Harper Skip AIDs Conference

[jdobbin]

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.

I don't doubt that is the most effective tranmisison route. I just don't know that it is the most predominant way it is spread today.

[jbg]

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 should stick his head in the stockade so the gays can throw eggs and shaving cream at him? Going to this conference would be only a step more dignified.

[jdobbin]

He should stick his head in the stockade so the gays can throw eggs and shaving cream at him? Going to this conference would be only a step more dignified.

There has been no evidence of the theatrics of some of the conferences of the 1990s. The cabinet ministers have not faced any shout downs or pies in the face.

It was revealed in the news today that the newly elected President of Liberia was to come to the convention but changed her mind when Harper didn't show.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...4/BNStory/Front

[Charles Anthony]

The spin continues.

You should have completed your sentence.

It was revealed in the news today that the newly elected President of Liberia was to come to the convention but changed her mind when Harper didn't show.

"- according to Gene Long, spokesman for the conference, said in an interview yesterday." as opposed to quoting the President of Liberia directly.

[Leafless]

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.

Then what type of irresponsible federal government do we have that would 'legalize' certain gay activities or go so far as to legalize 'gay marriage' which does contribute to the pain and death many HIV victims are suffering or have suffered.

It would be unthinkable that a federal government would promote a killer disease such as HIV, but appears to be the case.

[Riverwind]

Then what type of irresponsible federal government do we have that would 'legalize' certain gay activities or go so far as to legalize 'gay marriage' which does contribute to the pain and death many HIV victims are suffering or have suffered.

Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with encouraging risky sexual activities like anal sex. Not all gay men engage in anal sex so there is no contradiction between supporting initiatives like SSM and a public health message that encourages people to refrain from anal sex.

[August1991]

You know, the first 9 pages of my newspaper were all about AIDS today. I hate that about Canadian news media, that they decide to start preaching, and abandon any pretext that they're a news dispensing organization as opposed to a propaganda organ. Nine pages, then the second section was all about AIDS and so was the third. I swear to God I almost picked up the phone and demanded my money be refunded. I wanted a newspaper, not a magazine about AIDS.

I'm with Argus on this.

I go out of the country for awhile and then return to Canada where I hear, for the first time, endless discussion of a "World AIDS Conference in Toronto". Well, if your world is Toronto, then I guess it is a "World Conference". Anywhere else in the known universe, it's just a Toronto conference.

Harper has his priorities right.

----

This CBC/NDP cabal is on its last legs and the recent arrests in London, the Hizb Allah/Israeli conflict and even Joe Lieberman's defeat in Connecticut show how out of step with reality this cabal is.

[kimmy]

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.

Of course there's "no real proof" of something that hasn't happened yet. We're not talking Al Qaeda... it's not like we're talking about an operation where act-up activists have to buy pies through an undercover RCMP agent or have a secluded fruit-warrior training camp in northern Ontario. It's not like there'd be 6 months of planning and e-mails and financial transactions and pie-recipies from pie-making experts in San Francisco. I mean, really, what "real proof" would you imagine there might be?

You keep saying that a lot of the delegates aren't even from Canada. So? A lot of them are, right?

My understanding is that a large portion of the delegates are not medical researchers or healthcare officials, but rather advocates and activists. Am I wrong?

So if there's a significant number of Canadians at the conference, of whom a significant portion are advocates and activists, I think it's wildly optimistic to expect anything other than an effort to create a disruption had Harper attended. Activists want to "create awareness" and publicize their message, and would justifiably view Harper's appearance at "their" conference as an unsurpassed opportunity to gain the publicity they seek. And, if you've looked around at various forums and websites you've probably seen first-hand the sort of intense personal hate that some in the gay community feel for Harper-- it is almost as if he was personally responsible for all of the intolerance they've experienced in their lives.

I know you disagree with me, which is fine. Personally, I get the same sense from this controversy that I get from the furor that happens when Harper no-shows the Gay Day Parades. I don't think they want his approval or his blessing, I think they want him to show up and give them their pound of flesh in person. That's just my hunch.

-k

[Hicksey]

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.

Of course there's "no real proof" of something that hasn't happened yet. We're not talking Al Qaeda... it's not like we're talking about an operation where act-up activists have to buy pies through an undercover RCMP agent or have a secluded fruit-warrior training camp in northern Ontario. It's not like there'd be 6 months of planning and e-mails and financial transactions and pie-recipies from pie-making experts in San Francisco. I mean, really, what "real proof" would you imagine there might be?

You keep saying that a lot of the delegates aren't even from Canada. So? A lot of them are, right?

My understanding is that a large portion of the delegates are not medical researchers or healthcare officials, but rather advocates and activists. Am I wrong?

So if there's a significant number of Canadians at the conference, of whom a significant portion are advocates and activists, I think it's wildly optimistic to expect anything other than an effort to create a disruption had Harper attended. Activists want to "create awareness" and publicize their message, and would justifiably view Harper's appearance at "their" conference as an unsurpassed opportunity to gain the publicity they seek. And, if you've looked around at various forums and websites you've probably seen first-hand the sort of intense personal hate that some in the gay community feel for Harper-- it is almost as if he was personally responsible for all of the intolerance they've experienced in their lives.

I know you disagree with me, which is fine. Personally, I get the same sense from this controversy that I get from the furor that happens when Harper no-shows the Gay Day Parades. I don't think they want his approval or his blessing, I think they want him to show up and give them their pound of flesh in person. That's just my hunch.

-k

The proponents of the move are primarily liberal. And those liberals often go out of their way to find things to be displeased with Harper about and fabricate tempests where none exist. They will NEVER find it within themselves to agree with the conservatives, even if they know they have to be blatantly wrong to do so.

So why should we care if they disapprove? I don't. Why should I let a liberal's distaste for something I am happy with bother me? Of course they are not going to approve, they're from the opposite side of the political aisle.

The reality is that unless Harper has something new to add to the discussion or is ready to announce new legislation to be adopted that would guarantee a medicare-paid AIDS test once every 6 months to every Canadian citizen (which IMO would be a significant step in the fight here at home), there's no point in going and giving the vultures their pound of flesh.

[jdobbin]

"- according to Gene Long, spokesman for the conference, said in an interview yesterday." as opposed to quoting the President of Liberia directly.

I gave the link. I think the Global News story actually had a quote from the President herself. You could look for it if you like.

[jdobbin]

Then what type of irresponsible federal government do we have that would 'legalize' certain gay activities or go so far as to legalize 'gay marriage' which does contribute to the pain and death many HIV victims are suffering or have suffered.

It would be unthinkable that a federal government would promote a killer disease such as HIV, but appears to be the case.

Please cite your sources for this claim.

[jdobbin]

This CBC/NDP cabal is on its last legs and the recent arrests in London, the Hizb Allah/Israeli conflict and even Joe Lieberman's defeat in Connecticut show how out of step with reality this cabal is.

How you are able to link Hezbollah and this issue is beyond me.

It sounds like Bush when he says "9/11!" as a reason why Cheney shot his friend in the face.

[jdobbin]

The proponents of the move are primarily liberal. And those liberals often go out of their way to find things to be displeased with Harper about and fabricate tempests where none exist. They will NEVER find it within themselves to agree with the conservatives, even if they know they have to be blatantly wrong to do so.

So why should we care if they disapprove? I don't. Why should I let a liberal's distaste for something I am happy with bother me? Of course they are not going to approve, they're from the opposite side of the political aisle.

The reality is that unless Harper has something new to add to the discussion or is ready to announce new legislation to be adopted that would guarantee a medicare-paid AIDS test once every 6 months to every Canadian citizen (which IMO would be a significant step in the fight here at home), there's no point in going and giving the vultures their pound of flesh.

I see it as a healthcare issue. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and the electorate decide what it all means.

[Leafless]

Then what type of irresponsible federal government do we have that would 'legalize' certain gay activities or go so far as to legalize 'gay marriage' which does contribute to the pain and death many HIV victims are suffering or have suffered.

It would be unthinkable that a federal government would promote a killer disease such as HIV, but appears to be the case.

Please cite your sources for this claim.

You almost make this sound as if this is an impossible task and only shows how uninformed you are.

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.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...1e-f35ccd7b6a6f

And religions do not approve sodomy either:

http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publicati...gaymarriage.htm

[jdobbin]

You almost make this sound as if this is an impossible task and only shows how uninformed you are.

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.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...1e-f35ccd7b6a6f

And religions do not approve sodomy either:

http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publicati...gaymarriage.htm

Just because sodomy was decriminalized doesn't mean that it wasn't happening anyways. It just meant people weren't going to jail.

And same sex marriage applies to women as well. Are they "sodomists" as well?

It would seem to me that same sex marriage is an affirmation of monogamy. And healthy monogamous couples don't pass the disease to one another.

I won't even look at the Christian site because it adds nothing to this argument.

If you want a law to ban homosexuality, just come out and say it.

[Leafless]

You almost make this sound as if this is an impossible task and only shows how uninformed you are.

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.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...1e-f35ccd7b6a6f

And religions do not approve sodomy either:

http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publicati...gaymarriage.htm

Just because sodomy was decriminalized doesn't mean that it wasn't happening anyways. It just meant people weren't going to jail.

And same sex marriage applies to women as well. Are they "sodomists" as well?

It would seem to me that same sex marriage is an affirmation of monogamy. And healthy monogamous couples don't pass the disease to one another.

I won't even look at the Christian site because it adds nothing to this argument.

If you want a law to ban homosexuality, just come out and say it.

1.- Sodomy prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms remained in the 'closet' for those who dared to participate. To-day because of that Charter it is freely flaunted with homosexuals emulating heterosexuals in a sexual sense.

2. Now you are being silly with your analogy comparing male homosexuals with lesbians.

3. Whatever makes you think same sex marriage is an affirmation of monogamy when we know homosexuals indulge in sodomy. I presume your talking male homosexuals but lesbians as most of us know have the tools to achieve satisfactory sexual relations.

4. You refuse to look at the Christian site because you know that what the overwhelming majority of heterosexual Canadians belong to and disregards homosexuality. Sort of makes you feel like the odd man out.

5. It should be up to all of society to engage in the process on whether or not to remove Charter protection for homosexuals and provide applicable laws to reasonably safeguard the majority from the spread of a killer disease and from factors contributing in degrading lifestyles and traditions and customs the majority utilize to provide a STABLE society.

[jdobbin]

1.- Sodomy prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms remained in the 'closet' for those who dared to participate. To-day because of that Charter it is freely flaunted with homosexuals emulating heterosexuals in a sexual sense.

2. Now you are being silly with your analogy comparing male homosexuals with lesbians.

3. Whatever makes you think same sex marriage is an affirmation of monogamy when we know homosexuals indulge in sodomy. I presume your talking male homosexuals but lesbians as most of us know have the tools to achieve satisfactory sexual relations.

4. You refuse to look at the Christian site because you know that what the overwhelming majority of heterosexual Canadians belong to and disregards homosexuality. Sort of makes you feel like the odd man out.

5. It should be up to all of society to engage in the process on whether or not to remove Charter protection for homosexuals and provide applicable laws to reasonably safeguard the majority from the spread of a killer disease and from factors contributing in degrading lifestyles and traditions and customs the majority utilize to provide a STABLE society.

I guess we'll just have to disagree about the subject.

[August1991]

This CBC/NDP cabal is on its last legs and the recent arrests in London, the Hizb Allah/Israeli conflict and even Joe Lieberman's defeat in Connecticut show how out of step with reality this cabal is.

How you are able to link Hezbollah and this issue is beyond me.

It sounds like Bush when he says "9/11!" as a reason why Cheney shot his friend in the face.

In 2003, about 390 people died of AIDS/HIV in Canada. In the same year, about 1500 people died from falls and about 450 were murdered. Is AIDS a serious problem in Canada?

If AIDS is a serious problem in Africa, why doesn't wealthy, oil-rich Nigeria do something about it?

When Stephen Lewis goes around ranting about AIDS in Africa, he's a limousine liberal playing on white western guilt. This line of argument is as old as the 1960s and only the likes of Lewis, the CBC, the NDP and the radical fringe of the US Democratic Party (McGovern, Lamont, et al) still believe it leads anywhere.

This rabble-rouser fringe is stuck in a 1960s anti-establishment mindset. They are the peaceniks who think Hizb Allah, Hamas, Arafat, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara are cool because they're anti-American. AIDS is the disease of the counter culture.

The Cold War is over, the Sixties are long gone, Africa is no longer a colony and AIDS is just not a big deal.

But anyway, getting back to Argus' point, this AIDS conference only exists in the minds of a few Toronto journalists. Harper was right to take a well-deserved holiday.

[Leafless]

I guess we'll just have to disagree about the subject.

I don't agree to disagree.

You are the one who wishes to concede, not I.

[jbg]

Then what type of irresponsible federal government do we have that would 'legalize' certain gay activities or go so far as to legalize 'gay marriage' which does contribute to the pain and death many HIV victims are suffering or have suffered.

It would be unthinkable that a federal government would promote a killer disease such as HIV, but appears to be the case.

Please cite your sources for this claim.

As a very great leader of a very great democracy once said: "A proof is a proof (Link) What kind of proof ? It's a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it is proven."

[jdobbin]

I don't agree to disagree.

You are the one who wishes to concede, not I.

I don't concede anything. I just think don't want to go down an anti-gay route in the discussion.

[jdobbin]

In 2003, about 390 people died of AIDS/HIV in Canada. In the same year, about 1500 people died from falls and about 450 were murdered. Is AIDS a serious problem in Canada?

If AIDS is a serious problem in Africa, why doesn't wealthy, oil-rich Nigeria do something about it?

When Stephen Lewis goes around ranting about AIDS in Africa, he's a limousine liberal playing on white western guilt. This line of argument is as old as the 1960s and only the likes of Lewis, the CBC, the NDP and the radical fringe of the US Democratic Party (McGovern, Lamont, et al) still believe it leads anywhere.

This rabble-rouser fringe is stuck in a 1960s anti-establishment mindset. They are the peaceniks who think Hizb Allah, Hamas, Arafat, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara are cool because they're anti-American. AIDS is the disease of the counter culture.

The Cold War is over, the Sixties are long gone, Africa is no longer a colony and AIDS is just not a big deal.

But anyway, getting back to Argus' point, this AIDS conference only exists in the minds of a few Toronto journalists. Harper was right to take a well-deserved holiday.

AIDs is the fourth largest killer in the world.

And I disagree with your assessment.

[jdobbin]

As a very great leader of a very great democracy once said: "A proof is a proof (Link) What kind of proof ? It's a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it is proven."

I'm no fan of Chretien at his worst.

I still like to see information that backs up someone's statements.

[WestViking]

AIDS Conference organizers have shown themselves up as the incapable spoiled brats they are. These malcontents have shown their true colours by attacking our Prime Minister for not allowing them to hijack our political agenda and put the nation’s business on hold for their benefit.

With many others, I had hoped that the 2006 AIDS Conference would turn out to be something more than the usual group-hug of political lobbyists and vacuous celebrities. Any conference more intent on attracting a cheering section than getting actual work done is unworthy of support. I would be very surprised if over 10% of the 24,000 delegates had the expertise or influence to have any effect on combating AIDS.

The AIDS Conference is an expensive showpiece of what is wrong with the efforts to combat the ailment. If organizers intend to attract $ millions in donations to their cause, they should consider that the enormous wasted expense of their cheering section is not lost on us.

[August1991]

1.- Sodomy prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms remained in the 'closet' for those who dared to participate. To-day because of that Charter it is freely flaunted with homosexuals emulating heterosexuals in a sexual sense.

Leafless, I just don't get your line of reasoning here. In a popular if controversial change, Trudeau removed sodomy from the Criminal Code in 1967. The Charter, still 15 years into the future, said nothing about sexual orientation - although recent Supreme Court members decided to make an original interpretation.

But Leafless, the truth of the matter is that in a civilized liberal society, individuals should be free to choose. If that means that two women are free to marry one another, then how can anyone else truly object. It's called live and let live.