Self-Preservation Abandoned
Perhaps it's not promiscuity, but it certainly may indicate a lack of awareness, and a distinct lack of a sense of self-preservation in these times when unselectivity in a sex partner may very well spell a lifetime of chronic illness, and in a worst-case scenario, death.
Sexually transmitted diseases span the spectrum from extremely serious leading to death, to life-debilitating, leading to a protocol of medical intervention and routine medication to forestall the condition becoming life-threatening, and just plain inconvenient, nuisance-variety conditions; treatable but nasty.
Most people are gregarious in nature, and trusting as well. Besides which, it can be embarrassing to some people to insist that they require background information before engaging in sex; it takes the spontaneity and therefore, much of the pleasure, out of sexual engagements.
On the other hand, one risks much in engaging in sex without full disclosure. Then there's the very real possibility that one of the partners of a prospective and generally brief union, whether male or female, may not be willing to divulge their medical condition.
And under earlier circumstances that might have been all right, since as in all other matters, those of the heart - or flaring passions - it is really up to both partners, consenting to temporarily join flesh in the most primitive of all animal rituals, to take personal responsibility.
It's just latterly that the long arm of the law has entrenched a safety mechanism for the unwary, insisting that it is the responsibility of the individual with HIV/AIDS to inform a partner before engaging in sex.
A Hamilton, Ontario jury deliberated over a three-day period to finally reach consensus in accepting the prosecution's argument that an HIV-infected person who has unprotected sex with someone unaware of his medical condition has as surely condemned that person to death as though he had injected a "slow acting poison". Accepted too the prosecution's assertion that Mr. Aziga had demonstrated "total disregard" for the health and safety of his sex partners.
None of whom had been aware that he was HIV-positive, for he deliberately withheld that vital information from them. Johnson Aziga has been convicted, found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, ten counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault. He has distinguished himself mightily, presenting as the first person in Canada to be convicted of murder for deliberately, fatally infecting a sexual partner.
Formerly a research analyst with the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General, he cannot have been without social intelligence, although clearly a social conscience was quite absent from his character. He deliberately, as a result of failing to alert the eleven women with whom he had sex, exposed these women to a deadly infection. Causing the death of two of his former co-workers; one of whom died in 2003, the other in 2004.
HIV advocacy groups are aghast at this delivery of justice, claiming that a precedent has been set whereby those afflicted with HIV/AIDS will somehow suffer, become unwilling to seek help. Perhaps their concerns are misplaced. There are psychopaths in all avenues of society; this one just happened to be HIV-infected. His criminal misadventure needn't be diagnosed as one that impacts on all HIV-AIDS sufferers, unless they believe also that this kind of disregard for the safety of others is universal among HIV-AIDS-infected.
Which is hardly likely. The cavilling expressed by a representative with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, that "We need to figure out why these charges have escalated from criminal negligence to assault to aggravated sexual assault and now murder without there ever having been an informed public debate" only serves the self-interested, and seems to trivialize the horrendous potential residing in an HIV-infected person freely spreading his malignancy.
Alison Symington, representing the HIV/AIDS Legal Network asks rhetorically, "Do we as a society think not telling someone you're living with a sexually transmitted infection is the equivalent of murder?" Well, the answer is a clear and resounding "yes". The Supreme Court brought down a 1998 ruling that a defendant may be convicted of aggravated sexual assault if the accused knew they were HIV-positive, did not inform a partner and proceeded with unprotected sex.
There's that issue, and then there's another issue of the responsibility of the victim in all of this. This cannot have been a very kind and gracious personality, one would imagine; rather an exemplar of selfish, egotistical self-empowerment. What on earth might have appealed to these poor women about this man? Two of whom died, seven who now test positive for HIV; four escaping infection.
His lawyers describe him as a heavy drinker with a brain disorder, post-traumatic stress, and lacking the "mental wherewithal" to realize the affliction he might be exposing innocent people to. If that description is only partially correct, where was the discernment, the evaluation of character evidenced by these women, before exposing themselves to intimacies that might have viciously cruel repercussions on their well-being?
Finally, there is this unambiguous statement of responsibility from the Supreme Court of Canada: "The failure to disclose HIV-positive status can lead to a devastating illness with fatal consequences. In those circumstances there exists a positive duty to disclose". In the Criminal Code aggravated sexual assault is raised to murder if a death results by the commission of the offence.
Small comfort to the dead women, to the HIV-infected partners of this conscienceless predator.
Sexually transmitted diseases span the spectrum from extremely serious leading to death, to life-debilitating, leading to a protocol of medical intervention and routine medication to forestall the condition becoming life-threatening, and just plain inconvenient, nuisance-variety conditions; treatable but nasty.
Most people are gregarious in nature, and trusting as well. Besides which, it can be embarrassing to some people to insist that they require background information before engaging in sex; it takes the spontaneity and therefore, much of the pleasure, out of sexual engagements.
On the other hand, one risks much in engaging in sex without full disclosure. Then there's the very real possibility that one of the partners of a prospective and generally brief union, whether male or female, may not be willing to divulge their medical condition.
And under earlier circumstances that might have been all right, since as in all other matters, those of the heart - or flaring passions - it is really up to both partners, consenting to temporarily join flesh in the most primitive of all animal rituals, to take personal responsibility.
It's just latterly that the long arm of the law has entrenched a safety mechanism for the unwary, insisting that it is the responsibility of the individual with HIV/AIDS to inform a partner before engaging in sex.
A Hamilton, Ontario jury deliberated over a three-day period to finally reach consensus in accepting the prosecution's argument that an HIV-infected person who has unprotected sex with someone unaware of his medical condition has as surely condemned that person to death as though he had injected a "slow acting poison". Accepted too the prosecution's assertion that Mr. Aziga had demonstrated "total disregard" for the health and safety of his sex partners.
None of whom had been aware that he was HIV-positive, for he deliberately withheld that vital information from them. Johnson Aziga has been convicted, found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, ten counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault. He has distinguished himself mightily, presenting as the first person in Canada to be convicted of murder for deliberately, fatally infecting a sexual partner.
Formerly a research analyst with the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General, he cannot have been without social intelligence, although clearly a social conscience was quite absent from his character. He deliberately, as a result of failing to alert the eleven women with whom he had sex, exposed these women to a deadly infection. Causing the death of two of his former co-workers; one of whom died in 2003, the other in 2004.
HIV advocacy groups are aghast at this delivery of justice, claiming that a precedent has been set whereby those afflicted with HIV/AIDS will somehow suffer, become unwilling to seek help. Perhaps their concerns are misplaced. There are psychopaths in all avenues of society; this one just happened to be HIV-infected. His criminal misadventure needn't be diagnosed as one that impacts on all HIV-AIDS sufferers, unless they believe also that this kind of disregard for the safety of others is universal among HIV-AIDS-infected.
Which is hardly likely. The cavilling expressed by a representative with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, that "We need to figure out why these charges have escalated from criminal negligence to assault to aggravated sexual assault and now murder without there ever having been an informed public debate" only serves the self-interested, and seems to trivialize the horrendous potential residing in an HIV-infected person freely spreading his malignancy.
Alison Symington, representing the HIV/AIDS Legal Network asks rhetorically, "Do we as a society think not telling someone you're living with a sexually transmitted infection is the equivalent of murder?" Well, the answer is a clear and resounding "yes". The Supreme Court brought down a 1998 ruling that a defendant may be convicted of aggravated sexual assault if the accused knew they were HIV-positive, did not inform a partner and proceeded with unprotected sex.
There's that issue, and then there's another issue of the responsibility of the victim in all of this. This cannot have been a very kind and gracious personality, one would imagine; rather an exemplar of selfish, egotistical self-empowerment. What on earth might have appealed to these poor women about this man? Two of whom died, seven who now test positive for HIV; four escaping infection.
His lawyers describe him as a heavy drinker with a brain disorder, post-traumatic stress, and lacking the "mental wherewithal" to realize the affliction he might be exposing innocent people to. If that description is only partially correct, where was the discernment, the evaluation of character evidenced by these women, before exposing themselves to intimacies that might have viciously cruel repercussions on their well-being?
Finally, there is this unambiguous statement of responsibility from the Supreme Court of Canada: "The failure to disclose HIV-positive status can lead to a devastating illness with fatal consequences. In those circumstances there exists a positive duty to disclose". In the Criminal Code aggravated sexual assault is raised to murder if a death results by the commission of the offence.
Small comfort to the dead women, to the HIV-infected partners of this conscienceless predator.
Labels: Canada, Health, Human Relations, Justice
posted by Pieface @ 6:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home