Harper Skip AIDs Conference

[jdobbin]

That's a different issue. Military matters and foreign policy matters often demand the personal involvement of the highest elected offical?

Including his official photogapher?

[jdobbin]

Maybe when Martin gives his speech,he could explain why he didn't put a cheque in the mail over a year ago,when he was the head waiter.

Harper caring that 3,000 journalist are there......give me a break.

When 20,000 Shriners have their convention in Toronto

does that warrant a speech from the Prime Minister?

And yet he wanted one official photographer to capture the scene of him welcoming home evacuees from Lebanon.

[Canuck E Stan]

And yet he wanted one official photographer to capture the scene of him welcoming home evacuees from Lebanon.

And how many would Martin have had?

One is all you need for the history books.

[jdobbin]

And how many would Martin have had?

One is all you need for the history books.

We're talking about Harper here.

Canada has hosted the conference three times. Mulroney spoke at the one in Montreal as prime minister.

Chretien didn't appear at the one in Vancouver in 1996 and was criticized by the Conservatives. He was attending a fishing vacation on that day and couldn't miss it. Understandably, the Conservatives pounced on that.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Hmmm, so what is your issue with Harper missing this event?

Harper was doing much more than going on a fishing vacation. He was on a trip to promote Canada's claim over Arctic sovereignty. Seems like a pretty good thing to be fighting for.

We're talking about Harper here.

Canada has hosted the conference three times. Mulroney spoke at the one in Montreal as prime minister.

Chretien didn't appear at the one in Vancouver in 1996 and was criticized by the Conservatives. He was attending a fishing vacation on that day and couldn't miss it. Understandably, the Conservatives pounced on that.

[jdobbin]

Hmmm, so what is your issue with Harper missing this event?

Harper was doing much more than going on a fishing vacation. He was on a trip to promote Canada's claim over Arctic sovereignty. Seems like a pretty good thing to be fighting for.

I'm sure the holiday excuse wasn't going to wash this time around. They ensured he would be doing something else even though the conference had invited him the day he became prime minister. I don't think he had the trip to the north booked already on that day.

I think this issue is that it shows Harper is close to Chretien that people think.

[betsy]

This Lewis guy (and a woman scientist) lambasted Harper yesterday on Question Period. On the news this morning, I don't know who this guy was speaking on the podium...but he spent the time lambasting Harper...instead of talking about AIDS.

The Minister of Health was there...which is quite appropriate. I see on the news that movie celebrities had highlighted the conference. Was that Costner I saw briefly from the news clip? So, since Costner and company...and a former US President who was chased from the Oval Office were in attendance...therefore our Prime Minister MUST show up? Anything less than being physically there is not acceptable and deserving of severe dressing down?

THis AIDS Conference is just another vehicle being hijacked and used to castigate the Conservatives, imho....I can't help but think so. Shame. Shame. The hypocrisy and the shallowness never cease to amaze me.

I don't feel any inclination of donating or supporting this endeavor. They showed that they couldn't even put political agendas aside for the sake of charity and quest for cure. I have no wish of supporting liberal or leftist ideals.

Anyway, they've got Bill Gates.

[Charles Anthony]

Is there any particular reason why we should have gone? Like Harper, I don't have the cure for AIDS available just at the moment. I do, however, have really good advice as to how to control aids.

Keep it in your pants.

That's not likely to go over very well with the weepy, hand-wringing set who are all about the "great tragedy" and publicizing it, of course.

In general, you touch upon something that is important: there is no advance in preventive measures and there probably never will. We will never be able to tell people: "Go share needles, forget about condoms, forget about screening blood. It is now safe."

When 25,000 people attend a conference to talk about a disease that does as much damage as this one and your country is the host country, you usually attend.

If Harper showed up he would have been criticized for not donating enough money to the fight against AIDS. Maybe he decided being criticized for not being there was preferable.

I think that is precisely the underlying issue of contention. People want money.

Canada has hosted the conference three times. Mulroney spoke at the one in Montreal as prime minister.

Chretien didn't appear at the one in Vancouver in 1996 and was criticized by the Conservatives. He was attending a fishing vacation on that day and couldn't miss it. Understandably, the Conservatives pounced on that.

Yes, a precedent has been set for appearing at the conference. However, I can also say that demanding A.I.D.S. research ten years ago is not the same as demanding research today. Socially, what more do we need?? The invited guests have nothing to say.

All that we can offer is money for research -- the politics of AIDS is at a standstill. We are past the "gay disease" stereotype.

[jdobbin]

I don't feel any inclination of donating or supporting this endeavor. They showed that they couldn't even put political agendas aside for the sake of charity and quest for cure. I have no wish of supporting liberal or leftist ideals.

Anyway, they've got Bill Gates.

Isn't it conservative ideals in the States that tell people not to use condoms and that won't support family?

[scribblet]

This Lewis guy (and a woman scientist)

THis AIDS Conference is just another vehicle being hijacked and used to castigate the Conservatives, imho....I can't help but think so. Shame. Shame. The hypocrisy and the shallowness never cease to amaze me.

I don't feel any inclination of donating or supporting this endeavor. They showed that they couldn't even put political agendas aside for the sake of charity and quest for cure. I have no wish of supporting liberal or leftist ideals.

Anyway, they've got Bill Gates.

Agreed, it really is being used to simply smear Harper, did Paul Martin attend any aids conferences? Maybe they should hold these things in Africa every year, would be appropriate.

[jdobbin]

In general, you touch upon something that is important: there is no advance in preventive measures and there probably never will. We will never be able to tell people: "Go share needles, forget about condoms, forget about screening blood. It is now safe."

I think that is precisely the underlying issue of contention. People want money.

Yes, a precedent has been set for appearing at the conference. However, I can also say that demanding A.I.D.S. research ten years ago is not the same as demanding research today. Socially, what more do we need?? The invited guests have nothing to say.

All that we can offer is money for research -- the politics of AIDS is at a standstill. We are past the "gay disease" stereotype.

He didn't have to say "Here' my big check."

There are other issues not requiring money that could use a leader bringing attention to them. For example, a mother having AIDs doesn't necessarliy have to pass the disease on to their baby if she gets medical attention. The prime minister could promote condom use and show that despite being a Catholic, he supported this idea as a diseases preventative.

Many of these idea need political support because religious and conservative types are against many provisions of family planning and condom use.

[jdobbin]

Agreed, it really is being used to simply smear Harper, did Paul Martin attend any aids conferences? Maybe they should hold these things in Africa every year, would be appropriate.

The Conservatives smeared Chretien when he didn't attend and went fishing instead. What is the difference this time?

[betsy]

Agreed, it really is being used to simply smear Harper, did Paul Martin attend any aids conferences? Maybe they should hold these things in Africa every year, would be appropriate.

The Conservatives smeared Chretien when he didn't attend and went fishing instead. What is the difference this time?

Harper didn't go fishing...or play golf. He was in Nunavut. He's doing his job!

C'mon, it's not like Harper's presence would miraculously make the cure appear. Does he really have to sit and watch songs and dances...and listen to more pep talks? Don't we know yet that Harper is a less-talk-more-action kinda leader?

Btw, Lewis was also lambasting the Liberals. Apparently there's this generic pill that would've been available at a much lesser price...they even named it after "Chretien". That was three years ago! Where is that pill???

So enough of this posturing...it doesn't wash anymore. Actually, it's getting to be quite sickening.

Supporters are like children....very misled and gullible.

Btw, Lewis seemed to be pushing for the NDP.

[betsy]

There are other issues not requiring money that could use a leader bringing attention to them. For example, a mother having AIDs doesn't necessarliy have to pass the disease on to their baby if she gets medical attention. The prime minister could promote condom use and show that despite being a Catholic, he supported this idea as a diseases preventative.

Many of these idea need political support because religious and conservative types are against many provisions of family planning and condom use.

So what's family planning got to do with AIDS?

Do you know how many leaders in the past had supported and promoted condom use...to prevent teenage and unwanted pregnancy? Have we eliminated that problem?

Let's not cloud the issue here....otherwise I'll end up believing fervently that this AIDS Conference is nothing more than a smokescreen to promote abortion, among other things.

I thought the issue here was that they're near to developing a "vaccine?" That's what the scientist was spouting off on CTV. They're even predicting eliminating AIDS in 2050!

[jdobbin]

Harper didn't go fishing...or play golf. He was in Nunavut. He's doing his job!

C'mon, it's not like Harper's presence would miraculously make the cure appear. Does he really have to sit and watch songs and dances...and listen to more pep talks? Don't we know yet that Harper is a less-talk-more-action kinda leader?

Btw, Lewis was also lambasting the Liberals. Apparently there's this generic pill that would've been available at a much lesser price...they even named it after "Chretien". That was three years ago! Where is that pill???

So enough of this posturing...it doesn't wash anymore. Actually, it's getting to be quite sickening.

Supporters are like children....very misled and gullible.

Btw, Lewis seemed to be pushing for the NDP.

Harper scheduled the visit north so that he wouldn't be seen to be on holidays when the conference was on. Why did the Conservative criticize the Liberals when they didn't send the prime minister to Vancouver? Were there smears misled and gullible?

And it isn't necessarily a cure that they were looking for from his speech but a voice amongst the conservatives to speak up for condom use and family planning.

Lewis is a former NDPer and has been critical of the Canadian AIDs initiative for several years.

[Charles Anthony]

And it isn't necessarily a cure that they were looking for from his speech but a voice amongst the conservatives to speak up for condom use and family planning.

You must be joking?

That is like telling a smoker that they should quit or to never sit on public toilet seats. We do not need to be told that anymore.

[jdobbin]

You must be joking?

That is like telling a smoker that they should quit or to never sit on public toilet seats. We do not need to be told that anymore.

Actually, they are quite serious. They've been saying at the conference that women have been bullied into not using condoms both in Canada and around the world and that more leaders speaking up will help bring change.

You disagree with that?

[Charles Anthony]

They've been saying at the conference that women have been bullied into not using condoms both in Canada and around the world and that more leaders speaking up will help bring change.

Now, I see the distinction that you are making.

What if Harper does not believe in promiscuity? How can you expect him to convincingly talk about condoms?

[Leafless]

You must be joking?

That is like telling a smoker that they should quit or to never sit on public toilet seats. We do not need to be told that anymore.

Actually, they are quite serious. They've been saying at the conference that women have been bullied into not using condoms both in Canada and around the world and that more leaders speaking up will help bring change.

You disagree with that?

I totally disagree with what your saying.

The problem in Africa is RAPE--there were 550,000 reported rapes in 2004 and entitlement to the female body is part of their culture.

I don't blame Mr. Harper in not attending that conference when it is obvious the ONLY answer is COMPULSORY STERILIZATION and significant prison terms for the criminal offense of rape.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&am...15740479C698943

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1909220.stm

[jdobbin]

I totally disagree with what your saying.

The problem in Africa is RAPE--there were 550,000 reported rapes in 2004 and entitlement to the female body is part of their culture.

I don't blame Mr. Harper in not attending that conference when it is obvious the ONLY answer is COMPULSORY STERILIZATION and significant prison terms for the criminal offense of rape.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&am...15740479C698943

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1909220.stm

Actually, I wasn't referring just to Africa. I was referring to other all nations, including Canada.

How many men on on this list have discouraged condom use? According to what they are saying at the conference, the number is pretty high.

[jdobbin]

Now, I see the distinction that you are making.

What if Harper does not believe in promiscuity? How can you expect him to convincingly talk about condoms?

Not all condom use is related to promiscuity. Condoms are used as a birth control. And I have to believe that Harper believes in birth control because I don't see 15 Harper children.

[g_bambino]

I actually thought it was refreshing to see Harper appropriately defer the task of opening the conference to his superior, and send the relevant minister to attend. For once, it seems, we have a PM who doesn't consider himself the centre of the known universe, and thus doesn't feel the need to parade himself in front of every camera he can just to prove it.

If that was the case he wouldn't have shown up in Cyprus with his communications team and official photographer.

It was the prime minister as head of government that was invited to the conference, not just his proxy.

The Governor General was there as head of state.

An interesting point, but I only recall one picture of Harper coming out of the whole Lebanon evacuation affair - with he and his wife standing by the foot of the gangway as people disembarked from the government plane. So, yes, his official photographer was there (I don't recall mention of a communications team), but... why? Where were all the images?

As for the AIDS conference - he may have been invited, but he's probably invited to countless events where people want his presence simply to gain media attention and to lobby him for more money. In this case it seems his staff looked at this not with a view of political gain (ie. regarding this simply as an advantageous photo-shoot, over which other PMs would have drooled uncontrollably), but whether it would be more productive and prudent to send the minister who holds the specific portfolio in which AIDS is covered: Health. That isn't about proxy - as though Harper is actually our expert on health and tells Clement what to do - but says, to me, that expertise and knowledgeable input is more important than self-serving, shallow image making.

Of course, I have no idea what the actual reasons for his non-attendance were, but from what I can gather that's my supposition.

However, regardless of his attendance, people should have quit their bellyaching about the GG being "sent in his place." She is his superior, second in the strata of the Canadian government, and they should have been pleased that it was she, as the representative of the Head of State, who opened the conference.

[g_bambino]

The Minister of Health was there...which is quite appropriate. I see on the news that movie celebrities had highlighted the conference. Was that Costner I saw briefly from the news clip? So, since Costner and company...and a former US President who was chased from the Oval Office were in attendance...therefore our Prime Minister MUST show up? Anything less than being physically there is not acceptable and deserving of severe dressing down?

THis AIDS Conference is just another vehicle being hijacked and used to castigate the Conservatives, imho....I can't help but think so. Shame. Shame. The hypocrisy and the shallowness never cease to amaze me.

It was interesting to see so much time dedicated to criticizing the lack of absence of the PM which could have, and should have, been dedicated to combating AIDS.

It was also interesting to see some of the "tolerant left" jeering and chanting over the Minister of Health while he attempted to represent the government, and speak about AIDS. Were they screeching about lack of action by the government in funding AIDS research, or donating part of the GDP to help fight AIDS internationally? Nope- it was just about Harper. It was rude, immature, and embarrassing.

Shameful that people should use such an event, and a topic, for political games.

[jdobbin]

An interesting point, but I only recall one picture of Harper coming out of the whole Lebanon evacuation affair - with he and his wife standing by the foot of the gangway as people disembarked from the government plane. So, yes, his official photographer was there (I don't recall mention of a communications team), but... why? Where were all the images?

As for the AIDS conference - he may have been invited, but he's probably invited to countless events where people want his presence simply to gain media attention and to lobby him for more money. In this case it seems his staff looked at this not with a view of political gain (ie. regarding this simply as an advantageous photo-shoot, over which other PMs would have drooled uncontrollably), but whether it would be more productive and prudent to send the minister who holds the specific portfolio in which AIDS is covered: Health. That isn't about proxy - as though Harper is actually our expert on health and tells Clement what to do - but says, to me, that expertise and knowledgeable input is more important than self-serving, shallow image making.

Of course, I have no idea what the actual reasons for his non-attendance were, but from what I can gather that's my supposition.

However, regardless of his attendance, people should have quit their bellyaching about the GG being "sent in his place." She is his superior, second in the strata of the Canadian government, and they should have been pleased that it was she, as the representative of the Head of State, who opened the conference.

The link that mentions his communications staff is in this thread. And were it for sitting on the tarmac for an entire day, an embarrasssing thing, we could very well have seen pictures from his official photopgrapher. Why emphasize that he is just sitting around in a plane? And many official photographs often only come out in elections.

The Governor General *and* the prime minister were invited. They were asking Jean to speak on AIDs around the world (possibly because of her ethnic background) and the prime minister to speak on the behalf of the Canadian government.

The health minister was invited to the break out sessions along with his deputies.

[Argus]

All that we can offer is money for research -- the politics of AIDS is at a standstill. We are past the "gay disease" stereotype.

No it's not. The only reason it's got such a high profile, and has all those celebrities interested, is because it's the gay disease.

We spend more on AIDS research than on cancer researcher, even though the latter kills far, far more people.