Johnson Aziga - Known HIV carrier

[HappyHookers]

Johnson Aziga has finally been charge with first degree murder for his responsibility in the death of at least 2 women by knowingly passing on the HIV virus to unsuspecting women.

He is the first to be charged with first Degree murder in Canada for this type of murder. This is great news as I feel he truly deserves to be charge with these counts of murder, but it is sad that it took the death of two women to have this happen and that this man was released and allowed to basically go out and keep spreading the HIV virus.

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050225-006/page.asp

Johnson Aziga is accused of killing two Toronto women. But authorities contend his alleged weapon of choice wasn't a gun or a knife, but a virus.

The 48-year-old has become the first person in Canada ever charged with first degree murder as a result of spreading HIV.

The Crown alleges Aziga sexually assaulted at least 13 women in a three year stretch from 2000 to 2003. Of those, seven developed the virus that causes AIDS, and two died.

The first victim succumbed to the disease in December 2003, while the latter died last May. Authorities contend he knowingly spread the infection without telling his partners of the risk.

Aziga had originally been charged with aggravated sexual assault in the cases, but the deaths upped the ante and the government decided it needed to send a message to others.

Legal officials have asked Health Canada to help in their search for evidence, in an effort to prove the charges.

The accused, who was born in Uganda but moved to Hamilton, was in a courtroom on Wednesday to face the upgraded accusations, but abruptly delayed proceedings by firing his lawyer. A judge has given him two weeks to find a new attorney.

The case returns to court on March 11th.

Please, please, please be sure to always use protection within this hobby and out in mainstream society. This should be a wake-up call to everyone, men and women, that protection is a must!!!!

HH

 

[teach]

what a piece of **** he should have his balls pressed with a garlic presser...

 

[train]

He is the first to be charged with first Degree murder in Canada for this type of murder. This is great news as I feel he truly deserves to be charge with these counts of murder, but it is sad that it took the death of two women to have this happen and that this man was released and allowed to basically go out and keep spreading the HIV virus.


HH

I thought there was another low life that did much the same in London Ontario 10 or 15 years ago . He may have died before he was convicted or was charged with attempted murder.

Do you know whether this guy was a john ?

 

[Gash]

There was another similar case about 15 years ago but I think that one was in Toronto because as I recall, the guy who was knowingly spreading the virus owned an African art shop on Yonge Street. He infected all three of his girlfriends because he refused to ever use a condom. He died before the case went to court.

 

[train]

There was a story on CTV yesterday about a woman , Jennifer Murphy who has been charged with aggravated assualt because she had sex with soldiers at CFB Borden without telling them she was HIV positive . She is currently under arrest . Tests results are not back on the soldier.

 

[djk]

There was a story on CTV yesterday about a woman , Jennifer Murphy who has been charged with aggravated assualt because she had sex with soldiers at CFB Borden without telling them she was HIV positive . She is currently under arrest . Tests results are not back on the soldier.

I bet she'll be painted as a "poor victim".

 

[HappyHookers]

I bet she'll be painted as a "poor victim".

Well to a point she may be able to in regards to how she contracted the virus, but there should be no pitty paid to her for havign sex after she knew she was HIV+, and if she is given special treatment, or gets a lesser charge, or lesser sentence by playing the "poor victim" roles I will be quite ticked off to say the least. What is good for the goose, right????

One thing I was quite shocked at was the picture they finally released of her but it was not in regards to the charges, but instead of her welcoming back the sailors that have just returned.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2002/04/27/ships_return020427.html

I was not to impressed with that one!

HH

 

[james_Mudenka]

One thing I was quite shocked at was the picture they finally released of her but it was not in regards to the charges, but instead of her welcoming back the sailors that have just returned.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/nati...turn020427.html

I was not to impressed with that one!

why are you not impresssed?, the public must know what she looks like so that no one has unprotected sex with her.

Same idea as pictures of serial killers, child molesters, rapists etc. etc. is released by the media to warn and protect the public.

CBC should be commended for relasing her picture.

 

[LeatherDoll]

Why? Lets try these ideas on for size ... PART I

First, these are charges - allegations - she has not been found guilty, nor do we know any of the details. Flashing her picture puts her in harms way, is unnecessarily inflamatory, and fosters just your kind of uneducated, fear based, outrageous mentality, and convicts her of something of which she may not be guilty.

Second, the media has wrongly published information already about this case. They announced continuously that she has AIDS. She does not. She is HIV positive. HIV and AIDS are NOT interchangeable terms - they are completely different. Again, it is inflammatory, but worse, it is irresponsible journalism to deliberately convey false information to the public about something as serious as an infectious std perpetuating misunderstanding of the infection and disease processes.

Third, we know NOTHING of the cirucumstances of the case. Do we know that she lied about her status? Do we know if the men bothered asking her before they decided to engage in high risk sexual acitivity with a woman who was well known as a "party girl" who was sexually involved with a number of men on the base? No, we have no information by which we should "judge" her or make predictions about her danger to the population at large.

These men are our soldiers - do you think it is appropriate that they can carry guns and march into war but can't even talke the personal responsibility to wear a damn condom? If they can't think of their own health and safety in this scenario, a responsbility that I think comes with the job of being in the military: to stay fit and healthy, to represent the country, to act as role models, to do honour to the uniform -- as far as I can see so far, regardless of her behaviour, these men had no respect for any of these duties let alone themselves ...And, lets take that thought one step further ... if all these men are sleeping around with women known to sleep around and all are doing it without protection, why are you all presuming that these guys were "clean"??

Women are customarily but incorrectly stigmatized as "carriers" of sexually transmitted infections. However, genital infections, including HIV, are more easily passed from men to women than from women to men (KFF, 1998b). A woman's risk of acquiring gonorrhea from a single act of intercourse may be as high as 60 to 90 percent, while transmission of gonorrhea from a woman to a man is about 20 to 30 percent (Eng & Butler, 1997). A study published in 1992 found that among couples in which only one partner was initially infected with herpes simplex virus, the annual risk of viral transmission was 18.9 percent from man to woman, but only 4.5 percent from woman to man (Mertz et al., 1992).
...
By the age of 24, one in three sexually active people will have contracted an STI (KFF, 1998b); moreover, at least one in four Americans — perhaps as many as one in two — will contract an STI at some point in their lives (AGI, 1993).

Fourth, the scenario described here is drastically different than the one's in which the men purposely intended to spread the disease (which, perhaps ironically, is supposedly how it was transmitted to her). Aside from the fact that it was 15 years ago, and the state of knowledge and medicine with respect to the disease was drastically different and a virtual and imminent death sentence (which is no longer the case), those men represented themselves as being monogomous and lied about their activities, deliberately manipulating the women in order to infect them. We do not know whether this is the case here; at the very least she made no pretense of being "chaste" or monogamous. What if she asked them to use condoms and they decided they didn't want to?

Now, before you all go nuts and flame the hell out of me, understand, I am not suggesting that it is ok for someone who is HIV positive to go out and sleep with people without demanding safer sex practices. Nor am I trying to minimize the devastating effect that seroconversion will have on the lives of the men affected (if they have become infected - which we don't know)- I think it is horrific, regardless of the fact that life expectancy for new conversions in otherwise healthy individuals can be as high as 20 - 30 years, as far as has been able to be measured.

 

[LeatherDoll]

Why is the media irresponsible? PART II

HOWEVER, in this day with all the information we have and given more of the circumstances here - it is completely inappropriate not to place any responsibility on the men involved. No one else can take the job of looking out for your life - especially if you don't value it enough to do it yourself. To have unsafe sex with anyone known to be "promiscuous" (particularly when they are not a sex worker) or anyone who you have just met or have not been in a serious long-term and committed relationship (and who you actually believe will be monogamous) accompanied by test results taken together at least twice (6 months apart) is just plain stupid. Given that in Canada

[h]eterosexual* exposure accounted for 29.9% of positive HIV tests in 2002, ... [which] represented a dramatic climb from 9.1% from 1985 to 1996.
...
[and, it is estimated that approximately 30% of the people who have the infection are not aware of it,]

it can be likened to driving drunk - you can choose to do it, and you might even get away with it today, but if you do it repeatedly, you will eventually kill someone, perhaps even yourself - or driving without your seatbelt and blaming the car that hits you when you get injured in way that was completely preventable had you bothered to protect yourself. There is no real reason to expect that she should have needed to tell them anything about her health status, and there would be no concern here, if they had bothered to look out for themselves.

 

[AA_date]

I bet she'll be painted as a "poor victim".

wow you were right.....

 

[LeatherDoll]

Don't be ridiculous ... Try reading the entire post before you jump in!

I did not paint her as a "poor victim" completely devoid of any responsibility here. There are lots of women who are absolutely victims and have committed heinous crimes as a result of that victimization and that does not mean that they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

I did, however, respond to the comment that it was appropriate for the media to flash her picture on the news at this time.

why are you not impresssed?, the public must know what she looks like so that no one has unprotected sex with her.

This is a demonstration of the completely bizarre logic that allows the men to be freed of any responsibility in this situation (and allows a hobbyist who insists on bb activities with his sp to blame her if he picks up an infections from her last customer - who insisted and cajolled his way into the same thing!)

The suggestion that it would be ok to have unprotected sex with her otherwise is beyond irresponsible. You, and only you, can be the culpable authority in your own safety in every circumstance of voluntary interaction. You can never have real knowledge of what is going on with anyone - where they have been and what they have contacted and the information about risk and transmission is readily and widely available. Ultimately you made the choice to participate in the activities that put you at risk - and you have no one to blame but yourself if you lose that crap shoot.

To propose that there is a context in which unprotected sex with a relative stranger - particularly one who is known to indulge in polyamoury - is an acceptable decision can only reflect a deep seated death wish. You bet your life!

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Oh fark, I'm agreeing with LeatherDoll again! Well said, LD.

I'm going back to bed...

 

[train]

Oh fark, I'm agreeing with LeatherDoll again! Well said, LD.

I'm going back to bed...

No Goober she isn't.


To turn this around in the manner that she has done completely and utterly changes the focus to a valid but much lesser point .

I'm trying to think of an analogy....in the short time span that I'm prepared to devout to this ranting it's kind of like blaming a shooting victim instead of the shooter for walking in the "hood" without a bullet proof vest .

If I had come into this thread and made the stupid comment that Johnson Aziga's victim should share a major part of the responsibility I would have been jumped on with two feet by any number of rabid members. I think we owe LD the same courtesy .

You're not a mod so you can put your back bone back in

 

[Goober Mcfly]

If she were convicted in a court of law, then I'd agree with you. But as these are just charges and allegations, I have to side with LD.

 

[HappyHookers]

why are you not impresssed?, the public must know what she looks like so that no one has unprotected sex with her.

Same idea as pictures of serial killers, child molesters, rapists etc. etc. is released by the media to warn and protect the public.

CBC should be commended for relasing her picture.

I think you misunderstood, the story where her picture was profiled in a welcome home story for sailors, not a story about her charges. That is what didn't impress me.

While I understand that everyone is innocent until proven guitly, I have to say that with chargges such as these, I agree with her ID and photo being shown. It is the same a Johnson. Both are involved in the same crime, it is just that for one of them 2 people have already died. They should both be treated the same Johnson and Jennifer. That is my opinion.

HH

 

[train]

If she were convicted in a court of law, then I'd agree with you. But as these are just charges and allegations, I have to side with LD.

The point being made in a discussion about use of condoms is not about whether she is guilty or innocent it's about assessing blame. Safe sex would have reduced the odds of him/her being successful in this type of "assault" but it is NOT the issue.

Every victim contributes to their own misfortune in some way , whether it be walking in the "wrong neighbourhood" or going to a remote banking machine at night or even staying in an abusive relationship . In this case it is not using full protection .

But to somehow use this to mitigate the crime or shift blame is disgusting in my opinion and the timing of it ( ie when the female is the accused perp ) is nothing short of sexist.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

I agree, train, and I think that LeatherDoll will agree as well.

Here's what I interpret LD as saying (after consulting my dictionary):

Firstly, she's innocent until proven guilty.
Secondly, she is HIV+, and does not necessarily have AIDS.
Thirdly, we don't know if she actually did warn the guys she slept with.
Fourthly, she may well have suggested a condom, but the guys she was with were thinking with their "other" brains. This does by no means eliminate her responsibility, however.

However, if you choose to partake in high-risk behaviour and you get stung in the process, part of the blame goes on yourself. Even choosing to believe your partner when he/she says he/she is "clean" is stupidity. BB anything is risky, and can NEVER be safe outside of a monogamous relationship.

Assume for a minute that the allegations are true. Assume that the motivation of both perpetrators was the same, to cause harm to their sexual partners. Now, if LD doesn't apply the same standards as the Johnson Aziga case then she is being hypocritical. The actions of a male, when identical to the actions of a female, are equal. Any statement otherwise is indeed sexist.

 

[train]

I agree, train, and I think that LeatherDoll will agree as well.

Here's what I interpret LD as saying (after consulting my dictionary):

Firstly, she's innocent until proven guilty.
Secondly, she is HIV+, and does not necessarily have AIDS.
Thirdly, we don't know if she actually did warn the guys she slept with.
Fourthly, she may well have suggested a condom, but the guys she was with were thinking with their "other" brains. This does by no means eliminate her responsibility, however.

However, if you choose to partake in high-risk behaviour and you get stung in the process, part of the blame goes on yourself. Even choosing to believe your partner when he/she says he/she is "clean" is stupidity. BB anything is risky, and can NEVER be safe outside of a monogamous relationship.

QUOTE]

Firstly - agreed
Secondly - don't know but relevance is ?
Thirdly - no we don't ....this is pretty much the same point as # 1 btw.
Fourthly - maybe but c'mon ...." I'm really hot for you and I'm HIV positive but don't worry ......" there is a huge ( and I mean monumental ) difference between suggesting a condom and suggesting one in conjuction with 3 .

If she warned the guy that she was HIV positive and he still chose not to use a condom ( do you actually believe this is a likely scenerio ? - I have this bridge I'm trying to sell ) then she should be further charged with assaulting a mentally difficient person .

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Curse you, train, for making me read LD's posts so many times. My head hurts from attempting to mentally define "seroconversion" and "polyamorous".

*blinks*

Upon further reflection, and after hearing what train has to say, I'm prepared to "flip-flop" and state unequivic....inequivoca.....uniqui....shit....for sure that LD missed the boat on her assessment in many ways.

To wit:

1. Yes, she is innocent until proven guilty. But when she's guilty, she's guilty.

2. HIV may or may not develop into AIDS, while you can not get AIDS without having HIV

3. To state that the male soldiers "should have known better and should have used protection" while chastising Aziga for "deliberately manipulating the women in order to infect them" is hypocritical.

4. The statement "there is no real reason to expect that she should have needed to tell them anything about her health status, and there would be no concern here, if they had bothered to look out for themselves", if applied to the Azinga case, would have sent her into conniptions.

I may catch hell here, but I see this as a typical radical feminist approach to problems such as these. If there is a male and a female involved, the male is always in the wrong. This is what LD was saying.

Now she may choose to call me a misogynist because I dare stand up to her, which would be expected, but I would have to reciprocate by calling her a "misandrist". Which is equally wrong, in my opinion.

And anyone who chooses to call me a misogynist obviously doesn't know me.

True equality will only be achieved when men and women are perceived as equals, regardless if that perception is by a man or a woman.

</flame on>