December 6, 2004


Canada to provide $105-million for AIDS (Estanislao Oziewicz, Globe and Mail, December 2nd, 2004)

Canada is responding to AIDS' vicious assault on women with $105-million in funding for programs to help women and young girls in the developing world. The announcement, on World AIDS Day, was made by International Co-operation Minister Aileen Carroll, who heads the Canadian International Development Agency.

"Gender inequality is fuelling the spread of HIV-AIDS," Ms. Carroll said. "This World AIDS Day, we are asked by every woman and girl in the world, 'Have you heard me today?' I am here to say that we have heard you, and we are acting."

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday that while the disease has hit Africa harder than other parts of the world, it has become "the worst epidemic humanity has ever faced" and is spreading at alarming rates around the world, particularly in East Asia and Eastern Europe.

Canada's funding announcement includes a $15-million contribution over three years to the International Partnership for Microbicides, which is working to develop microbicides to protect women against infection in societies where males object to using condoms.

This would explain why the one area of the developing world where AIDS is not exploding is the Muslim world, that hotbed of condom use and gender equality.

Posted by Peter Burnet at December 6, 2004 9:00 AM

And you would trade your society for theirs?

Posted by: M. Bulger at December 6, 2004 9:06 AM

M: Probably the answer is no (if I may be at liberty to answer for Mr. Burnet), but a) you never find any criticism of our society warranted or if you do you have criticisms than you think that is reason to junk the whole thing? and b) as the women in our society die out so will the society, therefore, leaving the societies you find disagreeable.

Posted by: Buttercup at December 6, 2004 9:23 AM

M. Bulger. I didn't derive from Peter's comment that he wanted to aspire to a Muslim society at all.

Posted by: AllenS at December 6, 2004 9:27 AM

Funny how the feminist desire for male/female equality is supported by nothing more than the leftist need to equivocate just about anything if it serves their purpose. The rule of unintended consequences has worked it's magic and the "intellectual elite" is oblivious. What are lives worth in comparison to maintaining the facade of abstract equality and its rationalizations? Who really cares about women (or anyone) dying if my intentions were good?

Posted by: at December 6, 2004 11:15 AM