Skip to comments.Supreme Court of Canada rules you donít have to tell your sex partner if you have HIV
Posted on 10/09/2012 5:21:51 AM PDT by IbJensen
OTTAWA, October 8, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a landmark decision last Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that people who are HIV-positive do not need to tell their sex partners they have the disease, as long as they have low levels of the virus and use a condom during sexual intercourse.
The 9-0 ruling says that the realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if the infected person has a low viral load and uses a condom, superseding a 1998 decision.
Under the previous law, HIV-positive people who did not tell partners they had the virus could be charged with aggravated sexual assault, with a maximum penalty is life in jail.
According to a Canadian Press report, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, well known for activism on Canadian social issues, questioned prosecutors whether a requirement to disclose the disease to sex partners places too onerous a burden on HIV-positive people in light of medical advances in treatment of the incurable infection.
Fridays unanimous ruling came from appeals of two separate cases involving convictions under the previous law.
(Clato Lual Mabior, who was deported to Sudan, did not tell a 12-year-old he had AIDS before intercourse.)
In 2008, former Winnipeg resident Clato Lual Mabior was charged with nine counts of aggravated sexual assault based on his failure to disclose his HIV-positive status to nine plaintiffsone of whom was reportedly only 12 years oldbefore having sex with them.
The trial judge convicted him on six of the counts and acquitted him on three, sentencing him to 14 years in prison. An appeal court overturned four of the six convictions, on the basis that he had sexual intercourse using a condom and had a low viral load, which negated any risk of harm. The Crown appealed the acquittals, although Mabior was deported to Sudan in February 2012 after serving a reduced sentence.
In the other case, a Quebec woman, identified only as D.C. in court documents because of a publication ban, was convicted of sexual assault and aggravated assault for failing to disclose her HIV status to her former spouse. Her convictions were later overturned the Quebec Court of Appeal based on the fact that medical treatment had reduced her viral load to a negligible level.
The Supreme Court concluded in Mabios case no realistic possibility of transmission was established, but added that does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment and to circumstances where risk factors other than those considered in the present case are at play.
The Crowns appeal of D.C.s acquittals was dismissed by the Supreme Court with the reasoning that, To convict, it was necessary to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that D.C. failed to disclose her HIV status to the complainant, where there was a significant risk of serious bodily harm.
The critical issue on the trial, the court ruled, was therefore whether a condom was used on the single pre-disclosure act of sexual intercourse between the complainant and D.C.
That group of men and women who want a Global Government with them ruling and controlling it. They have sai(ala Mao Zedong) that it is "necessary" to cull the worlds' population of a few billion and that they'd do it gradually, by implementation of laws. They control the decisions made in the UN. They are godless, cruel, extremely wealthy and power-hungry.
What Canada and the United States are allowing to emigrate contributes to the problem. These nations from whence these emigrees come are mostly muslim nations that look not unkindly upon sex with children. This sin, described in this article is one that cries to heaven for vengeance as well as a millstone.
Horrible. Condoms are not 100% effective
must protect the butt pluggers at all costs !
So if a Canandian fires a gun at you, it’s ok as long as only a few of the chambers contain bullets. That reduces the probability that you’ll be killed. Plus, he could be a lousy shot. Plus, even if he hits you, you might survive. Plus, he may not have intended to kill you.
the pluggers, but apparently not the plugees.
Protecting the rights of QUEERS by endangering the innocent. How sick and twisted!
Who are these “innocent” people you speak of?
Last I heard they were only 80% effective for pregnancy and a sperm is a lot larger than the HIV virus. Imagaine a bottle with 10 asprin in it. Now imagine that someone tells you two of those "asprin" are really deadly cyanide poison but look exactly like the 8 asprin they nestle among. If you had a headache would you feel safe taking one of the "asprin"?
as long as they have low levels of the virus and use a condom during sexual intercourse.
This is not enforceable. You can already see the problem: define "low levels of the virus"?
Liberalism puts the onus on the wrong party. Transparency and logic would lead to the opposite conclusion and ruling .
I used to chat with my male friends about their bragging of going out chasing woment and their one-night stands.
I would always ask, “If you saw a woman who was extremely beautiful, but you knew for SURE she had HIV, would you have sex with her?” They always answered NO.
Yet they’d go have sex, often unprotected, with women they didn’t know. Never made sense to me.
A 12 year old?
Why don’t you start here - “one of whom was reportedly only 12 years old”
Was this 12-year-old raped? I didn’t see that in the article.
I friend of mine, who practiced “safe sex”, and later discovered her “boyfriend” was a switch-hitter, was diagnosed with HIV in the mid 90s. She developed full-blown AIDS in 2004. The boyfriend died before she found out she had contracted the disease from him. She found out when she went to give blood, and the blood bank called her in to discuss her donation. She told me that she saw the form with her name on it, and it was stamped “Condemned”.:(
Unbelievably, she is still alive, even after a stroke and being revived from flatlining. She has been using a walker and wears a diaper, and she is only in her late 40s.
Yep, those condoms sure protected her!
No you are right, 12 year-olds are old enough to give reasoned, mature consent and we should change the age of consent down to 10 to make people like you happy that they can’t claim to be victims of predators. /sarcasm
Oh, so your only objection to this ruling is that it doesn’t protect minors?
News flash: There are already laws protecting minors from sexual predators.
Or, imagine a 10-cylinder revolver. Would you feel safer playing Russian Roulette with IT than a standard 6-shooter?
Don’t change the subject. YOU don’t consider a 12 year old a “ victim” unless they were raped. You have problems, get help.
What next? A cab driver doesn't have to tell you he's been drinking before you get in his cab??????
You very, very specifically asked whether the 12 year had been raped, implying that if they had not, they were not innocent. You need help.
A twelve year old cannot give consent to sex. Therefore, yes, he or she was raped.
It would probably be .22 caliber. A 10-cylinder revolver of higher caliber would be too cumbersome.
Dont change the subject. YOU dont consider a 12 year old a victim unless they were raped. You have problems, get help.
I’m not saying I agree or not, but I seem to recall years ago (1950s, 1960s, ?) that the age of consent in Arkansas (and more states?) was 11 or 12. Who needs help?
In the eyes of some, until a person’s 18th birthday, he is “innocent” and pure as the driven snow. And if he gets AIDS from engaging in sodomy, it’s because he was forced.
Oh, and apparently there are no laws to punish the over-18 pervert who “raped” him, right? So instead we have to make do with charging the pervert for not warning him about the risk of AIDS from being “raped”.
(And then they say I’M the one who needs help. Go figure.)
No, the fact that the man wasn’t charged with rape signals that the 12-year-old was a willing participant in the sodomy, and judged capable of doing so.
“Innocent”? By no means.
A victim? Certainly. No 12-year-old who decides to engage in sodomy comes up with the idea on his own. He got it from somewhere.
But the minimum age for suffering the consequences of one’s decisions is a lot lower than 12. That’s determined not in a court of law, but in the world governed by the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.
I wish this kid had chosen differently, just as I wish he’d grown up in a world where this depraved behavior need never even be discussed in public.
Suddenly sex sounds less and less desireable.