Important survey about people with or affected by HIV concerning their attitudes about criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, potential exposure or transmission.
Take your time to answer it! It makes you think about who you are regarding these questions.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HIVandtheCriminalLaw
June 22, 2012
June 19, 2012
June 18, 2012
Today I posted this new entry at american POZ.
http://blogs.poz.com/louisgay/
While a lot of the HIV-criminalisation discussions in US 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 find 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 criminalize 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"
http://blogs.poz.com/louisgay/
"A clarification before arriving at AIDS 2012 in Washington DC
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 discussions in US 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 find 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 criminalize 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"
June 14, 2012
Yesterday the american organization http://www.seroproject.com/ published the interview they did with me during the UNAIDS conference in Oslo, February 2012.
It can be watched here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1C4zpdHiY
I will be going to the AIDS 2012 conference in Washington DC. There I have been invited to participate in several events including panel debates and workshops. One will be about HIV and media on July 23. Another about HIV criminalisation on July 25.
It can be watched here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1C4zpdHiY
I will be going to the AIDS 2012 conference in Washington DC. There I have been invited to participate in several events including panel debates and workshops. One will be about HIV and media on July 23. Another about HIV criminalisation on July 25.
April 26, 2012
Today the leader of the Standing Committee on Health and Care Services, Bent Høie (The Conservative Party), raised the issue of HIV in Parliament.
A lot of good arguments and for the first time I got my own criminal case and person mention from the Speakers Chair in the Norwegian Parliament:
på norsk her:http://louisgay72.blogspot.com/p/omtalt-i-stortinget-26412.html
"...Then it is a paradox that the social-liberal Norway still has an HIV-paragraph that is criminalizing HIV-positive people's sexuality. This has now been brought to a head by the public prosecutor who has brought charges against HIV-positive Louis Gay, who has not infected any other person and who conducted what we call "safer sex", which in reality is the health authorities' recommendations. I am aware that Syse-committee is now working on this issue, but it is still necessary to highlight this in this debate, because current criminal law works against prevention strategy and stigmatize HIV-positive people. I hope that today's debate could be the start of that we again have a strong political commitment to reducing new infections of HIV and to improve the lives of those who are HIV-positive - which in reality are two sides of the same coin." (translated by Louis Gay)
A lot of good arguments and for the first time I got my own criminal case and person mention from the Speakers Chair in the Norwegian Parliament:
på norsk her:http://louisgay72.blogspot.com/p/omtalt-i-stortinget-26412.html
"...Then it is a paradox that the social-liberal Norway still has an HIV-paragraph that is criminalizing HIV-positive people's sexuality. This has now been brought to a head by the public prosecutor who has brought charges against HIV-positive Louis Gay, who has not infected any other person and who conducted what we call "safer sex", which in reality is the health authorities' recommendations. I am aware that Syse-committee is now working on this issue, but it is still necessary to highlight this in this debate, because current criminal law works against prevention strategy and stigmatize HIV-positive people. I hope that today's debate could be the start of that we again have a strong political commitment to reducing new infections of HIV and to improve the lives of those who are HIV-positive - which in reality are two sides of the same coin." (translated by Louis Gay)
April 17, 2012
Interview with me at "Ekko", NRK P2, sent earlier today (17.4.12) can be listened to here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vnmRxz5jKg&list=UUpAWJY_4FzI6yiBNt3wQOow&index=1&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vnmRxz5jKg&list=UUpAWJY_4FzI6yiBNt3wQOow&index=1&feature=plcp
March 29, 2012
My second entry at Poz.com, the digital version of Poz magazin. You can read my entry here:
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
på norsk her:
or here:
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: http://louisgay72.blogspot.com/2012/03/indictment-decision-by-state-attorney.html).
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: http://louisgay72.blogspot.com/2012/03/indictment-decision-by-state-attorney.html).
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)