All things AIDS... ok a few things AIDS
I want to open with a formal apology for that abortion of a post that was my last entry, holy fuck that was bad, when you don't sleep enough things like that seem like a good idea. That post was the load that should have been swallowed, I will however leave it up for the sake of the Ackbar/Homolka challenge and as a reminder of how tragically unfunny I can be. In a way it's similar to how they left the gates of Auschwitz up as a reminder of how bad things were/could be so anyways ARBEIT MACHT FREI.... and we're off!!
So the topic at hand today is AIDS as theres a tonne of questions that AIDS brings to the forefront which provide quite the ethical clusterfuck.
Take this story HERE for example. A woman with AIDS has unprotected sex with her husband she gets charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm and aggravated assault. Gets charged with 2 years of jail time. This in turn triggered a call for her deportation as she was an immigrant. After her sentence is served the judge takes 1 day of the sentence so that it lessens the severity of the crime making it possible for her to fight her deportation, but more on that later.
Now heres where we get hit with the first money shot of confusion. She was having sex with her husband, so one could argue what kind of joke of a husband doesn't know their wife has AIDS. One would hope that if the woman knew she had AIDS her husband would too so it's really both of their faults.
Then on the other hand one might ask why the hell was a man who did the same thing but with randoms and was arrested just this past month being charged with attempted murder, aggravatedsexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, and assault with a weapon, yet this woman gets a joke of a sentence.
So what's the right choice of action here is throwing the book at buddy here just adding to the aidsophobia that is out there, and why the vast difference in the array of charges facing both of these people.
But heres where things get really stupid and shitty. The sentence gets reduced a day so now the woman can fight her appeal.
This is the part in the post where everybody with a sandy vagina says quit being so cold blooded AIDS is a disease not a crime.
Heres the part where I say shut your mouth when you're talking to me and let me finish one damn story!
So apparently the decision to reduce the sentence by 1 day had nothing to do with the immigration issues.
The immigration consequences were not taken into account by the trial judge or Iamkhong's lawyer during her sentencing because both were focused on ensuring she would be imprisoned where she would get appropriate care.
This is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard. When you're reducing a sentence by 1 day after she has served the sentence how can that have anything to do with where she gets imprisoned. So instead of automatically deporting the 39 year old AIDS ridden stripper we get to tie up our immigration and courts system with an appeal...
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME
I don't care what kind of backlash I here about this, this just burns my asshole something fierce. Canada is a country that is losing doctors and nurses and all sorts of highly trained professionals to other countries where they can do better for themselves. And who do we fight to keep in this country?? A scientist of a stripper who ignored her positive HIV test results, spread the disease not only to her husband but could have potentially spread it much more based on the line of work she was in, and we are forking over tax dollars to try and keep her in the country... what's she going to do for work now, I doubt theres a big market for 39 year old strippers with AIDS. So then we can foot another bill HOLY ROBERTA BONDAR BATMAN!!!!!
If that case isn't ethically complex or offensive enough for you heres a terrible hypothetical.
If all of the indigenous people in Africa were dead from AIDS but Freddie Mercury was still alive could you deal with AIDS??
And before you jump to your answer think of all the summer Olympic medals we would've won with Africa out of the picture...
So the topic at hand today is AIDS as theres a tonne of questions that AIDS brings to the forefront which provide quite the ethical clusterfuck.
Take this story HERE for example. A woman with AIDS has unprotected sex with her husband she gets charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm and aggravated assault. Gets charged with 2 years of jail time. This in turn triggered a call for her deportation as she was an immigrant. After her sentence is served the judge takes 1 day of the sentence so that it lessens the severity of the crime making it possible for her to fight her deportation, but more on that later.
Now heres where we get hit with the first money shot of confusion. She was having sex with her husband, so one could argue what kind of joke of a husband doesn't know their wife has AIDS. One would hope that if the woman knew she had AIDS her husband would too so it's really both of their faults.
Then on the other hand one might ask why the hell was a man who did the same thing but with randoms and was arrested just this past month being charged with attempted murder, aggravatedsexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, and assault with a weapon, yet this woman gets a joke of a sentence.
So what's the right choice of action here is throwing the book at buddy here just adding to the aidsophobia that is out there, and why the vast difference in the array of charges facing both of these people.
But heres where things get really stupid and shitty. The sentence gets reduced a day so now the woman can fight her appeal.
This is the part in the post where everybody with a sandy vagina says quit being so cold blooded AIDS is a disease not a crime.
Heres the part where I say shut your mouth when you're talking to me and let me finish one damn story!
So apparently the decision to reduce the sentence by 1 day had nothing to do with the immigration issues.
The immigration consequences were not taken into account by the trial judge or Iamkhong's lawyer during her sentencing because both were focused on ensuring she would be imprisoned where she would get appropriate care.
This is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard. When you're reducing a sentence by 1 day after she has served the sentence how can that have anything to do with where she gets imprisoned. So instead of automatically deporting the 39 year old AIDS ridden stripper we get to tie up our immigration and courts system with an appeal...
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME
I don't care what kind of backlash I here about this, this just burns my asshole something fierce. Canada is a country that is losing doctors and nurses and all sorts of highly trained professionals to other countries where they can do better for themselves. And who do we fight to keep in this country?? A scientist of a stripper who ignored her positive HIV test results, spread the disease not only to her husband but could have potentially spread it much more based on the line of work she was in, and we are forking over tax dollars to try and keep her in the country... what's she going to do for work now, I doubt theres a big market for 39 year old strippers with AIDS. So then we can foot another bill HOLY ROBERTA BONDAR BATMAN!!!!!
If that case isn't ethically complex or offensive enough for you heres a terrible hypothetical.
If all of the indigenous people in Africa were dead from AIDS but Freddie Mercury was still alive could you deal with AIDS??
And before you jump to your answer think of all the summer Olympic medals we would've won with Africa out of the picture...
Comments
Post a Comment