An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
Australian PM calls for ban of all HIV Positive Migrants from entering country
Lanz
...Za?Registered User regular
...Za?Registered User regular
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6551245.stm
All I have to say with this at the moment is that this sounds like a horrible and inhumane idea on the part of Howard, and I hope it never comes to pass.
I'm just rather in shock that someone, especially a Prime Minister, would call for something like this.
Howard calls for HIV migrant ban
Australia should refuse to allow migrants or refugees with HIV to enter the country, Prime Minister John Howard has said.
Mr Howard said there may be special cases when an exemption could be considered but as a rule HIV-positive people should be denied entry.
Mr Howard was asked about the issue during a visit to Victoria state, which has seen a sharp rise in HIV cases.
Any ban for migrants with HIV/Aids would need a change in the federal law.
Mr Howard, on a visit to Melbourne, told a local radio station he wanted to seek more advice on the issue, but said his gut feeling was that HIV sufferers should not be allowed in to the country.In the US, everyone arriving at Ellis Island was given a health exam and if you were found to be a carrier of certain diseases, you were sent back
Gerald, Chicago, USA
"My initial reaction is no," he said. "There may be some humanitarian considerations that could temper that in certain cases, but, prime facie - no." 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.
Tuberculosis ban
Mr Howard, who has been in power for 11 years, is known for his tough stance on immigration.
He likened his proposed ban to the ban already imposed on people suffering from tuberculosis.
"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," he said. Solicitor David Puls of the New South Wales HIV/Aids Legal Centre said the law allowed immigrants to be denied access where there are public safety concerns.
"The Medical Officer of the Commonwealth does not consider HIV to be a public safety concern," he was quoted by the Australian newspaper as saying.
He added that HIV should not be compared with tuberculosis as the latter is airborne and contagious, while HIV is transmissible but not contagious.
Australia has been alarmed by the country's rise in HIV cases. Infection rates rose by 41% between 2000 and 2005.
There is particular concern about the rapid spread of HIV and Aids in neighbouring Pacific countries, such as Papua New Guinea.
All I have to say with this at the moment is that this sounds like a horrible and inhumane idea on the part of Howard, and I hope it never comes to pass.
I'm just rather in shock that someone, especially a Prime Minister, would call for something like this.
Lanz on
0
Posts
It begs the question, however, of whether or not it really is fucked up. Why shouldn't they restrict their immigrants to the highest caliber of people? If one of the responsibilities of a government is to keep people safe, isn't this a way for them to help prevent the spread of AIDS? Do immigrants really have a right to live in any country, or do the people already their have a right to restrict their access? In todays society, people generally side with those already living their, so why don't they have a right to keep thier country as safe as possible?
Workingmen of all countries, unite!
Maybe instead of dehumanizing HIV victims and barring them from entering a country and (most likely) making a better life for themselves, they should take the money used to examine immigrants and put that towards HIV/AIDS research?
The problem lies in the perception that people with AIDS are going to be spreading AIDS all over the damned place simply by wandering around, and that's not the case. An immigrant who's HIV+ isn't going to infect anyone who he hasn't fucked or bled all over, and so his comparison to tuberculosis is pretty dumb.
That said, a government is not morally obligated to allow everyone to come on over and become citizens. Immigration policy should be based largely on what's practical, not on what's altruistic. If it came out that there was a demonstrable problem with HIV+ folks immigrating and infecting lots of people, then I'd be more sympathetic towards such a ban. But I'd be shocked if that's the case, and it certainly doesn't seem like Howards has the facts on his side.
Ah Jeff, so naive. Don't you know that Australian women find it impossible to resist swarthy, infected foreigners?
It's only a matter of time before the all-Australian male is extinct.
Just a slight de-rail here - are all the race riots and stuff I hear about in Aussie land true? Rumor on the street is that island is chock full of racist sumbitches.
You do realize that HIV is a communicable and life-threatening disease, right?
It doesn't tend to be spread to a lot of people unless the person is really, really promiscuous.
If you stop HIV from entering the country and attempt to stop its spread inside the country you will eventually have no HIV.
I never asked for this!
So HIV doesn't spread through sexual contact, but rather "really, really promiscuous" sexual contact?
Awesome.
It just seems to me like people bitch and bitch about stopping AIDS and HIV but when it comes down to it no one wants to do jack shit to actually stop it.
You want a cure for AIDS? Ok I've got it. Don't pass it on to anyone else if you have it.
I never asked for this!
That's not entirely true. I think that there is a desire to bring about an end to the disease, or at least find a cure or a way to manage it...it's just not the case that people want to take everyone with HIV or AIDS out back and shoot them in the head.
Unless the person has a lot of unprotected sex, only one or two people will get it directly from that person.
Tuberculosis, on the other hand, is much easier to spread.
You're being _J_ again. You know full well that a HIV+ person on antivirals practicing safe sex in the context of long-term, committed relationship is highly unlikely to contribute to the spread of HIV.
If a monogamous couple, one of whom is HIV+, wanted to come in, do you think the PM would be okay with that?
I doubt it. As ElJeffe said, this isn't enlightened risk management. This is a combination of immigrant-o-phobia and HIV-o-phobia.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes because telling people not to have sex with everything that moves is really shooting them in the head.
It isn't to difficult to figure out that if HIV wasn't being spread it would eventually die out.
I never asked for this!
Try telling that to horny teenagers.
How about we gather up eveyone who is HIV +ive and dump them on an island. Because otherwise it seem like you're not prepared to do jack shit to stop it.
Since when has it been bad to have a phobia of something that can kill you without your knowledge of its existence?
I'll admit that the position the Australian PM takes is somewhat asinine from a standpoint of someone living in the world...but if we had to put the phrase "you can't come here because you have a different skin color" and "you can' come here because you have a disease which kills people" on a crazy scale which would be ranked higher?
I think there is some sanity to be found in the position the man takes. Now, the man himself may not be embracing the sane argument but is rather articulating "I hate HIV ridden Fags" bullshit.
There is a degree to which the stance can be seen as a good thing. Rip away the hatred and biggotry and basically the Prime Minster is trying to protect his people from a disease. That's not bad, is it?
Why single out HIV? Why not diabetes? Or stroke victims?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Why not really old people? I'm sure they cost more than most of the other demographics combined.
Because diabetes and strokes are not communicable diseases?
Keep up, now. It's not a difficult argument to understand.
Feral was responding to a quote on the effects on public healthcare. Keep up.
It would wipe out the disease if you did.
Really at the rate HIV cures are being developed you most likely will never see a cure in your lifetime. So if you cant cure it and if you try mass scale prevention you are labeled as inhuman then whats the point?
I never asked for this!
Right. And strokes and diabetes are isolated to the person who has them. If 1 person with HIV comes into the country and requires medication and then SPREADS THAT DISEASE to other people who did not previously have it then it puts a larger strain on the healthcare system by increasing the number of people who require healthcare.
Is Australia HIV free now? If not, then that's a pretty week argument.
Only if he starts spreading that disease by having sex.
If he contracted the disease via random sex there's a pretty good chance that he is the sort of person who would have random sex, given that he is the sort of person who has had random sex, given that he had random sex and so got the disease.
Or does everyone with HIV stop having sex?
The sane approach would be to look at HIV status as one of many criteria determining whether or not a given immigrant would be let in. It would be neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition on its own, but would be taken into account in aggregate with age, education level, occupation, and health.
What's that saying about roads to Hell and paving material?
You can't separate them out. If you deal with HIV issues on even the most superficial basis, you quickly discover how much discrimination there is against people with HIV. And it's all based on the exact thing you mention - they carry a lethal disease. People ignore that the likelihood of contracting that lethal disease is infinitesimal unless you have unprotected sex with that person. But it doesn't matter, people with HIV still get kicked or pressured out of schools, churches, social events, sports teams, what have you. Now we've got an entire country that wants to do the same thing, forgive me if I have trouble seeing this as anything more than "OMG HIV is scary!"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So would it be ok for the prime minster to place a ban on the actions of those who had HIV? They can do anything they want except engage in activities which could spread the disease. Would that be alright?
Is the problem discrimination or is the problem stupid discrimination? Would it be ok to say, "You can come to Autralia, but you can't have unprotected sex with anyone."?
And the humane approach would be to disregard it completely. Your status as a refugee (and let's not pretend that this won't mainly affect them) should not be affected by your health status.
I don't think I have ever heard the phrase "bleeding hearts" in a nonjoking way before.
Really?
Anyone with any disease should be able to go anywhere provided that they meet all other requirements of immigration?