Connect with us

News

India’s LGBT Blood Donation Ban Remains Despite 2018 Ruling on Gay Sex

Published

on

India’s LGBT Blood Donation Ban Remains Despite 2018 Ruling on Gay Sex

In a major verdict in 2018, India’s top court legalised gay sex; however, transgender persons and gay and bisexual males are still barred from donating blood.

LGBT people claim the decades-old restriction is “discriminatory” and have taken legal action to overturn it.

Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli’s mother had monthly blood transfusions while on her deathbed due to advanced Parkinson’s disease.

Ms Mogli, a trans woman living in the southern city of Hyderabad, was unable to donate blood despite being her mother’s primary carer.

“I had to keep posting [requests for blood donors] on WhatsApp and Facebook groups,” she said, characterising the process as “traumatising”.

Ms Mogli was fortunate in finding donors for her mother, but many others aren’t.

Beoncy Laisharam, a doctor in the north-eastern state of Manipur, described the experience of one of her patients, whose transgender daughter was unable to donate blood for his treatment.

“The father needed two to three units of blood every day. “They were unable to find blood from other sources,” she explained.

“He died two days after being brought in.”

Such experiences prompted Sharif Ragnerka, a 55-year-old writer and activist, to submit a petition with India’s Supreme Court challenging the ban on LGBT blood donations.

VOR News

Indian regulations restrict LGBT individuals from donating blood since they are high-risk groups for HIV-AIDS; donors must be clear of infections transmissible by blood transfusion.

The regulation dates back to the 1980s, when other countries adopted similar prohibitions to combat a global HIV/AIDS epidemic that claimed thousands of lives.

Despite shifts in attitudes, subsequent regulations have kept the restriction in place, including the most recent rule draughted in 2017.

The petition, filed in July, claims that existing blood donation standards are “highly prejudicial and presumptive” and violate the LGBT community’s fundamental rights to “equality, dignity, and life”.

The court has asked the federal government to react to Mr Ragnerka’s plea and has linked it to two other outstanding court matters from 2021 and 2023.

In a previous session, the government supported the ban by referencing a 2021 health ministry research that stated transgender individuals, gay and bisexual males were “six to 13 times” more likely to contract HIV than the general population.

“The government’s policy is for risk mitigation with no moral judgement attached,” said Dr Joy Mammen, a blood transfusion expert.

However, detractors argue that the approach is discriminatory, based on shame, and makes individuals feel “excluded and insignificant”.

“Other genders also have HIV positive people, but their entire community is not banned [from donating blood],” Dr Beoncy said, adding that the ban reinforces existing stereotypes.

India is home to an estimated tens of millions of LGBT individuals. The Indian government estimated the country’s population to be 2.5 million in 2012, although global estimates believe it could be more than 135 million.

VOR News

Many experience discrimination and are forced to abandon their family.

Campaigners claim that the ban restricts their access to critical medical care by prohibiting them from obtaining blood from their partners or “chosen families”.

“If there’s a blanket ban on blood donation by LGBT people, how do you expect community members to receive help in emergency situations?” questioned Sahil Choudhary, an LGBT activist.

In many cases, donors may feel obligated to lie about their sexual orientation when filling out a necessary blood donation form in order to save the life of a loved one.

Activists claim that the ban is not only discriminatory, but also unreasonable, given the country’s enormous demand for blood transfusions.

In 2022, the Public Library of Science reported that India had an annual blood shortfall of approximately one million units.

Thangjam Santa Singh, a transgender rights activist who filed a court challenge against the prohibition last year, claims that the present Indian rules are out of date, citing the fact that numerous countries have removed bans on LGBT blood donors.

Last year, the United States removed all bans on gay and bisexual males donating blood. Donors are now screened based on whether they have engaged in “high-risk sexual behaviour” rather than sexual orientation.

All prospective donors must complete a questionnaire about their recent sexual history. Those who have had a new sexual partner, several sexual partners, or had anal intercourse in the previous three months are urged to wait three months before giving blood.

The idea is that improved testing technology enables speedier detection of HIV cases, allowing potential donors to safely give blood based on an individual risk assessment.

In 2021, the UK implemented similar guidelines. Other countries that have lifted or loosened prohibitions include Brazil, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, France, and Greece.

VOR News

Petitioners claim that India should implement an individual-centric blood donation system based on “actual risk” rather than “perceived risk.”

Ms Singh suggested that the Indian government consider implementing a deferral period based on the donor’s recent sexual history rather than completely denying the LGBT population the ability to give.

“This makes me feel like I am not human,” she told me.

The Indian government has rejected this, claiming that the country’s healthcare system is unprepared for the change.

In response to previous petitions brought before the Supreme Court, the federal government stated that modern blood testing technology, such as nucleic acid testing, which is widely used in other countries, were only accessible in a “small fraction” of blood banks in India.

“In India, the systems are not rigorous enough,” stated Dr. Mammen.

This applies not only to “testing,” but also to “ensuring an environment of privacy and confidentiality so that people feel comfortable answering questions about their sexual history,” he said.

However, members of the community are not convinced and say they will continue to battle the “prejudiced ban”.

“I keep thinking how I wouldn’t be able to donate blood to my family in case of urgent need,” says Ragnerka.

“I do not want to spend the rest of my life trying to find ways around these obstacles.”

Source: BBC

News

RCMP Arrest Somali Man For Smuggling Eight Africans into Canada

Published

on

Eight Africa migrants detained for entering Canada Illegally - Getty Images
Eight Africa migrants arrested for entering Canada Illegally - Getty Images

In Manitoba, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have apprehended eight African migrants and charged a Somali man with human smuggling near the Canada-U.S. border.

According to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), officers and their U.S. counterparts became aware of a border incursion west of the port of entry in Gretna, Manitoba.

The migrants were allegedly discovered walking north from the US -Canada border, where they were subsequently picked up by a man operating a rental vehicle.

According to the police, the vehicle was stopped, and the eight individuals, who were between the ages of 19 and 48, were apprehended under the Customs Act and transported to the RCMP detachment in Emerson, Manitoba.

Two males were from Sudan, one woman was from Guinea, and four men and one woman were from Chad.

A 35-year-old Somali national residing in Winnipeg has been charged under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and is scheduled to appear in court in October.

canada us border

According to Sgt. Lance Goldau, the director of the RCMP’s Integrated Border Enforcement Team, the police were able to interview all eight migrants with the assistance of officers who are fluent in French and Arabic.

The Canada Border Services Agency has received them, he stated.

Canada has been experiencing an increase in the number of individuals crossing the Canada-United States border between ports of entry (“irregular border crossings,” as per Statscan).

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), the country’s largest independent administrative tribunal, is crucial to the immigration system of Canada.

The Liberal government of Justin Trudeau intends to maintain a consistent increase in immigration levels, with the objective of integrating five hundred thousand new permanent residents into the country annually by 2025.  Subsequently, Ottawa will endeavour to establish immigration targets that are stable.

Nevertheless, the Canadian public has maintained a favourable perspective on immigration for decades; however, in recent years, their sentiment has deteriorated as migration levels have increased, which has exacerbated affordability and housing concerns.

In the past 48 months, there has been a quadrupling of concerns regarding immigration, according to a recent Angus Reid poll.

One-fifth of the respondents, or 21%, identified immigration or refugees as one of the most pressing concerns confronting the nation, alongside climate change. Nevertheless, those concerns are significantly less severe than the high cost of living (57%), health care (45%), and housing affordability (32%).

Additionally, the poll indicates that 19% of 18- to 34-year-olds consider the lack of employment to be the most pressing issue confronting the nation, while 40% of the same age group are concerned about the affordability of housing.

If the election were to take place today, over half of the electorate, or 43%, would vote for the Conservatives. The remaining one-fifth would support the Liberals (21%), the NDP (19%), or neither.

The poll also indicated that the CPC has experienced a minimum of eight-point increases in support among women aged 18 to 34 (+8) and those aged 54 and older (+8), as well as males aged 35 to 54 (+10).

Related News:

Trudeau in More Trouble as Canada’s Unemployment Rate Hits 7-Year High

Trudeau in More Trouble as Canada’s Unemployment Rate Hits 7-Year High

Continue Reading

News

NASA Astronauts Stuck in Space After Troubled Capsule Returns to Earth Empty

Published

on

NASA

Friday night marked the end of Boeing’s first human mission, with an empty capsule landing and two NASA test pilots remaining in orbit until next year because NASA deemed their return to be too dangerous.

Starliner descended automatically through the darkness of the desert six hours after leaving the International Space Station and parachuted into the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

It was a quiet conclusion to a story that had started with Boeing’s long-awaited crew debut launch in June and then spiraled out of control due to thruster problems and helium leaks. Engineers were unable to comprehend the capsule’s issues for months, which cast doubt on Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams’ return.

NASA disagreed and scheduled a mission with SpaceX, despite Boeing’s insistence following thorough testing that it was safe to transport the two home on Starliner. They will be up there until February, more than eight months after taking off on what should have been a brief journey, since their SpaceX flight won’t launch until the end of this month.

By mid-June, a week after launching in it, Wilmore and Williams ought to have flown Starliner back to Earth. However, a series of engine issues and helium leaks hampered their journey to the space station, and NASA finally determined it was too dangerous to send them back on Starliner.

Thus, equipped with new software, the fully automated capsule departed, taking with it some outdated station gear as well as its empty seats and blue spacesuits.

As the white and blue-trimmed capsule undocked from the space station 260 miles (420 km) over China and vanished into the dark void, Williams radioed, “She’s on her way home.”

Williams remained up long to watch the outcome of everything. “Very impressive, a solid landing,” stated Boeing’s Mission Control.

Cheers were raised when the capsule was seen landing as a white streak by cameras on the space station and two NASA aircraft.

Though there were a few problems during reentry, including as further rocket problems, Starliner accomplished a “bull’s-eye landing,” according to Steve Stich, NASA’s commercial crew program manager.

“I think we made the right decision not to have Butch and Suni on board,” Stich stated at an early Saturday press conference, notwithstanding the safe return. We’re all pleased with the successful landing. However, a part of each of us wishes that everything had gone according to our original plans.

Boeing refrained from attending the news briefing in Houston. However, Ted Colbert and Kay Sears, two of the company’s top space and defence officials, informed staff members in a note that they supported NASA’s decision.

The executives stated, “We support NASA’s decision for Starliner and are proud of how our team and spacecraft performed, even though this may not have been how we originally envisioned the test flight concluding.”

NASA Calls SpaceX

After several delays and mishaps, Starliner’s crew demo came to an end. NASA contracted with Boeing and SpaceX to provide orbital taxi service after the space shuttles were retired more than ten years ago. In 2019, Boeing faced so many issues with its maiden solo test flight that it had to do it again. A $1 billion repair charge accompanied the even more problems discovered during the 2022 doover.

This month’s crew ferry flight by SpaceX will mark the company’s tenth flight for NASA since 2020. Wilmore and Williams have two seats allocated for the return part of the half-year trip, thus only two astronauts will embark aboard the Dragon capsule.

Wilmore and Williams, two former Navy captains and seasoned astronauts, expected challenges during the test mission. They have remained occupied in space, contributing to experiments and repairs. Along with the other seven people on board, the two are now full-time members of the station crew.

Starliner’s propulsion system began leaking helium even before the two took off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on June 5. Upon liftoff, four more leaks appeared, despite the first one being tiny and deemed isolated. Five thrusters then failed. Despite finding four of the thrusters, NASA was concerned that more faults may prevent the capsule from descending from orbit.

After conducting a number of thruster tests during the summer, both in space and on Earth, Boeing was certain that its spacecraft could return the crew safely. However, NASA chose SpaceX since it could not settle with the thruster problem.

Assessment on Starliner

After undocking, flight controllers fired the capsule’s thrusters one more time for testing; one of them did not ignite. Engineers believe that as the thrusters fire more frequently, their temperature rises and protective seals expand, blocking the propellant’s flow. None of the pieces will be available for inspection because the thruster portion was removed right before reentry.

In a few weeks, Starliner will be returned to NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre, where the assessments will take place.

NASA representatives emphasised that the space agency is still dedicated to having two rival American enterprises transport humans. Until the space station is abandoned in 2030, just before its destructive reentry, SpaceX and Boeing plan to alternately send people, one every year. NASA reports that although Boeing doesn’t have much time to catch up, the corporation plans to move forward with Starliner.

Following the landing, Stich stated that it is premature to determine the date of the next Starliner astronaut flight.

“Determining the next course of action will require some time,” he told AP.

NASA Sets Coverage for Starliner News Conference and Return to Earth

NASA Sets Coverage for Starliner News Conference and Return to Earth

Continue Reading

News

Disgraced Fashion Mogul Peter Nygard Sentenced to 11 Years For Sexual Assault

Published

on

Peter Nygard Sentenced to 11 Years
Former fashion mogul Peter Nygard has been sentenced to 11 years in prison

Peter Nygard, a former Canadian fashion magnate who was convicted last November of four charges of sexual assault after being accused of attacking five women in his downtown Toronto office, has been sentenced to 11 years in jail.

Justice Robert Goldstein handed down the sentence on Monday, nearly ten months after Peter Nygard was convicted of four charges of sexual assault in November 2023 but acquitted of a fifth count and one count of forcible imprisonment.

He will also face a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DBA order, and a 20-year sex offender registration listing.

After completing pre-sentence imprisonment, Nygard has 6.7 years to complete his sentence. Justice Goldstein stated that Nygard will be eligible for day parole in 21 months and full parole in 27 months from now.

Nygard was a fashion tycoon who previously led a profitable women’s fashion firm. He was accused of sexually assaulting many women at his Toronto headquarters between the 1980s and the mid-2000s.

The 83-year-old was wheeled into the courtroom in a wheelchair, wearing a black hoodie pulled over his head. He has a lengthy beard and wears a paper visor under his sweatshirt to protect his eyes from the light.

“Mr. Peter Nygard is a sexual predator,” Justice Goldstein stated at the sentence.

Goldstein discussed how some of the women testified that they informed family or friends about the sexual assaults but did not report it to police because they were told it would be “her word against his” and they would not be believed. “He was a rich and powerful man,” Justice Goldstein stated.

Because of a publication ban, the complainants’ identities are protected and cannot be disclosed.

Five women testified that they were invited to Peter Nygard’s headquarters at 1 Niagara St. in Toronto under a variety of pretexts, including tours and job interviews, with all encounters culminating in a top-floor private bedroom suite where four of them were sexually abused.

Multiple complainants informed the jury that they met Peter Nygard on an aircraft, on the tarmac of an airport, or at a nightclub and later received invitations to the headquarters. All five women stated that their encounters or conversations with Peter Nygard resulted in sexual conduct they did not consent to.

He is still facing sexual assault accusations in Manitoba and Quebec. Peter Nygard has disputed all allegations against him, and none of the criminal charges he faces in Quebec, Manitoba, or the United States have been tried in court.

Related News:

Fashion Mogul Peter Nygard Convicted on 4 Counts of Sexual Assault

Fashion Mogul Peter Nygard Convicted on 4 Counts of Sexual Assault

Continue Reading

Download Our App

vornews app

Advertise Here

Volunteering at Soi Dog

Soi Dog

Trending