Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - Gloabal Response to HIV/AIDS Epidemic:Discussion with the UN - 30th January 2007

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - Global Response to HIV/AIDS Epidemic: Discussion with UN - 30th January 2007
Senator Norris: I welcome Dr. Piot. I had the pleasure of hearing him speak at a conference in Lisbon some years ago and was very impressed. Those were much darker days in the sense that there was no light on the horizon, no anti-retroviral treatment and no prospect of a vaccine. I am glad Dr. Piot finds the situation here positive, although hypocrisy is partly responsible for this.
I was involved in the very early days before AIDS had been named as a leader in the gay community implementing a programme, when it was illegal under the Indecent Advertisements Act to provide information such as this. I authorised a mass education programme which had the result of reversing the trend. As one can imagine, somebody from my background has a particular sensitivity to this issue which I have raised on many occasions at the Interparliamentary Union and in places such as India where the presence of the disease was denied. When I requested the excellent ambassador in India to get me profiles of the 88 organisations working with AIDS, only one mentioned gay men. In the Ashok Hotel, where the conference was being held, the first national AIDS conference had been held the previous year but women sex workers and homosexual men had been excluded by the police force. This ignorance is a disaster.
The churches were referred to by Dr. Piot and the Chairman. I am a practising Anglican. I am horrified by the attitudes of all religions. There may be a few positive patches but, by and large, it has been an absolute moral disaster. I know Dr. Piot must be diplomatic but I am an Independent Member of the Upper House and do not suffer such constraints. I can say the impact of the Roman Catholic Church, for example, has been extraordinarily negative, although I am glad to see there is a degree of change in prospect.
Within my own church, the Anglican archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, is a disgrace. His ignorant views on sexual matters are tolerated because he is black. People are afraid to challenge him in case they are accused of being racist. In addition, internal politics within the Anglican Church have allowed him to get away with his behaviour. Similar problems arise in respect of Islam. The United Nations is a compendium of many different cultural and religious traditions. Does Dr. Piot find it difficult to implement positive changes because of the prejudices of Islam, Christianity and other groups?
Dr. Piot made particular reference to sub-Saharan Africa and Africa in general. Nigeria, the jurisdiction of Archbishop Akinola, has just enacted laws further criminalising not only homosexual behaviour but also those who provide assistance to gay people. This represents a time bomb. It must be difficult to stand up against such restrictions. As a Christian, I am deeply ashamed of the attitude of the religious group to which I continue to have an affiliation. That attitude has been virtually uniformly negative.
In places where there is an increase in the incidence of HIV infection, including parts of sub-Saharan Africa, we can see the impact of Islam. This meeting will include a consideration of a motion on Iran, for instance, where 16 year old mentally handicapped girls who were raped by their neighbours have been hanged for offences against chastity. Homosexual people receive the same treatment in that country. Similar prejudice is evident in parts of eastern Europe. In Poland, for example, the most reactionary government in Europe oversees a campaign of xenophobic attitudes towards Jews facilitated by the state’s appalling radio stations. It is no surprise that there are explosions of HIV infection in these areas.
How does the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS respond, in its diplomatic role, to the churches on these matters? How can Ireland, a country whose people are only recently released from ignorance and subservience in matters of sexuality, help Dr. Piot in the international forum? I very much welcome his compliments to the Taoiseach.



Reply:
Mr. Piot: should say to Senator Norris that the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS pays extra attention to marginalised groups in society. In India there has been a sea change also. Last September a major conference took place on male sexuality and gay men in Asia and the Pacific region attended by representatives of most governments and local groups trying to start dialogue. It is clear that the criminalisation of homosexuality is a factor that promotes the spread of HIV. This is happening in a number of countries in the Caribbean, including the Bahamas. There is also a debate taking place in Barbados on abolishing these laws. Looking at it from a pragmatic perspective, it makes our work very difficult.
I would not agree that all religions are bad in terms of their response to AIDS. In a sense no religion is monolithic. Speaking about the church, I was in Windsor Castle where there is an Anglican think-tank, the name of which escapes me. There are various opinions on the issue but we work with those who are open to the idea. The churches have done a great job but I must confess that 15 years ago I had major difficulties. I saw most churches and religions as a major obstacle to our work but I have changed my opinion and I see that they can be major allies. The easier part is the care and compassion, but there is no doubt there has been much discrimination and stigmatisation within the churches in that regard. Even some of the evangelical churches in the United States, which I believe are at the basis of the reason President Bush, perhaps unexpectedly, took a leadership role in the fight against AIDS and put $15 billion on the table in 2003 in his State of the Union address, which surprised everybody-----
Senator Norris: He did it in his application.
Dr. Piot: I will come to that also but the reason he did that, which his predecessor did not do, is that there was a strong push from what we would call religious Christian groups, particularly on the fundamentalist side, and that gave a broad support. We do not agree with everything that is in the programme because it is not based on science, but the pragmatism I see, particularly in Africa, is a major change from previously. If I am not wrong, Desmond Tutu is an Anglican. There was a poster on which he was quoted, with his characteristic smile, as saying that sex is a beautiful gift from God, and he is the Archbishop of South Africa.
There are major debates going on. From day one I engaged in a dialogue with the Catholic Church. Coming from Flanders, which used to have as many missionaries as Ireland in the old days - every family had at least one member who was a nun or a priest - I have seen how one can turn this into either a problem or an advantage. We have had many dialogues. We have even brought together the various components of the Catholic Church dealing with AIDS because they were not talking to each other. That is the type of thing we have been doing in UNAIDS.
It is important to determine what are the expectations of each other. I do not expect that, say, the Church would promote condoms but sexuality exists to transmit life and bring couples together, not to transmit death, as is the case with AIDS. That is where protection, the condom, is a moral imperative. There are theologians who will say the same. We brought together Christian theologians in Windhoek in Namibia to debate among themselves. I am a strong believer in peer education, not only for teenagers but bishops to bishops and businessmen to businessmen. That works much better than me telling them what is good for them.
We have made much progress but we need to continue the dialogue. I am not well known for being a diplomat but I am a pragmatist and I have one objective, that is, to save lives in this epidemic. We need a major coalition. Last year I made a speech at Georgetown University, which members will be aware is a Jesuit university in Washington, about diverse voices but a common cause. We must determine how we can work together without preventing others from expressing themselves. That is where the issue of homosexuality and criminalisation comes in.