TITRE : L’ex-Président de l’Association Canadienne des Journalistes du Chapitre de Montréal déplore la désinformation et l’unilinguisme de l’ACJ nationale.
(Montréal) Ex-Président du chapitre montréalais de l’Association Canadienne des Journalistes, Roger-Luc Chayer, éditeur du Groupe National, dénonce le refus systématique de la part de l’ACJ nationale de fournir quelque visibilité francophone que ce soit auprès de ses membres.
« J’ai demandé à au moins 10 reprises dans les derniers jours à l’ACJ, via son site Facebook, que les communiqués publiés par l’association soient offerts en français pour le bénéfice des membres francophones et à chaque fois, quand on n’ignore pas mes demandes, on répond que le budget ne permet pas les traductions, ce que je trouve inacceptable en 2012 », déclare l’ex-Président qui a démissionné en 2011 suite au refus de la part du bureau national de donner suite aux nombreux engagements contractés auprès du chapitre de Montréal quant à la bilinguisation des services de l’ACJ et plus d’une dizaine d’autres sujets dont les finances.
Roger-Luc Chayer déclare aussi que malgré les affirmations de l’ACJ publiées sur son site Internet quant au chapitre de Montréal, depuis sa démission, aucun comité exécutif ne s’est réuni à Montréal. « Ce que ne dit pas l’ACJ nationale dans ses communications, c’est que depuis ma démission et celle de la plupart des autres membres de l’Exécutif montréalais, aucun Comité exécutif ne s’est réuni à Montréal et l’ACJ fait comme s’il en existait toujours un, ce qui, combiné aux autres irrégularités constatées lors de ma présence au CE, ressemble à de la désinformation probablement dans le but de chercher une crédibilité. J’attends toujours d’ailleurs les réponses aux questions importantes soulevées par notre exécutif et comme membre personnel à savoir quel est le véritable membership au Québec et au Canada puisque selon mes observations, nous sommes très loin du nombre déclaré par l’ACJ, celle ci refusant de nous donner une réponse et aussi quant à des états financiers vérifiés que le Président national déclare ne pas retrouver dans son ordinateur… », conclut Roger-Luc Chayer qui est toujours membre en règle de l’ACJ.
-30-
Renseignements :
Roger-Luc Chayer, 514-728-6436 [email protected]

Politis
C’est une vieillerie, une simple case cochée dans le certificat de décès : la mention « atteint du VIH » peut pourtant entraîner une épreuve douloureuse pour les familles. Depuis 1998, les soins funéraires ne peuvent pas être accordés pour des défunts atteints du virus du sida, d’hépatites B et C, de la maladie de Creutzfeld-Jakob ou de tout « état septique grave », lorsqu’il en est fait mention dans l’acte de décès.

« Même morts, nous restons des parias », gronde Jean-Luc Romero, président des Élus locaux contre le sida et membre du Conseil national du sida, qui alerte sur « l’épuisement des associations et des familles » privées de rite funéraire ou du droit de voir le corps. Pour Fred Navarro, président d’Act Up Paris, présent vendredi 6 janvier à la table d’une conférence de presse interassociative sur le sujet, cette interdiction évoque même un souvenir indélébile, après le décès de son conjoint en 2010 : « Son corps avait passé 13 jours dans les frigos de l’institut légal [sans soins de conservation], lorsque nous l’avons vu pour la dernière fois. C’est une image insupportable dont je n’arrive pas à me défaire ».
Pas « contagieux »

Pour les 46 syndicats et associations mobilisés, cette « discrimination légale » n’a « aucun fondement scientifique. » Le VIH est certes « transmissible », comme une multitude de germes contre lesquels les thanatopracteurs (qui pratiquent les soins de conservation des corps) prennent déjà des mesures de protection. Mais il n’est pas « contagieux », comme l’affirmait en 2009 le Haut conseil de la santé publique (HCSP), au grand dam des militants.

Reçu une première fois au ministère de la Santé en 2010, sans succès, le collectif a relancé la mobilisation en septembre 2011 en publiant une « lettre ouvert » restée sans réponse. L’affaire est finalement sortie de l’ombre grâce aux méthodes musclées des militants d’Act Up, qui ont saturé les standards du ministère de la Santé le 23 décembre. Les questions d’une journaliste de l’AFP qui travaillait sur le sujet auront fait le reste, forçant le ministère, en urgence, à inviter les associations à une discussion à la direction générale de la santé mardi 10 janvier.
« Rétrograde »

L’interdiction de pratiquer des soins funéraires aux défunts atteints du VIH date de 1998, en pleines « années sida », lorsque la peur jouait à plein. « Au début des années 1990, dans mon service, il y avait trois décès par semaine, se souvient Alain Sobel, immunologue et président de la Coordination régionale de lutte contre l’infection à VIH (Corevih) d’Ile-de-France sud. Et la morgue de l’hôpital pratiquait des soins sur les corps, avec un peu de dialogue cela se passait très bien. L’interdiction est une mesure rétrograde, d’autant plus qu’aujourd’hui les gens meurent souvent d’autre chose et que les personnes atteintes n’ont même plus de VIH circulant. »

Représentant la profession, encore peu mobilisée sur la question, Mr Simon, secrétaire générale de la Fédération des pompes funèbres, a appelé à une révision de la liste des maladies « contagieuses », qui entraînent l’absence de soins funéraires. « C’est le bon moment » juge-t-il même, rappelant que le ministère travaille à une modification des certificats de décès, dans le cadre du Conseil national des opérations funèbres qui établit les règles de la profession. « Nous pouvons être favorables aux soins à partir du moment où nos thanatopracteurs sont rassurés sur les risques de transmission. »

Radio-Canada
Un traitement antirétroviral pris de manière intermittente peut-il réduire le risque des gais d’être infectés par le VIH?

C’est à cette question que tente de répondre la phase pilote de l’essai IPERGAY, qui a commencé dans trois hôpitaux français et qui sera ensuite menée au CHUM (Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal).

L’essai sera réalisé sur 1900 volontaires et évaluera si ce traitement, associé à une stratégie renforcée de prévention, peut réduire le risque d’infection des hommes gais.

D’autres études ont montré l’intérêt de l’utilisation des antirétroviraux en matière de stratégie de prévention de l’infection par le VIH.

Les médecins observent une augmentation des comportements à risque dans la plupart des pays du Nord chez les homosexuels depuis les dernières années.

Les participants ne prendront pas le traitement antirétroviral en permanence.
« Cette stratégie devrait permettre d’éviter les contraintes d’une prise permanente d’antirétroviraux, de favoriser ainsi une bonne observance de la prise du médicament et également de permettre de limiter leurs effets indésirables potentiels ainsi que le coût du traitement. » — Jean-Michel Molina, Université Paris 7 Diderot

L’étude comporte deux groupes : un premier recevra un traitement antirétroviral, et le deuxième un placebo. Ni le médecin ni le volontaire ne sauront s’ils prennent un traitement actif afin de ne pas les inciter à prendre des risques.

LeFigaro
Le Fonds mondial de lutte contre le sida conteste le contenu d’un article de l’hebdomadaire Marianne affirmant que l’épouse du président a fait verser à l’un de ses proches une aide de 3,5 millions de dollars.

Avant même la parution de l’article complet, l’affaire a fait grand bruit vendredi sur Internet. L’hebdomadaire Marianne, à paraître samedi, accuse Carla Bruni-Sarkozy d’avoir usé de son influence pour faire verser de l’argent du Fonds mondial de lutte contre le sida – dont elle est ambassadrice bénévole – à plusieurs sociétés d’un de ses amis. Selon l’hebdomadaire, 3,5 millions de dollars auraient ainsi bénéficié «en marge de la légalité et sans appel d’offres» aux sociétés du musicien et chef d’entreprise Julien Civange, qui disposerait d’un bureau à l’Elysée et serait le principal conseiller de la première dame pour sa fondation.

Dans la soirée, le Fonds mondial de lutte contre le sida (FMS) a publié un démenti. Il indique qu’une aide de 2,8 millions de dollars – «soit nettement moins que le chiffre avancé par Marianne» – a bien été versée en France pour une campagne de sensibilisation à la transmission du VIH de la mère à l’enfant. L’épouse du chef de l’État a bien participé à cette campagne mais l’institution basée à Genève assure que l’ensemble de ses déplacements, ainsi que les contrats et le soutien apporté à une page du site de sa fondation «ont respecté les règles et les procédures très strictes du Fonds mondial». Interrogé par Reuters, l’Élysée a renvoyé au communiqué du Fonds mondial.
«Allégations dénuées de tout fondement»

Selon Marianne, cette affaire aurait été révélée fin novembre 2011 au conseil d’administration du Fonds mondial à Accra, au Ghana. L’hebdomadaire affirme qu’elle aurait coûté au professeur français Patrice Debré son poste d’ambassadeur chargé de la lutte contre le VIH. Au Quai d’Orsay, on dément un limogeage: le spécialiste a bien été «appelé à d’autres fonctions» mais «son action n’est pas en cause et il va être lui proposé une autre mission liée à ses compétences médicales et scientifiques», indique une source diplomatique. «Patrice Debré a été remplacé parce que nous avions besoin d’un autre type de représentant au conseil administration du FMS», explique cette même source. En clair, au moment où le Fonds mondial connaît des problèmes de management et de gestion, le profil strictement scientifique du professeur Debré n’était plus adapté. «Jamais», affirme-t-on au Quai d’Orsay, «le conseil d’administration du FMS n’a été saisi de la moindre plainte concernant des liens entre le Fonds mondial et Julien Civange».

L’affaire aurait pourtant, selon Marianne, également coûté sa place au directeur général du Fonds mondial, Michel Kazatchkine, qui «vient d’être officiellement écarté, à la demande d’Hillary Clinton même si sa démission réelle ne devrait intervenir que les 21 et 22 mai 2012 – soit après le deuxième tour des présidentielles». Interrogé par l’auteur de l’article, Michel Kazatchkine – qui conteste également le montant de 3,5 millions versé aux agences de Julien Civange – affirme que s’il n’a pas prévenu de ces transactions le conseil d’administration du Fonds mondial des flux financiers vers Paris, il a en néanmoins tenu informé le «comité financier». Il ajoute que Carla Bruni lui aurait «personnellement dit qu’elle avait totalement confiance en Julien Civange auquel elle avait délégué le dossier du sida». Quoi qu’il en soit, cette situation fragilise le directeur général du FMS, dont le départ est évoqué.

Vendredi soir, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy a réfuté sur son site internet certaines des accusations développées dans l’enquête de l’hebdomadaire, portant sur le financement de sa fondation. «Aucun argent public n’a jamais été reçu par la Fondation», écrit l’épouse du président sous le titre «droit de réponse de Carla Bruni-Sarkozy». Elle n’évoque pas en revanche les éléments avancés par Marianne sur le Fonds mondial de lutte contre le sida.

Blisstree
Decades ago, the causes of HIV and AIDS were a mystery–and one that, because the disease was thought to only kill gay men and drug users, many researchers, politicians, and members of the public didn’t feel like solving. Public perception and research have come a long way since then, but some individuals, like Christian extremist Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association (AFA), are still set on preaching a dangerous, hateful message: that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, that it’s a scam, and that it’s not something that straight people need to worry about. Do not listen to these false prophets.

Speaking on his radio show, Focal Point, this week, Fischer claimed that HIV was created as a way to get money for research of AIDS, which gay people get, he says, from drug use. From the show:

The reason that HIV was invented as the cause of AIDS is it was a way to get research money…If AIDS is caused by behavior, then there’s no money in that because you just tell people, ‘Hey, stop doing the behavior.’ But..so that’s why they have to find some bug that they can blame it on. ‘We gotta kill this thing, we need billions of dollars of research…’ so we’re chasing after something…that even if we got it, it wouldn’t do a single, solitary thing.

The AFA may have an innocent-sounding name, but the group’s dispersal of extreme (and extremely unfounded) anti-gay information has led some policy centers to classify them as a hate group, citing that their potentially influential message (that AIDS something that only gay people get, that HIV is made up to drum up research dollars, that both HIV and AIDS aren’t transmitted sexually) could potentially lead to the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

Fischer was joined on the show by a known AIDS-denier (who holds a PhD), Dr. Peter Duesberg, who has been widely condemned in the medical community for distributing dissenting information about AIDS. At one point, Duesberg spent time in South Africa, a country torn apart by the disease–and by misinformation about who can get the disease and how. Its then-President was also an AIDS denier, and the two of them have been cited as possibly being responsible for the death of as many as 330,000 individuals, and the infection of thousands more, including infants. And yet, because he holds a doctorate, his damaging message continues to be listened to.

Duesberg’s conclusion in the interview? That “about half” of the people who have AIDS are intravenous drug users (which isn’t true), while the other half are promiscuous gay men (not, he clarifies, your “all-American homosexual next door”) who have “hundreds [or] thousands of partners” and who take “tons of drugs.” And while homosexual men are still one of the biggest risk groups for full-blown AIDS, the perception that all gay men living with AIDS are “promiscuous” is just ignorant and hurtful. Additionally, both of these men might be surprised to find themselves in the company of the highest-rising risk group: heterosexual baby boomers. In 2011, older straight people were the fastest-growing HIV-positive demographic.

That individuals in the United States who hear this message may believe it, and as a result, stop taking simple measures to protect themselves (in many cases, a condom is truly all it takes) is just the beginning of what is so concerning. There are also much more deep-seating notions of intolerance and hate. This line of thinking is a one-two punch of harmful pseudo-science and extreme bigotry. It is rooted in anti-gay sentiments that the LGBT and ally community have been battling against for decades, but is backed by roundly-criticized “medical” science–which makes it doubly dangerous. And it has widespread consequences–many in Africa are still clinging to the beliefs espoused by Duesberg, and, as a result, continue to spread the disease.

It’s time to stop conflating medicine with morals in this way, and end the politicizing of diseases like AIDS. Maliciously condemning the victims of a disease that impacts everyone and spreading hateful information that could potentially lead to the deaths of thousands gets us nowhere.

Reuters
The Geneva-based Global Fund, a multi-billion-dollar fund set up 10 years ago to combat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, said Friday that a media report of alleged financial misconduct implicating French first lady Carla Bruni, an ambassador of the fund, was “inexact and misleading.”

The statement was issued after French weekly magazine Marianne published an article saying the Global Fund had awarded $3.5 million to companies controlled by a friend of Bruni, the wife of President Nicolas Sarkozy, at her request. The funds were issued without a public tender, the magazine said.

“The article makes several allegations that are groundless regarding a campaign that the Fund launched in 2010 with the backing of Mme Bruni-Sarkozy,” said the statement.

Bruni, a singer and former supermodel who married Sarkozy in early 2008, was appointed “first ambassador” in the same year of the Global Fund.

The fund was set up in 2002 and says it has saved 7.7 million lives with funding for AIDS treatment and programs worldwide to fight malaria and tuberculosis.

Sarkozy’s office said it had no comment to add to the statement.

Huffpost
Exactly how far would you go for cast-iron pecs or the perfect six-pack?

Indeed, gay men have been stereotypically cast as gym bunnies by popular culture for some time, but a new British poll has now revealed a slightly more disturbing fact about that population’s fractured relationship with body image. A study commissioned by the Central YMCA, the Succeed Foundation and the University of the West of England’s (UWE) Centre for Appearance Research in Bristol found that 48 percent of gay male respondents would sacrifice a year or more of their lives in exchange for a perfect body. Perhaps even more onerous: researchers also found that 10 percent of those men would agree to die more than 11 years earlier if they could have their ideal body right now, according to Pink News.

Not surprisingly, authorities attributed the results to popular depictions of gay men in media. “Today gay men are under enormous pressure about their bodies, and we believe that a lack of body diversity in the media, including the gay press, and a relentless focus which values people based on appearance, may in part explain why gay men are particularly susceptible to this issue,” Rosi Prescott, CEO of Central YMCA, told Pink News. “This is of concern when we know that record numbers of men are taking steroids or having unnecessary cosmetic surgery to achieve what is often an unattainable or unrealistic body image ideal.”

A total of 384 men, a quarter of which identified as gay, were reportedly surveyed as part of the poll, with an average age of 40, according to the BBC. But overall, researchers say the increase in body hang-ups surged among both gay and straight men. As The Telegraph notes, the survey found a staggering 80 percent of men regularly discuss body shapes, often comparing them to those of top celebrities and fashion models — and 59 percent of them admitted that doing so makes them feel worse about themselves.

Among the most popular phrases by men discussing how other men look: “beer belly,” “man boobs” (or “moobs”), and “chubby,” along with “six-pack” and “ripped.”

“Girls want to be slim and males want to be big and lean, and while it isn’t a bad thing for people to want to look better, it has become more like a competition, which has a bad effect on most people’s mental health,” one respondent told The Guardian.

“Body talk is saying things which reinforce the traditional standard of male attractiveness, which is having a tall, lean, muscular body with clear skin and a full head of hair, and is for most people unattainable,” Dr. Phillippa Diedrichs of UWE also told The Guardian. “This research really demonstrates that body image is an issue for everyone, although in men, especially middle-aged men, it has been woefully under-reported, but has a negative impact on social relationships and on attitudes to diet, exercise and a healthy lifestyle.”

Hindustantimes
Balbir Krishan, an artist holding an exhibition on the theme of homosexuality, is watchful as people pour into the Triveni Art Gallery to see his paintings. After he was assaulted by an unidentified youth at the Lalit Kala Akademi on Thursday, Krishan — a double amputee — is a pack of
nerves. He has sought police protection till January 11, when his exhibition ends.

“I had packed my paintings yesterday and was ready to leave, but I got support from artists here and they convinced me to stay back,” he said. Police had not filed an FIR against the assailant till Thursday night. An FIR was finally lodged on Friday morning.

Washington post
In the college admissions industry, LGBT students have become a target audience. These students (along with straight students who have gay parents) are looking for colleges where they will feel safe, welcomed and included — and many schools would like to sell themselves as just the place.

With that comes an ever-growing number of rankings of the most (and least) gay-friendly schools. In recent years, designations of “the most” have gone to Massachusetts Institute of Technology (via Newsweek and The Daily Beast), American University (College Magazine) and New York University (Princeton Review).
Participants at a 2010 National Coming Out Day rally in Key West, Fla. (AP Photo/Florida Keys News Bureau, Rob O’Neal)

I think we can all agree that it’s good to recognize colleges that work to ensure that all students feel respected. But ranking schools based on which ones are making more of an effort than others gets complicated. And unlike rankings of party schools or “douchiest” students, LGBT-related rankings are ones that gay students are likely using as a college search tool.

“For a LGBT student, picking a college is a matter of safety. It’s a
matter of inclusion,” said Shane L. Windmeyer of Campus Pride, a
nonprofit that evaluates campus climate for LGBT students but does
not rank schools. “It’s not about getting laid or going to parties. So
I hate it when LGBT gets lumped into the party schools.”

He adds that evaluating LGBT-friendliness requires deep research into how campuses operate: “Just because you have a gay club doesn’t make your campus gay-friendly.”

Campus Pride helps schools assess their LGBT-friendliness through a confidential questionnaire about policies, programs and practices. There are eight areas examined:policies, support and institutional commitment, academic life, student life, housing, campus safety, counseling and health, and recruitment and retention efforts. Schools are then scored on their campus climate — information that they can share on the Campus Climate Index Web site or choose to keep private.

“The purpose of this overall score is for campuses to measure their progress and learn key areas to improve their campus climate for the future,” the Campus Pride Web site explains. “The score also allows for benchmarking among campuses as well as a better understanding on how a campus can become more LGBT-friendly.”

Campus climate is rated with a star system — the highest score of five stars is for schools with “a continuum of progress for inclusive LGBT and Ally policies, programs, and practices.” More than 30 schools have earned a five-star rating, including MIT and American. NYU received four stars.

The index shouldn’t be the only tool students use when looking for a college, Windmeyer said, and a one- or two-star rating could be a good one for schools located in less progressive areas. He said that students should look for schools that have academic programs that catch their attention and then use the index to learn more about them.

So, what about the other LGBT-related rankings out there? How are they decided? Here’s an overview of two recent lists:

The Daily Beast and Newsweek: In its first round of ranking gay-friendly schools in 2010, the news outlet used an Advocate article about Windmeyer’s book, “The Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students,” a list of gay-friendly colleges that was compiled by a marketing company that targets college students and “several broad measures of academic achievement,”such as SAT and ACT scores and selectivity.

In 2011, Daily Beast and Newsweek changed its methodology and now uses the Campus Climate Index (Windmeyer said he was never contacted) and anonymous reviews from the Web site College Prowler for “how students rate the diversity and degree of acceptance for each campus.”

A spokesman for Newsweek and the Daily Beast said in an e-mail: “All of our rankings incorporate a wide range of data sources, and our methodology is transparent.”

The Princeton Review: Since the early 1990s, the Princeton Review has compiled dozens of campus life rankings based on surveys of tens of thousands of college students. Today those surveys are conducted online, and participates must have a school e-mail address.

LGBT-friendliness has long been one of those rankings. The survey question to determine that has changed over the years, but last year more than 120,000 students were asked: “Do students, faculty, and administrators at your college treat all persons equally regardless of their sexual orientations and gender identify/expression?”

The problem with this, Windmeyer said, is that a majority of the self-selecting people filling out these surveys are likely straight and might not fully understand the experiences of gay students.

Robert Franek, a publisher at the Princeton Review, disagrees: “ We talk to whom we consider college experts: current college students.”

Csmonitor
Rick Santorum was booed yesterday after he compared gay marriage to polygamy, in case you haven’t heard.
Recent posts

01.06.12
Rick Santorum compares gay marriage to polygamy. Will that help him with GOP?
01.05.12
Newt Gingrich biggest geek in GOP primary race, says Scientific American
01.04.12
Iowa caucus results: Where does Ron Paul go from here? (+Video)
01.04.12
Why did Michele Bachmann’s campaign crater?
01.03.12
Does Ron Paul want to be president, or a prophet?

Related stories

Election 101: Where the GOP candidates stand on immigration, abortion and other social issues
Rick Santorum gains in N.H., but Mitt Romney still leads, says new poll
Romney, Santorum bash Obama recess appointment. Why that could backfire.
Rick Santorum: Will Iowa ‘rocket boost’ propel him in New Hampshire?

Topics

Political Parties
U.S. Conservative Politics
U.S. Republican Party Politics
2012 Election
U.S. Presidential Election
LGBT Issues
Social Issues

In a meeting with college Republicans in Concord, N.H., he got into a long back-and-forth with the crowd on this contentious social issue. At one point he said, “Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry? So anyone can marry anyone else? So anybody can marry several people?”

Some attendees didn’t take this too well, and let Santorum know it. When he left he received some cheers, but they were drowned out by lingering boos.

Is Santorum’s stance on gay marriage an impediment to his winning the nomination? He is adamantly in favor of defining “marriage” as something between a man and a woman, after all.

Election 101: Where the GOP candidates stand on immigration, abortion and other social issues

Well, in terms of his appeal to GOP voters, this position is probably a big plus. Republicans as a whole remain highly opposed to allowing such consecrated unions between members of the same sex. According to a Gallup poll from last May, only 28 percent of Republicans are in favor of gay marriage. That’s a number that hasn’t budged in years.

On this subject “Republicans in particular seem fixed in their opinions”, wrote Gallup’s chief editor, Frank Newport, at the time.

It’s a different story when you look at the whole electorate, though. If Santorum does win the GOP nod this is an issue that could hurt him in the fall.

Attitudes toward gay marriage among the electorate as a whole have shown a big step toward the “pro” side in recent years. Two years ago, only 40 percent of respondents to a Gallup survey were in favor of same-sex marriage. Last May, 53 percent said they would approve. It was the first time a poll showed a majority of the US population taking that position.

Among independents, the slice of the electorate crucial to victory in November, approval was even higher, at 59 percent. Nor is Gallup alone; a recent survey from the Pew Center showed similar results, with a plurality of 46 percent approving of gay marriage.

The issue remains volatile, and the approval rating here is fairly narrow. That can be seen by President Obama’s own awkward attempts to strike some balance on this subject. But the fact is that Democrats could easily paint Santorum as out of step with the US on this. And they will try to do that, if he wins.