More attempted murder charges
NEWS / Second Toronto man charged for failing to disclose HIV status
Xtra staff / Toronto / Thursday, June 04, 2009
Share |

A second Toronto man has been charged with attempted murder for failing to disclose his HIV status to a sexual partner.

The 46-year-old was arrested on Jun 4 and is facing one charge each of attempted murder, aggravated sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

According to a Toronto Police Service news release "the accused had unprotected sexual intercourse on multiple occasions after being informed that he was HIV-positive in March 2009" and that although the charges stem from sex the accused had with a woman "his partners may have been in both the gay and heterosexual communities."

The accused had his first appearance in court on the afternoon of Jun 4.

This is the second time that attempted murder charges have been laid in connection with HIV nondisclosure in recent months. On Apr 29 a 28-year-old Toronto man was charged with attempted murder for failing to disclose his HIV status to a male partner. In both cases police have issued public safety alerts encouraging anyone who may have had sex with him to come forward.

In May Xtra asked Richard Elliott, executive director of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, for advice on what you should do if you think you may have had sexual contact with the accused. Should you call the police as they ask and tell them all about it?

"I can't answer that," says Elliott. "What I might do would be different from what someone else might do. I think if you have some reason to think you've done something with someone that puts you at some risk of becoming infected, what I think you should do is go get tested and you should practise safer sex."

What about the police? Should you call the police?

"If it were me I would not think I would want to call the police and nail this guy," says Elliott. "That would not be my reaction."



The recent attempted murder charges follow the April conviction of Hamilton man Johnson Aziga on two counts of murder for failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to two female partners who subsequently died of HIV-related causes.

Barry Adam, a sociologist at the University of Windsor and Ontario HIV Treatment Network researching the impacts of criminalization on people living with HIV/AIDS (PHAs), told Xtra at the time of Aziga's conviction that prosecuting people for failing to disclose their HIV status to sex partners may in fact impede prevention efforts and unnecessarily stigmatize PHAs.

"It reinforces a message that people don't need to practice protective sex because they can rely on partners to disclose if they're positive," he said. "I think from an HIV-prevention viewpoint that's a worrisome development because it's always important to keep in mind a significant amount of transmission is coming from people who don't know they're positive."


Take action: I Condemn the Criminalization of HIV.
Check out the Xtra.ca activist campaign.
Join the Facebook group.

Rally in Ottawa: Stop the Criminalization of HIV-Positive People!
Wed, Jun 10, 12:30-1:30pm.
Parliament Hill.
Facebook event page.


Share |


Reader Comments


 
Knee-jerk = Death
Reality check, aisle one! Being HIV+ is not criminal. Being HIV+ *is* being a person with increased health costs, reduced employment and increased ostracism. Being HIV+ is also being a person with a shortened lifespan. Those are the facts with which few can argue. We all know how HIV is spread. We all know how to reduce the risk of spreading HIV. When a person is tested and diagnosed, counselling is provided to inform the person how best to protect himself and others from transmission, co-infection, etc. The person's legal responsibility is also told to him. Simply put, we all have a duty under the common law and the Criminal Code not to expose others to harm. Failure to inform a sexual partner of one's (known) HIV status and then engaging in high-risk sexual behaviour clearly exposes the other person to harm. These charges do *not* result from simple infection with HIV. They result from an individual's reckless and irresponsible endangerment of another human's well-being, simply so the offender can bareback.
George, Welland Ontario
06/07/09 2:10 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Illinformed
George, as far as I know their has been no reporting on the specific details of the alleged sexual activity that took place. This could just as easily be a case of spitting, biting, fellatio or cunnilingus which are all known to be low risk. The legal obligation around disclosure from R v Cuerrier states; 'the careful use of condoms might be found to so reduce the risk of harm that it could no longer be considered significant so that there might not be either deprivation or risk of deprivation. To repeat, in circumstances such as those presented in this case, there must be a significant risk of serious bodily harm before the section can be satisfied. In the absence of those criteria, the duty to disclose will not arise'. The key point above is 'significant risk of serious bodily harm'. This was not defined by The Court. More importantly our goals should be of reducing HIV Infections, reducing HIV Hysteria and Stigma, and increased testing amongst all sexually active adults. Criminalization hinders all those efforts, it undermines the efforts of AIDS organizations across this country and it contributes to the 'Monster'; label on HIV+ people. If you think for one second that spitting, biting, fellatio or other acts don't attack the Criminal Justice system, do a little Google'ing.
Fred, London ON
06/09/09 10:38 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
and 9/11 was an inside job?
"Stop the criminalization of HIV" is a great and emotive slogan. It panders to our fears about government and the justice systems and police, fears that we have acquired with some historical justification. Those of us over 40 remember when Dr. Richard Schabas - Ontario's public health czar in the early 90s - mused about quarantines. It demanded a fast and furious response, and it got it. And I understand the desire not to feed the fear-mongering and racist and homophobic hysteria of the tabloids. But let's not mimic their execrable logical path and do the same kind of ramped-up panic out of minimal information. Was the recent guilty verdict for high school footballer Manny Castillo's killer (he drove Manny's head into the ground in a fit of fury) the "criminalization of sport"? Does football have its domain, separate from off-field, where this kind of activity is the norm, as some claimed? No - the jury and judge saw through that argument, they knew that a line had been crossed and convicted accordingly. Is the rape law in the criminal code the "criminalization of sex"? No. Rape isn't sex, it's assault, so it's a category mistake. There's no 'anything goes' pass for sex, or for sport. Criminal law should still apply, depending on the circumstances and if a case can be made. If there is some evidence of a state conspiracy to target people with HIV in general, make the case with facts, not fear. Can the law be abused? Yes, of course, and it happens not infrequently. People who have not raped do get charged with rape, but that there is a potential for abuse is not an argument for getting rid of the rape law. The role of the courts is to decide whether the charges have merit. If Xtra and those involved in this campaign would ask us to believe there's a movement afoot to "criminalize HIV" they are going to have to present a little more evidence. Sloganeering isn't enough. This isn't about som
Not buying it, Toronto ON
06/10/09 2:22 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
You're missing the bus, Fred
Fred, the first paragraph of the article indicates that the accused in this case had 'unprotected sexual intercourse'. The police don't label spitting, etc as 'sexual intercourse'. You're right, we need to reduce the number of new infections, and we all have a part to play. Those who have been diagnosed HIV+ have a personal responsibility in this matter. Namely, to disclose status and/or wear a condom in serodiscordant relationships. Saying that 'criminalisation' hurts the work of ASOs is also false; do we stop arresting and deporting criminals from other lands because it would 'disrupt' the work of refugee agencies? Do we stop prosecuting drunk drivers because it affects the work of Alcoholics Anonymous? Hardly. The Criminal Code is clear. Cuerrier leaves some ambiguity, to be sure. Solving that ambiguity is simple. If you have HIV, you have a moral and legal duty to inform sexual partners. If you fail to live up to this duty, you are commiting an offense. We place restrictions on convicted drunk drivers. We allow RIDE random checks. We require owners to register their firearms. In the latter two cases, this is before criminal activity has taken place. It's not unreasonable to require people with a fatal virus to inform others. That is, if we truly want to limit transmission. If, instead, we'd rather rally 'round the (rainbow) colours in the name of 'reducing stigma', prepare for increased transmission in more cases such as these.
George, Welland Ontario
06/10/09 6:19 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.