Poz People F*cked By Canadian Supreme Court And They Didn’t Use A Condom Posted 10/18/2012 9:00:00 AM By Alex GarnerEditor-at-Large Don’t be fooled by the recent ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court regarding HIV criminalization. It was not a win for social justice. It was a step backwards.
Monday Magazine – Living with HIV: 'We are not criminals'
Imagine a world where you have to save condoms in the freezer every time you are intimate. One where you have every potential lover sign a form stating you disclosed your HIV status before things got serious, or where you run to the doctor every time you want to have sex, just so you can get a printout of your viral loads.
Oblique intention: On the (de-)criminalization of HIV transmission
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R v Mabior raises some interesting issues about the criminalization of HIV transmission. The case involved a man who was charged with nine charges of aggravated sexual assault under the Canadian Criminal Code for failure to disclose his HIV status to his sexual partners.
Legal Network's Alison Symington's letter to Ottawa Citizen newspaper
In his commentary on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions about HIV non-disclosure, Dr. Mark Tyndall hit the nail on the head: the criminal law with respect to HIV non-disclosure is, indeed, “blunt, misinformed, and ineffective.”
POZ Blogs : Canada: Supreme Court makes bad HIV disclosure law worse by Edwin Bernard
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday October 5th that individuals who know they are HIV-positive are liable to criminal prosecution for aggravated sexual assault – which comes with a maximum sentence of life in prison and sex offender status – if they do not disclose this fact prior to sex that may risk a
Lawyers critique Supreme Court ruling
Some criminal lawyers are worried that the Supreme Court has imposed on people prosecuted for not disclosing their HIV-positive status to sex partners a “significant evidentiary burden” to show that they used a condom and that their viral loads were low when they had sex. A pair of decisions handed down on Oct.
Activist Tim McCaskell on Supreme Court decision
Dr Mark Tyndal on Supreme Court decision
On Oct. 5, the Supreme Court handed down a decision with major implications for HIV prevention and public health in Canada. In a 9-0 ruling, the court found that people infected with HIV must disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners.
HIV criminalisation activist Nick Rhoades writes about his life as a convicted sex offender
Nick Rhoades: “I had never cried the whole time I was in jail, prison or up to that point of my probation. But that day, I sat on the edge of the bed and sobbed … so far away from my friends and family.
Law professor Robert Leckey on the Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on the legal status of sexual intercourse by someone who fails to disclose that he or she is HIV-positive. It remains a serious crime, with a maximum life sentence in prison. The troubling thrust of the high court’s message is that HIV-negative people have the right to engage in unprotected sex, no questions asked.