An AIDS memorial for Canberra

poetix said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

I wish I had $1 for every time this was posted on RA. A meme grown so old it’s a ritual, I tells you.

It was pretty funny when I started doing it years ago. Now it’s a habit so ingrained I don’t think I’ll ever stop.

That it still draws responses makes it all worthwhile…

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

I agree and I am picturing that in my head right now…… Camera slowly pans across the room, many candles flickering in the background accentuated with some vaseline on the lense to give it that soft blurred effect with puppies and kittens running around in the foreground.

Our charactors “Betty and “Veronica” look across the bedroom at each other wantingly eyes betraying lustful intent as no word is spoken between the two, only suggestive glances.

Veronica’s comically large bust swayed from side to side as she sashayed across room in an awkwardly unbalanced fashion, she was used to being on her back and being upright for so long was making her dizzy.

Betty sat on the bed as her large posterier dictated that she must do and proceeded to untie her doc martens in the most practical yet sensual way. It was sensuous since you was asking.

What does this have to with a memorial? The puppies and a kitten had AIDS!

Now imagine this with Bruce Springsteen singing “Philadelphia” in the background so it does not come across as tasteless.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

I wish I had $1 for every time this was posted on RA. A meme grown so old it’s a ritual, I tells you.

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

LSWCHP said :

So dying of AIDS is a truly terrible thing, I’ll vouch for that. And if someone wants to set up a memorial to those people who’ve died of this disease then good on them. I don’t see it detracting from anything else to any significant extent.

But what really shits me is the response of Mr Barr to the RiotAct posts on this topic. Rather than articulating a reasoned argument, he just fires off a couple of abusive tweets directed at all members of this forum, and departs in a cloud of smug.

Based on the evidence presented one would have to conclude that Mr Barr is not capable of sustaining a thought process or an argument that extends past 140 characters. Disagree with him and you get 140 characters of pompous, self-righteous abuse with no chance of any further conversation.

How about it MR Barr? Prove me wrong. Create a RiotAct account and get into some genuine community engagement that might actually mean something beyond this twitter crap. Present your point of view and have it out with HenryBG and Ben_Dover and the other people in our community who disagree with you. Show them that they’re wrong and you’re right.

I’m heating the popcorn

+1

The one direntional self-rightous attacks from Twitter is not something we should expect from a politician towards his constituants.

My good mate Ian was a Vietnam veteran, funny bastard, allround nice guy and gay. He must’ve been one of the first AIDS victims in the ACT, because as I recall (it was a long time ago now) he died around 1987. The last time I saw him alive I barely recognised him. He was only about 40, but he looked 90. His hair had turned white, he was wrinkled and all his teeth had fallen out. He was hunched and shrivelled. There was no trace left of the boisterous boofhead I’d known fso well and for so long.

So dying of AIDS is a truly terrible thing, I’ll vouch for that. And if someone wants to set up a memorial to those people who’ve died of this disease then good on them. I don’t see it detracting from anything else to any significant extent. Maybe my friend would’ve liked a memorial, or maybe he would’ve preferred the money to go to research into the disease that killed. I dunno, and he can’t speak because he’s dead.

But what really shits me is the response of Mr Barr to the RiotAct posts on this topic. Rather than articulating a reasoned argument, he just fires off a couple of abusive tweets directed at all members of this forum, and departs in a cloud of smug.

Based on the evidence presented one would have to conclude that Mr Barr is not capable of sustaining a thought process or an argument that extends past 140 characters. Disagree with him and you get 140 characters of pompous, self-righteous abuse with no chance of any further conversation.

How about it MR Barr? Prove me wrong. Create a RiotAct account and get into some genuine community engagement that might actually mean something beyond this twitter crap. Present your point of view and have it out with HenryBG and Ben_Dover and the other people in our community who disagree with you. Show them that they’re wrong and you’re right.

I’m heating the popcorn

Some of my best friends are gay, but………………………

Seriously, what is this fixation with having bloody memorials for every damn cause nowadays? Are we trying to emulate the US, where there seems to be an excuse to commemorate every tiny thing that ever happened – and sadly, to the point where it has become tacky and disrespectful?

I don’t care if the proposal was for a memorial to the victims of lung cancer, victims of influenza, victims of ingrown toenails or victims of money lost on gift vouchers – I’d still think it was stupid and a waste of money that people could be donating to something worthwhile, like as others have already suggested, HIV/AIDS research.

And as I said earlier, my other problem with this proposal is that taxpayers money ultimately will be spent on this – regardless of what the supporters say – not just for the use of the land that it will be sited on, but also the ongoing maintainance and upkeep of the memorial.

Twitter that, Andrew!

Scribble said :

Agree with Jim Jones. A proposal that effortlessly bunches the panties of some of the most reliable bores on the RiotACT is worth supporting.

If all you were doing was aggravating people, that would be one thing, but painting people who disagree with you in terms which are in this day and age close to or even over the border of criminality is an exact replica of the methods used by totalitarian regimes.
In this case the relevant regime would be the Soviet one. I recognise Andrew Barr’s method as one I witnessed before in Eastern Europe.
Disagree with somebody who currently has power, and that power will be used to the maximum possible extent to disenfranchise you.

This is one reason I was disappointed in 1989 – I thought they should have kept an enclave complete with Wall, psychotic border guards, and frothing-mouthed lunatic bureaucrats (with Twitter accounts, why not) so that future generations could experience the natural logical outcome of letting people like Stanhope, Barr, or the Greens get ensconced in power.

There is *some* research to suggest that charitable giving is a zero sum game – that is, there is a set number of dollars that the population gives to charity in any given period, and the various charitable organisations compete with each other for those dollars.

On that (open to debate) basis, I would echo the sentiments of some on here that would prefer to see the money spent on actual research rather than a physical memorial. However, there is no practical or sensible means of enforcing this preference so in the absence of this memorial causing any specific harm, I’m indifferent.

Erg0 said :

Reading this thread, I can’t help but notice a few similarities with the arguments against gay marriage. Memorialising AIDS victims somehow devalues victims of other diseases? Puh-lease.

I am against the Aids memorial – for cogent reasons outlined, largely the faux anniversary linking with the Canberra Centenary – and I am also ardently pro gay marriage. If Barr’s modus operandi as a politician is going to be to accuse anyone who opposes him about any issue a bigot and a redneck, rather than debating the topic, he may not last long.

Surely all the funds raised would be better channelled into research for a cure.

Jim Jones said :

Anything that gets the rednecks foaming at the mouth like this gets a big two thumbs up from me.

Care to point out who you consider “rednecks” here Jim, or any “foaming at the mouth” you perceive.

Or shall we take it that this is just more of your usual offensive unsubstantiated hyperbole against anyone who has a differing view to you?

Moral cowardice is never pretty.

Jim Jones said :

Anything that gets the rednecks foaming at the mouth like this gets a big two thumbs up from me.

Scribble said :

Agree with Jim Jones. A proposal that effortlessly bunches the panties of some of the most reliable bores on the RiotACT is worth supporting.

Good, maybe you could help him erect the memorial to Jim Jones’ unopposable thumbs.

We really need a tax on smug pollution.

Agree with Jim Jones. A proposal that effortlessly bunches the panties of some of the most reliable bores on the RiotACT is worth supporting.

HenryBG said :

Do these “loved ones” even number in the 3-figures here in the ACT? It’s completely stupid. Not quite as stupid as the enormously stupid SievX memorial, but in the same
league.

I had to google the SievX memorial, as I’d never heard of it.

(So far) Andrew Barr has called some Rioters:

– Disappointing
– Misinformed
– Ignorant
– Bigoted
– Prejudiced
– Hateful

The timestamp of his tweets limit these accusations to comments #1 – 11. I think Andrew Barr needs to get a dictionary.

Ben_Dover said :

Merle said :

Ben_Dover said :

I agree there is no basis relativism, but isn’t putting forward a proposal for a monument to one disease relativist in itself?

Uh, no.

I would say it is, it is placing a higher status on the impact of the disease in terms of needing it recognised. Why would someone campaign for a memorial to an disease they thought of little impact? There have been 105 cases, (not deaths from) AIDS in the ACT.

So if the ACT had 3,178 MLAs, then one of those MLAs could the member representing AIDS victims.

Merle said :

Ben_Dover said :

I agree there is no basis relativism, but isn’t putting forward a proposal for a monument to one disease relativist in itself?

Uh, no.

I would say it is, it is placing a higher status on the impact of the disease in terms of needing it recognised. Why would someone campaign for a memorial to an disease they thought of little impact? There have been 105 cases, (not deaths from) AIDS in the ACT.

johnboy said :

Not just homosexual men. And even if it were. So what?

So it’s of no relevance whatsoever to the rest of us.

Memorials to people who have bravely died in the service of their country or community? Sure. Why not.

Memorials to people who acquired and happened to die of a particular disease? Why? Not my idea of a good idea. Apparently that makes me a bigot. I’m pretty sure I know what to take away from that.

Myles Peterson said :

I support this memorial. If it helps folks grieve and remember their loved ones, that’s all for the good.

Do these “loved ones” even number in the 3-figures here in the ACT? It’s completely stupid. Not quite as stupid as the enormously stupid SievX memorial, but in the same league.

Ben_Dover said :

I agree there is no basis relativism, but isn’t putting forward a proposal for a monument to one disease relativist in itself?

Uh, no.

Erg0 said :

From a quick skim: #10, #13, #24 (especially) and #31.

Out of those, I wil aquiese on 31, the rest do not indicate relitivism.

Erg0 said :

There is no basis for a relativistic argument on the “merits” of various diseases, as this is not being built instead of another memorial – if someone wants a memorial for cancer victims then they can go ahead and build one, regardless of the existence of this memorial.

I agree there is no basis relativism, but isn’t putting forward a proposal for a monument to one disease relativist in itself?

Memorials to people we lose are personal matters, when there is a great tragedy, as in the Canberra bushfires, memorials are apt. But to establish a memorial for a section of the community who have died of the same disease is rather odd. Barr getting his frillies in a twist over other people’s opinion isn’t going to help at all.

I support this memorial. If it helps folks grieve and remember their loved ones, that’s all for the good.

Minister Barr’s being a bit of a sook again though. I remember when he blocked The Canberra Times on Twitter over some nonsense. For those unfamiliar with the platform, this doesn’t really do anything. His account was still visible. Mood in the newsroom was perplexed and amused.

Chill out, Andrew. You don’t want that “leaked” party polling to turn out to be accurate. Real underdog status is tougher than pretend.

Wouldn’t the best memorial be finding a cure?

And have you noticed the amount of what could only be called reverse bigotry is around. All a member of a minority, (I thought we were all human beings, well it would be nice) has to do is scream ‘bigot’ or ‘racist’ etc and all chance of an informed debate goes out the window.

While all minorities were at one time or another discriminated against (and some still are) so can be understandably somewhat justified in their claims, some seem to use that as an excuse to force their own ideas. But calling everyone who disagrees with their opinion a bigot does them and theirs no good at all.

And while there are real bigots etc out there, not everyone who disagrees is.

We all have are own opinions. And if one is different to another’s well welcome to the real world.

schmeah said :

dungfungus said :

schmeah said :

Erg0 said :

Reading this thread, I can’t help but notice a few similarities with the arguments against gay marriage. Memorialising AIDS victims somehow devalues victims of other diseases? Puh-lease.

+1 well put!

I didn’t know so many people in society felt so strongly about getting a memorial for those who die from the flu. Maybe they should get their act together like the AIDS Action Council clearly has.

In case you have forgotten, the letter “A” in AIDS stands for “Acquired” and this is usually sexually transmitted by homosexual men. Anyone can get the flu. The AIDS Action Council is focused on a problem mainly resultant from a lifestyle which affects only a small portion of society and while a lot of society understands it they don’t want to be involved in it in any way. It is as simple as that. If Barr cannot understand that this then he should retire from politics as there is a conflict of interest about who he actually represents.

Ignoring the deeply offensive tone of this comment (‘they don’t want to be involved in it in any way’) that reinforces the stigma and “shadows” that comment #43 mentions, I think your definition of a “conflict of interest” is skewed.

Barr is merely SUPPORTING a community group. Just like other politicians support non-profit, community groups as spokespeople (the one that springs to mind is Kristina Keneally who is an official supporter and contributor to the Australian Stillbirth Foundation). Every politician brings their own personal persuasions to their job, that’s kind of what makes them get into politics (they have interests outside of themselves which they fully pursue), Andrew is clearly involved in the LGBTI community just like Fred Nile is involved in the Churchy movement. Supporting or promoting a community initiative, just because you have an alignment to it is not a “conflict of interest”.

One can’t help but think your objection stems from the ongoing stigma of HIV/AIDS in the community today.

Very sad.

And yet despite the speech you still managed to cast the church in a poor light.

HenryBG said :

And if you object, you’re a Nazi bigot hater redneck. And ignorant. At least that’s the message I’m getting.
.

Lets leave the Nazi’s out of this because someone will make a pro-gay/anti nazi comment and then someone will point out that Hugo Boss designed the Nazi uniforms and then feathers will fly.

Could be an interesting idea, but it is a bit biased and somewhat Stanhopian to impose something like this on the community. A memorial like this might also become a focal point of jokes in Canberra which could lead to national embarrassment; “And if we look over here behind this memorial, we can clearly see where it all began and we got Canberra’s own AIDS patient zero”.

What would the memorial look like anyway? Would it be designed by a local Canberra artist or will it once again be commissioned by an interstate artist and we have to accept it like redneck philistines. I personally think that it would be interesting to have a giant discarded concrete prophylactic nestled in the woods near the carpark on top of Black Mountain.

I imagine it would be seen as somewhat symbolic when one of the lookout enthusiasts raises his glance and looks up from the back of his “friends” head and sees a giant concrete representation of post-coital detritus strewn before them in an edgy, yet monolithic installation. Maybe paint it in bright friendly colours to make it less threatening to those in the community who do not like that sort of thing (NIMBY’S).

Why not have a memorial for ingrown toenails? We could just rename the tussock grass sculpture on the Gunghalin expressway and whilst we are on that road we could re-dedicate the boulders on umpires chairs to kidney stone research and awareness (which is just as important).

Back in my day an Aids related illness was when you got the clap from doing your personal assistant/secretary at lunch.

dungfungus said :

schmeah said :

Erg0 said :

Reading this thread, I can’t help but notice a few similarities with the arguments against gay marriage. Memorialising AIDS victims somehow devalues victims of other diseases? Puh-lease.

+1 well put!

I didn’t know so many people in society felt so strongly about getting a memorial for those who die from the flu. Maybe they should get their act together like the AIDS Action Council clearly has.

In case you have forgotten, the letter “A” in AIDS stands for “Acquired” and this is usually sexually transmitted by homosexual men. Anyone can get the flu. The AIDS Action Council is focused on a problem mainly resultant from a lifestyle which affects only a small portion of society and while a lot of society understands it they don’t want to be involved in it in any way. It is as simple as that. If Barr cannot understand that this then he should retire from politics as there is a conflict of interest about who he actually represents.

Ignoring the deeply offensive tone of this comment (‘they don’t want to be involved in it in any way’) that reinforces the stigma and “shadows” that comment #43 mentions, I think your definition of a “conflict of interest” is skewed.

Barr is merely SUPPORTING a community group. Just like other politicians support non-profit, community groups as spokespeople (the one that springs to mind is Kristina Keneally who is an official supporter and contributor to the Australian Stillbirth Foundation). Every politician brings their own personal persuasions to their job, that’s kind of what makes them get into politics (they have interests outside of themselves which they fully pursue), Andrew is clearly involved in the LGBTI community just like Fred Nile is involved in the Churchy movement. Supporting or promoting a community initiative, just because you have an alignment to it is not a “conflict of interest”.

One can’t help but think your objection stems from the ongoing stigma of HIV/AIDS in the community today.

Very sad.

dungfungus said :

In case you have forgotten, the letter “A” in AIDS stands for “Acquired” and this is usually sexually transmitted by homosexual men. Anyone can get the flu. The AIDS Action Council is focused on a problem mainly resultant from a lifestyle which affects only a small portion of society and while a lot of society understands it they don’t want to be involved in it in any way. It is as simple as that. If Barr cannot understand that this then he should retire from politics as there is a conflict of interest about who he actually represents.

Not just homosexual men. And even if it were. So what?

schmeah said :

Erg0 said :

Reading this thread, I can’t help but notice a few similarities with the arguments against gay marriage. Memorialising AIDS victims somehow devalues victims of other diseases? Puh-lease.

+1 well put!

I didn’t know so many people in society felt so strongly about getting a memorial for those who die from the flu. Maybe they should get their act together like the AIDS Action Council clearly has.

In case you have forgotten, the letter “A” in AIDS stands for “Acquired” and this is usually sexually transmitted by homosexual men. Anyone can get the flu. The AIDS Action Council is focused on a problem mainly resultant from a lifestyle which affects only a small portion of society and while a lot of society understands it they don’t want to be involved in it in any way. It is as simple as that. If Barr cannot understand that this then he should retire from politics as there is a conflict of interest about who he actually represents.

I’m horrified he’s calling everyone bigoted who is against this, that’s very immature and incorrect. I thought it sounded like a nice idea but now he’s foaming at the mouth I’m having a re-think. I think it’s a very odd thing to do considering HIV/AIDS is comparatively rare in Australia and Canberra, and (correct me if I’m wrong) has a fairly good prognosis if it is diagnosed and anti-retro-vitals are taken. I don’t know anyone my age (early-mid 20s) with a diagnosis but I know multiple people who have died from or survived cancer. I don’t think it devalues other diseases but I do think it’s a very odd choice and I’m not sure why he’s taking criticism so personally.

Ben_Dover said :

Erg0 said :

Reading this thread, I can’t help but notice a few similarities with the arguments against gay marriage. Memorialising AIDS victims somehow devalues victims of other diseases? Puh-lease.

Can you point out where anyone has said this “memorial” somehow devalues victims of other diseases?

From a quick skim: #10, #13, #24 (especially) and #31. There is no basis for a relativistic argument on the “merits” of various diseases, as this is not being built instead of another memorial – if someone wants a memorial for cancer victims then they can go ahead and build one, regardless of the existence of this memorial.

Erg0 said :

Reading this thread, I can’t help but notice a few similarities with the arguments against gay marriage. Memorialising AIDS victims somehow devalues victims of other diseases? Puh-lease.

Can you point out where anyone has said this “memorial” somehow devalues victims of other diseases?

I have no objection to memorials to victims of any tragedy, but to enshrine a memorial to the victims of a particular disease, and not of others, seems odd to say the least.

Mysteryman said :

On a related matter – how does one get land to erect a memorial? Are the AIDS Action Council planning on doing this on their own land, or are they doing it on public land?

It’s going on your front yard.

And if you object, you’re a Nazi bigot hater redneck. And ignorant. At least that’s the message I’m getting.

Who have we got left to vote for in this town? The Libs prefer NIMBY complaints to industry, the Labs are full of this kind of spurious garbage, the Greens seem to have forgotten about the environment in favour of fringe nonsense, leaving who?
I just want a town council who can forget about ideology and catering to their favourite minorities and just work on getting my rates down, getting my rego fees down, and for the sake of the younger generations, FFS do something about the ridiculously high price of land.

Erg0 said :

Reading this thread, I can’t help but notice a few similarities with the arguments against gay marriage. Memorialising AIDS victims somehow devalues victims of other diseases? Puh-lease.

+1 well put!

I didn’t know so many people in society felt so strongly about getting a memorial for those who die from the flu. Maybe they should get their act together like the AIDS Action Council clearly has.

Oh of course… disagreeing with something makes you a bigot/redneck/philistine. I had forgotten how things worked in the legislative assembly.

What a dolt.

On a related matter – how does one get land to erect a memorial? Are the AIDS Action Council planning on doing this on their own land, or are they doing it on public land?

It is fantastic to get engagement from a broad range of people on the launch of this Community initiative.

As way of education there is a difference between HIV and AIDS. HIV infection is a virus, which thanks to years of medical research and treatment development is now considered a long-term manageable chronic illness and allows many people living with HIV to never develop AIDS (which is a disease of the immune system) and live relatively healthy lives.

To correct the stats quoted by HenryBG there are over 31,000 people known to be living with HIV in Australia and only about 10,000 people in Australia have ever had an AIDS diagnosis, thanks to the community response in the early 80’s when the epidemic first started. That being said it is expected that around 25% of people living with HIV in Australia are not aware of their HIV status.

The AIDS Action Council of the ACT is a health promotion organisation that engages with the many sectors of the Canberra community that are impacted or at risk of HIV. This includes not just gay men (or men that have sex with other men) but hetrosexual women, children and men. A constant conversation and education is required to ensure people within our community in Canberra are able to make informed decisions when engaging in behavior that may put them at risk of contracting HIV.

As seen by the tread above HIV and AIDS still is very misunderstood by the boarder community even after 30 years and it is a lot different from a public health perspective as quoted by some HIV/AIDS is seen as an acquired disease. Some may argue that obesity; diabetes and heart disease are just as acquirable although I do acknowledge that genetics can play a role. Many people living with HIV in Canberra do so in the shadows yet if you have cancer, diabetes or another chronic illness (or a common cold) there is broader community sympathy and support.

May 2013 will mark the 25th Annual Candlelight Memorial held here in the ACT (which just also happens to be Canberra’s Centenary year). There is no permanent memorial site for these memorials to be held so the community fundraising efforts are to put in place a permanent reminder and honor the memory of those in the ACT Community that have been lost to AIDS and to also provide a place of reflection for those living with HIV, their families and friends who are impacted and affected by this virus.

Unfortunately in 2012 we still need to be ‘in your face’ about HIV and its risks as new infections within our community are still occurring. The message and conversation needs to continue, with the hope that one day it will be eradicated in our community just like small pox.

Scott Malcolm (President – AIDS Action Council of ACT Inc)

Dracon388 said :

I think it’s a wonderful idea. HIV/AIDS effects people and has such a social sitgma around it, a memorial to remember those lost would be great.

“Affects” FFS!

And I must agree with many others here, this is a politically correct vote grabbing attempt nothing else. We all die of something, HIV/AIDS is a terrible disease, but not as prolific as say malaria which caused an estimated 655 000 deaths last year.

To single out HIV/AIds for a “memorial”out of all reasons for death in this country, cannot be justified. It woudl be a meaningless gesture.

This is another example of ideologically based gesture politics, like the SIEV-X memorial in Weston Park. Incidentally, more gay men have died – and continue to die – from prostate cancer than AIDS.

MLAs launch everything from gallery exhibitions to stadium lounges and private developments, with not a whisper of complaint.

Suddenly people are bitching about an MLA launching a self-funded memorial project dedicated to victims of a disease that has claimed millions of adults and children around the world? There are some f***ed-up people in this place.

I am curious as to why the National Gallery of Australia was chosen as the venue for the 29th International AIDS Candlelight Memorial. Didn’t Barr give the NGA $500K of ratepayers money to NGA last week to promote their forthcoming risque French exhibition?
Barr seems to be spending a lot of time at the NGA lately.

Reading this thread, I can’t help but notice a few similarities with the arguments against gay marriage. Memorialising AIDS victims somehow devalues victims of other diseases? Puh-lease.

Anything that gets the rednecks foaming at the mouth like this gets a big two thumbs up from me.

I’ve always found it silly to erect a memorial while the battle is still raging.

Tool said :

And again if the majority disagree play the minority card and call everyone a bigot, such a well constructed response Mr Barr . Since noone is gonna touch it I will, is his homosexuality influencing the direction of the government? Last week it was addressing homophobia in sport and now it is this, seems that he has an agenda to me.

+1

Politicians should be firm in their commitment to all our needs, every other homosexual politician is capable of it, why not him?

If he has some personal issues still lingering, then his entry into politics was premature.

JulesZ said :

gazket said :

Andrew Barr pushing his own barrow again

So Andrew Barr has AIDS, does he?

About 27,000 people in Australia have had AIDS. Ever. That’s it. Very few people know somebody with AIDS and even less have ever had a family member catch it.

On a scale of 1-100 of diseases that have affected Australians, AIDS comes in at about 99. But one of the blokes whose salary we pay to run this city is once again grandstanding and promoting some tiny little minority lobby group instead of attending to real issues.

What was the last one? Legislation concerning the use of Gift Vouchers? FFS, this lot are such a waste of my money.

And again if the majority disagree play the minority card and call everyone a bigot, such a well constructed response Mr Barr . Since noone is gonna touch it I will, is his homosexuality influencing the direction of the government? Last week it was addressing homophobia in sport and now it is this, seems that he has an agenda to me.

Fliponout said :

Some People have nothing better to do than bitch and complain about things…
“They should get a life”
Yes there will be a Garden … Well Done to the Person who used there initiative to come up with a brilliant idea and place that they can go to express their feeling for a love ones, that have been lost to this horrible disease.
I cannot see the ACT Government stoping other community groups who what want to follow the lead doing the same.
This is the National Capital of Australia not a country Town and we should be leading the nation in ideas that help heal not embarking on bitching about people that do…

Barr hasn’t addressed the issue of why this is all being linked to the Canberra Centenary with false anniversary claims.

schmeah said :

You lot are childish. The government isn’t paying for it and honestly, it’s a memorial to commemorate people who have died before their time .. seriously, think about that before opening letting rip on your keyboard.

Gee, it must be a really hard life, being a bigot .. so much hate inside.

wow some emotive words there, and some which are quite objectional!

I think most people who have responded to this thread are trying to understand why there is a need for such a memorial and why other diseases are not been memoralised in a similar way.

Some of us are also trying to understand the link between a politician elected to represent us all, and support of one group. as per usual, the link is not 100% clear – blame the spin doctors for that one.

HenryBG said :

Dracon388 said :

Any of you ignorant people paying attention to the fact that the government isn’t even paying for any of this, unlike the multimillion dollar street art?

I think it’s a wonderful idea. HIV/AIDS effects people and has such a social sitgma around it, a memorial to remember those lost would be great.

A memorial to the 6,000 Australians lost to AIDS?

What about a “Road Accident Memorial” the 200,000 people lost in road accidents?
Or a “Cancer Memorial” for the 40,000+ people lost to cancer EVERY YEAR?
etc….

Yep, great ideas – get to it. There’s no one stopping you from fund-raising to support memorials to any other cause, just like there’s no reason Andrew Barr shouldn’t fund-raise for a memorial to a cause he supports (although personally I would always prefer to fund-raise for research than memorials).

gazket said :

Andrew Barr pushing his own barrow again

So Andrew Barr has AIDS, does he?

Knee, meet Jerk. Jerk, meet Knee. Let’s try once more ——

Andrew Barr was just the keynote speaker at the event, this wasn’t a “government launch” or “initiative”…!

In retrospect, the use of the word “launch” was a bad idea. Very easy to misinterpret when a politician gets associated with anything that costs money since 99% of the time their government is funding whatever they are launching … I would stick with book launches and fundraisers in the future!!

whitelaughter said :

[blinks] So rather than spend the money on, oh, *treatment* for diseases, it’s going into a memorial. For this *one* disease. So simultanously insulting the memory of everyone who died of something else, and making a mockery of those who have died of AIDS, and continuing the misery that is ACT Health.

No wonder he’s calling us ignorant and bigoted, it’s not as it would be possible for him to defend this absurdity using arguments…

Arguments like what? That someone wants to make a memorial to AIDS victims so we should let them? The nerve!

So, I guess the War Memorial is a travesty to all those people who didn’t fight in it, is it?

Maybe someone will want to put together for a memorial for the common cold, maybe they won’t. Someone wants an AIDS memorial. People are donating for it. Good for them. Don’t like it? Don’t donate.

Who’s going to be a part of a government that would deny people public land on which to put that memorial? I can tell you, not one worth a damn.

Andrew Barr pushing his own barrow again

[blinks] So rather than spend the money on, oh, *treatment* for diseases, it’s going into a memorial. For this *one* disease. So simultanously insulting the memory of everyone who died of something else, and making a mockery of those who have died of AIDS, and continuing the misery that is ACT Health.

No wonder he’s calling us ignorant and bigoted, it’s not as it would be possible for him to defend this absurdity using arguments…

Oh dear, some of us have upset Andrew Barr – and like the professional MLA he is, he takes to Facebook to complain. I would have thought that after the Hargreaves/Al Grassby statue fiasco, MLA’s would have learnt something from that about pushing their own personal agendas?

And to those who are saying that the Govt (i.e. ACT taxpayers) isn’t paying anything for this – who’s supplying the piece of ground the memorial will be built on????

You lot are childish. The government isn’t paying for it and honestly, it’s a memorial to commemorate people who have died before their time .. seriously, think about that before opening letting rip on your keyboard.

Gee, it must be a really hard life, being a bigot .. so much hate inside.

If it’s a memorial garden, will the garden feature Pansies and Red-Hot Pokers?

Maybe the ACT Govt. can set aside an area of public space that could be used as a National Diseases Memorial, with sections for AIDS, Lung Cancer, Ovarian Bowel Cancer, Syphilis, Breast Cancer, Heart Disease and Emphysema? The Govt. could even install a play area for kiddies and picnic tables for families to enjoy.

HenryBG said :

Actually, I heard Barr on the radio the other day – he’s going the same way Stanhope and Hargreaves did – abrupt, rude and generalised responses to those who disagree with him. I doubt he has much political shelf-life left in him.

which is reflected in his tweets in response to the feedback in this thread.

only 5 months until the ACT elections.

If I were a Tweeter, which I am not, I would be constantly tweeting my disappointment about Mr Barr’s performance.

Actually, I heard Barr on the radio the other day – he’s going the same way Stanhope and Hargreaves did – abrupt, rude and generalised responses to those who disagree with him. I doubt he has much political shelf-life left in him.

Dracon388 said :

Any of you ignorant people paying attention to the fact that the government isn’t even paying for any of this, unlike the multimillion dollar street art?

I think it’s a wonderful idea. HIV/AIDS effects people and has such a social sitgma around it, a memorial to remember those lost would be great.

A memorial to the 6,000 Australians lost to AIDS?

What about a “Road Accident Memorial” the 200,000 people lost in road accidents?
Or a “Cancer Memorial” for the 40,000+ people lost to cancer EVERY YEAR?
etc….
A bit fed up with this plethora of pointless memorials. Let’s just save the memorials for the really special things, shall we?

Another pathetic bit of politicking by the attention-seekers.

Hardly only a Canberra thing:

http://www.aidsmemorial.info/

I lost a very dear friend to disease resulting from AIDS. I don’t see what the problem is in this proposal. Although I prefer to remember my firend personally, some people might like a public memorial. And yes, you could also have a memorial to those who have died from cancer.

Of course, a memorial can take many forms, including, say, exchanges of medical expertise with developing nations. It doesn’t have to be a built object.

Anna Key said :

Maybe I missed it, but where is it going to be located? And does this mean it already has planning approval?

Telopea Park maybe?

Some People have nothing better to do than bitch and complain about things…
“They should get a life”
Yes there will be a Garden … Well Done to the Person who used there initiative to come up with a brilliant idea and place that they can go to express their feeling for a love ones, that have been lost to this horrible disease.
I cannot see the ACT Government stoping other community groups who what want to follow the lead doing the same.
This is the National Capital of Australia not a country Town and we should be leading the nation in ideas that help heal not embarking on bitching about people that do…

goggles13 said :

use some of the money from the failed Immigration Bridge project – they still have my money!!

all kidding aside, I fail to see the point of this, particularly when it excludes other diseases which have had equal affect on humans

Agree; AIDS is only prevalent in a small sector of our society and it is an acquired disease. Asking for money to fund “an in-your-face AIDS memorial” will exclude other groups and individuals whose relatives and loved ones have succumbed to other afflictions that may have been heriditary.
I’ll bet there would be some excitement if Barr chose the site for the proposed memorial as being next to the national memorial to deceased truck drivers at Tarcutta.

Maybe I missed it, but where is it going to be located? And does this mean it already has planning approval?

I-filed said :

Um, Aids was first diagnosed in Australia in 1982 actually. Andrew Barr’s little tactic of retrofitting with false dates to fit the Canberra Centenary is quite inappropriate – (er and just what is the benefit to Canberra of the link with the Canberra Centenary?) The “30 years since the first candle-light memorial” is referring to the anniversary of the first candlelight vigil in the US. In Australia it would almost certainly have been much later than 1983. This mix of “Australian dates” and “international dates” is an attempt to hijack the Canberra centenary, is mixing messages, and is a nonsense. Not to mention that Aids existed in Africa before it surfaced in the US – how is that anniversary to be taken into account, if the US anniversary is so important? (especially given that most Aids deaths are in developing countries). So, what are we to expect in 2013? Press releases regarding Centenary festival events throughout 2013 with Aids death statistics as a tagline? Where’s the celebration?
Katie Gallagher needs to nip this in the bud. Unless, of course, it’s a cynical exercise in attracting San Fran tourists to Canberra in 2013 … come to think of it, that would explain the lack of a focus on “developing country” Aids anniversary dates.

There will be a boom in hot tub sales.

I-filed said :

Um, Aids was first diagnosed in Australia in 1982 actually. Andrew Barr’s little tactic of retrofitting with false dates to fit the Canberra Centenary is quite inappropriate – (er and just what is the benefit to Canberra of the link with the Canberra Centenary?) The “30 years since the first candle-light memorial” is referring to the anniversary of the first candlelight vigil in the US. In Australia it would almost certainly have been much later than 1983. This mix of “Australian dates” and “international dates” is an attempt to hijack the Canberra centenary, is mixing messages, and is a nonsense. Not to mention that Aids existed in Africa before it surfaced in the US – how is that anniversary to be taken into account, if the US anniversary is so important? (especially given that most Aids deaths are in developing countries). So, what are we to expect in 2013? Press releases regarding Centenary festival events throughout 2013 with Aids death statistics as a tagline? Where’s the celebration?
Katie Gallagher needs to nip this in the bud. Unless, of course, it’s a cynical exercise in attracting San Fran tourists to Canberra in 2013 … come to think of it, that would explain the lack of a focus on “developing country” Aids anniversary dates.

Nan212 said :

For crying out loud, what next?
How about a memorial to cancer victims, or victims of heart disease, or Parkinsons. Only a member of Canberra’s local government would come up with the idea of an AIDS memorial.

I am sure this proposal has Ms Archer’s full support.

use some of the money from the failed Immigration Bridge project – they still have my money!!

all kidding aside, I fail to see the point of this, particularly when it excludes other diseases which have had equal affect on humans

“Permanent AIDS ”
He got that part of it right.

Whilst some may think this is a waste of money, I applaud it. The money raised is coming from fundraising efforts. If you don’t like it, don’t contribute.
As someone who had lost a number of friends to this disease, I find a number of comments in this thread highly distasteful and ignorant. I doubt a proposed memorial commemorating those who have died from cancer would elicit a similar response.

This is so wrong.

You’ve lost touch, old son.

Any of you ignorant people paying attention to the fact that the government isn’t even paying for any of this, unlike the multimillion dollar street art?

I think it’s a wonderful idea. HIV/AIDS effects people and has such a social sitgma around it, a memorial to remember those lost would be great.

For crying out loud, what next?
How about a memorial to cancer victims, or victims of heart disease, or Parkinsons. Only a member of Canberra’s local government would come up with the idea of an AIDS memorial.

What a waste of money.

Aren’t memorials suppose to be there to remember something that has happened in the past? Has HIV/AIDS disappeared and we need to remember it?

What a complete waste of human effort….but we know why.

Um, Aids was first diagnosed in Australia in 1982 actually. Andrew Barr’s little tactic of retrofitting with false dates to fit the Canberra Centenary is quite inappropriate – (er and just what is the benefit to Canberra of the link with the Canberra Centenary?) The “30 years since the first candle-light memorial” is referring to the anniversary of the first candlelight vigil in the US. In Australia it would almost certainly have been much later than 1983. This mix of “Australian dates” and “international dates” is an attempt to hijack the Canberra centenary, is mixing messages, and is a nonsense. Not to mention that Aids existed in Africa before it surfaced in the US – how is that anniversary to be taken into account, if the US anniversary is so important? (especially given that most Aids deaths are in developing countries). So, what are we to expect in 2013? Press releases regarding Centenary festival events throughout 2013 with Aids death statistics as a tagline? Where’s the celebration?
Katie Gallagher needs to nip this in the bud. Unless, of course, it’s a cynical exercise in attracting San Fran tourists to Canberra in 2013 … come to think of it, that would explain the lack of a focus on “developing country” Aids anniversary dates.

Only in Canberra

influenza, common cold, small pox, just to name a few. Barr is really focusing on the big issues here.

Not to take away from those who have contracted HIV, that sucks but he can find a better use for his time.