NationStates Jolt Archive

Australian PM John Howard has given notice for another cracking non-PC Aussie policy.

Read here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6553623.stm)

and I have to say, I'm in complete agreement with it.

EDIT: Sorry about the Poll, I screwed it up somehow, in my haste to get it up quick enough... So there is only Yes or No...

That's not even remotely unusual. If someone had drug resistant TB you wouldn't let them in the country. Same deal here.

That's not particularly strange. Immigration is often restricted from places where infectious diseases are endemic; HIV shouldn't really be any different. Until a way to treat the disease or vaccinate against it is developed, quarantine may be one of the few ways to prevent it from spreading rapidly.

That's not even remotely unusual. If someone had drug resistant TB you wouldn't let them in the country. Same deal here.
Except TB is airborne...
This kind of shit is what fucked up any attempts to stop HIV in the Reagan years.

:rolleyes:

That's not even remotely unusual. If someone had drug resistant TB you wouldn't let them in the country. Same deal here.

HIV is only contagious if you're an idiot(i.e. someone who is incapable of properly using a condom and thinks sharing needles is a great idea). Your analogy fails.

HIV is only contagious if you're an idiot(i.e. someone who is incapable of properly using a condom and thinks sharing needles is a great idea). Your analogy fails.

And how does HIV spread in Africa and other places where HIV is rampant?

Because people don't use condoms, needles are shared all the time by traditional healers and most people are ignorant about how to prevent the disease from spreading.

I have no problem with this. Limiting immigration for public health reasons is not at all unusual.

Except TB is airborne...
This kind of shit is what fucked up any attempts to stop HIV in the Reagan years.

HIV is only contagious if you're an idiot(i.e. someone who is incapable of properly using a condom and thinks sharing needles is a great idea). Your analogy fails.

Aye.

And how does HIV spread in Africa and other places where HIV is rampant?

Because people don't use condoms, needles are shared all the time by traditional healers and most people are ignorant about how to prevent the disease from spreading.
So... how exactly are those things applicable to Australia again?

So... how exactly are those things applicable to Australia again?

Immigrants coming from that part of the world may bring those risky behaviors with them. It takes time to educate people in ways to prevent HIV, especially since there are a lot of misconceptions about how it is spread, especially in Africa. An infected person may even disregard it and spread the disease anyways; given that HIV is a very serious disease I don't think it's worth the risk to allow infected people in to the country freely.

You'd need to make sure they are fully aware of what they have and how to prevent it before you could let them in. Anything less would be a gigantic risk.

It doesn't matter. It won't help.

Also, you fail at poll making. It's not like your limited to two options, no and don't know could've been two different options.

It's well within the legal and moral realms for a government to forbid a carrier of a disease into their country. Why is there this bother on the issue?

It's well within the legal and moral realms for a government to forbid a carrier of a disease into their country. Why is there this bother on the issue?

BBC article quotes people calling Howard racist for it. So I'm gonna go out on a limb and say most of those affected by the ban will be black.

Immigrants coming from that part of the world may bring those risky behaviors with them. It takes time to educate people in ways to prevent HIV, especially since there are a lot of misconceptions about how it is spread, especially in Africa.

You'd need to make sure they are fully aware of what they have and how to prevent it before you could let them in. Anything less would be a gigantic risk.They can be as ignorant as they want, they're not going to infect an Australian unless s/he's just as ignorant.
And if you're worried about ignorance, make HIV education mandatory for immigrants and voilà, problem solved. And it seriously doesn't take that long to educate them either, especially since they're outside a native culture that may have turned a blind eye to the real reasons and risks of HIV.

They can be as ignorant as they want, they're not going to infect an Australian unless s/he's just as ignorant.
And if you're worried about ignorance, make HIV education mandatory for immigrants and voilà, problem solved. And it seriously doesn't take that long to educate them either, especially since they're outside a native culture that may have turned a blind eye to the real reasons and risks of HIV.

Do you not recall the numerous articles about "faith healers" in the UK and children being beaten and killed after accusations of witchcraft? Tradition dies hard, never underestimate the stupidity of people.

This kind of shit is what fucked up any attempts to stop HIV in the Reagan years.
No, Reagan (and others) thinking that HIV was a plague upon the gays was what fucked up any attempts to stop HIV in the Reagan years. Attempts to limit the flow of disease carriers from one country to another had nothing to do with it.

No, Reagan (and others) thinking that HIV was a plague upon the gays was what fucked up any attempts to stop HIV in the Reagan years. Attempts to limit the flow of disease carriers from one country to another had nothing to do with it.

Now it's a plague upon blacks, and Asians, and probably Indians soon enough. Going to be an awfully damned pale world quick at this pace.

Fuck.

This election can't come quick enough.

Also, is this more stolen policy from Hanson?

They can be as ignorant as they want, they're not going to infect an Australian unless s/he's just as ignorant.

People get STDs all the time. Condoms break, they don't wear them, people use intravenous drugs...risky behavior is more than widespread enough for this to be a major risk. The risk of allowing HIV-positive immigrants in to the country is very high.

And if you're worried about ignorance, make HIV education mandatory for immigrants and voilà, problem solved. And it seriously doesn't take that long to educate them either, especially since they're outside a native culture that may have turned a blind eye to the real reasons and risks of HIV.

We've been trying to educate Africans in to safe sex and anti-HIV practices for years. It take a long time to break down traditions and misconceptions that contribute to its spread. And I imagine most immigrants are going to live in areas where other immigrants live for the community and support, so that means those risks will survive long after they leave their native country.

Australian PM John Howard has given notice for another cracking non-PC Aussie policy.

Read here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6553623.stm)

and I have to say, I'm in complete agreement with it.

EDIT: Sorry about the Poll, I screwed it up somehow, in my haste to get it up quick enough... So there is only Yes or No...

Makes sense.

Now it's a plague upon blacks, and Asians, and probably Indians soon enough. Going to be an awfully damned pale world quick at this pace.
No, now it is a plague on "stupid" people that everyone can safely ignore. La-dee-diddly-dee.

No, now it is a plague on "stupid" people that everyone can safely ignore. La-dee-diddly-dee.

Well I'd say ignorant rather than stupid. Although those who know better certainly qualify as stupid.

People get STDs all the time. Condoms break, they don't wear them, people use intravenous drugs...risky behavior is more than widespread enough for this to be a major risk. The risk of allowing HIV-positive immigrants in to the country is very high.



We've been trying to educate Africans in to safe sex and anti-HIV practices for years. It take a long time to break down traditions and misconceptions that contribute to its spread. And I imagine most immigrants are going to live in areas where other immigrants live for the community and support, so that means those risks will survive long after they leave their native country.

Does Australia even get that many immigrants from Africa?

Another reason to be concerned is the possibility that these people might be immigrating to Australia to abuse the publicly funded medicare system.

Does Australia even get that many immigrants from Africa?

Good question. I think the biggest minority group is from various Asian countries, so most likely not.

Even so, HIV is starting to become a problem there as well.

So, what, Australia is going to have blanket blood tests on all people who enter the country now? Sounds expensive.

What if they don't? Then this sounds like the most ineffective legislation... um... for a while. People would just lie about their HIV status. Okay so maybe Australia would insist that you have to get a note from your doctor in the country of origin before you're allowed in... pfft, sucks things are easy to fake, and I'm sure there's enough corruption around as well. Plus HIV as an uncertain onset time (longer than 6 months or so at least).

Another thing is it might also lead to people not going to get themselves checked out as much. If there's not piece of paper saying you have HIV then you're considered HIV- and can travel to Australia.

Pointless, pointless, pointless.

Makes sense. I am in full agreement with it.

Any country has the right to deny entry based on public health grounds.

That's not even remotely unusual. If someone had drug resistant TB you wouldn't let them in the country. Same deal here.

I have no problem with this. Limiting immigration for public health reasons is not at all unusual.

It's well within the legal and moral realms for a government to forbid a carrier of a disease into their country. Why is there this bother on the issue?

Makes sense. I am in full agreement with it.

Any country has the right to deny entry based on public health grounds.

So if Australia made a law tomorrow barring all HIV positive tourists from visiting the country, you all would say that's a splendid idea?

After all, lots of esp. young people go to Australia to party and have fun and doubtlessly fuck around in the process. Since any Australians involved are bound to also be intoxicated it stands to reason that condoms will be forgotten, caution thrown to the wind.

So - blood tests for all tourists?

So - blood tests for all tourists?

If the place in question is known to be endemic to HIV, or they feel there is significant risk of HIV-infected tourists entering the country, then yes. It's no different than requiring proof of a yellow fever or hepatitis vaccine.

So if Australia made a law tomorrow barring all HIV positive tourists from visiting the country, you all would say that's a splendid idea?

After all, lots of esp. young people go to Australia to party and have fun and doubtlessly fuck around in the process. Since any Australians involved are bound to also be intoxicated it stands to reason that condoms will be forgotten, caution thrown to the wind.

So - blood tests for all tourists?

But most of those tourists are from regions that typicaly have very low HIV infection rates, and most are there for a short time.

Also given it often takes several sessions to contract an infection, unless a HIV+ tourist is a complete horn dog who consistantly forgets condoms and has sex with people who also forget a tourist with HIV is much less a threat to public health than an immigrant who will very likely be having a lot more sex during their lifetime sta and be much more likely to transmit an infection.


So tourism:

Very low incidence of HIV+ tourists.
Fairy low chance of HIV+ tourist transmitting an infection in their stay.

If the place in question is known to be endemic to HIV, or they feel there is significant risk of HIV-infected tourists entering the country, then yes. It's no different than requiring proof of a yellow fever or hepatitis vaccine.
Except that nobody asks tourists for proof of being immunized against fever or hepatitis. Unless some country actually does, in which case I stand corrected.

But most of those tourists are from regions that typicaly have very low HIV infection rates, and most are there for a short time.

Also given it often takes several sessions to contract an infection, unless a HIV+ tourist is a complete horn dog who consistantly forgets condoms and has sex with people who also forget a tourist with HIV is much less a threat to public health than an immigrant who will very likely be having a lot more sex during their lifetime sta and be much more likely to transmit an infection.


So tourism:

Very low incidence of HIV+ tourists.
Fairy low chance of HIV+ tourist transmitting an infection in their stay.
So in effect an HIV positive person from, say, Berlin, could happily spend say the three months of their tourist visa duration vacationing in Australia every year but that same person could not immigrate?

Except that nobody asks tourists for proof of being immunized against fever or hepatitis. Unless some country actually does, in which case I stand corrected.

A lot of countries do in places where it's common or where there is a high risk of it spreading. Pretty much anywhere in Africa, some countries in South America, and Southeast Asian countries want proof of vaccination against those diseases and will deny entry to people who don't have them.

No, Reagan (and others) thinking that HIV was a plague upon the gays was what fucked up any attempts to stop HIV in the Reagan years. Attempts to limit the flow of disease carriers from one country to another had nothing to do with it.
That wasn't my point. The ignorance towards HIV is what fucked it up, not any specific ignorance.

A lot of countries do in places where it's common or where there is a high risk of it spreading. Pretty much anywhere in Africa, some countries in South America, and Southeast Asian countries want proof of vaccination against those diseases and will deny entry to people who don't have them.Oh, sure, but I meant the countries that tourists from those countries go to. For example, the US will not require proof of immunity against those diseases from, say, an Ugandan tourist. Which of course means said tourist can come into the country no questions asked and happily go around infecting people with things that are a LOT more contagious than HIV.

Except that nobody asks tourists for proof of being immunized against fever or hepatitis. Unless some country actually does, in which case I stand corrected.
I am pretty sure quite a few countries require a heap of jabs. When you travel to these countries you get given a card by your doctor detailing which jabs you have had.


So in effect an HIV positive person from, say, Berlin, could happily spend say the three months of their tourist visa duration vacationing in Australia every year but that same person could not immigrate?

It is about weighing up the benefits of screening vs spending the money elsewhere.

Very very very very few people spend three months in Australia every year, and of those that do very very few have HIV. To pick these out of the millions of people who enter Australia as tourists requires an expense that would be disproportionate to the benefits to public health and could be better spent preventing HIV spread by other means.

Testing an immigrant however - you only have to test about a hundred thousand people a year, which is not all that many across an entire country. And you only really have to test them once as it is quite unlikely that a large portion of immigrants will get infected while overseas once they have settled in Australia, and it is very likely that detecting a HIV+ immigrat will save at least one new infection.

Now - If Australia was able to test all the tourists at a cost that was not prohibitive then I think that if they choose to then they would be well within their rights to. They are of course well within their rights to anyway, but it might be money much better spent elsewhere for the time being.

Oh, sure, but I meant the countries that tourists from those countries go to. For example, the US will not require proof of immunity against those diseases from, say, an Ugandan tourist. Which of course means said tourist can come into the country no questions asked and happily go around infecting people with things that are a LOT more contagious than HIV.

They might, if they have reason to suspect that people coming from those countries could be infected. It's not common, but the US can restrict tourists coming from places that are infected with these kinds of diseases.

If the place in question is known to be endemic to HIV, or they feel there is significant risk of HIV-infected tourists entering the country, then yes. It's no different than requiring proof of a yellow fever or hepatitis vaccine.

Is that not profiling?

How is it different from scanning brown men for fear of terrorism ?

Added Later:

They can go for the testing. That is their business. But to do this only for a certain countries is not a good way to go about this.

Oh, sure, but I meant the countries that tourists from those countries go to. For example, the US will not require proof of immunity against those diseases from, say, an Ugandan tourist. Which of course means said tourist can come into the country no questions asked and happily go around infecting people with things that are a LOT more contagious than HIV.

I would not be so sure about that.

Generally places with high rates of infection of HIV or a range of nasty diseases are also places where it is very difficult to get a visa to visit the US from. Unlike someone from the UK for example a Ugandan cannot just fly into the US, fill out a visa waiver form and enjoy 90 days in LA.

I would not be surprised at all if tourists from such countries had to provide some form of medical record to get a tourist visa.

I am pretty sure quite a few countries require a heap of jabs. When you travel to these countries you get given a card by your doctor detailing which jabs you have had. See above.

It is about weighing up the benefits of screening vs spending the money elsewhere.

Very very very very few people spend three months in Australia every year, and of those that do very very few have HIV. To pick these out of the millions of people who enter Australia as tourists requires an expense that would be disproportionate to the benefits to public health and could be better spent preventing HIV spread by other means.

Testing an immigrant however - you only have to test about a hundred thousand people a year, which is not all that many across an entire country. And you only really have to test them once as it is quite unlikely that a large portion of immigrants will get infected while overseas once they have settled in Australia, and it is very likely that detecting a HIV+ immigrat will save at least one new infection.
I guess I have to grudgingly admit that all of this is a good point. ;)

It still doesn't change that the whole idea of excluding potential immigrants on grounds of their health (i.e. not only HIV/AIDS but any kind of illness) is deeply repulsive to me.

I would not be so sure about that.

Generally places with high rates of infection of HIV or a range of nasty diseases are also places where it is very difficult to get a visa to visit the US from. Unlike someone from the UK for example a Ugandan cannot just fly into the US, fill out a visa waiver form and enjoy 90 days in LA.

I would not be surprised at all if tourists from such countries had to provide some form of medical record to get a tourist visa.I know that it's not easy for "Third World" country citizens to be a tourist to any "First World" country, but you're probably right, restrictions might even go so far as to include having to be "disease free".

I don't like it, to be honest. I don't think it's the best way to stop the spread of the disease, and it might end up hurting a lot of already vulnerable people.

I know that it's not easy for "Third World" country citizens to be a tourist to any "First World" country, but you're probably right, restrictions might even go so far as to include having to be "disease free".
That's logical except where the diseases arn't airborne. Maybe the rise in HIV in Australia has to deal with the blowing the US and copying all of their failed policies in education, healthcare, and everywhere else.

I know that it's not easy for "Third World" country citizens to be a tourist to any "First World" country, but you're probably right, restrictions might even go so far as to include having to be "disease free".

They do. Those inoculations you have to get before you travel to Africa or Asia from the US? They're not to protect you (though that's a nice side effect), they're to prevent you from bringing a potentially infectious agent BACK. When I first came to Australia, and my passport noted that I'd been to North Africa, I had to prove I'd had a ridiculous number of vaccinations and inoculations. Fortunately, being a big believer in preventative medicine, I'd had them all.

Anyway, this is mostly an economic thing. If a tourist comes in with HIV, Oz can just deport him when they find out about it. No harm, no foul, most likely. With an immigrant, the Australian governement will almost certainly wind up paying his or her medical bills - which can be very, very high in the case of HIV infection.

They do. Those inoculations you have to get before you travel to Africa or Asia from the US? They're not to protect you (though that's a nice side effect), they're to prevent you from bringing a potentially infectious agent BACK. When I first came to Australia, and my passport noted that I'd been to North Africa, I had to prove I'd had a ridiculous number of vaccinations and inoculations. Fortunately, being a big believer in preventative medicine, I'd had them all.Ah, I see. Interesting.

wait a second... did somebody just say that it was pointless to make a law against HIV+ immigrataion because people are going to break it anyway?:rolleyes:
That makes about as much sense as legalising theft... because people are going to steal anyway!

And to whoever it was that said double-checking people from areas that are known to be heavily affected by HIV because it's 'profiling' or whatever other non-PC sin... now that's just stupid. If, for example, there was a huge zombie outbreak in China, wouldn't you be watching out for chinese immigrants? How is that racist?

Weren't there a couple of cases recently where HIV+ immigrants knowingly transmitted the disease, without informing their partners they had the disease? Yes, they got hefty prison sentences, but being seen to prevent a repeat does seem to have a political advantage.

The government has the right to ban people carrying diseases to protect the public, be it stupid policy or nott. HIV is contagious, although often it is a case of irresponsible behaviour (stupidity is frequently a crime with a life sentence). However there have been cases where one longtime partner failed to inform the other.

Anyway, at the moment he's just seeking advise.

Anybody else see this as a possible pandora's box? "Black South Africans have a high percentage of HIV, and we can't be sure whether those applying are telling the truth or not about if they have HIV so we won't let in black South Africans." And, also, I don't see many steps from not letting in HIV-positive people to deporting HIV-positive people.

We need to keep out those filthy Africans that have HIV. Women are more attracted to African males because they have larger penises and are more likely to have sex with them and contract the disease. We need to ensure a future for our children, it is too dangerous to allow in these people. HIV positive people are unproductive anyway and will only drain resources away from people who weren't stupid enough to contract it.


;)