The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has published three important new resources in the aftermath of last month’s devastating Supreme Court decision which found that people living with HIV have a legal duty, under the criminal law, to disclose their HIV-positive status to sexual partners before having sex that poses a “realistic possibility” of HIV transmission.
Not disclosing in such circumstances means a person with diagnosed HIV could be convicted of aggravated sexual assault.
As well as a detailed analysis in a briefing paper (aussi disponible en français) and a shorter info sheet, the Legal Network has produced a very helpful – if depressing – Q&A for people living with HIV (aussi disponible en français) as well those who support and advise them.
It is clear from these analyses that the Supreme Court’s decisions are a major step backwards for human rights and for public health.
24 comments
You want the "right" to potentially infect someone with a fatal disease (AIDS is still fatal, it's just that modern treatments manage the condition better and give more time) without their knowledge and you're the one being wronged because that's illegal? You want to know what a selfish asshole looks like? Find a mirror.
> It is clear from these analyses that the Supreme Court’s decisions are a major step backwards for human rights and for public health.
And yet you completely fail to explain why. Most likely because you can't. Also, why isn't this dangerous nonsense aussi disponible en français ? French speakers aussi deserve to know that you and your organization are a bunch of disease-spreading lunatics with literally insane definitions of "human rights" and "public health."
Wow. This is cartoon supervillain levels of pointlessly stupid evil. Bad guys on Captain Planet would be disgusted by this idiot. Heck, Verminous Scum, who literally spreads disease, would probably find this too much.
There is no human right to have sex, nor to subject others to a potentially deadly disease. It's horrible and unfair that some people have to carry this incurable (as yet) disease for life, but it's still abuse to subject others to the disease without them knowing about it.
Protecting people from catching incurable and potentially deadly diseases is not a step backwards for public health, nor a step back for human rights.
"It is clear from these analyses that the Supreme Court’s decisions are a major step backwards for human rights and for public health."
Preventing the spread of disease is a step forwards for public health! By it's very definition!
Also, I don't understand why it's sexual assault. Wouldn't attempted murder be a more fitting charge?
Ooh, Edward, "human rights" don't just mean YOUR rights, y'know.
@nazani14
Hey Ed, if the proper authorities can order people quarantined for good cause, and they can, under national legal codes and international treaties and other accords, then they can also enact reasonable public health related requirements upon individuals who are potential carriers of disease transmission vectors, in the name of the public weal. Quarantena was Venetian dialectical Italian for forty days. This was the waiting period for ships coming into the harbor prior to anyone or cargo embarked coming ashore. The reason for this terrible inconvenience? The Black Death. Perhaps you've heard about it. So the legal precedents goes a ways back. You are also required to demonstrate that you are reasonably capable of safely operating a motor vehicle in order to be licensed to drive. Most people view that as eminently reasonable, and the same basic principal operates in all facets of an individual's duty to society. (Yeah, I went there.) Sometimes you really should ask "what can I do for my country"?
Let's see your 'Rights' protect you when you're walking barefoot on a beach, or you trip & fall into a patch of long grass/a bush...
...and you see the cause of a sharp stinging sensation in either your foot or hand/arm.
You don't know where those discarded syringes will be.
I bet you'd then be saying 'Why can't they put them in containers - with the 'Biohazard' logo on them - for that purpose?!'
Do drug addicts have the legal right to just throw away their used syringes just anywhere ?
One prick can be just dangerous as another.
"It is clear from these analyses that the Supreme Court’s decisions are a major step backwards for human rights and for public health."
Yeah! Fight the power! Let's stop these obstructive bureaucrats from taking away our right to give whomever we want HIV!
From both a moral and pragmatic stance, the law makes sense. If you don't inform a partner, you are not only risking infection with that person, but you are potentially infecting them in such a way that they could spread the disease without their knowledge. Pragmatically, this is a step to ensure that the spread of disease is curtailed.
Morally, you should inform your partner that you are potentially infecting them with an incurable disease. It really doesn't matter if it won't kill them: it will alter their lives.
Ah, another definition of "human rights" as "whatever we want it to mean"--a key example of a term you can't possibly oppose, so you must support things like the right to transmit AIDS.
"Public health" is even more hilarious. Sorry bugchasers :(
You are either forced to tell any potential partners you're HIV+, or the rights of others to not be infected take priority over yours .
Otherwise, here is a syringe containing the Ebola virus. You don't have the right to think of objecting as I infect you with this flesh-eating bug, drastically shortening your lifespan, and in excruciating pain.
...what's that you say? I can't ? Your decision is a major step backwards for human rights and for public health.
Hey, deliberate murderers have rights too...! [/"Hostel"]
I get that you have some sort of group identity as a victim of HIV and AIDS, but, HIV isn't anything like your gender, race, orientation, or whatever. It's a fucking virus that is going to kill you sooner or later. There is no step backwards for human rights because you have an extra responsibility before you start fucking, and if anything this is a step forwards for public health.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
