Harper Skip AIDs Conference

[jdobbin]

AIDs stats in Asia.

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

[kimmy]

The Liberals under Pierre Trudeau are directly responsible for the 'decriminalization of sodomy' which we are directly talking about concerning homosexuals as the main root source pertaining to the spread of HIV in which I provided a link.

Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals are indirectly responsible for the spread of HIV by allowing homosexuals not to be prosecuted and are legally protecting them under the Charter of rights and Freedoms Sec.-7 and Sec.-15. and with the Liberals at a later date legalizing homosexual marriage.

What an inane argument.

Are you suggesting that since anal sex was technically illegal, it simply didn't happen?

Since Jaywalking is illegal, I guess that never happens either?

How often was the anti-sodomy law enforced even when it was on the books? You've staked out an extraordinarily foolish position here.

(and don't go accusing me of being a Liberal supporter or a Trudeau-lover. Long-time board members would snort coffee out their noses at that idea.)

-k

[jdobbin]

Proceedings of the Toronto conference plastered in Bangkok Post.

http://archives.mybangkokpost.com/bkkarchives/frontstore/

Article 11.

[jdobbin]

Global health trends.

http://www.who.int/whr/1998/media_centre/50facts/en/

Since AIDs is an immuno disease, it means people can die from respiratory infection, cancer and a whole host of other illnesses. Poverty contributes but AIDs is still listed as cause of death by the World Health Organization.

Countries in Asia are coming to terms with the fact that AIDs is exploding there.

I know you think it is just liberals having a ball and that no one really cares but even conservatives have calculated the enormous costs of the diseases on the world. The TD Bank calculated such a report.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ry/AIDSCon/home

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/aids2006

[Charles Anthony]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/16082006/2/nati...on-capital.html

Apparently, it was an Anglican minister in Whitehorse that led a group of Whitehorse residents and asked why the PM was not in Toronto.

Thank you for reassuring us that it was just politics and drawing our attention to "A handful of protesters" in the Yukon with an agenda.

This is how causes of death are defined.

http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=...862006000400014

Slow down! Did you read any of your quoted article? Take a look at this:

Another important axis along which causes of death can be grouped is preventability criteria, as developed by Taucher.3 Using Taucher's criteria, causal categories are oriented towards the definition of priorities and the evaluation of health measures and programmes. This type of list, which can also be used for morbidity, has a structure in which there are large groups that include diseases that can be prevented by similar measures. These would include, for example:

· deaths that can be avoidable by vaccination (e.g. measles or tetanus);

· deaths avoidable by early diagnosis and timely and adequate treatment (e.g. tuberculosis, syphilis or causes of maternal mortality);

· deaths avoidable by application of hygienic measures, environmental sanitation, and health education (e.g. intestinal infectious diseases, intoxication due to air pollution);

· deaths avoidable by application of a combination of measures (i.e. measures that are included in more than one group);

· deaths that are difficult to avoid with current knowledge and technological development; and

· all the remaining deaths (i.e. causes not identified by any of the previous groups).

The preventability criteria of causes of death may vary depending on the moment, the availability of technologies or resources, the experience of a country or region, and also when comparisons are made with specific paradigms. (An interesting discussion was published in 1990 in the Epidemiological Bulletin of the Pan American Health Organization.4)

That sounds like an any-which-way-the-wind-blows agenda justification to me. Stop the politics.

[Hicksey]

Can I ask an honest question?

Why does what will amount to nothing more than a photo-op mean so much?

One reason is that so much shame is associated with the disease. Many other leaders around the world are afraid to even say the word AIDs or HIV because of the fear and shame of it. Not every appearance by the prime minister is mealy mouthed.

It certainly has to be more important than visiting an arena in the Yukon. *That* is a photo-op and one that didn't quite work out the way the prime minister wanted because a group of people asked him why he wasn't in Toronto at the conference.

The usual link of AIDS to homosexuality and those to shame is every bit as applicable to heterosexuals and drug users.

But with all the education these days someone who still gets AIDS ought to know by then they are doing something wrong in life. The reality is today that you can't share ANY needle, you can't nail anything with a heartbeat no matter what way your pendulum swings. Those that do are at a really high risk of getting the disease and if they do not want it they ought to stop such behavior. If they do not, they ought not look to me for sympathy. If there ever was a time of the moralist it should be today. Forget homosexuality, just elminating drug use and promisciuty would go a long ways to slowing down the transmission rate.

[jdobbin]

Thank you for reassuring us that it was just politics and drawing our attention to "A handful of protesters" in the Yukon with an agenda.

That sounds like an any-which-way-the-wind-blows agenda justification to me. Stop the politics.

Everything is politics including Harper going north in the first place.

Someone asked on causes of death. It is never a simple answer. Immuno diseases manifest themselves in many ways and get reported under different categories.

[jdobbin]

The usual link of AIDS to homosexuality and those to shame is every bit as applicable to heterosexuals and drug users.

But with all the education these days someone who still gets AIDS ought to know by then they are doing something wrong in life. The reality is today that you can't share ANY needle, you can't nail anything with a heartbeat no matter what way your pendulum swings. Those that do are at a really high risk of getting the disease and if they do not want it they ought to stop such behavior. If they do not, they ought not look to me for sympathy. If there ever was a time of the moralist it should be today. Forget homosexuality, just elminating drug use and promisciuty would go a long ways to slowing down the transmission rate.

Then Harper should have had no problem speaking on this at the conference.

[Hicksey]

The usual link of AIDS to homosexuality and those to shame is every bit as applicable to heterosexuals and drug users.

But with all the education these days someone who still gets AIDS ought to know by then they are doing something wrong in life. The reality is today that you can't share ANY needle, you can't nail anything with a heartbeat no matter what way your pendulum swings. Those that do are at a really high risk of getting the disease and if they do not want it they ought to stop such behavior. If they do not, they ought not look to me for sympathy. If there ever was a time of the moralist it should be today. Forget homosexuality, just elminating drug use and promisciuty would go a long ways to slowing down the transmission rate.

Then Harper should have had no problem speaking on this at the conference.

Again, with nothing to add, no new funding to announce, no new plan to espouse, how is such an appearance more than a photo op?

And if that did happen how would it be portrayed in the media? Likely it would be portrayed as an insincere gesture that was politically motivated. And then the vultures would proceed to take their pound of flesh.

Honestly, how does it benefit? Its a lose-lose situation for him.

I think Harper should have something more on his radar as far as dealing with AIDS (medicare covered AIDS tests is a good start IMO) and for that I will say he is lacking. But attending this conference goes nowhere toward that end.

[jdobbin]

Again, with nothing to add, no new funding to announce, no new plan to espouse, how is such an appearance more than a photo op?

And if that did happen how would it be portrayed in the media? Likely it would be portrayed as an insincere gesture that was politically motivated. And then the vultures would proceed to take their pound of flesh.

Honestly, how does it benefit? Its a lose-lose situation for him.

I think Harper should have something more on his radar as far as dealing with AIDS (medicare covered AIDS tests is a good start IMO) and for that I will say he is lacking. But attending this conference goes nowhere toward that end.

He kept saying that his cabinet ministers would be contributing at the conference. Now they have cancelled all statements. What's up with that? Harper calls it too politicized. That doesn't make any sense since his three cabinet people have had no problem attending meetings and have faced no shout downs or demonstrations.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/17082006/2/nati...oliticized.html

[Leafless]

The Liberals under Pierre Trudeau are directly responsible for the 'decriminalization of sodomy' which we are directly talking about concerning homosexuals as the main root source pertaining to the spread of HIV in which I provided a link.

Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals are indirectly responsible for the spread of HIV by allowing homosexuals not to be prosecuted and are legally protecting them under the Charter of rights and Freedoms Sec.-7 and Sec.-15. and with the Liberals at a later date legalizing homosexual marriage.

What an inane argument.

Are you suggesting that since anal sex was technically illegal, it simply didn't happen?

Since Jaywalking is illegal, I guess that never happens either?

How often was the anti-sodomy law enforced even when it was on the books? You've staked out an extraordinarily foolish position here.

(and don't go accusing me of being a Liberal supporter or a Trudeau-lover. Long-time board members would snort coffee out their noses at that idea.)

-k

1.- For your information homosexuality was a criminal offense prior to 1970 and in Canada homosexuals found themselves subject to criminal charges and imprisonment.

Your absurd analogy of jaywalking and anal sex as something that 'just happens' sounds like something as stupid as what someone would say on the Jerry Springer Show as what we are talking about here is the spread killer disease HIV.

2.- Sodomy or buggery is still 'in the books' but is restricted I believe to cases involving children.

If you think it is foolish to implement 'homosexuality' as illegal once again, I suggest you think twice concerning the killer vdisease HIV and it's spread and the associated high cost of drugs to keep a victim alive for his or her remaining years and the associated risk to the heterosexual community.

3.- Hopefully your not a supporter of Mr.Trudeau once apparently a homosexual himself and the Charter he designed to help promote and protect homosexuals and indirectly is responsible for the INCREASE of homosexuality and the subsequent spread of HIV.

[jdobbin]

Trudeau was once a homosexual?

[gc1765]

1.- For your information homosexuality was a criminal offense prior to 1970 and in Canada homosexuals found themselves subject to criminal charges and imprisonment.

Do you think that making it illegal would act as a deterrant against homosexuality?

If you think it is foolish to implement 'homosexuality' as illegal once again, I suggest you think twice concerning the killer vdisease HIV and it's spread and the associated high cost of drugs to keep a victim alive for his or her remaining years and the associated risk to the heterosexual community.

Since heterosexual sex can also transmit HIV, do you think we should make that illegal as well? Sure, HIV may be spread more easily through homosexuals, but where do you think the line should be drawn (in terms of how easily it is transmitted)?

[jbg]

Can I ask an honest question?

Why does what will amount to nothing more than a photo-op mean so much?

I honestly thought they'd cure AIDS there.

[jdobbin]

I honestly thought they'd cure AIDS there.

Some of the interesting scientific reports have shown just how large a percentage get infected with HIV but never develop AIDs. Just as remarkable are the sex trade workers who are repeatedly exposed to HIV and never get HIV.

It is these discoveries that give home hope for a vaccination.

For people already infected, various cocktails of drugs will be required.

And for the deluded like the South Africa health minister who is at the conference selling garlic remedies for AIDs and for China who arrest AIDs workers and for Mali who are the only sellers of condoms at 3 weeks wages for the average citizen, a bright light is shone on their inaction or outright ignorant behaviour.

[Charles Anthony]

Since heterosexual sex can also transmit HIV, do you think we should make that illegal as well? Sure, HIV may be spread more easily through homosexuals, but where do you think the line should be drawn (in terms of how easily it is transmitted)?

You just want to hear some more explicit descriptions!

I am still trying to figure out the "sitting on asses smoking and engaging in anal sex" act.

[Leafless]

1.- For your information homosexuality was a criminal offense prior to 1970 and in Canada homosexuals found themselves subject to criminal charges and imprisonment.

Do you think that making it illegal would act as a deterrant against homosexuality?

If you think it is foolish to implement 'homosexuality' as illegal once again, I suggest you think twice concerning the killer disease HIV and it's spread and the associated high cost of drugs to keep a victim alive for his or her remaining years and the associated risk to the heterosexual community.

Since heterosexual sex can also transmit HIV, do you think we should make that illegal as well? Sure, HIV may be spread more easily through homosexuals, but where do you think the line should be drawn (in terms of how easily it is transmitted)?

1.- Certainly, making it illegal and being subject as a criminal offense and imprisonment, I think it would like it did in the 70's, it kept them in the closet and for the most part and relatively inactive unlike to-day.

2. Heterosexual sex can also transmit HIV but where did the heterosexuals pick it up? Most heterosexuals that acquire this disease are prostitutes and wives of bisexuals or wives of husbands who also run around with prostitutes.

I haven't heard of many married heterosexual women whose husbands don't cheat on them acquiring the disease. Have you, or can you provide stats.

I don't think it's a question of where you draw the line concerning how easily it is transmitted but to try to eliminate initially the most common form of transmission being made by male homosexuals and male bisexuals and that is to make homosexuality illegal.

[Melanie_]

Good plan, Leafless. Lets stop all this sodomy by putting those who practice it in jail! Ha ha ha, that'll stop sodomy, all right!

One of the contributing factors to the spread of HIV in Africa is poverty, as August has pointed out several times. Condoms are expensive, where they are available at all; an alternative form of birth control is anal sex, even though it is more likely to spread HIV than vaginal sex. When condoms are available, they are often more likely to be used conventionally, to prevent pregnancy.

[August1991]

Proceedings of the Toronto conference plastered in Bangkok Post.

http://archives.mybangkokpost.com/bkkarchives/frontstore/

Article 11.

11th article on some blog connected to an English-language newspaper in Bangkok hardly constitutes "plastering" wall-to-wall as the CBC seems to be indulging in now.

----

Dobbin, you seem to confuse information for knowledge. You cite inconsequential facts (often from agenda-driven websites) with little or no reference to context.

My main point is that AIDS is not the great threat it is made out to be and this conference in Toronto is "world class" only in the imagination of the Toronto media. Harper is right to ignore the whole thing - Harper's action shows that he has a better grasp of reality than Toronto journalists do. It's even a vote winner for him out here where real (potentially Conservative) voters live.

Not only is the Toronto media self-centered, it also suffers from ADD and has the attention span of a gnat. In three weeks, they'll be all agog about some other new fangled issue.

We once had a PM who got worried about whatever issue the CBC in Toronto thought was important in any given week. His name was Paul Martin. But there's more than the failure of Paul Martin involved here. It's 2006 and the western world faces some grave questions that require clear thinking. 1960s radical chic and conciousness-raising were empty-headed in the 1960s. Now, they're empty-headed and pathetically old-fashioned too.

[jdobbin]

It was a list of their leading stories in Bangkok rather than a blog.

There are journalists from 140 countries filing stories. American newspapers have been publishing at length about many of the researcher findings, etc. The conference is in the media because this type of meeting doesn't happen all the time and it offers a chance to see what is working and what is not. It is a leading story world-wide.

What website is not driven by an agenda? I cited WHO, CDC, Health Canada and news websites. You asked for a defintion of cause of death. You have one. You asked for a site that lists AIDs as fourth leading cause of death. I gave you many.

I never said it was going to affect Harper one way or the other in the polls. I just said that he should have shown up even if it was to welcome the conference to Canada. If he got booed, that would have shown the conference delegates as partisan. It should be noted thought that the Canadian ministers were treated with respect at all the plenary sessions.

From the Yukon, Harper has called the conference politicized. How he knows such a things without being there is beyond me. The cancellation of news conferences by cabinet ministers and postponing of Canada's AIDs policy is also strange. Does the PMO have to go over it word by word? Do cabinet ministers not get to speak on their portfolios?

At least the conference organizer graciously said that perhaps when the policy is announced, it will be a good one.

None of this will hurt Harper in the short term but running everything out of the PMO only works for so long before cracks appear.

[g_bambino]

If he got booed, that would have shown the conference delegates as partisan. It should be noted thought that the Canadian ministers were treated with respect at all the plenary sessions.

That wasn't the case with the Health Minister's speech at the more publicly televised opening ceremony. He was rudely and loudly booed over throughout his speech. The antics were directed at Harper's absence, but had Harper showed up is it not relatively obvious he'd be booed a propos other not-so-AIDS-related issues?

From the Yukon, Harper has called the conference politicized. How he knows such a things without being there is beyond me.

I think the reaction of the other party leaders (Graham with his news conference today, Layton and his piece in the news a day or so ago) has made it clear that they've turned this into a political affair, boyed up by the media (though that does now seem to consist only of the Toronto-centric outlets). Harper doesn't actually have to be there to notice that.

This was a nothing story in the first place, and I'm flabbergasted that the Toronto Star is still publishing editorials and letters about it!

[Leafless]

Trudeau was once a homosexual?

I said "apparently homosexual".

It was Rue who posted this July 24/2006 11:20 a.m.

Topic: -Under Federal politics-Pierre Trudeau: Anti-semitic Nazi lover-Post #4.

[jdobbin]

That wasn't the case with the Health Minister's speech at the more publicly televised opening ceremony. He was rudely and loudly booed over throughout his speech. The antics were directed at Harper's absence, but had Harper showed up is it not relatively obvious he'd be booed a propos other not-so-AIDS-related issues?

I think the reaction of the other party leaders (Graham with his news conference today, Layton and his piece in the news a day or so ago) has made it clear that they've turned this into a political affair, boyed up by the media (though that does now seem to consist only of the Toronto-centric outlets). Harper doesn't actually have to be there to notice that.

This was a nothing story in the first place, and I'm flabbergasted that the Toronto Star is still publishing editorials and letters about it!

The booing was a result of Harper's absence just as Dingwall was booed for Chretien taking a powder.

And so what if Harper got booed at the conference? Ever know a politician to throw out a ball at a ball game not to get booed?

The important thing would have been there to show leadership and perhaps through the strength of what he had to say to hush the voices. Leaders can do that.

The plenary sessions have gone on without a hitch. Cabinet ministers have not been shouted down. Business has gotten done and it hasn't been a politicized finger pointing affair.

[Hicksey]

Again, with nothing to add, no new funding to announce, no new plan to espouse, how is such an appearance more than a photo op?

And if that did happen how would it be portrayed in the media? Likely it would be portrayed as an insincere gesture that was politically motivated. And then the vultures would proceed to take their pound of flesh.

Honestly, how does it benefit? Its a lose-lose situation for him.

I think Harper should have something more on his radar as far as dealing with AIDS (medicare covered AIDS tests is a good start IMO) and for that I will say he is lacking. But attending this conference goes nowhere toward that end.

He kept saying that his cabinet ministers would be contributing at the conference. Now they have cancelled all statements. What's up with that? Harper calls it too politicized. That doesn't make any sense since his three cabinet people have had no problem attending meetings and have faced no shout downs or demonstrations.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/17082006/2/nati...oliticized.html

My guesstimate is that the politics of the situation have taken precedence and they have taken the approach that if one says nothing, one can say nothing wrong. While that is literally true, in some cases saying nothing says as much as saying the wrong thing. I haven't seen where he said that his ministers would be contributing, and if that is in fact true, I would have to agree with you that someone should have been there simply because a committment made should be a committment kept. He won the election on that principle. I am not necessarily disappointed in them for skipping an AIDS conference, but if they made a committment to be there--they should be. If there was a more pressing item to take care of, if they were mistakenly double-booked then fine. But to back out because of politics? What a sad excuse. Not everyone is going to agree with you everywhere you go. Buck up, say your piece and move on.

With this new information I have to admit you have a point. Not because they were going to skip the conference, but because a committment was made and not kept. He can't name 5 promises he'll keep and decide on the others as he goes. That's not how you build trust in yourself as a leader.

[betsy]

One of the contributing factors to the spread of HIV in Africa is poverty, as August has pointed out several times. Condoms are expensive, where they are available at all; an alternative form of birth control is anal sex, even though it is more likely to spread HIV than vaginal sex. When condoms are available, they are often more likely to be used conventionally, to prevent pregnancy.

Would availability of condoms really ensure that they're going to be used?

Condoms were being given for FREE, along with other contraceptives to youths to prevent teen-age pregnancy....and yet, they still get pregnant!

Homosexual Community in Ontario is alarmed at the climbing rate of AIDS/HIV among its population....claiming that there's this what is called information-fatigue syndrome" from having been bombarded with too much information...that some don't bother to practice safe sex anymore.

We have to accept the fact....some people just don't care!