• Home
  • About
  • Objectives
  • Membership
  • Donations
  • Activities
  • Research Reports
  • Submissions
  • Newsletters
  • Contact

SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

  • Censorship
    • Censorship & New Technology
    • Film Ratings
    • Films
  • Crime
    • Rape statistics
    • Television Violence
    • Violence
    • Youth Crime
  • Enforcement
  • Family
    • Anti-smacking Bill
    • Families Commission
    • Marriage
  • Gambling Addiction
  • Political Advocacy
  • Pro-life
    • Abortion
  • Prostitution
  • Sexuality
    • Child Sex Crimes
    • Civil Unions
    • HIV/AIDS STIs
    • Homosexuality
    • Kinsey Fraud
    • Porn Link to Rape
    • Pornography
    • Sex Studies
    • Sexual Dysfunction
  • Other
    • Alcohol abuse
    • Announcement
    • Application For Leave
    • Broadcasting Standards Authority
    • Celebrating Christian Tradition
    • Children’s Television
    • Complaints to Broadcasters
    • Computer games
    • Film & Lit Board Reviews
    • Film & Lit. Board Appointments
    • Human Dignity
    • Moral Values
    • Newsletters
    • Newspaper Articles
    • Recommended Books
    • Submissions
    • YouTube

Australian Marriage Equality, Rodney Croome and “gay” blood donor ‘rights’

May 1, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

“Donating blood is not a ‘right,’ according to Australian Red Cross Blood Services, one of the safest blood services in the world. Because of HIV/AIDS risks, the blood service excludes donors who have had “male-to-male sex” within the preceding 12 months. Nor will it take blood from anyone who in the previous 12 months has had a tattoo, a blood transfusion, a body piercing, been in prison, had sex with a prostitute or had a partner with hepatitis B or C.

However, Rodney Croome, “arguably Australia’s leading homosexual rights activist”, has vehemently opposed these policies and accused Red Cross of “homophobia” for its “anti-gay blood policies” – accusing it of denying active homosexual men their “human rights” to be donors. He is currently National Convenor of Australian Marriage Equality, serves as the spokesperson for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group,  and is one of the founders of the Australian Coalition for Equality.

Croome therefore contends that it is the human “right” of every homosexual man who is having regular anal sex, with or without a condom with another man, his partner and/or any other male, to be a blood donor. He claims that Red Cross’s refusal to allow men who have sex with men (MSM) to donate their blood, contravenes anti-discrimination legislation passed in Tasmania in 1998.

When The Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations, Australian Society for HIV Medicine and AIDS Council of New South Wales ran a joint advertisement in homosexual media, supporting the Red Cross stance, based on known HIV/AIDS health risks involving MSM, Croome publicy accused them all of being “Red Cross glove puppets.”

“Do [the three groups] care more about gay men being unfairly stigmatized as lepers, or their own standing with government and the corporate health sector?” he asked.

In Australia, the three bodies stated, those who have male-to-male sex “are the group most likely to have HIV.”

Noting that 80 percent of Australians receive blood at some stage during their lifetime, they said “all people have a right to uncompromised blood supplies and that means screening donors and blood to make sure it is safe.”

“Donating blood is not a ‘right,‘ ” they added.

Croome, who vehemently condemns all who would dare to oppose the legalisation of same-sex marriage as homophobic bigots, is demanding that the Australian federal government legalise same-sex marriage. He uses the same flawed “human rights” and “discriminisation”/victim ‘arguments’ he uses in the “gay blood donor” controversy to now push for “gay-‘marriage’.

In the U.S., the American Red Cross says prospective donors “should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.”

“You are at risk for getting infected if you … are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977,” it says.

This does NOT constitute discrimination against homosexual men (MSM). Rather it is making choices based on known and well-documented risks.

By the government pandering to the so-called claimed “rights” of  homosexuals and any other high risk categories to be donors, the rights of the general public to be protected from harm is compromised or negated. Likewise, pandering to a tiny LGBT minority who demand the “right” to legal marriage, the rights of heterosexual couples already in committed traditional marriages are compromised.

To change the definition of “marriage” by parliamentary fiat to include same-sex couples is to make the concept of marriage utterly meaningless. Same-sex marriage (SSM) is an oxymoron, a contrived nonsense. Once SSM is fused with traditional marriage the ‘hybrid’ created no longer possesses the unique and defining qualities embodied in the original (traditional) term.

In Britain, men who have had sex with men are permanently banned from donating blood.

Spokesperson for the Australian Red Cross Kathy Bowlen told AAP in 2012 that the current rules around blood donation were not discriminatory. ‘It’s never been found to be discriminatory because we’re required to rule people out on the basis of risk,’ she said.

MSM wishing to be donors are excluded based on their sexual activities (behaviour) linked to known inherent health risk, rather than based on sexual orientation per se.

Bowlen said an earlier study showed that a quarter of blood donors between 2005 and 2010 whose blood contained transmissible infections had not been open about information that would have barred them from donating. She said providing accurate information was very important as blood screening does not pick up infections in their early stages.

CNN.com reports in July 2012

Men who have sex with men still are disproportionately affected by the [HIV] virus and account for nearly half the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But it is a person’s behavior, not their sexual orientation, that puts them at risk say health experts. [Emphasis added]

If differing behaviour is a valid basis for justified discrimination in law, as it is, then traditional marriage warrants formal recognition in name and status, distinct from any other deviation – e.g. polygamous ‘marriage’, same sex ‘marriage’ etc. Traditional marriage differs from a behavioural perspective from all same-sex ‘marriages’ as it involves the exclusive complementarity of both sexes forming the unique union. Futhermore, it differs qualitatively from SSM in that it is oriented towards procreation while SSM is always a sterile union biologically.

References:

Dispute over blood donations divides homosexuals in Australia

Thursday November 17, 2005

http://www.crosswalk.com/1363955/

Review of blood donation discrimination does not go far enough

[Note the implicit bias in this “gay” news headline] 

24 May 2012. Anna Leach

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/review-blood-donation-discrimination-does-not-go-far-enough240512

As blood donations decline, U.S. ban on gay donors is examined

By Jen Christensen, CNN

July 7, 2012
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/gay-men-blood-ban

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexuality Tagged With: anti gay blood policies, Australian Marriage Equality, blood donors, donating blood, homosexual rights, MSM, Red Cross Blood Services, Rodney Croome, same-sex marriage

Australian Marriage Equality, Rodney Croome and Red Cross’s “gay blood ban policy”

April 30, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

In 2008 Rodney Croome, a Tasmanian-based LGBT (lesbian, gay. bi-sexual, transgender) rights activist and academic, accused the Red Cross of homophobia, aligning itself with right-wing hate groups, undermining its own credibility with dodgy statistics, and using scare tactics, with respect to its so-called “gay blood ban policy” (Rodney Croom’s  term). Currently National Convenor of Australian Marriage Equality (pro same-sex ‘marriage’ lobby), he wrote:

Why is the Red Cross undermining its own credibility with such dodgy statistics?

Why is it attempting to use …. “scare tactics”?

Why is it aligning itself with right wing hate groups by adopting their strategy?

Do the Red Cross or influential people within it actually believe that gay and bisexual men are highly and uniformly selfish, irresponsible, promiscuous and diseased?

This is hard to believe given the Red Cross’s firm commitment to humanitarian values.

What we can be certain of is that it’s justifying its current gay blood ban policy using some of the grossest and most offensive myths and stereotypes around. 

Whether the Red Cross is expressing its own groundless fear of homosexuality, or attempting to appeal to that fear in others, there’s only one word to describe the shaky foundation upon which it is building its case, “homophobia”. (ref. 1)

This sort of inflammatory rhetoric is typical of the political agitators from the Australian Marriage Equality lobby.

Background to Rodney Croome’s accusations against the Red Cross of “homophobia”

In August 2008 a  HIV social researcher told an Anti-Discrimination Tribunal hearing in Hobart, Tasmania, that only a small proportion of the gay community engages in risky unsafe sex. Associate Professor Anne Mitchell of Melbourne’s La Trobe University, gave evidence at the hearing of a complaint lodged by Launceston gay man Michael Cain. Mr Cain had complained that the Red Cross discriminated against him by refusing his offer of a blood donation because he had homosexual (anal) sex. He argued screening should be based on the safety of sexual practices, not sexual preference.

Professor Mitchell claimed that gay men who do not practice safe sex are only a small proportion of the gay community. When asked under cross-examination why a study showed more than 86 percent of newly acquired HIV cases were related to male to male sex (MSM), she said it was because HIV had already infected the gay community (ref. 2).

MSM are treated differently to other adults by Red Cross Blood Services because of their well-documented high risk sexual practices involving anal sex. Red Cross will also not take blood from anyone who in the previous 12 months has had a tattoo, a blood transfusion, a body piercing, been in prison, had sex with a prostitute or had a partner with hepatitis B or C.

Senior counsel Jeremy Ruskin, told the hearing that allowing ‘safe’ MSM  to donate blood would be“calamitous” and “catastrophic”. He pointed out that MSM “monogamy is a myth” a finding based in part on a study from New Zealand (ref. 1)

A recent survey of New Zealand gay men, confirming this earlier study and undertaken in conjunction with the NZ AIDS Foundation revealed nearly two thirds of gay men are drug users, and the majority also cheat on their partners, frequently. The survey found that 35% of NZ gay men have sex with between 12 and a hundred different strangers every year, often in circumstances very similar to the gay nightclubs gay writer Eric Rofes documented in his book Reviving The Tribe’  (see ref. 3). The NZ survey found 77% of gay men failed to stay monogamous even for six months! (ref. 3)

In the US, the current guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to permanently ban any male who has had sex with another man (MSM), from donating blood, if the sexual activity occurred in the period from 1977 to the present day.  There is no restriction on blood donation if the last MSM activity was before 1977.

In Canada today, where homosexual activity was decriminalised in 1969, deferral is “indefinite”, for homosexuals attempting to donate blood (i.e. a total ban) as it is in most European countries.

New Zealand Blood Service Rules

Since 2009, the New Zealand Blood Service (NZBS) defers males from being blood donors, who have engaged in oral or anal intercourse, with or without protection, with another male, for five years. From the formation of the NZBS in 1998 to 2009, the deferral period was ten years, but was reduced to five years following an independent review of blood donation criteria in 2007-8 which found no significant difference in risk to the blood supply for deferral periods of five years compared to ten years.

The five year deferral period for MSM is on par with the five year deferral period for persons engaging in prostitution outside of New Zealand and people who have resided in a country which has a high (1% or more) HIV prevalence. It also applies to someone who carries HBV, HCV. Females who engage in sexual intercourse with a male who has had sex with another male are deferred for twelve months.

Such ‘discrimination’ against  MSM, certain prostitutes and certain women, is based upon the “high risk” sexual practices they have engaged in. It is justified discrimination based on the need to safeguard the protect the public good.

Reasoning for restrictions

Blood services first and foremost must ensure that all blood received for donation is safe for transfusion purposes. This is achieved by screening potential donors for high risk behaviors through questionaires and interviews before blood is taken, and subsequent laboratory testing on samples of donated blood.

Blood services commonly justify their bans against MSM using the statistically high prevalence of HIV and hepatitis of MSM in population studies.

Risks are also associated with a regular donor testing positive for HIV, which can have major implications as the donor’s last donation could have been given within the window period for testing and could have entered the blood supply, potentially infecting blood product recipients.

An incident in 2003 in New Zealand saw a regular donor testing positive for HIV and subsequently all blood products made with the donor’s last blood donation had to be recalled. This included NZ$4 million worth of Factor VIII, a blood clotting factor used to treat haemophilliacs which is manufactured from large pools of donated plasma, and subsequently led to a natiowide shortage of Factor VIII and the deferral of non-emergency surgery on haemophilliac patients, costing the health sector millions of dollars more. Screening out those at high risk of bloodborne diseases, including MSM, reduces the potential frequency and impact of such incidents. (ref. 4).

Men who have sex with men still are disproportiately affected by the HIV virus and account for nearly half the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2012]. But it is a person’s behavior, not their sexual orientation, that puts them at risk say health experts. (ref. 5)

The fact remains that men who engage in anal sex with men (MSM) are considered such a high health risk when it comes to blood donation, that current policies governing suitable donors in New Zealand are unlikely to be altered.

References

Ref. 1

Is the Red Cross homophobic? by Rodney Croome

http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2777_0_1_0_C

Ref. 2.

Risky sex not common: Witness

Tuesday 12 August, 2008

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-08-12/risky-sex-not-common-witness/473278

Ref. 3

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3333

Ref. 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_male_blood_donor_controversy

Ref. 5

As blood donations decline, U.S. ban on gay donors is examined.

By Jen Christensen CNN. 7 July 2012

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/gay-men-blood-ban

Further reference

Table 4. Sexual activity-based donor deferral policies in New Zealand
New Zealand MSM oral or anal sex with or without a condom 5 years
Sex for payment 5 years
Sex with IDU, MSM, someone who has received
payment for sex, someone from a country at high risk
of HIV, or someone who carries HBV, HCV
http://www.transfusion.com.au/sites/default/files/Blood%20Review%20Report.pdf

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With: Australian Marriage Equality, gay blood ban, gay blood ban policy, homophobia, MSM, New Zealand Blood Services, Red Cross, Rodney Croome, same-sex marriage

SPCS Facebook Page

Subscribe to website updates:

The Pilgrim’s Progress

Getting "The Pilgrim’s Progress" to
every prisoner in NZ prisons.

Recent Comments

  • John on The term ‘Homophobia’: Its Origins and Meanings, and its uses in Homosexual Agenda
  • SPCS on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Anne on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000

Family Values & Community Standards

  • Coalition for Marriage
  • ECPAT New Zealand
  • Family Voice Australia
  • Parents Inc.

Internet Safety

  • Netsafe Internet Safety Group

Pro-Life Groups

  • Family Life International
  • Right to Life
  • The Nathaniel Centre
  • Voice for Life
(Click here for larger image)

Copyright © 2019 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.