UK threatens to dock some aid to anti-gay nations

[fiddledeedee]

Cameron threat to dock some UK aid to anti-gay nations

David Cameron has threatened to withhold UK aid from governments that do not reform legislation banning homosexuality.

The UK prime minister said he raised the issue with some of the states involved at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Australia.

Human rights reform in the Commonwealth was one issue that leaders failed to reach agreement on at the summit.

Mr Cameron says those receiving UK aid should "adhere to proper human rights".

Ending the bans on homosexuality was one of the recommendations of an internal report into the future relevance of the Commonwealth.

Mr Cameron's threat applies only to one type of bilateral aid known as general budget support, and would not reduce the overall amount of aid to any one country.

Malawi has already had some of its budget support suspended over concerns about its attitude to gay rights. Concerns have also been raised with the governments of Uganda and Ghana.

[Gleeko0]

This will make them review their terrible acts toward their own people! I heard that in some African country, authorities arrested and even killed homosexuals, Yeah..instead of fixing their poverty and problems, doing that is such a shame.


Thank you UK.

Part of me likes this, part of me just thinks it's a form of colonialism all over again.

We gave them Christianity, we made them poor and now we're taking away their money because their sticking to their Christianity?

[Emberstone]

As desmond tutu said: "When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land."

[jcsjr1985]

If the UK do decide to ax their aid they will more likely then not get there aid from China in exchange for rights to exploit their resources and still be able to persecute homosexuals in their respective countries. lest thats what I think will happen.

[Robert]

How about make gay marriage legal and allow gays to give blood on the same basis as straights before you start lecturing on gay rights, Mr Cameron.

Hypocrite.

[Mimerio]

Originally Posted by Corporal Sparks

How about make gay marriage legal and allow gays to give blood on the same basis as straights before you start lecturing on gay rights, Mr Cameron.

Hypocrite.

Gay marriage will be legal over in England by 2015 apparentally, Being a British citizen I was over the moon by this.
The giving blood bit is understandable too, but I've never done it, so I didn't know of the law about homosexual blood donations.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Mimerio

The giving blood bit is understandable too,

No it isnt. If you think its understandable then you dont know what the law is.

[British Lad]

Originally Posted by Corporal Sparks

No it isnt. If you think its understandable then you dont know what the law is.

It has been changed is now down to 10 years, one day they see sense.

[GuardianKitten]

Originally Posted by British Lad

It has been changed is now down to 10 years, one day they see sense.

Yes, but it should be 3 months*, if at all.
(3months for HIV to show up on blood tests IIRC)


*and if they do this, it should be for unprotected sex with a new partner. Regardless of your sex/sexuality

Originally Posted by Corporal Sparks

No it isnt. If you think its understandable then you dont know what the law is.

Except it is understandable. The prevalence of HIV among MSM in London is about 12%. If the MSM population were it's own country it would have a worse prevalence than a lot of Sub-Saharan African countries, the people of which are currently banned from giving blood in the UK.

If London has a population of about 7,000,000, that means about 210,000 people are MSM (based on the standard estimate of gays of 3% of the population). That would mean that there are about 25,000 people living with HIV and as they estimate that one quarter of people with HIV don't know it, there would be approximately 6,300 MSM people who have HIV but don't know it in London. If the test for HIV was 99.999% effective that would still mean 6 cases of HIV being missed.

For the Blood Services which should ONLY have the safety of the patient and the safety of the donor in mind 1 case of HIV transmission is far too many. Especially when there is no urgent need for the blood.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by GuardianKitten

it should be for unprotected sex with a new partner. Regardless of your sex/sexuality

Yep.

---------- Post added 4th Nov 2011 at 09:07 AM ----------

Originally Posted by LostandFound

Except it is understandable.

They do not need to create different limits on homosexuals than heterosexuals BECAUSE homosexuals dont keep HIV in a different way or for longer than heterosexuals. So, why the hell do they need different rules for people who are the same in every single way? Its nothing to do with statistics. Its to do with pure discrimination. Even if homosexuals were five thousand times more likely to have aids than heterosexuals, the law still wouldnt make sense.

Originally Posted by Corporal Sparks

They do not need to create different limits on homosexuals than heterosexuals BECAUSE homosexuals dont keep HIV in a different way or for longer than heterosexuals. So, why the hell do they need different rules for people who are the same in every single way? Its nothing to do with statistics. Its to do with pure discrimination. Even if homosexuals were five thousand times more likely to have aids than heterosexuals, the law still wouldnt make sense.

Except it would. If you are designing a blood donor policy to prevent the transmission of a blood borne and sexually transmitted infection you need to divide the overall population into sub-populations and screen (in the same way the health authorities decide on sub-populations for breast screening, pap smears, colonoscopies, etc) out or in certain sub-populations.

Making a sub-populations is a matter of simple biology. It isn't that intravenous drug users are bad people or worse people or dirty people, it's just that by continuously sticking needles in your arm and sharing these needles it makes it more likely that a virus will spread.

Similarly, with the MSM population, it's not that being homosexual makes us different people or dirty people or lesser people it's just that anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal sex, biological fact. This over time has resulted in a much larger prevalence of HIV among the distinct MSM population as compared to the population that has only had sex with the opposite gender.

So, if you are developing a blood policy and you want it to actually protect the people on the receiving end, you divide the population into groups and you take from the groups with the lowest prevalence of the things you don't want and if that doesn't give you enough blood then you take from the group with the next lowest prevalence.

Why aren't you speaking out against the ban on people from countries where HIV prevalence is high? We're all the same people aren't we?

[Robert]

Originally Posted by LostandFound

Except it would. If you are designing a blood donor policy to prevent the transmission of a blood borne and sexually transmitted infection you need to divide the overall population into sub-populations and screen (in the same way the health authorities decide on sub-populations for breast screening, pap smears, colonoscopies, etc) out or in certain sub-populations.

Making a sub-populations is a matter of simple biology. It isn't that intravenous drug users are bad people or worse people or dirty people, it's just that by continuously sticking needles in your arm and sharing these needles it makes it more likely that a virus will spread.

Similarly, with the MSM population, it's not that being homosexual makes us different people or dirty people or lesser people it's just that anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal sex, biological fact. This over time has resulted in a much larger prevalence of HIV among the distinct MSM population as compared to the population that has only had sex with the opposite gender.

So, if you are developing a blood policy and you want it to actually protect the people on the receiving end, you divide the population into groups and you take from the groups with the lowest prevalence of the things you don't want and if that doesn't give you enough blood then you take from the group with the next lowest prevalence.

Why aren't you speaking out against the ban on people from countries where HIV prevalence is high? We're all the same people aren't we?

Lets get a few things straight.

When you're gay, do they consider whether you've ever had anal sex or not?
When you're gay, do they take in to consideration whether you're in a monogamous relationship or not?
When you're gay, do they take in to consideration whether you use a condom or not?

The answer to all 3 is no.

Originally Posted by Corporal Sparks

When you're gay, do they consider whether you've ever had anal sex or not?

Yes, because they don't ask you whether you're gay, they ask you whether you've had sex with a man before. It could be two straight guys having sex and they would fall under MSM, it could be a straight guy with a gay guy and he would be MSM and it could be two gay guys, MSM. As for the condom thing they don't ask you whether you use condoms when you pay money for sex, they don't ask you whether you use your own needles when you inject drugs.

Giving blood is not a right. The only thing a blood service should take into account is the safety of the recipient and the safety of the donor. Questions of donor screening should they take blood from should be based on science (epidemiological studies, prevalence rates, etc.) not on feelings! This should be to ensure that the blood is safe for the recipient. Show me some science and not just arbitrary claims of discrimination and hurt feelings.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by LostandFound

they don't ask you whether you're gay, they ask you whether you've had sex with a man before.

Wrong. They ask whether you've had anal or oral sex with a man before. So, my point was that your previous claim that you are more likely to contract HIV from anal sex doesnt come in to it.

Originally Posted by LostandFound

As for the condom thing they don't ask you whether you use condoms when you pay money for sex

So, whats your point? That they also discriminate against people who use prostitutes? If so, You will find no argument from me. You can not contract HIV from someone while wearing a condom.

Originally Posted by LostandFound

Show me some science and not just arbitrary claims of discrimination and hurt feelings.

I'm showing you some common sense. Is that good enough?

You also ignored one of the questions. So, you agree with me that whether you have a monogamous partner or not should be taken in to consideration, right?

[SA Boy]

I think this is completely the right thing to do, the death penalty is always wrong but to kill someone because of their sexuality makes me feel ill.

Originally Posted by Corporal Sparks

I'm showing you some common sense. Is that good enough?

NO, it isn't (and you've shown no common sense)! Do you not understand that health policies are built on SCIENCE and if what you're saying is 'common sense' then it should be able to be backed up by scientific research.

You could develop a list of hundreds of nitty gritty questions to figure out exactly everybody's risk and then assume everybody is telling the truth and assume that everybody's partner was telling the truth to them. But why should they bother when they're getting enough blood as it is? If they weren't getting enough blood then I could see them start dividing up the MSM population into people who've done one thing and not the other so as to tap into the pool that has less HIV prevalence. Also, all of those new questions would need to be studied and researched.

I recognize that being a man who has sex with men I am placing myself at greater risk of contracting HIV. For myself (and pretty much every other gay man I know) the prospect of companionship and joy of sex makes the risk worth it. I don't blame anybody for the risk, it just so happens that 4 billion years of evolutionary biology gave the anus a lot less hospitable for sex than the vagina.

Because of this I'm at greater risk of contracting HIV. This means that in terms of how the whole health system works I don't get to donate blood but I do get A LOT of public health money thrown my way to ensure that I'm getting tested, have condoms and lube available, seeing the doctors and nurses that I need to see, making sure my mental health is alright, etc.

But it has become pointless arguing. A blood service donor policy is designed to protect the recipient of the blood, not to make prospective donors feel good. It is not discriminatory against gay people (lesbians are allowed to give blood!) and giving blood is not a right. But, since you're arguing on the basis of feelings and I'm trying to argue for science we'll never see eye to eye.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by LostandFound

But it has become pointless arguing. A blood service donor policy is designed to protect the recipient of the blood, not to make prospective donors feel good. It is not discriminatory against gay people (lesbians are allowed to give blood!) and giving blood is not a right. But, since you're arguing on the basis of feelings and I'm trying to argue for science we'll never see eye to eye.

You seem so sure its not discrimanatory against gay people and, yet, they have recently changed from a full life time ban for gay people to a year ban for gay people.

AND

They dont care if you have anal sex or not.
They dont care if you're in a monogamous relationship or not.
They dont care if you wear a condom or not.

What an absolute farce!

[Johnnieguy]

The fact of the matter is...You can have all the gay sex you want and still never get HIV. In the US (not sure about the UK) every single blood sample is tested for HIV and other infectious agents. This is why it is not okay for an outright ban. 3 months may be too short of a window (6 would be more ideal), but 10 years is also excessive.