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:
The court is as evil as the people who deliberately spread it. The only privileged disease on record!
Id like to remind everyone that if the HIV epidemic would have happened anytime previous to the 80s all these people would have been rounded up and kept away from the public. Its what we do when people are dying and people are infected. We could have saved 100s of thousands of lives. Personally I could care less about the homosexuals as their souls are wasted anyway but what about the innocent people who have died? They were sacrificed so that these perverts wont have to face up to what they are doing.
I would have expected this decision from a conservative court in the southern United States, but Canada?
Just goes to show you that the US justice system isn't the only one that makes stupid decisions.
John Smith...you don't even know how to be a proper little bi*ch. Even the staunches libveral would laugh in your worhtless face over your comment for thinking that this is a conservative ruling.
On a scale of 1-100 for liberalism, this ruling is a soid 100.
see what happens when you get the gov't involved in civil matters. unless you pull out a gun and shoot the partner you are not putting them at risk if you have HIV and don't use a condom. transmitting the virus to a partner is not assult, it is simply the luck of the draw. how stupid can a group of judges be before they are fired.
If you have sex with someone who has knows they have HIV and they don't tell you, you should be able to shoot them and not tell them ahead of time.
It will end up culling the numbers in Canada - maybe that's what they wanted with this ruling.
"The risk of spreading HIV is made negligible just by using condoms"? Really?? Tell that to the thousands of people who have had a condom break due to the inexperience of using one properly. They say that condoms are 99% effective... well, I would hate to be that 1% whose condom was ineffective - especially if I was not given the choice or the right to know what my sexual partner was infected with. Nothing is 100% effective against sexually transmitted diseases except abstinence OR getting yourself and your sexual partner tested for STDs before you have intercourse. I am sooo glad that I don't live in Canada right now!
Canada, oh Canada, isn't that the start of the national anthem, sorry your supreme court is almost as dumb and stupid as the US supreme court. just think, whoever wins this election will get to appoint four justices to the court and affect US domestic policies for the next 20 to 30 years. that if nothing else should make you want to vote Republican.
So, can I assume from this that Canada doesn't believe in informed consent? And, who's to be the judge regarding the extent of risk? Not the potential victim, apparently.
The only thing more astounding than the verdict itself is the fact that it was unanimous!
Silly Canadians.
HIV has been used as a depopulation agent since the World Health Organization releasesed the virus into the NYC gay community in the early 1980's. The Germans had been experimenting with cross specie virus infections since back in the early 1900's. The German colony in South Africa under General Lothar Von Trotha began the worlds first Concentration camps. They rounded up the Herero Tribe which consisted of about 90,000 black African tribespeople. They put them in concentration camps and began medical experiments. It was during this time that a man named Dr. Eugen Fischer wrote a book named PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN HEREDITY AND RACIAL HYGIENE in which he claimed that the Herero were animals. Adolf Hitler read his book while in prison and that is where he got the idea of Concentration camps later on during WWII.
The German doctors had been busy trying to cross specie viruses like the Nephritis Virus which is a rabbit virus. They also did experiments with the S.I.V. virus the predecessor to the H.I.V. virus. They infected the Herero with the Hepatitis virus first to destroy thier immunity. Then they infected them with the S.I.V. virus and waited for the H.I.V. to cross the specie line and infect Humans.
Now you ask youselves whether the U.S. government had the virus after WWII? Well there is plenty of documentation that the U.S. government was soliciting private BIO LABS to contract study work on a rare organism called MYCOPLASMA. Now this is an organism which was not known to man until after the A.I.D.s outbreak in the 1980's. But here are records of the U.S. gov. trying to contract with BIO companies to develop this Blood Fungus as a bio weapon way back in the 1960's. How did they know or even have the Mycoplasm organism in the 1960's if they didn't have an H.I.V. patient? In addition, the Gulf War Syndrome has been linked to Mycoplasm tainted vaccines. Vaccines created through a company in Houston Texas in which George Herbert, Bush had a major investment. The companies name was Litton Bionetics.
Listen people. The only way to wake up is to swallow the red pill just like Neo did in the move The Matrix. Then you will wake up to something that will frighten you beyond belief. But you have to ask yourself. Do I want to de in my sleep or do I want to die on my feet fighting for my life and the life of my loved ones? You decide....
Just so you know...you are a WACKO, and everyone, inclduing your family, wants to see you dead.
You want to debate the merits of his arguments...have at it. Don't be a jerk though. It makes you seem desperate for intellectual ammunition. I personally don't subscribe to a conspiracy theory involving HIV but I don't see the need to belittle anybody in trying to get my points across. Perhaps you should be worrying about what YOUR family thinks of you.
Apparently the court has a lot of HIV perverts there and as acquaintances...
Due to the ruling: there are going to be a lot of bodies found dispersed and dispensed around Canada.
The other problem is they run here...for medical care...if you go there: you Pre--pay and you get what you can pay for...
And the illegal Kenyan in the White House reversed the long standing no HIV, no AIDS person to enter the USA: so the world is now welcomed...and where will they get their continued treatment from upon arrival or overstaying?
What a benefit?
Who can pay for yourself with you 23% premium increases and deductibles...getting larger in everything?
Not ith mia...
PS Does anyone remember the Florida dentist who had AIDs and infected hundreds of his patients? Obviously the court wants to curtail the population there! Cafeteria workers, hotel workers, all individuals who work with people...what an extremely pathetic special treatment...while intentionally endangering everyone else. Someone must have a vendetta...and wants to payback the public at larges... And with that, READ "The Harbinger" it is apparent that EVIL is blatant and the division of those making a choice to support it...and those standing up; then those who do nothing--which is basically standing up for EVIL are more prominent...the USA is divided... Just like the Bible foretold over 2,000 years ago!
It's official : the supreme court of Canada are a bunch of retards. You can thank the liberal mindset for this bull@!$%# . You guys are truly warped .
I think this court ruling is part of the poison of political correctness. HIV is still a gay issue, somewhat. I think they are afraid of being seen as anti-gay.
Also, why wasn't the man who had sex with a 12 year old girl prosecuted for statutory rape? He sounds like a despicable person to me. Having sex with a 12 year old and potentially exposing her to HIV. He needs to be shot.
You can't get much more fcuked up in the head than think this is ok .You folks don't surprise me though .
This is an insane decision. Condoms still have a 15% failure rate; with a rate like that, would you choose to undergo surgery? I wouldn't. This is human life we're talking about. You folks with AIDS, do the right thing: Tell your partners. Better yet, consider total abstinence. It's the only foolproof way to avoid passing it on.
"Condoms still have a 15% failure rate"
I'm just itching to jump all over you for dispensing false information. So, what I'll do is just respectfully request that you provide the source of that information. The CDC reports that condoms are 99% effective and nearly 100% effective when used correctly. Google CDC and condom usage. You'll find the info.
Can't believe it....a diseased group so willing to share their disease with unsuspecting partners and a court that says it is ok. Certainly the end must be near.
Absolutely idiotic!
This is crazy so people in Canada now can have sex without disclosing life threatening diseases. Contracting diseases has much to do with peoples immune system a low viral load may infect a compromised immune system and a high load may not infect a very virile immune system. Someone with a compromised immune system could easily die from hiv even today with its advanced treatments. I wonder if this includes hepatitis and all the other diseases I guess it is okay there for a TB infected person to have a kissing booth.
I have a friend who came out as gay over 21 years ago after being married and having kids he also told me he was hiv positive at the same time. I do not look at him as any different than before we have been friends since I was 3 years old. The court says since their are bigoted jerks in the world we all get to play russian roulette guess what there are all kinds of bigots and discrimination out there and people just deal with it.
What a foolish decision. I don't know the Canadian system, but I think the Canadian people should do whatever is necessary to get Justices with common sense appointed to their Supreme Court and those who thought this decision was the right answer removed. What constitutes a "significant risk?" It's a hard concept to define and even harder to justify when someone contracts the disease from activity deemed an insignificant risk. Unlikely things happen all the time. People win lotteries and people get unlucky too. We all know that odds don't always dictate the outcome. So why not let the involved people have the information and take whatever precaution they think appropriate or choose not to take the risk.
Anyone knowing they are HIV+ who knowingly goes out and has unprotected sex with others, should be charged with attempted murder and be put down like an animal.
So the British Columbia CLU is just as idioitc as the ACLU?
I guess their solution to them being less marginalized is to make it likely there will be MORE of them?
As if the player life isn't dangerous enough. My hope is that whoever fought for this law has a family member that gets aids from their spouse.
Personally, I think everybody with AIDS should be shipped to Africa for a one way vacation in the sun.
I'm so disgusted with this. I cant keep reading these stories about courts minimizing the most hurtful and damaging repercussions to sex! Im not a prude and I think TWO CONSENTING ADULTS can do whatever whenever and where ever( within the law [ha] and common sense of course ), but this is appalling! We've got liars and rapists out there and we've got court systems giving them a defense for the future! ( Im also referring to the story about the cerebral palsy case where the court ruled the victim didnt "fight back enough to prove a rape occurred"). Sex is great but shouldnt we think about being a little less liberal ( the action not the party ) with the repercussions. I mean for f's sake, this worlds going to turn into a free for all. WE ARE NOT ANIMALS!
If people depend upon laws and law enforcement for their protection, they deserve everything that happens to themselves. It's called look out for number 1 at all times....it ain't rocket science.
Agreed! But lets not forget to have some serious consequences for the a-holes that dont feel the need to be bothered with personal responsibilities.
Steve: In the days before public servants became viewed as leeches around the neck of society, we used to believe in a social contract: we paid taxes and got protection from the law. Both left and right had problems with that, balking at protection for "certain people", and thinking that certain laws were too intrusive. Someone, though, seems to have decided that the entire contract is null and void, and a lot of us didn't get the memo. That might be ok with you, but I ain't down with that.