Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on March 24, 2015, 02:20:29 AM
-
The law denies HIV positive people the enjoyment of their privacy.
A court has ruled as unconstitutional a requirement that one reveal his or her status to a sexual contact under the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act.
In dismissing section 24 of the Act, High Court judges Isaac Lenaola, Mumbi Ngugi and George Odunga said it was illegal as it violates the principal of privacy that is enshrined in the Constitution.
Apparently, if one does not disclose the virus to the partner, the doctor was to feel free to contact the partner revealing the same info.
According to the Act, a person infected with HIV is required to reveal his or her status to their sexual contact and where the person fails to do so, a medical practitioner may disclose such information to the said sexual contact.
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Partners-need-not-reveal-HIV-status/-/1056/2663532/-/1kr4bqz/-/index.html
-
Termie,
I have never heard of this Act. The closest we get is churches insisting on independent HIV tests for partners before officiating the wedding. The idea is lovebirds are too confused to bother with such crucial tests on their own. The results are then released to both. Of course they usually test at the same time and consent to disclosing this to their pastor. This is done twice, at least three months to the wedding and within 2 weeks.
The initiative was pushed by the government and I think all churches do it. Would you support it?
-
That is a tough one.But the judge is right. It upon a partner to demand hiv status..not the law to order so. If you want to get married..insist on HIV test with your partner..if not..just do not marry. Of course most folks would have long slept together before they see Pastor Vooke.
-
The AG should appeal this decision,Not unless you are HIV+,i don't see why you should oppose such a good law,
Without Prejudice.
-
The danger of engaging in Law Making under emotional stress is no different from engaging in unprotected sex under the influence of lust and infatuation. Both usually undergo a massive jolt in the face of reality.
To slow down HIV infection requires tough measures alright but they should be based on rational thought and understanding of the problem. A condom costs about ten bob - less than change for vooke but impossible for a teenager. I would dump high quality condoms in all manner of places. I would ask Mumias and other sugar companies to attach ten condoms to each sachet of sugar. I would give them at petrol stations and in schools. The idea would be to make a condom free.
Right now Kenyans can't talk sex. Increase sex education in schools. Research shows children who are aware hardly get pregnant or cause pregnancy. Let's apply the same to HIV. Do you want a "well behaved" daughter who is so green that she ends of with HIV or one who "knows too much" and snakes through life with success? The choice has never been simpler!
In fairness to The Fatherland, the advent of HIV unleashed widespread panic legislation. The US only ceased to make HIV a subject of immigration recently.
-
It does not add value to the fight against HIV
The AG should appeal this decision,Not unless you are HIV+,i don't see why you should oppose such a good law,
Without Prejudice.
-
Omorlo,
I have seen well educated Negroes falling pregnant unintentionally....clear cases where they know everything there is to know about reproductive health. Then you have the utterly ignorant due to poverty and illiteracy.
I have no problem with education but I doubt it can cure the average Negro of they negritude
The danger of engaging in Law Making under emotional stress is no different from engaging in unprotected sex under the influence of lust and infatuation. Both usually undergo a massive jolt in the face of reality.
To slow down HIV infection requires tough measures alright but they should be based on rational thought and understanding of the problem. A condom costs about ten bob - less than change for vooke but impossible for a teenager. I would dump high quality condoms in all manner of places. I would ask Mumias and other sugar companies to attach ten condoms to each sachet of sugar. I would give them at petrol stations and in schools. The idea would be to make a condom free.
Right now Kenyans can't talk sex. Increase sex education in schools. Research shows children who are aware hardly get pregnant or cause pregnancy. Let's apply the same to HIV. Do you want a "well behaved" daughter who is so green that she ends of with HIV or one who "knows too much" and snakes through life with success? The choice has never been simpler!
In fairness to The Fatherland, the advent of HIV unleashed widespread panic legislation. The US only ceased to make HIV a subject of immigration recently.
-
Termie,
I have never heard of this Act. The closest we get is churches insisting on independent HIV tests for partners before officiating the wedding. The idea is lovebirds are too confused to bother with such crucial tests on their own. The results are then released to both. Of course they usually test at the same time and consent to disclosing this to their pastor. This is done twice, at least three months to the wedding and within 2 weeks.
The initiative was pushed by the government and I think all churches do it. Would you support it?
I would not support it.
Like Pundit mentions, if you want to know your partner's status ask them. And the partner should be under no legal duress to reveal to you their status.
-
There are all manner of educated people being knocked down by cars or drinking and driving. I know of a minister who committed perjury just to see what would happen. Another when told bigamy is illegal went ahead to do it anyway in a macho test of the system.
I read a brilliant paper by some scholar on the Macho element among the African elite.
I am sure the Pastor knows where I am going...
Omorlo,
I have seen well educated Negroes falling pregnant unintentionally....clear cases where they know everything there is to know about reproductive health. Then you have the utterly ignorant due to poverty and illiteracy.
I have no problem with education but I doubt it can cure the average Negro of they negritude
-
Ask and hope you are told the truth... The bottom line: Treat every partner as positive or negative and act appropriately. Any exceptions would lead to trouble.
Termie,
I have never heard of this Act. The closest we get is churches insisting on independent HIV tests for partners before officiating the wedding. The idea is lovebirds are too confused to bother with such crucial tests on their own. The results are then released to both. Of course they usually test at the same time and consent to disclosing this to their pastor. This is done twice, at least three months to the wedding and within 2 weeks.
The initiative was pushed by the government and I think all churches do it. Would you support it?
I would not support it.
Like Pundit mentions, if you want to know your partner's status ask them. And the partner should be under no legal duress to reveal to you their status.
-
You saw how brute force by Michuki restored order on the roads albeit temporarily?
Negroes need some brutality to change their thinking.
The whole idea of the test is not to discriminate but to help the spouses make informed choices whether one or both of them are +\-
Even Civil weddings should do some minimal HIV awareness. Do you know your status? What about your spouse? Would you love to know? Why haven't you disclosed your statuses to each other?
Ask and hope you are told the truth... The bottom line: Treat every partner as positive or negative and act appropriately. Any exceptions would lead to trouble.
-
Omorlo,
I hear you, given the amount of resources applied to research into all things HIV, I would love a measure of willful ignorance vs natural ignorance in these things...let's call it MCTRS coefficient
*MCTRS stands for Macho Man The Randy Savage
There are all manner of educated people being knocked down by cars or drinking and driving. I know of a minister who committed perjury just to see what would happen. Another when told bigamy is illegal went ahead to do it anyway in a macho test of the system.
I read a brilliant paper by some scholar on the Macho element among the African elite.
I am sure the Pastor knows where I am going...
-
Unless it is rape [where HIV transmission will aggravate the crime] i think everybody is at liberty not to engage in sex without a condom or other forms of protection with anybody [where anybody is potentially a victim].
Only those who rape should be compulsory tested...and charges of willfully transmission of HIV added.
Those who get "conned" to sleep with HIV person...have no recourse in law...unless they can prove fraud first.
Ask and hope you are told the truth... The bottom line: Treat every partner as positive or negative and act appropriately. Any exceptions would lead to trouble.
-
Unless it is rape [where HIV transmission will aggravate the crime] i think everybody is at liberty not to engage in sex without a condom or other forms of protection with anybody [where anybody is potentially a victim].
Only those who rape should be compulsory tested...and charges of willfully transmission of HIV added.
Those who get "conned" to sleep with HIV person...have no recourse in law...unless they can prove fraud first.
Ask and hope you are told the truth... The bottom line: Treat every partner as positive or negative and act appropriately. Any exceptions would lead to trouble.
Waah! I'm surprised. Dont understand the consensus on this thread at all. Totally disagree with you guys and supporting Mansfield. Someone's so-called "right" to deliberately infect someone else with a dangerous illness just because he happens to be stupid or drunk should not receive any kind of legal protection. Where one bears the risk of his stupidity in sleeping with the person then the HIV person aware of his status should bear the risk of his malice before the law, in deliberately infecting another. The right to privacy should not be absolute, just as your liberty and freedom of movement is legitimately curtailed if you happen to be unfortunately infected with Ebola. HIV affects more than just the stupid partner, y'know. He will go ahead to unwittingly infect his unsuspecting wife and possibly endanger children in the house if neither parent knows they are infected and take precaution. This thing is devastating us by millions. I cannot fathom why y'all or kina Mumbi think that compelling an adult to disclose to another the dangerous substances he might introduce into their bodies is violating him. I might disagree with the law on the basis that it might not change people's behavior ie futility, but not because I think there is something sacred or deserving of protection in willfully hiding the presence of dangerous pathogens in your semen or other bodily fluid before gleefully depositing it in someone else.
-
Unless it is rape [where HIV transmission will aggravate the crime] i think everybody is at liberty not to engage in sex without a condom or other forms of protection with anybody [where anybody is potentially a victim].
Only those who rape should be compulsory tested...and charges of willfully transmission of HIV added.
Those who get "conned" to sleep with HIV person...have no recourse in law...unless they can prove fraud first.
Ask and hope you are told the truth... The bottom line: Treat every partner as positive or negative and act appropriately. Any exceptions would lead to trouble.
Waah! I'm surprised. Dont understand the consensus on this thread at all. Totally disagree with you guys and supporting Mansfield. Someone's so-called "right" to deliberately infect someone else with a dangerous illness just because he happens to be stupid or drunk should not receive any kind of legal protection. Where one bears the risk of his stupidity in sleeping with the person then the HIV person aware of his status should bear the risk of his malice before the law, in deliberately infecting another. The right to privacy should not be absolute, just as your liberty and freedom of movement is legitimately curtailed if you happen to be unfortunately infected with Ebola. HIV affects more than just the stupid partner, y'know. He will go ahead to unwittingly infect his unsuspecting wife and possibly endanger children in the house if neither parent knows they are infected and take precaution. This thing is devastating us by millions. I cannot fathom why y'all or kina Mumbi think that compelling an adult to disclose to another the dangerous substances he might introduce into their bodies is violating him. I might disagree with the law on the basis that it might not change people's behavior ie futility, but not because I think there is something sacred or deserving of protection in willfully hiding the presence of dangerous pathogens in your semen or other bodily fluid before gleefully depositing it in someone else.
Nobody should enjoy the right to deliberately make others sick. But just because a HIV positive person has consensual sex with another cannot impute ulterior motives on them. What if they are just taking their chances hoping that the other party does not catch it? Why should one partner be criminalized for engaging in the same act?
HIV positive people already suffer enough trauma without the additional burden of having to reveal it to their potential partners. As long as it is not rape, the most society should do about it is tell people about the risks and let them make up their minds about it.
The law does not prevent one from asking if they want to know. The HIV party should also be at liberty to reveal or conceal personal medical information. Criminalizing such things creates stigma that tends to send them underground. In any case, in a corrupt society like Kenya, anybody can claim anything and you wont be any wiser.
-
Deliberately infecting anybody with any illness is still an offence. Somebody is confused.
-
Nobody should enjoy the right to deliberately make others sick. But just because a HIV positive person has consensual sex with another cannot impute ulterior motives on them. What if they are just taking their chances hoping that the other party does not catch it? Why should one partner be criminalized for engaging in the same act?
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with anything you have said in defense of what is deplorable behaviour. This you've desrcibed here, with the "chances" is the very definition of recklessness. Recklessness is enough for us to convict someone of murder and sentence him to death, we treat it no different from deliberate intent. A drunk or overspeeding driver takes such chances, not intending to roll over and kill the people in his car. But even if they got into the car smelling his breath, he will do serious jail time if someone winds up dead in most jurisdictions. The chances the HIV person who KNOWS of his status is taking in having unprotected sex with another without telling or while lying is Russian roulette whereas the other person thinks he's playing a game where there might not be a bullet in the gun at all.
Some things are matters of the public good. The HIV person must have the greater responsibility because he KNOWS of his status, seeing as it his own, than where he does not. Anything else is maliciously endangering someone else's life and unconscionable. No one should defend such behaviour. It does not deserve protection. In fact, in some places in the USA (and I think even UK) people have been sentenced to life for just this behaviour where they knew of their status. If you know you have a dangerous disease you should not sneak it into other people in the name of taking chances that the other person 50-50 does not get infected. Honestly, If Kenya were a functional nation I would support jailing any person who knowingly had sex with another while infected but failed to disclose it or lied about it when asked. Because if you are talking about a sane adult, there is no way of separating "knowingly" from "deliberately". He has chosen to subject the other person to his disease. That is deliberate.
HIV positive people already suffer enough trauma without the additional burden of having to reveal it to their potential partners.
With respect, I honestly find this suggestion shocking. If it is so traumatic to tell someone who you are about to HAVE SEX WITH the TRUTH about your HEALTH that affects them directly, maybe you don't have to have sex with that particular person???? I suppose it may be traumatic for a car dealer to reveal the truth about the real condition of the car he is selling to the buyer, but hey. We still protect good faith in such contracts. I dont see why we should offer less protection for much graver transactions that are affecting us so.
The law does not prevent one from asking if they want to know. The HIV party should also be at liberty to reveal or conceal personal medical information. Criminalizing such things creates stigma that tends to send them underground. In any case, in a corrupt society like Kenya, anybody can claim anything and you wont be any wiser.
The HIV person is not being asked to reveal such info to any Tom Dick and Harry, just those directly affected, those who may get and spread the disease to others. Similarly, the law doesn't force anyone to sleep with anyone. Perhaps if the risk of honesty is too great (and it is at least equal to the risk one can take of infecting another) then that person may want to calculate those risks before sleeping around and spreading the disease further. I suppose if that happened, that would be something I think positive, not something to complain over---That HIV persons are having less unprotected sex with less people?--sounds like a winning formula to me. Like I said, my only issue is the law's futility, especially in Kenya, not its principle,which I find not only proper but good.
-
Nobody should enjoy the right to deliberately make others sick. But just because a HIV positive person has consensual sex with another cannot impute ulterior motives on them. What if they are just taking their chances hoping that the other party does not catch it? Why should one partner be criminalized for engaging in the same act?
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with anything you have said in defense of what is deplorable behaviour. This you've desrcibed here, with the "chances" is the very definition of recklessness. Recklessness is enough for us to convict someone of murder and sentence him to death, we treat it no different from deliberate intent. A drunk or overspeeding driver takes such chances, not intending to roll over and kill the people in his car. But even if they got into the car smelling his breath, he will do serious jail time if someone winds up dead in most jurisdictions. The chances the HIV person who KNOWS of his status is taking in having unprotected sex with another without telling or while lying is Russian roulette whereas the other person thinks he's playing a game where there might not be a bullet in the gun at all.
Some things are matters of the public good. The HIV person must have the greater responsibility because he KNOWS of his status, seeing as it his own, than where he does not. Anything else is maliciously endangering someone else's life and unconscionable. No one should defend such behaviour. It does not deserve protection. In fact, in some places in the USA (and I think even UK) people have been sentenced to life for just this behaviour where they knew of their status. If you know you have a dangerous disease you should not sneak it into other people in the name of taking chances that the other person 50-50 does not get infected. Honestly, If Kenya were a functional nation I would support jailing any person who knowingly had sex with another while infected but failed to disclose it or lied about it when asked. Because if you are talking about a sane adult, there is no way of separating "knowingly" from "deliberately". He has chosen to subject the other person to his disease. That is deliberate.
HIV positive people already suffer enough trauma without the additional burden of having to reveal it to their potential partners.
With respect, I honestly find this suggestion shocking. If it is so traumatic to tell someone who you are about to HAVE SEX WITH the TRUTH about your HEALTH that affects them directly, maybe you don't have to have sex with that particular person???? I suppose it may be traumatic for a car dealer to reveal the truth about the real condition of the car he is selling to the buyer, but hey. We still protect good faith in such contracts. I dont see why we should offer less protection for much graver transactions that are affecting us so.
The law does not prevent one from asking if they want to know. The HIV party should also be at liberty to reveal or conceal personal medical information. Criminalizing such things creates stigma that tends to send them underground. In any case, in a corrupt society like Kenya, anybody can claim anything and you wont be any wiser.
The HIV person is not being asked to reveal such info to any Tom Dick and Harry, just those directly affected, those who may get and spread the disease to others. Similarly, the law doesn't force anyone to sleep with anyone. Perhaps if the risk of honesty is too great (and it is at least equal to the risk one can take of infecting another) then that person may want to calculate those risks before sleeping around and spreading the disease further. I suppose if that happened, that would be something I think positive, not something to complain over---That HIV persons are having less unprotected sex with less people?--sounds like a winning formula to me. Like I said, my only issue is the law's futility, especially in Kenya, not its principle,which I find not only proper but good.
As usual you raise good points. There is certainly an element of recklessness. I totally agree. Because that is not the issue in my opinion. Your example of DUI is enlightening. But one has to remember, DUI, speeding, drag racing etc are against the law. Being HIV positive is not.
The issue is the discriminatory nature of such a law. The right being protected is not so much the right to be reckless as the right to not be discriminated against. The only case I think one can make for such a law is in the case of a rape.
In the absence of rape, the person this law would seek to protect has options. They can say they won't have sex with
a) anyone who has not shared results of HIV tests and followups after three months. The whole enchilada.
b) anyone who appears to be morally lax in sexual matters.
c) anyone who drinks alcohol.
d) any person below a certain weight.
e) Muslims, Hindus, Christians, atheists...
To me, the fact that one remains free to insist on tests or whatever other documentation or condition one may feel they need is enough. If the other person refuses to share their private information, one is always free to move on. That way, nobody's rights are violated. People have a different threshold of what is tolerable/intolerable risk.
Otherwise you might as well seek to punish HIV negative people who do not ask for some certificate of good health before having sex with anybody. Because, by the same logic, they might be guilty of spreading a disease by catching it.
-
Interesting angle from Bella.This is indeed a difficult decision.For us to know someone is willfully transmitting HIV..we have to break the patient-doctor confidentiality.
-
I still don't see the issue here. A person shall not deliberately infect other people with illnesses. This covers doctors, nurses, dentists and yes sexual partners.
What the struck out law required of people is disclosure of the HIV status. It is not enough to take measures to protect the sexual partner.
Yes many jurisdictions provide for the same. Deliberate and malicious infection of others is punishable. Spouses who learn of their status are required to immediately take measures not to infect the partners. It does not mean that they have to disclose their status. Disclosure may help but it is not the most preventive action and may lead to other unpalatable consequences. For example there have been murders even of whole families as a result of disclosures.
The law sought to force disclosures of HIV status regardless of other factors. A great injustice has been corrected.
For the record, I would like the law punishing deliberate infection to stay on the books. But nobody should be forced to disclose his or her HIV status. The on going work to raise awareness about HIV must be encouraged and funded. We have moved far from hermetically sealed bodies delivered for burial and not viewing; Families of HIV people being banished or burnt alive to the current tolerance. Draconian laws would not help and research shows that such actions are often counter productive.
Act No: CAP. 246A : Act Title: HIV AND AIDS PREVENTION AND CONTROL
An Act of Parliament to provide measures for the prevention, management and control of HIV and AIDS, to provide for the protection and promotion of public health and for the appropriate treatment, counseling, support and care of persons infected or at risk of HIV and AIDS infection, and for connected purposes
(..........................................)
24. Prevention of transmission
(1) A person who is and is aware of being infected with HIV or is carrying and is aware of carrying the HIV virus shall—
(a) take all reasonable measures and precautions to prevent the transmission of HIV to others; and
(b) inform, in advance, any sexual contact or person with whom needles are shared of that fact.
(2) A person who is and is aware of being infected with HIV or who is carrying and is aware of carrying HIV shall not, knowingly and recklessly, place another person at risk of becoming infected with HIV unless that other person knew that fact and voluntarily accepted the risk of being infected.
(3) A person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence and shall be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
(4) A person referred to in subsection (1) or (2) may request any medical practitioner or any person approved by the Minister under section 16 to inform and counsel a sexual contact of the HIV status of that person.
(5) A request under subsection (4) shall be in the prescribed form.
(6) On receipt of a request made under subsection (4), the medical practitioner or approved person shall, whenever possible, comply with that request in person.
(7) A medical practitioner who is responsible for the treatment of a person and who becomes aware that the person has not, after reasonable opportunity to do so—
(a) complied with subsection (1) or (2); or
(b) made a request under subsection (4),
may inform any sexual contact of that person of the HIV status of that person.
(8.) Any medical practitioner or approved person who informs a sexual contact as provided under subsection (6) or (7) shall not, by reason only of that action, be in breach of the provisions of this Act.
-
From another TOP:
http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/9317/willy-mutunga-opts-early-retirement
I wish him happy retirement. I think his timing is sincere.
On another note, i was disturbed by one of the recent ruling of the CA; that HIV status needs not be disclosed to a 'sexual contact' and that it is "unconstitutional" to do so!
What a rotten judgement that was. Those judges have no idea what they have just done. They are in my mind complicit in mass murders but that is a topic I wanted to start seperately.
I don't see it that way. If you look at the act, you will note that it includes the sort of thing that would be prosecuted in the, say, the UK or the USA:
(2) A person who is and is aware of being infected with HIV or who is carrying and is aware of carrying HIV shall not, knowingly and recklessly, place another person at risk of becoming infected with HIV unless that other person knew that fact and voluntarily accepted the risk of being infected.
http://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/HIVandAIDSPreventionandControlAct_No14of2006.pdf
The problem has always been this bit:
(1) A person who is and is aware of being infected with HIV or is carrying and
is aware of carrying the HIV virus shall—
...
(b) inform, in advance, any sexual contact or person with whom needles
are shared of that fact.
And the difficulty is that the law does not say what "sexual contact" is, but nevertheless intends to prosecute on the basis of undefined terms.
Suppose, for example, that a woman intends to get off by having a man suck her breasts and do some fingering, or a man intends to get off from having a woman do a hand-job on him, or a couple engages in what is sometimes called dry fucking. Each of those is undoubtedly a sexual contact, but neither party is in any danger of anything; in fact, people who might otherwise want to go the whole hog will settle for such lesser activities precisely because they do not involve any risk. But under the law, as it stood, either party could have faced a lengthy jail sentence for not revealing HIV status, which, in such cases, would be going a bit far. In contrast, (2) clearly indicates placing a person at risk.
I think the legislators can still fix the law by specifying what they mean by "sexual contact" and making sure that it is line with (2). But having people disclose status where there is clearly no need to do so puts them at unnecessary risk of stigma and discrimination; the law should offer protection against that.
(With consenting adults, the mere desire to fuck, however strong and however expressed, should not be treated in the same manner as actually fucking. The part of the law that has been rejected did not make that distinction.)
-
In the case the petitioner contended that whereas those living with HIV are required to disclose their status to “sexual contacts” the latter are not under any duty to keep such information confidential.
This, from the article, I think is a fair complaint. The other one, also in the article and raised by MoonKi, on defining in precise terms "sexual contact" is also valid. Looking at the article,it does not seem that the judges or the NGO/petitioner have a problem with the requirement of honesty per se. What they appear to object to is the vagueness and loopholes which leave much room for abuse. I personally think that requiring people to disclose their known H.I.V status (+, -, untested) before exchanging bodily fluids like blood and semen is only commonsensical.
-
From another TOP:
http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/9317/willy-mutunga-opts-early-retirement (http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/9317/willy-mutunga-opts-early-retirement)
I wish him happy retirement. I think his timing is sincere.
On another note, i was disturbed by one of the recent ruling of the CA; that HIV status needs not be disclosed to a 'sexual contact' and that it is "unconstitutional" to do so!
What a rotten judgement that was. Those judges have no idea what they have just done. They are in my mind complicit in mass murders but that is a topic I wanted to start seperately.
I don't see it that way. If you look at the act, you will note that it includes the sort of thing that would be prosecuted in the, say, the UK or the USA:
(2) A person who is and is aware of being infected with HIV or who is carrying and is aware of carrying HIV shall not, knowingly and recklessly, place another person at risk of becoming infected with HIV unless that other person knew that fact and voluntarily accepted the risk of being infected.
http://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/HIVandAIDSPreventionandControlAct_No14of2006.pdf (http://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/HIVandAIDSPreventionandControlAct_No14of2006.pdf)
The problem has always been this bit:
(1) A person who is and is aware of being infected with HIV or is carrying and
is aware of carrying the HIV virus shall—
...
(b) inform, in advance, any sexual contact or person with whom needles
are shared of that fact.
And the difficulty is that the law does not say what "sexual contact" is, but nevertheless intends to prosecute on the basis of undefined terms.
Suppose, for example, that a woman intends to get off by having a man suck her breasts and do some fingering, or a man intends to get off from having a woman do a hand-job on him, or a couple engages in what is sometimes called dry fucking. Each of those is undoubtedly a sexual contact, but neither party is in any danger of anything; in fact, people who might otherwise want to go the whole hog will settle for such lesser activities precisely because they do not involve any risk. But under the law, as it stood, either party could have faced a lengthy jail sentence for not revealing HIV status, which, in such cases, would be going a bit far. In contrast, (2) clearly indicates placing a person at risk.
I think the legislators can still fix the law by specifying what they mean by "sexual contact" and making sure that it is line with (2). But having people disclose status where there is clearly no need to do so puts them at unnecessary risk of stigma and discrimination; the law should offer protection against that.
(With consenting adults, the mere desire to fuck, however strong and however expressed, should not be treated in the same manner as actually fucking. The part of the law that has been rejected did not make that distinction.)
MOON Ki,
Even tweaking the same law still comes off as discriminatory. That is because the same requirement is not expected of people with highly contagious syphilis, TB, schizophrenia etc. Yet someone born HIV+ would be required to disclose this private fact.
It is just going overboard in a situation where people already have the right to use their judgement. If someone tells you I don't want to tell you my HIV status and you go ahead and enjoy ding dong with them, why should they, and not you, be held liable just because they happen to be HIV+?
-
Terminator, I think if someone says "I dont want to say either way", that person has given enough information. I do think if he has not had such a convo with the person, exchanging bodily fluids ought to be illegal without something like that if one person knows he's HIV+. I do agree that the same ought to be required of all STDs or indeed any dangerous contagious illness that is known to the sufferer and callously spread without necessity (necessity like, say trying to get to a hospital or to meet some other basic need)