Johnson Aziga - Known HIV carrier

[train]

Curse you, train,

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

</flame on>

No , but you are a scholar and a gentleman when pressed.

 

[Hard Idle]

Leather Doll:

Good for you for taking the other side, I myself like to go agianst the mob mentality most of the time. However I think you may have gone too far on a few counts. If I may take the other side for a moment:

Your insistance on the distinction between HIV & AIDS is not terribly relevant in terms of a carriers infectiousness. The carrier could pass the virus on at any stage of their illness. The amount of virus in fluids does increase as the disease progresses, however some people with AIDS respond to treatment in such a way that their viral loads can be (temporarily) lower than those of a person who's just recently turned positive. I mention this because I've heard form swingers and gays how the rationale "I am positive, but I don't have AIDS " is being taken as illusory assurance of low risk.

Next, soldiers as role models? Honouring the uniform? From the begining of time the millitary been the Pantheon of male debauchery - many soldiers make judges and politicians look like monks! Read up on the mushroming of sex slavery wherever peacekeepers are stationed. Now if it turns out that the army gave false information, or perhaps invented this story as a face-saving explanation for a sudden rise in HIV infections, then this too should be duely reported and the accused's name will be cleard.

But for the moment, the media reported the facts as they have them. And they identified a suspect which is standard practice unless a suspect is protected by The Young Offenders Act. Isn't Michael Jackson being identified with some damaging allegations even though the acusers are already proven liars and extortionist?

Lastly, while it is true that any person infected shares some part of the responsibility, I think your language bordered on blaming the victims. I doubt you would be as evenhanded if it were a "Bad Client" in question here. Imagine if you overheard people disucssing some assault of a sex worker and suggesting that the victim should have known better than to be in that line of work to begin with? You'd outraged, and rightly so. I find hard to believe the soldiers would chose to have sex had they been told of the womans HIV status. Did they ask? Who knows - many of these people come from communities where sex education is 50 years out of date. But it may have seemed logical to them that if this woman was an army groupie, and they had all tested negative previously, it wouldn't be much risk passing her around within the family. I'm not saying it's smart, but it's not totally reckless either. Heck, unless a couple is handcuffed together for life, can either partner really know that they are both totally monogamus?

Who knows, maybe the facts will turn out to be different, and if thats the case you should expect the media to set the record straight. I'm not saying the woman is a monster, but it looks alot like she is at least a reckless nihlist, at worst a psychotic. I don't see the problem with warning people and making sure those who've been with her know to get tested before engaging in any further sex.

 

[djk]

wow you were right.....

i know.

it's typical in our society.

it's always a MANNNNNNNNN'S fault.

 

[bugsbunny]

i know.

it's typical in our society.

it's always a MANNNNNNNNN'S fault.

I am trying to figure out why the CBC link in HH's post has a date of April 2002 on it. From what I can see, the picture and story is almost 3 yrs old...not the HIV story, but the "soldiers coming home".

 

[LeatherDoll]

The substantive response ...

First, congratulations on an excellent recap of my post. You got it exactly right. I am sorry about the language - it is just what it is. I'll deal with some of both your reply and Hard Idle's together because the cover similar territory and make good points.

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

Absolutely, and as soon as this is established ...

Isn't Michael Jackson being identified with some damaging allegations even though the acusers are already proven liars and extortionist?

Well, I am no big fan of the media, it isn't exactly analogous - Michael Jackson was already a "public figure" and I presume that their argument would be that they also reported the acusers "Liars and extortionist." But I do not defend this I think the media play far too big a role in deliberately skewing information presented to be inflammatory to increase their audience. OTOH, alleged pedophiles are not pictured lest the accusation be mistaken and a life be destroyed.

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

Your insistance on the distinction between HIV & AIDS is not terribly relevant in terms of a carriers infectiousness.

True (except to the degree that someone with AIDS may also be carrying additional infections.) My real concern here is that the media do not display any sense of social responsibility when they distribute medical information incorrectly.

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.

Next, soldiers as role models? Honouring the uniform? From the begining of time the millitary been the Pantheon of male debauchery - many soldiers make judges and politicians look like monks! Read up on the mushroming of sex slavery wherever peacekeepers are stationed.

Sorry, its hard to type with a sarcastic sneer! I was suggeting that this is how the military would claim their members are trained to behave - the point is exactly as you made it - rape is consiered a legitimate act of war - and the idea that these men can be allowed to conduct themselves in blatant disregard for their own health and safety while in active service is unacceptable.

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

may have been a bit vague in its intention, I certainly wasn’t suggesting that she not have some culpability in the present situation – but she is certainly not uniquely accountable for putting these men at risk. Anyone, willingly who engages in risky behaviour does so with their eyes open, knowing full well the potential consequences that may come with selecting dangerous ones – don’t wear a bike helmet, don’t put on your seatbelt, don’t wash the knife after cutting raw chicken, don’t wear a condom.

Heck, unless a couple is handcuffed together for life, can either partner really know that they are both totally monogamus?

Yes, that is exactly my point. Given today’s knowledgebase with respect to infection transmission to suggest that there is ever a time that a man (or woman) can indulge in unprotected sex with someone whom he has not made a long-term monogamous commitment (with two concomitant screening tests conducted 6 months apart) and whom he can actually trust will not break that agreement is absolutely (potentially) suicidal ideology. The truth is, HIV is not the most likely of the possible consequences – chlamydia and herpes (also a lifelong companion) are far more likely to be erncountered

Except in extreme cicumstances, no one else can be assigned the responsibility of looking out for your life in any mutually consensual interaction - especially if you don't value it enough to do it yourself, after all, they are just following your lead.

 

[LeatherDoll]

Awww Goob, and here I thought we were all ready to kiss and make up! The rest of it

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

I don't agree - but this is a much bigger discussion about the underlying analysis that is used to interpret both law and situation by traditional legal standards (an individualistic Aristotelean model of equality) and substantive human rights standards (a systemic model of equity obtained through the principles of distributive justice) Suffice it to say that men and women do not operate on a "level playing field" at the moment and until they do so differential analysis is both appropriate and suggested by the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Equalities.

The quick answer is that the circumstances of the cases, including the the time-line and the information/knowledge base that was available at the time, and other relevant social and historical factors do make the situations different. I am not simply saying it was bad because he was a man.

If there is a male and a female involved, the male is always in the wrong.

Gee, you were doing so well. I said no such thing. And I never have. You may, in your (self-assigned) defensive position as a thinking male who can recognize (when pushed) the injustices that have led (and continue to lead) to the disporportionate opportunity for participation of people other than (primarily) able-bodied white men, misinterpret my anlaysis in this way, but I have never, ever said or supported the notion that the man is always wrong and women are always excused from personal accountability. I will not, on the otherhand, simply dismiss the different power positions from which men and women operate in our culture and its effect on (in your example) a woman's ability to present or execute her own will.

would have sent her into conniptions

You'd be outraged

I really wish you guys would stop telling me what I would do or how I would respond in any given situation. (See examples scattered throughout).

Now she may choose to call me a misogynist because I dare stand up to her, which would be expected

This is deliberately (and uneccessarily) provocative, Goober. I do not, and have never, applied that term to you (or anyone else) simply because they disagree with me. This is a completely malevolent portrayal of my past and continued participation in any circumstance and likely reflects only your angry desire to push buttons to deflect socratic discourse. Are you feeling threatened?

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

Allow me to clarify - I am quite certain that I have suggested that your position in a particular argument is misogynistic, or that your actions have had a misogynistic effect, but I am pretty sure that I have not actually called YOU a misogynist - since you know my absolute disgust at ad hominim and my my penchant for always (trying) to respond respectfully.

but I would have to reciprocate by calling her a "misandrist".

Well, while it is true that I do often suggest that men (as a sexually defined group) are at the root of all our social and cultural problems - I (and anyone who knows me) would more properly classify myself, as my new Professional name reflects, a: Ms. Ayn Throwpe!* (it is the best I can do because they haven’t got a word for a woman who hates misogynists of any gender. (You see - feminists may not have a sense of humour, but we have a finely honed acquaintance with irony!)

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.

This is absolutely true, and as soon as we are in a place where this gender-blind (or colour-blind or sexuality-blind) treatment can be achieved without imposing a disproprtional negative impact on the disadvantaged group (the one historically, socially and economically on the short end of the stick) I will stand beside you all the way. However, until that day comes, the only way to ensure that these "extraneous" factors are not being used to perpetuate the status quo of differential power and access to opportunity is to first account for them. It is a lovely ideal and I hope some day to see some semblance of its existence in our culture but, the suggestion that we should ignore these differences today will result in de facto discrimination because of them. (There is a stong statistical component to the anaysis)

* still working on the spelling!

 

[james_Mudenka]

LeatherDoll, I think you are a feminst and in your world everything is a man’s fault.

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?

and

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.

When an HIV women delibrately infects several men, it is the fault of the men because they did not bother to ask and she is under no obligation to inform them she is HIV positive

Yet according to you, when An HIV positve man delibrately infects a several women, he must have lied and delibrately manipulated the women in order ti infect them.

those men represented themselves as being monogomous and lied about their activities, deliberately manipulating the women in order to infect them. 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?[/

This proves to me that you are a feminist.

And with respect to your question

What if she asked them to use condoms and they decided they didn't want to?

Then she tells the man that she is HIV positive and therefore He must use a condom. That is the responsible thing to do.

I personally don't see how she could be in "harms way" by the media showing her picture.

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.

Is there any dispute that she is HIV positive?-that's "guilty" enough for me.

I think your distiction between HIV positive and AIDS is down right ludicrous. One is a precursor to the other.

 

[LeatherDoll]

Gee, thanks for clearing that up for me ....

LeatherDoll, I think you are a feminst and in your world everything is a man’s fault.

Wow. It all makes sense now.

If only I'd known that earlier today I could have saved myself all that extraneous typing. From now on, I'll let you write my responses, ok? I mean, I wouldn't want to misquote myself!

Wait, did he call me the "F" word? NO! No, not the "F" word!
(AHHHHHHHH! I'm melting ....)

Thanx for the giggle.

Ms. Ayn Throwpe

 

[Don]

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 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.

LD - I absolutely agree with your post.... as I am assuming you apply this rational to both men and women?

 

[AA_date]

LD - I absolutely agree with your post.... as I am assuming you apply this rational to both men and women?

nope LD states "Suffice it to say that men and women do not operate on a "level playing field" at the moment and until they do so differential analysis is both appropriate and suggested by the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Equalities."

I guess men are held more accountable.....

 

[Hard Idle]

My take on how the genders are viewed in this situatuion is this;

There have been numerous cases of men knowingly infecting women. The allegation that the infecting was a motive always surprises me, since the man's real objective in concealing his HIV satatus would most likely be just to "seal the deal" for uncovered sex (or any sex for that matter). The spreading of the virus is a consequence, and an act of criminal recklesness, but sees and unlikely end initself.

On the other hand, society does not perceive women as being willing to go that far for uncovered intercourse. In North America, where a woman is not going to be formally punished for having HIV, her greatest motivation for hiding HIV status would be to hold on to a relationship. If that is not the case, revenge for her own infection starts to look like the next best guess.

 

[Hard Idle]

Leather Doll:

You're very organized! I'm not going to do all that quoting that's for sure!

I think you've clarified most of your post very well and I'm quite comfortable that we both see all sides of the issue.

If there is any moral question in all of this is what role desclosure plays in the decision to accept limited risks. We have established that in practice there is no such thing as a guarantee of safety. We are also working with the reality that many people are not willing to swear off all uncovered sex for ever.

Using this story as a model and assuming this woman lied or ommited her HIV+ status (granted, nothing is proven yet), I guess our areas of disagreement are as follows:

Unprotected sex within a closed circle of people is a method of risk reduction which groups use to partake in some unprotected sex. It is not risk-free, especially if based on good-faith alone, but it is a reduced risk which people might consent to. If somebody has delibrately acted in bad faith, they did not give others the opportunity to consent to a much higher level of risk. People subsequntly infected are not entirely blameless, but they are still victims.

To use the collision analogy, the speculation that a colision victim could have been saved by a seatbelt, in my view does not mitigate the guilt of the other driver who turned into oncoming trafic without a warning.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Everything that is wrong with gender relations is summed up quite nicely in the following statement:

Suffice it to say that men and women do not operate on a "level playing field" at the moment and until they do so differential analysis is both appropriate and suggested by the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Equalities.((I'd like a cite for this....GMF))

As I understand your statement, LD, you are saying that because historically women have been oppressed and treated unfairly, it is now fair and appropriate for women to be held to milder standards than men. This essentially swings the balance of injustice in the opposite direction.

I disagree.

To take another similar example, if a company employs all white males, applying a similar philosophy as this would dictate that any replacements for the employees must be non-white or non-male. This swings the injustice and race/gender bias in an equal and opposite direction, such that equally abled white males would not be able to get the job as a result of their race and sex. If true equality were to be recognized, the replacements would be judged on their ability to do the job regardless of their gender or race.

You can't level the playing field by skewing it in the opposite direction. The "he's been hitting me for years so now it's okay to hit him" way of looking at things is NOT true equality. True equality starts NOW, regardless of what happened in the past. True equality is not historical, it is a perception in the present and the future.

I recognize, of course, that there are racist and sexist people out there. I realize that there will be injustice as a result of these people. But to paint with a broad stroke to counter those beliefs by justifying such inequality will only serve to enrage these people further.

I apologize for calling you a misandrist. My perception was defensive, as you stated. I join you in your hatred of misogyny and I invite you to join me in my hatred of misandry, as both are equally reprehensible IMHO.

Join me in leading by example.

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.

 

[train]

A lot of words and discussion . It was simply hypocritical and sexist.

Anyone , male or female who acts in this manner should be called on the carpet for it.

 

[djk]

A lot of words and discussion . It was simply hypocritical and sexist.

Anyone , male or female who acts in this manner should be called on the carpet for it.

In a perfect world...

Did you see her interview in the Toronto Sun? Just like I said, playing the victim card as I predicted.

 

[LeatherDoll]

Well, not surprising responses, but you are all wrong

according to the laws of our land, and according to simple logic if you could get out of your own rhetoric and just work through the logic.

I have had this discussion here too many time, and I won`t do it again. If you really want a new understanding of human rights law and analysis I will be happy to have you hire me to give a workshop. My time in this disucssion is done.

Here is a previous thread in which I spelled out most of the relevant background. My posts are clear with respect to our laws. https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=58121&highlight=human+rights

I will no longer be participating on terb, so now you can all happily stay in the dark ages, perpetuating the long term disadvantage while patting yourself on the back for being enlightened. Just remember, if someone has been held back forever, and you have advanced because of that, to simply say, OK, we hold you back no longer, but continue the "game" from the positions in which you find yourself at that time, you will always remain ahead at the expense of those who remain behind. The only way to "level the field" is to either start again (no possible) or have you hang back until the others, losing not because of their skill but because of purposeful discriminatory practices, regain the ground they have lost. Don`t fret your own position, half of you would never have obtained them had the game been fair to begin with.

Good luck. I am done here.

 

[AA_date]

according to the laws of our land, and according to simple logic if you could get out of your own rhetoric and just work through the logic.

I have had this discussion here too many time, and I won`t do it again. If you really want a new understanding of human rights law and analysis I will be happy to have you hire me to give a workshop. My time in this disucssion is done.

Here is a previous thread in which I spelled out most of the relevant background. My posts are clear with respect to our laws. https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=58121&highlight=human+rights

I will no longer be participating on terb, so now you can all happily stay in the dark ages, perpetuating the long term disadvantage while patting yourself on the back for being enlightened. Just remember, if someone has been held back forever, and you have advanced because of that, to simply say, OK, we hold you back no longer, but continue the "game" from the positions in which you find yourself at that time, you will always remain ahead at the expense of those who remain behind. The only way to "level the field" is to either start again (no possible) or have you hang back until the others, losing not because of their skill but because of purposeful discriminatory practices, regain the ground they have lost. Don`t fret your own position, half of you would never have obtained them had the game been fair to begin with.

Good luck. I am done here.

all that theory is great and all but how does that apply to the fact that you felt johnson tricked his unknowing female victims by not disclosing the fact he was HIV positive, while jennifer murphy IS the victim, and those she had sex with should have known better and participated in safe sex and she had no obligation to tell the men she had sex with anything? is it because women were previously held back and that today there still exists a glass ceiling?? Maybe if you heed your own advice and get over the feminist rhetoric you`ll see that your arguement holds absolutely no water. i`m sorry you could not handle the pressures of terb and that it was so mentally draining. If that is the case i guess it is best that you are done here.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

I have had this discussion here too many time, and I won`t do it again. If you really want a new understanding of human rights law and analysis I will be happy to have you hire me to give a workshop. My time in this disucssion is done.

Why do you always post this drivel? Are you so haughty that you consider your own opinions to be sacrosant and nobody else`s matter?

Here is a previous thread in which I spelled out most of the relevant background. My posts are clear with respect to our laws. https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=58121&highlight=human+rights

That discussion was about religion, and religious expression. This is an entirely different debate, involving potential willful harm. The fact that you continue to state that a woman should be able to get away with the same crime as a man, simply because she`s a woman is laughable.

I will no longer be participating on terb, so now you can all happily stay in the dark ages, perpetuating the long term disadvantage while patting yourself on the back for being enlightened.

You are the epitome of condescension. </simple statement of fact>

Just remember, if someone has been held back forever, and you have advanced because of that, to simply say, OK, we hold you back no longer, but continue the "game" from the positions in which you find yourself at that time, you will always remain ahead at the expense of those who remain behind.

Life isn`t a "game" with developments in a linear fashion. If you would like me to conduct a seminar for you on this fact, let me know.

The only way to "level the field" is to either start again (no possible)

I disagree. Your perception of equality can start afresh. As I said before, historical events have absolutely no impact on my perception of women, men, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, African-Canadians, Asian-Canadians, whites, or anyone else. I see all as human beings first and foremost. If you still see black/white/male/female, perhaps it is you who is racist/sexist. Examine yourself before stating that

you (must) hang back until the others, losing not because of their skill but because of purposeful discriminatory practices, regain the ground they have lost.

It`s statements like that which not only perpetuate racism/sexism, but ensure that the "disadvantaged" will NEVER be equal.

Don`t fret your own position, half of you would never have obtained them had the game been fair to begin with.

I don`t know how old you are, but unless you are in your 60`s, you have had every opportunity that I have had.

Good luck. I am done here.

 

[Don]

Looks like LD's dominatrix/goddess worship persona is not all show.

Whatever. Wish people realize that attitudes like that actually hinders their cause more than it helps it.

 

[train]

I think that for whatever reason this thread served to draw out the true personality of this person . Everyone can decide for themselves what that is .