A Canadian Embarrassment

[dragon wench]

Last week The International AIDS Conference took place in Toronto. Over the six days that it was held, our esteemed prime minister, Stephen Harper did not appear once! Personally, I'm ashamed. No, I did not vote for that self righteous, smarmy ass, but it doesn't matter, IMO this is a profound embarrassment to the country.

Here are some stories:
TorontoSun.com - International AIDS Conference - Where was Harper?
CANOE -- CNEWS - Canada: Final plea made for AIDS funding
Stephen Lewis Foundation >> News & Resources > News
http://images.theglobeandmail.com/ar...toon500big.jpg

I was in Toronto at the same time..... I saw all kinds of graffiti decrying our PM's conspicuous absence at the conference, there were several protests...



Thoughts?

[Aegis]

Well, this seems right in line with Harper's typical behaviour. Since his inaugiration into the office of the Prime Minister, he has adopted some mighty hubris. Sadly, this makes it so he cannot seem to govern in a manner which makes Canadians feel as though he is doing something, as opposed to nothing.

This is not the first instance of Harper failing to do what his office dictates, in that he should be representing Canada in a positive like. As it has been noted, this was an event in which Harper should have been there, if only to give the appearance of support from the Canadian government.

Suffice it to say, I do not think he will be getting his mandate.

[Dowaco]

I'm not Canadian and I know very little about its leader, but that doesn't stop non-US citizens from commenting about Bush and American politics so I will chime in here.

Why should a country's top official be expected at any conference being held in that country. Is the indignation because this is concerning AIDS? What if it were a cancer conference or a automobile safety symposium? Would his absence be remarkable then?

It seems to me that this is about AIDS having a special place in the minds of some, not about Mr. Harper's appearence scheduling. AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease that kills people. The only reason it is a political football is that it is linked with homosexuality. If you sever that link, it becomes a health issue just like smoking and cancer, or wearing your seat belt.

I wouldn't expect that anyone higher than the Mayor of Toronto would attend the opening ceremonies, give a 10 minute welcome to the city speech and go back to work.

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by Dowaco

It seems to me that this is about AIDS having a special place in the minds of some, not about Mr. Harper's appearence scheduling. AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease that kills people. The only reason it is a political football is that it is linked with homosexuality. If you sever that link, it becomes a health issue just like smoking and cancer, or wearing your seat belt.

The reason people give AIDS a special place in their mind is that this disease has killed about 25 million since the 80's, and about 40 million people are living with the disease right now, most of them unable unable to get medication. How this can be compared to wearing seat belts or not is quite beyond belief.

I'm also interested in knowing why you believe it is linked with homosexuality? Sure, anal sex increases the risk of transmitting the disease somewhat, compared to vaginal sex, but this is not a major factor in the spread of it.

[Aegis]

Additionally, Harper ran, partially, on the whole family values issue. This is something that should be right up his moral alley, but he callously missed it.

[dragon wench]

Originally Posted by Aegis

this was an event in which Harper should have been there, if only to give the appearance of support from the Canadian government.

Although considering how the Canadian government has reneged on a number of commitments to AIDS... appearance is all it would have been.

To me, Harper's refusal to attend the conference is closely related to the fact that he is pandering to his Christian fundamentalist support base, and figures that anyone concerned about HIV/AIDS wouldn't vote for him anyway. IMO, this is a miscalculation on his part, there are many moderate Tories who are disgusted by the direction in which he has steered the party.

EDIT: lol Aegis, just saw your second post!

Originally Posted by Dowaco

It seems to me that this is about AIDS having a special place in the minds of some, not about Mr. Harper's appearence scheduling. AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease that kills people. The only reason it is a political football is that it is linked with homosexuality.

Firstly, I don't think you need to be Canadian to comment on this issue


Dottie has already summarised much of what I might have said in response to your post. But to add to that, HIV/AIDS is *not* a homosexual disease. In many regions, Africa in particular, women are especially at risk, and the infection rate amongst heterosexual men and women is rising rapidly everywhere in the world.

Moreover, as I'm sure you already know, HIV is also transmitted through shared needles and blood transfusions.

If you sever that link, it becomes a health issue just like smoking and cancer, or wearing your seat belt.

And that, IMO, lies at the crux of the problem. AIDS is not simply a health issue precisely because it is largely transmitted through sex, and thus carries with it considerable stigma. This is especially true in nearly all regions of Africa, where it is still commonplace to not acknowledge the disease for what it is.
If only AIDS were, in fact, soley viewed as something like cancer. Were that the case, we'd be making significant strides in the right direction.

[Dowaco]

Dottie:
from Deaths from HIV/AIDS - WrongDiagnosis.com
# 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)
92.9% of deaths occur in men in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003)

The link with homosexuality is generally accepted at least in North America. Look at the stats. 93% of Canadian deaths are male! Are all these from contaminated needles? I realize that the numbers worldwide are quite different, but we are talking about Canada here and what Canadians expect from their government.


from The Drive To Survive: Reducing Road Deaths in Canada - Life and Society - CBC Archives
"Over the past 50 years nearly 200,000 Canadians have died in traffic accidents; more than those killed in both world wars combined. In addition, despite vast safety measures automobile accidents continue to be a major cause of death of younger Canadians."

From Gov't released auto death data - Aug. 1, 2005
in the US "Over half -- 55 percent -- of those killed in vehicle crashes were not wearing safety belts"

Equating prophylaxis either in sex or by wearing a seat belt is not beyond belief. On the contrary, I think its very comparable. In my mind automobiles are more dangerous than AIDS and deaths can be avoided by wearing your safety belt just as wearing a condom can help protect you against HIV infection.

It seems to me that AIDS is not a major health issue in Canada anyway, so why have the conference there in the first place. If you want to highlight the problem. It should have been in Africa where the problem is greatest.

I wholeheartedly agree with Dragon Wench that AIDS should be treated as a particularly virulent disease and not as a political platform.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Dowaco

<snip> I realize that the numbers worldwide are quite different, but we are talking about Canada here and what Canadians expect from their government.

But no. It was an international conference. Thus not "just" a domestic issue, but a world wide issue, so quoting canadian statistics are not showing the proper picture, when wanting to compare it to say a hypothectical - automobile safty conference.

I simply think there is to little "PR value" in these events in current times because most things drown in terrorisme and middle east problems, so something as "trivial" as a deadly disease is just not good for ratings.

[Dowaco]

Not to be glib, but having this conference in Toronto is like having a hockey tournament in Zimbabwe. Yes AIDS is an international issue, but the OP (a Canadian) is chiding the Canadian Prime Minister for not putting Canada in a good light. My point is that AIDS is not a super big issue for Canadian voters, nor would it be for Americans. I think no less of the Prime Minister for skipping this gathering whether it is politically motivated or simply under his radar.

[Aegis]

Politically speaking, you are right Dowaco, but it is not to gain face at home, but rather internationally. When there are much more humanitarian leaders out there (The Japanese Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi, has not yet missed his annual visit to the Yasukuni shrine. This visit has little do with home politics, as public opinion is against these visits, but rather for international politics).

For a world leader to have not shown up to something as humanitarian as an AIDS Conferance, and international one no less, is the equivalent of saying that AIDS does not matter to Canada as a whole. Frankly, I find that a little unsettling, especially considering the grounds of which half of Harper's campaign was run on.

[Chimaera182]

Originally Posted by Dottie

I'm also interested in knowing why you believe it is linked with homosexuality? Sure, anal sex increases the risk of transmitting the disease somewhat, compared to vaginal sex, but this is not a major factor in the spread of it.

I don't think it was Dowaco's intent to imply that he believed such. The fact is, HIV was linked to homosexuals due to ignorance, and the stigma persists to this day. Much like how the Black Plague might only affect the sinful, and the most extremely sinful were "witches," and witches had cats, and cats chased away and ate the rats which carried the fleas which carried the plague. So maybe homosexuality is the cure. Be gay and live a long, healthy life.

And now that I've actually read that yellow post of his, I take that back. But it is the height of foolishness to assume that just because a vast majority of males died to HIV means that this has any link to homosexuality. After all, homosexuality is not specific to just males.

[Dowaco]

The link with male homosexuality is perceptual not causual. I did not mean to imply that AIDS is a homosexual disease or that only homosexuals can contract it. Obviously incorrect on its face.
However, male homosexuality has long been associated with the disease even in popular culture (Tom Hanks in Philadelphia). Which is where most North Americans get their information.