I am invited to AIDS 2012 in Washington DC this summer by the American organisation SERO http://www.seroproject.com and the international HIV Justice Network http://vimeo.com/hivjustice.
I will participate in debates and workshops surrounding HIV and media and HIV criminalisation. Before I arrive I need to clarify a few things.
While a lot of the HIV-criminalisation discussion in the U.S. is about disclosure, this is not the case in Norway.
The law here does not require HIV-positive people to disclose. Even though the court has stated that people with HIV should disclose their status prior to sex, it doesn't give you any protection against prosecution and the question of guilt in a trial. The question of guilt is only connected to whether you have (knowing or neglecting the probability of being HIV positive) put someone at risk of infection or actually infected them.
All in all there is a lot of misunderstandings and confusion around this in Norway. Even the organisations and politicians are sometimes making the wrong assumptions about this. The consequences are bad for every one. A lot of HIV-negative people believe that those with HIV are legally obligated to disclose and therefore feel protected, while people with HIV are told that they are not obligated to disclose their status, making the others upset and sometimes angry if they find out.
In my case my indictment is not about nondisclosure. This has nothing to do with the question of whether I'm guilty or not. It will on the other hand be an issue if I am convicted in relation to how they will sentence me.
The
law in
Norway
puts all responsibility on the one with HIV. My case is a very good
example of the Norwegian and Nordic way of thinking. The law is to
protect the society from communicable diseases, like HIV. Even if we
want to (and I tried once with my former HIV negative partner) a
person can not legally free anyone
with HIV
from the threats of prosecution by the state, even if they wanted to
by signing papers/contracts etc. So disclosing gives us no protection
from the law.
The prosecutor in my case found it irrelevant to this indictment that the complainant had HIV prior to the sex we had. The law opens to prosecute any HIV-positive conducting in sex which they find to be a risk of infection. Whether that is another HIV-positive or it was consensual sex with disclosure has nothing to do with the law. Because the law is there to protect the society not the individual.
The complainant in my case is not my enemy. He wanted to withdraw his charge already in October last year (in writing and given to the police). In my country you can not withdraw your charges in HIV cases if you once pushed that button. Because as a complainant you are just a witness to the state of Norway (represented by the prosecutor) which is my opponent in the upcoming trial.
This is part of why Norway and some of the Nordic countries are ranked among the worst in the world (by UNAIDS) when it comes to criminalizing HIV-positive people?
Watch the newly published interview Sean Strub and SERO did with me during the UNAIDS conference in Oslo, February 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1C4zpdHiY
Regards,
Louis Gay
louisgay72.blogspot.com
Norway
Comments on Louis Gay's blog entry " A clarification before arriving to AIDS 2012 in Washington DC"
Louis,
thank you for your clarification, it really underlines just how desperately Norway and other nations require legal reforms.
essentially the law in Norway (as in the US state of Iowa and elsewhere) makes it illegal for an HIV+ person to have sex at all...regardless of transmission, regardless of risk or lack thereof, regardless of disclosure. i assume that an HIV+ person in Norway is never actually told "your sex life is over, get used to it" when you are diagnosed?
it's interesting that the law in these places cares so little for the autonomy and free will of either party in these prosecutions, in addition to disregarding medical science.
i hope you win your case and it leads to reform in Norway and elsewhere. a resident physician in a hospital or truck driver on a highway each present a far greater and more imminent danger to public health (due to regular sleep deprivation) than you apparently ever did, and it's time that the Law recognized this.
in solidarity,
Jeton Ademaj
Louis,all I can say is that it's a fine kettle of fish you're in!!!
Thanks for making this distinction clear, Louis. Looking forward to seeing you in Washington.
Sean
Put their feet to the fire test. If they are interested in protecting society, and this is not discrimination, then how many people have they prosecuted for passing cancer viruses (also deadly) one of any 32 HPV viruses (also deadly)????? Have they created testing, tracking of people with cancer and warn them not to have unprotected sex. You will find no law agains women with cancer, that she can ONLY have protected sex, and yet that virus is being passed on, every day. How do you think Michael Douglas got a cancer virus in his throat?? Governments are happy to police the gay community because of discrimination, they are not really interested in stopping disease from spreading, because the law would then include communicable deadly cancer and HPV viruses.
This is all extraordinary to me. I had been living under the (obviously) mistaken impression that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, were these bastions of freedom and personal responsibility! I had THOUGHT that people had the freedom to have, or not have, sex any way they want! If one had unprotected sex, it was on them if anything negative (or positive) happened.
Sexual freedom and responsibility/action and consequences were all PERSONAL matters; not something "an enlightened, civilized" State would embroil itself in. Silly me.
Jeton, "IOWA?!" Wow. I feel like I've been slapped and told, "SNAP OUT OF IT!" I doubt it will change behavior, but it demonstrates there's work to do.
Thank you. And good luck, Louis.