According to this article, a 60 year old, Scandinavian man was denied entrance for holiday into Australia. This was after visiting the country for the last 22 years. His tourist visa was denied because he was HIV status & they said it was likely he would require care at great cost to the Australian people.
This man has been + since 1994, for 20+ of those 22 years he's vacationed in Australia. He manages his care with a once a day pill & is considered to be in excellent health all things considered. He takes his meds with him & has never required medical service while in Australia.
After being denied entrance, he spoke out to the media & the event became public. The Australian authorities insist this was just an administrative error, but was it? This man will never know for sure. Was it a clerical thing or a targeted action against him for being +?
Australia has long rejected long term migrants on the basis of their HIV status. I get that, HIV is costly & they should treat their own. I could even get it (not like it, but get it) if they had a blanket policy against allowing people entry with known communicable illnesses. There is always a possibility of the illness spreading or the person needing care for which the state might have to foot the bill.
Again, not trying to be sensational here, but was this an error or was it purposeful? Has it happened before or since? If this man hadn't spoke out to the media would it have been corrected? Or was he just a squeaky wheel making bad publicity? This loyal vacationer will probably never feel the same about Australia. Was this the system or a single person's campaign against those living with HIV? I'm fairly sure I'd consider another place for holiday after this incident.
Cya...
No comments:
Post a Comment