My difficulties with Hon. Justice Michael Kirby's CLC Presentation
Yesterday I give a report (biased no doubt) on yesterday's session by Hon. Justice Michael Kirby, at the CLC session on "Bio-medicine - the legal and ethical issues"
I didn't have the time to go into some of the controversy raised.
I don't know that I have the time to do so today, save perhaps to point out some of the problems I had with his analysis of the solution to the problems that what he described as "this part of the world" faces when dealing in this area especially with regards to the HIV AIDS pandemic.
Specifically, his claim, as I indicated yesterday, that the reason countries like the United Kingdom, and Australia had a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS was that lawmakers in those countries had taken steps “that are not palatable to law makers in this part of the world”.The steps he listed were:
I didn't have the time to go into some of the controversy raised.
I don't know that I have the time to do so today, save perhaps to point out some of the problems I had with his analysis of the solution to the problems that what he described as "this part of the world" faces when dealing in this area especially with regards to the HIV AIDS pandemic.
Specifically, his claim, as I indicated yesterday, that the reason countries like the United Kingdom, and Australia had a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS was that lawmakers in those countries had taken steps “that are not palatable to law makers in this part of the world”.
- Mass education including in schools.
- Reforming the law on prostitutes.
- Sterile injection equipment.
- Removal of laws against homosexuals
1) My first problem is that he became preoccupied and spent a disproportionate amount of time on the 4th point and what he described as the archaic system of laws with respect to homosexuals that exists in "this part of the world".
The reason for this became apparent when he proceeded to tell us that he was gay and had been with his partner for decades and was a good practicing Anglican.
In asking him a question, I indicated that as this was a law conference, and given the subject matter of the talk, I was not going to go into the reasons as to why I disagreed with his view regarding homosexuality and the Anglican church.
2) I also thought his emphasis on the homosexual laws was disproportionate, firstly because "in this part of the world" transmission is mainly as a result of heterosexual intercourse, and secondly, because legalising homosexuality would not automatically result in safer sexual practices among homosexuals.
3) I also disagreed with the underlying premise that the average westener was any more educated than the average african on the issue of HIV/AIDS and its transmission. Anyone who has lived with young people both in the U.K. and "in this part of the world" would know that to be fallacious.
4)Whereas I do agree that contraceptive techniques do reduce the incidence and spread of HIV/AIDS, I disagreed with his presumption that the high prevalence was only as a result of unsafe sexual practices.
For that reason in my question, I asked:
- Whether he had considered the strange phenomenon in the UK where teenage pregnancy, and unsafe sex had greatly increased in recent years, without a corresponding increase in HIV/AIDS transmission and prevalence.
- Whether he was aware of studies carried out in the U.S. among different racial groups with similar sexual patterns that indicated different infection rates depending on the race of the group.
His answer did not address these issues at all.
A question that I did not ask, but would have been an interesting one to ask is one raised in an earlier blog post on PGD, an issue that was also discussed in his paper!
PS - editing and adding of relevant links to this post will be done when I find the time.
The reason for this became apparent when he proceeded to tell us that he was gay and had been with his partner for decades and was a good practicing Anglican.
In asking him a question, I indicated that as this was a law conference, and given the subject matter of the talk, I was not going to go into the reasons as to why I disagreed with his view regarding homosexuality and the Anglican church.
2) I also thought his emphasis on the homosexual laws was disproportionate, firstly because "in this part of the world" transmission is mainly as a result of heterosexual intercourse, and secondly, because legalising homosexuality would not automatically result in safer sexual practices among homosexuals.
3) I also disagreed with the underlying premise that the average westener was any more educated than the average african on the issue of HIV/AIDS and its transmission. Anyone who has lived with young people both in the U.K. and "in this part of the world" would know that to be fallacious.
4)Whereas I do agree that contraceptive techniques do reduce the incidence and spread of HIV/AIDS, I disagreed with his presumption that the high prevalence was only as a result of unsafe sexual practices.
For that reason in my question, I asked:
- Whether he had considered the strange phenomenon in the UK where teenage pregnancy, and unsafe sex had greatly increased in recent years, without a corresponding increase in HIV/AIDS transmission and prevalence.
- Whether he was aware of studies carried out in the U.S. among different racial groups with similar sexual patterns that indicated different infection rates depending on the race of the group.
His answer did not address these issues at all.
A question that I did not ask, but would have been an interesting one to ask is one raised in an earlier blog post on PGD, an issue that was also discussed in his paper!
PS - editing and adding of relevant links to this post will be done when I find the time.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home