Canada Supreme Court judge, jury -and possible executioner- with HIV decision

they are not a bunch of santa claus but a lump of idiots and irresponsibles.

------------------------- 

Toronto Sun/ Michele Mandel

TORONTO - The Supreme Court of Canada no longer sees anything criminal in playing Russian roulette with people’s lives.

In a unanimous decision, the highest court in the land has now ruled that because of advances in medical treatment, with HIV no longer the death sentence it once was, it’s no longer a crime for a person to hide their HIV status from their sexual partner — as long as they wear a condom and have a “low viral load.”

No longer is there a blanket duty to inform in those cases. Instead, it’s now their secret to keep. Don’t count on the law, it’s buyer beware — insist on protected sex or live with the consequences.

But how can the infected person’s right to privacy trump that of their partner’s right to know and calculate for themselves whether there is — or is not — any risk to their health?

The Supreme Court was asked to wade in on two cases — one in Winnipeg where the man, since deported, was convicted for failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to nine sexual partners, including a 12-year-old girl; and the other concerning a Montreal woman who was charged with not informing her former spouse that she had HIV.

Because of anti-retroviral drugs, both had low or undetectable levels of HIV. None of their partners contracted the disease.

The high court upheld her acquittal and restored his convictions for aggravated sexual assault for the counts where he had sex without protection.

In updating its original 1998 ruling, the top court said those with HIV don’t have to legally disclose their status unless there’s “a realistic possibility” of transmission. But who defines “realistic?” How low is a low viral load?

The ruling could have been worse. The AIDS/HIV Legal Network had wanted the court to decree that no one with HIV can be prosecuted for non-disclosure — even those who may be highly infectious — as long as they were using condoms. Shocked and dismayed, AIDS activists have called the Supreme Court decision “a huge setback” and further evidence of “AIDS-phobia.”

Nonsense. This isn’t about discrimination; this should be about informed consent.

In an ideal world, there would be no need to criminalize a health issue — one could trust people’s sense of morality to do the right thing. But not surprisingly, some people aren’t keen on telling the person they want to take to bed that they carry a potentially fatal disease.

We have seen more than 130 examples since 1998 of men and women charged with aggravated sexual assault for knowingly hiding their HIV status: The worst among them was former Ontario civil servant Johnson Aziga who was declared a dangerous offender and convicted of first-degree murder after two of his partners died.

Granted, selfish and reckless people like Aziga would still be prosecuted under the newly clarified law.

It’s those on the lower end of the risk spectrum who no longer have any legal obligation to be honest and forthcoming. As long as it’s protected sex, they can sleep with whomever they want without any pillow talk that includes their HIV status. The deception may certainly be immoral, but it’s no longer criminal because the risk of transmission has now been deemed unrealistic. More >>