Run! There's AIDS in the air!

Today is the National Day of Action for the protesting of Health Canada's recent decision to ban gay men from donating organs. Health Canada's latest provisions ban all sexually active gay men from donating organs as they live "high-risk lives". Translation? They're here, they're Queer and they're all HIV positive. Apparently. Keeping in mind that Canadian gay men are also prohibited from donating blood.

This is pretty shitty on its own. But how about a little context?

Between January and October 2007, 50% of HIV positive cases in the city of London, Ontario alone were heterosexual womyn. (Source: saqd.net)

Meaning? In case you lived under a rock for the past 20 yrs (Or work for Health Canada), the HIV is not a gay disease. In fact, new reports show that because of the myth that HIV/AIDS is a gay disease, heterosexual lady folk are contracting it at higher rates, thinking they are not at risk. As a heterosexual lady folk myself, I donate blood all the time and am on the organ donor and marrow list. And yet, I've never been asked by a doctor if I've had anal sex, which is what is the actual root of the discussion. It's not gay men, it's anal sex. And yet, age old stereotypes are not only increasing the rates of HIV in Canadian womyn but they're also discriminating unnecessarily against gay men.

All this is going on while

According to the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry Report, in 2005, more than 4,000 Canadians waited for an organ transplant while less than 2,000 organs were retrieved for transplant.

People are dying while waiting for organ donation and the government is giving healthy gay men a hassle. Yes, it is not an outright ban against gay men donating organs, but there is a lot more red tape involved. And in the case of blood donation, another necessity in Canada, gay men are outright banned from donating. How ridiculous.

We live in Canada. A country with excellent medical facilities and technology. Technology that screens all potential organ and blood donations for disease. The same could and should be done for gay men who are wanting to donate.

Canadians are dying for organs and blood because of age old stereotypes regarding HIV/AIDS.

Oh and in case this whole banning business wasn't tragic enough for you,

An Ontario judge is at the centre of a misconduct investigation after insisting a witness who is HIV-positive and has Hepatitis C don a mask while testifying in his courtroom.Three groups have complained to the Ontario Judicial Council about the conduct of Barrie judge Justice Jon-Jo Douglas, who later moved the case to a bigger courtroom in order to create more distance between the witness and the bench.

Because you know, that's how you catch HIV/AIDS. It's an airborne disease, didn't you get the memo? Apparently Judge Douglas did. Which is a relief really, because the position of judge is the highest paid profession in Canada.

I need a drink.

Lullabies for Sexist Criminals

Sometimes, I'm rather naive. I read that a Canadian womyn successfully sued her Meth dealer and thought "Good Lord, the courts can't get any worse than this!" Oh, how I was so, so wrong.

Crown prosecutors are currently attempting to have sexsomnia declared a mental illness. Sexsomnia is pretty self-explanatory. Apparently some people sleep walk and well.. screw. They get out of bed, completely unaware and boink somebody (or something).

The reason why this is in the courts is because an Ontario man sexually assaulted a womyn and then claimed that he was suffering sexsomnia and had no recollection of the event. Yeah. Pause on that one and read it again. Done? Okay, let us move on.

Luedecke alleges that during a party at a Toronto home in 2003, he got drunk and fell asleep on a couch.His lawyers maintained that while Luedecke was in a dissociative sleepwalking state, he went over to a woman who was sleeping on an adjacent couch, lifted up her skirt, put on a condom and began sexual intercourse with her.

Okay.. it clearly states that he was drunk. Now maybe he doesn't "remember" because he was three sheets to the wind? Or maybe it's just a convenient goddamn excuse? Yeah, I'll choose option B for 500$ Alex.

I'm not a psychiatrist or a Crown prosecutor, but I am a support worker who works with sexual assault survivors and I can tell you that these kinds of bullshit excuses are used all the time. Mostly because there's way too much evidence to disprove that it happened so they come up with some kinda crap story about being asleep, too drunk to remember or in some sort of trance.

Who exactly is our justice system protecting?

Seriously. This is 2008. In Canada. And we're going to declare sexsomnia a mentall illness? This is such a slippery slope. We acknowledge that and then we'll be acknowledging "Your honour, I was listening to some really intense Backstreet Boys music and I just got so into the music, I couldn't help myself". Give it a year. It'll happen.

The Skinny on Fat

I don’t need to tell you that fat is a problem in North America. Let’s face it, we’re chunky. And statistics after statistic (legitimate and otherwise) indicate that we’re tipping the scales more and more everyday. Hell, all you need to do is turn on the TV for a whopping 5 mins to get inundated with North American fat culture.

Fat is everywhere. Literally and figuratively. I know it, you know it, we all know it. First, the questions were “Who and what is to blame?” Let’s face it: North Americans eat shitty and don’t exercise. We’re sedentary fat asses for the most part.

We started off by blaming the fast food industry and beauty industries. The academics, activists and thinkers of the world are now talking about the way in which we’re now blaming the obese for well… being obese.

All the latest body image experts are chatting noisily in the latest journals about “fat shaming” and there’s a movement within feminism who call themselves “Fat Activists”. Reclaiming the so-called fat body. Add them to the list of medical experts who say that genes really do play a large part. (“Do these genes make my ass look fat?”) All these folks believe that shaming the individual fat person isn’t doing a damn thing for them or society as a whole.

These discussions came to a loud rumble recently when airlines in Canada announced that they would give an extra free seat to obese flyers. The logic? The seats are considered too small for the average person, so it’s practically impossible to stay comfy if you’re obese.

This of course raised a giant firestorm of controversy with people saying “Hey, it’s their fault for being huge, let them suffer!” My initial reaction was much the same, to be honest. Mostly I thought of my 6’7 sibling who is forced to duck and hug his knees everywhere he goes but nobody ever gave him a discount. And he was born that way!

Although I quickly changed my mind on this one when I read an editorial which pointed out that an extra seat for the obese benefits greatly the poor sap who was stuck sitting beside them in the first place. I imagine it was rather uncomfortable for them too.

So where do we go from here? We blame various industries for weight-gain woes but there’s a new set of industries cropping up to service the obese. Extra-large coffins, for example, is a big industry now. Should they be grouped in the same category as Burger King or are they simply… moving with the times? Should we supersize our coffins and MRI beds (as we are doing now)? Or is that enabling?

Are individual obese people to blame or is it the culture? Capitalism? Genes?

When pointing the chunky finger of blame, who should be the accused?

Can We Move On Already?!

Today's journalists really need some Dr. Phil advice on the value of letting go and moving on.

See, since the late 80s - early 90s, people have been saying that feminism is dead, no longer necessary and that today's womyn and girls are apathetic, spoiled and completely unaware of how they got to where they are today. And well, they've made it! This was repeated this weekend with the Globe and Mail (usually a bastion of lefty ideas) headline: FEMINISM IS OUT OF STYLE.

The author talks about how her niece and daughter didn't know who Gloria Steinem was, which she therefore concludes that they are completely out of touch with womyn's issues. She "elaborates" this point by stating statistic after statistic about how womyn are still oppressed in society. All true stats, by the way.

Now, I will agree with her that feminism is out of style. But "feminism" in the protesting, Gloria Steinem kinda way hasn't been in style since the heyday of the 60s. Does that mean that all womyn born and living since then are anti-womyn asshats? Nooooooo. They just don't look, sound or talk like Gloria Steinem and that era. Which would make sense, because that was 40 some yrs ago!

What I'm trying to say is that I agree that feminism is out of style and that indeed does suck. Feminism is pretty stellar and the feminazi - manhating stereotypes are old and really annoying. But people have been touting the "FEMINISM IS DEAD" for almost 20 years now and yet, feminist activism, prose and work in general still exists, still lives and still kicks ass.

So every time I hear the "Feminism is dead", I just roll my eyes and think Ugh... Can we move on already? Those that are saying that are just looking in the wrong places and just because there isn't one giant movement with one unified leader (a la Gloria Steinem) doesn't mean we're not kicking ass and taking names.

Hey, Globe and Mail - Monday was the 20th anniversary of the Morgenteller decision. Yeah, abortions have been decriminalized for 20 yrs now. Which would mean.. 1988, which if you do the math, means well after the 1960s and yet, HOLY SHIT - IT STILL HAPPENED!

Also, Gloria Steinem was a big deal, I get that. But you're Canadian and writing for a Canadian paper, so maybe you should get educated on Canadian feminism and rely on the greats of Judy Rebick or Laura Sabia, hell even Heather Mallick!

Oh and I'm also really, really annoyed with Von Hahn and others for seeing the movie Juno as proof that anti-choicers are winning the fight for reproductive rights. Hum.. NEWSFLASH! Pro-CHOICE means the choice to keep your baby if that's what you want to do. Juno's 16 yrs old, confident, intelligent and makes a decision completely on her own. THAT is a feminist victory.


P.S Gloria Steinem - Don't get me wrong. I really do love you.

Save the Gingers!

I've been alerted to the alarming news that redheads are said to become extinct. That's right. Experts estimate that gingers, carrot tops, the Ron Weasley's of the world, who make up only 2% of the world population, will become extinct within 100 years.

See gingers are incredibly rare as they are a result of a recessive gene. So not just anybody can go and have themselves a redheaded offspring.

I love redheads and so was naturally disturbed by the news that *gulp* they might soon be gone! But then I discovered this little gem and was quickly relieved. Redhedd.com is a single's website for redheads only. Think Facebook, but uber VIP. Because naturally, if gingers mate with gingers, then more carrot tops will exist which will mean... well... that more carrot tops exist. Which is important stuff. Otherwise, redheads will vanish like dinosaurs, dodo birds and cheap gas.

So my new mission? Hump a ginger.

I'm just doing my part for humanity. What can I say? I like to give.

I give it a week before they're on Springer...

There's this story creating a real buzz around the world right now. In fact, I'm sure most of you have heard of it already.

A British couple is now filing an annulment of marriage after they discovered that they were twin siblings who were separated at birth.Yes that's right. They met each other, fell in love, got married, thought everything was peachy keen and then discovered that they were not only related, but twins.

The twins were adopted by separate parents and due to adoption laws, their genealogical and biological history was not disclosed to them. Therefore, they weren't knowingly incestuous. And due to the amount of coverage of this story and the overall EWW factor of the whole thing, they have demanded strict confidentiality and complete anonymity in their court case. (But I'm sure if Jerry Springer comes knocking with a 6 figure paycheck, things might change).

Now of course this story is ringing around the world. People think it's hilarious! I can hear the Late Night Talk Show Hosts already, making terrible jokes and puns about "the rules of attraction" and how these two are obviously egomaniacs - they fell in love with reflections of themselves! Hardy har har. And I mean, this is pretty messed up and something you'd either see on Maury Povich or written in Hollywood.

But these are real people who were in love and probably *gulp* consummated their marriage. And naturally, they are peeved that they were denied access to knowledge about their biological history, the knowledge of any siblings, etc. So it is in the courts right now, as it is raising serious issues about the disclosure of information during adoption and how perhaps (as is being debated now) a child's rights to personal information should trump a birth parent's wishes for anonymity. This is especially true in places such as Britain where a parent does not legally need to inform their children that they were born through the use of donated sperm, which is another huge issue.

So although this particular case is about marriage annulment (and years of therapy for these two people and their families), it's also about the bigger picture of the rights of offspring. These people opened up a big o'le can of worms.

I guess this really gives new meaning to the old adage that after a while, couples start to look the same...

Where's Judge Judy when you need her?

I love me some Canada, but sometimes, I don’t understand this place one bit. I now direct your attention to...

Exhibit A:
A Saskatchewan womyn successfully sued her ex-drug dealer for negligence. In 2004, when she was 19, she bought illegal drugs off of him which she overdosed on and had a heart attack. It is estimated she will win over 50,000$.

How is this possible?!

I understand that I am straightedge and I understand that Canada most certainly is not and has very lax rules with regards to drugs, marijuana in particular. Keep in mind my anger about this issue is not related to my being straightedge. I disagree with drug use but am 100% in support of legalizing marijuana. But we’re not talking about marijuana here. We’re talking about Crystal Meth.

If you buy Crystal Meth off a street dealer and overdose, how is that the court’s problem? It’s Crystal Meth! Which is illegal to buy, produce and consume in Canada. Why? Because it can kill you or I dunno, give you a heart attack? Delusions, psychosis, malnutrition, stroke, seizures and just plain o’l bad skin are common effects of Crystal Meth hence why it’s illegal.

So what? This guy gets nailed because he neglected to inform her of this? Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think this guy is innocent. He’s a Meth dealer, he’s obviously not a stand-up guy. But shouldn’t he be arrested and charged on the basis of that? And this womyn obviously consumed Crystal meth and bought it off this guy, so how is she standing on moral high ground?

Moral of the story? Don't do crack!