TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
The standout issue at the first public meeting of the Constitutional Reform Commission’s new round of consultations was the failure to address rights and legal protection for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community. It was an issue raised by several stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, including those within the LGBT community and outside, social activists, churchgoers and ordinary members of the public on Monday night at the University of the West Indies’ Sports and Physical Education Centre, St Augustine.
The meeting, hosted by radio talk show host Errol Fabien, and chaired by Prakash Ramadhar, Minister of Legal Affairs, was not a Q&A session but rather a forum to hear the views of citizens. The floor was opened up to the public who were each allowed five minutes on the microphone in their first chance to tell the commission what they thought of the draft report published on January 30.
In an impassioned address, Colin Robinson, executive director of CAISO (Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation), said he felt pride that the draft document had addressed the issue of sexual orientation, but shame that “such an august body that understood so clearly these issues would then recognise that simply because some people do not understand the issues, citizens like me should continue to be denied the protection afforded to those people.”
Page 12 of the draft report addresses LGBT rights, noting there is “a high level of violence and abuse” directed against gay people and that “proposals were made that persons should not be fired from their jobs or excluded from employment on the basis of their sexual orientation.” The report, however, stops well short of enshrining full constitutional protection to the gay community, despite demonstrating awareness of the seriousness of the discrimination.
It states: “The commission recognised how divisive these issues were in competing schools of thought,” and that as a result “sexual orientation and same-sex unions ought to be made the subject of further national discussion in the context of public policy.” Robinson described his “heartbreak” that the commission understood the issues so clearly and yet was unwilling to do anything about it.
He said young LGBT people in T&T, as well as those who lacked the support of family and friends, would feel an even profounder sense of shame and disappointment when reading the report. Another speaker, referring to a national poll taken in 2013 in which just 15 per cent of the population said they agreed with discrimination against gays, said that suggested there was in fact consensus on the issue.
He reminded the commission that the PNM's draft policy on gender in 2004 stated there would be further public discussion. “Here we are, ten years later, discussing it some more. I just wonder how long we will continue discussing the matter,” he added.
An eloquent contributer from the floor ended by saying: “The idea that we need to wait on consensus before active leadership is taken on this issue is repugnant to justice and supports the notion that rights can be held hostage to the prejudices of other people until those prejudices change. “What the LGBT community in T&T needs is very firm recommendations that do not facilitate the kind of political cowardice exhibited by the T&T Government in avoiding leadership on the issue of LGBT discrimination.”
The LGBT issue
In a December 2012 letter published in the T&T Guardian, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said her Government were giving the issues due consideration. “I do not support discrimination in any form against any individual, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. I share (the) view that the stigmatisation of homosexuality in T&T is a matter which must be addressed on the grounds of human rights and dignity to which every individual is entitled under international law,” she wrote.
Nothing has emerged since that show of support and many within the LGBT community and outside it voiced their dissatisfaction with the Government's inertia.
More meetings
Further public meetings will be held as part of the national consultation, open to all who wish to attend today at the Chaguanas Regional Corporation; February 17 at Signal Hill Secondary School, Tobago and February 19 at Paria Suites Hotel, La Romaine.
Other issues brought up
Disabled rights
A group of deaf and hearing-impaired people had the discussion signed to them by an interpreter. One deaf man stood and signed his response, which was read out by the interpreter. He said there was “nothing in the document about people with disabilities” and that deaf and blind people had waited long enough for equal rights.
First Peoples’ rights
Roger Belix said the document was an “insult” to the First Peoples, who were “excluded in every part of our country, even the rights to land,” and contravened a UN ruling on the rights of indigenous peoples.
Elected President and Speaker of the House
Reginald Vidale, chairman of the Dr Eric Williams Memorial Committee, said the election of the President and the Speaker of the House should take the form of a national election and they should be “elected by the people, not just by a few.”
Right of recall for MPs
Vidale also told the commission that recall must be a constituent-led mechanism not Parliament-led. He was the only member of the public to address recall.
redmanjp wrote:yuh know, soon it would be discrimination for gays not to be able to donate blood (even though we all know they are a high risk group for HIV?AIDS)
redmanjp wrote:yuh know, soon it would be discrimination for gays not to be able to donate blood (even though we all know they are a high risk group for HIV?AIDS)- but for political correctness sake it will happen- then we all in trouble if we ever need blood
de_dougla_smurf wrote:What else did you expect from the catholic community?
redmanjp wrote:nope- but there's still a chance of becoming infected should u receive that particular one donated by an infected gay person- why else would it be banned?
redmanjp wrote:yuh know, soon it would be discrimination for gays not to be able to donate blood (even though we all know they are a high risk group for HIV?AIDS)
ruffneck_12 wrote:redmanjp wrote:yuh know, soon it would be discrimination for gays not to be able to donate blood (even though we all know they are a high risk group for HIV?AIDS)
how they are a high risk group?
Dem alone does bull?
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM))a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU.
The Numbers
New HIV Infections
In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM and 12% among MSM overall.
Among all MSM, white MSM accounted for 11,400 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white MSM (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.
Among all MSM, black/African American MSM accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American MSM (4,800; 45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American MSM aged 13 to 24.
Among all MSM, Hispanic/Latino MSM accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino MSM (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.
Estimates of New HIV Infections in the United States for the Most-Affected Subpopulations, 2010
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men?
Men who have had sex with other men (MSM), at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?
FDA's primary responsibility with regard to blood and blood products is to assure the safety of patients who receive these life-saving products. FDA uses multiple layers of safeguards in its approach to ensuring blood safety, which include donor screening and deferral based on risk factors, blood testing for markers of infection, inventory controls, and deferral registries. The use of these multiple layers helps to assure the safety of the products in the event that one layer fails.
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. Between 2008 and 2010, the estimated overall incidence of HIV was stable in the U.S. However the incidence in MSM increased 12%, while it decreased in other populations. The largest increase was a 22% increase in MSM aged 13 to 24 years. Since younger individuals are more likely to donate blood, the implications of this increase in incidence need to be further evaluated.
Is FDA's policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory?
FDA's deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation.
What about men who have had a low number of partners, practice safe sex, or who are currently in monogamous relationships?
Having had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence.
Back to top
Questions about Blood Donation Screening
Are there other donors who have increased risks of HIV or other infections who, as a result, are also excluded from donating blood?
Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population. People who have received transplants of animal tissue or organs are excluded from giving blood because of the still largely unknown risks of transmitting unknown or emerging pathogens harbored by the animal donors. People who have recently traveled to or lived abroad in certain countries may be excluded because they are at risk for transmitting agents such as malaria or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). People who have engaged in sex in return for money or drugs are also excluded because they are at increased risk for transmitting HIV and other blood-borne infections.
Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?
Current scientific data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that, as a group, men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases or HIV than are individuals in other risk categories. From 2007 through 2010, among adult and adolescent males, the annual number of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to MSM increased, while the numbers of infections attributed to other risks among males decreased. Among adult and adolescent females, the annual number of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to injection drug use and heterosexual contact both decreased.
Isn't the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?
HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called "window period" donations. The "window period" exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have enough virus or have developed sufficient antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.
Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk to transfusion recipients due to the possibility that blood that has already been collected and is being stored in a blood bank may be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur extremely rarely, but given that there are about 17 million Whole Blood and red blood cell donations collected each year in the USA, they can occur.
maj. tom wrote:But have you tried Googling "criticism of FDA policy on blood donation by gay men" ?
The American Medical Association as well as several other organizations have gone to the federal level to get this 1977 ban removed. Times change, discriminatory agendas change too.
Something similar in history? Oh there was a time too before 1964 when "n*ggers" where separate but equal in a lot of Southern States. Even the Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow laws in 1889 with such due reasoning to protect the people, the armed forces and the "n*ggers" themselves. Imagine, President Johnson had to pass a law in '64 to give people equal rights just because of their skin color!
redmanjp wrote:de_dougla_smurf wrote:What else did you expect from the catholic community?
what that have to do with it?
btw gays not d only category denied it- even those on meds can't- once i went while on meds and they told me i couldn't donate- probably anyone in a high risk group (e.g.- ppl who use drugs and share needles) would be barred
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], mkhitaryan888 and 309 guests
