Below are two articles by Nathan Geffen (TAC) and Gavin Silber in response to premier Helen Zille's views on HIV transmission, criminalisation and who deserves treatment. The Premier's response to the critique of her views by Geffen and Silber is also included.
By Gavin Silber and Nathan Geffen
- Doron Isaacs has written a succinct rebuttal of the criminalisation of HIV.
- Judge Edwin Cameron has co-authored an in-depth explanation of why criminalisation of HIV is wrong.
- Gavin Silber has previously argued against the Premier's position when she made similar arguments in 2009.
- Edwin Cameron and Nathan Geffen debated David Benatar on whether a person contracting HIV through his or her irresponsibility has a right to treatment.
Why the Premier's arguments on responsibility are wrong
Why the Premier's arguments on Criminalisation are wrong
Spending on HIV versus spending on the disabled
2. To end the practice of intergenerational sex with multiple concurrent partners.
3. To require people to inform a prospective sexual partner if they are HIV positive.
4. To use condoms during sex.
5. To empower women to say No, and to ensure men accept No to sexual advances.
Helen Zille: A nanny state when ppl don't act responsibly and then expect treatment.
Helen Zille: If it's a choice let them choose 2 fund treatment. 2gether. #irresponsibility"
Helen Zille: If you don't, pay for yr own ARVs.
Helen Zille: Get off your entitlement horse and pay for your preventable disease yourself.
Helen Zille: Keep your preventable illnesses out of the state's coffers. Pay for your own ARVs.
Helen Zille: Absolutely. The state should pay for unpreventable illnesses..
Helen Zille: Then don't come looking for the nanny state when you need treatment.
Helen Zille: Be responsible or pay for your own ARVs.