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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
