Categories: Capital Diary

Politicians and prison outfits

by Mitchel Raphael on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:25pm - 53 Comments

AIDS activists dressed in black-and-white striped prison uniforms took to the Hill to protest the criminalization of HIV transmission, noting it is the only potentially fatal pathogen being treated this way.

The AIDS activists were supported by NDP MPs Libby Davies and Bill Siksay.

As well as Liberal MP Hedy Fry.

The AIDS activists.

John Honderich, chair of the Torstar Corp. board and former Star publisher, just happened to be walking by the AIDS protest.

Meanwhile in other protest news…

Before the AIDS protest wrapped up, another group of demonstrators arrived with effigies of Stephen Harper and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe as the two leaders met on the Hill for trade talks.

At the same time, Vancouver Conservative MP John Weston had several politicians, sports coaches, and Laureen Harper gather in front of the Peace Tower as part of his initiative to get MPs to invest at least “20 minutes 10 seconds” twice weekly into fitness activities. The amount of time is connected to the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games.

Labour Minister Rona Ambrose brought her dog Luna.

Toronto NDP MP Olivia Chow.

Senator Nancy Greene Raine.

Tags: AIDS, Alvaro Uribe, Bill Siksay, hedy fry, John Honderich, Libby Davies, Luna, Nancy Greene Raine, Olivia Chow, Rona Ambrose, Stephen Harper

More by Mitchel Raphael

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

If someone who has HIV knowingly has sex with someone and infects them, without revealing their HIV-positive status, shouldn't that be a criminal offense?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

If someone who has HIV knowingly has sex with someone and infects that person, without revealing his or her HIV-positive status, shouldn't that be a criminal offense?
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

You beat me to it, CR.

As far as I know, no one has been prosecuted for UNknowingly spreading the virus. Are these people REALLY using up their political advocacy to decriminalize the conscious and deceptive infection of others with HIV? Wow, there's a crowd to avoid…

Oh, and this cannot pass unmolested: … to protest the criminalization of HIV transmission, noting it is the only potentially fatal pathogen being treated this way. Really? Those weren't police officers enforcing public health isolation orders on the uncooperative during SARS? And have these people not heard of tuberculosis? There are STILL monitored antibiotic ingestions for the untrustworthy, with legal sanctions for failing to appear. If that line ("only potentially fatal pathogen") is the best they can come up with, they are losers.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

You beat me to it, CR.

As far as I know, no one has been prosecuted for UNknowingly spreading the virus. Are these people REALLY using up their political advocacy capital to decriminalize the conscious and deceptive infection of others with HIV? Wow, there's a crowd to avoid…

Oh, and this cannot pass unmolested: … to protest the criminalization of HIV transmission, noting it is the only potentially fatal pathogen being treated this way. Really? Those weren't police officers enforcing public health isolation orders on the uncooperative during SARS? And have these people not heard of tuberculosis? There are STILL monitored antibiotic ingestions for the untrustworthy, with legal sanctions for failing to appear. If that line ("only potentially fatal pathogen") is the best they can come up with, they are losers.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Thumbs up to both you and CR from me. My post below is a little more wishy-washy, but I essentially share your stance.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

MYL, on your passionate response to the protester's claim that this is the 'only potentially fatal pathogen being treated this way', doesn't your response prove his point???

sure cops were enforcing isolation on those not cooperating on their own merit, but they were not being charged to the best of my recollection, or even investigated really. further that case with the US lawyer who knew he had TB but traveled anyways after being ordered not to demonstrates that the risk of spreading/spreading TB has also not be subject to actual criminalization either.

Here is the story re the TB incident, where at least one other individual on the plane later tested positive.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/07/12/t…

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

S_n_M, I wasn't even talking about that TB high flyer. I was talking about those people no one cares enough about (mentally ill homeless drunk filthy guy on the corner) until he becomes a direct public health menace (hacking up a mycobacterial lung as he asks you for spare change). Suddenly the state cares very much about this guy, feeding his psychotic paranoia that the government is watching him because, well, it is. If he doesn't check in to swallow the antibiotic on schedule, they'll find him and see to it that he does.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

i know you weren't thinking about that dude, but it does not make him irrelevant.

again, i think their is a difference between what these protesters are protesting and what you are describing. the cops tracking down one of these missing cases, loading him/her up in the car, taking them to the test and giving them a stern warning is different than charging with assault/attempted murder for putting others at risk or causing them to be ill.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

not mention that you are seemingly over-stating what they are protesting. this dude seems to be involved and took about a minute to find:

http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/2009/…

"Like UNAIDS and many other experts in this area, I am opposed to such prosecutions unless it can be proved beyond any doubt that transmission actually occurred and that it was intentional – not simply that the person knew they had HIV. Such cases will be extremely rare during sexual transmission when the sex has been otherwise consensual."
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Take that up with Mitchell, I guess. I quoted his text and responded. "This dude" is protesting against convicting someone if there remains a shadow of a doubt. Would "this dude" like to cite a case where such a travesty of justice has occurred?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I tried to post this a while ago (the machine ate it, I guess), though CR and myl have sort of covered it off….

I wasn't aware that the criminalization of knowingly transmitting AIDS was a concern. I can understand the concern and potentially negative consequences (people not getting tested, among others). But at the same time, I'm not sure this was a case of the legal system stigmatizing AIDS so much as treating the deliberate transmission of any disease as an assualt.

If someone is charged with using a hammer for asault, I don't think we'd see carpenters protesting. For that matter, if someone carrying a virulent flu bug went around coughing in others's faces purposefully, I'd expect charges to be laid in that case too.

Then again, there is a certain onus on people to protect themselves during sex, or when using intravenous drugs, and to assume the risks if they fail to take precautions.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I guess the moral question here – to me – is whether the responsibility lies with the individual who knowingly sets out to infect others with a deadly disease (which is where I lean, at least with the recent cases brought to court), or whether you takes your chances if you engage in unprotected sex or share needles.

I'd sure like to hear what others think.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Sean for what it is worth, I really find it difficult. Morally, I certainly want to agree with yourself, CR and MYL. I can't think of any justification for putting the lives at others at risk, and potentially causing them grievous bodily harm, by having unprotected sex when knowingly HIV positive (or any other potentially fatal known pathogen).

But I do have a few issues that do make me reticent about criminalization.

1) known vs unknown – could be very tricky to prove an individual knew in some cases, leading to the possibility of false convictions and/or, as a lessor though important (in my opinion) concern, that we would be about to embark on a series of terribly difficult cases that are likely to end in stalemates and do nothing but further damage all involved.

2) plausible deniability – i share the concern of one of the protester's signs that this could/would lead to a reduction in testing to facilitate a defense of 'i didn't know'. the potential degree of wanton ignorance resulting from criminalization has the potential to do more harm than good for both the broader community – the risk of increasing infections across society through a range of high risk activities – and to infected individuals as well, precluding treatment.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I think you've identified some very real cautions to keep in mind. I'd add to that list the reality that AIDS has historically (in Canada) been a disease of marginalized people – and for that matter, anyone with HIV/AIDS joins the ranks of the marginalized, regardless of their status beforehand. And it's a bit much to ask marginalized groups to trust that such actions won't be coloured by perceptions of those groups.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

agreed Sean.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

3) the path of transmission – related to number one, often people who take part in one high risk activities (e.g., unprotected sex with individuals whose HIV status they do not know; shared injection needles) partake in multiple instances and types of high-risk behavior. while of course there are exceptions, in these instances – and someone with greater technical knowledge on this issue – but i believe identifying the source is not always possible. this too could lead to wrongful convictions and/or trials that simply damage participants without leading to any resolution.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

And yet, the rare cases that have made the news are those of people who have clearly known they had HIV, and either took efforts to conceal or negligently failed to inform sexual partners, putting these people at risk simply because they wanted to get laid. I fail to see how these cases merit any particular concern or sympathy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

did you even read what i wrote MYL?

the concerns i listed did not afford the kinda of people that you are describing any sympathy.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

The "And yet" could have been a clue, S_n_M. Yes, I did read what you wrote. You are making all sorts of points that are fine and dandy. But. These people are protesting the criminalization of willful HIV transmission. Because, unless someone can present evidence, that's the only kind of HIV transmission that's ever been prosecuted in this country. So colour me unimpressed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

colour me unimpressed with an argument that only considers what has happened historically.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

You really think it's worth dressing up in a Halloween costume and spending your day on Parliament Hill to protest something that (A) hasn't ever happened and (B) likely won't? Hey, cool, whatever floats your boat. I'll be over here if you need me, in reality.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, except that if the law is flawed, even if it's never been used historically in an unjust way, that doesn't mean we should leave it on the books. To me, the fact that a law has never, and "likely won't" be applied as written in an unjust manner, doesn't mean we should leave it alone (keep in mind I'm not familiar with the actual wording of the law(s) at issue here, I'm speaking to the hypothetical philosophical argument). To use an extreme example, if there were a law making it illegal for people to kiss in public, even if no one had ever been prosecuted for it, and there was little likelihood anyone ever WOULD be prosecuted for it, I still wouldn't feel comfortable about leaving the law on the books (again, I don't know how problematic the law in question actually is as worded).
Lord Kitchener's Own

"Willful" transmission is, you're correct, KINDA the only kind of transmission that's been prosecuted in Canada. The "kinda" alludes to the fact that in Canada (and we're maybe not unique, but certainly RARE in this distinction) we have had people convicted of aggravated sexual assault in cases where HIV was not actually transmitted to any of the victims. There is an argument to be made for a sexual assault conviction even if the person is not infected (obviously, since it's been made successfully and resulted in prosecutions) but I'm not 100% sure I'm comfortable with THAT precedent. I'm also not comfortable with the fact that, apparently, HIV is the only disease anyone's been prosecuted criminally for. There are potentially logical explanations for that too of course, but it's not a comforting stat.

Anon

What the hell's Rona wearing? A wet suit with the arms cut off?

BCer in Mtl

Stockwell Day wasn't using it any more, but the arms were too long so she cut them off.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

she's got pipes. were they too long, or were stockwell's guns and fitted suit just to small?

hosertohoosier

I agree with criminalization. The notion that people "won't get tested" (as implied by the signs of the protesters) is ludicrous. Without antiretroviral therapy, people with HIV aren't likely to live very long, while with it they can live for a fair period of time. The argument seems to be that people will avoid getting tested so that they can continue to have unprotected sex with people without legal ramifications (even though it means they will likely die fairly soon).

At the same time, people with AIDs may feel explicitly targeted. Why isn't it an offence (a smaller one, obviously) to knowingly transmit herpes or chlamydia?

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

A call out to anyone who may know. Have there not indeed been charges of assault (or something) brought against people knowingly spreading "lesser" communicable diseases?

hosertohoosier

My various google searches only came up with one result "woman charged for spreading herpes". It was not cached, however (it appeared to be from the UK). Another discussion on the forum, lawyer community seemed to lean towards you being able to sue.

This forum suggests that you can sue, but that it is a civil case, not a criminal one (eg. assault).
http://herpes-coldsores.com/messageforum/showthre…

I believe some of the people charged with spreading AIDs were charged for assault with a deadly weapon. Sorry I couldn't find anything more definitive.

Andrew (not P or C)

If there are other fatal pathogens they thing should be treated the same way, let's draft a law.
Kevin

Many good points in here, but if I am a person who has sex with strangers, do I not bear some responsibility for my own health? Is it solely the stranger's responsibility?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

The best analogy I can think of has to do with fraud. While some folks may ultimately be suckers waiting to be fleeced (How can I say no to a Nigerian prince?!), we still (rightly) go after the fraudsters where possible.

There was a time when a valid defense for rapists could centre on the promiscuous history of a woman, the way she dressed, etc. But ultimately, such nonsense was replaced with an understanding that "no means no". There's no "asking for it" perception anymore (thankfully).

One could even consider someone strolling through a seedy area of town holding a wad of cash. While we may see that action as foolish, and be unsurprised when that person gets mugged , we still hold the thief responsible.

Reading all the comments here and thinking about it, I think it's fair to say that people ought to be protecting themselves in a 'normal' encounters (sex, needles), but to still punish those who would *knowingly* and deliberately infect others.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I'm going to do some poking around but I think many of us MIGHT be missing something about the nature of the law being protested. The short explanation in the post mentions that "[HIV] is the only potentially fatal pathogen being treated this way". While I think I agree that knowingly transmitting a potentially fatal disease like HIV should have criminal consequences, I can certainly see why some would consider it problematic for a law to specifically and explicitly state that it's a crime to knowingly infect someone with HIV to the apparent exclusion of all other diseases. The protesters do seem to take their grievance a step further than even this, but to that limited degree I would tend to agree with them. A law making it illegal to knowingly infect someone with a potentially fatal disease seems entirely reasonable to me, but I can see how a law the explicitly and exclusively targets HIV in particular could be seen as arbitrary and discriminatory.

Dot

I can certainly see why some would consider it problematic for a law to specifically and explicitly state that it's a crime to knowingly infect someone with HIV to the apparent exclusion of all other diseases.

Huh. I thought it was exactly the opposite. People are being prosecuted under the criminal charge of assault with intent, and the AIDS activists want this particular disease excluded.

Lord Kitchener's Own

You're right about there not being a specific law as above (see below) but while I do think the protesters want to put a complete stop to HIV prosecutions, I also think framing it as them wanting this particular disease "excluded" misses an important point, that being that HIV is the ONLY disease being prosecuted this way. It's not that the protesters are saying "go ahead and keep prosecuting people criminally for knowingly spreading other potentially deadly diseases, just stop prosecuting people with HIV, they're saying, in part, why are you only prosecuting people with HIV for knowingly spreading a potentially deadly disease, when other people with other potentially deadly diseases are arguably guilty of the same thing? So, even if we leave aside the protesters apparent goal of NO ONE with HIV being prosecuted for this (which I don't think many people would agree with) I do think we can mostly agree that it at least APPEARS problematic that only people with HIV have been criminally prosecuted this way (to my knowledge). Even if the law could, theoretically, be applied to the transmission of ANY potentially deadly disease, the fact that it HASN'T been applied in this way to any other disease, and many believe that it likely will never be applied to any other disease in this way is potentially problematic.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

It was "some poking around" that got us into this mess.

Mike T.

There's often a difference between that which I disapprove of and that which I think should result in jail. Given the difficulty of proving an intent to disseminate a disease as opposed to just not mentioning it, I figure it's an issue best left alone in criminal law.

The civil repercussions of deliberately lying about HIV infection before having sex, as some sort of cause of action in tort, is a more interesting area, to me.

Dot

How about if someone deliberately stabbed someone (say a police officer) with a dirty needle?

Mike T.

It's a crime anyway , with attempting to spread the disease as an aggravating factor.

Isn't neat how different situations are often treated, y'know… differently?

Dot

Some may argue they're the same crime – intent, and lack of consent.

As for deliberately lying about HIV infection before having sex, some may include this as criminal negligence causing death.

Mike T.

Such people would be wrong.
Dot

Hung jury, then.

Mike T.

To correct my own post, it appears that actually trying to communicate the disease for a nefarious purpose isn't even necessary, just being reckless about it is all that's required. That makes it even worse, to me.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Also, actually, you don't even have to transmit the disease to be successfully prosecuted. There's a case currently before the Manitoba Court of Appeal in which a man was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in a case in which none of the victims was actually infected with HIV.

Dot

Hence also the difference in the criminal code between murder and attempted murder.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Indeed, although in the case of the man convicted of assault in Manitoba, where the victims did not actually contract HIV, my understanding is that the defendant was convicted of straight up aggravated sexual assault, not ATTEMPTED aggravated sexual assault.

The theory, I think, was that if you know you're infected and don't tell your partner (or worse, actively lie about it) that this makes your partner incapable of consenting to have sex with you (like how a 13 year old is incapable of legally consenting to sex). So even though the victim consented to the sex and did not contract HIV, the man was nonetheless convicted of aggravated sexual assault.

While I have little, if any, sympathy for the defendant, I guess I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with a person being convicted of a crime like aggravated sexual assault in a case where the victim had consensual sex (although with "uninformed" consent) and was not actually infected with HIV.

rumor

Seems like a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmissio…
hmmm

Writing and enforcing laws which make no sense are the stock-in-trade of governments. In order to promote the idea that the law is complicated and requires a huge and expensive legal, bureaucratic and legislative establishment, it is necessary to convince the public that things which everyone knows to be a crime are not really crimes at all, and that things which nobody thought was a crime must be fought tooth and nail using the coercive power of the state.

Therefore – not spending billions of dollars on drugs and research related to a disease which is almost entirely self-inflicted is a crime. Deliberately spreading the disease is NOT a crime.

The war against common sense and the inversion of morality are a necessary conditions for and hallmarks of the Nanny State.

That is why the protesters wisely chose to picket Parliament Hill instead of marching for their cause down mainstreet.
Dan

I do understand the point of the protesters. But not everybody does. Unless people are ready to listen to the reason why they think HIV criminalization is bad and until the protestors bring a constructive suggestion to the fix the problem, they won't have much success.
Angelina

There is a video of this protest with the guys in the prisoner outfits speaking. I have to say FIRST they are extremely weak speakers and should not be representing this group. Their ideas and arguments have big holes in them and you can really tell, well the numbers in the crowds speak for this, that there wasn't great interest in this protest. WHY? First, not enough is done to explain, they say they want to educate others when in fact they themselves are not educated on these topics. I have worked with HIV/AIDS patients for over 20 years now and the thing I do realize is that legitatemely people aren't going around looking to infect others.
Angelina

BUT with that said, there are people who do (we saw this with a CFL football player who did not care). If you have a serious medical condition, IRRELEVANT of what it is, and you partake in something that can KNOWINGLY put another person at harm, I think YES you should be made to own up to that and if it means being charged then so be it. Remember I work with HIV/AIDS patients and if I ever found out that one of them was having sex with people and not telling them I would talk to them and tell them they should. One will argue that it takes two to tango, THAT DOES NOT NEGATE YOUR MORAL OBLIGATION! Also why the guys in the outfits are not good speakers, if you find the video you'll see what I mean.
John

Angelina, as someone who also works with HIV/AIDS paitents I find your disdain of the protest(ers) to be quite concerning. The points you make are valid, namely: 1) overwhelmingly, people living with HIV do not deliberately infect others, and 2) for those very few exceptions of deliberate serial infectors, then it is apt to think that they should be brought to some justice. However, I find it concerning that you do not recognize the abundant evidence indicating that HIV criminalization actually leads to higher HIV incidence rates, and decreased access to treatment and testing programs. As HIV/AIDS health care providers (and informed citizens at large), it is our responsibility to be advocates (and activists) for evidence-based policies: locally, nationally and globally. If you or others care to find out more information then I suggest you read the UNAIDS policy brief on the criminalization of HIV transmission: http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/290…
John

Angelina, as someone who also works with HIV/AIDS paitents I find your disdain of the protest(ers) to be quite concerning. The points you make are valid, namely: 1) overwhelmingly, people living with HIV do not deliberately infect others, and 2) for those very few exceptions of deliberate serial infectors, then it is apt to think that they should be brought to some justice. However, I find it concerning that you do not recognize the abundant evidence indicating that HIV criminalization actually leads to higher HIV incidence rates, and decreased access to treatment and testing programs. As HIV/AIDS health care providers (and informed citizens at large), it is our responsibility to be advocates (and activists) for evidence-based policies: locally, nationally and globally. If you or others care to find out more information then I suggest you read the UNAIDS policy brief on the criminalization of HIV transmission: http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/290…