Or is it really the other way around?
I've probably mentioned the gloriously disturbing horror of the film Children of Men before, but I ignorantly supposed that I would not see literal reflections of it in real life.
And then, after reading this article about Australian Prime Minister John Howard's attempt to forbid the entry of HIV+ immigrants into his country, I knew this was only the beginning.
Then I thought back over the entire history of human migration, and it's been like that since the beginning of the political concept of nationalism, or even collective identity. People have always wanted a way to absorb the desirable elements of their neighbors or visitors, and to exclude the undesirable elements. I believe this precedes the formation of nation-states, but has been formalized and publicly regulated since that time.
Notably, one of the comments on the BBC website in response to this article was about the medical check procedures followed at Ellis Island during the massive influx of immigrants that fueled the industrial age. The commenter raises the point that those immigrants who were diagnosed with any of a number of dread diseases were refused entry into the country, no matter what.
In the post-post-modern era of humanism (ha!), it might seem politically or socially incorrect to openly discriminate against people, but it happens all the time! Especially in immigration policy, but everywhere else, too.
So the issues that seem most relevant, ultimately, are:
How we are using various tools of assessment to determine who is fit for what roles?
based on what criteria?
and who is making the decisions about those methods of assessment?
The recent news about female civil servants in India being required to record information about their menstrual cycles seems apropos. (Today's update is that they've rejected the forms.)
Prime Minister Howard has a very good, totally justifiable reason for not wanting to admit people diagnosed with HIV into his country - further spread of that disease puts his people in danger. However, the spread of HIV is different than, say, tuberculosis or leprosy, because most of the cases of transmission occur through individual ignorance and are preventable. Infectious, communicable diseases are beyond the control of the individual, and can effect everyone in a physical proximity, or passively through food and water, etc.
It is, therefore, understandable that Mr. Howard wants to prevent the further spread of this horrifying disease in his country, but I question the motives behind denying people entry to his country because they have it. Since education and individual precautions seem to have the most effect on the spread of HIV, it seems that what could most benefit Mr. Howard (and all those at risk in Australia) is more education about prevention and treatment, instead of a sensationalizing, dehumanizing and futile effort through exclusion.
I've probably mentioned the gloriously disturbing horror of the film Children of Men before, but I ignorantly supposed that I would not see literal reflections of it in real life.
And then, after reading this article about Australian Prime Minister John Howard's attempt to forbid the entry of HIV+ immigrants into his country, I knew this was only the beginning.
Then I thought back over the entire history of human migration, and it's been like that since the beginning of the political concept of nationalism, or even collective identity. People have always wanted a way to absorb the desirable elements of their neighbors or visitors, and to exclude the undesirable elements. I believe this precedes the formation of nation-states, but has been formalized and publicly regulated since that time.
Notably, one of the comments on the BBC website in response to this article was about the medical check procedures followed at Ellis Island during the massive influx of immigrants that fueled the industrial age. The commenter raises the point that those immigrants who were diagnosed with any of a number of dread diseases were refused entry into the country, no matter what.
In the post-post-modern era of humanism (ha!), it might seem politically or socially incorrect to openly discriminate against people, but it happens all the time! Especially in immigration policy, but everywhere else, too.
So the issues that seem most relevant, ultimately, are:
How we are using various tools of assessment to determine who is fit for what roles?
based on what criteria?
and who is making the decisions about those methods of assessment?
The recent news about female civil servants in India being required to record information about their menstrual cycles seems apropos. (Today's update is that they've rejected the forms.)
Prime Minister Howard has a very good, totally justifiable reason for not wanting to admit people diagnosed with HIV into his country - further spread of that disease puts his people in danger. However, the spread of HIV is different than, say, tuberculosis or leprosy, because most of the cases of transmission occur through individual ignorance and are preventable. Infectious, communicable diseases are beyond the control of the individual, and can effect everyone in a physical proximity, or passively through food and water, etc.
It is, therefore, understandable that Mr. Howard wants to prevent the further spread of this horrifying disease in his country, but I question the motives behind denying people entry to his country because they have it. Since education and individual precautions seem to have the most effect on the spread of HIV, it seems that what could most benefit Mr. Howard (and all those at risk in Australia) is more education about prevention and treatment, instead of a sensationalizing, dehumanizing and futile effort through exclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment