July 16, 2004
FINALLY WE GET TO THE NUB OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Mandela's star shines at AIDS gathering (Stephanie Nolen ,Globe and Mail, July 16, 2004)
Nelson Mandela came to town yesterday, and everyone from Peruvian AIDS patients to Thai teenagers to a normally jaded international press corps went into a collective swoon.The self-described old-age pensioner -- a man who is hard of hearing, plagued by eye trouble and achingly slow when he walks -- sent an electric thrill through the 15th annual International AIDS Conference, generating far more excitement and energy than any other event in a week of meetings, bickering and protests.[...]
Mr. Mandela spoke about "46664," an AIDS-awareness initiative funded by his foundation and named for the prisoner number assigned to him during 27 years in jail under the apartheid regime.
"Despite the efforts of the apartheid regime to reduce us to prison numbers and so reduce our humanity, the world did not forget," he said, his unmistakable slow, deep tones reverberating in the packed arena.
"Today I call upon all of you, every global citizen, not to forget. We must seize this opportunity to demonstrate that we share a common humanity and that it matters who my sister or brother is. We must never reduce the issue to statistics."
International donors must increase funding for the AIDS fight, he said, adding a specific plea that they "include the treatment of marginalized populations such as refugees, intravenous drug users, prisoners and sex workers."
"As former prisoner number 46664, there is a special place in my heart for all those that are denied access to their basic human rights," he said, to wild cheers from activists who are demanding anti-retroviral treatment as a human right for people with AIDS in poor countries.
Mr. Mandela’s personal suffering, courage and messages of reconciliation have earned him hero status wherever he goes and whatever he says. But did he really mean to compare AIDS patients to the victims of apartheid’s brutal racism?
If access to publically supported drugs and funds to treat AIDS is now a basic human right, does it not follow that sex with whomever, however, is as well?
Posted by Peter Burnet at July 16, 2004 12:10 PMI believe there is a movie in the works about Kinsey.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at July 16, 2004 12:58 PMIf access to publically supported drugs and funds to treat AIDS is now a basic human right, does it not follow that sex with whomever, however, is as well?
Cool, does that mean that women would be violating our human rights when they turn us down? And could we get court orders to force them to have sex with us?
Posted by: Brandon at July 16, 2004 2:57 PMSuch efforts to fight AIDS by providing drugs to already infected people is just fighting the symptoms, and such bodies will not tackle the real cause - rampant worldwide sexual promiscuity. It is a moral and behavioral problem moreso than it is a medical problem.
ABC News ran a special documentary on the pornography industry a few months ago. It was shocking to see what a hard-core, violent and degrading business it is, and how widespread public acceptance of it is. But even though the interviewer, Diane Sawyer, was obviously shocked and disgusted by what happens to young girls in these films, she could not bring herself to denounce the industry on moral grounds. The main focus of their outrage was around the health risks, and the fact that the hard core producers did not allow the use of condoms because their customers did not want to see them. She never said "we should keep young girls from entering into a business that will degrade and dehumanize them".
I think that most of the delegates to the AIDS conference would be happy to see teenage girls and boys in the sex trade get drugs and medical counseling. I don't think many of them would actually consider shutting down the sex trade.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 16, 2004 3:29 PMRobert:
Don't be surprised - it would take a lot for someone in the mainstream media to denounce the pornography industry. After all, they both are about 'entertainment' and 'freedom of expression' and all that. Besides, restrictions on pornography would be seen as a slippery slope by the likes of Diane Sawyer.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 16, 2004 3:58 PMDon't forget the way that pornography performers, both male and female, who are still alive and active in their business, have been welcomed into the Cult of Celebrity over the past few years.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 16, 2004 4:48 PMAIDS is primarily spread because of the adult film industry ?!?
It may well be spread by prostitutes, but workin' girls, (and guys), far pre-date video, and even the printing press.
Blaming pornography is, shall we say, a bit short-sighted.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 18, 2004 8:55 AM