VIDEOS: USAid defunding leaves African AIDS sufferers stuck for meds

Walt was in South Africa in the mid-90s when the white-run country was handed over to the Marxist African National Congress. Predictably, it has slid downhill ever since, and is now just a small cut above Zimbabwe in terms of standard of living and everything else that matters. Now they want to seize white farms -- what took them so long? -- to ensure starvation.

South Africa is also (and again predictably) home to one of the world's worst epidemics of HIV/AIDS. At least 8.5 million of its people are living with HIV, and Sky News (the woke British version, not the painfully honest Aussie site) is whining that their treatment is in doubt thanks to President Trump's executive order freezing foreign aid for 90 days.

Until the introduction of Dubya's President Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003, African sufferers from the deadly disease were at the mercy of their witch doctors (not kidding -- look it up!) there was no medication. Nelly Zulu, an activist and mother living with HIV in Soweto told Sky News, "The government would tell us to take beetroot and garlic. It was very difficult for the government to give us treatment but we fought very hard to win this battle. Now, the challenge is that we are going back to the struggle." 

In this video, a prostitute walks up to the security guards outside a shuttered USAid-funded sexual health clinic in Johannesburg's inner-city district. She looks around with confusion when she is told the clinic is closed. She tells Sky's reporter it has only been two months since she came here to receive her usual care. Now, she must scramble to find another safe place for her sexual health screenings and pre-exposure prophylaxis. Like many sex workers, free sexual health clinics are her lifeline. "You don't have to quit working. Just keep taking these pills, provided by those nice Americans." 

  

Too bad, eh. But ask yourself why South Africa, still a comparitively wealthy nation -- compared with Zimbabwe, say -- should be receiving handouts from American taxpayers to mitigate the poor lifestyle... and political... choices of its citizens.

Meanwhile, South African boers (white farmers) say they are deeply worried by a land seizure bill has been signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa. Basically, this bill gives the government power to take the farmers' land, and even their domestic houses, and not pay any compensation, if there is "good reason" for so doing. What constitutes "good reason" has not been stated, but "to give it to blacks" is Walt's guess. (Lifetime pct .989)

Farmers who choose to move to someplace where they won't experience reverse racism will be looking to Australia, Canada, maybe even the US of A, where their agricultural expertise will be welcome. Souoth Africa's loss will be our gain! And here's a shining example... 

Susanna Heystek's family migrated to Canada around the turn of the century. Things have gotten worse in South Africa since then. They're getting worse in the Great No Longer White North too, but for the time being, it's a better bet than the land they left.

Ontario court jails HIV+ man for unprotected sex

In May of 2011 Walt told you about "You doesn't have to call me Johnson" Aziga, who was convicted of murder by the courts of Ontario for having knowingly infected several women with the HIV/AIDS virus. Two of them died, hence the convictions.

In spite of playing the race card [no surprises there. Ed.] Mr. Aziga was declared a dangerous sexual offender, and is now languishing in a Canadian jail somewhere, at Her Majesty's pleasure, as they say.

Ian Williams is a bit more fortunate. He knows when he's getting out! The 50-year-old Williams was convicted yesterday of having unprotected sex with two women without disclosing his HIV+ status. He was sentenced to six years in the hoosegow -- 3 years for each victim. That's not unreasonable because, see, they didn't die. Yet.

But get this. This week's convictions are not the first for the loathesome Lothario. Williams was previously convicted in 2006 and served a year in jail after two other women reported they were never informed of his HIV positive status when he had unprotected sex with them.

And there's more. A year earlier, his wife died from AIDS. Although his stepdaughter complained to police that her mom had been infected by Williams, he was never charged. This was before the Azinga case set a precedent.

So, as the guys at the track say, Mr. Williams has form. If you were a betting man [unlike Walt. Ed.] you would be tempted to bet on him to repeat, just as soon as he gets out of the gate. After credit for 15 months of pretrial custody, that would be in four years and nine months.

Unless of course the Canadian immigration people are alert enough to deport Mr. William to his native Trinidad. Oh. Didn't I mention that? I knew you'd guess.

"You doesn't have to call me Johnson!"

This is Johnson Aziga. Mr. Aziga was born in Uganda. At some point he was accepted as an immigrant to Canada, and found a job with the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General. What Mr. Aziga did not disclose on his immigration application, or at any other time, is the fact that he is HIV-positive.

This was unfortunate since, true to his name, Johnson was very inclined to indulge in what Private Eye calls "Ugandan affairs". He had a wife, three kids, and a succession of girlfriends. He indulged in unsafe sex with no fewer than 11 women. Seven of them later tested positive for HIV, and two died of complications of AIDS, in December 2003 and May 2004.

Fast forward to April 2009, when Mr. Aziga, was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault. He thus became the first person ever to be tried and convicted of first-degree murder by virtue [eh? Ed.] of knowingly spreading the HIV virus.

At the trial, his former girlfriends testified that Johnson lied about his HIV status and continued having unprotected sex until the morning of his arrest in 2003.

There is no death penalty in Canada. Being in his mid-50s, Mr. Aziga would normally be eligible for parole sometime after he celebrates his 70th birthday, if he lives so long. At that point he might be deported to his native Africa. But the Crown doesn't want to chance that.

No. The Crown is now seeking to have Mr. Aziga declared a dangerous offender, which would mean that he would remain a guest of Her Majesty (at the expense of Her Majesty's taxpayers) indefinitely. That means forever.

Mr. Aziga is resisting the Crown's application. Perhaps he would like to have at least a hope of getting out of prison before his libido is reduced to nothingness. Just because there's snow on the roof doesn't mean there's no fire in the furnace.

Now the court is hearing, for the first time, an explanation for Johnson's behaviour, and in particular his failure to tell any of his 11 victims of his life-threatening disease. ["condition" surely! Don't be politically incorrect! Ed.]
Mr. Aziga's excuse ["explanation", surely. Ed.] is... wait for it... that he has an undescended testicle. He was born that way, one hung low and one not. And that, according to a psychiatrist, is the cause of all his, errr, difficulties.

He was embarrassed, you see. Mr. Aziga told the shrink that because of his abnormality, he always hid sexual information about himself. He didn't tell his wife or sex partners or anyone. And he didn't disclose his HIV status because he was afraid he would be rejected. Imagine that.

A judge will rule on the Crown's application in due course. But don't think keeping the murderer behind bars is a sure thing. Mr. Aziga is not without his supporters, including Richard Elliott, deputy director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. Dick described as "not very helpful" the decision to try Mr. Aziga at all!

He said such charges might "lead to a dominant impression out there of people living with HIV as potential criminals". Ridiculous! We know that not everyone suffering from HIV/AIDS is a potential criminal. Just Johnson.

Intrinsic moral evils: we can't say we weren't warned

It has been some time since we looked at issues of moral rights and wrongs. It seems that in today's world, nothing is abnormal, nothing is immoral, nothing is "wrong". Now it's "different strokes for different folks" and "whatever floats your boat is OK with me".

But there are objective standards of right and wrong, according to the teachings of Holy Mother Church. True, the Church doesn't talk about these things as much as She used to. You don't hear many priests of the mainstream (i.e. post-Vatican II) church preaching homilies on hellfire and damnation. Perhaps that's because too many of them have sins of their own to answer for, not just in the next world but this.

But there's one diocesan priest in Texas who is still talking about the laws of the Church and the Laws of God. And not just from the pulpit. Yesterday Father Michael Rodriguez published a column in the El Paso Times in which he strongly denounces homosexual activity and abortion. Here are some excerpts.

"Every single Catholic, out of fidelity to charity and truth, has the absolute duty to oppose (1) the murder of unborn babies, and (2) any and all government attempts to legalize homosexual union.

“Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church." In other words, a person who, for example, supports gay marriage, excommunicates himself or herself.

Father Rodriguez continues, "Furthermore, a Catholic would be guilty of a most grievous sin of omission if he/she neglected to actively oppose the homosexual agenda, which thrives on deception and conceals its wicked horns under the guises of ‘equal rights,’ ‘tolerance,’ ‘who am I to judge?,’ etc."

"I urge all of the Catholic faithful to treat homosexuals with love, understanding, and respect. At the same time, never forget that genuine love demands that we seek, above all, the salvation of souls. Homosexual acts lead to the damnation of souls."

"Abortion and homosexual acts are unequivocally intrinsic moral evils. And friends, this objective truth doesn't depend on the opinion of the majority. Frighteningly, if the majority chooses to deny the objective moral order, then we will all suffer the pestiferous consequences."

I have emphasized the last sentence, thinking of how surprised we all seemed to be when the AIDS pandemic swept the world. We can't say we weren't warned.

Another jaundiced view of Africa

Yesterday's post about Africa, AIDS and the Church begat considerable discussion around the old hot stove. An old buddy paraphrased my argument thus. "What you're saying is that trying to teach Africans that you can prevent aids by abstinence and chastity is like trying to explain Sunday to a hog."

Ummm, yes, you could say that! But if you say such things, you will be accused, as surely as day follows night, of being a racist. One of my small-l liberal friends says my saying "Africans will be Africans" is implying that all the efforts of missionaries, teachers, aid workers and other "forced for good" are wasted because Africans don't "get it". Exactly!

Why should this be construed as a racist statement? I lived in southern Africa for six years. I saw what I saw. I am not a racist. I am a realist!

Hear the voice of another realist. This is Paul Theroux's take on helping Africans, as expressed in Dark Star Safari (2003).

The whites, teachers, diplomats and agents of virtue [love that phrase, ed.] I met at dinner parties had pretty much the same things on their minds as their counterparts had in the 1960s. They discussed relief projects and scholarships and agricultural schemes, refugee camps, emergency food programs, technical assistance.

They were newcomers. They did not realize that for forty years people had been saying the same things, and the result after four decades was a lower standard of living, a higher rate of illiteracy, overpopulation, and much more disease.

Dark Star Safari is Theroux's account of his jouney from Cairo to the Cape just after the turn of this century. Like me, he spent some time working in Africa, years before. His view of that continent, its people and its future is far more jaundiced and dyspeptic than mine. Go ahead. Call him a racist. But read the book first.

AIDS, Africa and Catholicism

Agent 17 sent me, for comment, an article by an ex-priest, James Carroll, in which he claims that Africa's Catholic bishops are ignoring "Catholicism’s greatest failing—the AIDS crisis ravaging their continent". Here's my answer.

What we have here is a clash of cultures, philosophy and dogma. The writer has rejected the faith he swore he fidelity to and has become not just not Catholic but anti-Catholic.

He is speaking from a purely secular, humanitarian point of view. It makes sense to someone holding that philosophy to intervene by whatever means to save the noble savages, the poor benighted Africans, from themselves. After all, they are people "just like us".

Except that they're not. Africans have a different culture from Europeans and westerners. That cannot be denied. And it accounts for the rapid and continuing spread of HIV/AIDs on the Dark Continent.

The Africans have never been particularly impressed by the Christian values of chastity or monogamy. Polygamy is practised even today in the so-called Christianized parts of Africa south of the Sahara. Yes, even among supposedly educated and "civilized" people.

And prostitution and casual sex continue as they always have, the only difference being that some people -- probably not the majority -- use condoms. (This is in marked difference to my experience in east Asia. There is lots of casual sex there too, but virtually everyone uses condoms. As a result the incidence of HIV/AIDs is significantly lower.)

The Church's stand on matters sexual, against which the writer inveighs (one wonders why he left the church in the first place) goes directly against the norms of African culture. The Church preaches (and Catholics occasionally practise) no sex outside of marriage, and only one marriage partner. Sure it's an ideal, more honoured in the breach than the observance even here "at home", but it is nevertheless a worthy ideal.

The Church has had some success in the past in imposing its values. They remain, however, foreign values to large numbers of Africans, perhaps the majority. That is why nothing the Church does or doesn't do is ultimately going to make a great deal of difference. So how the Church's continuing to insist on a moral answer, rather than a medical answer to the plague of HIV/AIDs can constitute a scandal is a mystery to me. It is a jejune argument.

As a footnote, I should say that I have referred to the Church in reference to the Catholic Church, since that's the Church whose approach is being called into question here. However, the fundamentalist Protestant sects, especially in the USA, hold the same beliefs and preach the same remedies -- abstinence, continence and monogamy.

The Economist last week reported that in large swaths of America outside the Liberal northeast, this is the main thrust of campaigns to reduce sexually transmitted disease and teenage pregnancy. In the USA it works, to a greater extent, because the culture there has its roots in the Puritanism of the early settlers, the Mayflower gang. But Puritanism came to Africa with the Protestant missionaries only in the 19th century ("Dr. Livingstone, I presume") and it never took.

To sum up, the Church's approach to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDs in Africa may be unrealistic -- Africans will always be Africans -- but it is not wrong.