Steven Paul Boone, the HIV-positive gay Canadian man who authorities named and identified in public reports as a sexually transmitting hazard to your health, has seen charges against him upgraded. To attempted murder.
Boone was arrested in May after an 18-year-old man said he contracted an “infectious disease” after having unprotected sex multiple times with Boone, whom he met online. As Boone awaits trial, he has something new to fret over: four counts of attempted murder, apparently after additional men came forward following health officials’ open call to Boone’s sex partners. He also faces charges of administering a “noxious substance” (yep, HIV). That brings Boone’s grand total of counts against him to 31.
“Screwed” seems like an apropos term.
Derek
You should add that Boone knew he had HIV and was consciously having unprotected sex with people purposely intending to infect them. So yes, good for our Canadian justice system.
Cam
@jason:
Hi Jason, “Attempted Murder” merely means that he did something that “Could have” resulted in the death of somebody. Sure there are plenty of people with HUV living healthy lives, but if there is even a small chance that somebody could still die from it, then attempted murder is a valid charge in my opinion.
Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
@No. 1 Dereck
Unless Boone has stated his intention, how can you possibly know that his intention in having sex was to spread/infect others with HIV?
I have been HIV+ for at least 25 years, most likely 29 years. Over the course of all these years, I have practiced safe-sex only to not-safe sex with HIV+’s only. From the beginning, I have always told potential sex partners that if they are HIV- or don’t know, that they needed to protect themselves.
In Boone’s case, is it not a question of he said//he said? Obviously, those who had unprotected sex with Boone choose for themselves to act will careless disregard to their own protection. And, how can a fair judgement be made when the so-called victims willingly engage in unsafe-sex? Certainly if they had unprotected sex with Boone, it is reasonable to doubt whether or not they had unprotected sex with others.
Situations like the Boone case can have far reaching effects; as in, maybe its best, from an irresponsible person’s point of view, to not get tested at all. For the community at large, that would make matters worse.
I have empathy for all those newly infected by HIV; it is a heavy burden you will be bearing. But I do not have sympathy; the so-called victims would not be victims at all had they been responsible to themselves and engaged in only protected sex.
greg
@derek exactly- deliberately spreading an infectious disease to people unaware, esp HIV/AIDS (Which, while chronic, still has no cure and still causes death), is an absolutely disgusting thing to do.
Sure some responsibility needs to be put on the shoulders of the men who practiced unsafe sex, but the fact remains that Boone knew, and deliberately infected men. So these additional charges do make sense.
Ponyboy
Sorry Jason HIV still kills people. Even the magic drugs fail occasionally.
Blaine Ward
Boone himself said in his bareback dot com profile (now deleted) : “…neg boys step to the front of the line. Love to breed neg bois with my poz seed”.
So, yes, he knew he was poz and yes, he willfully wanted to spread the disease. Why? Because he is a dangerous sociopath. And jail is where he belongs!
bob
@blaine sounds like disclosure to me
where is the responsibility of the men he slept with? it doesn’t sound like this was non-consensual, so these men made a decision to have unsafe sex with someone they didn’t know and met online. it’s absolutely their decision to make, but they are well aware that they are putting themselves in a situation where contracting HIV is a real possibility.
frozen north
@Derek, You’re guilty of the same assumptions you’re accusing others with. You don’t know if the “so-called victims” as you put it had unprotected sex with anyone else. You don’t know if they out right asked him if he was HIV poz and he lied. Frankly, I doubt the Canadian system would prosecute if this was only a “he said/he said” sort of situation. Funny how most legal system require more than that to bring about charges, isn’t it?
@Bob, you assume the guys that came forward used the website to meet this guy. They could have meet him at the bar, on another site, through friends, at a coffee house. We just don’t know the facts of the case. Again, I’d presume the prosecuters wouldn’t have pursued this case if it had all started from this website profile.
whatever
bareback dot com? groan.
Qjersey
All it takes is ONE HIV+ sociopath hooking up with lots of men in bathhouses, sexclubs, or online to perpetuate the spread of HIV.
Sad but true,
Don’t even get me started on the poz bottoms who lie about their status and let guys fuck them raw “cause tops don’t get HIV.”
Why?
We gay men need to start taking responsibility for ourselves and our communities. It is simply stupid to have unprotected sex. You not only risk your own health but the health of all future partners.
I’m only 34, but I hear guys 10 years younger talking about being willing to risk contracting HIV solely because it is now “treatable.” This is asinine. There simply is no cure. While you can stay healthy for a while, all the scientific and anecdotal research shows YOU WILL HAVE SUBSTANTIAL HEALTH PROBLEMS LATER IN LIFE. Why the hell would you risk this for one nut?
I applaud Canada for prosecuting this ass. I think we should prosecute others who willingly attempt to infect their partners (even if the partners are interested). Here in NYC there are more than 100,000 people (not all gay, of course) infected with HIV–a disease you can prevent by simple behavioral modifications. What the hell is wrong with us?
Zachz
@Qjersey:
A good reason to avoid bathhouses, sexclubs, and fucking people you meet online.
Clint
I’m on the fence about this one. but his bareback dot com profile “…neg boys step to the front of the line. Love to breed neg bois with my poz seed.” that makes me sick.
Cassandra
“–a disease you can prevent by simple behavioral modifications. What the hell is wrong with us?”
The only “behavioral modification” that prevents the transmission of HIV
is celibacy.
For thirty years, the homophobes have asserted that the answer to HIV/AIDS was
absolute celibacy for gay men
prison/concentration camps for gay men with HIV/AIDS
And apparently, they’ve managed to sell the idea to GLBTQ people on queerty as well.
Aside from celibacy, all other methods of preventing HIV transmission are a matter of risk, some sex acts are riskier than others, but even oral sex and mutual masturbation have a slight risk (ejaculate in a cut or gums bleeding from brushing just before giving a blowjob).
Safer sex practices reduce the risk level, but do not completely prevent the transmission of the virus. Many people who are HIV+ today practiced safer sex, used a condom every time they had penetrative sex. Condoms can break or tear during the sex act, or have micro-holes that allow the virus to pass through the barrier.
A Swedish study found that HIV+ positive people who have a undetectable viral load are effectively unlikely to transmit the virus, and other studies show that a person is most infectious during that window between infection and having a high enough viral load to test positive. So the greatest risk of infection is not from someone who knows that they are HIV+ and is treating it, but from someone who has sero-converted in just the prior few weeks and won’t yet test positive.
Anyone who has consensual unprotected sex with anyone, is responsible for their choice, and if they sero-convert, they are responsible.
This case is terrible, because it will make a lot of people afraid to get tested, while the prosecution will have a very difficult time proving that Steven Boone was the specific source of the virus for the men accusing him, and that his intent was to kill.
If his viral load is undetectable, if he has a fairly common strain, they won’t be able to prove that he was the source of the virus, rather than someone else that the accusers haven’t/won’t name. The prosecution will also have to prove that the accusers were not themselves already infected at the time they had sex with Mr. Boone – and if they had sex, protected or not, within six to eight weeks before their hookup with Mr. Boone, they could have been already infected, and even test negative.
If the prosecution succeeds in raping justice, Canada will have a precedent that equates consensual sex by HIV+ people murder – just being HIV positive will make any sex act by people ‘attempted murder’. That is a horrific precedent.
Additionally, engaging in a risk heavy activity does not equate to attempted murder. More people die in the U.S. and Canada from car accidents than from HIV/AIDS; every time anyone one of us gets behind the wheel, we risk causing injury and even death to others.
This case in Canada is not about justice, it is about homophobia, and it is an attempt to make sex illegal for an entire class of people.
Why?
Cassandra,
With all due respect, you miss the point. There likely would not be a prosecution if there was not evidence that this fellow purposely intended to infect others. The government need not show that he actually infected someone. If he purposely engaged in an activity that risked the life of another, he can be prosecuted for attempted murder. The nature of an attempt crime is that the actual result does not occur–i.e., an attempted robbery is an uncompleted robbery.
That said, your arguments that advocacy for responsibility within the gay community are sheer evidence of internalized homophobia really are cliched. One can actually embrace himself and his community while still exhibiting concerns for the behavior of many within the community.
It’s 2010. We don’t need to continue to define ourselves as everything that is not heteronormative.
DR
If he did in fact knowingly transmit the HIV virus to other men after failing to disclose his HIV status, he is a criminal, plain and simple.
It will be interesting to see where and when these men met. Let’s face it, we all know that for every man who is honest about his HIV status on his online profile, there’s at least one other who isn’t. It will be interesting to see if the prosecution can get copies of this guy’s ads and go from there. Did he lie? Was he overly coy? Does he have ads in some places where he says he’s poz, and others where he says he is neg? There is a lot we don’t know about here, although I can’t imagine that four strangers would all perjure themselves.
I am very much tired of this nonsensical argument that “this will make people afraid to be tested”. Bull. If you engage in ANY sexual activity, same sex or opposite sex, you have an obligation to know your status, and not just HIV, but all STDs, especially if you prefer not using protection.
If you refuse to get tested because you’re afraid of being told you’re POZ, then stop having sex until you’re willing to be adult enough to know where you stand.
Zach
@Cassandra:
“Many people who are HIV+ today practiced safer sex, used a condom every time they had penetrative sex.”
No they didn’t.
Condoms do tear, and people have been infected despite using condoms, but if by ‘many’ you’re implying either the majority or a substantial minority, you’re factually incorrect. These aren’t minute degrees of risk, they’re substantial variants. If people used condoms every time they had vaginal or anal intercourse, infection rates in the general populace would plummet.
“This case in Canada is not about justice, it is about homophobia, and it is an attempt to make sex illegal for an entire class of people.”
No it isn’t. Canadian heterosexuals have already been successfully prosecuted for the same thing.
One more thing: using condoms may not completely eliminate the risk for HIV infection, just as having a balanced diet and regularly exercising doesn’t eliminate the risk of a heart attack. But there’s a substantial moral difference between the person who takes responsible steps – be it limiting their number of sex partners and using condoms, or not scarfing down cheeseburgers every single day – and those who refuse to take any preventative measures.
robert
so many people that support trying him for attempted murder seem to forget the inconvenient fact that his sexual partners willingly had unprotected sex with him. they made a choice. by the logic of the “attempted murder” crowd, the sexual partners should be charged with attempted suicide. fair is fair, after all.
Zach
@robert:
Did you actually even read the original story?
robert
@Zach:
yes, i did: nowhere does it say he raped them. were the encounters non-consensual?
Zach
@robert:
No, you clearly didn’t.
Zach
Or you’re being deliberately obtuse.
Cassandra
“With all due respect, you miss the point.”
No, I did not.
“There likely would not be a prosecution if there was not evidence that this fellow purposely intended to infect others.”
This is real life, not TV. Read something other than this blog for a change, and you’ll see that prosecutors routinely push cases that they do not have sufficient evidence for, particularly when suspect class suspects are involved – like gay men, people of color, poor people.
“The government need not show that he actually infected someone. If he purposely engaged in an activity that risked the life of another, he can be prosecuted for attempted murder. The nature of an attempt crime is that the actual result does not occur–i.e., an attempted robbery is an uncompleted robbery.”
If the government need not show that he ‘actually infected someone’, then anyone with any communicable, possibly life-threatening disease, can be charged with attempted murder. That includes anyone with the flu, because the flu kills more people every year, in the U.S. and Canada, than HIV/AIDS does.
You are missing the point here – Canada prosecutors attempting to redefine ‘attempted murder’ so broadly, that anything anyone does that creates any risk for anyone, becomes ‘attempted murder’. That includes heterosexual sex too – because there is always a risk of death from complications in pregnancy. It includes driving a car, piloting aircraft, sharing food with others.
“That said, your arguments that advocacy for responsibility within the gay community are sheer evidence of internalized homophobia really are cliched.”
Thanks for projecting, since that is not what I argued. Your lie endangers other people, so shouldn’t you should be charged with attempted murder, eh?
Dismissing what I actually wrote as ‘cliched’ indicates that you have no substantive point to make, no accurate rebuttal to offer.
Perhaps you are fundamentally ignorant about how HIV/AIDS was used during the 80’s and 90’s as a justification for illegalizing gay sex/enforcing celibacy for GLBTQ people, and worse still
rounding up all gay men and putting them in concentrations camps (prop 64)
http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/aids.htm
” The battle over Proposition 64, California’s AIDS quarantine initiative, is raging hot and heavy. The medical community opposes it as being irrational and unscientific, but polls indicate that it has significant public support. Its sole champion among elected officials, Congressman William E. Dannemeyer (R-Cal.), describes it as a legitimate public health measure.
In fact, Proposition 64 is a political/ideological maneuver which has little to do with AIDS or public health. It was dreamed up by the Virginia-based extremist and three-time Presidential candidate, Lyndon LaRouche, to cash in on the public worry over AIDS and the recent resurgence of gay-bashing. It was LaRouche who coined the rallying cry for the Prop. 64 campaign, “Spread Panic, not AIDS.” Followers of LaRouche drafted the measure, circulated the petitions, and are now doing most of the campaigning for it. A LaRouche-linked business, Caucus Distributors, Inc., has provided most of the funding.
Experts on the LaRouche organization say they doubt that LaRouche cares at all about stopping AIDS or helping its victims. “Considering his view of gays as subhumans, the logical belief for him would be the more AIDS the better,” says Russ Bellant, a consultant on right-wing groups. Publications of the LaRouche organization are peppered with words like “faggot” and “queer,” along with allusions to the possible need for violence against gays, whom the LaRouchians generally equate with child molesters.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1989/oct/26/aids-in-cuba/
“Cuba has used, in an abusive manner, compulsory HIV tests and has incarcerated those who test positively. Thus Cuba seeks to combat the virus by combatting those people whom the virus attacked. In this way, Cuba is defeated by the HIV virus and by the ideological virus of prejudice and discrimination. There are no possible arguments to defend these positions, except for those based on the most reactionary forms of prejudice against gays.
Certainly Cuba will soon discover that these measures are counterproductive: people with AIDS will be placed in the position of enemies, even more difficult to locate, and the epidemic will not be overcome. The only result will be to impose absurd suffering on those who today could easily contribute to control the epidemic, as has been happening in other countries of the world. ”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/08/huckabee-wanted-aids-quar_n_75924.html
Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could “pose a dangerous public health risk.”
Anti-gay activists have been demanding that GLBTQ people simply ‘don’t have sex’ as their solution to our sexuality for decades, and celibacy for us was their consistent answer to HIV/AIDS. HIV was used to justify calls to re-criminalize homosexuality – it is still used for that purpose. Its part of the call to criminalize homosexuality in Uganda.
Ignorance about the history of AIDS stigma/paranoia endangers all of us, which would make you an attempted mass murderer, by your argument.
robert
@Zach:
i believe this is the original article you speak of.
nowhere is one led to believe the encounters were non-consensual as the charges of sexual assault seem to be not about forcible sexual activity but rather exposure to hiv. law enforcement is trying desperately to make the case that this man should be also charged with attempted murder because he knew himself to be hiv+ and was still having unprotected sex. why should the partners not be charged with attempted suicide? they chose unprotected sex, and they had it knowing sex involved infectious disease. (ignorance isn’t justifiable before the law.) since they had consensual unprotected sex: they bear some responsibility for contracting hiv from these encounters.
to charge this man with attempted murder is an unequal, disproportionate use of the law. the only piece of information that could cause me to reconsider my position is if he lied to them about his status, if they asked.
i just see a lot of people trying to have their (morally righteous) cake and eat it too. if boone is a terrible, evil, criminal human being for exposing people to hiv, why aren’t the sexual partners who had unprotected sex also terrible, evil, criminal human beings?
Cassandra
Zach
“No they didn’t.”
Oh, are you a peeping tom? Otherwise, you are lying, including about people I know intimately.
“but if by ‘many’ you’re implying either the majority or a substantial minority, you’re factually incorrect.”
No, I am not. In the mid 80’s to mid 90’s, the most popular brand of condoms, Trojans, had a 27% failure rate.
“These aren’t minute degrees of risk, they’re substantial variants. If people used condoms every time they had vaginal or anal intercourse, infection rates in the general populace would plummet.”
That is not exactly accurate.
“No it isn’t. Canadian heterosexuals have already been successfully prosecuted for the same thing.”
Prove it with links.
In the meantime, there a many other activities, including sexual situations, that bear a risk of death, that are not being treated as ‘attempted murder’ – including heterosexual intercourse (women still die from pregnancy or acquire life-long debilitating conditions).
“But there’s a substantial moral difference between the person who takes responsible steps – be it limiting their number of sex partners and using condoms, or not scarfing down cheeseburgers every single day – and those who refuse to take any preventative measures.”
And you have appointed yourself to be the judge. Congrats.
In the meantime, Canada is attempting to make any sex by HIV+ people the equivalent of murder.
robert
@robert:
“to charge this man with attempted murder is an unequal, disproportionate use of the law. the only piece of information that could cause me to reconsider my position is if he lied to them about his status, if they asked.”
strike that, this is an unequal and disproportionate use of law no matter what. consider what precedent this is setting. will contraction of gonorrhea be grounds for criminal prosecution? what about herpes, which is a lifelong condition that increases the risk of contracting hiv? seems to fit the definition of reckless endangerment.
Why?
First case prosecuted by the Ottawa gov’t was a straight man.
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100507/OTT_Sex_Assault_100507?hub=OttawaHome
Precedent-setting case
Last year, a jury found a Hamilton man guilty of first-degree murder after two women died after he had unprotected sex with them and failed to disclose that he was HIV-positive.
The historic ruling put Johnson Aziga behind bars for murder, as well as 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault.
In all, Aziga infected seven women with HIV after neglecting to tell them about his condition. He was the first person in Canada charged with lethally infecting sexual partners with HIV.
Ottawa police ask anyone who may have been a victim of Boone to contact investigators at 613-236-1222, ext. 5944 or Crime Stoppers at 613-233-TIPS.
Cassandra
To put this in a simple way
For anyone who is HIV+, all sexual activity has some risk of transmitting the disease, the only way to completely eliminate that risk, is to be celibate.
When a state argues that the presence of risk alone equates to attempted murder, then any time anyone who is HIV+ has sex, with condoms or without, with complete consent and disclosure, they can be charged with attempted murder.
Canada is trying to say “Sex while HIV+ = attempted murder”. That is a threat to everyone.
It intrinsically includes HIV+ couples and the HIV+ partner in a mixed-status couple. If this case is prosecuted successfully, it would in practice become illegal for anyone who is HIV+ to have sex with anyone.
Yes, that will absolutely be an impediment to testing for people. It will drive HIV+ people into hiding as well, and put anyone who has ever disclosed his status to coworkers or even doctors in danger if anyone who knows his/her status disproves of his/her sexuality or relationship.
This is huge, and some of you are being self-righteous and judgmental about the details of someone else’s sex life, to the point of endangering others.
Why?
Cassandra,
It really is not beneficial for you or any of us to cry wolf and assume that this is motivated by homophobia. You have no support for that other than the fact that the target of this prosecution is a gay man. In fact, the first person prosecuted for this in Canada was a straight man who infected women!! And why isn’t this an example of the Ottawa gov’t actually favoring gay men, because it is prosecuting on behalf of only gay victims?
It’s not 1980 anymore. Is there still discrimination–of course there is–but you can’t assume something is motivated by discrimination with actual evidence to support it.
Now, google this guy’s name. You’ll see news article that state that his “victims” claim he lied to them about his HIV status. That is simply reprehensible behavior and should be prosecuted. Full stop.
I respect your views. I do. But I think they’re outdated. We’re not living in a world anymore where we can assume that all gov’t attention to the gay community is motivated by animus. Perhaps we should applaud the Ottawa gov’t for showing that we matter, too.
Cassandra
“First case prosecuted by the Ottawa gov’t was a straight man.
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an…..OttawaHome
Precedent-setting case
Last year, a jury found a Hamilton man guilty of first-degree murder after two women died after he had unprotected sex with them and failed to disclose that he was HIV-positive.”
So, it is not the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Aziga
“Johnson Aziga (born 1956) is a Ugandan-born Canadian man resident in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, notable as the first person to be charged and convicted of first-degree murder in Canada for spreading HIV, after two women whom he had infected without their knowledge died.”
Further to my earlier point, Mr. Aziga is black, and thus, a member of another suspect class – people who are treated more harshly than others.
“He had unprotected sex with 13 women without telling them he was HIV-positive. Seven of these women later tested positive for HIV, two of whom died of complications of AIDS, in December 2003 and May 2004.
Several Canadian courts have ruled that persons who are not informed that a sexual partner is HIV-positive cannot truly give consent to sex.”
Unlike Mr. Boone, who disclosed his HIV status, Mr. Aziga did not. By the precedent set in Mr. Aziga’s case, Mr. Boone did not attempt murder, because he disclosed his HIV status.
To further differentiate between the two: “Aziga’s trial began in October 2008. [1] Among the first revelations made in trial proceedings are claims by Aziga’s former girlfriends that he lied about his HIV status and continued having unprotected sex until the morning of his arrest in 2003. Aziga’s lawyers claim that no conclusive link can be shown to indicate that the deaths of his former girlfriends can be attributed to HIV/AIDS. [3]”
Lying about being HIV+ changes things, it introduces the element of intent.
These two cases are not ‘the same thing’. Did you not research them, or were you deliberately trying to mislead people?
The willingness of some HIV- gay men to throw HIV+ men to the wolves is a shameful and despicable thing. It severely damaged our communities in the 80’s, and is just as destructive now.
robert
@Why?:
the case mentioned has its own dubious qualities and isn’t really all that relevant to this case involving boone.
first, consider that johnson aziga directly lied about his hiv status when asked by his sexual partners. boone’s sexual partners never asked, even though they consented.
second, in the case of johnson aziga, the courts relied on a very strange (and, i think, overreaching) interpretation of fraud statutes to support the notion that a person could not give consent without knowledge of the partner’s status. are we going to start requiring full biometric scans and bloodwork before sex in order to ensure we have all the legal bases covered before we do the dirty? are we really going to treat consensual sex as a contractual agreement? gawd, i think we could probably make sex such a cumbersome, dull activity that we’ll achieve the chastity that neocons fetishize so much.
Cassandra
“It really is not beneficial for you or any of us to cry wolf and assume that this is motivated by homophobia.”
That is an empty dismissal, and it indicates that you have no fact based rebuttal.
“You have no support for that other than the fact that the target of this prosecution is a gay man.”
Good grief. Your statement is a lie, Why. I posted tremendous support for my position.
“In fact, the first person prosecuted for this in Canada was a straight man who infected women!!”
A black man, a nationalized foreigner, and so, also a member of a group on the receiving end of tremendous prejudice and discrimination. A man from a group that is also characterized as rapaciously sexual.
Of course, in his case, he did not disclose his status, and may have lied about it.
“And why isn’t this an example of the Ottawa gov’t actually favoring gay men, because it is prosecuting on behalf of only gay victims?”
You are missing the point. There are many activities that carry the same, or higher risk, of causing death or injury, including heterosexual pregnancy, yet those activities are not treated as ‘attempted murder’. But a gay HIV+ man, who discloses his status, has consensual sex with other men, and he gets charged with attempted murder.
“It’s not 1980 anymore.”
No, in 1980 Uganda wasn’t trying to make homosexuality punishable by death. There is a backlash underway, and if you study history some, you’ll see that we are not safe, the tide could easily turn against us. Go read up about how life in Germany was for gays just before the Nazi’s, how society was changing away from homophobia, the efforts to remove Paragraph 175 were making progress, and then, all that progress was swept away in a handful of years.
“Now, google this guy’s name. You’ll see news article that state that his “victims” claim he lied to them about his HIV status. That is simply reprehensible behavior and should be prosecuted. Full stop.”
You are a little late, I’ve already done the homework you should’ve done before you cited his case as ‘the same thing’. At least now you admit that the two cases are not the same.
“I respect your views. I do.”
Don’t lie me. You’ve been dismissive and dishonest.
“But I think they’re outdated. We’re not living in a world anymore where we can assume that all gov’t attention to the gay community is motivated by animus.”
I suggest that you start paying attention the real world. And that you stop misrepresenting my arguments and attempting to refute strawman fantasies of your own imagination.
Why?
Cassandra, come on. This case is about someone attempting to PURPOSEFULLY infect others against their will. It’s not about the government trying to control you or others. You worst case scenario simply cannot happen. No government has resources to prosecute like that.
I don’t know your history, but there simply is no basis to conclude that I am judging anyone who is positive based solely on their status. I, however, do think it is repugnant, irresponsible behavior to transmit the virus regardless of a partner’s desires. I think it is even worse to willing seek the virus. We’re at epidemic proportions now. How can you defend these behaviors?
And don’t play the homophobia card with me. My feelings are the same regardless of the sexuality of the carrier/recipient.
addisondlls
As an HIV positive man who is upfront about his status, this is quite upsetting. Many people die of different illnesses that they contract from other individuals every day. We are all responsible for our person.
With that being said we need to look at the neg4neg bareback ads online. Why would a rational individual trust a complete stranger telling you that he is negative and then have bareback sex with him? What if either individual has never been tested and one transmits the disease to the other? Would he be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
My main concern is this, where do we draw the line. If I practice safe sex with an individual and still trasmit the virus, what’s stopping an individual from suing me or worse having me arrested?
Blaine Ward
@Why?: Cassandra obviously has an ax to grind so pay no attention to her.
Why?
Cassandra, there really is no further to go in this debate.
Simply put, this ass infected others with a disease that will ultimately kill them. It may not be today, but they will die of complications from HIV/AIDS and/or the antiretrovirals. He didn’t give them the clap; there is no cure. (I’m not even going to broach the broader arguments about the sheer irresponsibility of taxing limited healthcare resources).
I do respect your view. I think I know where you’re coming from. That does not mean I have to agree. Imho, you are simply wrong.
There is no benefit to finding discrimination in every circumstance. Gay white men and straight immigrant black men and heterosexual asian women all should be subject to the same laws.
I appreciate your progressive stance on this issue, but I just think you’re come full circle. We need to be practical as well. Current measures have done little to curb the spread of the virus, which is actually INCREASING in our community. There is simply no excuse.
robert
@Why?:
“I, however, do think it is repugnant, irresponsible behavior to transmit the virus regardless of a partner’s desires. I think it is even worse to willing seek the virus. We’re at epidemic proportions now. How can you defend these behaviors?”
quite easily, in fact. in essence, you are saying it is the government’s responsibility to mediate, monitor and mandate the consensual sexual relationships of its populace. i don’t care what public good it may serve, i want the government out of my bedroom.
if you don’t want to contract hiv, here are some don’ts to follow: don’t have bareback sex, don’t have sex with anyone you can’t trust, don’t live in ignorance of your partner’s status.
Baxter
If I had ebola and went around vomiting up blood on people with the intent of infecting them, I’d hope that the police would step in and stop me. This guy is no different.
Cassandra
“Cassandra, come on. This case is about someone attempting to PURPOSEFULLY infect others against their will.”
You are being deceitful again. This is a case of a man who disclosed his HIV+ status, had consensual sex, and is now being charged with attempted murder.
“It’s not about the government trying to control you or others. You worst case scenario simply cannot happen. No government has resources to prosecute like that.”
Have you ever studied history? Further, injustice need not be on a universal level – a government prosecuting everyone who fits a situation, to be injustice.
“I don’t know your history,”
My history is irrelevant, but your reference to it indicates that you cannot defend your point based on facts.
“And don’t play the homophobia card with me. My feelings are the same regardless of the sexuality of the carrier/recipient.”
In other words, you demanding that the argument you cannot refute be taken off the table.
“Cassandra, there really is no further to go in this debate.”
You are free to stop posting about it at any time then. I acknowledge that you have contributed nothing of value so far.
“Simply put, this ass infected others with a disease that will ultimately kill them.”
Your pejorative indicates your bias.
Being born will ultimately kill you. Is your mother a murderer?
“It may not be today, but they will die of complications from HIV/AIDS and/or the antiretrovirals.”
You are under-informed about the subject.
“I’m not even going to broach the broader arguments about the sheer irresponsibility of taxing limited healthcare resources.”
And now we know why you want ‘homophobia’ taken off the table, because ‘taxing limited healthcare resources’ was a loud battle cry from homophobes throughout the 80’s and 90’s.
“I do respect your view.”
You shown only contempt, by misrepresenting and even fabricating points and then attributing them to me.
“I think I know where you’re coming from. That does not mean I have to agree. Imho, you are simply wrong.”
And yet, it is clear to me that you do now know, nor understand, what I’ve posted, and have repeatedly relied on false representations of my position.
“There is no benefit to finding discrimination in every circumstance.”
There is an excellent example. At no point have I even hinted at anything close to “every” or as you used earlier “all”. You are exaggerating the scale of my position into something it is not, so you can dismiss what I have actually argued by dismissing your fanciful exaggeration.
That is fraud, the same thing that made Mr. Aziga’s case different from Mr. Boone’s.
I think you and your peers here want to punish Mr. Boone and are willing to endanger all HIV+ people because deep down, you believe that if we are gone, you’ll be safe. Essentially, you are collaborating in the persecution of HIV+ people.
Cassandra
“We need to be practical as well. Current measures have done little to curb the spread of the virus, which is actually INCREASING in our community. There is simply no excuse.”
These are the very same arguments that Lyndon LaRouche and William Dannemeyer offered to justify putting all gay men in concentrations camps.
Not only have you failed to learn from history, Why?, you’ve emulated the oppressors.
The reality is that ‘increasing in our community’ is a gross exaggeration. Among GLBTQ people, HIV+ infection is stable at nearly non-existent, among lesbians. It pendulums a percentage point or two back and forth for gay men in general, with notable increases among young gay men – the generation that was deprived of safer-sex education by conservatives under Reagan and H Bush. For most of the last 15+ years, the rate of new infections in gay men has been lower than the failure rate of the best brand of condom. HIV infection rate has been, and continue to climb in other demographics, including people of color and heterosexual senior citizens, though income level is become the most significant indicator of risk.
Current measures have severely curtailed the spread of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. and Canada – and if you truly believe otherwise, look at the statistics for Africa, India, and the poorer countries in Asia.
Practical was the reason for putting people with AIDS in camps, and the reason for including all gay men with them. Practical is the reason given year after year by those who try to wipe out Ryan White funding, or cut ADAP, or eliminate services for PWA’s. Practical is the excuse Ronald Reagan had for not talking about AIDS for seven of his eight years in office.
Cassandra
Baxter
Your posts are the equivalent of coughing up blood on everyone.
Equating an HIV+ person engaging in consensual sex with “coughing up blood on everyone” was utterly reprehensible. You are no better than Fred Phelps or any other homophobe, and your AIDS-phobia is exactly as revolting and dehumanizing.
Why?
@Cassandra:
Listen princess, I’m trying to be nice, but I really am having a hard time. Your arguments are simply inane, self-interested drivel, which you really need to stop. I’m sorry you have an ax to grind, but I’m not going to sit back and let you disseminate your shite.
This *sshole (and I will happily use that term) infected other people AGAINST THEIR WILL. You simply did not do your research. Google his name. You will see that NEARLY EVERY NEWS ARTICLE SAYS HE DID NOT DISCLOSE HIS STATUS TO HIS PARTNERS.
I don’t care if his partners did not ask. As both a human being and a gay man, he owed it to his partners and our community to either disclose his status (preferably) OR NEVER have unprotected sex. I know I am not alone when I say that I SIMPLY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ANY MAN WHO WILLING INFECTS ANOTHER WITH HIV.
I’m sorry. I am not poz–and I can’t envision how it feels to be poz–but don’t you dare tell me that I’m persecuting you because I think you should actually behave like a responsible human being. And don’t you *ucking tell me that I’m self-righteous, when you’re the prick who’s out there propagating bullshite that only benefits you.
I’m not self-interested. I don’t fuck around. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship for 10 years. I am not at risk. I, however, care about my community. I don’t want to see 22 year old boys having to go home and tell their moms that they’re positive, I don’t want to see them with the bodies of 80 year olds when they are 40 or 50 [yes, do your research], and I don’t want to have to continue to mentor boys coming out who are deathly afraid of HIV.
So, get the hell over yourself. Just because I hate the fact that some guys would willingly and knowingly would transmit HIV does not mean that I have any problem with poz guys. Perhaps, it really is the trash out there who is transmitting the virus that you should hold responsible–not those of us out here who are advocating for responsibility on all sides.
Why?
Cassandra,
The CDC said rates are rising–not me.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
TomEM
@Clint: But if that was Boone’s online advert, how can anyone who met him online claim that they were unwillingly infected?
Ken S
@jason: Just because it “isn’t an automatic death sentence” anymore doesn’t mean that people fucking WANT it. It’s still a disease, one that profoundly impacts a person’s life, and one whose spread is entirely preventable.
If someone knowingly, deliberately *stabbed you in the spine with a knife* would you still snark about the “nanny state” prosecuting him? Because hey, like HIV, getting stabbed in the spine *might* kill you, but it doesn’t necessarily *have* to, so why all the “spinal-stabbing”-phobia?
He chose to infect people with a disease that– untreated, as it would likely go for a while when you have no idea you’ve been infected– *does* kill. That’s a premeditated violent act. And if you’re making apologies for him while deriding the law that would punish him then that makes you just a ridiculous, stupid little idiot.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
Here is a simple rule to play by: Assume everyone you are going to get naked with with is HIV+ every single time. And play accordingly
It is absolutley insane that anyone would still take a chance on getting infected………..
Blaine Ward
@Cassandra: Ok, bitch, that’s enough. Nobody’s buying your crap. You go on these long-winded rants on several threads on this website and you are almost unanimously rejected every time. Take a hint! Do us all a favor and get lost!
Michael
@robert: Sorry Robert, have to disagree. Of course it is everyone’s responsibility to practice safe sex and find out the status of someone they’re going to sleep with. However, being stupid is not illegal.
Consciously having unprotected sex with someone knowing that *you* yourself have a (as much as some people want to deny this fact) deadly disease that has a high probability of transmission when engaging in unprotected sex shows an intent to harm.
Again, yes, the men who were infected because of their own choice to not use protection are, quite frankly, moronic. But it is not illegal to be moronic. It is illegal to knowingly infect someone with a deadly disease.
If the men were aware of his positive status, obviously he is not guilty. But if he was deceptive or did not disclose his status…I’m sorry but that very clearly shows an intent to harm.
jason
HIV does not cause AIDS. HIV is the fallback position for promiscuous gay guys who don’t want to change their sleazy ways. After all, it is a virus and not my behavior…yeah, right.
Peter
I agree much more with Cassandra above than any of the other commentators. When speaking about law, nothing is set in stone; law is dynamic, and open to debate. Good arguments are based in facts, not bias…or knee-jerk emotional opinions. Cassandra has obviously done the homework and learned the history.
In Boone’s legal case, I might argue for “reckless endangerment” rather than attempted murder, which I think is a dangerous precedent. Instead though, I’d rather see Boone and the victims all in counseling rather than court – Boone has issues which were never addressed, and his “victims” need to take responsibility for their actions.
There does appear to be premeditation on Boone’s part to purposefully infect; however, two facts complicate the matter. First, in his online ad he disclosed his status, so none who met him through that ad could play victim. Second, all the supposed “victims” in this case consented to unsafe sex with a stranger.
Unless they’ve been living under a rock for the last 30 years, they cannot play innocent that HIV infection might be a possible outcome. There’s no evidence that he raped his “victims”, and there’s no evidence that, even if he did lie about his status to some, that his main motivation was harm (he may just have wanted to get laid – that’s not attempted murder).
It takes some effort to determine the validity of a partner’s status, and constant vigilance to determine that they remain uninfected (as monogamy isn’t a common human male state-of-mind, especially among young men). Thus, any sexually active adult is responsible for their own health, and to assume that anyone they have sex with might be HIV+ until medically proven otherwise.
I agree that his case would set a dangerous precedent. I’m not surprised that it’s being pursued in this negative climate of Canada’s current primitively-fascist government.
Ignorantly, many still think that HIV is a death sentence. For those who remain untested and untreated, it often is. With adequate treatment, however, it’s quite manageable now for most. Despite the treatment, though, HIV plus the long term use of medication will likely lead to problems eventually. Even so, in later life, it’s difficult even then to determine the source of health issues which arise. So the continuing hysteria and fear of HIV infection is out-of-touch with the present reality. As one noted above, yes, you might “look like an 80-year-old in your 40’s” if you had advanced untreated disease. Conversely, many have now lived with HIV for decades and still look healthy for their age. Treatments do work.
This case speaks to me of the need for a sorely-needed updated education among all sectors of society about HIV and current sexual behaviors. It makes me wonder why Boone developed his immoral behavior in the first place. Did he have adequate sex ed early enough in school, or from his family? How did he become infected himself? He’s obviously angry about it. Did he get decent counseling after learning of his infection? In Canada, I doubt it – professional counseling is extremely difficult to access for the majority (if available at all), and the medical profession just doesn’t have the time to care. Considering the prevalence of online hookups now too, is there any education at all for new sexually active 18-year-olds regarding the risks of meeting a stranger online? Boone’s young partners seemed quite ignorant.
Also, since barebacking has made a resurgence in the gay community, what does that imply? Are we all not somewhat responsible in the gay community for teaching the “victims” that barebacking is okay now? Bareback porn and personal ads certainly aren’t publicly ridiculed at all. Obviously we prefer condom-free sex. So how do we manage HIV in a pro-bareback community?
Andrew
@Cassandra: Cassandra – Baxter has a valid point and it is in no way homophobic – it applies to anyone that has a lethal and infectous disease. You may be too self centred and selfish to care about other people and simply focus on your needs but do not expect the majority to agrere with you on this.
DR
@Peter:
You wrote: “There does appear to be premeditation on Boone’s part to purposefully infect; however, two facts complicate the matter. First, in his online ad he disclosed his status, so none who met him through that ad could play victim. Second, all the supposed “victims” in this case consented to unsafe sex with a stranger.”
Couple of flaws with this line of thought:
1. We don’t know which ad the victims responded to. Yes, it appears he may have had an ad on a barebacking/poz website. What if the guys he infected met him on gay.com? Manhunt? Recon? Grindr? What if, in those ads, he stated he was negative? If he deliberately led his partners to believe he was negative when he wasn’t, that’s premeditation, plain and simple. Even his “poz” ad indicates that, if accurate, he prefers unprotected sex with negative men; it’s hardly a stretch to convince a jury that he was so into bareback topping negative guys that he’d lie about his status. Easy argument for the prosecution. That ad is a double-edged sword and will most certainly be used against him, as it should be.
2. Whether or not the victims consented to unprotected sex is legally irrelevant when they did not have all the facts. I cannot give full consent to an activity if I don’t know everything I need to know, and we don’t know if these victims would have thought differently had they been informed that Boone was in fact HIV+. Any good prosecutor will be able to make that point in the first moments of his/her opening statement. You can’t divert the culpability of Boone by pointing out that the victims should have assumed he was positive, that has no bearing on his specific intent to kill. Could it impact sentencing, perhaps. Does it negate the mens rea the state needs to prove to convict Boone of attempted murder? I don’t think so, although I’m no expert on Canadian law.
Recklessly Endangering, which requires that the prosecution prove that Boone acted in such a manner which creates a real and likely substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to another, is certainly an appropriate back up charge in case the attempted murder doesn’t work. However, his desire to have unprotected sex with negative men coupled with his alleged failure to disclose his HIV status is a strong case for attempted murder.
TomEM
Boone is not the only Canadian to be ‘charged’ recently. In June, Adam Thomas Rollo in Vancouver:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/northshoreoutlook/news/95699059.html
Why is it, well over a decade after HIV disease became a non-instant death sentence, that Canadian ‘authorities’ are beginning to pull crap like this?
(Could it be the mobilization of North America’s religious right within Canada following the 2005 same-sex marriage legislation??)
nikko
@jason: JASON, I love your posts, but this one is a no-no. AIDS is never ok,thanks.
Cassandra
“Listen princess, I’m trying to be nice,”
And failing completely.
“Your arguments are simply inane, self-interested drivel,”
And yet, the best you can do is insult me, make false assertions about my posts, and dismiss everything out of hand. You have yet to make even one salient rebuttal to any point I’ve made.
“which you really need to stop.”
Sorry, but I don’t take orders from you. Whatever part of your ego tells you that anyone else, including myself, is subservient to you, is wrong.
“I’m sorry you have an ax to grind, but I’m not going to sit back and let you disseminate your shite.”
Thanks for projecting, but telling the truth hardly qualifies as either ‘having an ax to grind’ or ‘shite’.
“This *sshole (and I will happily use that term) infected other people AGAINST THEIR WILL.”
Prove it. You cannot.
“You simply did not do your research. Google his name. You will see that NEARLY EVERY NEWS ARTICLE SAYS HE DID NOT DISCLOSE HIS STATUS TO HIS PARTNERS.”
Do you really believe everything the newspapers tell you? The fact is that until there is a trial, and not necessarily even then, we do not know the whole story. You though have convicted him based on hearsay. That is as reprehensible as his willingness to engage in unsafe sex with people.
“I don’t care if his partners did not ask.”
So they are not responsible for their own health and safety.
“As both a human being and a gay man, he owed it to his partners and our community to either disclose his status (preferably) OR NEVER have unprotected sex. I know I am not alone when I say that I SIMPLY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ANY MAN WHO WILLING INFECTS ANOTHER WITH HIV.”
I think you have no respect for anyone with HIV. We don’t even know if Boone is the person who passed the virus to anyone. But you assume that because he is HIV+, he is a “asshole” and a threat to others.
“I’m sorry. I am not poz–and I can’t envision how it feels to be poz–”
Then you really have nothing valid to contribute to this conversation since you also refuse to listen to people who are HIV+.
“but don’t you dare tell me”
I’ll tell you anything I believe you need to hear. I am not your slave, not your inferior, not your servant. You are in a public place and no one here is yours to order about, to forbid this or that.
“that I’m persecuting you because I think you should actually behave like a responsible human being.”
To insinuate that I do not behave responsibly is a personal attack, and it shows that you pile ignorant malicious lie about ignorant malicious lie. Your posts are devoid of integrity and humanity.
“And don’t you *ucking tell me that I’m self-righteous, when you’re the prick who’s out there propagating bullshite that only benefits you.”
I’ll tell you whatever I deem necessary, especially when you lie about me and libel me in public. Your posts are not only self-righteous and depraved, they articulate tremendous hatred and contempt coupled with an inexcusable level of ignorance.
“I’m not self-interested. I don’t fuck around. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship for 10 years. I am not at risk.”
Yeah, and that’s all so true you have to volunteer it in public – which screams guilty conscience.
But let’s unpack it – you are not at risk, therefore, it is ok with you if the lives and safety of all people with HIV are jeopardized by a case that essentially criminalizes sex for HIV+ people.
Here you are chattering on about how yourself, but you are not the issue here. The issue is the principle of making sex itself the equivalent of attempted murder for people with HIV.
“I, however, care about my community.”
The problem lies in how narrowly and self-interestedly your seem to define your community. It seems that your community excludes people with HIV.
“I don’t want to see 22 year old boys having to go home and tell their moms that they’re positive, I don’t want to see them with the bodies of 80 year olds when they are 40 or 50 [yes, do your research], and I don’t want to have to continue to mentor boys coming out who are deathly afraid of HIV.”
I seriously hope you are not involved in any of the above because you are not qualified. “The bodies of 80 year olds when they are 40 or 50” is deceitful. It was kind of a stretch of a way to describe life with AIDS before the antivirals, but it is not accurate now, and you are not qualified to be educating anyone about HIV/AIDS, or anything else apparently. One of the real challenges that real HIV educators are facing is that AIDS no longer looks frightening, so when you pull that ‘bodies of 80 year olds’ crap on people, you destroy your credibility.
“So, get the hell over yourself.”
Live that advice before you give it, and it might just mean something to someone someday.
“Just because I hate the fact that some guys would willingly and knowingly would transmit HIV does not mean that I have any problem with poz guys.”
Actually, it does. However, your confession is not relevant to what I’ve been addressing.
It is your willingness to see HIV+ people prosecuted for having sex, and your ability to lie to make that happen tells me you have a huge and malicious ‘problem with poz guys’.
“Perhaps, it really is the trash out there who is transmitting the virus”
You’ve just defined all people with HIV as trash. You have a huge, festering and malevolent problem with people with HIV.
All of your raging at me doesn’t change a thing – you are making exactly the same case that homophobes have been making for years – dehumanizing people with HIV to justify depriving them of not only their civil rights, but their very humanity.
As for your stats from the CDC, anyone who actually works in HIV/AIDS, or seriously studies it, knows that the CDC has an established history of fudging the numbers, and is among the least credible sources. And 4 year old data from a less than credible source is worthless.
Lastly, you’ve repeatedly accused me of having some ulterior motive, some ‘ax to grind’ in your words, and yet, I have to tell you, that really describes your own posts. Whatever is motivating your posts, it certainly is not compassion, or respect of the lives of others, or even a desire to inform and educate.
Cassandra
Blaire
The only thing worth telling you is that I do not live in a perpetual popularity contest. I’d rather speak the truth, as I have and will continue to do, and ruffle feathers, than be a party to deception or injustice.
Your opinion of me is irrelevant to the matter here.
Some prosecutor in Canada is trying to say “Sex while HIV+ = attempted murder”. That is a threat to everyone.
If successful, then for HIV+ people in Canada, anyone who knows they are positive and sexually active, and has animus, can turn them in for “attempted murder”.
It means that people in Canada will be risk jail if they test positive and anyone knows they are sexually intimate. It means that a pissed ex could destroy the life of someone with HIV, just to get revenge. Did it occur to anyone that the accusers here might be acting out of spite, trying to punish Mr. Boone for a mistake they were equal partners in? What no one else has mentioned is that if they win, and if they too are HIV+, then they too can be charged with attempted murder if they ever have sex with someone.
This is a dangerous precedent that people in the 80’s, and 90’s worked tirelessly and selflessly to prevent.
whatever
@nikko: Jason’s a fucking racist troll. And you love his posts? What does that say about you?
Blaine Ward
@Cassandra: You just can’t take a hint now, can you? Nobody supports you here! The large number of thumbs down on your posts only reinforces that! Get lost, bitch!
You totally misinterpreted the article. You twist things around to suit your own purpose. You put your own personal spin on things and then you try to pass it off as the truth. You’re so full of shit I don’t know where to begin!
Ruffling feathers is one thing but ruffling feathers when you’re full of it is quite another story. It will not earn you respect or credibility in any way.
Tallskin
Cassandra, isn’t the sky pixie you worship to blame for creating such evil entities such as the HIV virus?
DR
@Cassandra:
No, Cassandra, what prosecutors in Canada are trying to do is protect other men and women from sexual predators who refuse to disclose their HIV status and deliberately mislead their sexual partners and end up infecting them. Which part of this is difficult to understand, and which part of allowing sexual predators to knowingly infect other people is even remotely appropriate?
You are incapable of understanding that people who are HIV + do not, in any shape, way, or form, have the right to deliberately infect another person against his or her will….
-If my sexual partner tells me he or she is HIV+ and I choose to engage in unprotected sex, that’s on me. I know he or she is POZ, and I willingly take the risk.
-If my partner is HIV+ and he or she deliberately LIES to me about his or her status and I end up infected, that’s on him or her. And you can bet I’ll expect them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If you think that’s even remotely ok to lie about your status and run around infecting others due to your willful and deliberate refusal to be honest, you are truly a sick human being and deserve to be locked up with Boone.
It’s time to wake up and get the point, Cassandra. This isn’t consenting adults deciding to have unprotected sex with each other having full disclosure of each other’s status. This is about a predator who refuses to disclose his status and takes away the ability to make a fully informed decision as to sexual activity from his partner. Until you grasp the difference, you have nothing to contribute to this conversation except some serious misinformation.
Despite your rantings, no one is asking HIV+ folk to be celibate, they are being asked to be HONEST. There is a difference.
jason
AIDS is a horrible condition but it isn’t caused by HIV. HIV was invented to make pharmaceutical companies rich and to prop up scientists who were funded by these very same companies.
Of course, AIDS is still a problem. But it’s a problem that is due to abandoning your scruples and engaging in unfettered hedonistic activity that exposes you to a range of immune system-weakening conditions, such as syphilis, gonorrhea etc etc. If you’re a party animal, your immune system weakens further. If you take drugs, your immune system weaken even furher.
Mark my words, we have been taken for a ride by the rich pharmaceutical companies, phony scientists, and the mainstream media.
nikko
Many of JASON’s post have been exposing bihpobia and homophobia, particularly from AfricanAmerican culture. So? calling a spade a spade does not a racist make. It’s just pointing the obvious.
Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
@ No. 61 Jason
YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON!
Why?
Cassandra, Cassandra. Oh, to live in your world. Reactionary positions based on events occurring 30 years ago simply are not helpful. You need to consider current events not only with an understanding of history but also with an understanding of reality now. Rant all you want, but many of us will continue to believe that it is just vile for HIV+ man to have unprotected sex with a HIV- man.
I’ll leave you be, but I do just need to point out one thing. You asked me to provide support for some of my points. I did that. Rather than accept it, you completely disregarded it. What can we have a frank dialogue if you can bend or even consider evidence?
I think, perhaps, you and jason should get together and chat. You could have a lovely conversation about how HIV/AIDS was created by conservative christian scientists to stop homo sex.
GL
Should people arrested for drunk driving also be charged with attempted murder?
If this poz guy is charged then drunk drivers should be charged with attempted murder too.
What about airline pilots who drink before flying and are later caught? Should they be charged with attempted murder?
What about people who have hepatitis C? Under the law they do not have to disclose this to sex partners.
Why not?
Should Pamela Anderson’s ex be charged with attempted murder since she could and probably will die of liver disease?
Should McDonald Executives be charged with attempted murder if the fast food chain sells food to an obese person?
CONFUSED
I simply don’t know how anyone could defend someone who PURPOSEFULLY put another person’s life at risk. Yes, his partners were stupid, but he had unprotected sex with them knowing he is poz with complete disregard for their health. I don’t care if people can live with HIV now. Would you fuck someone raw if you knew you could get diabetes or lupus or multiple sclerosis by doing so??
I have to believe that the overwhelming majority of poz men out there were devastated by their diagnoses and angered beyond belief at the person who infected them. I just can’t see how someone could then turn around and put another person as risk.
Kyle
I would say that these charges are interesting at the least.. If you don’t disclose something so integral in the decision to have sex, you are endangering someone’s life.
A person with HIV should know the risks associated with their behavior. They should know they possible ramifications for their partner. And they should at the least be able to tell their partner their status. In looking at the legal definitions of murder, one rings perfectly true for this case, based solely on the limited information presented here: “reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life.” If this could be proven, then I believe the charges are appropriate.
Fred
In an above comment someone states “I have to believe that the overwhelming majority of poz men out there were devastated by their diagnoses and angered beyond belief at the person who infected them” Now I can only speak for myself but I will state clearly that I wasn’t angry at the person, nor was I angry at myself. Placing blame for my infection has no value and serves no purpose. Sure I was disappointed with myself. Regardless of all the information I had at my disposal I still took chances with my health that resulted in significant consequences. As humans most of us do that – make mistakes, whether it’s smoking, obesity, drinking, etc etc. The only blame for any of our individual actions should be with ourselves. And even then beating one’s self up for eternity seems like a waste of a life. When it comes to casual sexual relations that many both straight and gay have, people need to accept the reality of those actions. I’m not advocating any particular more, just that each of us need to decide personally what risks we will take while accepting that risk by it’s nature can have serious consequences.
GL
Should a poz person be charged with attempted murder if they sneeze on a crowded subway and there happens to be alitle blood in their mucous? What if they knew that there was a chance they would sneeze?
I can see from the comments here that there seriously needs to be a legal defense fund and organization created for HIV+ people.
HIV+ people have no political or legal clout and they obviously need it in light of the hostile and vile comments about them here – from other gays no less. Disgusting.
GL
A swiss study showed that HIV+ men who have an undetectable viral load b/c they are on medication are not very infectious and depending on the sex act – there be no risk at all of infecting a partner.
This is why everyone should get tested – so they can get drug treament and become undetectable.
What keeps some from getting tested? People who stigmatize POZ people [read above comments]. Who transmits HIV? those who are positive but have not been tested and have a high viral load.
Any questions??
drums
@GL
I don’t know how it is where you come from, but in Canada people can be and regularly ARE charged with attempted murder for drunk driving, and they DO legally have to disclose all STI’s including hepatitis, not just HIV.
HIV+ people who practice safe sex are NOT stigmatized in this country, and it is NOT a homophobic response to gay marriage being legal. It’s our justice system at work, discriminating against people who do douchewad things that endanger the lives of others, punishing people who break the law.
GL
Drums
having sex endangers the lives of others?
I thought sex was supposed to be a good thing.
What is safe sex? What is safer sex? What is
kind of unsafe? What is legal? What is a grey area
legally?
Are people who test positive supposed to become
experts in the law? Are they aware of this need?
Who is informing them of the need?
NOBODY is.
GL
PS
Drums
should people who have nit been tested but
have good reason to believe they r poz also
be prosecuted? Why not?
It is one big grey area all around – therefore it’s
bullsh*t.
Are newly tested guys counseled on these
issues?
This is an area best left to the civil arena.
drums
@GL
Canadians, HIV positive and negative, are supposed to thoroughly know Canadian law, yes. It’s part of our responsibilities as citizens. The government, the police, and fellow citizens inform them of this need every day. Legally (in Canada; again, maybe it’s different where you come from so I don’t know) ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it. Just because you didn’t know something was illegal doesn’t mean you can’t be charged for it. Sex isn’t really the issue here–the fact that this criminal knowingly and willfully spread a disease in an illegal way is the thing he’s being punished for. People who run around poking infected needles into others are punished in the same way.
I don’t know if you’re asking these questions out of true ignorance, if you’re just stubbornly ignoring the obvious, if you’re trolling, or what. Let me just assure you that the Canadian justice system (which I would like to stress allows gay marriage–not civil unions, but full marriage) does not discriminate against HIV+ people, gay or straight or in between, in case that’s sincerely your concern.
GL
Drums
Ignorance of the law is no defense in the U.S. either.
You are not addressing the real issue which is – what constitutes a criminal offense?
What is unsafe sex? Is HIV really deadly when drugs can keep an infected person alive until they die of something else.
Does the definition of unsafe sex vary depending on whether the HIV+ person is undetectable or not = if not then why not?
I don’t think this should be covered by criminal law unless the defendant intends to infect someone.
What if an HIV+ person uses a condom when engaging in anal intercourse, does not inform his partner he is + but then the condom breaks accidently?
I guess my point is – there are so many possible scenarios and I am far from convinced that there is no HIV hysteria embedded in some of these laws.
If the laws have not been updated since the new drugs have come out – is that fair?
What if the law was enacted in 1983 before there was more knowledge re: transmission?
GL
Drums
The HIV+ population is such a stigmatized and marginalized population that I think there is a lot of room for abuse in enforcing some of these laws. I know that is a legislative issue but many people here are ignoring the issue.
Does the HIV+ population have the political clout or resources to make sure the laws that directly apply to them are just and rational? I don’t think so.
HIV+ people are prosecuted for spitting on someone when it is impossible for HIV to be transmitted by saliva.
The former GOP leader of the Senate, Dr. Bill Frist, claimed that HIV can be transmitted by sweat. He was a powerful law maker and anti-gay.
Fred
What needs to be considered in this case as well as any that occur in Canada with regard to HIV non-disclosure is the law being applied. Specifically the law utilized is a subset of Sexual Assault. This is effectively the same law that existed prior to 1983 and known as Rape. Bill C-127 (1983) removed the barriers of gender so that rape was no longer defined as forced vaginal penetration by a male assailant (who was not the husband of the victim), and expanded Sexual Assault to 3 levels of severity. The 3rd (highest) is defined as “Aggravated sexual assault: results in wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim. The maximum sentence for this offence is life imprisonment.” Unlike in the USA (that as a result of the Ryan White Care Act was forced to establish HIV Transmission Criminalization Laws) Canada has no specific laws regarding HIV and uses existing laws to address the issue. The crux in the issue is consent and our highest court ruled that an individual could not consent to sexual activity if disclosure was not provided. Now unlike in some violent rape allegations where there is forensic evidence (bruising, DNA, hospital records immediately following an assault as well as the establishment that the victim and accused had no prior relationship) there is no such evidence in HIV Sexual Assault cases. Indeed in these cases the people do know each other they did meet on agreed terms, they did proceed to have intimate relations the one thing that is missing allegedly is disclosure. How exactly does someone prove that they disclosed? And if it comes down to a Judge or Jury weighing contradictory statements from the victim and the accused how will they ruled on creditability? Sure the majority of people would not consent to placing themselves at risk of HIV infection, but a great deal of people regardless of the serious nature of HIV still take significant risk. People having un-protected sex with partners that they know only on a casual basis shouldn’t be surprised if they test positive. People that have decided that asking someone’s HIV Status is an effective HIV Prevention method are not facing the reality of how HIV has impacted our world nor how it should have impacted our sex.
Ultimately the goals of society which I’ll assume are to reduce, prevent and eliminate HIV need to once again be brought to the forefront in this debate. With 25 yrs of data to consider it’s clear that Education (Safer-Sex, methods of transmission and Counseling), Testing, and Treatment are the most effective tools currently available in addressing the problem. Any action that would discourage people from testing and therefore treatment derails an approach that has been proven to work.
jason
A lot of you are not only demented, you are demented in a way that is destructive to the GLBT community. Personally, I don’t want to have you in our precious community.
It’s amazing that you still stick to this HIV-causes-AIDS fraud that has been perpetrated by the pharmaceutical companies, the scientific industry, and the media.
DR
@GL:
You’re missing the simple fact here.
He is alleged to have failed to disclose his HIV status, therefore his partners could not make informed choices. His failure to disclose is being used as the mens rea for attempted murder.
As many of us have said, had he disclosed and his partners contracted HIV or the condom broke, they knowingly assumed the risk. But in these cases, as the older ones cited by other posters, the predators deliberately and willfully refused to tell their partners they were HIV+. They took that choice away.
GL
Dr
should guys who have not been tested but engage
in very unsafe sex on a regular basis be required under the law
to inform their partners that they most
likely are positive?
Why not?
What about herpes? Should failure to disclose be a crime?
Why not?
GL
Dr
when is disclosure legally required? Morally
required? Before kissing? French or closed mouth?
Before oral sex? Passive or active or both?
Does it depend on viral load? If not – why not?
max
the fact of the matter is anytime you engage in unprotected sex you put yourself at risk. some people wait until they’re in a monogamous relationship to engage in such activities, but what if your partner is casually having unprotected sex with other people on the side as well?
the fact is you can’t trust anyone other than yourself 100%, sometimes you can’t even trust the people you’ve known for years. How these idiot guys decided to put their faith in someone they met online once online, who had no vested interest in them, is beyond stupidity.
I don’t buy this argument- these guys didn’t know his status, and so they couldn’t make an informed decision- as far as I’m concerned, unless Boone drugged and raped the, by choosing to bareback, these men did make an informed decision to engage in risky sex with potential consequences, and now they have to live with the outcome.
GL
Max is right or at least more realistic.
Can someone who goes to anonymous
sex clubs and has unsafe sex be outraged when
they later test positive?
My point is that this area of the law and the facts
surrounding it are not as clear cut as some
commenters here seem to think it is.
It’s a murky area.
DR
@GL:
Yes.
@GL:
As soon as you decide you want to have sex with the man or woman you found. Period. If you are HIV+ (or have any other STD), you need to disclose. And if you regularly engage in high-risk behavior and don’t know your status, that ought to be part of the mature adult discussion which happens before sex. If you’re not willing to have it, you need to keep it in your pants as far as I’m concerned. It’s all about maturity.
GL
Also – there is no universal definition
re safe sex.
Some of the laws on the books are outdated
and based on irrational fear and hysteria.
GL
Dr
you are still not answering the question.
What is sex? Kissing? French kissing?
BTW – people who use “period” in their comments
usually are authoritarian. I’m getting that vibe
from you.
DR
@GL:
If your goal is to hook up, you don’t wait halfway through the heavy petting and say “oh, by the way, I have an STD or am HIV+.” You do it as soon as you decide that you want sexual intimacy. That’s been my answer to your question. I suspect you just don’t like it, which is why you’re trying to batter me with mindless minutiae.
If the person I’m with either refuses to tell me or cannot tell me about their health, I’m not interested. If that makes me authoritarian because I expect my partners to be honest with me, so be it.
GL
Dr
you don’t make sense.
Heavy petting? You cannot get HIV from heavy
petting but u can get herpes.
You r not being rational or scientific.
Isn’t the issue here risk of transmission?
Personally I would tell anyone before making
out but that is seperate from a legal
or moral question.
This thread is about the law as it is or should
be.
axos
Cassandra –
you´re a troublemaker.
Mike Tanner
Hey,
Canadian here. Where I come from it looks like our laws are going to require someone who knows he/she has a communicable virus, that can abbreviate and/or complicate the life of another, to pass along that information before engaging in activities found to promote or encourage transmission.
Makes sense to me.
Every argument I’ve heard presented against this path has been based on specious reasoning or logical fallacies or a combination of the two.
If one wants to live in a society without this imperative, I’m sure there are still plenty out there and will be for some time. In the meantime, I’m delighted to live in a society where just that imperative exists.