Globe & Mail Article: Health Canada Discriminating Against Gay Men Must Be Celibate For Five Years Prior To Giving Blood!!!
David Andreatta
The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, May. 22 2013, 10:47 AM EDT
For most Canadians, donating blood is as easy as visiting a clinic and rolling up a sleeve.
Not so for gay men, who since the mid-1980s have been banned from giving blood.
That changed Wednesday, when Health Canada approved lifting the prohibition as long as the donor has not had sexual contact with another man in at least five years. The change is expected to take effect this summer.
The policy shift may give celibate gay men eager to tap a vein reason to celebrate. But it was met mostly with derision by critics of the ban, who argued the move perpetrates an unscientific stereotype of gay men and HIV transmission and does nothing to enhance the safety of the blood supply.
“For the vast majority of people who are affected by the ban, this policy change is actually no change,” said Adam Awad, the national chairman of the Canadian Federation of Students, an organization among a coalition of groups that has advocated against the ban.
The coalition, which includes the Canadian AIDS Society, has recommended that behaviour and risk of transmission of disease be factored in to blood-donor restrictions. They argue, for example, that a straight man who has unprotected sex with multiple women is a greater threat to the sanctity of the blood supply than a gay man who has been in a long-term, monogamous relationship.
“This [new] policy assumes that if you’re a man, regardless of what protections you might take, any sexual contact with another man becomes risky,” Mr. Awad said. “We know that’s not the case.”
Canadian Blood Services, a non-profit charity that manages the blood supply in all provinces and territories outside Quebec, and Héma-Québec, which serves the same function in that province, began pushing for what they call the five-year “deferral period” for gay men in 2011.
The effort followed a 2010 Ontario Superior Court ruling that upheld the ban, but said there was insufficient evidence to support an “indefinite deferral period.”
Dana Devine, vice-president of medical, scientific and research affairs at Canadian Blood Services, cast the policy shift as “a very significant change for us.” She acknowledged, though, that the change would face resistance.
“We recognize that many people will feel that this change does not go far enough, but given the history of the blood system in Canada, we see this as a first and prudent step forward on this policy,” Dr. Devine said. “It is the right thing to do and we are committed to regular review of this policy as additional data emerge and new technologies are implemented.”
Several countries allow men to donate blood one year after having had sexual relations with another man, including Great Britain, Australia, Japan and Sweden. In South Africa, the deferral period is six months. Italy is one of a handful of countries that has no restrictions.
A blood-donor ban remains in place in the United States for men who acknowledge having had sex with another man at least once since 1977. Canada’s screening process had also set the threshold at 1977.
Dr. Devine said a five-year deferral would give the organization enough time to collect data, specifically the rate of transmissible diseases found in donated blood. The data would be used to regularly review the policy and amend it as appropriate, she said.
At the same time, she said she did not expect the change to trigger a noticeably larger pool of donors, leaving critics to wonder what substantive data could be gleaned from the new policy.
“We do not anticipate that this will bring a large number of gay men forward to the blood-donor pool,” Dr. Devine said.
Researchers at the University of California found in 2010 that if the ban in the United States were replaced by a five-year deferral, an additional 71,218 pints of blood would be donated each year.
The Canadian AIDS Society, which called the change “a good first step” that does not go far enough, was optimistic about the impact the change could have on the donor pool.
Monique Doolittle-Romas, the chief executive officer, said people who refused to donate because of the blanket ban would now reconsider.
Still, she said her group would intensify its efforts to push for a screening process based on donor behaviour rather than sexual orientation.
When a person gives blood, the donation is typically tested within 24 hours for HIV and several other infectious diseases, including hepatitis B and C, West Nile virus, syphilis and the human T-cell lymphotropic virus HTLV-I and II.
Since the 1980s, when the ban took effect, tests have become much more sensitive and accurate. The organization employs nucleic acid and antibody tests for HIV that are considered state of the art.
Of the 901,640 units of blood collected by Canadian Blood Services last year, fewer than five were found to be infected with HIV, according to the organization. A unit is the equivalent of 450 millilitres.
Fewer than 250 of the roughly 900,000 donations annually – or about 0.03 per cent – test positive for an infectious disease, according to the organization.
Hundreds of Canadians were infected with HIV and hepatitis C through blood transfusions in the 1980s before rigorous tests were implemented.
Helen Kennedy, executive director of Egale Canada, a gay-rights advocacy group, said the advances in blood testing make any deferral policy antiquated.
“It’s still a discriminatory process,” Ms. Kennedy said. “They’re saying that a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity is reason enough to have a five-year deferral. It’s no different than an indefinite deferral.”
In the United States, where the Food and Drug Administration is facing growing public pressure to lift the ban, the agency insists its policy is grounded in statistics.
Men who have sex with men accounted for 61 per cent of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010. The largest increase was found in homosexual males ages 13 to 24, the population the agency says is most likely to donate blood.
Francine Proulx-Kenzle, president of PFLAG Canada, a support group for gays and lesbians, said any deferral could be viewed as discriminatory.
But she said she is heartened by Canadian Blood Services’ openness to reviewing its policy and making adjustments.
“Sometimes going step by step is a result that is more lasting,” Ms. Proulx-Kenzle said. “You get everyone on board and you get a result that becomes part of who we are as a society.”
Gawker Crackstarter Campaign Has Raised Over $105,000 Donate To Get Video Released Of Mayor Rob Ford Smoking Crack.
The US gossip website Gawker crackstarter campaign has raised over $105,000 dollars it is over half way to the goal of securing the video of mayor Rob Ford smoking crack. Come on people, donate to the cause, and let’s get this son of a bitch Rob Ford out of office! Ford refuses to issue a clear statement about whether or not he smokes crack.
Ford’s silence means there is growing veracity this guy did indeed smoke crack. Even the conservative news media in Toronto are distancing themselves from Rob Ford! This cow needs to speak up or resign as mayor of Toronto. Due to Ford’s entitlement and arrogance he thinks he can sweep the controversy under the rug. Donate to the cause people let’s get this video released!
Here is the link http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/rob-ford-crackstarter
Breaking News: Toronto’s Obese Mayor Rob Ford Accused Of Smoking Crack Cocaine.
Once again, Toronto’s disgusting homophobic mayor Rob Ford makes a jackass of himself. Ford is accused of smoking crack in a video which reporters from the American website Gawker and the Toronto Star have watched. In the video, Ford calls Liberal leader Justin Trudeau a “fag”. In the video, Ford also made disparaging comments about people of colour saying “fucking minorities”.
Is anyone surprised? Ford continues to dig his grave he just keeps on making a fool of himself. The worst part about this drug scandal is the city of Toronto is being dragged into this mess. Ford’s crack scandal is receiving international media attention from CNN, Fox news, the Guardian, and other media outlets. Of course, Ford denies the allegations since he denies everything whenever he does something wrong. Ford has a strong sense of entitlement he is never wrong and he is always right. I can’t wait until the video is released so this jackass is forced to resign.
Liberal Party In Province Of Ontario Chooses Kathleen Wynne First Female & Lesbian Premier!!!!
Wow, this is wonderful, the Liberal leadership race is over and former education minister Kathleen Wynne is now Ontario’s first female and lesbian premier! Wynne is open about her lesbianism it not the core of her identity but it is simply a part of her.
During Wynne’s victory speech, she thanked her partner Jane for her support and got a huge applause from the audience. It might not seem to be a big deal that Wynne is Ontario’s first lesbian premier but it is a breakthrough for the gay and lesbian community in Canadian politics. It means that the Liberal Party sees Wynne as someone they can count on and people are truly progressive and open minded.
Wynne is a solid leader and it is very encouraging that the province of Ontario continues to move towards modernity.
Globe & Mail Article: Toronto Ombudsman Finds Mayor Rob Ford Is A Racist Tried To Rig Civic Appointments!!
The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Sep. 27 2012, 12:57 PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Sep. 27 2012, 3:43 PM EDT
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is disputing the findings of a new report from the city’s ombudsman that alleges his office interfered in the civic appointments process, including asking bureaucrats to remove a line from newspaper advertisements seeking “diverse” candidates.
The report describes how unnamed employees of the mayor’s office meddled in the way the municipal government selects ordinary citizens to sit on some 120 boards, including the boards of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, the Toronto Parking Authority, the Toronto Police Services Board and the Toronto Public Library Board.
The mayor’s office first asked for post-election recruitment to be postponed, then demanded it be condensed into such a short time-frame that candidates could not be screened properly, according to the report from Toronto ombudsman Fiona Crean.
“It will look to cynics as if the fix is already in for appointments and the process is just for show,” an unnamed bureaucrat wrote to the city manager in a June 9, 2011 e-mail, expressing concerns about the tight timeline.
“We now have a governance process that is no longer based on any recognizable principles.”
Mr. Ford said Thursday that he “didn’t interfere in any process.”
“I’ve actually cleaned up the process that we had before. It’s a very clean and above board transparent process and it went very well,” the mayor told reporters after a ground-breaking ceremony for a new aquatics centre in Scarborough.
The report also found that the mayor’s office directed that recruitment ads not be placed in the Toronto Star, a newspaper with which the mayor and his councillor brother Doug Ford have a long-running feud.
“The [City manager’s office] informed my investigator that when they raised this with the Mayor’s staff, they were told that ‘we do not like the Star,’” the report says.
The mayor’s office denies it asked that the ad be kept out of the Star, according to the report.
In the end, recruitment advertisements appeared only in the National Post, Toronto Sun and Metro.
One of the goals of the city’s appointments policy is to fill boards with qualified citizens of different genders and racial and ethnic backgrounds, a subject on which the municipal government keeps careful statistics.
The report suggests the mayor’s office tried to undermine that goal.
“[City Manager’s Office] staff informed my investigator that they were asked by the Mayor’s Office to remove the statement in the advertisement that encouraged applicants from the City’s diverse population to apply. Staff refused to do so,” according to the report.
Mr. Ford said that was not true. “No, that’s not what happened,” he said, adding it was city staff, not his political staff that did not “reach out in terms of diversity.”
Asked if he was against diversity, Mr. Ford laughed. “That’s a ridiculous question,” he said.
According to a “diversity summary” of public appointments, 70 per cent of the citizens selected for boards under the Ford administration were white — the same percentage as in the second term of his predecessor, David Miller.
More men were tapped under Mr. Ford (70 per cent) than during Mr. Miller’s second term (53 per cent).
However, more applications actually flooded in under Mr. Ford than under Mr. Miller. The city received 1,927 applications for 167 positions in 2011-2012, up from 1,316 applications for 125 posts in 2007-2010.
At least one candidate with a serious conflict-of-interest nearly slipped through the laxer-than-usual process, Ms. Crean wrote.
In that case, the report describes an acrimonious closed-door meeting of the civic appointments committee at which an unnamed councillor pointed at staff and said, “I’m going to get you,” and added that bureaucrats had other councillors fooled, but not him.
“Some staff described the panel chair’s manner as ‘threatening.’ One staff described the process as ‘gruelling’ and ‘humiliating,’” according to the report.
The trouble apparently began when someone pointed out at a Nov. 16, 2011 meeting that a candidate who had previously been marked as qualified actually had a conflict-of-interest – he was an agent who appeared frequently before the adjudicative committee on which he was seeking a seat.
When the issue was raised, the same unnamed male councillor who allegedly threatened staff asked for those concerns to be put in writing. But a letter never surfaced.
The alleged threats from the councillor – who was also the panel nominating chair – came at the next meeting of the civic appointments committee, which was Jan. 16, 2012, although that date is not specified in the report.
Only one board was dealt with at both the Nov. 16 and Jan. 16 meetings: The Sign Variance Committee, whose nominating panel was chaired by Ford ally Giorgio Mammoliti.
Mr. Mammoliti said Thursday that he asked for such a letter at the Nov. 16 meeting, but he said he did not know if he was the councillor identified in the report.
He “unequivocally” denied threatening staff at the meeting. “Never in my 23 years in politics have I used that kind of language,” Mr. Mammoliti said in an interview Thursday.
The chair of the civics appointment committee, Frances Nunziata, said she did not recall any member of the committee upbraiding staff as described in the report.
Ms. Nunziata, the council speaker and a Ford supporter, said the mayor’s office did not tamper with her committee’s choices.
“Every decision that was made was done at the committee … I’m not aware of any interference or direction from the mayor’s office,” she said.
The ombudsman’s finding prompted harsh criticism from the councillors who chaired the civic appointments committee in Mr. Miller’s second term.
Councillor Adam Vaughan, a staunch critic of the mayor, said members of the current committee should be fired at mid-term and replaced with a new slate of councillors.
“I just don’t think they’ve done their jobs,” said Mr. Vaughan, chair of the committee in the second half of Mr.Miller’s last term.
Councillor Janet Davis, who chaired the committee in the first half of the same term, said Mr. Miller and his staff stayed out of the process. She called the alleged meddling by Mr. Ford’s staff “unprecedented and inappropriate.”
“The interference from the mayor’s office so compromised this process that we need to make sure that there are new guidelines and practices to stop it in future,” she said.
Ms. Crean and two of the city’s four accountability officers — the integrity commissioner and the lobbyist registrar — are locked in a battle with budget chief Mike Del Grande, an ally of Mr. Ford.
Citing their need to remain independent from city council, they have refused to provide a line-by-line accounting of their budget requests for 2013, according to Mr. Del Grande.
“The three of them, led by the ombudsman, are very, very concerned about their independence. I pointed out to them that it really doesn’t have anything to do with their independence per se, it’s reviewing their numbers,”he said.
Ms. Crean was ill and not available for interviews Thursday.
With a report from Elizabeth Church.
Toronto Star Slams Arrogant Toronto Mayor Rob Ford Says He Is A Disgrace & Should Be Thrown Out Of Office!!!
Rob Ford has made a fool of his supporters
What is there left to say about Rob Ford, a man so befuddled be can make good deeds look bad?
The mayor’s performance in court this week was a personal humiliation for him, a disgrace for the city.
What emerged was a portrait of man whose only defence is his own self-professed ignorance.
Whether Ford is as profoundly unaware of the world as he lets on is something the judge will have to decide, but faced with potentially career-ending conflict-of-interest charges, the mayor either had nothing to say or couldn’t remember.
Indeed, it has become frighteningly clear that the man elected to run the largest city in Canada has the attention span of a gnat, and even less curiosity.
He has no apparent understanding of something as basic as the law, let alone conflict of interest. In his mind, good intentions, as long as they are his own, are enough.
That’s why Rob Ford must go. Even if Justice Charles Hackland of the Ontario Superior Court were to dismiss the charges, the mayor has squandered the moral authority needed to run and represent the city.
Ford, who has made no secret of his contempt for process, can no longer continue as mayor.
Though Hackland won’t have to worry about a pattern of behaviour that goes back to the beginning of Ford’s career, the public will be more nuanced in its conclusions.
Ford has made a fool of his supporters, as much as himself. His indifference to rules of conduct comes out of his indifference to the larger political system — democracy itself, which he seems to assume means being popular.
Some worry that the judge ought not to interfere in something as sacred as democratic values, but that’s precisely why he must.
Ignorance itself isn’t illegal, of course, but when it’s so willful and brazen, it cannot go unchallenged. We have no choice but to question the chief magistrate’s decision to remain in a state of intellectual darkness when it affects his ability to fulfill his duties.
On the other hand, this is no MFP scandal. This case isn’t about greed or corruption. In fact, no one has ever accused Ford of being corrupt: He isn’t and doesn’t need to be.
As laudable as his motives might have been, however, his methods were anything but. Hitting up city hall lobbyists for one’s personal charity is obviously unacceptable — not to mention stupid — even if the reason was to “save kids’ lives.”
Ford then ignored repeated requests from Toronto’s integrity commissioner to repay the money, and spoke and voted at the council meeting debating the issue
The mayor’s largely legalistic defence has skirted the real issue — Ford’s unwillingness and/or inability to play by the rules.
But that’s why his supporters love him; he’s the anti-politician come in from the cold to rewrite the game. Guilty or not, he can’t lose. In their eyes, he’s forever innocent.
Ford’s fans forget that he is a politician, and after 12 years on council, a veteran, a careerist, son of a politician and brother to another.
Hackland’s judgment won’t be handed down for weeks; in the meantime, Ford has been rendered impotent, his mayoralty irrelevant. City council long ago wrested control of the agenda from his office, so his absence, real or political, will have little impact.
On the other hand, Ford’s unprecedented crassness has left city hall in a place it’s never been before.
Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
Now Magazine Article: Toronto`s Mayor Rob Ford Is A Bully Yet Playing The Victim In Conflict Of Interest Trial.
For anyone but political junkies and the City Hall press corps dressed in their Sunday best, the deliberations that got under way Wednesday, September 5, in courtroom 6-1 at 361 University to determine if Mayor Rob Ford broke conflict of interest rules must have seemed anticlimactic.
All the media hoopla about the possibility of his getting turfed from office for some curious financial dealings involving his charity football foundation raised expectations of high courtroom drama.
But along with the technical arguments led by his legal team, the sight of Ford taking the stand in his own defence in that sorry tie he often wears at stressful moments like these was more pitiable than great political theatre.
The mayor cut a sorry figure, at times barely audible in his responses, making some of us wonder if he’d reached into the medicine cabinet for the Rescue Remedy this morning to take the edge off. The bellicose bully was nowhere to be seen.
Whether that was by design, to win a little sympathy, I’ll leave for the judge to decide.
But the narrative of this latest controversy to swirl around the perpetually embattled mayor is more complicated than the one the Fordists have been spinning.
If there was a conflict, they say, it was inadvertent, and all for a good cause anyway – namely, to help disadvantaged kids by buying football equipment.
The big question on everyone’s mind: is Rob Ford toast?
It doesn’t look good for Rofo. At least not on paper. The case against him, that he contravened the Municipal Conflict Of Interest Act by speaking to and then voting on a matter in council in which he had a financial interest – to wit, donations by lobbyists to his football foundation – is black-and-white.
Check the 147-page transcript of the deposition he gave a few months back in preparation for this trial. It’s so full of BS that a casual observer might think the mayor had Peter Gabriel playing on a loop in his head. (“I don’t remember, I don’t recall, I got no memory of anything at all.”)
Rob doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. There was a direct financial interest involved: the $3,150 in donations to his foundation he was ordered to repay by the city’s integrity commissioner, but refused to come up with.
But it would take a very brave judge to impose the maximum penalty prescribed by law: removal from office and being barred from running for office for seven years. On the latter, the judge has discretion. So the mayor could conceivably get the axe but be allowed to run again in a by-election.
Lost in translation
Just how egregious was Ford’s transgression? The official line that the conflict charges against the mayor are politically motivated, an evil plot concocted by the left to take the man of the people away from his people, has coloured most of the mainstream media coverage. The Sun ran a story Monday, September 3, suggesting that straws are being drawn and lefty Joe Mihevc is being touted as a possible replacement. News to Citizen Joe.
When Team Ford hasn’t been playing the left conspiracy theory angle, the message track has been that the mayor doesn’t benefit from donations made by lobbyists to his football foundation, so how could there be a conflict?
But whether the mayor benefited financially is not so clear cut. He definitely gains politically from his foundation, that’s for sure, and doesn’t that result in a personal advantage? In April, he attended a public presentation of a fat cheque from the foundation to buy football equipment for the kids at Mother Theresa High School.
Let’s look at the facts. The donations in question were – and here’s the really iffy issue – made by lobbyists. And not just any lobbyists, but people doing business with the city. The court could view their donations as attempts to curry favour and get Ford to reciprocate by supporting their pet projects at council. Where I come from, that’s called a shakedown. Ford doesn’t seem to get that, or is simply playing dumb on the point. He has his own definition of what constitutes a conflict, and that is anything that benefits the city. Yup. You’re reading that right.
Was the mayor selling votes?
Ford apparently also solicited funds for his foundation from citizens vying for appointments to city agencies, boards and commissions. This is where the issue of his using city letterhead to cop said donations, which on its face might seem only a technical breach of the rules, becomes very problematic. His missives could be construed as intimidation – as in “If you don’t give, you won’t get Ford’s vote to sit on this or that board.” Those who complained to the integrity commissioner about receiving these letters reported feeling strong-armed.
What’s never been fully explained
Why has the entity that administers Ford’s foundation, the Toronto Community Foundation, accounted for only $37,294.68 in donations to the charity when the mayor has claimed more than $100,000 in donations on his website?
When asked about that during his deposition, Ford stammered, “That was inaccurate. I was probably saying it would be that much. It could total that much. It could in five or six… the years to come. I could easily fundraise that much money for it.”
More to the legal point
How could someone like Ford, who’s been in politics for more than a decade, pretend to be so ignorant of conflict rules? There’s a handbook. Councillors sign a declaration after they take office that they will “faithfully and impartially” exercise their duties and “disclose any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in accordance with the Municipal Conflict Of Interest Act.”
It’s not a formality. It’s a sworn statement, a promise to the public, signed in front of the city clerk. It’s the mayor’s duty to understand conflict guidelines.
Ford can’t argue that he didn’t understand the rules.
In the past, he’s excused himself from votes, declaring a conflict on some of the most mundane matters, including changes to parking times on the street where the family business in located.
The mayor received six letters from the integrity commissioner ordering him to pay back the money. He ignored every one of them.
Who wins?
Certainly not council’s left if Ford gets the boot. The last thing progressive forces want is to go into an election defending what looks like an attempt by the left to hijack the democratic process. Ford has already begun playing the spunky victim card, saying that if he’s bounced he’ll run again.
Who loses?
As attractive as the prospect of seeing Ford rousted from office may seem, a by-election to replace him would further divide a city whose council is just beginning to assert its authority despite constant distractions by the mayor.
Epilogue
The audit of his campaign expenses, another court date awaiting the mayor, may prove more problematic politically.
But in terms of the conservative brand and those charged with protecting it, i.e., the power brokers behind the scenes with agendas bigger than Ford’s re-election, there’ll be much to think about. Like whether or not the mayor has become a serious embarrassment and if it’s time to back another horse.
The wider public that voted for Ford seems to be taking note, and some of his friends in the usually favourable media, too, have begun to openly address the possibility of an exit, however remote. Former Ford insiders are chatting up a storm behind the scenes that can only mean one thing: more negative publicity is in the offing.
Team Ford seems to be smelling a change in the air. Two years from the next election, the mayor’s peeps are already in re-election mode, trotting out the mayor in the company of his family at the Ex and on summer vacation in Edmonton. The polling to identify unfriendly councillors he can topple in 2014 has already begun. But there’ll be more storms to weather before then. And by that time there won’t be much left of his Teflon coating.
Gayblackcanada 