John Howard Comes under criticism

[Don Rizzle]

Fury at Howard HIV entry ban call
Aids charities have reacted angrily to Australian Prime Minister John Howard's opposition to HIV-positive immigrants moving to Australia.
Mr Howard proposed a blanket ban, which would only be exempt in special cases, during a radio interview in Melbourne.

Australian HIV activists said the country's immigration laws already had tight restrictions.

The UK's National Aids Trust described the proposal as illegal, discriminatory and ineffective.

'Impractical to enforce'

Mr Howard was asked about the issue during a visit to Melbourne, in Victoria state, which has seen a sharp rise in HIV cases.

Infectious diseases specialist Dr Chris Lemoh called it "a hysterical overreaction, it mixes racism with a phobia about infectious disease", according to the Associated Press news agency.

"To not allow people to come on the basis of any health condition is immoral, it's unethical and it's impractical to enforce."


 It doesn't actually do any good. People go underground
Yusef Azard, National Aids Trust 

Yusef Azard, from the National Aids Trust, said tighter controls on immigration would not necessarily have an effect on the rate of infection.

"The United States has had these sorts of strict entry restrictions on HIV for many, many years," he said.

"It's got the highest rate of HIV in the developed world. So it doesn't actually do any good. People go underground. Stigma and discrimination increases in the country and makes the response to HIV all the more difficult."

The BBC's Jill McGivering says the National Aids Trust monitored policy in almost 170 countries and found that most had some sort of HIV restriction on non-nationals.


She says they can range from blanket bans to refusal in certain categories, such as residency or right to work.

Five years ago, Canada tightened its restrictions. Now foreigners applying for residency are tested and likely to be refused if they are positive.

Visitors to mainland China are refused entry if they declare themselves HIV positive on immigration health forms. Foreigners who stay for more than six months have to show evidence of a negative HIV test, our correspondent says.

Victoria's public health officials have blamed the rise in HIV cases partly on overseas immigrants, but also on Australian residents relocating from other parts of the country.

"I think we should have the most stringent possible conditions in relation to that nationwide, and I know the health minister is concerned about that and is examining ways of tightening things up," Mr Howard said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6553623.stm

Published: 2007/04/13 18:02:37 GMT


what is wrong with banning immigration for people who have HIV, John Howard wants to protect his citizens he doesn't owe anything to people who aren't australian.

[Real American]

Nothing wrong wtith that stance at all.

[AndrE16686]

Same, I believe it is a sensible policy.

You can't immigrate to Australia if you got the AIDS (except refugees), its been like that for awhile now, these govt policies are not new.

Refugees are still refugees and they are allowed into Australia, regardless if they gots the AIDS or are disabled, we are still obliged by the UN to provide refugees with a new home.


I don't really mind Howard's immigration policies.

[virtuoso]

This is exactly what britain should be doing and for that matter any other country, it is crazy to do otherwise and I am stunned by the reaction of the red cross spokes people. It should be a case in point that any serious infectious disease should be treated in the same way, it will be interesting to see how this plays out, although I wouldn't be surprised if there is a sudden back down.

[Chief]

if he banned peeps with HIV completely, then that would deserve criticism..

[virtuoso]

So if someone has TB then they should be allowed into the country where they can infect more people then?
If someone has hepatitis they should be allowed to stroll right into the country?
If a white person is the one looking to migrate, then suddenly it's no longer racism, but purely xenophobic then is it?
Don't the people of the nation deserve any kind of protection?
Where is the morality in exposing people to new strains of disease which originated from the third world?
Have you never stopped to ask yourself who ultimately gains from this? i.e. the pharmaceutical oligopoly
Is it not apparent to you by now, that when a new strain or new disease enters the country, it then spreads like wildfire because the people in that western country then contract it and then spread it even further when they are the ones holidaying?
Don't you realise that the way you contain a disease, is to limit it's exposure?
Furthermore do you really think these aid agencies (i mean the people at the very top of them) give a shit about these immigrants if so then then why is it they are giving them vaccines which they know to be potentially deadly? and yes i am well aware this is happening inside of europe and the western world also
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/ before you comment upon the last question read that article in it's entireity

[AndrE16686]

if he banned peeps with HIV completely, then that would deserve criticism..

fasho, they are still human, refugees who been raped, HIV children, etc.

its bad enuff u gonna die, but if the govt were to make you live in misery for the rest of your shortened ife span like with a star of david on your shirt.


Remember Jesus and the lepers yall.

[Suffice]

if he banned peeps with HIV completely, then that would deserve criticism..

fasho, they are still human, refugees who been raped, HIV children, etc.

its bad enuff u gonna die, but if the govt were to make you live in misery for the rest of your shortened ife span like with a star of david on your shirt.


Remember Jesus and the lepers yall.

true, but at the same time, the way to contain something like HIV, would be to quarantine it. Of course, HIV isn't physically apparent at first, so that makes it a whole lot harder to deal with, but If, say, all people with a certain disease are contained in one area, they can't spread it. Pretty clear and simple, and the policy makes perfect sense to me