E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCanada's top court said on Friday that failing to tell a sexual partner you have HIV is only sexual assault if there is "a realistic possibility" of transmitting the virus that causes AIDS.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the government's argument that everyone who has HIV should be required to disclose that condition to all sexual partners in any circumstance.
Several groups involved in the case, including the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian AIDS Society, took issue with the court's standard of a "realistic possibility," saying it is too severe, and calling the decision "a major step backwards for public health and human rights."
The HIV groups said in a release that the risk of spreading HIV is made negligible just by using condoms, and that the court's decision "blatantly ignores solid science."
"What you're talking about here is a vulnerable, marginalized group of people who are going to be forced to go around volunteering to anyone with whom they're going to have sexual contact, that they belong to that vulnerable, marginalized group," Michael Feder, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, told the CBC.
In 1998, the court found that not telling a partner about one's HIV status was a form of aggravated sexual assault if there was "significant risk of bodily harm." On Friday, the court clarified what might constitute a significant risk.
It said someone with a low viral load who uses a condom has not put their partner at significant risk. Viral load measures the severity of HIV infection, and some treatments reduce the level, making transmission less likely.
"As noted by the court of appeal, the transmissibility of HIV is proportional to the viral load, i.e. the quantity of HIV copies in the blood," the decision said, according to City News. "The viral load of an untreated HIV patient ranges from 10,000 copies to a few million copies per millilitre.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
"When a patient undergoes anti-retroviral treatment, the viral load shrinks rapidly to less than 1,500 copies per millilitre (low viral load), and can even be brought down to less than 50 copies per millilitre (undetectable viral load) over a longer period of time. This appears to be scientifically accepted at this point, on the evidence in this case," the decision said.
The court noted that standards might change in future cases since its decision does not preclude the law from "adapting to future advances in treatment" or risk factors it had not directly considered.
It said that risk of transmission, rather than actual transmission, is not a crime in many other countries, and that this "sounds a note of caution against extending the criminal law beyond its appropriate reach in this complex and emerging area of law."
Watch World News videos on NBCNews.com
Forcing everyone to disclose their HIV status would risk sending people who have not put anyone at risk to prison, the court said.
Two cases were considered by the court, the first one involving a man who had sex with nine women, including a 12-year-old girl, after being diagnosed with HIV in 2004, CBC reported. Clato Mabior didn't tell the women he was HIV positive.
None of the women contracted the disease, City News said. The Supreme Court set aside one of Mabior's convictions because in that respective situation he used a condom and had a low viral load. In Mabior's case, this decision has little consequence, since he was deported to South Sudan in February, City News said.
In the second case, a Quebec woman who had unprotected sex with her partner in 2000 did not tell him she was HIV-positive.
According to City News, the woman had been taking anti-retroviral drugs after she was diagnosed with HIV nine years earlier.
"Here low — indeed undetectable — viral load was established," the Supreme Court concluded, according to City News.
The court affirmed an earlier appeal court decision to strike down the woman's conviction for aggravated assault and sexual assault.
Reuters contributed to this report.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Court: Kenyans tortured by colonial regime can sue UK
- Tourists fined as Rome declares 'War on the Sandwich'
- Mourning, sighs of relief in Turkish town shelled by Syria
- Venezuela vote: Oil wealth to trump calls for change?
- Inside Syria with Ann Curry
- Scientists: Great Barrier Reef coral seeing 'major decline'
- Saudi Arabia's Ikea catalog is missing something: women
- From war zones, photographer brings scars, searing images
- Death threats force Afghan actress into hiding
- Stay informed: Sign up for our newsletter
Leave a Comment:
Isn't that like saying it is okay to shoot at someone if you are bad at aiming?
No, Steve. What they're SAYING, is that it's ok to point a revolver at someone and pull the trigger if there is at least ONE empty chamber.
was deported back to Sudan...wow these women who think its ok to do the darkies is gonna get us all killed.....
As usual for the gays, it's not about equal treatment. It's about special treatment. If they had any other communicable disease and they would have to report it.
Guess what it also affects those who have bisexual partners, so it is not about equal treatment for gays its about stupidity of the court in their ruling. I wish aids on no one, but it would be an ironic if one of these judges children become infected based the courts ruling.
Steve and Jeff both right on. Thank God it seems most have good common sense on this issue...except the idiots of the Canadian Supreme court. Set them up with 5 people with HIV, 5 without, male,female,straight,gay,..and toss in some condoms. Lets see how much sex THEY want to have NOT knowing who has what..be it HIV,Herpe's,Clap,Crabs, whatever. The world seems to be getting dumbed down by those who are supposed to be the smartest...andnot providing protection for the folks...God help us all.
But if you have VD you have to report it Can you say stupid, can you say the relationship is not indeed consensual. Can you say wrong answer.
This is the kind of sorry assed thinking that comes from Canada. I lived there for 4 years. We Americans had a saying, "theres the right way, the wrong way, and the Canadian way.
!!!To withhold this information is akin to attempted murder.!!!
Sometimes balloons pop, and sometimes, condoms pop, too.
These judges would think different if 1 of their kids got Aids or H.i.v from someone because they didn't tell them that they had it.
Ironic you say that, as both cases under review by the Court involved heterosexual relations. I guess only gay people get HIV, right?
HIV policy is a public health issue, not a gay issue. That said, I disagree with the Court's decision, as "risk" seems very difficult to define and quantify accurately.
This just blows my mind. What about my rights? It doesnt matter if my risk is 1% or 99% of getting HIV from someone, I deserve to know the risk is there. Just because someone is on medication and HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was, a positive person should not be able to gamble with my life.
Amazing... Wow
Once again, eventually one's freedom impinges upon that of another.
If you have HIV/AIDS and have sex with anyone, in anyway, without telling the person you're having sex with, then you are a complete and total fvcking loser.
No its like saying you can shoot someone because you have no bullets. If that statement does not seem to make sense, then you now understand the message in the article.
The person being shot would be just as afraid for their life either way. But when there is not intent to do harm, and no real threat, it does not matter how afraid you are, that is your problem.
I agree that the Canadian Supreme Court are sorry-assed, but they were 'interpreting' the current law. The remedy is for the government to enact a new law that cannot be misinterpreted by the court. The only snag I see is that some HIV positive cretins will claim that such a 'new' law violates their Charter rights.
Well then ,after they kill each other off,we can have Canada too. Cool. :>)
you already do...We (they) just don't know it yet!!!
Ken mcg, You wish.
LMAO @ Ken
DANGEROUS....Canada is DANGEROUS! What if the condom slips damn it? Then your banking on viral load to not add to the newly INFECTED? God help us all because we have idiots at the helm making decisions that will kill us ALL eventually.
lol-Sanddune-you're bad!
When we quickly lay with someone, there is always a chance they are a psychotic/narcissistic\aids packing (and whatever other personality disorders we are seeing blossom these days) killer. If we don't sleep with them, and get to know them over time, we might be spared our future being snuffed out.
Go slow or don't go!
If you are HIV positive...you are HIV positive. Just where in the h*ll is there a in between?? You can transmit this disease REGARDLESS of your cell count to an unsuspecting partner. Condoms are not a fail safe.
This is just more legal corruption coming from the bought and paid for court systems. Having it come out of Canada is not a suprise with the high numbers of Homo's in that country's government.
I am ashamed to say I am Canadian.. perhaps when one of these idiot's kids dies of aids they will wake up.. I hate bleeding heart cry babies.. hug a logger you will never go back to tree's!!!
Informed consent is not possible with out all information. Not only is this truly assault, but in many places it also could be considered rape. Shame on the Canadian court. Putting HIV positive people ahead of others is simply wrong.
Note to the world: Don't have sex with Canadians, they may or may not be HIV positive and do not have to tell you.
Note to HIV positive Canadians: That crap only flies in Canada where selfish behavior is a protected class. Try that outside Canada and you will be charged and go to jail.
Sorry to be blunt. It's the same as driving drunk ought to be- pre-meditated attempted murder. Even if no one contracts HIV. UNLESS your partner knows, before ANY sexual contact, that you are HIV positive. The ONLY excuse is if you don't know you are HIV positive.
That sucks. Their average 20 something women are pretty damn good looking compared to U.S. 20 something women. Much less obesity up there. Overall, they are fairly hot.
So basically being intimate in Canada is now the worlds biggest game of Russian Roulette. Go ahead, spin the wheel, have a little fun, the odds you'll be sentenced to a life of pain, misery, and eventual death are "managable". LOL ... what else would you expect from Canadians.
Same as in U.S. People don't ask, and people don't tell.
WOW...just WOW.
So, let me get this straight...
If you buy a house, you must disclose anything that is wrong with it, that would reasonably want to be known by a perspective buyer...but the same doesnt hold true for a perspective lover.
...because condoms dont break.
...because, in the heat of the moment, accidents dont happen.
Yeah that sounds fair,..what's next tuberculosis, ebola? We are being PC'd to death.
So, if typhoid Mary had moved to Canada, she could have killed to her hearts content? This is VERY STUPID and dangerous ruling
.
She didn't kill anyone on purpose. She was a very nice lady who was a very good cook and helped to nurse her employers when they got sick.
Babs..that is only partially correct.
You could argue that she didnt know...the FIRST time. But, after she got out of prison, she went back to selling food.
She is no different than the subject of the article.
condoms say on the box does not prevent the spread of HIV or AIDS!!!!
They do inhibit the spread though.
If it smells like cologne, leave it alone.
If you don't tell your sexual partner that you have HIV, then you are a coward, in addition to putting someone else's life at risk.
The thing I don't like with this is that they are basically saying that condoms are fail proof. My husband and I weren't trying to have a baby, and in fact were using condoms. Apparently we had one that failed because we are expecting our first baby. While we are very happy, what if we had been trying to prevent HIV from being transfered. We would have lost that gamble this time. Condoms are not fail proof and there are many studies out there (go google them if you really need the links, as it won't let me post them) that talk about this.
My second thing is the fact that these people with HIV most likely got it from a partner who didn't tell them that they had HIV or who didn't know. Nowadays, the likelyhood of getting it through blood transfer is extremely rare in 1st world countries because of all the tests that they are required to run. The likelyhood they received it because they stopped to administer first aide to a bleeding person without proper gloves is probably very unlikely too. What they are doing is irresponsible. I bet they would have liked to have known their partner was HIV positive before they played with fire. Shouldn't they want to give the same chance to people that they may not have been given?
I bought a box of a dozen condoms for my husband and me, and after the fourth one broke, we didn't try any more that night, and I took it back to the store. They gave me my money back, and then just tossed the box in the garbage, so anyone else who had a box from that particular factory batch, too bad!
Babs -
NO condom is a match for a raging bull.
My hat's off to your husband.
(btw - when you say "After the fourth one broke"...was that in the same night ?)
I hope Canada gets their butts sued off by those that will ultimately contract HIV because of this politically correct law! This is hogwash!
Dr. E
Thrush .
I have Thrush . I have taken HIV tests and given the same to my dentist . Thrush in my case , has been caused by Obamacare lack of care . How ? Well due to not being able to get pain shots because of Obama death care not paying for the pain shots whereas before Obamacare used to pay for these medical treatments . Under Obama care the want me to take pain medication instead of reducing these pills which are killing me as well as producing Thrush so the quality of my life it worth and welling well are all due to Democrats who passed a law that will allow 1900 medicine meant to kill pts as long as it saves them money . To wit , private plans will pay for pain shots but Obama death care reversed Medicare before Obama death . So , the problems here of any disease in the corrupt United States of the murders called Democrats , one has to consider the treatment and attitude of the these pigs before thinking about what a sick person can or can't do . Most of you don't know that seniors chronic conditions treatments are being denied or sent to pills by Obamacare , nor do you Know that Medicare is a forced program that Seniors have to take or they lose Social Security . The fat pig Democrats deny this poor and killing policies of their party. My wish is what goes around come around to these same pigs . They have to become chronic sick in order to understand otherwise they are constant liars . Go to Medicareadvocacy.gov and read litigation on this site . The org only lawsuit although it lists other suits against the HHS SECy showed that HHS stonewalled and pretended they did not know the rules and regulations that they give contractors to make decisions . Get this , that HHS did not have all the rules and regulation when hit with a lawsuit . The point is obvious if the government is faking it per cures and or treatments how can they tell those infected what to do as to their interactions . To wit , there is a dollar stamp on their existance .
Hey, are you okay buddy? Take it easy man I don't want you to get hurt.
Chuck-922708
Given that only a few provisions of Obamacare are now in effect, and the legislation as a whole is not fully implemented until 2014, I am calling BS on this post.
Being that Thrush is a yeast infection of the mouth and caused by overuse of antibiotics (not painkillers) this post is garbage.
To the Vine community please collapse chucks comment
I think a proof of concept is in order here.
Lets see how many political proponents are willing to take a low viral load....... my guess is not many.
Quite a view of the future of the U.S. if The Current President is reelected>
Condoms break; they are not 100% effective and I think HIV+ status should be disclosed to any partners. If they don't know, then they are not being given a choice.
If you are concerned that disclosing HIV status to potential partners will cause to many people to know, then maybe you should keep it zipped and keep 'em crossed.
This guy raped a child, who the hell cares about his rights?!?
I wonder if this Judge(s) would be willing to play Russian Roulette.
Judge is likely HIV positive.
if you are aware that you carry a communicable disease that is lethal, you should be held criminally responsible for failure to communicate that information to those you place at risk. if you go to work with the bubonic f*cking plague, and you're well aware that you have it, then you should be arrested and quarantined. if you willingly place another person's life in jeopardy because you don't want to tell them that you have the bug, then you should be arrested and quarantined too. HIV isn't the common f*cking cold. regardless of your "viral load," if you're infected, you should be required to say so before you f*ck somebody.
Goes to show how concerned HIV players are for everyone elses safety and rights.
The above comment carries a low viral load
My former brother in-law died of HIV, a year and a half ago. He was diagnosed 12 years ago. His partner of 18 years prior to his death, told me that John swore to him, that before getting into the relationship he was HIV negative. He either lied to him about taking ever taking an HIV test or cheating during the relationship. As his partner of 18 years told me, that F'n coward never took an HIV test going into the relationship. He just told me he was negative, but the truth was he never took a test because he never wanted to know. M. told me that he took an HIV test so he knows he was negative.
I believe he is right because when Jon was first thought he might have TB then it was pneumonia, 12 years ago, he was calling me crying like a baby. He was so afraid of having an HIV test. I worked at the CDC at the time. I told him that HIV was not a death sentance. I was expecting a baby in 2 weeks, I told him that he would have plenty of years to spend with his niece. I told him if he didn't agree to an HIV test they couldn't test him. The real reason he didn't want to know the truth was that he knew he had not been honest with his then partner of 7 years and had infected him with HIV.
Despite telling me three weeks later when he got out of the hospital, that he was going to write a will, and power of Attorney for his partner. His parents had locked his partner out of the ICU because they wrongly blamed him for giving Jon, HIV. Jon, could never fully accept the reality that he had HIV, and follow through with the Will. His parents are now trying to steal 18 years worth of life from M., Luckily the house is in M's name, because he told Jon he wouldn't add his name without him writing a will. Jon's parent's my ugly ex-in laws were there at the funeral's thinking they would load up the trunk. Sorry, you have to have an Estate probated. It takes a year in the state he died. M. filed charges when a sibling of Jon's stole some of Jewlery from the house thinking it was Jon's after the funeral. Had her served in another State. Thanks to Facebook the world can see how bad some people are.
Here's a thought....stop having sex with everyone you meet. If you get serious about someone, get tested together before you do the deed, and then decide how you want to proceed. All this ruling tells me is that now people can't get sued if they spread their disease because they didn't disclose their condition.
Many people place other's lives in jeopardy every day, by not vaccinating their children. Bacterial meningitis can kill someone within 24 hours, but there is a vaccine for it; yet many parents won't vaccinate the child for this.
I think if you refuse to vaccinate your children, then you should be legally obligated to tell EVERYONE that you come into contact with, that your child is unvaxed. Better yet, have non-vaxed people were ID tags - please, so that others will know and can keep proper precautions.
Ok, so how does your child being "vaxed" coming into contact with a "unvaxed" child cause your child life long harm? It doesn't if you believe the hype that vaccines are safe and effective. I can tell you for a fact that childhood vaccines are not the cure for everything since they do not produce the long lasting effects that we are told they do. So again how does this relate to the Canadian court ruling that you don't have to tell someone that you have HIV when you get intimate with them???
And for your ID tag idea, kinda funny a guy not long ago in history had people wear some tags too. They were arm bands infact with a star on them. You might remember his name... A mister Hitler. I don't fear someone with HIV giving it to me because I only have intimate (sex included) with one person.
Maybe if people would stop running around so much all STD's including HIV might actually go away. Kinda funny how that works.
People who spread STDs around SHOULD get sued.
Also, parents who don't vaccinate their kids should get sued if someone catches a disease as a result of their failure to vax their kid.
This is very interesting info, however, what needs to be addressed is that there is a viral infection 100 times more contagious than HIV, and it's called Hepatitis B. This viral infection is NOT routinely screened for, DOES NOT produce symptoms in some people, takes months to show up in blood work after initial infection, and CAN be a chronic, life altering condition that CAN make one very ill....AND is sexually transmitted (transmittable by blood, semen, vaginal fluids like HIV). The only prevention for Hep B is abstaining from having sex with an infected individual (many of whom don't know they are infected), condoms (although not 100% safe), and vaccination. This disease can cause you to become very ill, for months at a time, and if you're a child when you catch this, there is a high chance that it will become a chronic infection (meaning you are contagious to others via body fluids for an indefinite amount of time), and if you catch it as an adult with a healthy immune system, you will most likely clear the infection from your system within a year without treatment. I'm highly pissed that no one addresses this disease because IT IS out there believe it or not, just not getting the attention that HIV gets, but is just as dangerous. If you think you have been exposed to Hep B and go for testing you will immediately be tested for HIV as well, since the medical professionals say they go hand in hand. I really don't know what Canada is thinking about but I'm here to tell everyone to beware of the sh** they don't talk about as well, not just HIV, there are plenty other "non-visible,", so-called "uncommon" STD's out there that can and will harm you.
My place of employment paid for my series of Hep B vaccinations. However, there was also a warning in the paperwork that not all strains were covered by the vaccine.
There are vaccines for Hep B, and everyone should get them.