melbourne to send a message to the Labor party about pokies.’

‘Here comes Mr Smartypants,’ the guy next to me whispers as Mayne walks up to the podium. It turns Mayne has a presence; in fact I’d go so far as to say he’s a bit attractive, mainly because of his energy and bright eyes. Mayne introduced himself as a shareholder activist, and talked about how as councillor at Manningham, he’s improved transparency by requiring disclosure of executive pay and audio of council meetings. It seems Mayne’s certainly made a few enemies on the council, and I wonder whether it’s because he’s a prickly fellow that doesn’t play well with others, or whether he simply ruffles the feathers of those who don’t like being held to account. A bit of both, I suspect.

Mayne explained that he’s standing as a candidate to send a message to Labor their failure to curb pokie addiction, and is giving his preferences to the Greens because they’re the only party that supports $1 maximum bets. The other issue he spoke about was Doncaster Rail. He thinks it needs to be built ahead of the East-West tunnel, although he does believe the East-West tunnel will eventually need to be built.

After the speeches some of my friends went up to question Mayne about his support for the East-West tunnel, pointing out how freeways had continually failed to ease congestion etc etc. Mayne appeared super interested in what my friend was saying – he’s quite the politician. One of my bike-crazy friends asked Mayne what he had done for cycling on Manningham and Mayne admitted that they hadn’t done much. He said that Manningham was the hilliest municipality, and where they had built bike lanes, they weren’t being used. But I wondered if that was more because they didn’t connect up with any other safe routes. Then Mayne started talking about the sheer quantity of sewerage tanks in Manningham. I can’t remember what that was about!

In the middle of our conversation a woman came up with Mayne and handed him a crumpled A4 sheet of paper filled with typing and handwritten edits. ‘I wrote my question down so that you could read it. It’s quite complicated,’ she explained. She was happy to hand it over and walk off, but Mayne insisted on getting her email address.


4 Comments

Filed under politics, Uncategorized

Melbourne by-election – meet Jen Kanis, David Collyer

This the second part of a report about the Melbourne by-election, Meet the Candidates forum run by Carlton Residents Association on 9 July. See here for part 1 and here for part 3.

Jennifer Kanis – ‘I’m a candidate because Victoria has bad government and what we need is a good government.’

Kanis is the Labor candidate, and her campaign so far seems to have focused attacking the Baillieu Government as a ‘bad government’, and promising to reverse its decisions on TAFE cuts and cuts to public housing.  More recently, Victorian Labor leader Daniel Andrews and Federal Labor have attacked the Greens as policy purists and irresponsible economic managers, incapable of governing. None of Labor’s criticisms of the Greens relate to issues local to the Melbourne electorate. None of the criticisms have been levelled directly at Greens candidate Oke. Like Kanis, Oke is well respected in the community so it would look pretty dirty to attack her, so Labor probably calculated that it would be more effective to attack the Greens brand more generally.
If Jennifer Kanis won the Melbourne-by election, the numbers in the lower house of the Victorian parliament would be 43 Labor, 45 Liberals. If Oke won, the numbers would be 42 Labor, 45 Liberals, 1 Green. Either way, the status quo would continue. Things change if dodgy Liberal MP Geoff Shaw, member for Frankston, lost his seat (or if anything else happened to any of the sitting Liberal MPs). This would trigger a by-election in Frankston, which would be a contest between Liberal and Labor. During the by-election, Labor would probably have to say what it would do if it won; that is, whether it would force an election or let the Baillieu government serve out its term. If they say they want to bring down the government and force an election, they should be able to do that, including if Oke has won and she supports them. On the other hand, if they decide to let Baillieu serve out his term, then they (and Oke if she wins) would be able to block legislation that they didn’t like. The question is whether whoever won a second election would be able to serve out a full four year term. If not, it might not be worth having won, given that by the time Shaw loses his seat, if ever, it could be quite close to the next election, particularly as the government would probably pick the longest possible by-election term.

Also, if Oke had won the by-election and Shaw then lost his seat, the numbers would be 43 Labor, 44 Liberals, 1 Green.  Presumably she could possibly exact promises from the Liberals on key Greens priorities, and then support a Liberal government? Given the strong divergence between Baillieu’s Liberal Government and Greens policies, I sense this is unlikely, however, Labor and the Greens seem to be pretty antagonistic as well, and Labor and the Greens didn’t seem to cooperate much during the Bracks/Brumby years.

Anyway, Kanis started her speech by inviting the audience to call her Jen, as her friends do. She then pulled out every trope in the book as she gave us a quick summary of her working class family background, in which success came through honest hard work. Kanis explained that she was the daughter of migrants, and lived in the back of her family’s shop. ‘It wasn’t an easy life, but an honest one.’ She was one of the first children in her family to go to university. She has a 10 month old son: ‘That’s why I’m smudged tonight, I’ve got a bit of baby food on me.’ You’re not talking to me, I thought. The fact that you’re a good mother has absolutely no bearing on my vote. Kanis’s campaign picture also features a picture of her with her baby son, and emphasises her role as a member of a family (Greens candidate Cathy Oke’s campaign picture also shows a picture of her holding a super-cute kid).

As part of the campaign, Labor has come out against the East-West tunnel, however, in expressing their opposition, they have carefully state that it’s Baillieu’s version of the tunnel (‘the tunnel as proposed by the Baillieu government’, and see also here) that they don’t support, with Kanis pointing out that ‘the proposal we have before us is Ted Baillieu’s east-west tunnel’. This suggests that they may still support a version of the East-West tunnel,  possibly the original version that Labor proposed back in 2007. I haven’t had a chance to go deep into this, and would be interested in hearing any ideas people might have about Labor’s plans.

David Collyer – ‘Everyone says the Democrats don’t exist anymore. Well I’m living proof that they do.’

Collyer is standing for the Democrats (see here for info about their policies for Victoria), although not officially as the Democrats are not registered as a political party in Victoria. He  looks like a left-wing school teacher. His three main policies are more money for education (as per the Gonski review), building a rail line to Tullamarine (‘the City is bigger cos we have to get to the airport! What a waste!), and more taxes on mining, land etc.

In his other life, Collyer is the Campaign Manager for Prosper Australia, which advocates the elimination of all taxes and their replacement with a land tax to cover all resources such as land, water, oil, coal and the ‘electromagnetic spectrum’ (?). Prosper Australia is running the Don’t Buy Now: Home Owner’s Strike campaign, which warns prospective home buyers that now is not the time to buy a house, because supply is outstripping demand and the market is failing. The campaign calls for the end to use of land as a speculative commodity, and the abolition of stamp duty and negative gearing with a higher and flatter Land Value tax. But the Democrats’ policies for housing in Victoria don’t seem to go into that level of detail.

More candidates:

Berhan Ahmed, Schorel Hlavka, David Nolte, John Perkins (and general ruminations on Meet the Candidates)

Patrick O’Connell, Joseph Toscano, Stephen Mayne

Still to come: Kate Borland, Adrian Whitehead, Fiona Patten, Maria Bengtsson

4 Comments

Filed under politics, Uncategorized

Melbourne by-election – meet Berhan Ahmed, Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka, David Nolte, John Perkins

I  went to the Meet the Candidates for the seat of Melbourne during the Victorian state election a few years ago and loved it. The audience were locals of all ages, although seemingly mostly middle-class and with a slight overrepresentation of resident group members and Greens voters. Crammed into a small room in the local town hall, people seemed to feed off each other’s energy. When a candidate gave an answer that that tried to dodge the question, the crowd would jeer and yell at them to answer the question (which is not to say that they then did). I thought it was a good reality check for the politician, to be forced to confront the community. On reflection though, politicians are probably exposed to the public in this way quite a lot, and hardened to the ‘feedback’ they receive.

The other great thing about Meet the Candidates is that you get the minor candidates, those who’ve escaped the media spotlight because they’re unlikely to win. Minor candidates are more likely than the main contenders to offer colour and unpredictability, rare qualities in Australian politics, a landscape where even when someone has something new to say, it often feels like they’re just replicating and repackaging old forms. Sure, the minor candidates’  ideas might be crazy, confused, or wildly out of step with community attitudes, but there’s a genuine grievance or inspiration there, and there might be something to learn from it. Why do they throw their hat in the ring when they’ve got no chance of winning?

So I was excited about the Meet the Candidates held for the Melbourne by-election on Monday night.  The by-election’s on 21 July, and it’s happening because well-liked Labor member Bronwyn Pike resigned. The Greens were placed to win the seat back in 2010 but then the Liberals made a decision not to give the Greens their preferences. This time however, the Liberals aren’t running. Their government is struggling anyway so probably didn’t think fielding a candidate in a seat that they were unlikely to win, and in which their vote was only likely to decline, was a good move. This means the election’s become a Greens/Labor contest, and the Victorian Greens are throwing everything at the prospect of winning their first ever lower house seat.

Perhaps it was my mood, but I found the forum a bit dreary. I’m suffering from disillusionment with politics generally; sick of the spin, slogans, T-shirts, pep talks, tribal vibe. The problem is that for too long I laboured under an illusion that some politicians and parties, the Greens for example, might be somehow different from other parties, and now that I’ve taken a step back from politics, I’m starting to see the whole political system as a machine, almost like lego, with the actions of each party dictated by the machine. That’s fuzzily conceptualised, but it’s my best explanation for now. I tried to think of a question I could ask them but all that came to my head was the mundanely aggressive ‘Why do you spin such shit’, which is obviously inappropriate!

Anyway, later, when I recovered my mood and looked back on my notes, I did find a little bit of interest there. So I’ve done a little summary of each of the candidates speeches and some of the questions they asked, which you have to bear in mind is a hopelessly incomplete and subjective account of things, but at least it’s honest. Part 1 is here, but there were 14 out of 17 candidates speaking, so I’ll give you it in instalments.

Berhan Ahmed: ‘I am standing because I want to give back to the community, and not because I want power.’ 

Former Australian of the Year, leader of African Thinktank, came to Australia from Eritrea 25 years ago, made his way from tram and taxi driver to Senior Research Fellow. Ahmed’s previously been a candidate for the Greens but is now standing as an independent because, he says, he wants to represent the welfare of the community rather than being beholden to any political party. That was pretty much his schtick, that he wasn’t doing this out of self interest or political considerations, but genuinely wanted to help the community and represent their diverse views.

In terms of policy, Ahmed talked about safe public transport, less crime, everybody safe walking on the street, opportunity for everyone. But in general, he focused more on his own life story and motivations than policy detail. In general, it was interesting how much each of the candidates did focus on their own story, which was generally about a struggle that marked them as someone who understood the concerns of ordinary people, their subsequent triumph against adversity, their connection to family and contribution to the community at large ‘giving back.’

Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka: ‘I’m a constitutionalist but not a lawyer.’ 

‘I’m a constitutionalist, but not a lawyer.’ An older guy with white hair and a thick Dutch accent. He was wearing a sparkling white T-shirt and a polar jumper, both branded with his name. He’s run as a candidate many times. When I told my friend about him later, he said, ‘Oh, the constitutionalist! Yeah, I met him on the train.’

I’ve been wondering why Schorel-Hlavka chose to define himself as a ‘constitutionalist’, which obviously doesn’t refer to the Australian constitution so doesn’t have a clear meaning, rather than referring to a commonly understood concept like human rights. I think it’s because he wanted to go broader; I get the sense that he’s referring to some kind of inherent moral code so obvious that he thinks everyone should share intuitively, without it having to be articulated, particularly by politicians or bureaucrats. As far as I could tell, his general theme is that the vulnerable are getting exploited, everyone’s getting ripped off, and we need to stand up for our rights. A few days after listening to Schorel-Hlavka I got a letter at work from someone concerned about their high electricity bill, and they said ‘surely this must be unconstitutional.’

In terms of specific policies, Schorel-Hlavka said the state government shouldn’t increase rent about CPI if you’re a pensioner (public housing or private rental I’m not sure), talked about the need to provide shelters at disabled parking spots for when people in wheelchairs are offloading. He spoke most articulately about the need for Dutch-style bike lanes.

His final pitch to us was: ‘What can you achieve on your own? It only take one person in the parliament who can speak up and stand up for your right. Go to council. Are you ripping me off? Are you overcharging me? Be conscious of your right.’ On politicians: ‘Before they elected, they promise everything, but as long as they elected, they unpromise everything!’ Very true.

Anyway, one reason to like the guy is that he has mouse pads for campaign materials.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

David Nolte: ‘Give Labor and the Greens the boot.’ 

A funny guy. He represents himself as the small ‘l’ liberal choice, emphasises his small business experience and compassionate approach. I’m still not clear how dispensing drugs as a pharmacist is an indication of commitment to social justice; perhaps it can be but I need more detail.  I understand Nolte’s a member of the Liberal Party (unconfirmed, so forgive me if I’m wrong), but doesn’t agree with their social policies. He told the crowd he’s opposed to the Nanny State that blocks exotic animals to our zoo and opposed to over-regulation. He also wants to reunify North Carlton with Carlton (a long running campaign of the Carlton Residents Association). *

Other policies Nolte spoke about were a Victorian Training Assistance levy to payroll tax like super; and getting trams and trains to sign solar purchase agreements. He’s actually released quite a lot of policies on the environment, indigenous issues, planning etc – they’re available on his website. I admire Nolte for coming up with so many election policies on such a diverse range of issues, and I liked his earnest solemnity.

One odd thing Nolte did though, is to show us a prospect coloured brick. ‘See this?’ he said. ‘Someone threw this through my window. It says junkies belong in jail. This shows my social justice credentials.’

Nolte didn’t say anything about bikes, but this is a pretty great advertising strategy he’s using. I’m not sure where he’s getting them from, but he appears to have bought this one at least, which my friend and I spotted on Rathdowne Street while riding home. I’m worried that it’s a bit misleading though, as his bike policy is off chops: the key tenants being elevating Bicycle Victoria to QANGO status (I had to google this, it means Quasi-Autonomous-Non-Government Organisation), more bike pump stations and adult bicycle registration.

*It was – guess who – Jeff Kennett who cut North Carlton from the City of Melbourne, separating it from its Carlton bruvvas and forcing it to join the (higher rate paying) City of Yarra. I was reading a bit about the argument for reunification yesterday and it seems to be a mix of a desire of cultural unity of a province that shares a history, a people-power argument for heritage protection, and (at least apparently) a desire to rebalance the political constituency in the City of Melbourne, which currently favours businesses (although that’s probably more because they get to vote twice in the local council elections!). When someone asked a question about North-South Carlton reunification later, it turned out not many other candidates supported it.

John Perkins – ‘There is up to 30 billion misspent in supporting religion.’ 

The Secular Party candidate, and I’m pretty sure he’s run before too. A middle-aged guy with brown hair that like a zealous university professor. His thing is public funding of religion, but also secular values. The main beef he raised in his speech was Commonwealth funding of the chaplaincy program, which I thought was a bit odd given that it’s a state election. He also claimed the Baillieu Government has increased funding to Access Ministries from $200 000 to $500 000, and that the Baillieu Government was defending educational discrimination in VCAT, against the parents of children at religious schools (presumably where either the parent or child was forced to adopt aspects of that religion). Perkins pointed out that at least one primary school in the electorate has religious instruction, and there are publicly funded separate praying rooms for men and women at RMIT. In terms of specific impact on the electorate, this seemed to me to be a bit weak.

Perkins fell down down for me was when someone asked a question about immigration, and he said refugees should be welcomed here, but they need to accept secular values. I took that as a dig at Islam, and an example of where overly zealous atheism can come into conflict with religious harmony and diversity.

Meet other candidates:

Jennifer Kanis (Australian Labor Party), David Collyer (Australian Democrats)

Patrick O’Connell (Socialist Equality Party), Joseph Toscano (anarchist), Stephen Mayne (gambling crusader)

Still to come:

Kate Borland (public housing activist); Adrian Whitehead (environmental campaigner), Fiona Patten (Sex Party); Cathy Oke (Australian Greens); Maria Bengtsson, Australian Christian Party

4 Comments

Filed under politics, Uncategorized

Buff!

The papers all carried photos of the bodyguard whisking Gillard away from angry Aboriginals and professional protesters.* Security must have thought all their Christmases had come at once. All those hours spent twiddling their thumbs, pretending to watch out for psychos while Gillard delivered some shit boring speech about economy acceleration and hardworking Australians. This was their moment to shine. All it took was the word ‘threat’ for them to spring into action. It was like the West Wing.

The bodyguard was buff and hot. He shielded her with his body, like they do in movies. You have to be ready to die for the president, to take a bullet for her. Morning breakfast shows played Whitney Houston’s ‘I Will Always Love You’ over the footage of Gillard being saved. She was so vulnerable that she lost her shoe, just like Cinderella. So visibly frightened.** Tony, of course, could take care of himself.

*Those who weren’t proper black are not, according to Andrew Bolt’s definition, Aboriginal – they are assumed to be ‘professional protesters’.

**Even though minutes beforehand she had seemed cool as anything about the protest, even playing the statesman in front of Channel 9 by getting them to save Tony Abbott. It couldn’t possibly have been the security guards’ over-the-top manhandling that disturbed her, or made her perceive the situation as more threatening than it was?

2 Comments

Filed under feminism, politics, Uncategorized

Like a tractor

Just now the ALP voted to change their platform to support gay marriage. This is good. But they also voted for a conscience vote, which is probably bad, because any gay marriage law is unlikely to get enough votes to pass.

We heard this politician called Polley whom I’ve never heard of before standing up there to say it was hard for people like her to stand up and, ‘as a minority’, argue against ALP support of gay marriage. Similarly, Deborah O’Neill, also previously unknown to me, suggested, sounding like an annoying 1st year arts student, that the gay marriage supporters were conducting some kind of smear campaign based on construing anti gay marriage people’s ‘other-ness’. That these politicians felt, as opponents of marriage equality, that they were somehow a persecuted minority is obscenely ironic. But obviously not the kind of parallels and links between concepts that their minds draw easily. Oops but look, now I’m at it too: construing them as ‘other’.

It’s all so depressing, not just because opposition to gay marriage hurts gay people but because in most cases it probably reflects an inability to imagine what it would actually be like to be gay and have your own government refuse to acknowledge that you’re ‘normal’.

A lack of imagination, and the closely related inability to understand or acknowledge nuance, is what makes politicians and politics so boring. On message on message on message, driving their message home in the same predictable way, like a tractor.

They think that’s what people want, the certainty and predictability. Maybe they’re right. Just repeat the words ‘Make History Melbourne’ (Greens) or ‘Victorian families’ (Labor) or ‘environmental vandal’ (Greens) or ‘bad tax’ (Liberal) and the voters will roll over and show you their bellies, the logic goes.

I’ve just been reading this, another David Foster Wallace gem from Up, Simba, an essay in Consider The Lobster.

‘It’s hard to get good answers as to why Young Voters are so uninterested in politics. This is probably because it’s next to impossible to get someone to think hard about why he’s not interested in something. The boredom itself preempts inquiry; the fact of the feeling’s enough. Surely one reason, though, is that…cool, interesting alive people are not drawn to the political process. Think back to the sort of kids in highschool who were into running for student office: dweeby, overgroomed, obsequious to authority, ambitious in a sad way. Eager to play the Game…In fact, the likeliest reason that many of us care so little about politics is because modern politicians make us sad, hurt us deep down in ways that are hard to name, much less talk about.’*

*1) I was a prefect at school, and occasionally suffer from being ambitious in a sad way 2) I do know some nice politicians who don’t hurt me deep down in ways that are hard to name*

5 Comments

Filed under books, dangers and annoyances, politics

When I invite 500,000 people to my backyard for a party

Strolling through the city this morning, I came across mayor Robert Doyle in a necklace of gaudy gold medallions,* speaking to a handful of reporters outside the town hall. Particularly after the Occupy Melbourne shmozzle, I’m generally curious about Doyle, so stayed to watch.

He was announcing a 2.6 million dollar New Years extravaganza for Melbourne. The theme was gold. ‘It’ll rain down with gold. We’ll be encouraging Melburnians to wear gold. If you’ve got a gold lurex suit, by all means wear it,’ he said with cameraderial jolly.

The journos appeared unmoved. ‘What do you mean exactly when you say it will rain with gold,’ a stony faced young woman asked flatly, either ultra-sarcastic or extremely bored. I laughed, and she gave me a pained smile.

I blanked out for a second as Doyle started explaining the firework, vaguely, to avoid ruining the surprise. On the way to a cycling advocacy meeting, my head was filled with bikes, and I wondered what spending 2.6 million on city bike lanes would do.

(I’m comparing apples and oranges though, and being a bit wowerish. Public celebrations are important for our mental health and sense of community, and probably should be funded by the state. And gold lurex suits are awesome.)

The reporter had more egalitarian concerns: the battlers, of course. She asked Doyle if he thought spending 2.6 million dollars on a party was insulting to Australians struggling to make ends meet. It struck me that this one could be in any reporter’s template list of questions, ready to be whipped out at any time.

Doyle reminded her that the council actually does heaps for disadvantaged people (which is probably true). Plus, while the focus is often on the cost of fireworks, most of the money is spent on keeping night-time revellers safe (who could disagree with that?).

‘When I invite 500,000 people to a party in my backyard, I want to make sure they’re safe,’ he said. It’s not your backyard, I thought, but whatever.

As the conversation paused, a woman with a face of tough life, and pink highlights in her hair, stood behind Doyle and started addressing the cameras. ‘No war, no famine, no floods, no droughts, no homelessness, no tablets, no drugs…’ she said in a strong, clear voice.

It was like a poem. She went on for about a minute and it got awkward. Doyle’s burly offside moved to stand in front of her, but then did nothing, as if he intended to lay down the law but then realised he’d better not.

‘When New Years comes, I’m going to release my NO POLICY,’ she concluded before trouncing off to the other side of the road. Given that she was on topic, she must have been listening to the press conference the whole time, but I hadn’t seen her anywhere.

Doyle smiled at the reporters with amused relief, trying to share the moment with them. ‘How about no interruptions?’ he quipped, which seemed to reflect his general attitude to unseemly public disruptions.

The young reporter remained unimpressed. ‘Can we get on with it?’ she said.

*I was later informed this may have been his official mayoral necklace?

1 Comment

Filed under melbourne city, politics, Uncategorized

After all, this is not an academic exercise

What makes music boring? 

Fleet Foxes, the National, Bon Iver, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah: my friends really rate these bands, but I’m a bit meh about them. In What Makes Music Boring, Steven Hyden notes that describing a piece of music is boring doesn’t refer to its inherent characteristics, but simply means that it didn’t resonate with us. When Hyder thinks a piece of music that other people like is boring, his main feeling is disappointment, rather than superiority because he’s more discerning or has higher tastes.

Non-fiction writers, particularly reviewers and journalists, tend to frame their critique around a piece’s supposedly objective qualities. It’s true that expressions like ‘I feel’ ‘I think’ ‘It seems to me’ ‘I guess that’ can be tiresomely repetitive, and come across as self absorbed. Representing things as personal opinion/experience, rather than fact, could also be perceived as undermining the reviewer’s authoritativeness: i.e. why don’t they just back themselves by making a judgement?

In my view, non-fiction writing that takes a experiential, subjective approach is more meaningful. Debate and analysis of facts has its place, but is ultimately limited given that things don’t exist independently of how they’re experienced. I find writing most interesting when the author interrogates their own experiences openly, as well as imagining how others in the story might be feeling.

How did they conceive of the issues they protested about?

Media coverage of the pay dispute between Victorian nurses and the government has so far been limited to recounting the history of the dispute and outlining the competing positions of both sides, with a little analysis. I appreciate that journalists probably don’t have the time or inclination to do a Tom Wolfe or Joan Didion for a state industrial dispute. But in addition to the recounting of facts and arguments, it would be interesting to find out more about the underlying ideological frameworks, perceptions, and experiences of the various participants in the conflict.

It’s a fight of sorts, so the parties in dispute take diametrically opposed positions and argue over the facts. The structure of the situation means that they’re not interested in exploring ambiguities (although perhaps they do need to consider them in anticipation of an eventual compromise). But how do you get the truth when neither of the sides have any motivation to find the murky truth that exists in between their polarised positions?

It’s my experience that being politically active, either party-political or issues-based, makes it easy to jump on a bandwagon. Sometimes you need to. As an advocate, lobbyist, or a decision-maker representing one side of a conflict, spending too much time pondering the grey areas can do your head in.

My instinct is to sympathise with the nurses. The government (simplified version) wants to reduce nurse numbers, replace nurses with ‘lower-skilled’* assistants, and reduce nurse-patient ratios, in order to save money. I’m not sure whether the money saved will be thrown back into the health system. It kind of sounds like a bad idea, doesn’t it? If something sounds like a bad idea, and you don’t have the time to find out the facts, is it fair enough to assume it’s a bad idea?

But surely there are certain tasks, like cleaning, wiping up, etc, that could be done by other workers that haven’t gone through nurse training, and hence are paid less. And is it necessary to have a completely inflexible nurse-patient ratio; are there absolutely no settings where numbers could be reduced?

I really do hate the word ‘efficiently’, I feel like it probably represents an ideology that don’t agree with. But if you’re the government, and you have a certain amount of taxpayers money to spend, don’t you have a responsibility to make sure money’s not being wasted?

There are a few problems with the government’s position though. What are they doing with the money they save? Will it be thrown back into the health system, where the funds are desperately needed? (Sorry if there’s an obvious answer to this that I don’t know, but I’ll bet there’s not). And how will the added ‘flexibility’ by implemented in practice? Given the shonky ways things are often done, it seems inevitable that corners will be cut, and patients’ care compromised. Maybe it’s better to have inflexible rules when it comes to heathcare, even it does mean that the government’s not saving every possible penny.

A friend told me he overhead a conversation between a young nurse and an old nurse on the tram yesterday. You could tell by looking at them that they were really nice people, he said. One of the nurses saw the other wearing a red shirt and then asked if she was going to the protest, and pulled out her own red shirt from her bag, taking it out of its wrapper.

He found the subsequent conversation disappointing. His description of it was something like: Old nurse: Are you going to the protest? Young nurse: Yes. Old nurse: hopefully a lot of people will be there. Young nurse: Yes… and on like this, in a kind of repetitive way. He’d been hoping to hear some discussion about the issues and their perspective on them.

Now it’s not like these guys exist for the purpose of holding ‘interesting conversations’ to appease bored commuters. But this story interested me, becuase when I was at the protest yesterday, I was wondering how many of protesters had formed their views by reflecting upon the issues in light of their own healthcare experiences, and weighing up all perspectives. Or was it more about banding together, doing it for the team?

I always get caught up in protests; they have a grand narrative feeling, giving me the sense that you’re immersed in a reality larger than yourself. I feel like there’s a war and I’m on the right side; a problematic feeling, I think. This one had a wholesome, celebratory feel. The music was perfectly rousing – they were playing ‘I see Red’ – and the protesters reminded me of a lovely, usually political dispassionate mum or aunty who’s been stirred into action on this one occasion by the absolute worthiness of a cause.

Looking at them, I wondered how they conceived of the issues they were protesting about. Were they really passionate about healthcare, with well-worked out reasons why they didn’t agree with any reduction in the ratios? Were they just there to support their mates? Did they have a well-founded feeling, borne of their experience, that actual implementation of the so-called ‘flexibility’ provisions would result in a reduction of health standards?

One thing I found a bit disingenous was that the speakers kept saying this was not about pay, it was about nurse-patient ratios, which was met by loud cheers from the crowd. But if you look at the Australian Nursing Federation’s log of claims, an 18.5% pay increase is first on their list. Conditions are obviously vitally important too, for both patient and nurse welfare, but perhaps it would have been more honest to say that this is not just about pay.

I understand that the issue of respect and resourcing for nurses is intrinsically linked to their willingness, ability, and capacity to do their job properly, which of course affects patient welfare. And I’m not doubting the commitment of nurses, but I do wonder how many would protest if the issue was purely about patient welfare. Perhaps that’s an irrelevant and not entirely helpful question given that nurse and patient welfare will always be interdependent.

*I’m not totally convinced about calling them ‘lower-skilled’, which implies a hierarchy of professional worth. I guess ‘lower-skilled’ could, in this context, mean something that is easier to learn, i.e. it takes less training? But in many contexts, it seems like ‘lower-skilled’ is used as a lazy synonym for ‘paid less.’

4 Comments

Filed under existential qs, politics, protest, Uncategorized

In Iran, looking for…something

A slightly navel gazing but possibly interesting reflection on a trip to Iran (in 2004). 

Iran made me realise that oppression isn’t always cataclysmic or dramatic. On a day-to-day level, it’s tedious and stifling. Iran looks normal and modern in some ways. In the cities, you can go out dinner with your friends at a nice restaurant, wearing excessive makeup and dressed to the nines (perhaps with your headscarf pushed back as far as possible and rebellious three-quarter pants), discussing poetry and art. But you always have to keep the rules at the back of your mind. Even the most routine activities frequently require a consideration of how the rules might apply, and a weighing up exercise about whether to break them, as Iranians often do. And you regularly see pyjama-suited mullahs and religious police roaming the streets, presumably with little else to do but get people in trouble. What an eyesore.

More ephemerally, I think there’s a general psychological weight to living under an oppressive dictatorship, a heaviness of mind. Iranians seemed depressed, although this may be an unreliable impression, as I was only there for a month. Previously, without giving it much thought, I’d assumed that as we are all subjected to some kind of constraints, whether social or legal, unless people (or their friends) are being physically targeted, their happiness level will naturally adjust to their circumstances. But of course, there are degrees of constraint. Most Iranians have friends or family that have suffered at the hands of the regime, either now or in the past, and they live under a real threat of state-based violence.

I visited Iran overland from China and Pakistan when I was 21. At that age, I welcomed experiences that were strange, confronting, even unpleasant, as a necessary step on my journey towards enlightenment and becoming an ‘interesting’ person. So yes, there was an element of wanting to make myself feel shiny by traveling to extreme places, but also a genuine search for understanding. It’s worth asking whether visiting developing countries was the only way to achieve this, but I definitely learned things on that trip that I now carry with me every day.

In this novelty-seeking state of mind, I was initially fascinated by what it would be like to live in a theocratic dictatorship. But I quickly got tired of having to observe the many rules about what you can wear, do, say. I remember small things, like falling asleep on a bus sleep, becoming aware that my hijab was slipping off and that people were staring at my hair, and having to wake up to readjust it. Or getting hungry during Ramadan while out walking with a friend, and the only solution being to get in a taxi, duck down, and scoff two oranges in quick succession. Of course, I was in Iran by choice, so these were only trivialities to me, but they were wearing nonetheless.

In Pakistan, the rules were stricter, yet they didn’t feel as oppressive, perhaps because they were socially rather than legally enforced. I spent time in both countries during Ramadan. In Iran, I saw people walking along scoffing bits of bread in their mouth, or having a sneaky cigarette in a dark corner. I never saw anything like that in Pakistan. I’d also wear the hijab there, but only in really conservative areas. One time in Pakistan I was in a marvellously character-filled, but definitely rough, old bazaar in Peshawar and a man came up to me and said, ‘Put your headscarf back on, they might kill you,’ gesturing at the market crowd.  I’m think he was pulling the piss but I couldn’t be sure.

Most Iranians I visited would take their hijabs off as soon as they entered the house. But toward the end of my trip I was visiting my Swedish–Iranian friend Bahrum’s family (more about him in a minute), and when I went to whip it off before going into their house, he said, ‘Hang on, don’t assume.’ He suggested it would be more polite if I entered the house wearing it, and then he could gauge his family’s reaction to me taking it off.

Most of the Iranians I spoke to were critical of the theocratic dictatorship, expressing visceral hatred of mullahs and a sometimes enthusiastic, sometimes qualified, appreciation for the West – I was surprised they talked about politics so openly. Nobody said they wanted a revolution, though – after all, they’d had already one, with high hopes, and look where that ended up. Some Iranians even suggested to me that America should bomb their country, which seems like a terrible idea. Only one person I spoke to was supportive of the regime. Of course, there’s an in-built bias to this story, in that the pro-Western Iranians were probably more likely to speak to foreigners (and perhaps, to speak English?).

What most captivated me about Iran was the sense of poetry and mysticism embodied in its language, poetry, architecture and cinema. Persian is a very lyrical language, and not dissimilar to French. Not being able to speak Persian meant I couldn’t get a full sense of Iran’s cultural traditions, but I liked the vibe I got: transcendant, mystical Persian poetry; realist, highly allegorical New Wave cinema; Zoroastrian fire traditions; elaborate mosaics; and elaborate paintings on the ceilings of buildings of Persians drinking wine and generally being sumptuous. A lot of these traditions dated back to pre-Islamic times, and when I asked Persians about their culture, they’d often remind me that they weren’t always Islamic, as if they were saying ‘This is what we’re really like.’

The architecture took my breath away: beautiful gardens, graceful lines, tranquil spaces, perfectly placed bodies of water.


I recently visited the Taj Mahal in India, a melancholy, moving piece of architecture. I wasn’t surprised when I found out it was built by an Iranian architect.

Iranians may live under a crude, unmannered regime, but most of the people I met were educated, cultured, and sophisticated. Public appearances are important. People are very polite, and put a lot of effort into their external appearances. For the girls, this can mean plastered makeup and in Tehran, plastic marked by little plastic bandages over their noses. Bahrum commented to me, somewhat bitterly, that Iranians have two faces.

There’s a word for Iranian politeness ­– taarof ­– and one aspect of this is that if someone offers you something, you usually decline it once, even twice, before taking it. But people were so generous to me: they’d almost always offer the third time. This hospitality extended to asking me to stay with them, and I did, quite a few times.

Looking back on that, I don’t understand how I was so trusting, but it never worked out badly. The worst thing that happened was that I felt a bit claustrophobically cosseted. Like, for example, I’d sniff and then next minute there’d be a tissue in my hand. And I’d be discouraged from going for walks by myself: your hosts would always send someone with you, or make it a bit of an event.

Once I arrived at a dodgy bus station late at night by mistake; I’d meant to go to Tehran and I ended up in Karaj instead (a nearby city, but now becoming like an outer suburb of Tehran).  There were all these seedy men whom it seemed (to me) were circling like sharks. I was over-tired and paranoid, and didn’t feel like I could even trust the transport operators. Then this beautiful young girl came up to me and asked me the polite Persian equivalent of ‘What the fuck are you doing here by yourself?’ I subsequently romanticised the experience in a group email:

‘I was surrounded by several shady unshaven men who I was trying to ask where a hotel was but they didn’t speak any English. Then alighted an angel, with a beautiful moony face shimmering out of her chador, and big black eyes, she said ‘come’ and I followed blindly. She took me out to her car where sat her kind-faced father and her big brother bouncing her baby brother on his lap. I stayed with that family for two nights and got the treatment of a queen, which I submitted to with grateful infantile surrender.’

Viewing through this wide-eyed idealised prism definitely meant that I missed some of the texture and detail of experiences. At the same time, staying with that family was a pretty idyllic experience, as far as idylls go. It was just like staying with family friends anywhere in the world. When we got home, the girl’s mum was cooking dinner, a kind of Iranian spaghetti. She couldn’t speak English, but as she was serving up the dinner she launched into the song ‘Happy Birthday,’ giggling.

The girl was really kind to me but without making me feel like a freak. Her English wasn’t great, but it was somehow really easy to talk to her – I felt like we could have been friends at school. We watched the news with her Dad, who when the Ayatollah came onto the screen, turned to me and said in a winking, conspiratorial way, ‘Shayturn, Shayturn’. The Persian equivalent of Satan.

As they were driving me to the bus station, they gave me a present. I felt a bit bad, because after all the hospitality they’d shown me, it should have been the other way around, although I don’t think they would have let me venture off by myself to go gift shopping for them. A similar thing had happened to me in Pakistan –  I think it’s just extreme Muslim hospitality.

It felt like people were nicer in Iran and Pakistan than anywhere else. I remember saying to Bahrum, ‘People in Pakistan and Iran are so nice!’ He replied, throwing up his hands, ‘Everyone everywhere’s nice!’

I first saw Bahrum walking down the stairs at a backpackers in Isfahan. They had an old school backpackers there, probably a relic from the hippy trail days, and male and female travelers could stay in the same dorm (how that slipped through the moral police’s net, I’ll never know).

I liked Bahrum as soon as I saw him: long dark hair in a ponytail, skinny with spider legs, blackish eyes and a craggy, friendly face. I couldn’t quite place him: he looked Iranian and spoke Persian, but no Iranians had long hair, and he dressed like Westerner. The Iranians generally didn’t know what to make of it either – they couldn’t tell if he was foreigner or Iranian, and at one hotel, they thought he was a Sufi dervish.

Bahrum’s story was that he was involved in the Islamic revolution in the 1980s, as a Communist. When it all went wrong he caught a boat to Dubai with only a few dollars to his name. He was 21. He then fled to Sweden as a refugee, spending the next twenty years there. So he’d spent about 20 years in Iran, and 20 in Sweden. He didn’t feel fully a part of either culture, and tended to complain about both.

Bahrum was now 43, and this was his first visit back to Iran, to visit his family.  After staying with them for a while, he felt a claustrophobic, so went to stay at this backpackers in Isfahan he’d heard about, presumably for a bit of foreign company, and maybe as a way to meet girls, too.  Now I don’t know whether the whole story was true, and I’m not even sure why I question it – everything that happened seemed fairly consistent with it.

Here’s how I romanticised Bahrum in my group email:

Bahrum is a decidedly crazy man living in a perpetual state of cultural homesickness that he is not afraid to complain about. He told me jokes and disconnected stories which I struggled to understand and wouldn’t let me pay for anything [this is pretty typical Iranian hospitality] I can say his smile would light the hearths of half the people of Iran (God knows they need it). ’

At that stage I was starting to think I believed in God too, in a religiously polygamous kind of way. To an extent, this tendency stemmed from a simplistic conclusion I’d drawn from positive experiences in Pakistan and Iran, i.e. ‘religious faith makes people honest and kind.’ I also had a desire to transcend the material specificities of things, the arbitrary constraints of language and intellectual frameworks, and gain a higher understanding.

I was influenced by Bahrum too, who’d give thanks to God all the time but wasn’t religious. One night we were walking stoned around the riverbanks of Isfahan once and I asked him if he was a Muslim. He threw his hands up and said, ‘I love God!’

What I now somewhat disparagingly call my ‘spiritual stage’ continued when I got back to Perth, and involved diverse activities like reading books on every type of religion, but particularly Sufism and Buddhism; sleeping on a yoga mat and never buying anything; and discreetly clasping my hands together in silent prayer whenever something good happened to me, thinking that such gratitude would bring positive karma. It was a bit cheesy, but I’m also slightly sad that stage is over.

Bahrum and I spent about three days just walking around Isfahan, mostly on the riverbanks and bridges. It was a dreamy, poetic time, aided by the amount of ganja we smoked as we were walking around, out of a coke can bong. Of course, I romanticised it in my group email:

‘We spent three days just walking, and smoking, and talking, and talking, amidst Isfahan’s beautiful, waiting lights.’

When I refer to Isfahan as ‘waiting’, I think meant ‘waiting for democracy.’ Which sounds a bit trite, but Isfahan had a beautiful sense of possibility, and I did wonder what it would be like under a democratic government.

Isfahan’s stone bridges were filled with quaint, beautiful teahouses. You could sit in the arced window of the bridge drinking tea, smoking nargile, and looking out at the water. Boys and girls would sit together in an obviously intimate kind of way, presumably on illicit dates. I guess the teahouse owners just turned a blind eye to it. I heard that the government shut down some of those tea houses a few years ago, purportedly for anti-smoking reasons, but more likely for social control.

Walking around the river, you’d catch young guys playing guitar and smoking pot in shadowy corners of the bridge. At night, the teahouse windows became burnt orange orbs shining onto black water. I remember Bahrum and I talking about music while staring at the water. He said he didn’t generally like music that much (this seemed insane to me) but Pink Floyd were the exception. ‘How good would it be if Pink Floyd stood played on the water there,’ he said. ‘Yeah, that’d be really nice.’

Bahrum and I decided to travel around Iran together in this green van he’d bought. But then his father got sick, and he needed to go home. He told me it would only be a few days, so I flew (very cheaply) home to Shiraz with him, staying with his family on the farm for a while, and then in a hotel in Shiraz. Bahrum kept saying, trying to convince himself as well I think, that we’d soon drive away in his van and start our travels.

Then his Dad died, and I had to leave. I caught a 24 hour bus to Tabriz. As soon as I got on the bus, I started crying, convincing myself that I’d been in love with Bahrum, although it’s also possible I was just tired and lonely. Later on, I convinced myself that I regretted nothing ever happening with Bahrum. It could have, but I didn’t want it at the time.

He’d never made a move on me, but he did made some suggestive comments, after which I told him that the age difference was too great. ‘I know this well,’ he said, as if he never expected anything at all. And I remember looking at him thinking he was just too physically old. It’s easy to regret things in retrospect, and I think my infatuation with Bahrum was probably highly contextual and conceptual. My do-nothing instincts were probably right.

The bus trip to Tabriz was the worst of my life. The bus driver was being very kind to me, offering me tea, a blanket, a pillow, and some kind of tablet. I only drank a little bit of the tea, because it was already 1.00 am in the morning and I didn’t want the caffeine to wake me up. I didn’t take the table though, not knowing what it was.  The driver let me sit in the back of the bus where there was a bed. I went to sleep.

When I woke up, we were at the bus station and the bus had stopped. The driver was leaning over me and pressing on my shoulders quite hard. I remember being pretty sure he was going to start trying to have sex with me, although it’s possible he could have just being trying to wake me up. I tried to wake up, but couldn’t break out of my sleep, which is really unusual for me. Eventually I did though, screaming, pushing him back, and running off the bus. He didn’t try to take it any further.

I didn’t think about this at the time, but later I wondered whether he might have put a date rape drug in the tea. It wasn’t the first time I had troubles with men in Iran. Most were kind, helpful, and gentlemanly, but some would follow me in parks, shopkeepers would try to feel me up, and at one hotel in Shiraz, one of the hotel guys kept trying the door of my room at night. The cost of sexual repression, perhaps, combined with outdated cultural attitudes toward women, and the standard sexual harassment experienced by a solo female traveller.

Somewhat annoyingly, many of the other female travelers I met didn’t have any problems at all, which slightly made me feel like it was my fault (was it what I was wearing, my lack of discreetness, my red hair?) although I did later hear of one solo traveler being raped in Iran (as could happen anywhere).

My obsession with Iran continued when I got home, and involved watching as many Iranian movies, translating Persian poems as I could, and even taking Farsi lessons. It also involved getting an Iranian boyfriend refugee boyfriend who, despite being was warm and kind, spoke little English and was fairly chauvinistic: i.e. he’d pay for everything and might have lend me his jacket if I was cold, but would also beseech me to brush my air, and once, slightly ridiculously, offered to pay for a breast enlargement. We had little in common.

Before this short-lived relationship ended, I asked the Iranian boyfriend to help me my friend Bahrum in Iran. Surprisingly, Bahrum picked up the phone. He was now married and had taken over his father’s farm. He invited me to visit him and his wife. ‘I can really show you around now, you can help us on the farm, we can all travel around together.’ A nice thought, although I don’t think it will happen.

Leave a Comment

Filed under politics, the middle east, travel, Uncategorized