(My translation)
På norsk her:
http://louisgay72.blogspot.com/p/omsider-tiltalt-av-statsadvokaten-i.html
Now I'm finally prosecuted
"... for violation of:
Penal Code § 155 first penalty option
for intentional to have exposed another to a risk of being infected even though he had reasonable grounds to believe that he was infected with a serious communicable disease
Basis
On one occasion during the period xx.xx.xxx to xx.xx.xxxx he made receptive (receiving) oral sex with xxxxxxxxx without protection, even though he knew he was HIV-positive.
Claim for compensation to the complainant reserved abandoned."
The indictment is largely consistent with the conclusion of the police investigation. So I'm accused of having exposed another of infection, without actually infecting him, because it appeared that he was infected by someone else.
Yet there is a surprising element. The prosecutors find that one case of oral sex (without any contact with semen according to the victim's and my own police report), which is regarded by the definition of "safer sex" after a series of health authorities written instructions, shall be considered as intentional. So, that I willfully through this action has exposed the victim of infection. So, even though I’ve both followed the prevailing advice of safer sex and that the risk of infection in this case occurred at the risk of infection from blood, after an accident that would have caused exactly the same risk if it had been used a condom.
It’s difficult to understand the prosecutors in any other way than that for HIV-positive people it’s a criminal offense to practice "safer sex". I.e. to use a condom during anal and vaginal intercourse and oral sex without a condom if there is no contact with semen or precum, if you want to avoid criminal liability.
Louis Gay
http://louisgay72.blogspot.com/p/omsider-tiltalt-av-statsadvokaten-i.html
Now I'm finally prosecuted
"... for violation of:
Penal Code § 155 first penalty option
for intentional to have exposed another to a risk of being infected even though he had reasonable grounds to believe that he was infected with a serious communicable disease
Basis
On one occasion during the period xx.xx.xxx to xx.xx.xxxx he made receptive (receiving) oral sex with xxxxxxxxx without protection, even though he knew he was HIV-positive.
Claim for compensation to the complainant reserved abandoned."
The indictment is largely consistent with the conclusion of the police investigation. So I'm accused of having exposed another of infection, without actually infecting him, because it appeared that he was infected by someone else.
Yet there is a surprising element. The prosecutors find that one case of oral sex (without any contact with semen according to the victim's and my own police report), which is regarded by the definition of "safer sex" after a series of health authorities written instructions, shall be considered as intentional. So, that I willfully through this action has exposed the victim of infection. So, even though I’ve both followed the prevailing advice of safer sex and that the risk of infection in this case occurred at the risk of infection from blood, after an accident that would have caused exactly the same risk if it had been used a condom.
It’s difficult to understand the prosecutors in any other way than that for HIV-positive people it’s a criminal offense to practice "safer sex". I.e. to use a condom during anal and vaginal intercourse and oral sex without a condom if there is no contact with semen or precum, if you want to avoid criminal liability.
Louis Gay
Dear Louis.
ReplyDeleteCan you please update us as soon as the trial is finished?
Warm thoughts and best of luck!
Yes, of course. I'll keep everyone posted at all times. Just follow my blog here from time to time:-)
ReplyDeleteLouis
Louis! Should I make a public announcement, in my city's most popular paper, declaring my status? I've never lied about my status to anyone ever. Sometimes, I may not be asked. Would that help in releasing my liability to criminalization?
ReplyDeleteI wish more people would be public about there HIV, but I can't recommend it. If you choose to go public, do it for the right reasons. Because you believe it's important and want to contribute to the fight. I don't think a public announcement will protect you from the law, necessarily? Going public doesn't mean everybody knows about it. Even though I have been in media several times, I continue to meet people every weekend which to I am a complete stranger. Even though I don't wish for it to be this way, it seems that the safest way to protect your self against criminalization, would be to stay secret about your HIV and make sure you don't infect anyone.
ReplyDeleteRegards
Louis
Hey Louis,
ReplyDeleteYou certainly have an uphill battle ahead of you and I’m not so sure you’ll be able to come down the other side, at least in our lifetime. As of lately, there is still an excess amount of homophobic backlash that is so present, in small and at times large amounts, within the legal and criminal justice system. As far as I’m concerned, your case is one more way heterosexuals and even some righteous gays find the excuse to punish and even process their ridiculous guilt about being gay or hate towards gays. Give the breeders a way to put us away, not to spread our viral intent, and they will feel like winners and even conquerors of us. Your case is about how our society has yet to deal with their internalized homophobia and how many of them still see HIV as a moral disease rather than as a biological and preventable one.
Also, those fools, who are HIV negative and practice unsafe sex with someone who is or not HIV positive, are playing Russian roulette; and appeasing to their own desire to flirt with possible death, long term suffering and pain. We should as a society examine why someone would have unsafe sex or at least put themselves at risk with someone who is part of a high-risk group. And when the ball drops, they always blame the receiver or giver for their new and unyielding dilemma.
Furthermore, society will never get anywhere or move forward to a move civilized world when we prosecute the sick and disadvantaged; and not ask why healthy people are putting themselves at risk. As far as I’m concerned, we should penalize anyone who has unsafe sex with someone who is part of a high-risk group and move away from prosecuting the supposed infector of the scene. Any man, who is attracted to other men and practices unsafe sex, even one time, is at fault and quite stupid for doing so. Your case is what I call “the dumbing down of society phenomena”, where we forgive the stupid one (the hiv negative person) and prosecute instead the more vulnerable and even less defensible positive person.
Remember, Internet activism, ever so discreet or even so blatant is the best way to spread a call to decriminalize HIV and laying with our HIV negative chickens as a fellow hen and not as a wolf should be your strategy for a winnable defense. You will have to get the Jury to like you, otherwise you’ll face a harsh punishment. You might want to call all your women friends to rally behind you in the courtroom and even cheer you on, by eyeing the jury with favorable views of you and the HIV decriminalization movement.
Good luck, you’ll need it.
Logan, Criminal Justice graduate student, Entrepreneur & Marketing Genius, and long-term survivor.
Thank you for all the good pointers in your comment. I actually agree with you on most of them (Norwegian court is a little bit different than yours. No jury at the first level!) Some of these issues you are raising are very much the same as those I am working with in Norway as we speak. I will try to publish some article about it in a newspaper soon. Nice to see more of us are thinking in the same direction.
ReplyDeleteRegards
Louis Gay