now, wait for the "homophobic" accusations...

"Fury at Howard HIV entry ban call

Aids charities have reacted angrily to Australian Prime Minister John Howard's opposition to HIV-positive immigrants moving to Australia."

Mr Howard proposed a blanket ban, which would only be exempt in special cases, during a radio interview in Melbourne.
Melbourne is in Victoria, a state that's "enjoyed" a quadrupling of HIV-positive people in the past few years
Australian HIV activists said the country's immigration laws already had tight restrictions.
They sure do--again and again we hear of people who are refused permission to bring in elderly relatives from overseas, on the pretext that they will cost the Australian taxpayer money to support. This, despite the fact that those wanting to bring them closer have demonstrated a willingness to foot the bill for their care.
But HIV-positive people are, for some reason, a special category. Amazing what a strong lobby group can achieve.......
The UK's National Aids Trust described the proposal as illegal, discriminatory and ineffective.
Bollocks. When it comes to immigration, "legal" is whatever the Australian people decide it is. At election time. The Howard government indicated before the last elections that they would toughen up immigration laws and the Australian voters obviously agreed.
'Impractical to enforce'
"impractical"? How? A simple series of blood tests is all that's needed.
Mr Howard was asked about the issue during a visit to Melbourne, in Victoria state, which has seen a sharp rise in HIV cases.
"a sharp rise" eh..try quadrupling!
Infectious diseases specialist Dr Chris Lemoh called it "a hysterical overreaction, it mixes racism with a phobia about infectious disease", according to the Associated Press news agency.
aaaah yes..the "racism" charge. Since when did this virus constitute a race? And a woman who was deliberately infected with HIV by a Somali "refugee" here in NZ might take issue with the "phobia" tag.
"To not allow people to come on the basis of any health condition is immoral, it's unethical and it's impractical to enforce."
Well, it's been enforced for years--provided that person is white, anglo-saxon and preferably male. Where were these bleeding hearts then?

It doesn't actually do any good. People go underground
Yusef Azard, National Aids Trust
Piss off, Yusuf. If it doesn't do any good, then what are you complaining about? And if they aren't here in Australia, they can't "go underground" can they?

Yusef Azard, from the National Aids Trust, said tighter controls on immigration would not necessarily have an effect on the rate of infection.
"The United States has had these sorts of strict entry restrictions on HIV for many, many years," he said.
"It's got the highest rate of HIV in the developed world. So it doesn't actually do any good. People go underground. Stigma and discrimination increases in the country and makes the response to HIV all the more difficult."
It's got the highest rate of HIV in the developed world for a number of reasons and I very much doubt that immigrant health checks is one of them.
The BBC's Jill McGivering says the National Aids Trust monitored policy in almost 170 countries and found that most had some sort of HIV restriction on non-nationals.

She says they can range from blanket bans to refusal in certain categories, such as residency or right to work.
Five years ago, Canada tightened its restrictions. Now foreigners applying for residency are tested and likely to be refused if they are positive.
Visitors to mainland China are refused entry if they declare themselves HIV positive on immigration health forms. Foreigners who stay for more than six months have to show evidence of a negative HIV test, our correspondent says.
Perhaps because the homosexual lobby in China is somewhat...um..weak?
Victoria's public health officials have blamed the rise in HIV cases partly on overseas immigrants, but also on Australian residents relocating from other parts of the country.
hahahaha! relocating to Victoria? Tell that to Queenslanders who've seen thousands of Victorians fleeing north for years!
"I think we should have the most stringent possible conditions in relation to that nationwide, and I know the health minister is concerned about that and is examining ways of tightening things up," Mr Howard said.
You've done it now, John--the Pink Mafia have it in for you!
BBC "news"

UPDATE: This is fascinating--a map which you can mouse over and it'll give the main sources of HIV infection by country. HERE:
(hint: In Australia it's not toilet seats or blood transfusions.)

updated update: from a comment left in Iain Hall's blog (link on the left sidebar):
"Seconldy for your outdated view that AIDS is a predominantly gay issue, please read the following table of sources of infection…

Exposure Route Estimated infections per 10,000 exposures to an infected source
Blood Transfusion 9,000[47]
Childbirth 2,500[48]
Needle-sharing injection drug use 67[49]
Receptive anal intercourse* 50[50][51]
Percutaneous needle stick 30[52]
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse* 10[50][51][53]
Insertive anal intercourse* 6.5[50][51]
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse* 5[50][51]
Receptive oral intercourse* 1[51]§
Insertive oral intercourse* 0.5[51]§
* assuming no condom use
§ Source refers to oral intercourse performed on a man

….As you can see 90% come from blood tranfusions, 0.65% from anal intercourse. I hope that clears things up for you on that front at least…
Comment by PKD
riight..his source was Wikipedia. Now compare that with the information on the map mentioned above. Someone is lying or distorting the figures outrageously and I doubt it's the South Carolina University School of Medicine.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them