We have a new update on The Future of the Penny Arcade Forums.

Australian PM calls for ban of all HIV Positive Migrants from entering country

LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
edited April 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6551245.stm
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
«1345

Posts

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Oh man, every few years Australia tries to get the wackiest immigration policies. I still remember Pauline Hanson and One Nation.

    Fencingsax on
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ...erm, wow?

    James on
  • Joseph StalinJoseph Stalin Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Uhm, yeah, that's pretty fucked up, I guess.

    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?

    Joseph Stalin on
    Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

    Workingmen of all countries, unite!
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Uhm, yeah, that's pretty fucked up, I guess.

    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?

    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?

    James on
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Ah Australia, the only Western country further right than America. The US tried this some years ago as I recall - it didn't work. America has the highest rate of HIV infection in the West.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited April 2007
    That's retarded, but I think it belies more ignorance than inhumanity. It's perfectly reasonable to limit the entrance of people with highly contagious infectious diseases. I mean, you don't want to be inviting people into your country who are going to be making everyone sick.

    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.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    Gorak on
  • 3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    3lwap0 on
  • GlorfindelGlorfindel Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yes, Australians, for the most part are pretty racist. However, despite the Cronulla riots in 2005/2006 (?), we don't have that many riots. Or at least to my knowledge. White Australia tends to sweep that away from the public eye.

    Glorfindel on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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.

    You do realize that HIV is a communicable and life-threatening disease, right?

    _J_ on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    Couscous on
  • randombattlerandombattle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I dont see what the big deal is.


    If you stop HIV from entering the country and attempt to stop its spread inside the country you will eventually have no HIV.

    randombattle on
    itsstupidbutidontcare2.gif
    I never asked for this!
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    So HIV doesn't spread through sexual contact, but rather "really, really promiscuous" sexual contact?

    Awesome.

    _J_ on
  • randombattlerandombattle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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.

    randombattle on
    itsstupidbutidontcare2.gif
    I never asked for this!
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    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.

    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.

    _J_ on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    That's retarded, but I think it belies more ignorance than inhumanity. It's perfectly reasonable to limit the entrance of people with highly contagious infectious diseases. I mean, you don't want to be inviting people into your country who are going to be making everyone sick.

    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.
    And to add an economic argument, Australia has a public healthcare system. Allowing people in who are known to have an incurable disease requiring expensive treatment, people who will be a drain on the state's healthcare ressources, is a pretty bad decision for the government to make. Australia has a duty to provide healthcare to its citizens, but not to anyone on Earth who walks up and asks them.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    So HIV doesn't spread through sexual contact, but rather "really, really promiscuous" sexual contact?

    Awesome.

    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.

    Couscous on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    So HIV doesn't spread through sexual contact, but rather "really, really promiscuous" sexual contact?

    Awesome.

    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.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • randombattlerandombattle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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.

    randombattle on
    itsstupidbutidontcare2.gif
    I never asked for this!
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    Yes because telling people not to have sex with everything that moves is really shooting them in the head.

    Try telling that to horny teenagers.

    Couscous on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    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.
    And yet it's spreading more and more.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Gorak on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    So HIV doesn't spread through sexual contact, but rather "really, really promiscuous" sexual contact?

    Awesome.

    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.

    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?

    _J_ on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Richy wrote: »
    And to add an economic argument, Australia has a public healthcare system. Allowing people in who are known to have an incurable disease requiring expensive treatment, people who will be a drain on the state's healthcare ressources, is a pretty bad decision for the government to make. Australia has a duty to provide healthcare to its citizens, but not to anyone on Earth who walks up and asks them.

    Why single out HIV? Why not diabetes? Or stroke victims?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    And to add an economic argument, Australia has a public healthcare system. Allowing people in who are known to have an incurable disease requiring expensive treatment, people who will be a drain on the state's healthcare ressources, is a pretty bad decision for the government to make. Australia has a duty to provide healthcare to its citizens, but not to anyone on Earth who walks up and asks them.

    Why single out HIV? Why not diabetes? Or stroke victims?

    Why not really old people? I'm sure they cost more than most of the other demographics combined.

    Couscous on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    And to add an economic argument, Australia has a public healthcare system. Allowing people in who are known to have an incurable disease requiring expensive treatment, people who will be a drain on the state's healthcare ressources, is a pretty bad decision for the government to make. Australia has a duty to provide healthcare to its citizens, but not to anyone on Earth who walks up and asks them.

    Why single out HIV? Why not diabetes? Or stroke victims?

    Because diabetes and strokes are not communicable diseases?

    Keep up, now. It's not a difficult argument to understand.

    _J_ on
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    And to add an economic argument, Australia has a public healthcare system. Allowing people in who are known to have an incurable disease requiring expensive treatment, people who will be a drain on the state's healthcare ressources, is a pretty bad decision for the government to make. Australia has a duty to provide healthcare to its citizens, but not to anyone on Earth who walks up and asks them.

    Why single out HIV? Why not diabetes? Or stroke victims?

    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.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • randombattlerandombattle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    randombattle on
    itsstupidbutidontcare2.gif
    I never asked for this!
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    And to add an economic argument, Australia has a public healthcare system. Allowing people in who are known to have an incurable disease requiring expensive treatment, people who will be a drain on the state's healthcare ressources, is a pretty bad decision for the government to make. Australia has a duty to provide healthcare to its citizens, but not to anyone on Earth who walks up and asks them.

    Why single out HIV? Why not diabetes? Or stroke victims?

    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.

    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.

    _J_ on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    And to add an economic argument, Australia has a public healthcare system. Allowing people in who are known to have an incurable disease requiring expensive treatment, people who will be a drain on the state's healthcare ressources, is a pretty bad decision for the government to make. Australia has a duty to provide healthcare to its citizens, but not to anyone on Earth who walks up and asks them.

    Why single out HIV? Why not diabetes? Or stroke victims?

    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.

    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.

    Gorak on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    And to add an economic argument, Australia has a public healthcare system. Allowing people in who are known to have an incurable disease requiring expensive treatment, people who will be a drain on the state's healthcare ressources, is a pretty bad decision for the government to make. Australia has a duty to provide healthcare to its citizens, but not to anyone on Earth who walks up and asks them.

    Why single out HIV? Why not diabetes? Or stroke victims?

    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.

    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.

    Only if he starts spreading that disease by having sex.

    Couscous on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    And to add an economic argument, Australia has a public healthcare system. Allowing people in who are known to have an incurable disease requiring expensive treatment, people who will be a drain on the state's healthcare ressources, is a pretty bad decision for the government to make. Australia has a duty to provide healthcare to its citizens, but not to anyone on Earth who walks up and asks them.

    Why single out HIV? Why not diabetes? Or stroke victims?

    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.

    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.

    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?

    _J_ on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    _J_ wrote: »
    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?

    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!"

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    And to add an economic argument, Australia has a public healthcare system. Allowing people in who are known to have an incurable disease requiring expensive treatment, people who will be a drain on the state's healthcare ressources, is a pretty bad decision for the government to make. Australia has a duty to provide healthcare to its citizens, but not to anyone on Earth who walks up and asks them.

    Why single out HIV? Why not diabetes? Or stroke victims?

    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.

    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.

    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?
    Maybe he got it from a person he was ina a stable relationship but broke up with? Not everybody who gets HIV is a nymphomaniac.

    Couscous on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    _J_ wrote: »
    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?

    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!"

    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."?

    _J_ on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Gorak on
  • LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    I really don't see any problem with this. I'm sure the bleeding hearts are going ape shit though.

    LondonBridge on
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    There's already laws concerning the willful spreading of a disease.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I really don't see any problem with this. I'm sure the bleeding hearts are going ape shit though.

    I don't think I have ever heard the phrase "bleeding hearts" in a nonjoking way before.

    Couscous on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Really?

    Anyone with any disease should be able to go anywhere provided that they meet all other requirements of immigration?

    _J_ on
Sign In or Register to comment.