Harper Skip AIDs Conference

[Leader Circle]

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.

Who here has heard the song by Guns & Roses "Dead Horse"?

Well you guys are beating the shit out of a useless topic.

He was damned either way, if he showed he'd be hassled by the press, if he didn't show, he'd still be hassled by the press!! By missing it, he got to get away from the same old song & dance of U2's Bonehead, I mean Bono, about 0.7 GDP support for aids & Africa and all the other hand out junkies!

As far as the Canadian public, if they can't see what the media does to make Harper look bad, they are idiots anyway. As far as votes from urban centers like TO, he never got any in the last election and he is still against ssm, so he'll never get their support, no great loss there! Besides, they have a used car salesman and a couple of Islam's finest to represent them in the HOC.

[jdobbin]

Well you guys are beating the shit out of a useless topic.

I certainly don't see people here acclaiming his trip to the north.

[Rue]

I will say this. Trying to suggest Harper is not at the Aids conference because he hates gays is b..s. I also think it is b.s. spreading anti-gay slurs that Aids is a homo-sexual disease. Yes anal sex spreads aids. But the fact is in the majority of the world it is spread by hetero-sexuals so back off the gay people on this one.

Now back to the topic. I personally don't think Steven Harper had to be there. The reality is if he shows up he is booed and it turns into a free-for-all over issues regarding gay marriage and AIDS becomes a side show. You ask me by not showing he prevented the AIDS issue from being usurped by the gay marriage issue. More to the point the federal Health Minister is there and this government has pledged 250 million. The Governor General is there. I think its a crock to say the PM must show up simply because Stephen Lewis is there. The fact is if Harper shows up at this conference, he has to go to every conference in regards to cancer, heart disease, liver disease, on and on.

I personally do not think politicians should use such conferences as photo-ops and an opportunity to get votes. It's the Minister of Health's job to be there not the PM's.

Again I think if anything Harper did the right thing by laying low. My only criticism of him is not that he is not there, but that he has remained silent. He should have said something.

I find it interesting when Chretien was a no show there wasn't half the noise.

My favourite though is Jack Layton saying he was shocked Steven Harper wasn't at the conference. Layton is the buggest putz Canadian politics has ever had. His mock self-righteousness is to die for. Anyone who lives in Toronto who has seen him riding his bike in his little spandex shorts knows he is a gay wannabee and has been a gay groupie for years and someone should remind him his opportunism is transparent as it comes, sort of like his spandex bike pants.

[Law and Order Forever]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Lots of people are wondering why.

Tell me,Why does Harper need to show up at all?,all this conference is a giant fundraiser :angry:

[jdobbin]

I will say this. Trying to suggest Harper is not at the Aids conference because he hates gays is b..s. I also think it is b.s. spreading anti-gay slurs that Aids is a homo-sexual disease. Yes anal sex spreads aids. But the fact is in the majority of the world it is spread by hetero-sexuals so back off the gay people on this one.

I find it interesting when Chretien was a no show there wasn't half the noise.

My favourite though is Jack Layton saying he was shocked Steven Harper wasn't at the conference. Layton is the buggest putz Canadian politics has ever had. His mock self-righteousness is to die for. Anyone who lives in Toronto who has seen him riding his bike in his little spandex shorts knows he is a gay wannabee and has been a gay groupie for years and someone should remind him his opportunism is transparent as it comes, sort of like his spandex bike pants.

No was said Harper was anti-gay that I saw here.

There have been some anti-gay posts here but I've chosen to ignore them.

Chretien was thoroughly smacked down for not attending in Vancouver. The Conservatives mentioned several times that he was fishing and said he should have gone. Harper was invited to this event even before he was officially sworn in, possibly to forestall the argument that he was busy.

And after saying that slurs were inappropriate...

I'm no fan of Jack Layton but that is probably over the line.

If the cabinet has Harper's full support, why do they keep cancelling scheduled news conferences? Do they have to go the PMO to have each message gone over?

I keep hearing the reason that he didn't attend was that he was going to be booed. That presumes a lot of the conference attendees. The theatrics have long since disappeared from these meetings.

[jdobbin]

]Tell me,Why does Harper need to show up at all?,all this conference is a giant fundraiser :angry:

Hardly. There are lots of research papers being presented, lots of ideas both political, scientific and social.

People have said that the Health minister is there and he can keep to the issues. But he and others have cancelled their press conferences. Do they have to find out what to say? It's a little unusual. They can't say it has been the hostile crowds. The ministers spoke without incident.

[kimmy]

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 didn't ask if you thought Harper was wrong (I think we have figured out your stance on that issue...) I asked if you thought I was wrong in claiming that among the 22,000 delegates are a large number who detest Harper, and a large number more who oppose his supposed views on health and homosexuality and poverty.

Because, I'm pretty confident that I'm not wrong on that.

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.

And for all this talk of Harper's absence overshadowing the convention, I'm also pretty sure that if he had attended, the reception he'd have received would have overshadowed the convention in an even more dramatic way. Would it have been nice if the Prime Minister had given researchers some well-deserved public recognition? Sure. But we both know that any kind words Harper had for the researchers would have been overlooked because the real headlines would have become the spectacle of the Prime Minister being shouted down by mantastic, Sodomobile-driving activists.

For what it's worth, I think Harper was wrong too. I think he should have gone to the convention, and conducted himself with courtesy and dignity. And when the pink-helmeted warriors with the rainbow t-shirts rushed the stage and dowsed Harper with bellinis or cosmopolitans or whatever it is that they wield instead of pies, I think he should have shrugged it off with his usual self-effacing humor. ("Were those guys in my Cabinet?") And I think that when all was said and done, average Canadians would see again who are the real small-minded extremists.

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?

If one wanted to know where Harper stands on AIDS research, one could look in his federal budget and see. Actions speak louder than words. I'm guessing Harper's finacial commitment to the effort ranks about where other recent PMs have: not nearly enough, in the opinion of medical researchers.

If one wanted to know where Harper stands on AIDS prevention ... well, I think pretty much everybody in Canada knows. Big city newspapers have told him again and again that big city voters don't want to hear about that "values" crap. So what makes this-- a conference attended by thousands of people who by and large hate his guts already-- an opportune time to talk about that stuff? Seems like a rather poor idea.

-k

[jdobbin]

I didn't ask if you thought Harper was wrong (I think we have figured out your stance on that issue...) I asked if you thought I was wrong in claiming that among the 22,000 delegates are a large number who detest Harper, and a large number more who oppose his supposed views on health and homosexuality and poverty.

Because, I'm pretty confident that I'm not wrong on that.

And for all this talk of Harper's absence overshadowing the convention, I'm also pretty sure that if he had attended, the reception he'd have received would have overshadowed the convention in an even more dramatic way. Would it have been nice if the Prime Minister had given researchers some well-deserved public recognition? Sure. But we both know that any kind words Harper had for the researchers would have been overlooked because the real headlines would have become the spectacle of the Prime Minister being shouted down by mantastic, Sodomobile-driving activists.

For what it's worth, I think Harper was wrong too. I think he should have gone to the convention, and conducted himself with courtesy and dignity. And when the pink-helmeted warriors with the rainbow t-shirts rushed the stage and dowsed Harper with bellinis or cosmopolitans or whatever it is that they wield instead of pies, I think he should have shrugged it off with his usual self-effacing humor. ("Were those guys in my Cabinet?") And I think that when all was said and done, average Canadians would see again who are the real small-minded extremists.

If one wanted to know where Harper stands on AIDS research, one could look in his federal budget and see. Actions speak louder than words. I'm guessing Harper's finacial commitment to the effort ranks about where other recent PMs have: not nearly enough, in the opinion of medical researchers.

If one wanted to know where Harper stands on AIDS prevention ... well, I think pretty much everybody in Canada knows. Big city newspapers have told him again and again that big city voters don't want to hear about that "values" crap. So what makes this-- a conference attended by thousands of people who by and large hate his guts already-- an opportune time to talk about that stuff? Seems like a rather poor idea.

There's a lot of people here who presume what the delegates would do. I think the cabinet ministers have been respectfully listened to during this conference. There are lots of delegates who have no idea who Canada's prime minister is and what he stands for because they don't live in Canada.

The truth is that Harper has made assumptions about the delegates with no real proof that he would be the recipient of a riot on stage.

One might assume that he could have faced the same disaffected feeling in the north where there is little patience for ice breakers 5 to 10 years from now when there are so many people in dire need of homes.

People listened to what he said though and then told him politely that if the government wants to assert sovereignty in the north, help with the housing crunch. More Canadians in the north will help more quickly in proving Canada's claim.

[Leafless]

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

I think your data is out of date.

The least you can do is provide a link to back up your claims that HOMOSEXUALS are NOT the ROOT CAUSE and are NOT the main contributor regarding the spread of the killer disease aids.

[jdobbin]

The least you can do is provide a link to back up your claims that HOMOSEXUALS are NOT the ROOT CAUSE and are NOT the main contributor regarding the spread of the killer disease aids.

I just was pointing out that the data was from 1993 and it didn't say that homosexuals were the root cause. Otherwise, I can't find anything that suggests that the root cause of HIV is homosexuality.

[watching&waiting]

The least you can do is provide a link to back up your claims that HOMOSEXUALS are NOT the ROOT CAUSE and are NOT the main contributor regarding the spread of the killer disease aids.

I just was pointing out that the data was from 1993 and it didn't say that homosexuals were the root cause. Otherwise, I can't find anything that suggests that the root cause of HIV is homosexuality.

Actually the first strain of the disease were of a hybrid human/and animal cross. Now I know that many are choping at the bit on that, but as I recall it was noted and then quickly kept quiet. The disease did spread rapidly thru the gay community and then to the public at large. So saying it was a gay disease is only trying to track its transmission to where it has come to today

[jdobbin]

Actually the first strain of the disease were of a hybrid human/and animal cross. Now I know that many are choping at the bit on that, but as I recall it was noted and then quickly kept quiet. The disease did spread rapidly thru the gay community and then to the public at large. So saying it was a gay disease is only trying to track its transmission to where it has come to today

I still can't any data to say that this is a root cause or not. Is there any data of that sort? It doesn't seem like something that could be covered up or played down.

[Leafless]

The least you can do is provide a link to back up your claims that HOMOSEXUALS are NOT the ROOT CAUSE and are NOT the main contributor regarding the spread of the killer disease aids.

I just was pointing out that the data was from 1993 and it didn't say that homosexuals were the root cause. Otherwise, I can't find anything that suggests that the root cause of HIV is homosexuality.

No it didn't say homosexual's are the root cause but it was one of the FEW articles that says anal intercourse is the MOST EFFECVTIVE METHOD OF SEXUALLY TRANMITTING HIV.

Since 100% of male homosexual sexual intercourse involves this "effective method of sexually transmitting HIV" it would relatively safe to suggest that homosexual sex is the main root cause concerning the transmission of HIV to the heterosexual population as well as naturally amongst themselves.

This includes bisexuals when infected are an extreme danger to the heterosexual population.

This is simply to counter your false claim that HIV is not 'ONLY' a 'gay disease' which is totally misleading considering the spread of the disease is attributed to homosexuals and bisexuals.

[jdobbin]

No it didn't say homosexual's are the root cause but it was one of the FEW articles that says anal intercourse is the MOST EFFECVTIVE METHOD OF SEXUALLY TRANMITTING HIV.

Since 100% of male homosexual sexual intercourse involves this "effective method of sexually transmitting HIV" it would relatively safe to suggest that homosexual sex is the main root cause concerning the transmission of HIV to the heterosexual population as well as naturally amongst themselves.

This includes bisexuals when infected are an extreme danger to the heterosexual population.

This is simply to counter your false claim that HIV is not 'ONLY' a 'gay disease' which is totally misleading considering the spread of the disease is attributed to homosexuals and bisexuals.

That data says it is the most effective way to spread the disease but not that it is the predominant way it is spread. I can find no data to support that. Until you show me data to that effect, I think your conclusions are incorrect.

[Argus]

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.

Now, back to planet earth. The people at that conference were his enemies. I doubt there was a conservative voter in the whole building. Most of them are hard-core NDP reactionaries. The moment Harper's name was announced there would have been resounding boos echoing through the rafters and they would not have stopped until he left. That's if he was lucky. There might have been more, like "act-up" rushing the stage again as they tend to do at these things.

Tell just what golden opportunity that would have given him? To look like a patsy?

[Argus]

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

I think your data is out of date.

Nope. The vast majority of AIDS and HIV spreads in North America is and has always been due to unprotected promiscuous sex by homosexuals. Throw in a side-order of intravenous drug users and prostitutes, and you've got about 90% of HIV cases in Canada. Most of the rest can still be traced to one of the above groups.

[Riverwind]

That data says it is the most effective way to spread the disease but not that it is the predominant way it is spread.

I suspect such data would only be collected by people with the desire to smear homosexuals. However, in this case, I do think the data would back his statement. You could prove it by constructing a computer model of an HIV free society that has HIV introduce by a single individual and determining the rate of spread based different factors. You would probably find that the rate of spread increases rapidly as you increase the % of male homosexuals, IV drug users or prostitutes in the society.

That said, once HIV reached the levels of infection like we see in Africa then the predominate form of transmission would be male-female intercourse since that is predominate activity that can lead to the spread of the disease.

[Argus]

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?

Most of them.

[jdobbin]

Most of them.

There is no evidence of that. Most of them don't even know who the Candian prime minister is.

[jdobbin]

Nope. The vast majority of AIDS and HIV spreads in North America is and has always been due to unprotected promiscuous sex by homosexuals. Throw in a side-order of intravenous drug users and prostitutes, and you've got about 90% of HIV cases in Canada. Most of the rest can still be traced to one of the above groups.

I was talking about world-wide stats. But please show your data if you have it.

[jdobbin]

Now, back to planet earth. The people at that conference were his enemies. I doubt there was a conservative voter in the whole building. Most of them are hard-core NDP reactionaries. The moment Harper's name was announced there would have been resounding boos echoing through the rafters and they would not have stopped until he left. That's if he was lucky. There might have been more, like "act-up" rushing the stage again as they tend to do at these things.

Tell just what golden opportunity that would have given him? To look like a patsy?

There wasn't any votes in the North either but he went up there.

You really have no evidence to suggest that he would have been booed off the stage. His cabinet ministers haven't met that fate although they keep cancelling news conferences.

[jdobbin]

I suspect such data would only be collected by people with the desire to smear homosexuals. However, in this case, I do think the data would back his statement. You could prove it by constructing a computer model of an HIV free society that has HIV introduce by a single individual and determining the rate of spread based different factors. You would probably find that the rate of spread increases rapidly as you increase the % of male homosexuals, IV drug users or prostitutes in the society.

That said, once HIV reached the levels of infection like we see in Africa then the predominate form of transmission would be male-female intercourse since that is predominate activity that can lead to the spread of the disease.

I've never seen any data of this at all. Most of the experts say there are different strains of HIV out there, some of them being more effective at infecting some communities than others.

Until I have heard differently, I would have to say it is conjecture. There are certainly lots of anti-gay organizations out there. Have they ever produced a computer model that says this?

[Riverwind]

I've never seen any data of this at all. Most of the experts say there are different strains of HIV out there, some of them being more effective at infecting some communities than others.

Here is some data on the rates of transmission for different kinds of activities: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=pr-r...doc&slide=6

These numbers show that anal sex is 7-10 times more likely to result in HIV transmission than vaginal sex. This huge difference in transmission rate swamps all other factors like the strain of the virus. I postulated that a computer model would demonstrate that societies with larger homosexual populations would experience faster spread of the virus based on these statistics.

An education campaign that focused on eliminating anal sex as a sexual activity would likely have a large effect on the spread of AIDS in a society. Keep in mind that telling homosexuals that they should not have anal sex is not the same as telling them they shouldn't be gay. Many people seem to forget this detail.

[jdobbin]

Here is some data on the rates of transmission for different kinds of activities: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=pr-r...doc&slide=6

These numbers should that anal sex is 7-10 times more likely to result in HIV transmission than vaginal sex. This huge difference in transmission rate swamps all other factors like the strain of the virus. I postulated that a computer model would demonstrate that societies with larger homosexual populations would experience faster spread of the virus based on these statistics.

An education campaign the focused on eliminating anal sex as a sexual activity would likely have a large effect on the spread of AIDS in a society. Keep in mind that telling homosexuals that they should not have anal sex is not the same as telling them they shouldn't be gay. Many people seem to forget this detail.

I can't find any year or country for that graph. That's the entire world?

It would sure help if there were some doctors on this forum who were familiar with the data, etc.

[Riverwind]

I can't find any year or country for that graph. That's the entire world?

The physiological mechanisms required to transmit HIV do not depend on geography. These numbers are from a report on South Africa but they are consistant with numbers I have seen from other studies for other areas. Anal sex is an extremely high risk sexual activity and I don't think there is anything wrong with telling people they shouldn't have anal sex just like we tell people they shouldn't use prostitutes or they shouldn't have unprotected sex.