![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
UWO Students & Community Groups March On Health Canada
London / January 17, 2008 – A group of queer students and their supporters marched on Health Canada’s London offices earlier today, demanding that a new policy around organ donation be immediately repealed based on both its homophobic nature and the increased deaths it will cause due to the rejection of otherwise healthy organs.
Members of Standing Against Queer Discrimination (SAQD), as well as supporters from Students Opposed to Hatred On Campus (SOHOC), the UWO Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), and members of campus NDP and Liberal groups gathered in downtown London today carrying signs and banners demanding that the recent policy, implemented without consultation and in secret, be replaced with one based on, as the group argued “Science – not stereotypes”. Marching through downtown, the protesters argued that the time had come to stand against homophobia, and that the policy was unjustified – calling instead for a policy based on “risky behaviours, not risky people”.
Students were protesting a new policy on organ donation which came into effect in December of 2007, a policy which bans all men who have sex with a man in the last 5 years from donating their organs, regardless of whether HIV tests come back negative. Despite the fact that the so-called ‘window period’ – the time in which an individual could be infected and yet test negative – is no more than 6 months, this recent policy change extends the ban on all gay men to 5 years, a sharp contrast to the 6-month ban imposed on heterosexuals.
Remarks given at the protest argued that discrimination based on race or gender would never be tolerated, yet the policy the government had implemented was simply the same form of discrimination targeted at the queer population. Protesters argued that given the changing landscape of HIV infections, a situation in which women aged 18-35 represented the greatest increased rate of infection, it was past time that the stereotypical view of HIV as a ‘gay disease’ was rejected – both for the sake of gay men and that of the women who were unaware of the risk they faced. SAQD’s statement highlighted both the danger of a policy which “further stigmatizes a group which has been victimized and marginalized”, as well as emphasizing the importance of this policy for the thousands of Canadians currently on waiting lists, arguing that for many these organs “will mean the difference between life and death”.
NDP MP Irene Mathyssen was present and shared her party’s outrage at the new policy with the gathered crowd. She argued that just as Canada had come to reject racism, sexism and ageism – it was now time to stand up and reject homophobia. The crowd responded with loud applause to her promise that this issue would be brought to the government when the House of Commons resumed, and that the NDP would pressure the government for change. Liberal MP Glen Pearson was unable to attend, but a statement from the Liberal party affirmed their opposition to the policy, a policy which they argued represented yet another example of “the Conservative government mak[ing] its decisions based on ideology rather than empirical fact.”
Trackback URL for this post:
- Craig A's blog
- Login or register to post comments










#29
What happens if you answer yes to # 29 a), b) or c) ? Are people born in Africa or who have lived in Africa since 1977 also excluded from donating?
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Although oversimplified....
Although your argument oversimplifies the matter - you actually prove my point exactly. The risk is from unprotected anal sex, not just anal sex in general, but lets follow that argument. In that case, we should ban all those who have unprotected anal sex - a category which is not related to your orientation.
The restriction on donation by those who use IV drugs is behaviour-based, which is exactly what we're arguing for. No one thinks there should be no restrictions - but the restrictions must be tied to the risk behaviour - not membership in some arbitrary "risk group". Otherwise it's roughly equivalent to saying that members of certain racial groups have a higher rate of IV drug use, so since IV drug use is a risk factor lets ban those racial groups. It's ridiculous - and regressive.
--- The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. Karl Marx
Zach, you wanna grab a movie
Zach, you wanna grab a movie with me sometime?
How about we check out Club
How about we check out Club Seven?
In fact, you ARE wrong
In fact, you ARE wrong there. There is no restriction on anyone other than gay males who have anal sex, while there is a lifetime ban for gay men who do.
Even from your perspective that has to look a little suspicious.
--- The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. Karl Marx
"Well I could be certainly
"Well I could be certainly wrong here, but I believe they DO disallow anyone who has unprotected anal sex, or anal sex of any type."
This is where I'm saying you're wrong.
They do not disallow anyone who has anal sex, unless they are a gay man. Yes there are other restrictions, but this one is directed solely at gay men, not at the behaviour itself. We're not calling for a removal of all restrictions, just an equal application of the existing ones to ALL people, not just those whose sexualities are a minority.
--- The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. Karl Marx
The policy itself.
Zach-
Here is the policy itself: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/brgtherap/reg-init/cell/cto_regs_rias-rei...
The list of restrictions is about halfway through.
The idea which is foolish is that somehow orientation is the deciding factor in risk. Someone who has been in a monogamous gay relationship is NOT at a higher risk of AIDS than a heterosexual who goes out and hooks up at the bar each weekend. Or even than a heterosexual who doesn't use protection. Orientation doesn't determine your risk, behaviours do.
Wouldn't you rather have a policy which would actually protect the organ/blood supply by screening out individuals who are risky, than a policy which is designed simply to make people think it is safe by screening out a population which, in the last year, was responsible for 32% of new infections?
I may not be the best at math - but that does seem to leave another 68% not accounted for. And that's not even considering the fact that the policy violates non-discrimination laws.
--- The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. Karl Marx
Can you post the list? I
Can you post the list? I can't find it in the page, unless you're talking about "Annex E"...
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Sorry
Annex E it is.
I believe it's the CBS one that has the details in the middle somewhere. The link to Annex E is also at section (18).
Notice that Annex E's exclusionary criteria don't include anything about heterosexual anal sex or even unprotected heterosexual sex - both are just as high risk as (and higher risk than some of) the practices of gay men.
--- The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. Karl Marx
"the good Dr. Ron Paul"
"the good Dr. Ron Paul" accepted $500 in campaign contributions from Don Black in December. Black is the founder and operator of the racist hate website, Stormfront (motto - "White Pride World Wide"). While Ronny seems to have some good ideas for foreign policy, they are heavily overshadowed by his gun loving, race-segregating position on domestic policy.
So what was it that makes Ron Paul "the good Dr."?
http://radicalblogs.org/lpps
wait.. what?
I'm confused..
was jeff saying that he wanted Ron Paul to give the White supremists money?
I missed that...
p.s. this is a wonderful example of Godwin's Law ,
a concept that I just had explained to me by a friend a mere day or so ago.
-r.
I think Jeff is saying that
I think Jeff is saying that Ron Paul is his idol - being the libertarian that Jeff is.
heavenly toasted banana anyone?
Ok, so you prolly don't believe in God, but.....
I think you will appreciate this man's reasoning skills...
I bet this seemed like a good idea initially...unfortunately, like fire, if you play with Ronny... "two thumbs up for the makers of rubbing alcohol, fire is baaaad, kids don't play with Ronnies".
http://radicalblogs.org/lpps
hahahahah...
gay people will protest anything.. that is a fact.
"herion users"...what about
"herion users"...
what about polyamorists? Using network theory to analyze disease related data you'll notice that hubs (unusually promiscuous people) are what tend to increase the flow of diseases such as HIV. However, I don't think we'll be able to easily document people's sexual behavior in order to enforce such a ban.
If only we could vote in a neo-conservative government that would be willing to implement spy-tech, like that used in Facebook or the IAP, to document people's lives at a deeply personal level. I know a lot of types attending this year's Davos Forum who either posses and/or would like to implement such tech for similar interests. I should of gone I guess.
why stop there?
Why not prevent anyone who engages in extra-marital sexual relations of any kind?
How about folks who smoke or eat McFood regularly?
Why not prevent people who can't seem to string together an entire coherent sequence of thoughts?
"herion user" rights
It's about time that someone stood up for "herion user" rights !
flamebait!
*cough*
-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
hook, line and sphincter?
http://radicalblogs.org/lpps
Challenge London Free Press & hateful article on SAQD
Today in the London Free Press Ian Gillespie's hateful and ignorant article (opinion) Protesters on wrong track on this one is downright messed up.
Here is a great opportunity for those who are in support of SAQD to send a quick letter to the LFP.
submit an online letter to the editor (under 200 words)
Thanks for bringing that to
Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Dan. Somehow I'm guessing we won't see any of our responses printed though.
--- The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. Karl Marx
worthwhile
Actually, I’ve really been personally convinced of the power of the letter to the editor section for keeping issues alive. It is the most read part of any newspaper, and controversy or conflict is exactly what they are looking for. I guarantee that a well wrote short reply would be published within two days.
Well, I submitted a clearly
Well, I submitted a clearly argued response to the most inaccurate portions of his argument - we'll see if it's published, and if not I'll at least put it up here later.
--- The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. Karl Marx
letters to the editor
Well it looks like both Dan and Craig got their letters published, along with 5 others.
Half of the Letters to the editor page was taken up with responses to Ian's article..
Looks like we weren't the only ones who were unimpressed.
Good job guys, I thought both of your letters were very well written.
-r.
Read both of them as well.
Read both of them as well. This might be a pattern worth emulating: someone posts about LF article on the LC, then a couple or more of us write to the editor.
LFPress and rally
lfpress: Great stuff Craig and Dan! The support from so many others in London was amazing to see.
rally: This was an amazing, well-planned and executed event! Congratulations!
http://radicalblogs.org/lpps
Thanks Jeff. There's an
Thanks Jeff. There's an interesting article that documents the links between this policy and the FDA one, as well as the Conservatives' refusal to actually identify anyone whom they consulted with on the matter - apparently citing 'privacy concerns' (surprise, surprise).
Sorry - article is: http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=4242&PUB_TE...
--- The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. Karl Marx