Margaret Wente sure knows how to say it straight. Her straight talk ruffles feathers, and makes the politically correct forces foam at the mouth. More often than not, however, she makes sense. No nonsense makes sense........... what she is calling for is blunt talk when discussing public health policies at the AIDS conference
Her article today in the Globe and Mail highlights many of key points when dealing with the AIDS scourge in this world. Key points include:
Incidence of HIV is going up, not down even after 20 years of non-stop safe-sex education in the gay community. New infection rates are not falling in Canada.
Activist rhetoric spends little time talking about personal responsibility and behaviour. Instead there is a focus on so-called root causes as "poverty, human-rights violations, racism and despair."
Safe sex, now that HIV is no longer a "death sentence," is not routine as it once was becoming a dozen years ago. There's a flippant attitude out there that using condoms is a choice, and it all comes down to sexual freedom.
Immigration policies in this country are so lax that this government may be increasing the incidence of AIDS in Canada simply by allowing infected new immigrants from settling here taxing our health and social costs. Canada is widely known as a safe haven for HIV-positive individuals. Despite the fact that our immigration policies indicate that an individual may be excluded for health reasons if their condition imposes undue costs on the system, advocates have successfully argued that HIV is neither a cost nor a health threat. If it isn't a health threat, than what's all the hoopla in Toronto this week?
Hmmmmmmmm
Accountability must play a key role in the prevention of this deadly disease. It must start with realistic and honest discussions that aren't blanketed with political correct double speak. It doesn't help the people affected, nor does it help the argument for ongoing research to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa where babies are being infected at an alarming rate.
With respect to AIDS in Canada? We should not be seeing rates that are increasing. This all boils down to irresponsible behaviour.......whether it's through unprotected sex or through needles, it is abhorrent and appalling that this country should be seeing these numbers on the rise. Where is self-responsibility? My patience is mighty thin when I read these facts. In fact, it makes my blood boil.
7 comments:
Hear hear sister friend! I agree with Margaret. In fact I would hate to admit that maybe those infected through irresponsibility be held responsible for their own fate. Okay that was too much I know but it is so frustrating that many people who get HIV/AIDS get it by participating in risky activities such as unprotected sex and sharing needles. Everyone, no matter where you stand in society, needs the proper information to protect ourselves. They are very lucky that the government doesn't just make them pay for their own self-inflicted misery. I am all for providing support and services to those who are infected at birth or through some fault of a hospital or whatever but maybe if the criteria for support and benefits were a tad harsher at the getgo people may be less inclined to be so flipant with their health. But then where can that lead to...we won't service overweight people because they ate too many times in RottenRon's drive thru late at night and stayed home watching Jerry Springer rather than excersise? Oh my how the Pandora's box once opened is impossible to close.....
Some people in the gay community actually seek out the virus through a little game known as 'barebacking" I think its grounds for compassion more than serve yourself right.
2 Years ago, I was priveliged to meet a very human face of this massive issue while visiting World Vision projects in Thailand.
In the far north, in a remote village, we met(and Prayed) with a woman in her mid forties who was positive, but didnt have full blown aids. Her partner had died, and her teenage son, ( her only means of support) had fled to the far south of the country for fear of catching the virus. She was very weak, unable to work, and her only means of support was the good will of her villiage.
We sat with her for about thirty minutes. Listened to her story. She gave us pickled mango to eat. It was the first time I had come in contact with a HIV positive person. How sad is that? We sat with her in a circle and prayed in the stifling heat. I dont know what became of her. She cried and we each gave her a hug as we were leaving. ( small comfort)
When i returned to Melbourne, I shared some of my experiences with my colleagues, I was a little shocked by the ignorance of some attitudes... "why dont they just wear a condom.. stop having kids.. I mean, what IS WRONG with these people??"
I think there are very few people in the west who truly understand the complexity of this issue, despite our apparent high level of insight and knowledge and education. Because the humanity and suffering of this issue is far removed from our experience.
I agree that subjects such as AID’s require frank speech. I also think that people need to be accountable for their actions. I do not however, know what can be done to convince people about the necessity of safe sex. I think this is a WHOLE other issue and should be delt with differently in third world countries.
I also agree with urbanmonk that compassion is also missing when it comes to people infected with this disease.
Sunny.......welcome back from your vacation. Interesting comment about risky activities........ we often live in the present moment "doing things" purposely oblivious to the consequences don't we? Instant gratification etc.........gone awry when we look at the deadly game of unprotected sex and drug use.
Monk.....thank you for sharing that story. I find that when one can put a face on a disease or a life situation, it truly does alter the way we look at it. I too have worked with and counselled clients who are HIV positive and actually hadn't been thinking of them while I wrote this piece since I am away from my office this week, I guess. Whenever I have been working with a client, compassion does kick in and politics and personal opinions go right out the window. Thank you for reminding me of that.
Your point about the complexity of the issue and the fact that we are far remmoved from it is a very important point to remember. With many issues, it is easy to sit back in our comfy armchairs and throw out comments.........but youre right. We don't have a frigging clue how complicated and heartwrenching it truly is in villages throughout Africa, for example.
My Utopia......welcome back from your vacation TOO! Frank speech in our countries and approaching the epidemic in Africa and other countries where AIDS is rampant must be dealt with differently. I wholeheartedly agree.
Hmmm... indeed. Wente pretty much said the same stuff I did in the previous post's comments thread.
Not that I need some big name person to say the same thing as I in order to have confidence in my position.
As for Mr. Harper's absence being material, I would say that his presence as national leader in Alert up north to stand up for Canada's sovereignty in front of the world (which doesn't seem to accept this sovereignty) is more important than attending a heavily-partisanized, celebrity-studded, politically-correct gathering, no matter how important the underlying issue.
The Prime Minister would've been remiss in his duties to merely send a Defence Minister. The world would take the wrong message from that and therefore take Canada's Arctic sovereignty without much seriousness. And we cannot have that.
And I reject claims that his absence provides any kind of logical reason for one to believe that it means he or the gov't doesn't care about the serious problem of AIDS, etc.
Of course, all are entitled to interpret everything as they see fit, but are we all remembering to stop, think long and hard, considering everything and all?
Would the PM's attendance have saved a single life? Would his attendance have prevented one person from catching HIV? I doubt it, as many of the folks attending are unlikely to listen to what a Conservative has to say anyway.
Why does the PM have to be at everything all of a sudden? Did Chretien go to everything? NO. He sent "envoys". Ditto for Mr. Dithers. Why the double standard for Mr. Harper?
No double standard in my books. Two wrongs don't make a right. I thought Chretien should've attended as well.
Harper should've attended for many reasons........the most political one is that he is leading a minority gov't. Of course his attendance would'nt save a life directly........but he will be running in an election in the future. The less amunition he gives to the other side, the better. What would it have taken for him to have shown his political face? Nothing. Instead, he has allowed a can of worms to be opened and to be brought up again and again during the next election. He doesn't need the added shit to deal with. And he could've avoided it if he had made a detour to Toronto, put on a measley looking face, said a few words and move onto the Arctic. It's just bad, bad political planning.
You're in good company with Wente... I'm wondering if you lookk alike?? :)
Post a Comment