A court in Ontario, Canada has ruled against a man challenging Canadian Blood Services' ban on gay blood donation, CTV reports:
"In a ruling released on Thursday, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed a constitutional challenge from a man who argued the policy violated his rights, finding that Charter of Rights does not apply to the blood agency's policies, because it is not a government entity. The ruling stems from a case that began with Canadian Blood Services suing a gay man named Kyle Freeman, who lied about his sexual status when he donated blood. Freeman had syphilis when he donated blood, which prompted the agency to sue. Freeman argued he lied because the policy banning gay men from donating wasn't scientifically justified and violated his rights. He launched a counterclaim under the Charter. But on Thursday, the court dismissed the challenge, finding Freeman liable for $10,000 for negligent misrepresentation."
The current policy is reported as follows:
"Intravenous drug users, people who may have been exposed to Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (mad cow disease), people who have exchanged money for sex or drugs are all permanently banned. Currently, men who had sex with men from 1977 onwards (the year estimated as the start of the AIDS epidemic) also face 'indefinite deferrals' from donations."
*shrug* Fuck it. They don't get my gay blood then. Enjoy dying.
Posted by: Gridlock | Sep 9, 2010 11:42:05 AM
This is indeed an interesting ruling. It is unfortunate that bans on gay blood donations continue to be in place, not only in Canada, but also elsewhere throughout the world.
(I should first state that I'm not a legal expert)
It must be understood that this particular RULING is not necessarily homophobic or discriminatory in its nature. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is entrenched in out Constitution applies only to governments and government entities. So in this case, the ruling represents the limitations of the applicability of the Charter. However, it does raise some interesting questions, as Canadian Blood Services receives its funding from provincial and territorial Ministries of Health (except in Quebec where Hema-Quebec operates). If an organization is receiving funding from government, then it should be subject to the same constitutional provisions that any government or government entity would be. It will be interesting to see how this issue moves forward from here.
For those of you wondering about protections that don't involve governments or government entities, there are certainly anti-discrimination laws in place federally and at the provincial and territorial levels that do provide rights and protections against discrimination for cases involving private citizens or entities, although there can be some variance between the provinces.
Posted by: EDMONTON | Sep 9, 2010 11:53:43 AM
Kyle Freeman is why gay people can't give blood. I'd love to. I know I don't have syphilis. But because he does, I can't. Yes, it's unfair that I can't. Yes, it's not right. But a gay man with syphilis arguing that he's unfairly discriminated against because he's gay doesn't change anybody's minds about gay people being a risk. Like gay marriages that are ending in divorce, we’re not showing the straights that we’re worthy of their attention. I’m not saying we should have to prove it, but in today’s political climate, we do.
Posted by: Brian | Sep 9, 2010 11:54:24 AM
Well I can't fault the judge on his reasoning. You're not going to get anywhere if you accuse a non-government entity of violating the constitution.
Discrimination charges, on the other hand, would have some gravity to them. Go for that angle and try again.
Posted by: Majutsukai | Sep 9, 2010 11:57:22 AM
The policy is and always has been a fear based way to marginalize gay men and peg them as diseased. It doesn't say he knew before the donation or not, but I'd guess he didn't and this is just another way to keep their bigoted policies going. I doubt we will see any movement on this until we rid ourselves of the conservative government currently in power.
Posted by: Vincent-louis Apruzzese | Sep 9, 2010 12:02:46 PM
So a gay man with syphillis is arguing the ban on gay men donating blood is irrational.... 'cause y'know why would anyone think gay men are more prone to disease than anyone else? ....despite him being busted for having a sexually transmitted disease while trying to donate....
so he either knew he had it, and didn't care. Or he didn't know he had it, which feeds the myth that gay men are irresponsible, walking petri dishes. I would think you would want to make sure you are healthy before you try to donate, yes?
uh, yeah. thanks for nothing.
Posted by: Marty | Sep 9, 2010 12:37:07 PM
Welcome to Ontario!! As someone who lives here I say Fuck it!! there are more straight people with STI's and other diseases that donate blood than us gays! and they get away with it!! it's FUCKIN called SCREENING!!! it might help... dumbass fuckin hicks... we'll keep our "fabulous" blood thank you!!!
Posted by: Aaron | Sep 9, 2010 7:12:06 PM
In the U.S. the FDA (Food and Drug Administration; a federal government agency) has banned blood donations from gays for decades....doesn't a similar Canadian governmental agency do like-wise in Canada?
I believe the FDA is now currently reviewing that ban.
Posted by: ratbastard | Sep 9, 2010 8:05:08 PM
"we'll keep our "fabulous" blood thank you!!!"
-Love that quote.
:)
Posted by: Eddie | Sep 9, 2010 8:09:03 PM
Blood supplies are tested for STDs, but the ban against gay men came into place because of the particular deadliness of AIDS, poor quality AIDS testing of the blood supply, and many terrible scandals involving AIDS tainted blood where a lot of men, woman and children were given tainted blood, contacted AIDS, and died. The fact authorities didn't immediately ban gay men from donating blood when it became clear what AIDS was and how deadly and incurable it was (in the beginning of the epidemic) made authorities (and insurance companies) feel liable for the many deaths caused by the tainted blood supply. They determined not to be burned again and instituted the ban.
Even today, AIDS is still an insidious and deadly disease, difficult (and VERY EXPENSIVE) to treat,more-so than any other STD, including syphilis.
Posted by: ratbastard | Sep 9, 2010 8:20:16 PM
He could have at least had an STI test first so as not to 'prove the point' that the people who try to rationalise this ban make. Dumbass.
Posted by: BenB | Nov 30, 2010 3:41:17 PM