As the final submissions are scheduled for the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal hearing to challenge the ban on gay men donating blood to the Australian Red Cross, the organisation is advertising a Perth fundraising event with a cross-dressing theme.

A newspaper ad for the Cross Dress for Red Cross event, to be held in Perth on September 5, shows a photo of a young boy, and the boy as a man in woman’s clothing along with the words ‘His parents would be so proud’. A second ad features a woman dressed as Elvis with the tagline: ‘Do something different to make a difference’.

- Advertisement -

The ads are unusual considering the Red Cross has been branded as discriminatory and homophobic since the hearing began on August 7.

The hearing was instigated by gay man Michael Cain, 25, who was refused the opportunity to donate in 2004 because he was sexually active. Red Cross guidelines stipulate a gay or bisexual man must be celibate for 12 months before being allowed to donate.

Cain’s lawyer, Peter Tree, told the Tribunal it was “illogical and medically flawed” to ban all sexually active gay men from donating.

“The appropriate screen ought be based on unsafe sexual activity” rather than sexual preference, he said.

In defending its policy, the Red Cross cited many myths about gay men and HIV transmission. It claimed monogamy among gay men did not exist, and an assertion by US professor Dr Paul Holland that kissing and digital penetration of a nose or ear classify as a high-risk sexual activity. This is at odds with mainstream health research, which stipulates HIV is not transmitted through saliva.

It was also revealed the Red Cross ignored advice to review the donation ban.
Cross examination of Red Cross’s chief witness, Dr Brenton Wylie, revealed in 2001 its chief epidemiological advisor, Dr John Kaldor, advised that “based on current epidemiological evidence, there is no justification for excluding donors on the basis of oral sex”. He also found that the risk was far lower for those men who had only had anal sex with a condom.

The Tribunal has heard contaminated blood is more likely to come from old stocks than gay men who practice safe sex in monogamous relationships.

Dr Scott Halpern, a bio-ethicist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, asserted blood older than 15 days posed a risk of death ”thousands of times greater” than predictions of HIV infection from unsafe male-to-male sex. Blood of that age comprises 13 per cent of Australia’s supply.

Former senior government adviser Bill Bowtell said sexual activity, not sexuality, should be the basis for donor selection. He said heterosexuals urgently needed to be more thoroughly screened for unsafe sexual practices.

Michael Cain told OutinPerth his case was “strong” but that he wanted to win not for the sake of it, but because “it’s the right thing to do”.

“Some people have called me inspirational for taking on an organisation like the Red Cross, but I see this as something that should have been done, and so I did it.” But he stressed he was not on a mission for the entire community.

“This is not a pure attempt to let all gay men donate blood, it’s about safe blood supply. I’m a gay man who has safe sex and I don’t have any of these diseases.”

Closing arguments for the hearing have been postponed until September and a ruling is not likely for 12-18 months. If the Tribunal finds the donor policy discriminatory it can order it to be revoked immediately. However, Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesperson, Rodney Croome, said the Red Cross can appeal to the Supreme Court.