OA_show('Wallpaper');
OA_show('Leaderboard - Xx90');
Choose your edition:

Search form

Blowjob does not represent a criminal risk of HIV transmission

Blowjob does not represent a criminal risk of HIV transmission

Crown stays assault charge in Hamilton oral sex case
The prosecution in a Hamilton HIV disclosure case is staying an aggravated sexual assault charge this month. A gay man was charged in February 2009 after an ex-partner alleged they had oral sex without his disclosing that he had HIV.

The ex-partner has since been tested and is HIV-negative.

Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network said in a statement:

“There was never any solid basis for significant risk of transmission. It’s a misguided overreaction to lay and pursue some of the most serious charges in the Criminal Code when no harm has occurred and the risk of HIV transmission was miniscule at most.”

Xtra, as a policy, doesn’t identify those accused of sexual assault for failure to disclose their HIV status.

The charges were based on the accused's performing oral sex, rather than receiving it. Elliott says this particular case shows why the province’s Attorney General should work with community groups to develop guidelines in laying criminal charges. 

In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a person living with HIV has a duty to disclose his or her status to a sexual partner only if there is a “significant risk” of transmission, but much uncertainty remains about what this means.

In the Hamilton case, scientific evidence shows there was no significant risk of HIV transmission, says Cecile Kazatchkine, spokesperson for the Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network.

“We know oral sex is super low risk,” says Kazatchkine. " The question is, do we really want to prosecute for oral sex when the partner gave consent?"

Kazatchkine says people living with HIV shouldn’t have to bear all the responsibility in the relationship to disclose. Even with this case being stayed, she says the public may continue to fear oral sex as a risky activity in transmitting HIV.

“Everyone is responsible for their safety, especially in consensual sex. Everyone should assume there is a risk. Whatever the partner may say in the end, about one quarter of people living with HIV in Canada don’t know they have it. We can’t rely on disclosure,” says Kazatchkine.
OA_show('Text Ad - #1');
OA_show('Text Ad - #2');

Comments

con't
You know you can leave Church St, and talk to professionals like the different services offered by the police departments, non-gay (oh my God) support services, different health departments and lawyers/prosecutors who would be more then willing to answer any questions you may have or point you in the direction to get those answers. Try it, it just might be the new fad. Getting information from someone that isn't gay. I know I'm being ignorant here but hey there are so many guys that refuse to live outside their gay world it makes a bad impression on the rest of us.
re:Misinformation
I'm not really interested in debating with you, since you insist, You: All quotes in all publications are edited for lenght...Me: I said there was misinformation given: (The charges were based on the accused's performing oral sex, rather than receiving it. Elliott says this particular case shows why the province’s Attorney General should work with community groups to develop guidelines in laying criminal charges.) This particular information is NOT in quotes and is false information. Are you 100% sure there is no significant risk giving or receiving oral? Can you honestly prove that? The Health Department can't. It is ASSUMED that it is at a lower risk then anal or needle sharing. (In the Hamilton case, scientific evidence shows there was no significant risk of HIV transmission, says Cecile Kazatchkine). False, There was no scientific evidence involved in this case, There were no professionals asked to give testimony or statements. I would also like to know why xtra has taken every step possible to keep this case out of the rag. If you look back at all the stories that they have printed here you will not see this case show up when the accused was charged, but you will find the other cases where the person who was charged for having sex with women or both. Is that because those indivduals were not part of the gay community? I'm also interested in knowing if ACT paid the legal bills in this case because I didn't give permission for my tax dollars to be used in defending those charged criminally and I'm sure the indivuals/companies that donate to ACT did not intend for their donations to be used for that purpose either. We have legal aid that we pay for just for that purpose. If your ever a victim, during the interview you will be asked if you would have given consent had you known or been told the truth about something that could alter or end your life. If you would not have agreed had you known these things then there is no longer consent. con't
Think what you want
Ricky: All quotes in all publications are edited for length. This is not dishonest. Receiving oral sex (or even giving it frankly) does not pose a significant risk for HIV transmission, and so disclosure is not required for consent to be valid. You can say over and over that "everyone knows" the opposite, but that doesn't make you right.
Misinformation
Once again we are given misiformation from persons involved in ACT. Neither Elliot nor Cecile were involved directly in this case and did not have access to the complaint. Both have given statements that did not contain truthful information. When contacted, Cecile was asked where her information came from and she replied that the statement she gave was not what xtra printed. Does the same ring true for Elliot?, is it xtra twisting the statments given? Cecile has had some of her statement removed from this article, but the sentence of shouuld we be prosecuting for consentual oral sex is still misleading since everyone is aware that if you are not given all the information prior then there is really no consent. Everyone at ACT and xtra knows that. Because ACT has been on some kind of agenda that they are constantly misrepresenting the information they are providing to the general public as a whole I am starting a petition to have the amount of tax payers dollars donated to ACT to be funneled to other worthy causes. I can't see where ACT with it's agenda is entirely helpful to those with HIV and would prefer to have it replaced with a non-partisan agency. Perhaps when they see their grants diminish they will re-think their agenda and present the public with honest information regarding HIV, testing, and the spread of this infectious disease. The resources we supply should be used to educate the general public about HIV not get involved in criminal cases. The police take the complaint, if there is sufficient evidence to warrent an arrest one is made. There is no homophobia there, we have laws that until such time as they are changed must be obeyed. Yes the Minister of Health should be doing more. Educating those who are positive that they can be held accountable for their actions should they decide not to disclose. But until this is a reality thank you Canada for having laws that protect us from those that feel it necessary to be dishonest about their status when asked.
Sign in or Register to post comments