Time to stand against the criminalization of HIV
IN PERSON / Watkin calls on poz people to send a message
Bob Watkin / Toronto / Thursday, September 24, 2009
Share |

This article first ran in the Toronto edition of Xtra in the fall of 2009. In it, Bob Watkin, the outgoing chair of the HIV and AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario (HALCO), discusses frankly the concerns raised by the criminalization of HIV in Canada. Among other things, he urges people not to contact the police with complaints about potential HIV transmission.

*

Below is an edited transcript of  comments outgoing HALCO chair Bob Watkin made in a Sep 9 interview with Xtra's editorial director Matt Mills.


I will always support the HIV and AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario (HALCO) and always be a champion of it. There were times however, even as chair, that I disagreed very much with some things that happened. One of those things is the way HALCO’s Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV approached the issue of HIV criminalization. Its position that criminalization — criminal charges against HIV-positive people for failure to disclose their serostatus to sex partners — may be called for in some instances is anathema to me. I will not accept it or agree with it.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Former HALCO chair Bob Watkin is calling on HIV-positive people to take a stand against the criminalization of HIV.
(Jenna Wakani)
This is the second time I’ve been chair of HALCO but my term comes to an end on Sep 23. I will remain on the board but, as I’m no longer chair, I can stand up and say things like I’m going to say now.

I cannot condone in any way the conduct of anyone that results in someone else being infected. But there is no justification at all — anyway, anywhere, anyhow — for the criminalization of HIV and AIDS.

Further, I’m suggesting to HIV-positive people that, if they find themselves charged in connection with failure to disclose allegations, they exercise their legal right to refuse to give statements that could end up being used against them in criminal court, that they should no longer cooperate with anyone, anywhere, anytime, or answer any questions about their sexual conduct.

To those who are not HIV-positive, if you call the police and complain about someone else because they may have infected you and you do turn out to be infected, you’re going to find yourself in the same position as the person you just complained about. Once you enter that world you are the same, there is no distinction between guilty and innocent. You are HIV-positive; you’re going to be dealt with that way, you’re going to be perceived that way and you’re going to be treated that way.

Don’t call the police.

Again, I’m not suggesting that anyone act irresponsibly. What I’m saying is it doesn’t matter what your actions are.

What led us to this point is an abject failure of the public health system and its proven inability to deal with a chronic long-term disease, HIV. In Ontario dealing with the disease is properly the purview of the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care and in particular ministry of health officials.



Public health has failed miserably. Health officials tout the fact that they have the ability to quarantine. We know they know about reckless conduct and that they issue warnings to individuals, but they fail to use those tools effectively. In the void that’s been created by their failure to act, the criminal law has stepped in to supplant them and that has made the situation much worse.

It may be very difficult for people to accept being locked up by public health but it’s much better to be locked away, treated and educated in a medical setting, than to be locked in a prison.

Criminalization has not been a political issue. But this approach may send a message to public health authorities, attorneys general and to governments: You’ve got to change the way you’re doing this.

To make failure to disclose HIV-positive status an offence the courts had to twist the law as it stood. Underlying all of that is the imposition of black and white on one of the most intimate and complex aspects of humanity: sexual conduct. Sexuality does not often involve rationality. And criminalizing HIV/AIDS overlooks that, in criminalization cases, both accused and accuser voluntarily took part in the act. After all these years of education, someone decided in the face of that knowledge to take a risk.

The charges boil down to allegations. There is no other evidence that is really relevant. In all of these situations, no one disputes that the sex occurred. Two people make an irresponsible decision, one of them happens to be HIV-positive. Only one of them is absolved and that just isn’t right.

All this has created an environment in which people are not getting tested. They are afraid to know. People who have means are leaving the country, getting tested elsewhere and in fact getting treatment elsewhere, so they don’t leave evidence of their HIV status.

We as HIV-positive people have to say, “Enough, this is it, no more.” Unless we start saying that as a group we’re just going to find our lives become more and more and more dreadful.


Share |


Reader Comments


 
Drop this one
"Underlying all of that is the imposition of black and white on one of the most intimate and complex aspects of humanity: sexual conduct. Sexuality does not often involve rationality." ---------------------------------------- That's an odd rationale against having laws. But we don't put up with that excuse-making about rape, and the same complexity and lack of rationality applies to garden variety sexual relations as well, which at least in my experience often involve too much cheap alcohol, mixed messages, regrets and changes of heart mid-stream. That consent or lack thereof is sometimes difficult to establish in these circumstances is not a reason to toss out those laws. Is it? Or is the code statute against rape the 'criminalization of sex' or the 'criminalization of the penis'? No, it isn't, because trained and rational people can parse the difference and weigh the evidence. The law needs to be there. As far as 'criminalizing HIV' I'm pretty convinced that law enforcement has exercised discretion and gone after the worst offenders - thus far. They were some pretty nasty assholes prosecuted, and let's not forget, lives were lost. There's no evidence I've seen that the "criminalization of HIV" is a concerted political agenda, despite all the emotive sloganeering to that effect. I don't think being gay and having HIV gives you a pass to treat people shitty. This has the whiff of a moral panic that needn't be. By the way, we have anonymous testing in Toronto. So that excuse doesn't wash either.
Skeptic, Toronto Ontario
09/25/09 1:59 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
SHAMEFUL
If I was to engage in a sexual exchange with another person and I didn't ask them if they were HIV positive and they didn't tell me they were, I don't have a big problem with that. BUT, if I had sex with someone and asked them if they were HIV positive and they told me they weren't, that would be a whole other type of situation. If after that encounter I was to become infected and later die, I would fully expect that person to be charged with murder. Passing HIV / AIDS onto another person knowingly, is NO different from pulling out a loaded gun and shooting them, except the bullet would be faster than the virus. In closing, what the hell has public health got to do with someone that's HIV positive having sex with someone that's not positive and not being honest with that person ?? What a shameful position for Mr. Watkin to be taking. Disgusting if you ask me. STOP blaming Gov't's and their various programs or lack of programs and START taking some bloody personal responsibility for your own actions. If ever Mr. Watkin would like to debate my comments and position, he should feel free to post his email address on this comment board and I'd be more than happy to engage him.
Jeff T, Toronto Ontario
09/25/09 2:28 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Great peice
Thanks for your thoughts Bob. They're definitely on target. To SKEPTIC: 1) no one has suggested that rape laws be thrown out. Rape is about non consensual sex. We're talking about consensual sex here, and to conflate the two is disingenuous. 2) You must not be following the news much, as many cases do NOT involve the "worst offenders." Case in point is Ryan Handy - despite not actually having PASSED HIV to the top that CHOSE to fuck him raw, he faced 25 years in prison. 3) About HIV testing - if you can end up in jail for not disclosing your HIV status, that's a strong strong motivator for some to NOT get tested (ignorance is bliss, and all that). To Jeff T: you do know that a negative test result means at best you were negative months ago, which doesn't necessarily mean you're actually HIV-, right? Your ranting to take "some bloody personal responsibility for your own actions" is funny, as Mr Watkin is advocating that very thing. Responsibility cuts both ways: if someone CHOOSES to have casual unprotected sex, there mat be consequences. Arresting the person you THINK may have infected you is stupid and wrong - and it's not taking responsibility for your own actions. Taking responsibility for one's actions INCLUDES dealing with the result of someone CHOOSING having unprotected sex. Calling the police in is not taking responsibility for someone's CHOICE to have unprotected sex.
Dan, Toronto Ontario
09/25/09 8:49 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
I'll Try this ONE MORE TIME ....
Dan, you are 100 percent totally missing my point. I'll outline things for you once again. If I was to meet someone and ask them what their current HIV stais is and they tell me that they are negative even though they KNOW they are in fact positive (which can be proven in a court trial) and I go on to contract HIV / AIDS, that is attempted murder. If I die from the virus, it is now murder. DON'T hide behind the "a negative test result means nothing" crap either. My point is being made with the fact being known by the positive person. Taking this issue one step further it must also be said that if someone that is infected with HIV continues to have sex with others, it should be a no-brainer that the person ALWAYS practise safe sex -EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY HAVE SEX WITH ANOTHER PERSON - PERIOD. If your position on this issue is the same as Mr. Watkin's, shame on you as well. Where do you get this idea that knowingly carrying HIV / AIDS and having unprotected, unsafe sex with another person is the responsibility of the negative person and NOT that of the positive person is sickening to me. Talk about setting the gay movement back decades in the eyes of the rest of the world. One more thing to point out to you Dan - not everyone that contracts HIV / AIDS did because they have had many sexual partners. I personally have heard of people that had very few sexual encounters and ended up with AIDS. DON'T look for ways to blame the victims. If someone knowingly has a virus that we all no there's no cure for and continues having unprotected sex with others, what does that say about the character of that positive person ? On that thought, I have no problem with two people in a relationship where one of them is positive and the other negative deciding together to not use condoms. That is an informed decision made within honesty. Even when two people meet and the negative one decides to have unprotected sex with the other that's positive if the TR
Jeff T, Toronto Ontario
09/25/09 12:29 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
missing the point?
Jeff, speaking of missing the point: I never mentioned the scenario where one party is KNOWINGLY lying to the other about their serostatus when both parties CHOOSE to have unprotected sex. That's reprehensible. Please stop claiming that I believe otherwise. My POSITION here is in agreement with Mr. Watkin - you've just twisted it around completely. If someone wants to fuck you raw, they may be HIV+ (and believe you must be HIV+ as well, because what kind of moron would have unprotected sex unless they were HIV+), they may be HIV-, they may be lying about their status, they may have been negative but recently seroconverted, or may be ignornant of their status. If you STILL CHOOSE to have unprotected sex, well, that's incredibly reckless and must bear the RESPONSIBILITY OF YOUR ACTIONS. This isn't blaming the victim, this is pointing out that a stupid CHOICE has consequences.
Dan, Toronto Ontario
09/25/09 1:18 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
The problem is complicated by the HIV/AIDS support
As much as I agree with Bob that there needs to be TWO responsible people having sex, not just one, I think blaming only the Health Ministry officials is a bit simplistic. The HIV/AIDS support groups and people living with HIV have to take some blame too. At least is Toronto, all the awareness campaigns were using the soft approach: "Take care of each other", "How do you now what you know?". " If you were stigmatized each time you've disclosed, would you?" - respectful- maybe, supportive of people living with HIV - yes, but effectively driving the point home? NO! Look to Europe - Denmark continues to have some of the lowest transmission rates in the world (around 3%), UNCHANGED since the crisis began. Ads? AIDS STOPS WITH YOU - USE CONDOM EVERYTIME!!!! Yes, it takes at least one HIV positive person to create a problem - new transmission. How about POZ people becoming part of the solution????
Robert Tomas, Toronto Ontario
09/25/09 4:35 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Do Some Research
First, I'd like to say that Robert Tomas's comments are mostly right on the mark. As for Dan's reply to my reply, of course stupid decisions have consequences, BUT that's not the point I'm trying very hard here (and it seems with little possibility of getting through to you) to have you understand. I'll try re-wording my thoughts in hopes of you might eventually understand. The bottom line ( no pun intended ) is that if you knowingly have HIV / AIDS and you decide to have unprotected sex with another person that is negative and that person isn't made aware of the fact that you are positive and that person infects the negative person, you should be charged for not telling the truth about being sick. In Canadian law, if one injures or kills another with a reckless / negligent act (having unprotected sex while you have HIV/AIDS is both reckless & negligent) that person will be held accountable by the courts. That my friend is why several people across Canada have in fact been charged and then convicted of the act. Do some research on the law and cases that have taken place in our country. One last note on the topic. To suggest to someone that has been infected by someone that was not honest that they are now just the same as the original person that infected them is truly reprehensible. If Mr. Watkin and Dan's comments and beliefs represent the common belief and understanding of this legal and moral issue, I think it's time for the gay community of Toronto to have some type of public forum on the issue of disclosure when it comes to infecting others.
Jeff T, Toronto Ontario
09/25/09 11:19 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Oh for Christ's sake
Learn to read. Nowhere did I 'conflate' rape laws with anything else. My point - which you repeated without recognizing it - is that consent or resistance can sometimes be difficult to ascertain, but that because these issues are often difficult to parse is NOT a rationale for not having laws in the first place. Making a reference to or using another issue to illustrate a point is NOT the same thing as conflating them. Nice try, though, however reductive and unoriginal. And consensual sex is NOT consent to become infected. Conflating those two is indeed disingenuous.
Skeptic, Toronto ON
09/26/09 8:57 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Rising rate of conflation!
Hey, sometimes stuff comes pre-conflated! From today's Star: An HIV-positive man who put a power drill to his former girlfriend's head and raped her, returned to her home 10 days later and raped her again, was sentenced to another four years and 15 days in prison. William Imona-Russel was sentenced yesterday to nine years in prison, but Ontario Superior Court Justice John McMahon gave the 36-year-old credit for the five years and 15 days of pre-trial custody he has already served. McMahon said Imona-Russel had, for his own sexual gratification, used physical violence against a vulnerable woman, "all the time knowing he was HIV-positive and having zero concern for the health of the victim." The judge found him guilty of assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, threatening death, attempted aggravated sexual assault to endanger life and two counts of sexual assault. He is also charged with first-degree murder in the stabbing death of another woman, Yasmin Ashareh, 20, whose body was found stuffed in a garbage bag in 2006. He was out on bail at the time. That case is in the pre-trial stage. Imona-Russel was tested for HIV when he came to Canada in April 2003 from Nigeria and claimed refugee status. In June that year, he was informed he was HIV-positive and told to advise any partners of his condition and to use a condom when having sex. The woman, who is in her late 50s, has tested positive for the virus that causes AIDS. McMahon found she may have been infected while the two were having consensual sex. "I've been labelled or called a rapist by the media which I'm not," said Imona-Russel when asked if he had anything to say to the court. He added he plans to appeal "my wrongful conviction.
Skeptic, Toronto ON
09/26/09 9:08 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Conflate away, strawman
Skeptic: the article was taking about the consequences of two people having unprotected sex in general, and so am I. Your responses talk to specific scenarios of nonconsensual sex and deception on the part of the HIV+ person involved. Yes, someone knowingly infecting someone is bad (see my previous response), as is rape (duh). My point remains the same: the person CHOOSING (i.e. not a rape victim) to have unprotected sex with someone also bears responsibility for their actions. If no one has a gun to your head and you CHOOSE to have unprotected sex you must bear some responsibility. The rationale for ASSUMING the HIV+ person is 100% at fault for the choices made by BOTH parties is what's wrong here, and should not be criminalized. Even if the HIV+ partner is lying (or unaware) about their status.
Dan, Toronto Ontario
09/26/09 10:12 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Are you serious ??
DAN, not only are you completely misguided and wrong, people that think (and probably act) like you do, are extremely dangerous. Like others have been posting here pointing out in so many words, an HIV infected person that does NOT disclose their infection is basically attempting to kill someone for their own sexual gratification. Bob watkins article is also full of very dangerous advice - not only on a health level, but also on a legal level. One thing I can say for sure, if I was ever infected by someone that knew they were positive and didn't tell me the truth, I'd spend every last penny I had on the best lawyer to ensure that person was locked up for as long as humanly possible ! It's people like you that tarnish all that is good about being gay and set gays back decades as we are viewed by the general population.
Kevin B, Toronto Ontario
09/26/09 10:49 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
???
If you infect someone with HIV you should be charged with assault...whether you knew you were infected or not. If you don't get tested after having unprotected sex you are being negligent. No one should have unprotected anal sex but presumably condoms can break, or whatever? If someone infected me or someone I care about with HIV I hope they would go to jail for at least 25 years...that is the least they would deserve. Hopefully in solitary confinement.
Derek, Calgary Alberta
09/26/09 5:25 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Do you research? Really?
Of all the (reported on) cases involving gay men and HIV transmissions, it has been the HIV- top having the HIV+ bottom arrested, charged and had their lives ruined for engaging in unprotected sex. In NONE of these cases did an actual infection occur. That is, on a very fundamental level, FUCKED UP. Advocating for further criminalization of HIV+ people is detrimental to the broader gay community. And all the bluster leveled against my position remains unchanged - CHOOSING to have casual unprotected sex with anyone, especially if you're HIV-, is insanely dangerous. The idea that you don't bear ANY responsibility for that stupid stupid choice is ridiculous.
Dan, Toronto Ontario
09/26/09 6:19 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Kevin B, are YOU serious?
Kevin B, are you insane? You're willing to to engage in HIGH RISK sex (which is what unprotected sex is) based on someone's word that they're not positive? That is completely messed up - in fact, you should probably be locked up as well for being so reckless with your own well being.
Dan, Toronto Ontario
09/26/09 6:28 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Jeff T's putting word in my mouth. Oh Noes!
"To suggest to someone that has been infected by someone that was not honest that they are now just the same as the original person that infected them is truly reprehensible." Please don't put words into my mouth. I've been talking about the general case here. If someone deceives you and you become infected yourself, that sucks. Good luck in trying to prove you were lied to, though. My point remains - why would you CHOOSE to unprotected sex anyway? Are you DUMB enough to take someone at their word about something as serious as HIV? There are two lapses in personal responsibility there - his to deceive and yours to be so gullible and reckless. Most people here don't seem to get that. Your comment does inspire an interesting scenario: Say you have unprotected sex and unwittingly become HIV+ (we'll spice it up and suppose it was some hot anonymous group scene - bareback is all the rage I hear). Further, let's say it was a month after your last HIV test, so you think you're still HIV-. (As an aside, you should note that symptoms are not immediately evident, and that HIV is more "contagious" in recently infected people vs long time carriers). So, you go on your merry way and have further unprotected sex with other not so bright people, infecting them. Now let's say one of these people you've infected are the sort that can count their sex partners on one hand - so he'll know for a fact that you're the on who has infected him. Now, are YOU ready to be arrested and made a criminal for infecting them? Under Canadian Law, you certainly are culpable.. and can face up to 25 years in jail. Are you ready to take responsibility now? Sure, you didn't KNOW you were positive, but the blood work will confirm it, so you WILL be guilty. And you will go to jail. If you don't see how quickly this situation becomes royally messed up.. well, it's kinda sad.
Dan, Toronto Ontario
09/26/09 6:57 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Hello????
Again, at the risk of flogging a dead horse - what is wrong with having a protected sex every time? Put a condom on it and we would not be having this conversation! Enough with "negotiated unsafe sex", enough with "consensual barebacking" - as gay man we are not trying to get each other pregnant, so there is NO compelling reason for not wearing a condom. And yes, the responsibility to protect the uninfected partner rests with the HIV+ person too. I know what speak of. My ex-partner was positive for over 20 years. He died earlier this year of AIDS complications. He was religious about condom use. That`s what grown-ups do. In part due to his diligence I`m still HIV-....
Robert Tomas, Toronto Ontario
09/26/09 8:05 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Comment from a HIV + man
I have read the debate here and I thought it would be helpful to give you my opinion of the subject. I am HIV+ and I take FULL responsibility in the protection of my partner. (period) I believe most of the poz persons do the same. Now, I totally understand the point of the article - It takes two for tango; if I would have protected myself I wouldn't be in the position I am in now. I made that decision to have unprotected sex with a person I trust. Why? Because of something called false security (I thought he would tell me). Now that I am +, I understand the concept of denial, fear to be rejected and fear to know the truth, among other reasons to be afraid to disclose. The article doesn't encourage anyone to be irresponsible - it criticizes HIV criminalization over disclosure (not about transmission), the more sensationalism about the subject the more the people will fear to know their status and not knowing will be a key factor to increase HIV transmission. On the other hand, if there was a shared responsibility by law to protect yourself, people will do it more, instead of relaying on someone else. If this ever occurs, there would be a significant reduction in the transmission of the virus. Please think there are thousands of people that decide not to know – What would they disclose? Always protect yourself and think, if he was tested last week, today his HIV status is not negative, but unknown. Before you judge the article, think again and don’t look at it from your personal perspective but as what is it: A problem of all.
Just me., Toronto Ontario
09/29/09 8:31 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Life in PRISON ....
Life in Prison is the best defence against HIV + people having sex with HIV- people. I have seen over the years guys I know for a fact that are HIV+ parading around bathhouses screwing multiple partners in dark rooms and corners with no condom on their dicks. Just because you are HIV+, that doesn't give you the right to keep spreading it. Life in prison. This BS about the responsibility of the HIV- person having as much or more responsibility as the HIV+ person is just another example of the whole AIDS movement trying to run from their responsibilities. The courts in Canada have already been sentencing HIV+ men to jail time for infecting other people - thankfully ! Lets hope this continues.
Jay Anderson, Toronto Ontario
10/04/09 5:46 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Canada the hate filled and stupid nation about HIV
A few points for all you commentators. HIV is a manaegeble disease and your reactions are a mirror to your internalized homophobia as in a every homophobic and aidsophobic country. Medications, treatments and maybe a break in a few areas make defeating HIV in North America quite promising. But that is not enough for tight assed Canadians. You are the nation that never apologized to the natiives, or Quecbekers or for the residential schools or Chinese laborers. Hate is in your genes and that is a virus untreatable. Infection with HIV is not a crime, it is a misfortune between sexual parnters, each of whom knows the risk entailed in having sex. Get over your small minded hate filled provincialism. Read something ... not your own media ... which is the product of the infamous inactive and small minded. First and foremost is that the police are NOT following the law. HALCO IS RUN by fearmongerers, your activists are government funded which is a huge conflict of interests, and your courts and police are a disgrace to fairness and justice. International disgrace and pressure, unstopping attacks in print and in daily life are the only balm for this mess. If a cure were found tomorrow, I would never stop hating you or writing about this pitiful moment in Canadian history. Shame on you.
Mark Midensky, Toronto Ontario
10/07/09 8:46 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Pissed Off
I have to second Mark's comments. I don't understand why men who have infected women with herpes simplex (who in turn, went on to develop cervical cancer and die from it),are not charged with murder as well. Until straight men are charged and tried for infecting women with herpes simplex, I refuse to believe anyone thinks they are helping the movement with the way things are going. This criminalization of HIV stinks of homophobia and racism. Anyone who suppports this process is...words fail me.
Rick L., Toronto ON
10/15/09 9:50 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
AIDSphobia
http://www.youtube.com/AIDSphobia
Orazio, Hamilton Ontario
11/06/09 1:48 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.