Harper Skip AIDs Conference

[jdobbin]

There is a strong feeling in Africa among the people as well including senior officials in places like South Africa that condom use is not necessary. Some of this is because they debate how AIDs has come about. Many don't believe HIV eventually leads to AIDs.

[watching&waiting]

Aids is a deadly disease that spreads quite readily thru a promiscuious population, or that was the aids of yesterday. By now most know of the dangers and the costs that this disease will cause and still many do nothing to defend themselves against getting the disease. I see nothing about aids that should make it a political animal, and unless PM Harper is a disease specialist, then I can see nothing that his presence there would have other then celebrity status, and with all the celebrities that are donating to this disease there is no pressing need for Harper to be there.

Back in the beginning when people got HIV thru blood transfussions and other innocent ways, I would say that it was up to the government to try and resolve the system to stop this disease from spreading. Yes I sympathize with those who caught it through their own stupidity, but I also do the same for moths to the flame.

It is a shame that the event organisers take this as a snub on their otherwise successful event, but I can not and will not support any thoughts that Harpers presence was a mandatory thing or even a good thing for politics. In fact I think he has the right idea and that is let those who know how to work the limelight work it and those who are awkward in such things stay out of the events. He knows his strengths and that I give credit for. As for the rest, it is just rabble rousing, trying to make more of something that was not there in the first place.

[Charles Anthony]

There is a strong feeling in Africa among the people as well including senior officials in places like South Africa that condom use is not necessary.

Accepted.

Therefore, they should do well to go THERE and hold their waning-career-publicity-stunt --- I mean, conference.

[kimmy]

The bottom line is that as a public policy, who are you going to tell to use condoms? only promiscuous people.

Who better than a social conservative to press the message then.

Uh... just about everybody?

The people who'd benefit most from the kind of advice a social conservative might offer also happen to be the people who could not care less what a social conservative would say.

The overwhelming majority of North American people who have AIDS right now are people who heard that message over and over and rejected it. "Don't have unprotected sex." "Don't be sexually promiscuous." "Don't do needle drugs."

Most people in North America who have AIDS have done at least one of those. Sure, there are people who got it through blood transfusions or were infected during rape or even by incidental contact with blood from an infected person. But in the large majority, it's still promiscuity and needles.

Yeah, I know, nobody deserves a death sentence for a moment of bad judgment. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that, I'm just pointing out that Stephen Harper is the last person these people would listen to anyway.

-k

[Leafless]

Do you know anybody who does NOT know that they should be using condoms????

The Catholic Church?

If that is the only one you know then you proved my point and made your own point redundant.

How about fun loving anal oriented homo sexuals.

They are the primary cause of aids.

[betsy]

Do you know anybody who does NOT know that they should be using condoms????

The Catholic Church?

If that is the only one you know then you proved my point and made your own point redundant.

How about fun loving anal oriented homo sexuals.

They are the primary cause of aids.

Notice how this conference mention "special groups" such as the addicts, the poor....but not a word about gays.

When in fact the recent news, giving a link which I had posted not too long ago somewhere in this forum, reported of a rising AIDS problem among the gay population. The reason? Some-sort of "information fatigue"...which means some gays just deliberately do not use condoms anymore.

If this conference is truly an honest-to-goodness attempt at discussing and eliminating some causes of the problem....they should not mince any words in spelling it right out! Political correctness be damned. Which is more important?

That's why this whole thing is just one big farce.

[Rovik]

C'mon folks...this has nothing to do with the in and outs of AIDS but how potential Conservative voters might be swayed by an appearance (or non-appearance) of Harper at this conference.

Harper's appearance would have been purely symbolic but it may have given the impression that the Conservatives cared for those suffering with AIDS and many people (even those not directly affected by AIDS) would be impressed. This was a golden opportunity for Harper to win over these people, but he missed the opportunity and instead may turn away some of these potential voters away from the Conservatives.

And folks, there is a difference between sending the GG, an appointed position to having the ELECTED leader of Canada attend the conference. I'm sure most people would say that having the PM there would have greater importance than having the GG there.

[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.

Did Clinton use any condoms btw? Considering he was quite a frisky president.

Boy, when he spoke about "never again will women be told by men...blah-blah".....I can't help but think of some women he tried to force into sex or propositioned. I wonder if he said, "don't worry babe. I got this. Tadaaaa! Leak-proof. I will not endanger your health!"

It would've been more believable if he said: My name is Bill Clinton. And I was promiscious.

No kidding, do I really want my PM on-stage with a clown?

[kimmy]

Harper's appearance would have been purely symbolic but it may have given the impression that the Conservatives cared for those suffering with AIDS and many people (even those not directly affected by AIDS) would be impressed. This was a golden opportunity for Harper to win over these people, but he missed the opportunity and instead may turn away some of these potential voters away from the Conservatives.

Ridiculous. Nothing Harper could say or do would "win over these people". Had he made an appearance, it would have been called a shameless, cynical, transparent ploy to appeal to curry support among people he doesn't support at all. Harper could attend a million AIDS conferences and gay parades and wear a red ribbon on his lapel and rainbow colored shoes and visit every drug treatment facility in Canada, and it wouldn't change the fact that these people hate him and will always view him as their enemy.

The gay community and those who are upset at Harper for not attending are blasting him for the same reason he gets blasted for not attending the annual Gay Day Parade in Toronto. Are they mad because they want him to pretend he supports them? No. They're mad because once again he didn't show up in person to give them their proverbial pound of flesh. And they're vocal about it because as political enemies of Stephen Harper, they're using whatever means are available to publicly attack him. I'm sure they probably would have been happier if he'd attended in person because the spectacle of him being booed off stage would have been a much bigger political opportunity to capitalize on than his no-show.

This "controversy" isn't about Harper providing symbolic support, it's about dedicated opponents of Harper using the event to attack him.

-k

[jdobbin]

Did Clinton use any condoms btw? Considering he was quite a frisky president.

Boy, when he spoke about "never again will women be told by men...blah-blah".....I can't help but think of some women he tried to force into sex or propositioned. I wonder if he said, "don't worry babe. I got this. Tadaaaa! Leak-proof. I will not endanger your health!"

It would've been more believable if he said: My name is Bill Clinton. And I was promiscious.

No kidding, do I really want my PM on-stage with a clown?

Why not? He has shared the stage with an alcoholic.

[Shakeyhands]

Harper didn't attend for the same reason that the CPC MP who was scheduled to go visit the Middle East dropped out, don't want to anger their base or the Americans. Simple.

Tory MP pulls out of Tour

[jdobbin]

This "controversy" isn't about Harper providing symbolic support, it's about dedicated opponents of Harper using the event to attack him.

Is that what the 25,000 delegates are? Opponents?

[kimmy]

This "controversy" isn't about Harper providing symbolic support, it's about dedicated opponents of Harper using the event to attack him.

Is that what the 25,000 delegates are? Opponents?

Not all of them, of course. But who's bleating the loudest? Stephen Lewis, who is about as politically as opposite of Harper as you can get. I'm sure that a considerable portion of the 22,000 delegates are gay-community activists and anti-poverty activists who'd proudly identify themselves as Harper's opponents. And I'm sure that a large chunk of the remainder are people whose positions on foreign-aid, pharmaceuticals, and healthcare funding would put them at odds with the CPC or the Liberals anyway.

I really doubt that Harper no-showing cost him any votes among people who'd consider voting for him anyway, and I'm pretty sure that of the people who are worked up over this, none of them ever had any intention of supporting him in any case.

Do you really think I'm wrong, or are you just trying to be melodramatic?

-k

[g_bambino]

C'mon folks...this has nothing to do with the in and outs of AIDS but how potential Conservative voters might be swayed by an appearance (or non-appearance) of Harper at this conference.

Harper's appearance would have been purely symbolic but it may have given the impression that the Conservatives cared for those suffering with AIDS and many people (even those not directly affected by AIDS) would be impressed. This was a golden opportunity for Harper to win over these people, but he missed the opportunity and instead may turn away some of these potential voters away from the Conservatives.

And folks, there is a difference between sending the GG, an appointed position to having the ELECTED leader of Canada attend the conference. I'm sure most people would say that having the PM there would have greater importance than having the GG there.

So, Harper should use an international AIDS conference as a partisan, self-serving political tool? Wouldn't he be criticized roundly by the activists and the media for doing just such a thing? Someone earlier essentially stated that Harper chose the lesser of two evils: show up at the conference and be booed to the point where his speech is useless, and his presence only useful to those against him; or go north to address Artic sovereignty (a platform on which his party was actually elected to power) and be criticized for not attending. I think he made the best choice in the circumstances.

But, speaking of elections, Harper actually wasn't elected to become the "leader of Canada". He was only elected to be representative in the House of Commons for Calgary Southwest, and by members of the Conservative Party to be their leader. In reality, he too was appointed, by the Governor General, actually, to be a member of the Queen's Privy Council, and as the person who commands the confidence of the House, asked by her to form a government. Sure, sure, the GG and Queen are bound by convention to almost always follow his advice, but in matters of precedence, and within international affairs, a head of state sits above a prime minister. Thus, the GG, who is the vice-regal rep. of Canada's head of state, is undoubedly the constitutionally and symbolically more important person. That people would regard the PM as having greater importance than the GG is a sad commentary on the level of knowledge Canadians have about their government.

[jdobbin]

Do you really think I'm wrong, or are you just trying to be melodramatic?

I think Chretien was wrong just as I think Harper was wrong.

I think there were plenty of scientists as well as aid workers who would have welcomed his presence if only to say keep up the good work. There might have been some boo-birds who would have heckled but there also plenty of delegates who are against the theatrics.

Some incredible research is being done by Canadians on AIDs and how some sex workers are repeatedly exposed in Kenya but never infected. Other research is making breakthroughs on the immune system, something that helps us all.

There have been a few posts here about the "gay" disease and personal responsibilty. The discussion about personal responsibility is valid. The idea that this is just a gay disease is not. The infection has spread beyond the gay community in North America.

In Canada, they are teaching abstinence but often keeping condoms out reach of people who need them. That isn't a scientific reponse, that's a political one.

You can't preach responsibility and then keep the tools for that responsibility out of the hands of those that need it.

Harper could have made the case for education. He could have made the case for personal responsibilty.

His absence, however, leaves people wondering what his stand on AIDs is. Does he have a position? Is there something written down for the Conservative policy?

[jdobbin]

So, Harper should use an international AIDS conference as a partisan, self-serving political tool? Wouldn't he be criticized roundly by the activists and the media for doing just such a thing? Someone earlier essentially stated that Harper chose the lesser of two evils: show up at the conference and be booed to the point where his speech is useless, and his presence only useful to those against him; or go north to address Artic sovereignty (a platform on which his party was actually elected to power) and be criticized for not attending. I think he made the best choice in the circumstances.

But, speaking of elections, Harper actually wasn't elected to become the "leader of Canada". He was only elected to be representative in the House of Commons for Calgary Southwest, and by members of the Conservative Party to be their leader. In reality, he too was appointed, by the Governor General, actually, to be a member of the Queen's Privy Council, and as the person who commands the confidence of the House, asked by her to form a government. Sure, sure, the GG and Queen are bound by convention to almost always follow his advice, but in matters of precedence, and within international affairs, a head of state sits above a prime minister. Thus, the GG, who is the vice-regal rep. of Canada's head of state, is undoubedly the constitutionally and symbolically more important person. That people would regard the PM as having greater importance than the GG is a sad commentary on the level of knowledge Canadians have about their government.

Harper was asked to welcome the delegates as Canada's PM, something that he in fact is.

He was also asked to comment on Canada's work on AIDs as well as his thoughts personally on the subject.

The Governor General was asked to attend as well. I don't think she has the right to speak on Harper's personal behalf though unless it was to read remarks from Harper himself.

So, this isn't about a "system of government" thing. It's about getting the Prime Minister of Canada to speak on personal behalf of the government, something that he is eminently qualified to do.

Do you think there was a reason why he didn't want to go?

[g_bambino]

Harper could have made the case for education. He could have made the case for personal responsibilty.

His absence, however, leaves people wondering what his stand on AIDs is. Does he have a position? Is there something written down for the Conservative policy?

Nobody's yet said why Tony Clement couldn't do it. He's a Cabinet Minister, just like Harper, but far more versed in health matters and pandemics - that's why he's Minister of Health. Why is he so unable to present the government position, or speak of policy?

The Governor General was there to open the conference and perform the ceremonial. Clement was there to give more specific and focused words. What possibly could Harper have contributed that wasn't already given?

[g_bambino]

Harper was asked to welcome the delegates as Canada's PM, something that he in fact is.

He was also asked to comment on Canada's work on AIDs as well as his thoughts personally on the subject.

The Governor General was asked to attend as well. I don't think she has the right to speak on Harper's personal behalf though unless it was to read remarks from Harper himself.

So, this isn't about a "system of government" thing. It's about getting the Prime Minister of Canada to speak on personal behalf of the government, something that he is eminently qualified to do.

Do you think there was a reason why he didn't want to go?

And he declined. I've already opined here that he may have decided that the Minister of Health could perform the same task, with better background expertise. I also agree with others who've guessed that this may have been a matter of choosing the least damaging route - being booed off the stage would invariably be more embarrassing, and useless to everyone besides those doing the booing. Not being there drew criticism, but at least he was elsewhere doing his job.

Certainly Harper's regarded as the head of government, but, as I've already asked, what could Harper actually offer that Clement, himself a Cabinet Minister, could, or did not?

The GG did not speak on the PM's behalf, and never would. She, in essence, spoke on behalf on the only person she's appointed to always represent: the Queen.

[jdobbin]

And he declined. I've already opined here that he may have decided that the Minister of Health could perform the same task, with better background expertise. I also agree with others who've guessed that this may have been a matter of choosing the least damaging route - being booed off the stage would invariably be more embarrassing, and useless to everyone besides those doing the booing. Not being there drew criticism, but at least he was elsewhere doing his job.

Certainly Harper's regarded as the head of government, but, as I've already asked, what could Harper actually offer that Clement, himself a Cabinet Minister, could, or did not?

The GG did not speak on the PM's behalf, and never would. She, in essence, spoke on behalf on the only person she's appointed to always represent: the Queen.

The GG has routinely passed on messages from the PM when give those messages. I think the last time I recall it being done was by Clarkson on her visit to Russia. She read a prepared statement.

What Clement couldn't offer was clout. He was there because his porfolio required it. Prime Ministers offer clout when they appear before an issue. I can remember when Mulroney spoke in Montreal. He faced down the boo-birds and presented the government's agenda. A lot of the work that is being presented today started with Mulroney's government.

[jdobbin]

Nobody's yet said why Tony Clement couldn't do it. He's a Cabinet Minister, just like Harper, but far more versed in health matters and pandemics - that's why he's Minister of Health. Why is he so unable to present the government position, or speak of policy?

The Governor General was there to open the conference and perform the ceremonial. Clement was there to give more specific and focused words. What possibly could Harper have contributed that wasn't already given?

I have no idea why he isn't presenting the government's response.

He and other ministers have cancelled two press conferences already.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/15082006/2/nati...ppearances.html

[Leafless]

The idea that this is just a gay disease is not. The infection has spread beyond the gay community in North America.

If gays and bi-sexuals are not responsible for the spread of aids then who is?

The disease spread to the heterosexual community and woman through infected needles and the sorts and direct contact is the result of initial contact with an infected homosexual wouldn't you say?

"Anal intercourse seems to be the most effective method of sexually transmitting HIV infection. This statement is true whether the sexual partners are heterosexual ("straight") or homosexual ("gay").

Anal intercourse involves inserting one person's penis into the anus of another person. From the body's viewpoint, anal intercourse is not a great idea. The anus is biologically designed for the excretion of feces. Evidently, medical disorders can arise from frequent and/or rough anal intercourse.

During anal intercourse, the receptive partner is the partner at greatest risk of catching HIV. The receptive partner is the person whose anus is being penetrated. This high risk for receptive partner exists whether the receptive partner is male or female.

Previously, it was thought that anal intercourse transmitted HIV infection because, during anal intercourse, the penis opened bleeding wounds inside the receptive partner's anus. These bleeding wounds were thought to be the doorway by which HIV directly entered the bloodstream to reach and infect T4-cells.

Now, it appears that the presence of bleeding wounds in the anus is not necessary for HIV transmission to take place. Macrophages are present, roving over the surfaces of the anus. HIV may infect these macrophages directly. Also, HIV is probably able to cross the mucous membrane and enter the tiny blood vessels inside. No damage to the wall of the anus may be necessary for HIV transmission to take place. According to a statistical study, rectal douching after anal intercourse increases the risk of HIV infection."

http://www.aproposinc.com/hap/catch.htm

[Rovik]

Harper's appearance would have been purely symbolic but it may have given the impression that the Conservatives cared for those suffering with AIDS and many people (even those not directly affected by AIDS) would be impressed. This was a golden opportunity for Harper to win over these people, but he missed the opportunity and instead may turn away some of these potential voters away from the Conservatives.

Ridiculous. Nothing Harper could say or do would "win over these people". Had he made an appearance, it would have been called a shameless, cynical, transparent ploy to appeal to curry support among people he doesn't support at all. Harper could attend a million AIDS conferences and gay parades and wear a red ribbon on his lapel and rainbow colored shoes and visit every drug treatment facility in Canada, and it wouldn't change the fact that these people hate him and will always view him as their enemy.

The gay community and those who are upset at Harper for not attending are blasting him for the same reason he gets blasted for not attending the annual Gay Day Parade in Toronto. Are they mad because they want him to pretend he supports them? No. They're mad because once again he didn't show up in person to give them their proverbial pound of flesh. And they're vocal about it because as political enemies of Stephen Harper, they're using whatever means are available to publicly attack him. I'm sure they probably would have been happier if he'd attended in person because the spectacle of him being booed off stage would have been a much bigger political opportunity to capitalize on than his no-show.

This "controversy" isn't about Harper providing symbolic support, it's about dedicated opponents of Harper using the event to attack him.

-k

I'm not talking about people at the conference who won't be swayed in their opposition in all things Harper; I'm talking about average Canadians who don't have extreme views (either way) but are looking for signs of a kinder, gentler Harper (and the Conservatives,) though it would take away some of the ammo his opponents have to throw at him (in this instance they can't say that Harper didn't show up and what that may or may not mean.)

[jdobbin]

If gays and bi-sexuals are not responsible for the spread of aids then who is?

I think your data is out of date.

[Topaz]

Well, first of all, how far along did Harper know this conference was coming up? HE is the PM of Canada and aids is affecting Canadians and this is a world-wide disease and if we know anything about Harper, its he goes were HE wants to! He could have stopped in for a very short time let people know he supports the conference, IF he does, and then gone on to the North. All this is part of being the PM of this country. Sometimes they have do things they don't like doing and go were they don't like going. I suggest to Canadians, don't expect anything his THIS PM and you won't be disappointed.

[jdobbin]

Well, first of all, how far along did Harper know this conference was coming up? HE is the PM of Canada and aids is affecting Canadians and this is a world-wide disease and if we know anything about Harper, its he goes were HE wants to! He could have stopped in for a very short time let people know he supports the conference, IF he does, and then gone on to the North. All this is part of being the PM of this country. Sometimes they have do things they don't like doing and go were they don't like going. I suggest to Canadians, don't expect anything his THIS PM and you won't be disappointed.

He was invited the day he become prime minister.