Forums on HIV disclosure underway across Canada
HIV CRIMINALIZATION / Groups hope to contain use of criminal law to prosecute poz peeps
Kevin Allen / National / Monday, March 01, 2010
Share |

Cécile Kazatchkine, a policy analyst for the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.
(courtesy of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network)
As more poz people have been charged with not disclosing their HIV status before having sex, there's a greater need than ever to understand what Canada's criminal law says about HIV disclosure. 

The law says that you are required to disclose your status before engaging in sexual intercourse that represents a "significant risk" of HIV transmission, yet the concept of "significant risk" is very much open to interpretation.

Helping to sort out where we stand are the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange (CATIE), in partnership with local AIDS service organizations. These groups are co-hosting a series of community forums across the country.

"Significant risk is an imprecise term and creates confusion for HIV-positive people and their sex partners," says Cécile Kazatchkine, a policy analyst for the Legal Network. "For instance, while courts have clearly decided that vaginal or anal sex without a condom poses a significant risk of HIV transmission, it is not clear what other sexual activities can lead to criminal prosecutions and convictions."

The forums are meant to present this information in an accessible way. Lawyer and community advocate Glenn Betteridge, on his second tour of duty, will moderate the forums and help translate the legal jargon. In 2009, the forums were presented in some of the largest Canadian cities, but in 2010 more regional centres were targeted.

"Information [is] wanted in smaller centres and this set of forums is in response to that need," says Kazatchkine. "Our long-term hope is that these community forums together will support a larger community response for containing the use of criminal law in this area."

In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that you could be charged with aggravated assault for failing to disclose your HIV-positive status to a sex partner before having unprotected sex. Since then, an increasing number of HIV-positive people, including many gay men, have been charged and convicted of violent offences ranging from aggravated sexual assault to murder.

It is morally dubious to deliberately expose a sex partner to a potentially lethal virus, but a growing chorus of activists and researchers are saying HIV criminalization is fraught with injustice. They argue variously that criminalization hampers HIV-prevention efforts, fans the flames of HIV stigma, is rooted in misinformation and hysterical fear, puts the responsibility to protect sexual health entirely and unfairly on the shoulders of people living with HIV, turns gay men against each other and serves only to further victimize poz people.

The Legal Network has intervened in appellate court cases around Canada, ensuring that judges and juries are aware of the potential impacts of their decisions.

"Part of the solution lies with developing prosecutorial guidelines to avoid inappropriate and overly broad use of the criminal law," says Kazatchkine. "Such guidelines would help police and Crown prosecutors handle HIV-related criminal complaints in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. They can help ensure cases are informed by current medical and scientific knowledge about HIV and the social contexts of living with HIV."

— with files from Matt Mills


Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.
aidslaw.ca.

Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange.
catie.ca.

Forum dates and locations:

catie.ca/eng/GetInvolved/HDL2010.shtml.
Upcoming forums are scheduled for Hamilton, Kitchener, Kelowna, Victoria, St-Jérôme, Trois-Rivières.



Share |


Reader Comments


 
"Deliberate" HIV exposure?
Some version of this sentence has appeared in almost all of Xtra's coverage of this issue: "It is morally dubious to deliberately expose a sex partner to a potentially lethal virus." That's a shame because it reinforces the paranoid fantasies of HIV-negative people instead of confronting and addressing them. Virtually no one would disagree with that sentence, so why even make this point? The vast majority of people charged in these cases have neither infected anyone nor "deliberately" tried to. They are busted simply for keeping their HIV status to themselves, even if they also kept their HIV to themselves.
John Briars, Toronto ontario
03/01/10 4:58 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Ed's note
Hi John. You touch on an important point. I'm the author of that sentence. I agree that it appears in much of our work on HIV criminalization, that it is somewhat indisputable and that on its own it speaks directly to paranoia. In our early work on this we didn't include that point, it was conspicuous in its absence, and much of the reader feedback seemed to indicate that many were entirely missing the larger argument: that HIV criminalization is hugely problematic. We have subsequently included that passage, from our duh files, in an effort to aknowldge the point concisely for those stuck on the expectation that government should act as guardian of sexual health. It's an attempt to cleave a moral concept from a legal one. It helps to diffuse the too simple and deeply flawed "but it's wrong to infect others" argument. And my sense is that it has been effective, which is why we keep using it. Thanks for pointing this out and thanks for reading.
Matt Mills, Toronto Ont
03/02/10 6:28 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Cite?
'The vast majority of people charged in these cases have neither infected anyone nor "deliberately" tried to.' Cite?
LE, Montreal QC
03/02/10 10:53 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Here's the problem though
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Mr Mills. Still, I think it would be a million times better if your sentences read: "Though it is morally dubious to deliberately expose a sex partner to a potentially lethal virus, intentional infection is extremely rare. But even in those cases, a growing chorus..." Here is why. Not making that point inadvertently but genuinely contributes to HIV stigma -- why? Because the reality is that almost no one at all really on purpose wants to pass on their HIV. And the reality is that anyone can slip up when it comes to safer sex, poz or neg guys alike. When a neg guy does it, to many they are seen as only human, but if a poz guy ever does, to many they are seen as a reckless monster bent on bringing others down with them. Here is a fair analogy that I hope will convey my point. What if a predominantly straight publication included a line in every story about gay men that said "Admittedly it is wrong for gays to anally rape unsuspecting straight males." That sounds insane because it is. But to an extremely paranoid straight person, maybe that fear would need to be acknowledged -- because after all, gay men are attracted to men (which could include some straight men), and gay men are male and have penises (which means they are capable of rape). This comparison really is exactly the same thing: guys with HIV have the capability of intentionally giving someone else HIV -- if they are a psycho, that is. But most poz men are not, so it's kind of insulting to them to always point out that it's wrong to do something that almost all of them would never, ever do.
John Briars, Toronto ontario
03/02/10 10:59 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
deliberate infection
To LE in Montreal, in the majority of cases prosecuted in Canada so far, no HIV was actually transmitted. The Aziga case and a few others are exceptions. So validate this, search Xtra's news archives. As for deliberate infection, which literally means that a person meant to give someone HIV on purpose and actually succeeded in transmitting it, the number of cases of this worldwide are extremely rare; there have been a couple in New Zealand, I believe. If you want to learn more about the actual circumstances in many of these cases, there is a blog called "Criminal HIV Transmission" that reprints news stories from around the world; Google it.
John Briars, Toronto ontario
03/02/10 11:07 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.