I'm doing a piece for the Pride annual on how the U.S. policy banning entry to HIV+ foreigners is affecting the Gay Games and its athletes and teams.
Has this come up as an issue in any of your local gay teams or gay sport organizations? I know of at least one U.S. team that has decided to do Montreal instead as a protest against the US policy. Anybody else talking about this?
Let me know!
Dudley Saunders
Dudley,
You may want to let them know that Canada also has a policy that allows them to stop HIV+ persons from getting into the country. It is in place and it is used.
As for people from Vancouver that are + and thinking about the Gay Games for 2006. I have spoke with several people that went to Sydney and they are going to Chicago. They also tell me that the US policy has never stopped them from travelling into the US. Some of these guys have been + for 20 years with no problems.
I would guess it would be just as useful for Canadians to go to Chicago in order to protest our HIV/AIDS policy as it is for teams from the US to go to Montreal.
Bottom line is that there is no effect of a protest that no one even notices! Specially when you are oging to a country with an just about identical policy!
Ken
You may want to let them know that Canada also has a policy that allows them to stop HIV+ persons from getting into the country. It is in place and it is used.
As for people from Vancouver that are + and thinking about the Gay Games for 2006. I have spoke with several people that went to Sydney and they are going to Chicago. They also tell me that the US policy has never stopped them from travelling into the US. Some of these guys have been + for 20 years with no problems.
I would guess it would be just as useful for Canadians to go to Chicago in order to protest our HIV/AIDS policy as it is for teams from the US to go to Montreal.
Bottom line is that there is no effect of a protest that no one even notices! Specially when you are oging to a country with an just about identical policy!
Ken
QUOTE
You may want to let them know that Canada also has a policy that allows them to stop HIV+ persons from getting into the country. It is in place and it is used.
[...]
Specially when you are going to a country with an just about identical policy!
Again, it seems to me that avoiding the Gay Games in Chicago to protest the US Govt policy will hurt exactly the wrong people and perhaps even please exactly the wrong people, my point here is about policy.
[ February 23, 2005, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Lindsay ]
Hey Lindsay,
You may be referring to the difference in policy when it comes to Permanent Resident applications but we are talking about visitors. Not the same thing.
Ken
You may be referring to the difference in policy when it comes to Permanent Resident applications but we are talking about visitors. Not the same thing.
Ken
Hey Ken:
Sorry but Lindsay is absolutely correct and you are the one that has it wrong. And again apologies to all those who already read this discussion on last years schism board at length but hopefully this will put this to rest once and for all.
Thank you Lindsay for correcting him. I would not want people who may be HIV positive to reach a decision to not attend the OutGames or to cancel any other travel plans they may have for Canada for that matter, based on that incorrect information.
'Visitors' with HIV face NO TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS to Canada is the claim made directly on the International AIDS Society Website for their 2006 conference in Toronto. It is exactly because there IS a difference in the respective policies of the USA versus Canada that International AIDS conferences have in the past and again in 2006 will be taking place here in Canada and none in recent years have taken place in the USA.
Prior to 1991 the Canadian Government considered people with HIV to be a threat to public health and hence were not allowed to visit Canada, a policy similar to today's American Policy. In April 1991 the Canadian government announced that they no longer considered AIDS of HIV status to be a threat to public health and allowed visitors, but still limited the ability for HIV+ people to immigrate to Canada based upon the burden to our health system issue. However after 1991 on rare occassions some HIV+ visitors were still being turned away at the border with immigration officials citing this 'burden to the public health system' as reason for denial to entry. But in 1994 the Immigration minister put out a directive that stated...
A diagnosis of HIV/AIDS is not in itself a barrier to visiting Canada;
- persons living with HIV/AIDS do not generally represent a danger to the public under s 19 of the Immigration Act;
- the issue is therefore whether visitors living with HIV/AIDS would place excessive demand on the Canadian health-care system;
- it is not normally expected that visitors with HIV would place any demand on the health-care system; therefore, for the vast majority of short-term visits by persons living with HIV/AIDS, the excessive demand criterion would not be invoked;
- the excessive demand criterion will only be invoked if there is reason to believe a person would need medical treatment while in Canada, although even in this case a person may still be able to enter the country if he or she had made arrangements for treatment and payment;
the carrying of HIV/AIDS medication is not a ground for refusing admission; and
the government will provide immigration officers with thorough information on the travel policy and implement a training program on HIV/AIDS for immigration officers.
*******************
And that has been how Canada's policy has been applied since then. According to a friend who works for Immigration Canada at Pearson Airport in Toronto, she was not aware of the last time a visitor to Canada was turned back because of the 'demand on public health services' clause' as it related to HIV/AIDS illness. And she said in her mind 'No Restrictions' would be in her mind an accurrate descritpion of Immigration Canada's policy as it is in fact being implemented at Pearson and other Canadian gateways as it relates to HIV+ travelers.
So someone who is HIV+ and has their meds would not experience any difficulties entering Canada to visit and that is the key point that needs to be made.
Pat
[ February 24, 2005, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]
Sorry but Lindsay is absolutely correct and you are the one that has it wrong. And again apologies to all those who already read this discussion on last years schism board at length but hopefully this will put this to rest once and for all.
Thank you Lindsay for correcting him. I would not want people who may be HIV positive to reach a decision to not attend the OutGames or to cancel any other travel plans they may have for Canada for that matter, based on that incorrect information.
'Visitors' with HIV face NO TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS to Canada is the claim made directly on the International AIDS Society Website for their 2006 conference in Toronto. It is exactly because there IS a difference in the respective policies of the USA versus Canada that International AIDS conferences have in the past and again in 2006 will be taking place here in Canada and none in recent years have taken place in the USA.
Prior to 1991 the Canadian Government considered people with HIV to be a threat to public health and hence were not allowed to visit Canada, a policy similar to today's American Policy. In April 1991 the Canadian government announced that they no longer considered AIDS of HIV status to be a threat to public health and allowed visitors, but still limited the ability for HIV+ people to immigrate to Canada based upon the burden to our health system issue. However after 1991 on rare occassions some HIV+ visitors were still being turned away at the border with immigration officials citing this 'burden to the public health system' as reason for denial to entry. But in 1994 the Immigration minister put out a directive that stated...
A diagnosis of HIV/AIDS is not in itself a barrier to visiting Canada;
- persons living with HIV/AIDS do not generally represent a danger to the public under s 19 of the Immigration Act;
- the issue is therefore whether visitors living with HIV/AIDS would place excessive demand on the Canadian health-care system;
- it is not normally expected that visitors with HIV would place any demand on the health-care system; therefore, for the vast majority of short-term visits by persons living with HIV/AIDS, the excessive demand criterion would not be invoked;
- the excessive demand criterion will only be invoked if there is reason to believe a person would need medical treatment while in Canada, although even in this case a person may still be able to enter the country if he or she had made arrangements for treatment and payment;
the carrying of HIV/AIDS medication is not a ground for refusing admission; and
the government will provide immigration officers with thorough information on the travel policy and implement a training program on HIV/AIDS for immigration officers.
*******************
And that has been how Canada's policy has been applied since then. According to a friend who works for Immigration Canada at Pearson Airport in Toronto, she was not aware of the last time a visitor to Canada was turned back because of the 'demand on public health services' clause' as it related to HIV/AIDS illness. And she said in her mind 'No Restrictions' would be in her mind an accurrate descritpion of Immigration Canada's policy as it is in fact being implemented at Pearson and other Canadian gateways as it relates to HIV+ travelers.
So someone who is HIV+ and has their meds would not experience any difficulties entering Canada to visit and that is the key point that needs to be made.
Pat
[ February 24, 2005, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]
Dudley: in your research, you might want to bear in mind that this is a "wedge" issue which people knowingly or unknowingly use to support their own positions. Several times I have been in face to face conversations with people who cite this issue as reason for attending/boycotting one of the two games in 2006. Almost without fail these folks had already decided to support one games or the other, and the HIV issue was one more club in the bag. To my knowledge, none of the people I talked to in person, who held the aforementioned positions were HIV+.
It's a real issue, but often not considered in an objective, stand-alone way. Good luck. Hope your thread doesn't turn into a snake pit.
It's a real issue, but often not considered in an objective, stand-alone way. Good luck. Hope your thread doesn't turn into a snake pit.
Pat,
You may want to look at the legislation passed in 2000 in regards to this issue. You will find that you are missing osmething.
As for making a decision to not attend a Games due to any travel restrictions, you may want to clarify that you would also not want people to decide to not go to the USA at any time due to this backwards concept. Or are you okay with it?
As per Chuck, you are too clearly on one side here.
I am not on either side when it ocmes to this issue as I think both governments have it wrong. I am not okay with your pretense that Canada has no concerns and abilities to react negatively.
We all know numerous people that have travelled freely between Canada and the USA for many years while they were +.
Methinks this is a continual red herring designed to pretend it is not anti-Gay Games. Shame on you for exploiting this situation.
Ken
PS. Off topic I know, but Pat, you still have not answered the direct question in regards to the fudged stats from Montreal, or the fudged financial report - since they don't agree.
You may want to look at the legislation passed in 2000 in regards to this issue. You will find that you are missing osmething.
As for making a decision to not attend a Games due to any travel restrictions, you may want to clarify that you would also not want people to decide to not go to the USA at any time due to this backwards concept. Or are you okay with it?
As per Chuck, you are too clearly on one side here.
I am not on either side when it ocmes to this issue as I think both governments have it wrong. I am not okay with your pretense that Canada has no concerns and abilities to react negatively.
We all know numerous people that have travelled freely between Canada and the USA for many years while they were +.
Methinks this is a continual red herring designed to pretend it is not anti-Gay Games. Shame on you for exploiting this situation.
Ken
PS. Off topic I know, but Pat, you still have not answered the direct question in regards to the fudged stats from Montreal, or the fudged financial report - since they don't agree.
QUOTE
kenmac:
As per Chuck, you are too clearly on one side here.
Actually, no, not on this issue, which is "Is the U.S.'s HIV travel ban impacting your choosing the Gay Games?" As per Chuck, you are too clearly on one side here.
This is one of those issues which I, thankfully, am able to not invest myself in. The only thing that is affecting my choice of 2006 games is whether or not my sport is offered.
Hi Ken:
To answer your questions/comments.
The 2000 legislation your cryptically refer to. I'll bite - What am I missing. I've gone back through all the FAQ's and other such information at sources such as www.aidslaw.ca and they all indicate that I'm correct. In fact one question and answer in particular states that for those who declare themselves to be HIV+ or have HIV drugs with them when entering Canada to visit, that "Canadian policy does not apply either of these to be grounds to bar a person living with HIV/AIDS from visiting Canada."
As for your remark about making a decision not to attend a games based on this issue. I would not dream of trying to make a decision of this magnitude for anybody else. I completely respect anyone's right to make that decision on their own and have always FULLY supported any HIV+ person who chooses, to not only go to the Gay Games, but visit the USA at any other time. The bulk of my business is travel to the USA so I would be an idiot if I were to put up any extra barriers to travel to my own clients. BUT - as a business owner licensed by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario - I am required BY LAW to advise my clients of any restrictions they may face to their travel. This includes providing such information as whether or not they need Visas, passports, vaccinations etc. and also includes advising them of other travel restrictions they may face. So if one of my clients tells me they are HIV+ and they have plans to travel to the USA, I am obligated by Ontario Law to advise them of what problems they may face at the USA border. Having said that I agree with you though, and have many HIV+ clients who routinely travel back and forth across the border without any problems at all. BUT unfortunately I also have a significant number of clients who have been 'caught' at the border, and now those individuals can not get back into the USA. I wish that were not the case and would love it, if that never happens to a client of mine again.
As for your view that I am exploiting this situation, I respect your right to have that opinion, but in my defence, the purpose of my posts in this particular board have been solely to counter the impression that you incorrectly put out there to international HIV+ travelers, that Canada's policy is identical to the USA's. It is not, and as someone who is very excited about the huge visit gay friendly Canada blitz that is about to be launched by the Canadian Tourism Commission, I did not want any incorrect information being left out there unchallenged. I would not want such incorrect information to in anyway undercut the effort of all my colleagues in the gay tourism industry across Canada in this exciting program that is just now ramping up. We are all very excited about the program as we strive to welcome to Canada the 'gay world' - not only for the OutGames in 2006 - but year round, year after year, to this great, gay friendly country, that I am proud to call my home.
Pat
PS - I have not forgotten, when I have any information regarding the registration vs money from registration info. I will post it for you on the Schism board.
[ February 25, 2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]
To answer your questions/comments.
The 2000 legislation your cryptically refer to. I'll bite - What am I missing. I've gone back through all the FAQ's and other such information at sources such as www.aidslaw.ca and they all indicate that I'm correct. In fact one question and answer in particular states that for those who declare themselves to be HIV+ or have HIV drugs with them when entering Canada to visit, that "Canadian policy does not apply either of these to be grounds to bar a person living with HIV/AIDS from visiting Canada."
As for your remark about making a decision not to attend a games based on this issue. I would not dream of trying to make a decision of this magnitude for anybody else. I completely respect anyone's right to make that decision on their own and have always FULLY supported any HIV+ person who chooses, to not only go to the Gay Games, but visit the USA at any other time. The bulk of my business is travel to the USA so I would be an idiot if I were to put up any extra barriers to travel to my own clients. BUT - as a business owner licensed by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario - I am required BY LAW to advise my clients of any restrictions they may face to their travel. This includes providing such information as whether or not they need Visas, passports, vaccinations etc. and also includes advising them of other travel restrictions they may face. So if one of my clients tells me they are HIV+ and they have plans to travel to the USA, I am obligated by Ontario Law to advise them of what problems they may face at the USA border. Having said that I agree with you though, and have many HIV+ clients who routinely travel back and forth across the border without any problems at all. BUT unfortunately I also have a significant number of clients who have been 'caught' at the border, and now those individuals can not get back into the USA. I wish that were not the case and would love it, if that never happens to a client of mine again.
As for your view that I am exploiting this situation, I respect your right to have that opinion, but in my defence, the purpose of my posts in this particular board have been solely to counter the impression that you incorrectly put out there to international HIV+ travelers, that Canada's policy is identical to the USA's. It is not, and as someone who is very excited about the huge visit gay friendly Canada blitz that is about to be launched by the Canadian Tourism Commission, I did not want any incorrect information being left out there unchallenged. I would not want such incorrect information to in anyway undercut the effort of all my colleagues in the gay tourism industry across Canada in this exciting program that is just now ramping up. We are all very excited about the program as we strive to welcome to Canada the 'gay world' - not only for the OutGames in 2006 - but year round, year after year, to this great, gay friendly country, that I am proud to call my home.
Pat
PS - I have not forgotten, when I have any information regarding the registration vs money from registration info. I will post it for you on the Schism board.
[ February 25, 2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]
Well, once more the stooges for the Greedhead Junta in Montreal prove to be lying weasels trying to stick it to the Gay Games in Chicago. They always pose as unbiased near-neutrals who are just trying to be "helpful." What hypocrisy!!
I am waiting for the happy day when their Fraudgames collapse in a welter of recrimination and criminal charges. Would that my barrage of rhetorical javelins could puncture their gaseous bloviation!!
Spare us your bogus disinformation and wedge issues!!
I am waiting for the happy day when their Fraudgames collapse in a welter of recrimination and criminal charges. Would that my barrage of rhetorical javelins could puncture their gaseous bloviation!!
Spare us your bogus disinformation and wedge issues!!
Hey LACharlie:
As always a pleasure to hear from you. By the way - I had absolutely no intention of posting anything on this board until Ken posted incorrect information. I'd expect you or others to correct me when I have my facts wrong.
Cheers,
Pat
As always a pleasure to hear from you. By the way - I had absolutely no intention of posting anything on this board until Ken posted incorrect information. I'd expect you or others to correct me when I have my facts wrong.
Cheers,
Pat
Pat,
A) My information is not incorrect.
You have been corrected in regards to your support for the incorrect registration #'s for Montreal OR the incorrect financial report ( at least one has to be incorrect and possibly both as they contradict each other) and still no comment from you.
C) It is clear that you make money from Montreal being successful and you seem to have no problem smearing the Chicago Gay Games in regards to the issue under which this thread has been started - always in the interests of simply clarification for your clients - not as it would appear, to make money for yourself!
Would you like to tell all of your friends at Glisa how their new members from Nigeria stand less chance of getting into Canada for the OutGames than any HIV+ person stands of ever being denied entry to the US? Simple fact and yet you still pretend to be motivated by less than greed!
Oh my god, I think LA Charlie made me write that!!
Ken
A) My information is not incorrect.
You have been corrected in regards to your support for the incorrect registration #'s for Montreal OR the incorrect financial report ( at least one has to be incorrect and possibly both as they contradict each other) and still no comment from you.C) It is clear that you make money from Montreal being successful and you seem to have no problem smearing the Chicago Gay Games in regards to the issue under which this thread has been started - always in the interests of simply clarification for your clients - not as it would appear, to make money for yourself!
Would you like to tell all of your friends at Glisa how their new members from Nigeria stand less chance of getting into Canada for the OutGames than any HIV+ person stands of ever being denied entry to the US? Simple fact and yet you still pretend to be motivated by less than greed!
Oh my god, I think LA Charlie made me write that!!
Ken
QUOTE
Oh my god, I think LA Charlie made me write that!!
LOL 
...birds of a feather.
Hey Ken:
Now you have my entire office in hysterics. Let me try to follow your warped logic. According to you I am supposedly doing whatever I can to sabotage Chicago and the Gay Games and I am doing that my trying to stop people from wanting to go to the USA at all, by posting in this board. Gee that makes such brilliant business sense, when close to 35% of our office revenues year after year are generated from sales of travel by gay Canadians to the USA. So I am going to sabotage that - some 30%+ of our annual business, year after year - so that I can maybe impact the decison of just a handful of people as it relates to ONE specific product, that at absolute best will maybe account for a TOTAL of 5-7% of our revenue on a one time basis only. Like my business partner just said - truly laughable!
And Ken - could you please give us your sources that you claim indicate that Canada's HIV visitors policy is identical to that of the USA. I've provided you my links from aidslaw.ca. I've called contacts in various AIDS groups here in Toronto and organizers with the AIDS conference in 2006 and they all have told me I am correct. So please where are you getting your information that apparently contradicts all those sources?
Pat
[ March 01, 2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]
Now you have my entire office in hysterics. Let me try to follow your warped logic. According to you I am supposedly doing whatever I can to sabotage Chicago and the Gay Games and I am doing that my trying to stop people from wanting to go to the USA at all, by posting in this board. Gee that makes such brilliant business sense, when close to 35% of our office revenues year after year are generated from sales of travel by gay Canadians to the USA. So I am going to sabotage that - some 30%+ of our annual business, year after year - so that I can maybe impact the decison of just a handful of people as it relates to ONE specific product, that at absolute best will maybe account for a TOTAL of 5-7% of our revenue on a one time basis only. Like my business partner just said - truly laughable!
And Ken - could you please give us your sources that you claim indicate that Canada's HIV visitors policy is identical to that of the USA. I've provided you my links from aidslaw.ca. I've called contacts in various AIDS groups here in Toronto and organizers with the AIDS conference in 2006 and they all have told me I am correct. So please where are you getting your information that apparently contradicts all those sources?
Pat
[ March 01, 2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]
Hey Dudley: I hope people are emailing you as reguarding your question and the reason you started this thread. As you can see, the question has been hijacked.
Hey Chuck:
Sorry, I agree with you and I do apologize for being somewhat responsible for in some ways sidetracking this board. I actually had a call from Dudley and we were able to discuss at length some details specifically related to his original post.
Again apologies that my exchange with Ken, where we obviously disagree on the facts of what Canada's policy actually is, may have sidetracked this board and taken it in a direction Dudley did not intend. This is the last time I will post in this board, as everyone now knows that I - like Lindsay - disagree with Ken's opinion on this topic.
Pat
[ March 01, 2005, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]
Sorry, I agree with you and I do apologize for being somewhat responsible for in some ways sidetracking this board. I actually had a call from Dudley and we were able to discuss at length some details specifically related to his original post.
Again apologies that my exchange with Ken, where we obviously disagree on the facts of what Canada's policy actually is, may have sidetracked this board and taken it in a direction Dudley did not intend. This is the last time I will post in this board, as everyone now knows that I - like Lindsay - disagree with Ken's opinion on this topic.
Pat
[ March 01, 2005, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.