Obviously we here in Media Bites world know that News Can Be Fun™ -- especially when it involves naked royalty or Margarte Wente. But you know what's not fun? AIDS. And you know what's even less fun than AIDS? People who have it, then have sex with you without telling. And you know what's the least fun of all? A bunch of stern newspaper editorials about the Supreme Court's recent decision that not disclosing you suffer from AIDS before having sex can be legally permissible under certain circumstances.
"I approve of that decision" says noted woman-who-rarely-approves-of-anything Barbara Kay at the National Post. Before everyone puts on their outrage hats, Babs wants us to remember that sex with HIV-positive people is hardly "deadly" anymore -- what with today's modern miracle drugs and all. She prefers the term "consequential," as in, "sorry Mr. McCullough, you're too consequential to participate in the blood drive."
Disease-y sex may be rude and unpleasant, she concedes, but it's still "hardly a weapon in the sense of a knife or a gun." (In Canada, maybe, but African militias might not agree.)
Right on Bar, agrees another somewhat unsettling piece from the Ottawa Citizen editorial board. Kudos to the Supremes for finally taking a stand against this regressive idea that we need a sweeping "blanket law" doling out "extreme and inappropriate" punishments to every infected player who manages to quietly bed some uptight buzkill who might otherwise go all Howie Mandel on them. As long as everyone's well-clad in latex there should be nothing to fear.
Say what? You guys can't be serious, responds Heather Mallick at the Toronto Star, there's still plenty to fear!
It's all well and good to blindly take your chances with disease when you're on safari, she says, since "you can't ascribe vile intent or laziness to mosquitoes," but we're talking about supposedly consensual sex between two supposedly empathic human beings. And in all the cases of undisclosed infection the court examined, the reality was that the "sexual partners wouldn't have said yes to sex had they known about the HIV." So it's hard to see this as anything but a victory for those eager to shed the "moral burden of honesty."
Sigh. Avoiding diseased sex with random hookups was "previously simple," but now it's gonna be this big hassle of trying to suss out disclosures from people no longer legally obligated to give them. Thanks a lot, judges!
The ruling's not even that great from a HIV-positive perspective, observes Peter McKnight in the Vancouver Sun. Sure, the court may have said that under some circumstances not telling is okay, but those "some circumstances" are so vague as to be near useless.
If anything, the judges' unwillingness to wholeheartedly endorse condoms or low "viral loads" as a universal defence for the not-tellers actually "means HIV-positive people are at greater risk of facing legal sanction, even if they take some precautions to prevent transmission."
So don't come crying to me Supreme Court, says Pete, if all this results in fewer Canadians getting tested for HIV because you've made ignorance the easier choice.
In deciding whatever it is they decided last week, the Supremes rendered a solid 9-0 verdict. This is something they do quite a lot these days on the premise that unanimous rulings -- no matter how watered-down, group think-y and incoherent they wind up being -- are very good at uniting the country in equally unanimous acceptance.
Notice how well it works.
***
Thankfully, it wasn't all doom and disease in the punditsphere this weekend. You may recall that President Obama had a pretty bad showing at his inaugural debate with Mitt Romney on Wednesday. Well, that's certainly something our press buddies have lots of feisty non-AIDS related opinions on!
It was a "sheer bloody joy" to see ol' Hopey-Changey on the ropes cackles Michael Coren at Sun TV. Man, did he ever lose! Mike would even go so far as to call it "the worst defeat of an incumbent in the history of presidential debates" -- and you know sweeping conclusions like that don't come easily to Sun News journalists.
No bones about it, Mitt totally hit it "out of the park" agrees L. Ian MacDonald in the Citizen. Yup, "the best I've seen from Romney, ever," swoons Andrew Coyne at the Post. It was almost "as if someone had attached electrodes to his limbs," quips the Globe's Elizabeth Renzetti. You wouldn't expect a politician as polished and savvy as Barack Obama to "leave his game at the door," sighs John Parisella at Macleans' -- but that's exactly what he did!
"Yes we can, Obama famously said in 2008. But, no, he didn't, not against Romney," adds Warren Kinsella, fingers no doubt snapping sassily.
Veteran camapaign hack that he is, Kinsella knows that the key to Romney's debate victory was his strong focus on stuff that actually matters to average voters, rather than the boring "litany of facts" spouted by ol' snore-fest Barry. Mitt was great at speaking the language of "everyday values," like empathy and optimism, he says, and gave a genuine sense -- despite his aristocratic background -- of having a real plan to "fix the yawning chasm between the haves and the have-nots."
In fact, says Warren, it very much reminds me of the appeal of Justin Trud--
Ah, sorry folks. I really did try this time.
Follow J.J. McCullough on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JJ_McCullough
The face and reality of HIV has changed drastically. Your ideas are crazy. You are on the wrong side of the supreme court and no matter how much you kick, scream, and rant, will not change it period. This is the law of the land now. I don't like it because it does not address abuses of prosecution and a police system that is homophobic and HIV phobic. That it is one persons word against another, and the one with HIV is always guilty unless proved innocent.
The clue that gave you away to me is that you are quoting CATIE whose mandate does not cover legal issue. Which makes me think your are full of B.S. I'm not even going to tell you what agencies deal with legal issues, because if all you can do is play victim here, and are not smart enough to figure it out, means you are not smart enough to take seriously here.
You're sister got into a very bad co-dependant relationship where the lack of power put her in a very vulnerable position. It is a particular situation that cannot be extrapolated to every situation.
I can't stand that fact that we are put into this predatory category, a criminal, only one lack of disclosure away. This is what public health if for, and the law should be reserved the cases where true malicious intent is there.
Anyone using this terminology tells me a real lack of education. I suggest you go and talk to those who know the data.
Plus look at the context in which non-discloure is ok, condom and undetectable. Just show me one case where transmission has occurred. This is more about phobia and knee jerk reactions. Like it or not, the law as it stands, and will not change anytime soon is that with under these conditions disclosure is not mandatory. IF you don't like it, then don't have sex, or make sure you use condoms. It's as simple as that. Whining on Huff Post and in the comments is not going to change it.
People who disclose deserve the right to be free and see who they like, because they have shown their actions are in good faith. People who do not, like Aziga, who argue to the end that they are the victims while continuing to expose others to risk need to be kept away from the public. This is not punitive - it's practical. They have earned exile.
I tell him anyway in a chain of Facebook messages. He tells me off, saying what I have to say is some sick joke with something so serious. I tell him it's no joke. She tells him I'm lying to keep them from staying together and he falls for it. They continue on and off to date, fight, abuse, dysfunction.
They get back together again, they fight, they break up. Together again. He sees other women in between the break-ups. She can't tell him now because she's "afraid he will kill me".
I phone CATIE in Toronto, remiss with concern for this man's well being, despite him being abusive. The lawyer "advocate" on the phone advises against disclosure despite my concern about the public interest, and him being with other women, possibly transmitting the virus unwittingly. No, the lawyer says, otherwise you could be charged with a breach of privacy - a made up threat. This is not advocacy, it's impunity.
She met a guy, they dated. She didn't disclose. At first, it was too early. Then, she "loved" him and was afraid he would leave. They fought, he beat her. He went to jail for domestic abuse. She begged him to come back after he finished his time. Still no disclosure. He moves on, dates other women, comes back. They fight again, break up, get together again, break up. Police are involved and I ask the cop to tell him he should be informed she is HIV positive. The cop refuses, citing privacy.
I'll I'm hearing here is whining. There is obvious thing wrong with someone if they are in a relationship and they haven't disclosed status. I'd like to had I've been in seronegative relationships all my life and NOBODY has become positive. But we don't hear about that.
If you are so concerned about your sister, then talk to your sister. What this man does on his own time apart for that is not of your business at all as you don't know what the reality is. You can always go talk to public health. Why people think that this has become a sole legal issue is beyond me. There are many mechanisms in place to deal with this.
One can die from untreated gonorrhea. Shall we criminalize non-disclosure of gonorrhea too? What about syphilis?
One can die from the common cold. In fact, more people do die from the common cold worldwide than HIV. Shall coughing on someone without turning your head, or covering your mouth, or using a tissue warrant an aggravated sexual assault charge?
What about Hep C? Much easier to catch than HIV, and definitely much harder to treat. Shall we criminalize those who fail to disclose their Hep C status?
Purely, simply stigma. And HIV stigma seems to have a lot of ignorance on its side as evidenced by the writer. "...you know what's not fun? AIDS. And you know what's even less fun than AIDS? People who have it, then have sex with you without telling..." AIDS is the end-stage result of an untreated HIV infection and there is a whopping difference between AIDS and HIV. And one of those differences is the very telling symptom of physical appearance between someone with AIDS and someone with HIV.
Stigma. Pure, simple.