HIV epidemic and NZAF – a flawed crock
November 4, 2007 by SPCS
Filed under HIV/AIDS STIs, Homosexuality
Press Release 5/11/07
The Society is concerned that despite millions of dollars of taxpayer funds having been poured into the NZ AIDS Foundation (NZAF) each year, the numbers of new HIV infections diagnosed each year among “men-who-have-sex-with-men” (homosexuals and bisexuals) is continuing to rocket upwards, along with other nasty sexually transmitted diseases – syphilis, gonorrhoea, genital clamydia and genital herpes. It is highly critical of the way Ministry of Health officials and politicians have allowed this absolute crock – the tiny fringe self-serving gay lobby group NZAF – to have access to so much public money to run such a flawed and largely ineffective “men’s health programme”[1].Furthermore, the dysfunctional NZAF operation which is supposed to be focused largely on preventing HIV/AIDS, has lurched from one organisational crisis to another (resulting in staff resignations) and has become so highly politicised in its promotion of the normalisation of sodomy and the celebration of sexual diversity (= gay sex) among its largely European male supporters; that its flamboyant PC-posturing has made a mockery of the deadly earnest character of the health message it should be conveying to those it claims to serve. “It’s not serving its constituency as it should,” says Larry Jenkins, NZ AIDS Foundation’s fundraising and events manager, who has just resigned. He says NZAF “is a fundamentally flawed organisation, especially at board and chief executive level.” [2]
A recent NZAF press release [3] stated: “Discussion at NZAF’s recent community forums for gay and bisexual men suggested that unprotected anal sex [‘bare-backing’] was being GLORIFIED through A LACK OF PEER PRESSURE AGAINST THE PRACTICE” [Emphasis added]. NZAF provides no “peer pressure” against promiscuity. On the contrary its workshops with the gay friendly titles of “Cock Sure”, “Horny as”, “Queen of the Universe”, and gay-boy pin up competitions, etc. encourage promiscuity, emboldening HIV+ homosexuals and bisexuals to persist in their unhealthy and unnatural sexual practices – absolutely deluded by the NZAF mantra of the “safe sex”/condom ‘life-insurance policy’ (in reality condoms at best only provide 80% protection against HIV transmission).
During the 2005 calendar year NZAF reported “the highest number of HIV infections” were recorded “in the history of the epidemic in New Zealand”. 83% of the 117 newly diagnosed HIV+ cases were among homosexual and bisexual men – (compared to 89% in 2004). It also noted the shocking statistic that approximately 33% of persons who actually have the HIV virus do not even know they have it. And yet such carriers continue to have anal sex with multiple male partners with gay abandon, unknowingly spreading and receiving the virus as well as a host of other nasty STIs. (NZAF has reported “a disturbing resurgence of syphilis recorded at sexual health clinics between 2002 and 2006″ among homosexuals, as well as gonorrhoea or chlamydia). A September 2007 report from the AIDS Epidemiology Group reveals that 84 new HIV infections were diagnosed in New Zealand for the first half of 2007. Maori diagnosed HIV+ rose from 6.4 per cent of all notifications in 2006, to 11.4% in the first six months of 2007. By far the largest component of those infected in NZ were sexually active homosexuals and bisexuals – 85%.[4]
The Society believes that the government should pull all further funding of the NZAF and initiate an independent inquiry into why so much public money has been allowed to be wasted on such an ineffective crock that has failed to avert the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It is aware that NZAF has taken formal complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority over politicians who have dared to question its policies – labelling its critics as derogatory bigots and homophobes [5]. According to the NZAF Annual Report dated June 2006, public support for the organisation is miniscule. It currently has only 158 financial members despite a massive recruitment drive. Members with vested interests – those who draw taxpayer funded salaries serving NZAF – number a staggering 47. The Government grant and salary refund package to NZAF was $3,421,301 in the year ending June 2006. Sodomy certainly comes with a price [6].
Notes and References:
[1] In March 1985, the AIDS Support Network Trust was established in response to workshops held nationally to deal with preventing the spread of HIV in New Zealand as well as how to assist those living with HIV and AIDS. The newly established trust was successful in attracting funding from the Ministry of Health. In August of the same year, the Trust was renamed the New Zealand AIDS Foundation. The New Zealand AIDS Foundation is a registered charitable trust which has continued its focus on prevention amongst the group most at risk of HIV infection in New Zealand – men who have sex with men (MSM).
The mission of the New Zealand AIDs Foundation is to prevent HIV/AIDS and to provide support to those living with HIV/AIDS. http://www.nzaf.org.nz/articles.php?id=515
[2] NZAF Board: Flawed and in Need of change? By Jay Bennie – 3 November 2007
http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/5/article_5191.php
[3] HIV rise brings wave of other sex diseases. 2 October 2007. Press Release: Aids Foundation
http://www.nzaf.org.nz/files/AIDsF%20Annual%20Report.pdf
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0710/S00012.htm
[4] Gay Men’s Health Spring 2007
http://www.nzaf.org.nz/files/GMH%20Spring%2007.pdf
Minorities ‘neglected’. By Rebeccah Todd – The Press. Monday, 22 October 2007
http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4245835a6427.html
AIDS New Zealand: Issue 60 2007
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0710/60_AIDSNZ_September_2007.pdf
[5] BSA Decision No: 2006-131 Dated: 23 March 2007. Complainant by NZAF against Broadcaster CANWEST RadioWorks Ltd broadcasting as Radio Live.
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2006/2006-131.htm
Politician John Tamahere said that he accepted the NZAF’s role in dealing with HIV/AIDS but criticised its current focus on promoting the “gay lifestyle”.
[6] Warnings of STD pestilence: Paying the due penalty for unnatural sex and indecent sex acts.
Rare STD on increase in Europe and USA
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0502/S00137.htm
“Men who have sex with Men” does not simply equal homosexuals or bisexuals. Many men who engage in sex acts with other men identify as heterosexuals. These are the men that sneak about behind their wives’ backs. These are the men that perhaps should never have married the opposite sex but for whatever reason, have chosen to do so. They are not a part of the gay community.
In response to AJ Marsh regarding MSM
Chris Sibley, who worked for three years with Wellington’s NZAF Awhina Centre, in health promotion among men who have sex with men (MSM), before recently resigning, has stated.
“The difficulty of working with Queer communities on health issues paradoxically is one of its greatest strengths… its tremendous diversity. Urban men who have sex with men (MSM), rural MSM, HIV positive gay men, HIV negative gay men, HIV Positive bi-sexual men, HIV negative bisexual men, closeted men having sex with men, experimental man on man sex, transgendered and transsexuals; all of these different groups fall within the domain of the NZAF’s contracts with the Ministry of Health and all these groups have different needs and respond to our promotions and campaigns differently. In a way, they are all in competition with each other for time, resources and the information the Foundation has to disseminate around the spread of the virus and its risk to them. Health Promotion and education, unfortunately, is not as simple as having a few pamphlets and packets of condoms & lube at gay clubs.”
http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/26/article_1709.php
The category “MSM” is one used regularly by NZAF in its literature followed by the bracketed explanation “(homosexuals and bisexuals)”. Most informed NZers know that MSM includes homosexuals who are HIV+ and those who are HIV negative. And yet Sibley treats these HIV categories as distinct from MSM. Why? Are they valid subcategories distinct from MSM? Is there 100% overlap between them when it comes to sex acts engaged in? The same questions arise with his subcategories HIV positive and negative bisexuals, relative to MSM.
The categorisation into subgroups does not mean that homos and bisexuals at risk from HIV do NOT belong to MSM. Other categories at risk by HIV/AIDS and STIs noted by Sibley, include “closeted men having sex with men, experimental man on man sex, transgendered and transsexuals”.
AJ Marsh is correct to point out that MSM is indeed wider, in one sense (individual perception) than just those who openly PROCLAIM themselves to be, or BELIEVE that they are either homosexual or bisexual.
Expounding the description category – “Closeted men having sex with men” – Sibley uses, AJ Marsh would no doubt say it refers to men in a recognised sexual relationship with a woman (marriage) who “sneak about behind their wives’ backs” to “engage in sex acts with other men”.
However, such men, are clearly living an absolute lie. They may proclaim to be “heterosexuals” however the fact is that they are engaging in sex with men (homosexual acts: MSM) and open themselves up to HIV infection if they engage in anal sex and risky oral sex with a man who is an HIV carrier or has AIDS. Sadly, they also put their wives at risk through their immoral, perveted behaviour.
What about “transgendered and transsexuals”. Is AJ Marsh claiming that these persons as well as the sneaky married males he refers to, are NOT actually part of the “gay community”?
Her/his analysis requires clarification. Has she/he not heard of GLTB community (Gay Lesbian Transgender, bisexual community)?
SPCS takes the view that MSM is a category that the wider “gay community” appear to have chosen to try and avoid the stigma they feel is attached to the sub category “homosexual male”. SPCS appreciates the efforts of AJ Marsh to try and delineate between the finer subcategories of sodomites.