Harper Skip AIDs Conference

[jbg]

Most issues don't have the power to defeat a government. Generally, things reach a tipping point when the 2% who get pissed starts to mount up with different people on different issues.

I think the LPC would be making a grave mistake to take Harper down over a "non-mainstream" issue such as AIDS. If they want a repeat of 1984, that would be the way to get it.

[Riverwind]

Personally I think we would not have this disease in Canada to-day on the levels we have to-day if it was not for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and think homosexuality once again should be banned.

The statistics also show that lesbians are the least likely to either get HIV or transmit it to others. If I follow your logic then we should actively encourage women to become lesbians in the name of "public health".

[Eagle]

And how many of those 'activists' would even consider voting conservative in the first place? I am guessing 0.0001% tops.

So it is okay to ignore the issue because it isn't a vote winner?

I think you might be taking my post out of context.

First, it should be understood that I'm a Liberal supporter. However, I do feel that the government was in fact represented by the attendance of the Health Minister.

I don't feel that he should ignore an issue because it isn't a vote winner, that's not what I was implying. The voters who are concerned about the AIDS conference will hold him accountable because in their eyes, he should have attended. The ones who feel burned because the PM didn't show up, obviously do not agree that the government was sufficiently represented by the Minister of Health attending the conference. They will likely vote against Harper, or at least keep this issue in mind come election time.

[jdobbin]

I think the LPC would be making a grave mistake to take Harper down over a "non-mainstream" issue such as AIDS. If they want a repeat of 1984, that would be the way to get it.

They're not going to take down the Conservatives on any issue except a budget.

[jdobbin]

I think you might be taking my post out of context.

First, it should be understood that I'm a Liberal supporter. However, I do feel that the government was in fact represented by the attendance of the Health Minister.

I don't feel that he should ignore an issue because it isn't a vote winner, that's not what I was implying. The voters who are concerned about the AIDS conference will hold him accountable because in their eyes, he should have attended. The ones who feel burned because the PM didn't show up, obviously do not agree that the government was sufficiently represented by the Minister of Health attending the conference. They will likely vote against Harper, or at least keep this issue in mind come election time.

The Conservatives certiainly didn't think that a health minister was sufficient in 1996 when Chretien didn't attend in Vancouver.

And if the health minister was sufficient for speaking on a health issue, why did they cancel making any formal announcement until later on? That was a decision made by the prime minister.

It leaves people wondering what the Conservative policy on HIV/AIDs is. The first deadline coming up is September 12. That is when the safe injection site's funding ends. If the Conservatives can't make an annoucement by then, we'll know that they don't in fact have a policy.

[Leafless]

Personally I think we would not have this disease in Canada to-day on the levels we have to-day if it was not for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and think homosexuality once again should be banned.

The statistics also show that lesbians are the least likely to either get HIV or transmit it to others. If I follow your logic then we should actively encourage women to become lesbians in the name of "public health".

No that's not my logic that's your logic.

My logic dictates there were 12,080 male deaths out of 13,010 victims from 1980 to 2003 mainly consisting of a homosexual minority that represents approx. 2% of the population of Canada with an unknown number of Canadians walking around with HIV undiagnosed.

AIDS death statistics in Canada:

93 deaths in Canada 2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003)

13,010 deaths in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003)

12,080 male deaths in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003)

926 female deaths in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003)

13,010 deaths in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003)

92.9% of deaths occur in men in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003)

7.1% of deaths occur in women in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003)

83 deaths annually in Canada 2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003)

All Iam saying is the federal government has an obligation to protect the heterosexual majority from unchecked killer diseases and they are not addressing the root problem.

[Riverwind]

... consisting of a homosexual minority...

Homosexuals include lesbians who are the lowest risk group for HIV infections. Your public health arguments only apply to male homosexuals. Furthermore, your arguments only apply to male homosexuals that engage in anal sex. So if you are really making a public health argument then you should be satisfied with a public health campaign that focuses on reducing or eliminating all risky sexual activity which includes anal sex but also includes activities which heterosexuals engage in.

However, I suspect your interest in public health is a smoke screen - you are really just trying to use the public health issue to justify your anti-homosexual views.

[August1991]

AIDS death statistics in Canada:

93 deaths in Canada 2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003)

....

All Iam saying is the federal government has an obligation to protect the heterosexual majority from unchecked killer diseases and they are not addressing the root problem.

According to your stats, AIDS caused 93 deaths in 2003 and you describe it as a "killer disease"? How do you characterize cancer or heart disease?

I'm with Riverview. Leafless, you just don't like homosexuals and you're using AIDS to make your point. You're like the Left that doesn't like the USA and uses Hizballah to make its point.

[yam]

Indeed!

The problem is to do with anal sex not homosexuality.

Apparently the disease started in the human through the human penetration of a pig. Anybody?

If so then surely science should be testing for the virus in the pig. . . .

needless to say ill have to read up. . . . but does anybody else here have a clue?

[betsy]

Indeed!

The problem is to do with anal sex not homosexuality.

Apparently the disease started in the human through the human penetration of a pig. Anybody?

If so then surely science should be testing for the virus in the pig. . . .

needless to say ill have to read up. . . . but does anybody else here have a clue?

I know that not only homosexuals practice anal sex. Some adventurous couples do sodomy....but are you telling me that not all...or most homosexuals do anal sex? Isn't that the only way they can "consumate" their passion?

[geoffrey]

Apparently the disease started in the human through the human penetration of a pig. Anybody?

If so then surely science should be testing for the virus in the pig. . . .

needless to say ill have to read up. . . . but does anybody else here have a clue?

Where the hell did that come from? Sex with a pig?

HIV-1 comes from Chimpanezes and HIV-2 comes from an Old World Monkey Sooty Mangabey. It was likely transmitted through polio vaccine tests that used Chimpaneze kidney tissue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPV_AIDS_hypothesis there is a little reading on one of the many theories. I've never heard this sex with a pig one. HIV has been proven beyond a doubt to have come from Chimps in the most common strain.

[Leafless]

AIDS death statistics in Canada:

93 deaths in Canada 2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003)

....

All Iam saying is the federal government has an obligation to protect the heterosexual majority from unchecked killer diseases and they are not addressing the root problem.

According to your stats, AIDS caused 93 deaths in 2003 and you describe it as a "killer disease"? How do you characterize cancer or heart disease?

I'm with Riverview. Leafless, you just don't like homosexuals and you're using AIDS to make your point. You're like the Left that doesn't like the USA and uses Hizballah to make its point.

Are you suggesting your views are in line with the RIGHT?

It amazes me how dangerous the LEFT has become and can longer distinguish fact from fiction and are a contributing factor to the decline of a relatively well organized, well functioning Canadian society.

AIDS is a killer disease spread by a VIRUS like the FLU unlike CANCER and HEART disease which in many cases is brought on by society itself who continually keep promoting unhealthy foods that if abused in sufficient quantities could result in certain cancers and contribute to heart disease.

Make no mistake AIDS is a KILLER DISEASE and our federal government is not doing anything to eliminate the source or root cause regarding the spread of this horrible disease.

Being in the category of a virus spread killer disease it deserves top priority to rid it out of Canada and if left unchecked HIV could possibly mutate into something even worse.

Is this what your wish is for Canadians rather than 93 transformed into 93,000 or 5 million etc.?

[jdobbin]

Is this what your wish is for Canadians rather than 93 transformed into 93,000 or 5 million etc.?

If the federal government did make it illegal, what do you forsee the punishment as being?

[Leafless]

... consisting of a homosexual minority...

Homosexuals include lesbians who are the lowest risk group for HIV infections. Your public health arguments only apply to male homosexuals. Furthermore, your arguments only apply to male homosexuals that engage in anal sex. So if you are really making a public health argument then you should be satisfied with a public health campaign that focuses on reducing or eliminating all risky sexual activity which includes anal sex but also includes activities which heterosexuals engage in.

However, I suspect your interest in public health is a smoke screen - you are really just trying to use the public health issue to justify your anti-homosexual views.

There are no major heterosexual sexual diseases that result with death on the same level as homosexuals with HIV partners.

I don't have a smoke screen but health issue's that result in death if contracted by no fault of the victim are a concern along with the exceptionally high cost of drugs to keep AIDS victims alive as long as possible.

But I admit Iam not looking forward to a problematic set of third sex values that clash with heterosexual ideologies and lifestyles.

[jbg]

Where the hell did that come from? Sex with a pig?

HIV-1 comes from Chimpanezes and HIV-2 comes from an Old World Monkey Sooty Mangabey. It was likely transmitted through polio vaccine tests that used Chimpaneze kidney tissue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPV_AIDS_hypothesis there is a little reading on one of the many theories. I've never heard this sex with a pig one. HIV has been proven beyond a doubt to have come from Chimps in the most common strain.

Interesting. I was banned from Rabble for suggesting that Martin wasn't going far enough with SSM, that he legalize marriage among any four mammals (link), providing that at least one was a human over the age of 14.

As for the pig or the chimpanzeel, they could have both been in on the "marriage".

[Leafless]

Is this what your wish is for Canadians rather than 93 transformed into 93,000 or 5 million etc.?

If the federal government did make it illegal, what do you forsee the punishment as being?

This has been several times ( for what entertainment value) you have included the dramatic and degrading word "punishment" to accompany "illegal" pertaining to possible federal intervention.

I think if it was made illegal no type of penalty would be required as basic public stigma would probably curtail homosexual activity.

[jdobbin]

There are no major heterosexual sexual diseases that result with death on the same level as homosexuals with HIV partners.

You're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer

[jdobbin]

This has been several times ( for what entertainment value) you have included the dramatic and degrading word "punishment" to accompany "illegal" pertaining to possible federal intervention.

I think if it was made illegal no type of penalty would be required as basic public stigma would probably curtail homosexual activity.

Doubtful. If there is no punishment for it, people will continue to disobey a law that has no consequences.

[Melanie_]

I think if it was made illegal no type of penalty would be required as basic public stigma would probably curtail homosexual activity.

Public stigma hasn't curtailed homosexuality throughout history; it has just driven it underground.

[Riverwind]

There are no major heterosexual sexual diseases that result with death on the same level as homosexuals with HIV partners.

You are evading the question again. Your stats do not apply to lesbians therefore you should have no problems with female homosexuals. So which is it:

1) Will you admit that there is no public health issue with lesbians

or

2) Will you admit that you are not really concerned about public health - you just don't like homosexuals and are trying to justify gov't sponsered persecution of homsexuals.

[Leafless]

There are no major heterosexual sexual diseases that result with death on the same level as homosexuals with HIV partners.

You're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer

Not really.

I was referring to sexual diseases arising from heterosexual sex within monogamous a relationship.

The one you quoted (cervical cancer) is usually dependent on:

1.-having sex at an early age

2.- having many sexual partners

3.-having sex with uncircumcised males

Doctors believe women must have been infected by 'Human papillomavirus or HPV' before they develop cervical cancer.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/...8.asp?sitearea=

[Leafless]

I think if it was made illegal no type of penalty would be required as basic public stigma would probably curtail homosexual activity.

Public stigma hasn't curtailed homosexuality throughout history; it has just driven it underground.

Are you suggesting that homosexual and lesbian numbers have not increased since the advent of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' along with associated and more open displays of sexual homosexual conduct and displays of homosexual affection?

[Melanie_]

Are you suggesting that homosexual and lesbian numbers have not increased since the advent of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' along with associated and more open displays of sexual homosexual conduct and displays of homosexual affection?

I think that people are freer now to express their sexuality without worrying about intolerance and bigotry from the ignorant.

[jdobbin]

Not really.

I was referring to sexual diseases arising from heterosexual sex within monogamous a relationship.

The one you quoted (cervical cancer) is usually dependent on:

1.-having sex at an early age

2.- having many sexual partners

3.-having sex with uncircumcised males

Doctors believe women must have been infected by 'Human papillomavirus or HPV' before they develop cervical cancer.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/...8.asp?sitearea=

And 80% of women have the virus in the U.S. Similiar figures exist in Canada.

So are all these women having sex all over the place? And shouldn't there be a law against it?

[jdobbin]

Are you suggesting that homosexual and lesbian numbers have not increased since the advent of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' along with associated and more open displays of sexual homosexual conduct and displays of homosexual affection?

Do you have numbers to back that up?