A Word On … Ringing The Alarm

Yet another man here in Toronto has been charged for “deliberately” infecting someone with HIV, so it’s time to get talking about this complex and scary issue again.

In 2005 I wrote an article for Xtra called How HIV Can Turn You Into A Criminal.  This was just at the dawning of the HIV-and-the-law issue that is swirling around us now.  It’s spooky to think back four years to when I was writing that piece, because I clearly remember the dire predictions of all the potential dangers of going down this legal road.  

One of those predictions we are seeing so very clearly today: Through this law the idea that the onus of responsibility is on just the one partner - the HIV-positive one – is being reinforced.  Really?  It’s up to the other guy?  This is where we are 30 years later?

I am in complete agreement that an HIV positive person should disclose their status and will never argue that.  But what I will continue to argue is the consistent assignment of blame to just the one party.  

What happened to taking responsibility for your own sexual health?  I grew up with that as a gay man. Where did responsibility for choice go?  

Bad choices happen to the best of us, but the choice is always yours.  Here are all the reasons I can think of off the top of my head for why I sometimes chose unsafe sex in the past twenty odd years I have been sexually active: I was in love, I was in lust, I was upset, I was happy, I was so tired of condoms, it felt good, I was drunk, I was high, I was lonely – not necessarily in that order, and just for starters.

But never once have I ever thought to blame someone else for whatever consequences arose, not once.

Every day, people choose not to wear condoms.  I empathize with people who become infected, that’s why it can really happen to anyone, straight or gay.  But how in hell did we get to it being solely the other side’s fault to the point of handcuffs and a trial?  

Lying and deliberate intent seem to characterize the current cases, making them different somewhat issues.  

But this one issue of blame, now being debated on a broader level is what the former executive director of the HIV AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario predicted in 2005 when I interviewed her for that Xtra article.  She worried that focusing on the HIV-positive person as a criminal would lead people at large to believe that they will always be told by partners that they are HIV-positive, because who wouldn’t? IE: It’s illegal and there are criminal consequences.  As in, ”Oh, he hasn’t told me he has HIV.  That means he must not.  So we can skip condoms”.

And at a time when HIV infection is on the rise again, that’s the last message anyone in love, lust, upset, lonely, tired of condoms, wanting to feel good, drunk, high, needs to believe.

 

You can hear “A Word On …” live daily at 4:10 pm on The Shaun Proulx Show, 103.9 PROUD FM.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • http://www.shawnsyms.ca Shawn

    The fundamental problem with the criminalization of HIV exposure is that it is unprovable. If no HIV was transmitted in the act that 2 people mutually decided to engage in, there is no way to prove that the person who knew they were positive took precautions, which we know the vast majority of positive folks do.

    So this puts all people who know their positive HIV status at risk, because anyone can lie for any reason about whether the person disclosed and whether the person played safe.

    I don’t believe poz folks have any ethical obligation to disclose. I do think all people should avoid unprotected sex when the other person’s serostatus is unknown.

    Ultimately, I think that all the frothing at the mouth that some gay folks carry out about alleged non-disclosure combined with unprotected sex is really, really misplaced. It is based on a predictable bias against people with HIV and an assuming the worst about them regardless of the facts.

    I heard someone describe this issue as being about poz people having a “sense of entitlement” to unprotected sex with anyone. I can’t think of any perspective more warped and absurd. Ultimately the problem here is that, most often, when gay men support criminalization it is based on a very different but much more real (and rather mindboggling) sense of entitlement — an entitlement to know the HIV status of any person they want, on demand, and a sense of entitlement to be able to play unsafely as long as they can blame the other person if they sudden realize they are placing themselves at risk.

  • http://shaunproulx.ca Shaun Proulx

    Yes, Shawn, I agree. Someone said this morning, “Real men wear condoms and disclose” (paraphrasing), which is one way of looking at it. I would add, “Real men also at least ask their partners’ status if they choose not to wear condoms” although as I wrote that can be easier said than done for many.

  • Andrew

    People discriminate.
    AIDS doesn’t.

  • http://www.thelisp.blogspot.com Kevin

    The responsibility belongs to the parties involved, whether its 2 people or a group of 6. the only time it should be a crime is if someone LIES about their HIV status and is deliberate in their actions, but even then…I’ve always used one, regardless of +/-.

  • Pingback: INTERACTION :: Criminalizing HIV | GayGuideToronto – Shaun Proulx Media

Become An Insider!

Enter Your Email address:

Copyright © 2012 - SPM