Thanks Hamjatta for the stimulating discussion. I have
some thoughts on this and Insha'Allah I shall make some
humble contributions in a day or two. I am a bit worn out
at the moment.
MMC
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 08:04:26 EDT Hamjatta Kanteh
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> As my mate and I spent the best part of this morning discussing Africa
> and the Aids epidemic, we both agreed that in ten years time, given the rate
> at which the epidemic is spreading, Africa will virtually be reduced to a
> continent of senior citizens the ramifications of which are too gloomy to
> sketch for you this morning. Everybody has agreed since a decade ago that
> something needs to be done about this epidemic and the alarming rate which it
> was consuming the African active population. Yet, here we are today worse off
> than yesterday or a decade ago. More than a third of Aids/HIV carriers in the
> world are in Africa, with South Africa having some 4.2 million carriers.
> Botswana, once upon a time the jewel in the thorn that is Africa, is showing
> signs of buckling under the loss of her active populace due to the Aids
> epidemic. This Southern African nation, a while ago referred to as the only
> success story in post-colonial Africa is losing her potentials as a force to
> be reckoned not due to civil wars or political instability as is almost
> always the case in Africa, but due to an epidemic whose dangers were heralded
> a decade ago.
> So what went wrong? Why did Africa become so awash with Aids carriers
> when clearly something could have been done about its spread? Not a health
> expert but lay man with common place views on the matter, I must say that the
> spread and conflagration of the epidemic in Africa lays bare what is wrong
> with the continent. That of misplaced priorities. Whilst billions were poured
> and continue to be poured into silly arms acquisition by tinpot dictators,
> building new State Houses in home villages, hopelessly turning hamlets into
> Capital cities, white elephant projects, embezzlement of public funds and a
> host of seemingly intractable Africa problems, the containment of this
> epidemic continues to be cash-strapped [save for NGOs who continue to be
> benevolent to Aids carries] and lacks moral leadership. But of course for the
> Pan African Left, this not the case. For them it was the West which is still
> working behind the scenes to make sure black people disappear off the face of
> the earth. Anything that goes wrong in Africa, must be traced back to the
> West for it's root causes. One of these days I will devote time to expose the
> emptiness of Socialist Pan Africanism's obsession with the West and how they
> have unwittingly given allure and comfort to the likes of Mugabe and Jammeh.
> As the problem continues to like that of a metastasizing cancer,
> naturally the question arises as to what can be done now to radically halt
> this epidemic? As the great Nelson Mandela noted, endless posh talk shops
> will not help. Whilst Africans wait for the miracle of a cure, prevention
> must be the central conceit of all Aids/HIV crusades. But this in itself has
> been around for a decade now and has not halted the conflagration of the
> epidemic. The other day an American student on a summer course at the
> university brought to my attention a very provocative article by William .F.
> Buckley Jr., in the New York Times in 1986. Buckley, considered the
> "delineator" of American conservative thought, argued that it if evidence
> exists of the epidemic being spread not only through intercourse and
> piercing/pricking of the body by a needle/syringe, knife, razor blade or any
> sharp object, then what he called the "utilitarian imperative" must be
> invoked to save the majority from any chance of carrying the epidemic. This,
> he argued can be done through either by publicly identifying the carriers of
> the epidemic and ostracising them. Or use what he again called the "Aids
> tattoo" to be privately displayed on the buttocks of gays and on the forearms
> of drug addicts to privately warn off those who are not carriers of the
> epidemic.
> Of course this is preposterous and impractical in this age of civil
> liberties. But that is hardly my point of reference. Buckley's arguments one
> must concede, are provocative which is why I brought it to people's
> attention. The central theme of his thesis is that since we all agree that an
> epidemic is out and about and spreading like a bush fire which is
> undetectable by the sharpest of human eyes, then it becomes a matter of
> "utilitarian imperative" that the majority must be saved inorder not halt
> civilisation. So what other forms of "utilitarian imperative" that are
> embedded in our civil liberties and compassionate inclinations as African but
> more radical than the message of prevention and of waiting patiently for the
> miracles of finding a cure, are out there that can help? This is where we
> must start a concrete and constructive debate. This debate is as important as
> the debates of Africa's economic and political problems. Aids can and will
> kill more Africans tragically in ten years than slavery ever did if we do not
> work against it's rising tides.
> Perhaps my choice of Buckley as a point of reference will be
> objectionable by those of you in the States who are direct witnesses to his
> abhorrent and ridiculous views on race and America in general. Yes, Buckley
> is that great purveyor of extreme views on race in America, but I have
> discovered that he has scant positive provocative stuff that should be used
> by those under his constant thundering for soul searching and effective means
> of surviving and even debunking his excesses. I hope it is seen in that
> light. See attached below the original New York Times op-ed article itself.
> Well, have a great weekend.
> Hamjatta Kanteh
>
> ******************************************************************
> March 18, 1986
>
>
> OP-ED
> Crucial Steps in Combating the Aids Epidemic; Identify All the Carriers
> By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
> I have read and listened, and I think now that I can convincingly crystallize
> the thoughts chasing about in the minds of, first, those whose concern with
> AIDS victims is based primarily on a concern for them and for the maintenance
> of the most rigid standards of civil liberties and personal privacy, and,
> second, those whose anxiety to protect the public impels them to give
> subordinate attention to the civil amenities of those who suffer from AIDS
> and primary attention to the safety of those who do not.
>
> Arguments used by both sides are sometimes utilitarian, sometimes moral,
> sometimes a little of each -and almost always a little elusive. Most readers
> will locate their own inclinations and priorities somewhere other than in the
> polar positions here put forward by design.
>
> School A suspects, in the array of arguments of School B, a venture in
> ethical opportunism. Look, they say, we have made enormous headway in the
> matter of civil rights for all, dislodging the straight-laced from mummified
> positions they inherited through eclectic superstitions ranging from the
> Bible's to Freud's. A generation ago, homosexuals lived mostly in the closet.
> Nowadays they take over cities and parade on Halloween and demand equal
> rights for themselves qua homosexuals, not merely as apparently disinterested
> civil libertarians.
>
> Along comes AIDS, School A continues, and even though it is well known that
> the virus can be communicated by infected needles, known also that
> heterosexuals can transmit the virus, still it is both a fact and the popular
> perception that AIDS is the special curse of the homosexual, transmitted
> through anal sex between males. And if you look hard, you will discern that
> little smirk on the face of the man oh-so-concerned about public health. He
> is looking for ways to safeguard the public, sure, but he is by no means
> reluctant, in the course of doing so, to sound an invidious tocsin whose
> clamor is a call to undo all the understanding so painfully cultivated over a
> generation by those who have fought for the privacy of their bedroom. What
> School B is really complaining about is the extension of civil rights to
> homosexuals.
>
> School A will not say all that in words quite so jut-jawed, but it plainly
> feels that no laws or regulations should be passed that have the effect of
> identifying the AIDS carrier. It isn't, School A concedes, as if AIDS were
> transmitted via public drinking fountains. But any attempt to segregate the
> AIDS carrier is primarily an act of moral ostracism.
>
> School B does in fact tend to disapprove forcefully of homosexuality, but
> tends to approach the problem of AIDS empirically. It argues that acquired
> immune deficiency syndrome is potentially the most serious epidemic to have
> shown its face in this century. Summarizing currently accepted statistics,
> the Economist recently raised the possibility ''that the AIDS virus will have
> killed more than 250,000 Americans in eight years' time.'' Moreover, if the
> epidemic extended to that point, it would burst through existing boundaries.
> There would then be ''no guarantee that the disease will remain largely
> confined to groups at special risk, such as homosexuals, hemophiliacs and
> people who inject drugs intravenously. If AIDS were to spread through the
> general population, it would become a catastrophe.'' Accordingly, School B
> says, we face a utilitarian imperative, and this requires absolutely nothing
> less than the identification of the million-odd people who, the doctors
> estimate, are carriers. How? Well, the military has taken the first concrete
> step. Two million soldiers will be given the blood test, and those who have
> AIDS will be discreetly discharged Discreetly, you say!
>
> Hold on. I'm coming to that. You have the military making the first massive
> move designed to identify AIDS sufferers - and, bear in mind, an AIDS carrier
> today is an AIDS carrier on the day of his death, which day, depending on the
> viral strain, will be two years from now or when he is threescore and 10. The
> next logical step would be to require of anyone who seeks a marriage license
> that he present himself not only with a Wassermann test but also an AIDS
> test.
>
> But if he has AIDS, should he then be free to marry?
>
> Only after the intended spouse is advised that her intended husband has AIDS,
> and agrees to sterilization. We know already of children born with the
> disease, transmitted by the mother, who contracted it from the father.
>
> What then would School B suggest for those who are not in the military and
> who do not set out to get a marriage license? Universal testing?
>
> Yes, in stages. But in rapid stages. The next logical enforcer is the
> insurance company. Blue Cross, for instance, can reasonably require of those
> who wish to join it a physical examination that requires tests. Almost every
> American, making his way from infancy to maturity, needs to pass by one or
> another institutional turnstile. Here the lady will spring out, her right
> hand on a needle, her left on a computer, to capture a blood specimen.
>
> Is it then proposed by School B that AIDS carriers should be publicly
> identified as such?
>
> The evidence is not completely in as to the communicability of the disease.
> But while much has been said that is reassuring, the moment has not yet come
> when men and women of science are unanimously agreed that AIDS cannot be
> casually communicated. Let us be patient on that score, pending any tilt in
> the evidence: If the news is progressively reassuring, public identification
> would not be necessary. If it turns in the other direction and AIDS develops
> among, say, children who have merely roughhoused with other children who
> suffer from AIDS, then more drastic segregation measures would be called for.
>
> But if the time has not come, and may never come, for public identification,
> what then of private identification?
>
> Everyone detected with AIDS should be tatooed in the upper forearm, to
> protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the
> victimization of other homosexuals.
>
> You have got to be kidding! That's exactly what we suspected all along! You
> are calling for the return of the Scarlet Letter, but only for homosexuals!
>
> Answer: The Scarlet Letter was designed to stimulate public obloquy. The AIDS
> tattoo is designed for private protection. And the whole point of this is
> that we are not talking about a kidding matter. Our society is generally
> threatened, and in order to fight AIDS, we need the civil equivalent of
> universal military training.
>
> William F. Buckley Jr., editor of the National Review, is author, most
> recently, of ''Right Reason.'' His syndicated column appears locally in The
> New York Daily News.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to
> tolerate the intolerant.
> Karl Popper 1902-1994
>
>
>
> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to
> tolerate the intolerant.
> Karl Popper 1902-1994
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Mansour Ceesay
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
