The mammoth XVI International Aids Conference ended yesterday. Some press accounts put the number of delegates in Toronto at 24,000, others pegged it as high as 30,000-plus. Take either number, and it's a massive gathering.

It must be quite an undertaking just to organize a meeting of this size. The logistics of travel and organization, the effort to secure funds from governments and private agencies to underwrite it, the labour that must go into setting an agenda that will meet the approval of so many different agencies, organizations and individuals attending — each must require a staggering effort.

It is plausible to ask whether a gathering of this size can honestly be called a “conference” at all, at least if, by conference, we mean an occasion for deliberation and exchange of views, an exercise in presentation, response and disinterested meditation on questions of research, policy and practice.

Considerations of this kind seem to have been behind the decision of Dr. Robert Gallo, the celebrated co-discoverer of the HIV virus, not to attend the Toronto meeting. At the 2004 conference in Barcelona, he was set upon by photographers and press as if he were a rock star, which led him to the totally wholesome reflection: “This is bad! I'm not Mick Jagger.”

He sees a “degradation” in the purposes of these meetings, their reliance on celebrities to garner attention, a “circus quality” that is inseparable from the designedly mass nature of these events. These high-profile assemblies are only conferences by courtesy of designation: In reality, they are media events. They are designed by their scale, and by the presence of their celebrity presenters, to leverage the greatest amount of world coverage for their cause. Which is an utterly legitimate ambition. A legion of causes, at any given moment, are all, sadly, in competition for the attention and consideration of the world.

And of the world's causes — which range over a terrifically bleak terrain from Darfur to malnutrition — AIDS, curse though it is, may be said, in one particular, to be better situated than most. A great platoon of great names from the world of style and performance have commended the AIDS cause to the world almost from the epidemic's outbreak. Good for the cause, and good for those who back it: It is as high on the world's agenda as it is because of the skill and dedication of those who have chosen to support it.

The meeting in Toronto — the third time the international conference has been held in Canada — will be seen as part of that success. Not every meeting will have Bill Gates, the world's richest philanthropist, as a lead speaker. And not every cause will be able to take advantage of the media magnetism of one of the world's greatest political celebrities, Bill Clinton, to bring global attention to its needs.

AIDS remains a great scourge of our times, but in the catalogue of the world's miseries, it is better placed, more prominently supported, and more widely understood than most.

On this understanding, I am a little puzzled by the acerbity of the comments that fell on Stephen Harper's head for not attending the conference. As Mr. Harper has pointed out, three ministers of his government were in attendance, as was the Governor-General.

So it is not fair to say the government of Canada was not represented, or ignored the meeting. In fact, Canada contributed $4.5-million toward holding the event.

But the tone of the criticisms coming out of the meeting, from Stephen Lewis to Richard Gere, suggested nothing less than a moral default on Mr. Harper's part for not attending. The last Canadian PM who did attend an AIDS conference was Brian Mulroney, and he got booed for his courtesy. It was very reasonable for Mr. Harper to anticipate that the same reception awaited him.

The very success of AIDS advocacy seems to have made it intemperate, and led some of its leaders to believe they have a “right” to bully and jeer, and a “right” to call people before them to bully and jeer them. Such was the reception given to Canada's Minister of Health, Tony Clement, when he, in fact, did attend the conference. This was, at best, ill manners, and less than should be expected from visitors to a world conference toward our government's representative.

It has a whiff of imperiousness derived from self-righteousness.

This is a stain on a noble effort, and a failing of courtesy. The failing of courtesy was not Stephen Harper's refusal to attend, but the pre-emptory attitude that suggested that he had to. It's something that happens, I suppose, when conferences grow so large, and those who organize them so important, they assume everyone has to oblige them.

It has a whiff of imperiousness derived from self-righteousness.

This is a stain on a noble effort, and a failing of courtesy. The failing of courtesy was not Stephen Harper's refusal to attend, but the pre-emptory attitude that suggested that he had to. It's something that happens, I suppose, when conferences grow so large, and those who organize them so important, they assume everyone has to oblige them.

I thought chretien was the last one not to attend an AIDS conference? He says mulroney...hm.

In any event, I dont really see him not attending as that much of a snub to the AIDS community. He didnt NEED to be there by any means so why prioritize it? It would probably make for great press mind you, but not much of anything else would have really been accomplished with him there.

Oh well. Ol' Harpi will shrug it off I'm sure.

It was just another "get Harper" day for the Media, and the lefts running dog lackies and obvious to regular Canadians. What was suposed to be another "Look at his hair/vest/belly, etc" turned into more support.
These traveling junkets are a load of fluff that spills money away from important things.