My first post of a thought

 

THIS IS WHAT SAINT JAMESTOWN THINKS OF MYSELF AND GAY MEN. I HAVE HAD A YELLOW CAUTION TAPE TIED TO MY APARTMENT DOOR KNOB. THIS IS TO TELL PEOPLE IN BUILDING I AM HIV POSITIVE, AND NOT TO ENTER MY APARTMENT OR THEY WILL BE INFECTED WITH THE VIRUS.

To all Toronto,

I have contacted ACTUP New York, ACTUP San Francisco for their opinion on the below concern.

I am sending you this letter in regards to my concern of SARS Legislation. The reason for my interest, for the last year I have been called a disease carrying faggot by my neighbors, who really like the Morality Act in the USA. The Morality Act (Canadian equivalent – SARS legislation) discussing about the quarantine of people with contagious diseases, both the previous legislations have HIV mentioned in the documents.

My neighbors agree that I should be quarantined or forcibly confined to my apt so I do not spread the virus. I have tried to get my story out in numerous ways, at all times with no prevail

.

I have been told by them that they will slit my throat while I sleep, or shoot me in the head. If I do leave my apartment they will go after my friends, as well. I am lying in my apartment as they continue to harass me and ask how, I contracted HIV from and who I have slept with so they can make sure I do not spread the virus. They continue to threaten to call or contact my relatives to inform them of my HIV status and state that they will harass anyone that works with me or has contact with me. It has been over two months since any of my friends have been heard from or seen. I do not imply that anything has happened to them.

The group that is going around the city is getting this information not through police procedure but through spying. They are accessing the areas where this information is being verbally communicated. (ie, inside of doctors offices and rehab sessions, where people speak openly about their personal lives.)

When you compound the issue that they are being followed through the city, to their homes and then spied on to verify or collect more information.

How are people accesses doctor’s offices and rehab sessions like (CAMH)?

The most obvious would be a leak from employees or other that hear these conversations, or we have the cameras in doctors offices and the cameras in CAMH (used for teaching and people sneaking into the rooms behind the mirrors (ie like interrogation rooms of the police on TV) to watch and listen in on these people. The participates in these sessions are told that the mics and cameras are turned off during the session and no one behind the mirrors.

Expose to HIV and criminal charges, there is a very evident trend appearing that HIV is being singled out. There are other sexually transmitted diseases that will kill if not treated (Syphilis) and other that can cause infertility and other health problems. Why are these not being included into this equation?

During the criminal procedures they rely on judges and jury to decide who to believe if disclosure has occurred. The he said / she idea dilemma occurs. (refer to previous orange lettering) 

If the two individuals tell each other that they are HIV positive, does the re-infection clause apply. I am referring to you if you both disclose and then one of the individuals is re-infected with another strain of the virus does that person have the right to press charges.

It posses the question do HIV positive people have to disclose their status along with the strain of the virus they have to protect themselves from assault charges? Is there really another strain?

Where does the responsibility lay, if an HIV positive person discloses to their sexual partner, that person understands and does not verify their status? That person is not HIV positive and ends up contracting the virus from that encounter, where does the responsibility lay and is there just cause to lay assault charges?

A new trend has occurred in the HIV realm that needs to be looked at and that is the term “undetectable”. With the advance of HIV medications the term undetectable has started to appear. Their needs to be clarity of this term, in itself the term makes people have the notion they are less likely to transmit. If this is true does this portion of the HIV community now fall into low risk sexual activity, thus removing them from HIV Disclosure?

I have been asked this question and I am not able to answer it for people. Is the aggravated assault just not telling your sexual partner in high risk sexual activity that you are HIV positive or is it the ACTUAL transmission of the virus. Is the law stating that just the mental strain of having high risk sex or c contact with an HIV positive person enough to lay assault charges even if the virus is not transmitted. There are people out there that want this clarified.