As you may know, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has chosen to absent himself from the world conference on AIDS currently taking place in Toronto. This is only the world’s largest conference on what is at present the world’s most significant and intractable disease.
May I ask - is there some reason for this? Is there some reason you don’t regard this as important enough to grace with your presence?
I mean, I wasn’t terribly shocked you didn’t show up at the Outgames, as you’ve made your position on gay and lesbian issues abundantly clear. (You could have sent the Governor General, though.) But you have at least pretended to be interested in health and international affairs, and this is Ground Zero for both.
What with you skipping this, and Rona Ambrose making a mockery of that environment conference in Bonn, are you trying to embarrass yourself and your government? If so, I wish you every success.
How many heads of state are attending this conference? I would think it would be more appropriate for a Minister of Health or a Surgeon General. I could be wrong of course.
Probably no heads of state are attending the conference, but if Harper’s in town and has nothing else to do (and come on, it’s Canada, what is there to do?) he could’ve dropped by to open the conference.
No, I agree with matt_mcl, here. Although this might fall more under Tony Clement’s territory and no other heads of state are attending, none of these other states have the honour of hosting the conference. The largest conference about this topic. Ever.
It should be a source of national pride, hosting people from all around the world to talk about what is, in my opinion, one of the worst diseases in history. At the very least, he should publicly say something about it. Preferably wearing a leather vest.
I admit I’m a little baffled as to why Harper did not think to stop by, if for no other reason than the political one; he has nothing to lose and possibly a vote or two to gain. Most people don’t care, those who do care would have appreciated it, and the few that might have had a problem with it wouldn’t have changed their votes over it. He was busy, but hey, tough crap. If you didn’t want to be overworked you shouldn’t have taken the job.
That said, I have to admit it strikes me as being ill-advised politically, but otherwise an issue of little importance. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of politicians doing things for purely political, vote-schmoozing reasons, and so I’m not that upset when they fail to do so, even when it was likely the right move. Paul Martin would have shown up, shaken hands, accused the Americans of not doing enough, and then would have gone right on doing absolutely nothing about it, just as he had before. Which, really, is worse?
There’s that. At least this makes it clear that he feels about AIDS conventions much the same way he feels about the International Conference on LGBT Human Rights.
With all due respect to to our esteemed fellow poster matt-mcl
For Harper to show up at this conference, regardless how he feels about aids would just be an opportunity to bash him by idiots who have a much larger anti-conservative agenda than winning the war against aids. The result just wouldn’t be positive for disease affected Africans.
I’m glad our health minister was there. Thinking of our Canadian head of state, I wish she was there too. Never mind that, what about our Queen ?
Given that private individuals seem to be putting much more resources into the third world fight against this scourge, and appear to be able to raise large sums, assistance or endorsement from political entities rings hollow and ineffective.
Props to Bill and Melinda Gates, Bill Clinton. Bob Geldorph (?) and that U2 singer.
Did this much fuss get kicked up when Chretien did the same thing years ago or is this partisaned hay making?
In all honesty if Harper did go what would it do and which other forums would he not be allowed to miss? What about One of Breast Cancer or autism or whatever?
I realize the importance of this meeting and all the others that came before but his being there would have no real effect either way. The Minister of Health is the proper person to
go as he would actually have the say and hopefully the knowledge as to the governments plans regarding AIDS and the manufacture of generic medicines.
I understand that some might want to see this as The Ultra Conservative PM dissing AIDS as some sort or agenda against Homosexuals* but I don’t think that is the case. I don’t know why he didn’t go but in the end it really doesn’t matter to teh outcome of teh conference.
*Yes I realize it is not a homosexual disease but if someone wants to make political hay they may say that is the reason he won’t do anything.
Why do you think this is so? I mean, yes, he would have been out of luck whether or not he showed up at the Outgames, and deservedly so because of his position on LGBT people. (Unless he took the opportunity to repent…) But we don’t know what he’s doing about AIDS - that’s the point. Up until now, his position on AIDS hasn’t been visible enough to complain about. If he had shown up and said “We’re continuing our aid programs, etc., etc.” and just done some pro-forma woolgathering for twenty minutes during the opening plenary, everyone would have applauded politely and munched their quiche. Instead, he’s not shown up, and everyone’s upset. This is now the only evidence we have for his position on AIDS, and it’s not pretty. C’est plus qu’un crime, c’est une faute.
That’s simply false, Matt. It took me about twenty seconds to find this:
The number of specirfic references to the government’s activities to fight AIDS are so numerous I can’t possibly list them all.
And this IS Harper’s position on the matter. He leads the Government; what the Government does under his watch is the only position he holds that matters.
No, it’s a Government position. As Harper is the leader of the government, this is how what he does affects Canadians.
Like I said; I’m sick and tired of hearing what politicians say when it so often has nothing to do with what they do. Not that I’m saying Stephen Harper is necessarily the most honest politician we’ve ever had, either, but I am just way, way past caring about optics. We’re just off having a Prime Minister who would go on and on and on about the Kyoto Accord, who publicly castigated other countries for not doing enough for Kyoto, but who himself never actually did anything about it. Canada’s record of total and utter inaction on Kyoto was a national embarassment.
So frankly I’m just not intersted in hearing it anymore. I’m interested in what governments do.
What I meant was, it’s not as though he’s made it a leading light of his public position. It’s not like child tax credits or scrapping Kyoto or repealing gay marriage or cutting the GST.
That’s fine. But if they mean to do things, they might as well tell us about them. It’s not as though if Harper had to make time to give a 20-minute speech at a plenary in Toronto, he wouldn’t have any time left to actually fund AIDS programmes.
Is it safe to make two assumptions?
[ul][li]It is possible to care about AIDS without attending this conference, and [/li][li]you (matt_mcl) are not attending.[/ul]Or which of these am I wrong about?[/li]
Regards,
Shodan