Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join

Finally prosecuted by the State Attorney


9th of March 2012, the prosecuting authorities' in Norway announced that they will prosecute me. (The indictment and comments from me and my attorney can be read at:

I chose to go public before any final decision was made from the State attorney office, with the chance of provoking them to prosecute me because they don't want to risk being criticized by media of giving in to pressure (edited 30.3.12 and my subjective opinion).

This is fine with me. Like I've stated before I want to have my case tried before a court.

Anyway! Now we all have to wait until the trial before we get any further answers about my case. In the meantime the discussion whether we should have a law like this (and using it like in my case) is protecting the society from more infections or just making it worse, continues.

Personally I had the pleasure of being enlightened by a certain professor from The University of London over dinner the other day. He asked me if I had ever thought of the following dilemmas:

Do the defenders of the law like it is today also believe that we should prosecute and convict parents that voluntarily decide not to vaccinate their children against; let's say Polio (this is voluntarily in Norway)? Those parents are in fact taking away their children's option to protect them selves against an infection with life term consequences. Just like the arguments used to defend why people with HIV should be prosecuted and convicted because they either fails to disclose their status (which they argue involuntarily put people at risk of an infection) or actually put others at risk of HIV, which also are an infection with life term consequences provided you have access to medical treatment?

Do the same defenders believe that all countries should have the same laws to protect themselves against HIV and by that (if they believe all people are equal in God's eyes?) wilfully risk putting millions of Africans in jail? This would eventually be the outcome in Africa, where big parts of the population are infected with HIV.

Do they believe everyone should equally answer to the same law? In Norway it's become publicly known that medicated HIV-positive parents under guidance of their doctors can conceive children the "natural" way (which I'm very much in favour of). This is of course a violation of the penal code 155, but none of these has ever been prosecuted.

If the answer to the last question is yes, it'll probably mean that I have to press charges against the complainant in my own case. Because of the conclusions in the police investigation the complainant has probably put me at risk of re-infection (which is criminal by the law) and probably given a false statement to the police. What a great system!

God bless the freedom of speech and have a nice week.

Louis Gay

Blogger and HIV-positive



Show Comment(s)

Comments on Louis Gay's blog entry "Finally prosecuted by the State Attorney"

Louis, it's a mixed bag of emotions one goes through with the ups and downs of hiv. Have you thought of moving to another country where it isn't so invasive? such as Haiti or Cuba? Food for thought....hmmmm

I think I would rather stay and fight. It's not only about me anymore. It's about the future of thousands of people with HIV in my country. But I do enjoy a holiday from time to time:-)

I wish you well. I am all for realistic measures to reduce infection rates, but using the law in this fashion just makes things worse. It maybe increases the onus on the infected person to disclose but I think it installs a false sense of security in seronegative people and ultimately, in my view, discourages people from taking full responsibility for their own health. These kinds of laws should be relegated to the dustbins of ignorant history.

I wish you well, not just as a fellow seropositive traveller, but as somebody who would like to see a more mature and logical approach and thus a reduction in the spread of this awful virus.

I honour your courage.

It sounds like, even if you *did* disclose your HIV-status, Norway law could still convict you; essentially branding you a scapegoat for anyone that wants to make an accusation of non-disclosure against you.

In Minnesota here, we recently had that very scenario: one man discloses he has HIV, and the other person (hiv-negative) still agrees to have sex. Then the HIV-positive man is arrested on charges of having sex, despite disclosure.

Its almost like they want us (hiv-positive)to force people to prove they are also hiv-positive, just out of fear from possibly doing anything that could be construed as 'risky' should they actually be HIV-negative.

But then, that begs the question of HIV strains posing a risk for other HIV-positive people? Are we destined to a life sentence without physical love? When do we, as a people, learn to accept the responsibility of our own actions?

To my way of thinking there is but one course of action that leads to one conclusion. Scientific research and study of THOUSANDS of sero-discordant couples has led to the scientific conclusion that oral sex has NEVER led to infection of a person having oral sex with another person. This is not anecdotal evidence, this is Scientific PROOF. In addition, no one has stated that any damages were done against the plaintiff as his HIV strain were not genotyped and compared to the genotype of the defendant, Louis Gay. Therefore, no proof exists that Mr. Gay transmitted any virus to the plaintiff. In addition, there is Scientific PROOF, presented at several of the last CROIC conferences, that if a person has been on anti-retrovirals for more than 10 years and has remained with a "0" viral load, that is NO VIRAL LOAD, then it is safe to assume that he CAN NOT transmit the virus as there is not enough virus in circulation in his/her body to transmit the HIV disease. Lastly, anyone who is willfully or just unable to control their sexual urges and has unprotected sex has the opportunity to be taking PRep prophylaxis to insure that his chances of acquiring the HIV virus are next to nil. This is done for women who want to give birth to children when the women is HIV positive and it works 100 per cent of the time. It seems to me that the LAW willfully disregards the Scientific EVIDENCE and PROOF and prosecuted these cases as witch hunts to satisfy the public's prurient interest in "getting the bad guy". Remember it takes two to tango. The responsibility lies with both parties.

Hello Louis,
It sounds like the catch-22 I encountered after 20 years with American Airlines.
They didn't take issue with my being positive or my AIDS diagnosis however when I got really sick and couldn't return to my regular position, They decided to put a restriction on my return to work.
I had to return at 100%.
No light or transitional duty, Only a full release with no restrictions. There are dozens of jobs that I could have done with my 20 years experience and seniority. I was told that no accommodations could be made or would be made in my case and that unless I made a 100% recovery I was not allowed to return to the airport. Mind you I'm NOT an F/A...I worked on the ramp. I could have gone bag room or cabin service, for example that is a little less physically demanding...The answer was still a NO.
Good luck to you, I hope everything works out for you.

After reading peoples comments, I really can't believe the world is still so backwards with respect to HIV. It's actually mind-blowing.

It's all about money (anti-retrovirals, prosecutions) and demonizing sexuality in general, as well as the LGBT community. More people have and die in the United States from Hepatitis C than from H.I.V. I don't see any prosecutions happening from transmitting HCV (which is also sexually transmitted).

Moreover, they are incredibly close to a complete cure with H.I.V. utilizing SB-728-T. It has also been stated that almost anyone who is compliant in taking anti-retrovirals can achieve viral control under the currently available therapies.

Anyone engaging in sexual activity is intelligent enough to know the risks and the dangers. In a medical setting, the order of the day is 'Universal Precautions' against all blood borne pathogens. Using the ideology of: "it takes two to tango" one would think it applied to the larger society as well.

In the United States laws concerning transmission vary from state to state; is that really justice?


Dear Louis.

I thought your trial was finished by this time. Can you please update us as soon as this happens?

Best of luck!

Hi Louis,
Bless you. I have been through the emotions of a law suit, do I have some understanding of what you are going through. It sounds like you are finding your strength. In addition to support from others what helped me with the emotions was lots of exercise with lots of deep breathing exercises.
Endless blessings to you.

i want the man who suport me

Louis I commend you on your crussade here. All I can say is I believe you! I believe in you!

Lets just say for arguments sake that you didn't. Disclose your status ... we are all responsible for not only others....BUT......also for OURSELVES. So the other party involved needs to take their responsabliity too. You didn't simply just give some one Hiv the took a risk in this too they could have insisted on consume or even wore them themselves. Better yet if they where that concerned about Hiv they could have simply abstained from sex

Keep on fighting. You can come here to Pittsburgh and live my house is big enough for another person.

You have a friend here in PA.

Leave a comment



Blog Roll

Subscribe to Blog

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Louis Gay published on March 29, 2012 12:35 PM.

Why Am I Public as a Criminalized HIV-Positive? was the previous entry in this blog.

A clarification before arriving to AIDS 2012 in Washington DC is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.


The opinions expressed by the bloggers and by people providing comments are theirs alone. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Smart + Strong and/or its employees.

Smart + Strong is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information contained in the blogs or within any comments posted to the blogs.

© 2016 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy