Harper won't attend opening of AIDS forum in Toronto

Started by Sportsdude, Jun 23 06 04:14

Previous topic - Next topic

Sportsdude

PM won't attend opening of AIDS forum in Toronto

World Leaders to join 20,000 researchers and activists at international gathering

Globe and Mail


  OTTAWA[!-- /dateline --] — World leaders are expected to attend a major international conference on AIDS in Toronto this summer but Canada's Prime Minister will not be among them.  "There was an invitation sent to the Prime Minister's Office to participate in the opening, to have the Prime Minister welcome the delegates and to open the conference," Gene Long, a spokesman for the 16th annual International AIDS conference, said yesterday.

 "Recently we've received a letter that he would not be attending," he said.

 This is the third time that Canada has played host to the prestigious conference that is held every two years and is expected to attract 20,000 scientists, journalists, community leaders, AIDS activists and people who are living with the disease.

 There are rumours, which could not be confirmed yesterday, that former U.S. president Bill Clinton and Microsoft chairman Bill Gates will also be in attendance.

 Both men have devoted time and money to the fight against AIDS through their respective foundations.

 Former prime minister Brian Mulroney spoke eloquently about the effort to combat what was then an emerging threat when he addressed the 1989 meeting in Montreal.

 The decision by former prime minister Jean Chrétien to skip the same conference in 1996 caused Nelson Mandela, South Africa's president at the time, to pull out. Mr. Chrétien's absence was termed a national embarrassment and a signal that Canada did not believe it was important for a head of government or a head of state to be at the opening.

 Mr. Long said the track record of attendance by world leaders has been mixed in recent years.

 Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra did open the conference in Bangkok in 2004 -- and was heckled for his country's treatment of poor Thais living with the disease.

 The president of Spain did not appear at the conference when it was held in Barcelona in 2004. But the president of South Africa was a participant at the 2000 conference in Durban.

 Mr. Long said that there has been no announcement yet which visiting dignitaries, VIPs and special guests will be at the Toronto conference.

 But there are some world leaders who will attend the conference, he said.

 So Mr. Harper's absence poses something of a problem, he said.

 "There is a protocol issue when there are visiting heads of state in an official function to be greeted by the Prime Minister."

 Sandra Buckler, a spokeswoman for Mr. Harper, said yesterday that she was unaware that her boss had declined the invitation.

 But "we never confirm the Prime Minister's schedule until we get closer to an event that we're going to do," she said.

 
"We can't stop here. This is bat country."

Sportsdude

Harpoonie must think that AIDS is only a gay issue. And we all know he freaks out with two dudes or girls kissing.  What do you expect when you have Stockwell Day in your cabinet.

   (Day doesn't believe in science, and believes the earth was created in 7/24 hr days when the actual hebrew translation in the bible for 'days' could mean anything from a day to a 1,000 years or infitity which means that evolution makes sense along with the big bang considering those take longer then a week to happen.)    
"We can't stop here. This is bat country."

kitten

A lot of ultra-conservative religions consider AIDS to be the work of the devil, so I'm not surprised he refuses to attend.  Nevertheless, he is supposed to represent ALL the people, so his absense is unjustified.  It's still very rude of him to snub other heads of state.
Thousands of years ago cats were worshipped.  They have not forgotten.

Gopher

A fool's paradise is better than none.

Sportsdude

Thank god my church has never thought that way.  But then again the ELCA isn't exactly conservative but its the 5th biggest church group in the country with 5.5 million people.  While the ones above it are all conservative goof balls.
"We can't stop here. This is bat country."

TehBorken

 The Man Who Walks with Dinosaurs
 [h1][span class="img_caption"]Will he evolve?[/span] [/h1][h3]The return of Stockwell Day, who now implies that people with AIDS deserve no sympathy.[/h3] [h6] [!-- start /util/contributor_list.mc --] [span class="authorname"] By [a class="contrib-link" title="Bio page for Murray Dobbin" href="vny!://thetyee.ca/Bios/Murray_Dobbin"]Murray Dobbin[/a] [/span]
[!-- end  /util/contributor_list.mc --][!-- end contributors and pub date --] Published: December  1, 2004[/h6][h3]TheTyee.ca[/h3][!-- Start "Page" --] He's back. Stockwell Day, the man who once admitted that he believed humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, has once again revealed that he is not fit to hold public office. Then it was sort of funny (remember the "Doris" Day petition?) but this time it is just appalling. Press reports revealed recently that Mr. Day, who is the Conservative Party's foreign affairs critic, refused to send condolences to the Palestinian people on the death of President Yassir Arafat. Why? Because of Mr. Arafat's support for armed struggle against Israel? No. Because he might have died of AIDS.[/p]In a November 16 email to his Conservative colleagues Mr. Day stated:  "Some of you have asked why I have not released a statement of condolence or sympathy. As you know, there are two sides to the Arafat story. You pick...." He then included in the email an article by David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush, indulging in unfounded speculation about the cause of Arafat's death. Frum suggested that Arafat's symptoms "sounded AIDS-like." [/p]Clearly, for both these men, anyone who dies of AIDS is to be shunned, not only while they are alive but even after they are dead. Shunned why? I guess we would have to ask Mr. Day though neither he nor anyone from the Conservative Party wanted to talk about it. We can safely assume however, that Mr. Day, a fundamentalist Christian, and his intellectual mentor David Frum, believe that Mr Arafat was gay and contracted AIDS through sexual contact. In other words, Mr Day believes that we should punish people for being gay. This antediluvian attitude persists in the Conservative Party despite the great progress made in this country in dispensing with homophobic bigotry.[/p]Foreign Minister Day?[/p]This proof is irrefutable: the man who Stephen Harper will name foreign affairs minister if the Conservatives form the next government, has no qualms about expressing this backward and mean-spirited attitude. Even worse, he is quite prepared to act on it. One of the areas in which the Official Opposition can act is in responding to such international events as the death of a leader – and Mr. Arafat was the elected leader of the Palestinians. The message sent by Canada's government-in-waiting to other countries is that Mr Day's homophobia will determine whether or not condolences are forthcoming. [/p]I wonder of Mr Day refuses to send condolences to families in his Penticton constituency whose loved ones die of AIDS?  Or would they qualify only if they could prove the disease was not sexually transmitted? Just what are the rules for receiving sympathy from the man who holds one of the senior critic positions in the Conservative Party?[/p]Back when Mr Day was dismissing evolution he was also, lest we forget, trying to defend his more serious transgressions.  He had expressed the view that we should place child abusers in the general prison population so that those prisoners could summarily execute the abuser. He was also proud of the fact that he made a point of being one of the first customers at holocaust denier Jim Keegstra's new garage after he was convicted of hate crimes. When he was an Alberta MLA, Mr. Day slandered Red Deer lawyer and school trustee Lorne Goddard, attacking him for defending a pedophile in a child pornography case. "Goddard must also believe it is fine for a teacher to possess child porn," said Day. He spent years badgering his cabinet colleagues to end abortion funding.[/p]How moderate? [/p]The disturbing pattern of those days is revealing itself again. If the law and constitution of the land conflict with Mr Day's perverse version of Christian values, then he feels no compunction in simply ignoring the law. The roots of this contempt for human rights go deep for Mr. Day, right to the very notion of democratic governance. Under his guidance the Bentley (Alberta) Christian Centre featured a social studies lesson which declared that democratic governments "represent the ultimate deification of man, which is the very essence of humanism and totally alien to God's word." One might have hoped that years of being in government might have moderated this extremist nonsense. But clearly Mr Day still gives preference to his interpretation of "God's word" on homosexuality and not on the word of Parliament.[/p]Stephen Harper refused to criticize Mr Day's offensive email, presumably because the extreme Christian right is still just as important to the party's future success as it was when it was called the Reform Party. While the party has now taken the name of the Conservative Party don't be fooled by the name and the moderate gloss Mr Harper hopes it will provide. [/p]If Mr. Harper was genuine in his claim to be moderating the "new" party's social conservatism he would have fired Stockwell Day. He didn't. Behind the moderate image lurks the same old bigotry.[/p][em]Author and journalist Murray Dobbin's 'State of the Nation' column appears twice monthly on [/em]The Tyee.[/p]      
The real trouble with reality is that there's no background music.

kitten

I can't understand why stupid clowns keep getting elected.  Surely there can't be that many idiots in the voting populace.  Then again, since he is in Parliament, there must be.
Thousands of years ago cats were worshipped.  They have not forgotten.

Dissident

 kitten wrote:
I can't understand why stupid clowns keep getting elected.  Surely there can't be that many idiots in the voting populace.
 
 
 I said the same thing when Reagan was elected (yes, I'm that old, though I was just a kid at the time).  A few years later I spent a Summer in LA and met a lot of them.
 
 That's why nothing surprises me any more.
 
   
fenec rawks!

Sportsdude

Because they attach themselves to religion. Most people in this country that go to church vote. So if they say they are pro-life or whatever that means people will blindly vote for them even though the politicians themselves will never act on those 'pro-life' promises because its politicial sucide because then they loose a trump card to the other guys in elections. Thats why democrats have only been in office 8 years since the roe v. wade decision went down. Its like when the Liberals use scare tatics against the Torries in elections saying they are against women issues and such. (Which actually is technically true and knowing and watching Canadian conservatives they'll do anything and not think about the consquences just look at Mulroney did and it f-ed up his party for a decade.)

  So if the abortion issue passes the republicans are basically screwed because there are millions of people who just vote on one issue in this country: abortion and if that goes away then that opens up a huge grey area.
"We can't stop here. This is bat country."

Dissident

  Sportsdude wrote:
Because they attach themselves to religion. Most people in this country that go to church vote. So if they say they are pro-life or whatever that means people will blindly vote for them even though the politicians themselves will never act on those 'pro-life' promises because its politicial sucide because then they loose a trump card to the other guys in elections. Thats why democrats have only been in office 8 years since the roe v. wade decision went down. Its like when the Liberals use scare tatics against the Torries in elections saying they are against women issues and such. (Which actually is technically true and knowing and watching Canadian conservatives they'll do anything and not think about the consquences just look at Mulroney did and it f-ed up his party for a decade.)
 
So if the abortion issue passes the republicans are basically screwed because there are millions of people who just vote on one issue in this country: abortion and if that goes away then that opens up a huge grey area.



Do you really believe that the real majority of Americans feel that way?  Reagan and Bush père got elected on economic issues more than anyone else (well, that and a racist view of violent crime–as the "Willie Horton" ads of 1988 will attest).  That's what the "Reagan Democrats" were all about.  The sad thing is that the Republicans drew the wool over "working class" males' eyes about what they would do for them.  They found a good scapegoat in women and minorities.

There was a phenomenon in the 80s of the "Angry White Male":  men between 20 and 45 who were finding their social and economic primacy eroded during that period—mostly by globalisation and the anti-labour politics of Republican administrations—but the Republicans were good at casting the enemy as not the corporate overlords but the "beneficiaries" of Affirmative Action and "the women's movement".   For example, the main reason why women made wage gains against men in particular professions during the 80s and 90s wasn't because they started earning more:  it was because men started earning less (the same case can be made for minorities as well).  That's a lot of what's behind the Far Right even now.

After all, what was the rallying cry in the Clinton campaign HQ in 1992 but "It's the economy, stupid"?   Clinton was able to capitalise on the economic downturn of the early 90s, just as Reagan was able to milk his "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" bullshit in 1980.  Don't think that Thatcher and Mulroney were any different.

Yes, there will be a few very vocal nut jobs who will swear up and down that their real reason for voting Republican is based on social issues.  But even these people will have some sort of economic imperative behind their opinion.  I've yet to meet someone who would tell me that they stand to stand to see their income go down if their candidate is elected, but it's worth it to them to see said candidate enact some sort of social legislation.  After all, the whole anti-choice position was sold to the greater populace on the basis of the "welfare queen" myth.  True right-wingers (like certain members of my family) support abortion rights because, from their point of view, it keeps the poorer classes from breeding and burdening the wealthier ones.

btw, this is perhaps off the subject, but let me tell you something about the rights of women in Canada.  Women were not allowed to vote [span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"]or even own property[/span] until 1947.  The next time you go off about how historically more liberal Canada is as compared to the US, why don't you take that into account?  When I found out that little piece of information, it sure explained a lot about some of the regressive attitudes I have encountered in this country.

Please try to look at the current situation in the context of history, not just in what you see now.

 
fenec rawks!

kitten

In 1972 I was not allowed to buy a car in my own name without my husband's written permission.  Things have changed a lot since then.
Thousands of years ago cats were worshipped.  They have not forgotten.

Sportsdude

Fine but what I see now is also what the mood of the country is in currently. Bush won '04 on the religious right vote. I throw papers and most houses I see that have political signs up say "Vote Pro-Life" blah blah blah.  As I said earlier the people that go to church are the people most likely to vote and they usually vote Republican. *My family excluded.

My friends parents one is a catholic deacon. Are HUGE Social Conservatives. They vote with the pro-life issues first and every thing else is a minor second.  Catholic schools are teaching there kids to vote social issues first and everything else second. Its a growing issue something you probly haven't seen because you live outside of the country or grew up on the west coast where this trend is not common place.  Thats all these people care about. And yes Canada has been slow in areas but that was eons ago (maybe not from your perspective but from mine it certainly is). There has been a cultural shift to the hard right and if you can't see that well I'm sorry.  
"We can't stop here. This is bat country."

Dissident

 kitten wrote:
In 1972 I was not allowed to buy a car in my own name without my husband's written permission.  Things have changed a lot since then.

Get this:  in 1976 my mother, a medical professor who had just finished an auto repair course, took her new car back to the dealer for some warranty-covered repairs.  The dealer said to her, "OK, honey, now you take this estimate home and show it to your husband, and if it's OK with him, he can call back and authorise the repairs."  

My mother said, "Well, first of all, the person who owns the car, the person who has paid for the car, and also the person who knows how a car actually works is standing in front of you, whereas my husband neither knows how a car works nor how I spend my money keeping it in repair—and you, sir, ARE A COMPLETE SEXIST!"  

Oh, how I wish I had been there.

Even better:  my mother had a friend, a black female Army psychiatrist, who made great money as the medical chief of a VA hospital in an unnamed but almost completely white and very rednecked American town in the late 1960s.  This woman decided to buy herself a motorboat to enjoy her time off on some of the local reservoirs.  When she went into the dealership the salesman kept steering her towards the less expensive boats, even though she was interested larger ones that would allow her to invite more of her friends along.  But she went along with him and settled on the boat the the salesman suggested.    When it came time to settle the bill he started outlining various financing options.  She just pulled out her chequebook and asked him how much it was, and promptly wrote out a cheque for the full amount!  That stupid racist and sexist mofo must have realised pretty quickly that he had just missed out on a much bigger sale had he not made such stupid and short-sighted assumptions about what turned out to be one of the more well-heeled customers he had had all year!

I wonder if things are much better now, to be honest.  Real estate people still "steer" single women and minority couples towards lower-income neighbourhoods, even when they can afford more.  It happened to me when I moved to Vancouver.  I ended up buying in a cheaper neighbourhood than I could have, and ultimately ended up spending more in renovations than the difference between a place here and one in an area where I wouldn't have had to put so much extra money and work into my property . . .
   
 
fenec rawks!

Sportsdude

And schools were still segregated until the 80's down here. Jim Crow laws existed until the mid 60's. Racial profiling is prolific as ever (the worst is in Missouri). Inter racial marriage was illegal in most states until the 70's, in some states single people can't adopt.  You want to keep going because I can.  Canada has changed and so has America.
"We can't stop here. This is bat country."

Sportsdude

Here are some examples:

Goldwater's son calls for concentration camp for illegals. Actually this is not as extreme as you would think, a lot of conservatives I've talked to support this idea.

[A href="vny!://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FORCED_LABOR_CAMP?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME"]vny!://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FORCED_LABOR_CAMP?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME[/A]

  And here's an abortion article.

[A href="vny!://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ANTI_ABORTION_CONVENTION?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME"]vny!://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ANTI_ABORTION_CONVENTION?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME[/A]

  Here's Missouri's Racial profiling report: Its the worst in the nation by the way.

[A href="vny!://www.ago.mo.gov/racialprofiling/2005/racialprofiling2005.htm"]vny!://www.ago.mo.gov/racialprofiling/2005/racialprofiling2005.htm[/A]  
"We can't stop here. This is bat country."