Supreme Court of Canada conditionally removes HIV disclosure obligations

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2012 11:06 PM GMT
    Interesting.


    OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has absolved HIV carriers of the legal obligation to inform sex partners about their condition as long as they have a low level of the virus and use condoms.

    In a 9-0 ruling, the high court specifies those two key conditions, clarifying the rules on whether it is a crime for people with extremely low levels of HIV to withhold their condition from their sex partners.

    The court says it was reflecting the medical advances in treating the virus that causes AIDS since it first ruled on the issue in 1998 and left open the possibility of adapting to future changes in science in medicine.

    The Supreme Court ruled on two separate cases, from Manitoba and Quebec, updating its landmark 1998 ruling on the subject.

    The court ruled 14 years ago that people with HIV must inform their sex partners of their condition, or face a charge of aggravated sexual assault, which carries a maximum life sentence.

    Now, that duty to disclose has been removed as a long as the HIV carrier has a “low load” of the virus and uses condoms.

    © Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/carriers+obligated+disclose+condition+Supreme+Court+Canada/7349680/story.html


    Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/carriers+obligated+disclose+condition+Supreme+Court+Canada/7349680/story.html#ixzz28T7x7DaB
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 1:17 AM GMT
    I'm wondering what the implications are of this. Does this just mean they can just withhold the information if not asked? What if the partner asks them? Can they lie?

    I have mixed feelings about it. I don't like it if someone lies, but I also do not like people not taking personal responsibility. Whether a sexual partner says "yes" or "no" when asked, it should always be treated as if they had said "yes".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 1:44 AM GMT
    I'm not sure. Here's the actual supreme court hearing.. skip up to 170.00 and watch for about 5 minutes where one of the judges asks the question at 174.

    http://scc-csc-gc.insinc.com/en/clip.php?url=c/486/1971/201202080500wv450en,001Content-Type%3A%20text/html;%20charset=ISO-8859-1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 2:00 AM GMT
    Excuse the fact that I'm not into anal sex. I've done it before. I've even barebacked with strangers.

    Every consensual sexual act has risks. There are ways of minimizing those risks (ie. condoms). If the consensual partner wants to bareback with a stranger [without asking about STD's] and gets infected, it's his own damn fault. I was VERY lucky to survive my ho days. The risk was all on me. Thank your favorite deity for saving me from a lifetime of HIV meds.

    I'm in full support of Canada's decision. If people want to bareback, it's they're own fault if they get infected. Education on the fact is plentiful. They have no excuse for not protecting themselves unless they're just a risk taker like I am, which puts them at even more fault. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 4:41 AM GMT
    It's clear to me that Canada's supreme court judges have never learned to practise safer sex.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 4:49 AM GMT
    beneful1 saidI'm not sure. Here's the actual supreme court hearing.. skip up to 170.00 and watch for about 5 minutes where one of the judges asks the question at 174.

    http://scc-csc-gc.insinc.com/en/clip.php?url=c/486/1971/201202080500wv450en,001Content-Type%3A%20text/html;%20charset=ISO-8859-1

    Yes, he asked the same question I did and she said no, you are not obliged to disclose then. You can lie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 4:54 AM GMT
    Iceblink said
    beneful1 saidI'm not sure. Here's the actual supreme court hearing.. skip up to 170.00 and watch for about 5 minutes where one of the judges asks the question at 174.

    http://scc-csc-gc.insinc.com/en/clip.php?url=c/486/1971/201202080500wv450en,001Content-Type%3A%20text/html;%20charset=ISO-8859-1

    Yes, he asked the same question I did and she said no, you are not obliged to disclose then. You can lie.


    Yes but that was just the defense argument. What the actual consequence might be?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 4:56 AM GMT
    beneful1 said
    Iceblink said
    beneful1 saidI'm not sure. Here's the actual supreme court hearing.. skip up to 170.00 and watch for about 5 minutes where one of the judges asks the question at 174.

    http://scc-csc-gc.insinc.com/en/clip.php?url=c/486/1971/201202080500wv450en,001Content-Type%3A%20text/html;%20charset=ISO-8859-1

    Yes, he asked the same question I did and she said no, you are not obliged to disclose then. You can lie.


    Yes but that was just the defense argument. What the actual consequence might be?

    It was, but the court ruled for them, although I wonder if the point is even in the actual ruling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 5:31 AM GMT
    Iceblink said
    beneful1 said
    Iceblink said
    beneful1 saidI'm not sure. Here's the actual supreme court hearing.. skip up to 170.00 and watch for about 5 minutes where one of the judges asks the question at 174.

    http://scc-csc-gc.insinc.com/en/clip.php?url=c/486/1971/201202080500wv450en,001Content-Type%3A%20text/html;%20charset=ISO-8859-1

    Yes, he asked the same question I did and she said no, you are not obliged to disclose then. You can lie.


    Yes but that was just the defense argument. What the actual consequence might be?

    It was, but the court ruled for them, although I wonder if the point is even in the actual ruling.


    I would suppose that if a person did lie about having an undetectable status they could be charged since the ruling only "exempts disclosure" for those that are and use a condom. Proving it though could be tough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 6:12 AM GMT
    THIS IS BULL SHIT! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW IF HE IS SICK! NOW ALL THE SLUT BUNNIES WILL FUCK AND SPREAD AIDS LIKE WILD FIRE, CUZ THEY LOOK GOOD SO THAT MEANS THEY AREN'T SICK OR HAVE HIGH LEVELS OF THE VIRUS!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 6:25 AM GMT
    Gym_bull saidTHIS IS BULL SHIT! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW IF HE IS SICK! NOW ALL THE SLUT BUNNIES WILL FUCK AND SPREAD AIDS LIKE WILD FIRE, CUZ THEY LOOK GOOD SO THAT MEANS THEY AREN'T SICK OR HAVE HIGH LEVELS OF THE VIRUS!


    I'm still trying to think this one through, it only was on the news today.


    What it's sort of saying is it up to you to ask before you fuck with someone, and use protection.that's your right. Anyone would be a fool not to
    Now if you ask a guy you're gonna fuck with if he's poz and he says to you.. I don't have to tell you that.. then you better think twice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 7:14 AM GMT
    The subject of HIV criminalization is complex--making non-disclosure of status illegal can be much more harmful and unjust in practice than it might first seem.

    Here's an excellent short video by Sean Strub (former editor of POZ Magazine) that explains what I mean...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB-6blJjbjc&sns=em
  • musicdude

    Posts: 734

    Oct 06, 2012 7:43 AM GMT
    ok, most of you guys responding to this thread are complete fucking idiots and need to learn some effecting reading skills.

    If you would've taken the time to read the thing properly and inform yourself, a person is only exempt from disclosure if they are undetectable and if they use a condom. BOTH requirements need to be met. if one of the two aren't (ie: the person is NOT undetectable or they bareback) then the person must disclose his status.

    this is a good thing because it stops idiots like some of you to discriminate against people like me
  • DR2K

    Posts: 346

    Oct 06, 2012 11:19 AM GMT
    Yeah if you have a disease that can kill someone else by being intimiate with them then you should tell them before you get intimate with them. Regardless of chance. Anything else is immoral, irresponsible, and down right stupid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 2:11 PM GMT
    Iceblink saidI'm wondering what the implications are of this. Does this just mean they can just withhold the information if not asked? What if the partner asks them? Can they lie?

    I have mixed feelings about it. I don't like it if someone lies, but I also do not like people not taking personal responsibility. Whether a sexual partner says "yes" or "no" when asked, it should always be treated as if they had said "yes".


    1) Does this just mean they can just withhold the information if not asked?

    A) Yes.

    2) What if the partner asks them? Can they lie?

    A) Yes. This lie is acceptable to the court if the person lying has both an undetectable load and uses a condom.

    ...and this, "Whether a sexual partner says "yes" or "no" when asked, it should always be treated as if they had said "yes"."

    ...I agree with.

    I have very mixed feelings about this ruling.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 2:35 PM GMT
    Yeah, very mixed feelings on this.

    Stating the obvious - A HIV Poz guy with a low to undetectable viral load using a condom for sex is still statistically more likely to transmit the virus (extremely low risk) than a Neg guy if something goes wrong.

    Trying to get inside the head of a guy who is asked "are you poz" and saying "no", knowing I am.. shit.. I couldnt say no, even if it meant not having sex, I respect the right of the partner too much.

    Sober, and in a right frame of mind anyway.

    For most active guys, I guess it will be business as usual, treat everyone as if they could be Poz, and understand the risks of what they do.

    I dont think (don't know) if we have any such legal obligation here in Australia
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2012 2:58 PM GMT
    sc69 saidYeah, very mixed feelings on this.

    Stating the obvious - A HIV Poz guy with a low to undetectable viral load using a condom for sex is still statistically more likely to transmit the virus (extremely low risk) than a Neg guy if something goes wrong.

    Trying to get inside the head of a guy who is asked "are you poz" and saying "no", knowing I am.. shit.. I couldnt say no, even if it meant not having sex, I respect the right of the partner too much.

    Sober, and in a right frame of mind anyway.

    For most active guys, I guess it will be business as usual, treat everyone as if they could be Poz, and understand the risks of what they do.

    I dont think (don't know) if we have any such legal obligation here in Australia


    It appears to be all over the clock by state as well in Oz

    http://www.ashm.org.au/HIVLegal/Default.asp?publicationID=2&SectionID=333