Madame Butterfly

*Sigh*

The last opera of my season of free opera was last night, and I attended with my friend Abby. Madame Butterfly, in a version borrowed from Australia, and starring Hiromi Omura of Japan as Cio-Cio-San. (It is, reputedly, quite rare for an actual Japanese woman to play this part, and this was her North American debut.) Richard Troxell was a very handsome (and ultimately despicable and cowardly) B.F. Pinkerton. It was beautiful.

I particularly loved the set, which was a giant box with screens that raised and lowered to create walls, windows, doors and alcoves, with a lovely 'pool' and very simple platforms as furniture. Now I want an apartment that operates just like that (maybe I could hide some clutter behind screens!).

I also have to say that I love the imagery the Opéra de Montréal uses to promote its productions. Here's this season, in order (omitting Madame Butterfly, above):

Le Bal masqué

Roméo et Juliette

Le Barbier de Séville

Atelier lyrique

Okay, the Atelier lyrique was a little less interesting as an image. They do much better for that activity in the coming season — here's the lineup:

La Fanciulla del West

Les Pêcheurs de perles


Macbeth

Lucia di Lammermoor

Starmania

Atelier lyrique : Cosi fan tutte

Now I have to tussle with the idea of buying season tickets for next year (I didn't win the contest this time around). I might accidentally end up cultured!

Latest 'Lab Porn'

(Brian called this lab porn, which I found amusing enough to steal.)

So I got my results this week, with no big changes, no big surprises.

CD4+ Absolute: 255

While this seems like a big jump, it is really about the same as it has been for quite a while. It's certainly better than when I started, as you can see from the chart, but I can't help feeling that I'm stuck on some kind of endless plateau, with actual mountains taunting me from a distance.

CD4+ Percentage: 15

They don't call this a more stable indicator for nothing. You can see how it takes the excesses out of the CD4+ Absolute chart, and how my plateau is even more visible. I think I've actually reached the point of not expecting any more rebuilding of my immune system. While that might sound dreadfully dreary, I don't think it is. I've reached a point where I'm reasonable healthy most of the time and any big boost to my immune system might actually cause me more problems with respect to my psoriatic arthritis, so I'm okay with staying on the plateau and keeping away from the edge.

Viral Load: Undetectable (<50)

Here it is plotted as it should be on a logarithmic scale. I also subscribe to the point of view of the lab that gives me the 'undetectable' results as the number just below the level of sensitivity of the test (499 for undetectable until March 1999, 49 for undetectable thereafter). That explains the two different plateau levels, and we can see that I continue to be blipless since February 2006.

I found myself in the strange position of having more trouble adhering to my 'easier' regimen of Sustiva, 3TC and Tenofovir and had to change my pill-taking time for one of them. After seven and a half years of taking Crixivan three times a day fasting and having missed possibly two or three dozen doses over that entire period, I was up to at least a dozen missed doses of Tenofovir (which I took with breakfast) in only three years. While that's still a pretty good record, I found it alarming to be a week and a half behind on the Tenofovir, so I started taking it at night with the other two.

I am also exploring switching out the Sustiva for something with less impact on my mental health and sleeping patterns. I have heard that Tibotec is allowing tolerability switches to TMC-125 (Intelence), the next generation NNRTI, so that is my plan. (It is still at the level of a compassionate access program here, only now being considered for coverage by the Conseil du medicament.)

Wish me luck.

Public Displays of What?

As I tend to do, I have been watching the news over the last couple of days and taking in the news of the man in Calgary who stabbed his tenant, his wife, two of his children and then himself. Everyone is suitably horrified and shocked, including some of the police officers arriving on the scene. I understand that — it must be unspeakably difficult to have to deal with that, or to find out that such a thing has happened in your city or in your neighbourhood.

The part I can't figure out is the impromptu memorial that grew in the yard.

When did this become an acceptable part of our behaviour in our society? Strangers, with no personal connection to the slain or the otherwise tragically killed, going out and buying flowers, teddy bears, etc. and heaping them on a lawn or some other roadside area (for car accidents) to express their grief. Perhaps the most extreme example was the hectares of rotting vegetation that marked the death of Princess Diana in that car accident in a tunnel in Paris:

People expressing their grief? Most of these 'mourners' don't even know the people they are grieving. Is there something about our wacky disconnected society that drives us to manufacture connections to the dead so that we can feel something — anything — and then express it publicly for all to see?

I understand grieving those we know. This other phenomenon is just creepy.

Friday en français - Accommodement raisonnable, partie 1

Fin d'un processus parfois difficile parfois intéressant ou début d'un débat qui va dévoiler encore plus les préjugés peu cachés de notre société? C'était le dépôt du rapport de la Commission de consultation sur les pratiques d'accommodement reliées aux différences culturelles qu'on peut télécharger en version intégrale ou abrégée ici.

Toute de suite, nous avons eu quelques signes de ce que va faire le gouvernement québécois avec les recommandations : rejet par motion appuyée unanimement par les trois parties représentées à l'Assemblée nationale de la recommandation d'enlever le crucifix du mur en arrière du président de l'Assemblée nationale. Le premier ministre prétend que ce symbole explicitement chrétien représente la culture et l'histoire du Québec et non une religion.

D'autre part, ce même premier ministre — minoritaire, il faut souligner — veut introduire une loi ou des règlements servant à obliger toute personne immigrante de jurer son adhérence à certains principes de base de notre société. Ceci me suggère deux questions : 1 - Est-ce que ces principes comprennent un accueil et une ouverture envers la différence? 2 - Quand est-ce qu'on va obliger toute personne née au Québec de jurer le même respect des principes de base?

hijab

niqab

Le symbole le plus discuté de ce débat est le hijab, la voile portée par certaines femmes musulmanes. Oublie le niqab (qui cache aussi le visage), car ceci est porté par très peu de femmes au Québec, donc le débat à cet égard ne devrait même pas être recevable. Le hijab est beaucoup plus commun et est, sans doute, un symbole de foi. J'ai un ami croyant qui m'a confié que chaque fois qu'il voit une femme portant le hijab, il fait la signe de la croix (un autre symbole de foi). Les réactions qu'il reçoit ne sont pas généralement positives. Ma première réaction était de penser qu'il posait son geste de manière défensive, ce qu'une expression de foi ne devrait pas être, mais je ne comprends pas nécessairement une réaction négative de la part de la femme dans cette situation, car son habillement sert d'expression de foi envers toute personne qu'elle rencontre.

Moi aussi, je me trouve confronté par ces symboles et expression de foi. Je me considère athée, mais je trouve que je tolère beaucoup plus facilement les hijabs, turbans, etc. que les symboles chrétiens. Ça se peut que mon statut de minorité sexuelle m'amène à avoir plus d'empathie pour les personnes des minorités culturelles, mais je suis quand même conscient que la plupart des religions m'excluraient en tant qu'homme gai. C'est peut être l'illustration de l'idiome anglais « familiarity breeds contempt. » J'ai eu plus d'années à construire un manque de tolérance pour les chrétiens, ayant été exposé pendant toute ma vie à leurs croyances.

La pire chose pour moi se trouve à l'intérieur des recommandations du rapport cité en haut. La commission recommande que les policier(e)s, les juges, et les personnes qui occupent des postes semblables aient une interdiction de porter des symboles religieux, alors que d'autres personnes — professeurs, fonctionnaires, etc. — soient libre de le faire. J'ai entendu sur la radio une entrevue avec une jeune femme qui aurait voulu devenir policière, mais qui doit maintenant changer de plan ou abandonner son expression de foi qui est le hijab.

Je trouve ça triste.

May Day, Mayday

Ah, International Workers' Day. Is there anything better? I constructed the lovely Facebook profile picture (yes, the one you see above) and smiled at the news that my friend Andy (I have such trouble calling him Andrew after meeting him as Andy) has been given a lovely honour: a Jiangsu Province May 1st Labour Glory Medal as a Model Worker. (He's teaching English in Nanjing and is quite amused by the thought of being a Model Worker.)

There was something else happening today that was not at all glorious or honourable.

It was going to be the day on which a judge in Longueuil (just to the south of Montréal) passed sentence on a woman recently convicted of sexual assault and aggravated assault. The story is not as clear as we usually like to think when the news tells us about someone being convicted of a crime; it is, in fact, muddy and not at all representative of the system of justice we all thought we had.

A brief recap of the whole story is probably in order. This woman (we'll call her D) is HIV positive. She has a child. A few years ago, at one of her child's soccer games, she met a man (we'll call him S). D and S had an adventure. D didn't disclose her HIV status, but insists that they used a condom. She didn't think it would be a good idea, in the context of someone she met at her child's soccer game and would probably not have another 'adventure' with, to disclose her status.

Next phase. S wants to pursue a relationship with D. D chooses this moment to disclose her status (new context) and S has some trouble dealing with it. After some amount of time, S reconsiders his reaction and comes back to D, again wanting to pursue a relationship with her in the full knowledge of her HIV status. They have a relationship that lasts for several years.

Next phase. S becomes abusive and actually assaults D and her child. D makes a complaint and S is prosecuted for conjugal violence. Here's where justice takes a turn for the worse. In a phenomenon that is becoming disturbingly common, S picks up on the concept that the best defence is an offence. During his trial, S makes a complaint against D: it's all about her not having disclosed her status to him during a one night adventure years ago. D is charged with sexual assault and aggravated assault. S is found guilty, but his lawyer raises the charges against D during representations on sentencing. The Crown prosecutor agrees that S has suffered a terrible injustice and joins the defence in recommending an absolute discharge (not record, no sentence, no conditions). The judge goes with that.

Next phase. D is tried and convicted of sexual assault and aggravated assault. The judge takes pains to point out that neither of the parties is credible as a witness, so he can't believe that a condom was worn, but he sees how this prosecution is probably based on feelings of revenge on the part of S. Today was going to be the sentencing. The judge, faced with a Crown prosecutor insisting on jail time and a defence insisting on nothing less than an absolute discharge, has decided to take more time, until 8 July, before deciding on the sentence.

Today, while that was unfolding in a courtroom in Longueuil, many of us were demonstrating on the streets of Montréal. There were 30-40 of us, marching from the Palais de Justice in Montréal (where the Québec Minister of Justice's offices are located) to a nondescript building in Montréal that houses the offices of the Minister of Health, chanting some slogans that might have been better conceived in terms of their rhythmic qualities and attracting some media and public attention, but not tons. Our point was to demonstrate not only the injustice of what is happening to D, but also the two-faced approach of the authorities: public health speaks of prevention as a 'shared responsibility' while justice pins the blame on the positive person. We got no official response.

This whole situation makes me really angry. What happened to a couple of decades of education of the justice system with respect to conjugal violence? How can D's HIV status ever justify her being assaulted by S? And four years later?! This tells me that every HIV+ person can be held hostage to a decision not to disclose his or her status — kind of understandable if you consider the stigma and discrimination that almost always follow that disclosure — forever. Four years of a consensual relationship in the knowledge of that HIV status doesn't erase one fearful decision to not disclose that pre-dates the relationship.

An issue that should be dealt with by public health is being criminalized. HIV positive people are being told to choose between discrimination and jail.

Hence the Mayday.

Torches and Circuses, Hypocrisy and Theocracy

It has been fascinating to watch the spectacle of the Olympic Torch Relay and its accompanying protests. I am a bit lost in the logic of where the torch was scheduled to go around the world — the choice of cities doesn't seem to have anything to do with where the Olympic Games have been or are going (San Francisco? Buenos Aires?), so I have to say I don't really get the intent. At the same time, I can't imagine that any of the Tibetan (or Tibetan wannnabe) protesters actually want the world part of the relay to be cancelled. They are getting way too much press from the spectacle as it moves from city to city, continent to continent.

I'm not sure which of these is scarier!

The games themselves, with all their attendant spectacle, are the ultimate circus. I can't help feeling sorry, however, for all those young athletes who are now being subjected to the uncertainty of calls for an Olympic boycott. Most of these kids — and they are mostly kids, except maybe for the equestrians and the lawn bowlers (oh wait, that's the Commonwealth Games, isn't it?) — have been sacrificing personal lives and other things that the rest of us take for granted just to arrive at this particular moment in time in peak condition at the top of their game.

Our political leaders, however, are openly speculating about showing their great dissatisfaction with China's human rights record in the way that will touch themselves the least. Where are the economic measures, the embargoes on exporting the raw materials of military and economic might? Why, that might hurt us, too, now that we have become dependent on the cheap labour of the Chinese populace to do all of our manufacturing for us. It would be so much easier to just take away the dreams of those kids, no?

None of this is to make light of what has happened, is happening, or might be happening in Tibet. Even here in the West, we saw some images at the beginning of this that were pretty horrific — mob violence that seemed to be targeting those who were not ethnically Tibetan — and I can't help feeling that there has been some payback that we are not seeing. Yet another 'us versus them' conflict playing out over the centuries that I find really disappointing and exasperating.

Layer that with that whole 'democracy versus dictatorship' spin that always seems to be applied to these stories, like the U.S. hasn't been spending the last seven years whittling away at the rights of its citizens and whisking away the rights of any non-citizens who happen to stray their way, or the last many decades trumpeting the superiority of a system in which fewer than half of the eligible actually bother to speak up once every four years and the parties spend all their time trying to make sure that those who oppose them are silenced.

And while there might be many points on which they differ, I challenge anyone to tell me how the opinions of these two men on the subject of homosexuality are not the same (sorry, but that is one of my most important measuring sticks).

Give me a one-party state over a theocracy any day!

Friday en français : Héros?

Lundi passé, j'ai reçu un honneur conféré par la Fondation Farha. La Fondation Farha décrit son événement comme suit :

Depuis le début de l'épidémie du sida, il y a déjà plus de vingt ans, des milliers de personnes ont démontrés courage, espoir et compassion dans leurs actions afin d'améliorer la qualité de vie des personnes vivant avec le VIH/SIDA.

Pour une septième fois, la Fondation Farha soulignera l’apport de certains de ces héros québécois. Ces derniers seront honorés lors de la soirée Hommage aux héros pour leurs actions concrètes et nécessaires, combattant sans relâche et de tous leurs âmes cette maladie et les préjugés qui s’y rattachent.

Suite à un appel public de mise en candidature, un comité consultatif a conseillé au comité exécutif de la Fondation Farha ceux et celles qui, par leurs contributions exceptionnelles dans la lutte contre le VIH/SIDA, méritent une reconnaissance publique.

Voici ce qu'on m'a remis :

Il s'agit d'un œuvre du sculpteur et activiste Armand Vaillancourt qui s'appelle Axis Mundi, créé spécifiquement pour la Fondation Farha et cet événement.

Ceci est un rendement d'une des photos qu'ils m'ont demandé d'envoyer en préparation de la soirée. On voyait le rendement en cours sur vidéo pendant que l'animateur de la soirée racontait mon histoire, m'appellant « Keith » à plusieurs reprises alors que mon vrai nom apparaissait sur l'écran derrière lui.

On peut voir sur la page de couverture du programme une petite version de la photo utilisée :

Troisième chose que j'ai reçu : quelques petites minutes devant un micro. Je termine ici avec le texte du petit discours que j'ai prononcé :

Thank you, merci beaucoup.

J’ai de la difficulté à me voir comme héros et je ne pense pas être plus héroïque que bien de gens dans ce mouvement que je vois chaque jour. Je dirais plutôt que j’ai eu le privilège de connaître des personnes qui font preuve de leur courage et de leur compassion à tous les jours. Qu’on m’accorde une place parmi eux — parmi vous — me rend fier.

I am especially moved to know that the people I work with every day at ACCM have thought so much of me as to nominate me for this. That fact alone, from a group of people who have come to be my friends and my family in Montréal, means more to me than anything else.

Comme cette reconnaissance ne signale pas la fin de mon implication dans ce mouvement (et j’espère qu’il n’y a pas trop de déception sur ce point!) et que j’ai un micro devant moi et deux petites minutes pour parler, je me permets de prendre un petit virage vers la politique pour me prononcer sur d’autres enjeux qui nous touchent tous et toutes.

Premièrement, le financement de notre mouvement. Nous nous trouvons devant un gouvernement fédéral qui semble vouloir revenir sur les promesses d’un financement adéquat pour lequel nous avons lutté pendant plusieurs années. Nous devons dénoncer clairement et avec force ce recul.

Le gouvernement n’est pas seul dans son attitude. Le VIH-Sida est devenu presque invisible dans notre société, sauf dans des cas où le public ou bien les institutions publiques veulent réagir avec peur, panique et discrimination à l’égard des personnes vivant avec le VIH.

Comment est-ce que nous nous sommes rendus à cette situation? Est-ce le contraste avec ce qui se passe en VIH ailleurs dans le monde, où les ressources alloués sont insuffisantes même au niveau des soins de santé? Est-ce la réussite de la science qui fait en sorte que les médicaments contre le VIH sont de plus en plus efficaces et de moins en moins toxiques? Est-ce que nous, les personnes vivant avec le VIH, font notre part pour sensibiliser notre société, nos entourages, nos familles, ou est-ce que nous contribuons à l’invisibilité du VIH en minimisant son impact dans nos vies et en insistant sur l’anonymat et la confidentialité à tout prix.

La seule façon que nous allons créer une société où il serait impensable de pratiquer la discrimination à l’égard des PVVIH est en prenant une page du livre de la libération gaie et lesbienne : il nous faut sortir du placard — ceux et celles qui peuvent le faire le plus facilement en premier, les autres par la suite — et il nous faut l’appui de nos alliés à toute tournure qui peut nous arriver en s’identifiant publiquement.

J’espère et j'ai confiance que nous pouvons compter sur chacun de vous de jouer votre rôle.