AIDS groups go after Ontario attorney general
HIV/AIDS NEWS / John Gerretsen has put the brakes on plans to create guidelines for HIV criminalization
Justin Ling / National / Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Share |

A coalition of Ontario HIV/AIDS groups has launched a new phase of their campaign to compel the province’s attorney general to stop prosecuting HIV-positive Ontarians for nondisclosure.
 
The new front – a letter-writing campaign – was organized by the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure and marks a ratcheting up of tensions between activists in Ontario’s HIV/AIDS community and Queen’s Park.
 
“There’s increasing anxiety about the intentions of the attorney general,” says AIDS Action Now member Tim McCaskell, who is also with the working group.
 
Attorney General John Gerretsen is the campaign’s main target.
 
Gerretsen has raised the ire of the HIV/AIDS community because his ministry continues to try to appeal cases involving criminal nondisclosure, especially those where there was no “significant risk” because the positive person had a low viral load or wore a condom.
 
AIDS groups accuse John Gerretsen of reneging on a commitment to establish prosecutorial guidelines on HIV nondisclosure.
This comes after signals from the province that legislators were looking to work with AIDS groups to establish guidelines that both sides could live with.
 
But now the province says it’s going ahead with prosecutions and is refusing to meet with any of the groups until the Supreme Court passes down two decisions.
 
“It would be premature to address prosecutorial guidelines ahead of this ruling,” a spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General told Xtra, refusing to comment further.
 
That, for McCaskell, isn’t good enough.
 
“We’re about the law; therefore, we only need to talk to lawyers,” McCaskell says, mocking the ministry.
 
“People are appalled at the lack of responsiveness from the attorney general’s office.”
 
The working group argues that if the province isn’t interested in sitting down until the Supreme Court renders its verdicts, fine, but it should put a halt on prosecutions at the same time.
Tim McCaskell says he is appalled by the attorney general's silence on the issue of HIV criminalization.
 
The two cases before the Supreme Court could have a major impact on how every province deals with nondisclosure. If Manitoba gets its way in one of the cases, the 1998 establishment of “significant risk” by the Supreme Court could be thrown out the window. That would, legally, justify Ontario’s approach.
 
The working group would much rather see the province adopt a scientific process for qualifying “significant risk” and set up guidelines about how cases of nondisclosure are dealt with. 
 
In July, Xtra reported on the attorney general's "betrayal" of the HIV community, when the province reversed its position on crafting guidelines for prosecution. The province opted for what AIDS groups called a “radical” position of arguing that risk of infection should have no role in criminal cases. That, in essence, meant that the province would push forward in prosecuting HIV-positive people who had sex – even if they wore protection or their viral loads were low, and even if transmission didn’t occur.
 
  


Share |


Reader Comments


 
A strongly worded letter...
yep, that'll do the trick. On the other hand, these so called activists and lawyers might reconsider their agreeing to the criminalization of HIV in the first place and make HIV in any form with any guidelines illegal, barbaric and unacceptable. Now that's a campaign I could get behind! Unless of course ALL transmissible diseases are given EQUAL criminality. But that means these "activists" and Lawyers would have to admit they F'd up by accepting the criminalization of HIV in the first place was a huge mistake, they shouldn't have allowed it, they shouldn't have agreed to it and understand their actions are why we are where we are now. Or maybe a strongly worded letter will do the trick after all?
puff, Toronto On
09/19/12 9:20 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
More pinkwashing by QuAIA's Tim McCaskell
AIDS activists like QuAIA's Tim McCaskell keep saying that HIV-positive people should not face criminal prosecution if they have unprotected anal sex without disclosing their HIV status to their partner, or after lying about their HIV status. In particular, they argue that since anti-HIV drugs are so effective in reducing viral load and preventing HIV-related illness, it's unlikely that infection would occur. Yet, they never seem to publicly address the fact that: (1) many sexually active people who regularly have unsafe sex with strangers, are willfully blind about whether they are HIV-positive and are therefore not taking anti-HIV drugs; (2) some HIV-positive people don't take their anti-HIV drugs properly; (3) some HIV-positive people in the bareback fetish community deliberately go off their anti-HIV drugs in order to infect an unsuspecting person with HIV in a stealth pozzing; and (4) every year, more and more gay men get infected with HIV and turn HIV-positive. Furthermore, at the same time that they lobby the Attorney General to stop HIV prosecutions because the risk of HIV transmission is allegedly so low, they also ask government, corporate and individual donors to give more and more money to AIDS service organizations so they can provide social services to the newly infected and economic support to HIV-positive people who are purportedly ill and unable to work because their anti-HIV medications aren't working. I understand the term pinkwashing refers to the promotion of a cause because it's allegedly gay-friendly, while downplaying its negative aspects. In this context, Tim McCaskell's latest campaign against the Attorney General is definitely pinkwashing. It's very similar to how Tim McCaskell's and QuAIA's campaign to demonize gay-friendly Israel, ignores how Israel's Muslim enemies persecute gays and oppress women.
Glenn, Toronto ON
09/20/12 1:06 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
EQUAL CRIMINALITY
for ALL transmissible diseases now! EQUAL PERSECUTION for all and stop the brain washing now!
puff, Toronto ON
09/20/12 1:33 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
bad leaders ruin causes
Touche Glenn. I was sympathetic to this cause until I saw the picture of the QAIA leader. Anything that nut is associated with is poisoned for me. This cause needs a new spokesperson fast.
El Topo, Toronto Ontario
09/20/12 7:34 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Yep
I've gotta agree with Glenn.
Alex, Halifax ns
09/20/12 8:32 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Yeah right....
it's not like the intentionally discriminatory persecution of HIV (Gay Men)people has any CLEAR historical references such as Hitler's determination to get rid of "bacilli".
puff, Toronto ON
09/20/12 8:46 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Laws need to be fixed not scrapped
No matter how much I read about this I will never understand why this is an issue, all that has to be done is you tell someone you are about to have sex with your status, it doesn't make it illegal for positive people to have sex, they just have to respect the people they are having sex with. There are problems with the law, like currently there have been 5 people (since the ruling was made) who have been prosecuted for not disclosing their HIV status when they wore condemns. This is a problem and should be addressed because they was not much chance of harm. But completely decriminalizing non-disclosure is unfair to the people who unknowingly contract HIV/AIDS. And to address Puff's point, statistically the vast majority of those prosecuted under the law have been heterosexual men, not gay men.
Jewels, Toronto On
09/20/12 5:56 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Why is there no comment from the government?
In Xtra’s latest breach of journalistic ethics, the other side of the story was not asked for comment.
Joe Clark, Toronto ON
09/20/12 10:22 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Origins of AIDS Documentary Film
Thanks for posting this. HIV/AIDS is the one of the main threat now in this world. There should be solution to eradicate this problem and cooperation from all in every part of the society. Today I watched documentary film about the Origins of AIDS. I suggest you to watch this if you did n't watch yet. http://www.thegreatplanet.com/the-origins-of-aids-documentary/
Sandeep Sabir, Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi
09/21/12 2:41 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
advocates have fought criminalization
Hey Puff, I wish you would stop telling falsehoods. You say: "so called activists and lawyers might reconsider their agreeing to the criminalization of HIV in the first place and make HIV in any form with any guidelines illegal, barbaric and unacceptable". THIS IS NOT TRUE. Community advocates and activists did not "agreed" to criminalizaiton in the first place. In fact, they have been fighting cromoinalization of HIV non-disclosure since the mid-1990s. In contrast, the police, crown proesecutors, the courts, and some individuals in the gay and HIV communities did agree criminalization and pushed it through. [You ony have to look at reader comments in XTRA to see that there is significant support for criminalization from within the LGBT community.] In fact, it was the Supreme Court that criminalized HIV non-disclosure in the 1998 Cuerrier case. A coalition of HIV community and legal groups argued that HIV non-disclosure SHOULD NOT BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Here is the positon they put forward, quoted by the Supreme Court at paragraph 140: "Interveners submitted that the criminal law is not the most effective tool for dealing with HIV transmission. They argued that public health initiatives are more appropriately employed to control the spread of HIV and AIDS. They submitted that provinces have established a wide network of testing, education, counselling and support services for people infected by HIV/AIDS. Additionally, it was argued that all Canadian provinces have in place comprehensive public health legislation which gives public health authorities broad powers which can be exercised for the protection of public health." Take a look: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii796/1998canlii796.html Puff, what have you done to fight cirmialization of HIV non-disclosure? Your voice and passion are needed. I hope that you have been invlved and will continiue to be involved, beyond writing comments in XTRA.
JGB, Toronto Ontario
09/21/12 4:10 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Ethics
Hey Joe, I’ll just point out that I did, indeed, contact the government. See that part where I quote the Attorney General’s Office refusal to comment? That is their comment.
Justin Ling, Montreal Quebec
09/22/12 10:52 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
I stand corrected
I swear to God I read the entire piece – but I still missed the attribution.
Joe Clark, Toronto ON
09/22/12 2:41 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Hey JGB
NOT TRUE. ......Please read the article here........................http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Time_to_stand_against_the_criminalization_of_HIV-7529.aspx.......................... Your suggestion that there was any significant activism to prevent this HIV Criminalization by these organizations you apparently represent is simply disingenuous, to be kind. It is a revisionist narrative. Thank you.
puff, Toronto On
09/22/12 9:37 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Hey JGB, part 2
All legal and ground activism must be directed towards accepting the fact that the legal minor irrelevant fluffy feel-good arguments made by lawyers and so-called activists in 1998 were bound to failure. Accept that playing ball with the government on this issue is also a non-starter. Get rid of everyone in these organizations that isn't on board with NO CRIMINALIZATION of HIV EVER under any circumstance. Then we can begin strategizing and act to ensure that this Nazi discriminatory barbaric act of persecution is granted for ALL transmissible diseases. Tear the Courts 1998 finding to shreds, start filling the courts and don't stop until disclosure of ALL Transmissible Diseases are treated EQUALLY. Then this voice is the one that should be of the activist, not his pussy footing around, not strongly worded letters. EQUAL treatment under the law. In spite of your perhaps naive views the article link in the my above post clearly shows that HALCO just isn't there, not even close nor are others you represent. See the dilemma? There's a huge mis-direct going on in this so called fight. Whose behind that? I don't know? But you're on the inside why not let us all know? I think it's important that things are really clear. Revising and pretending things are different or that there isn't a significant threat against HIV people just isn't helpful.
puff, Toronto ON
09/22/12 10:09 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
According to Health Canada
approximately 8000 people die every year of the flu and approximately up to 1000 people die of HIV/AIDS. Maybe from contacting the flu? I think those who knowingly spread the flu should also be criminally charged, it only makes sense and they are much more dangerous.
Adam, Hamilton on
09/22/12 10:54 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Medical evidence that HIV activists don’t like dis
The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to issue its decision in the Mabior case later this year. In January 2004, Mabior was diagnosed as HIV-positive. Subsequently, over a period of approximately two years, Mabior engaged in unprotected - or effectively unprotected - sex with a series of women and young girls. One was twelve years old. He did not tell any of them that he was HIV-positive. In one case, he lied about it when asked. Lawyers for the Attorney General of Manitoba set out arguments in favour of criminal sanction for Mabior in their factum, which you can read on the Supreme Court of Canada website at http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/fac-mem-eng.aspx?cas=33976 (click on the link for Appellant – Her Majesty the Queen). Paragraphs 17, 18 and 23 of the factum set out the following medical evidence on HIV (which HIV activists don’t like discussing when they advocate for no criminal sanctions for failing to disclose one’s HIV status, or lying about one’s HIV status, to sexual partners): (1) HIV is an incurable, lifelong infection. (2) If left untreated, HIV progresses to AIDS, and AIDS results in death. (3) For those who become infected, HIV is a life altering disease both physically and emotionally. (4) Individuals with HIV must take medications every day and the condition is potentially lethal if they do not have access to treatment or fail to take their medications. (5) Even with treatment, HIV infection can still lead to devastating illnesses and death. (6) The sexual transmission of HIV has been widely studied. The rates of transmission vary widely from study to study. Factors affecting the rates include the type of sex act, the individual's viral load and other infections associated with other illness. (7) The risk is cumulative. The risk of transmission increases depending on the number of times an infected person has intercourse with a partner. (8) Risk of HIV transmission for unprotected sexual intercourse ranges from 0.05 per cent (1 in
Glenn, Toronto ON
09/22/12 11:11 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Medical evidence, part 2
(8) Risk of HIV transmission for unprotected sexual intercourse ranges from 0.05 per cent (1 in 2000) to 0.26 per cent (1 in 384). Transmission probabilities cannot be measured with exact precision. (9) Proper use of condoms reduces but does not eliminate the risk of transmitting HIV. (10) A viral load test reflects only the subject's viral level at a moment in time. Viral loads can spike depending on a host of factors including, a missed dosage of medication, a common infection, a sexually transmitted disease, or a Vitamin A deficiency. In short, the factum is an antidote to the pinkwashing of HIV activists.
Glenn, Toronto ON
09/22/12 11:14 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Ah I saw what you did there Glenn...
HIV people are also pedophiles, huh? As to the medical "evidence" you presented, like all things, these things are constructed and most often with bias and financial interests leading the findings.I'm also fully aware of at least two of your "medical" findings that are factually incorrect. As to figures, while figures don't lie, liars can figure, basic University Statistics 101. All transmissible diseases must be treated equally. Persecution of those with HIV is wrong. Like Adam, I think if you have the Flu and you knowingly make the decision to spread this disease to people on a Subway for instance without disclosure, knowing that the chances exist of some of these riders are immune-suppressed, and considering the death rate of the Flu is so high for these vulnerable people then they MUST be criminally charged. Equal criminality.
puff, Toronto ON
09/23/12 12:27 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Mabior’s sexual partners, part 1
We are not talking about the flu. We are talking about sexual assault. A lower court convicted Mabior of six counts of aggravated sexual assault because he did not disclose his HIV status (or lied about his HIV status) to his sexual partners. That non-disclosure vitiated his partners’ consent to sex. Without disclosure of HIV status, there cannot be true consent. The consent cannot simply be to have sexual intercourse. Rather, it must be consent to have intercourse with a partner who is HIV-positive. True consent cannot be given if there has not been a disclosure by an accused of his HIV-positive status. Although the identity of the complainants in the Mabior case is protected by a publication ban, the factum of the Manitoba Attorney General (see link in my earlier post above) gives some information on their sad circumstances.
Glenn, Toronto ON
09/23/12 9:08 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Mabior’s sexual partners, part 2
(1) Mabior was diagnosed as HIV-positive on January 14, 2004. He was thoroughly advised by doctors and nurses as to the potential outcomes of unprotected sexual intercourse. He was also told that he should use an unexpired latex condom every time he had sex and that he had to tell all sexual partners about his HIV-positive status. (2) Between February of 2004 and December of 2005, Mabior had sexual intercourse with many different women in two different cities in Manitoba. Many of the encounters were preceded by alcohol and/or drug use. (3) The incidents in Winnipeg occurred in Mabior’s home on Sherbrook Street. His house was often frequented by vulnerable underage aboriginal girls, who were drawn there by easy access to alcohol and drugs (provided by Mabior and other men) and a place to stay. Three of the complainants were there for those purposes. (4) One complainant was 12 years old when she had unprotected intercourse with Mabior. Another complainant was 17 years old. (5) Mabior never advised any of the complainants that he was HIV-positive, and in one case lied about his status when asked. With the exception of the 12 year old, all the complainants testified that had they known he was HIV-positive, they would not have willingly had sexual intercourse with him. In any event, the 12 year old could not legally have given her consent since he was underage.
Glenn, Toronto ON
09/23/12 9:10 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Mabior’s sexual partners, part 3
(1) Mabior met the first complainant, M.P., in February 2004 in Brandon, Manitoba. Between February and April 2004, they engaged in sexual intercourse on about 10 or 11 occasions. While condoms were sometimes used, there was unprotected sex on a number of occasions. (2) The second complainant, K.R., had sexual intercourse with Mabior between April and November of 2004, also in Brandon. She and Mabior used condoms every time they had sex. However, on three or four occasions the condom broke during intercourse. (3) The complainant, K.G., had sexual intercourse one time with Mabior in June 2004, again in Brandon. Although she was intoxicated at the time they had sex, she was pretty sure that a condom was used. (4) By February 2005, Mabior had moved to Winnipeg. Mabior met the complainant, S.H., at his home and between February and April 2005. They had sexual intercourse for about one month on a daily basis. Initially, during the first week of their relationship a condom was used. However after the first week the complainant asked Mabior if he had an STD or if he had anything and he responded no. Because the complainant was on birth control at the time, they engaged in sex without a condom for the remaining three weeks of their relationship. (5) Mabior had sexual intercourse with the fifth complainant, D.C.S., commencing in August 2005, when D.C.S. was 12 years old and a ward of Child and Family Services. She would visit his residence for easy access to alcohol. They had sex approximately 10-15 times over the course of several months. She is the only complainant who continued to have sex with Mabior after learning from a third party that he was HIV-positive. (6) In December 2005, Mabior commenced sexual relations with the final complainant, D.H, who was 17 years old. She engaged in sexual intercourse with Mabior on several occasions, sometimes without a condom.
Glenn, Toronto ON
09/23/12 9:31 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
"We are talking about sexual assault."
NO we're not! You're talking about sexual assault, which informs me of the fuel feeding this rabidity of yours. The Xtra article is clear, it is addressing criminalization and persecution of people who have HIV, who in Canada just happen conveniently to be GAY MEN! Sexual Assault is Sexual Assault. It has NOTHING to do with HIV. The FLU is much more dangerous and those who assault/transmit the FLU are tantamount to Second-Degree MURDER suspects in my mind, for placing immune-suppressed people at serious risk. More people DIE of the FLU every year. Subways and public places are FILLED with immune-suppressed people, you telling me they don't count? They should feel safe. People are knowingly walking about with the FLU not caring who they give it to. Now that's assault with intent to kill! Make all laws equal. This brainwashing you're trying to do just doesn't fly, there is no logic, no equanimity and most certainly no equality.
puff, Toronto ON
09/23/12 10:34 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
HIV:lifelong debilitating illness --unlike the Flu
There are worse things than death... For those who live, HIV creates a lifelong debilitating illness --unlike the Flu. Even with a low viral load, HIV+ people suffer from complications with medication, opportunistic diseases, cancers, depression. Why wish that on any unsuspecting person. HIV is much worse than the Flu and for much longer. The two are not comparable. Disclosure is a must. Non-disclosure is unethical and the equivalent to sexual assault. HIV+ people who cannot think of the welfare of others should be prosecuted. No infection rate statistic is meaningful if you are the one who was given the sentence of a life-long HIV infection. Furthermore people who are infected by a non-disclosing HIV+ sex partner should have the right to sue for financial compensation for medical expenses and emotional suffering.
Joe, TO ON
09/23/12 10:59 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
"There are worse things than death."
So this is what we've come to? Thanks for the info regarding those who live with HIV+ Joe. Have you ever seen an HIV+ person hospitalized near death for over a month (setting them back at least 2 years)because some pig knowingly infected them with FLU hacking and coughing in their face? You're right Joe in that they are not comparable. The FLU is much more damaging and severe with complications that can go on for a very long time, and as we know death is much more likely by a long shot with the FLU. I support Equal Prosecution for all.
puff, Toronto ON
09/23/12 11:13 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
AIDS vs. the flu
AIDS and HIV are much more serious than the flu. That’s why there are so many publicly-funded AIDS service organizations and so many AIDS activist groups, yet none for the flu. For example, either at the national level or in Toronto alone, we have the AIDS Committee of Toronto, the Toronto People With AIDS Foundation, AIDS ACTION NOW!, Casey House, Fife House, Black Coalition for AIDS Prevention, Africans in Partnership Against AIDS (APAA) of Toronto, Alliance for South Asian AIDS Prevention (ASAAP), Asian Community AIDS Services, Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples - AIDS Prevention Program, VIVER - Portuguese-Speaking HIV/AIDS Coalition, Voices of Positive Women, Positive Youth Outreach, Mother-Risk - HIV Health Line, Prisoners' HIV/AIDS Support Action Network, HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO), Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange, Canadian AIDS Society, Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network and the Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research (CANFAR).
Glenn, Toronto ON
09/23/12 12:07 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Um, ok...
So the seriousness of a disease in spite of ALL evidence to the contrary is determined by how many publicly funded organizations there are? Sure. Whatever you say Glenn. The issue is NOT the transmission of disease, the issue is SEX, considering the numbers of Gay Men with HIV in Toronto is roughly around 78%, which hasn't changed by the way in 30 years, (you know, because viruses discriminate) then the issue is the Criminalization and persecution of GAY MEN having SEX. But mostly just sex. That's the issue. It's not the transmission of disease. It never has been. It has nothing to do with health, or transmission of anything, if it did the 1998, SCOC ruling wouldn't have happened. It's about sex. It's about shaming. It's about degrading people. It's about persecution. It is NOT about transmission of anything. There is no evidence to support such a stupid and ridiculous notion. And it most certainly is not about equality and human rights. It is about putting the undesirables into death camps (prisons) where they will die. It is about criminalizing and dehumanizing them. It is NOT about transmission. It is about marginalization, it is about cleansing. It is about removing freedom to love by those that hate. It is about targeting one group over another and punishing them, taking them out of society and removing their potential. It is about putting them in death camps also known as prison. How do you think the immune-suppressed do in such death camps? It is about Sex. It has nothing to do with transmission of anything because if it were then those with other diseases such as Hep for instance would be treated equally brutal. It is about sex. It is not about transmission. It is about assuming 2 men who have sex are committing crimes of sexual assault. It is putting everyone on notice and it is meant to instill fear and submission. But then again I could be wrong. I'm open to that.
puff, Toronto ON
09/23/12 4:58 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
None of this
is going to turn out well at all. I have no doubt that people such as Tim, Glenn (whoever your are) and others in the aid$ industry mean well. Just like those in the poverty industry mean well. Although often times these well-meaning sentiments also come with social, material and upward mobility legitimacy, I still think most mean well. I have a differing worldview, I discern evidence differently and I see terrible and horrific things happening to HIV people in this Country. it already is. In spite of differing views, one thing is clear, it's not going to end well for those with HIV. I fear for them all.
puff, Toronto On
09/23/12 5:46 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
And so it begins...
puff, maybe you should start the Influenza Committee of Toronto (ICT) and apply for government grants from various public health authorities. Then you could form Influenza Action Now! (IAN) and get some people to protest outside government offices until ICT got the governmnet grants. ICT would be a non-profit charity that could issue tax receipts for donations from corporations and individuals. However, since registered charities can't engage in political activities, you would rely on IAN to do your politics.
Ron, Toronto Ontario
09/23/12 5:53 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
“Knowingly” infecting others with HIV is violence
HIV prosecution is not about Gays. Straits are also prosecuted for putting others at risk of catching a life-long debilitating disease. And most Gays also ask for legal apprehension of HIV+s spreading HIV, because whether they do it willfully or through neglect, someone new will catch HIV and suffer for the rest of their lives. PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE HIV ARE FEARFUL OF GETTING IT. This is a natural and practical fear, related to SELF-PRESERVATION, which in turn prevents many people of engaging in risky sex. The ones who put others at risk of catching a lifelong debilitating illness from them, should be prosecuted --as they care more about their own pleasure at any cost than the safety of others. The “protect yourself” slogan is only half of the equation for a functioning society. The other half is to care about and be responsible for others. Those who don't care about the safety of others should be removed from society. Those who don't have the intelligence/maturity of “deferred gratification” in sex that could harm others, should indeed be gotten off the streets by legal force --like bank robbers or violent rapists. Passing HIV to someone, when it could be prevented is indeed a form of violence and a crime. There is only a degree of difference between passive-aggressive violence and overt violence. When people end up suffering for the rest of their lives through an action by others that could have been prevented, the anger and despair they feel is all the more intense. Yes! Those who willfully harm others should be shipped off to camps with similar uncaring others. They will all treat eachother with scorn and selfishly get whatever they can whenever they can --no matter who suffers for it. That is jail; that is hell on earth. If that's the type you are, then that's where you belong.
Joe, TO ON
09/23/12 7:37 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Hey I agree Joe, as long as it's equal
prosecution. For instance let me quote you but change a word here or there.........."Passing the FLU or HEPC to someone,(especially the vulnerable immune-suppressed)when it could be prevented is indeed a form of violence and a crime. There is only a degree of difference between passive-aggressive violence and overt violence. When people end up suffering or more commonly DIE (unlike HIV) through an action by others that could have been prevented, the anger and despair they feel is all the more intense. Yes! Those who willfully harm others should be shipped off to camps with similar uncaring others. They will all treat eachother with scorn and selfishly get whatever they can whenever they can --no matter who suffers for it. That is jail; that is hell on earth. If that's the type you are, then that's where you belong." I agree Joe. It's just that nagging and inconvenient little thing about Equal prosecution.
puff, Toronto ON
09/23/12 7:56 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
The law is not against gay men
"The Xtra article is clear, it is addressing criminalization and persecution of people who have HIV, who in Canada just happen conveniently to be GAY MEN!"- Puff the vast majority of those who have been prosecuted because of non-disclosure have been heterosexual men, not gay men.
Jewels, Toronto Ontario
09/24/12 1:47 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Visitors to the Hajj
The Federal Government is advising visitors to the Islamic site to get vaccinated 6 weeks before they leave. Life threatening and deadly diseases that visitors are at high risk of getting and bringing back to Canada include meningococcal disease, tuberculosis, influenza, and gastrointestinal infection to name a few.........http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/tmp-pmv/thn-csv/hajj-eng.php........Here's my question, are those who REFUSE to be vaccinated and therefore placing me at risk, are they going to be charged criminally? I can easily die from any one of these diseases. I ride public transit. I'm at risk. I haven't agreed to have anything to do with these people, such as s/f action. Their disease spreading therefore, like others is criminal assault isn't it? I would also suggest that refusing vaccinations prior to such a trip is intent.
Guy, Toronto ON
10/02/12 12:22 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.