+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38
  1. #1
    Banned.

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,549
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Fenrir

    Canada considers making it illegal to not disclose HIV/AIDS status to sexual partners

    Supreme Court of Canada: Her Majesty the Queen v. Clato Lual Mabior

    The country's top court is hearing the case of two HIV-positive people who did not disclose their medical condition to their sexual partners.

    Lawyers for Clato Mabior are appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada on Wednesday to argue that Canadian law criminalizes carriers of HIV — the virus that causes AIDS — and does not acknowledge variations in transmission levels.

    CBC's Maureen Brosnahan said a core issue facing the Supreme Court judges is how to decide what is considered significant risk of infection. That was not defined in the 1998 decision that said it was a crime to hide HIV-positive status from a sexual partner.

    "Back then, HIV was still considered pretty much a death sentence, and now since then, with new medications … [HIV carriers] can actually lower what's called their viral load, so the chances of them transmitting the disease really becomes really almost theoretical," Brosnahan said.

    The court has so far heard from Manitoba Crown attorney Elizabeth Thomson, who has taken "a very hard line" on the issue, she said.

    "Her view is regardless of science, regardless of viral loads, regardless of risk, she says if you've got HIV, it's a lifelong chronic illness, and she believes there should be disclosure regardless," Brosnahan said.

    "Needless to say, the judges are challenging her."

    Winnipeg-based Mabior was sentenced to prison in 2008 for 14 years after he was found guilty of having unprotected sex with four females and protected sex with two others, including a 12-year-old girl.

    Mabior's convictions hinged on his failure to inform his sexual partners that he has HIV. Four of the convictions were later overturned on appeal.

    None of his partners were infected with HIV as a result of their contact with him.

    At the time of Mabior's appeal, court heard that medical tests showed he had a low level of infection between 2002 and 2004, the period in which the sexual encounters took place.

    Mabior's lawyers argued that his risk of transmitting HIV to his partners was therefore low.

    However, the Crown argued that Mabior did not ever disclose his HIV status to his sexual partners, therefore denying them the right to consent or refuse to engage in sexual activity with him.

    The Supreme Court will also hear arguments from lawyers representing a Quebec woman who had unprotected sex with her former spouse without first informing him that she was HIV-positive.

    A publication ban prevents naming the woman, who is referred to in Supreme Court documents only as "D.C."

    The woman was found guilty of sexual assault and aggravated assault, but that conviction was later overturned on the basis that her viral load was undetectable during the period that the charges covered.

    A number of organizations will appear at the Supreme Court hearing, including the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, L'institut national de santé publique du Québec, and the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario.

    The court's ruling may not benefit Mabior, a Sudanese refugee, as he is set to be deported to Sudan later this month.

    Mabior has been awaiting deportation for over a year since he completed his prison sentence. Immigration officials have been keeping him in Canada to date due to political strife in Sudan.

    Tim McCaskell, a Toronto HIV/AIDS activist, warned that a decision from the Supreme Court requiring that all infected individuals disclose their condition could lead to greater risk of HIV spreading.

    He reasoned that some people living with the virus may not seek diagnosis out of fear of being prosecuted in the future for knowingly carrying it.

    "I would be very afraid for the health of Canadians, because I certainly think that would discourage testing," he told CBC News on Wednesday. "If people don't test, they don't get treated. If they don't get treated, the viral load increases, and then they become very infectious, and then they can't tell someone that they're positive or negative because then they don't know."

    David Eby, president of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, worries that the creation of a new type of offence under aggravated sexual assault increases the stigma against people with HIV.

    The lack of clear guidelines on the laws across Canada is also problematic, he said, noting that the courts have not considered the lowered risk of transmission when a person uses a condom or takes antiretroviral drugs.

    "Courts have interpreted whether or not someone is wearing a condom as potentially reducing the level below significant risk, but people have also been convicted in situations where they've used a condom," Eby told CBC News from Vancouver.

    He added that criminalizing non-disclosure of HIV status won't necessarily provide the public with any additional protection.

    "It may in fact provide the public with a false sense of security," Eby argued, because people may have unprotected sex, presuming their partner must be HIV negative because of the disclosure laws.

    An estimated 75,000 people in Canada were living with HIV at the end of 2009, according to the Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control.

    Since the 1998 Supreme Court ruling, more than 130 people have been charged for not disclosing their HIV-positive status to their sexual partners, Brosnahan reported.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/.../hiv-scoc.html

  2. #2

    how is this enforceable at all?

  3. #3
    Ksandra Needs To Post Tits
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,439
    BG Level
    7

    All HIV/AIDs infected people will be required to wear a red ribbon on their clothing to let everyone know they're a dirty jew slut.

  4. #4
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,932
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    I can't wait to see the ridiculous arguments against this.

  5. #5
    Pandemonium
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7,888
    BG Level
    8
    FFXIV Character
    Charles Barkley
    FFXIV Server
    Faerie
    FFXI Server
    Quetzalcoatl

    Mystery Mithra

    Winnipeg-based Mabior was sentenced to prison in 2008 for 14 years after he was found guilty of having unprotected sex with four females and protected sex with two others, including a 12-year-old girl.
    And all he got was 14 years, and thats with other offenses included? Wow. Canada.

    That happens in America and its 15 years. 25 years if its the South. Life if they factor in he could've given the girl GAYDS had the monstrous heathen broken the condom while deflowering the poor southern belle.

    Spoiler: show
    Don't mean to imply HIV/AIDS is only for gay people, but thats how Bible Belt idiots see it.

  6. #6

    I'm HIV positive and I absolutely support this. I would never, under any circumstances, have sex with someone without telling them.

    well maybe if we jacked off together, but that's it.

    although, that does bring up a good question... what defines sexual activity? because you can't get it if I blow you, or if we masturbate together. the law should be clear and limited to the scope of sexual acts that can be expected to have a reasonable risk of transmission... and the question of whether a .001% risk of transmission is reasonable or not makes this a lot more complicated than it seems.

    so yeah, I changed my mind. I like this in theory, and it should be a common practice among any decent human being with HIV, but as a law... it's gonna be complicated.

  7. #7
    Black Belt
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    5,741
    BG Level
    8

    this law would still operate under the overarching canadian law where if you say 'I'm so sorry eh' after doing something bad then it's all good

  8. #8
    Raised by Chocobos
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    25,615
    BG Level
    10

    I think it should be legally required in any situation in which penetration occurs (yes, including if you blow someone and you have HIV). Partners should be able to make informed sexual decisions, and they cannot unless a known HIV+ person tells them as much. The person with HIV shouldn't be able to decide "my meds are working well, my viral load is very low, it's not a risk" - whether it is a risk should be a determination that the at-risk person has a chance to make.

    Even if you don't get HIV from contact, the realization that it's a possibility is devastating when you could've prevented said possibility. I got a false-positive Hepatitis test once and it was the worst day of my life, even though it turned out to be false.

  9. #9
    king future
    King Past of the House of Weave

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,604
    BG Level
    6
    FFXI Server
    Phoenix

    Are there honestly people out there that think it's ok to keep your HIV a secret from a sex partner? That argument would be a tough sell.

  10. #10

    Would be a quick way to disappear off the face of the planet if it happened to me.

  11. #11
    I'm not safe on my island
    Nikkei will still get me.

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    20,118
    BG Level
    10

    I'm a bit conflicted between the idea of stigmatizing people with HIV/AIDs further, and helping keep infection rates down. Trying to avoid the situation where someone gets infected because their partner never told them is also a good reason. A friend of ours was infected a few weeks ago; he never knew his partner had the virus because he was never told about it. When they decided to have unprotected sex, the infected partner didn't fess up because he was afraid of losing his boyfriend, since refusing to have unprotected sex would have been an admission that something was wrong.

  12. #12

    That guy should get the chair yo

  13. #13

    Quote Originally Posted by Tagus View Post
    Are there honestly people out there that think it's ok to keep your HIV a secret from a sex partner? That argument would be a tough sell.
    Yes.

    Doesn't that suck?

    Enter: The Gov't

  14. #14
    Pied Piper of the Homos
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,981
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    That guy should get the chair yo
    Then so should over 50% of sexually active adults... based on that logic with all STD/STIs.

    Then it also comes down to whether or not the person knows they're infected. With a 6 month incubation period before being able to know if you're infected or not, a lot of shit can happen then.

  15. #15

    I forget, can you die from crabs

  16. #16
    Atheist Douchebag.
    Pony Slayer of the House of Weave

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,537
    BG Level
    7
    FFXIV Character
    Zetanio Breaux
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Odin

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I forget, can you die from crabs

  17. #17
    Black Belt
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    5,741
    BG Level
    8

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I forget, can you die from crabs

  18. #18
    Pied Piper of the Homos
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,981
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I forget, can you die from crabs
    And you immediately die from getting HIV/AIDs?

  19. #19
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,932
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuya View Post
    I'm a bit conflicted between the idea of stigmatizing people with HIV/AIDs further, and helping keep infection rates down. Trying to avoid the situation where someone gets infected because their partner never told them is also a good reason. A friend of ours was infected a few weeks ago; he never knew his partner had the virus because he was never told about it. When they decided to have unprotected sex, the infected partner didn't fess up because he was afraid of losing his boyfriend, since refusing to have unprotected sex would have been an admission that something was wrong.
    It's not like it's a sexual predator's list. It's a conference between two people that (hopefully) know each other. It's not even an issue worth blackmailing unless you break the law. You can't threaten to tell your EX's new partner because the person is going to have to disclose the information anyways. It's also not necessarily the case that it stays a secret either. Once they infect someone, it's pretty damn obvious what happened. There's as much "public" information as before. All this does is demand it within private relations.

  20. #20
    I'm not safe on my island
    Nikkei will still get me.

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    20,118
    BG Level
    10

    I'm probably in agreement with laws requiring disclosure of HIV status during certain circumstances. My reasoning is probably that people need more motivation to move them towards disclosure, since there's plenty of animus that motivates people to not tell their partners when they engage, particularly, in unprotected sex. It won't save everyone from catching HIV, but every little bit helps. I'm just concerned that people might find it hard to tell their partners out of fear, so perhaps laws might help counter this drive.