NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering that the "Sexual Privacy Act" is about to be passed, I'm proposing a resolution that should at least mitigate one of the 'unintended ill consequence' of that resolution. Of course if the "Sexual Privacy Act" fails to pass, my resolution won't be as useful, but will be still an important resolution to promote moral decency and promote world's health in general.

Criminal transmission of HIV

Category: Moral Decency (Strong)


A person who commits criminal transmission of the HIV if the person, knowing that the person's HIV status is positive by doing the following:

a. engages in any contact that can result in the transmission of HIV

b. donates or transfers blood, tissue, organ, or any other body part for transfusion, transplantation, or to other person

c. delivers, sells, or transfers any nonsterile equipment that has been used by any person infected by HIV.


The above shall not be construed to require that an infection with the HIV has occurred for a person to have committed criminal transmission of the HIV.

It will be an affirmative defense to show that the person exposed to HIV had prior knowledge that the infected person had positive HIV status and agreed to be exposed with the knowledge that such action could possible result in a infection.

All WA nations shall enact legislature to criminalize the 'Criminal transmission of HIV'

It's my first proposal at a resolution, so any constructive critisism, suggestion, praise, and even rantings against this proposal will be welcome.

A few questions:

Why single out HIV? What about full-blown AIDS or other STIs?
What if the infected person did not know their HIV positive status (ie test results pending)?

AIDS is symptoms caused by HIV (Human immunodeficiency virus). So you can transmit HIV but AIDS are only symptoms so it can't be transmitted.

I agree that other STI are serious too but considering that there's no cure for the disease I thought it was important to single it out.



knowing that the person's HIV status is positive by doing the following

I thought this passage made it clear that a person commits 'Criminal transmission of HIV' only if he KNOWINGLY transmits HIV. Maybe I can change that paragraph to make it clearer...

This resolution disgusts us, it is nothing but vile prejudice and monstrous hate dressed in the clothing of a public health statute. If this were not the case then it would ban the intentional transmission of any number of deseases. The fact that the authors of this resolution erroneously imagine that by decriminalising certain sexual orientations the w.a. is necessarily unable to deal with an epidemiological issue or that perhaps the two issues are directly linked is either utterly foolish or completely ill informed.

The intent of this resolution is to smear the resolution currently at vote which the authors of this resolution despise.

It is a complete myth that the resolution currently at vote effects member states ability to prosecute those who intentionally harm others.

The authors of this resolution should think hard before they bring shame and approbrium upon themselves.

Yours e.t.c.,

Unlike this proposal, most jurisdictions distinguish between 'criminal transmission' and 'reckless transmission'. The latter is often classified as a misdemeanour, or not prosecuted at all.

Your proposal would prohibit all contact that 'can result in the transmission of HIV', but that covers almost anything: swimming, playing sports, peeling vegetables, visiting a hospital. Ethics notwithstanding such a stance is simply impractical. I would suggest limiting it to sex acts, needle sharing, the activities you list in (b), and blood spiking.

Another problem is what you mean by 'knowing'. It should probably be the case that someone has to know: that they are HIV positive i.e. having had a formal diagnosis, rather than a pending, and that HIV is transmissible. If someone is simply unaware of how HIV works - rare, perhaps, in some first world countries, but more common in places without adequate health and education infrastructure - they cannot be reasonably expected to understand their responsibilities.

I think the other problem with the proposal as a whole is that the HIV community is a very vulnerable one. Few nations protect those with HIV from hate crimes, discrimination and stigma is rampant, and they are often linked to other at-risk communities. The tone of the proposal might be taken to be further marginalising them. As such, perhaps you could build in some other aspects - you certainly have the character space to do so - such as promoting access to HIV prevention and testing. Rates of transmission can be lowered through effective provision of condoms, PEP and needle exchanges, and by making more people aware of their status through accurate testing and provision of information, and could be further lowered by the development of vaccines, microbicides and PREP.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

OOC: We've been doing some policy consultations on reckless transmission at work, so I'm quite pleased to see this come up. It could make for a very interesting proposal.

This resolution disgusts us, it is nothing but vile prejudice and monstrous hate dressed in the clothing of a public health statute. If this were not the case then it would ban the intentional transmission of any number of deseases.

Dear embassador Urgench, I'm simply amazed at how you can be so disgusted to my proposal and classified it as 'vile prejudice and monstrous hate dressed in the clothing of a public health statute'.

The intent of my resolution is if someone knows they are HIV positive, and recklessly transmit HIV to his/her sexual partner, without consent from his/her partner, then they should be held criminally accountable.

Also it is without saying that a person who is HIV positive should not donate blood, plasma, sell organ... and also be extremely careful about medical equipment, or seringue that can easily transmit HIV.


The fact that the authors of this resolution erroneously imagine that by decriminalising certain sexual orientations the w.a. is necessarily unable to deal with an epidemiological issue or that perhaps the two issues are directly linked is either utterly foolish or completely ill informed.

You are ill informed if you think encouraging and legalizing/decliminilizing prostitution as suggested in the Sexual Privacy Act will not bring more instance of HIV/AIDS. One need to look at real world example in China where prostitution and sex worker is blamed for the explosion the HIV in that country. It is a simple fact that prostitution and homosexuality are a major risk factor of HIV transmission.


It is a complete myth that the resolution currently at vote effects member states ability to prosecute those who intentionally harm others.

It's beside the point. WA nations will now be able to prosecute those who intentionally harm others. Whether the Sexual privacy act prohibit this is irrelevant.


The authors of this resolution should think hard before they bring shame and approbrium upon themselves.

Just because you don't agree with the resolution, it doesn't mean it's shameful.


Your proposal would prohibit all contact that 'can result in the transmission of HIV', but that covers almost anything: swimming, playing sports, peeling vegetables, visiting a hospital. Ethics notwithstanding such a stance is simply impractical. I would suggest limiting it to sex acts, needle sharing, the activities you list in (b), and blood spiking.

Contrary to popular myths, HIV is not transmitted by swimming, playing sports, peeling vegetables, visiting a hospital. The risk of transmission by casual contact is close to nil or very very low and can only happen if a person's blood touches another person or maybe through kissing although it is still very low. But I agree that for the purpose of this resolution, I should limit to sexual act, needle sharing, and donation of blood or organ. And not criminilize transmission through casual contact.


Another problem is what you mean by 'knowing'. It should probably be the case that someone has to know: that they are HIV positive i.e. having had a formal diagnosis, rather than a pending, and that HIV is transmissible. If someone is simply unaware of how HIV works - rare, perhaps, in some first world countries, but more common in places without adequate health and education infrastructure - they cannot be reasonably expected to understand their responsibilities.

It will be the prosecution's responsability to show in a court of justice of respective member WA country that the accused is HIV positive, knew that he was HIV positive, knew that sexual intercourse with a partner, donation of blood/organ, or needle sharing can result in the transmission of HIV, and netherless performed those acts.

It will be a valid defense if the accused can show that the 'victim' knowingly consent to the sexual intercourse after full disclosure by the accused of his/her HIV positive statue.


I think the other problem with the proposal as a whole is that the HIV community is a very vulnerable one. Few nations protect those with HIV from hate crimes, discrimination and stigma is rampant, and they are often linked to other at-risk communities. The tone of the proposal might be taken to be further marginalising them.

The intent of my resolution is in no way a discrimination of person who is HIV positive but to prosecute those who knowingly transmit this disease.


As such, perhaps you could build in some other aspects - you certainly have the character space to do so - such as promoting access to HIV prevention and testing. Rates of transmission can be lowered through effective provision of condoms, PEP and needle exchanges, and by making more people aware of their status through accurate testing and provision of information,

I agreed wholly with promotion of HIV prevention and testing. However I think it's beyond the scope of this resolution because it will fall under social justice as it will increase government spending for basic welfare. Perhaps it belongs to a preambule to encourage WA nation to encourage safe sex?


and could be further lowered by the development of vaccines, microbicides and PREP.


As there is now no vaccines, microbicides, or PREP against HIV in the real world, I think it will be metagaming to 'create' such stuffs. Then again I'm not sure about the rules. I'm for encouraging nations to develop vaccines and microbicides by encouraging research though and it can be included in the preambule.

The honoured Ambassador makes reference to nations and statistics of the mythical real world which are entirely irrelevant to this debate. In any case the statistics they quote are so unreliable as to be laughable.

In the mythical real world the organisation which fables tell us was called the World Health Organisation repeatedly and strongly advised against making judgements about STD transmission on the basis of available statistics since no truelly comprehensive studies which were not skewed by ideological or other biases had been done. They also pointed out that no nation had done a wide enough study to show any reliable patterns of infection and that the studies available only covered specific social groups without studying the interactions of these groups.

To wildly accuse, homosexuals of spreading HIV/AIDS is decietful beyond words, it is outdated propaganda. In nations with decriminalised gay communities the infection rate of HIV is infinetly lower than in nations where homosexuality is illegal, and what evidence there is suggests that marginalised and criminalised sexual minorities are made more susceptable to sexual health issues by a reluctance to seek medical care based on fear of arrest and prosecution.

The resolution currently at vote does not effect member states ability to deal with public health issues, Indeed it would be a much graver and far more controvercial infringement of national sovereignty to impose the suggested resolution on the membership of this organisation. It is spurious and deliberately contentious to suggest other wise.


We continue to object in the strongest possible terms to the drafting of this specious and hate driven resolution.


yours e.t.c.

To wildly accuse, homosexuals of spreading HIV/AIDS is decietful beyond words, it is outdated propaganda. In nations with decriminalised gay communities the infection rate of HIV is infinetly lower than in nations where homosexuality is illegal, and what evidence there is suggests that marginalised and criminalised sexual minorities are made more susceptable to sexual health issues by a reluctance to seek medical care based on fear of arest and prosecution.I must be missing something here. Where has the author accused homosexuals of "spreading HIV/AIDS"? He simply pointed out that homosexuals and people involved in prostitution are in a higher risk group.

We continue to object in the strongest possible terms to the drafting of this specious and hate driven resolution.You are clearly operating on a hair-trigger here. I suggest you calm down and dispense with the hyperbolic insults before you do any more damage to your legation's already-tarnished reputation.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

I must be missing something here. Where has the author accused homosexuals of "spreading HIV/AIDS"? He simply pointed out that homosexuals and people involved in prostitution are in a higher risk group.

You are clearly operating on a hair-trigger here. I suggest you calm down and dispense with the hyperbolic insults before you do any more damage to your legation's already-tarnished reputation.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador



"You are ill informed if you think encouraging and legalizing/decliminilizing prostitution as suggested in the Sexual Privacy Act will not bring more instance of HIV/AIDS. One need to look at real world example in China where prostitution and sex worker is blamed for the explosion the HIV in that country. It is a simple fact that prostitution and homosexuality are a major risk factor of HIV transmission."




The above comments may well be what you have missed, Honoured Ambassador, and if you imagine that this resolution has anything to do with protecting those vulnerable to sexual health problems then we wonder what resolution you are reading.

And what authority is the respected Ambassador claiming to review our delegacy's reputation?


yours e.t.c. ,

Where will this madness end? It can take several years before you even know if you have been infected with HIV? At that stage if you are anything like a kennyite or one of those Hocek types, the person who "intentionally" gave you that disease could be one of many thousands and would probably be deated from existance due to the fact that that person was infected with the incurable disease.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/gandalf.jpg

"You are ill informed if you think encouraging and legalizing/decliminilizing prostitution as suggested in the Sexual Privacy Act will not bring more instance of HIV/AIDS. One need to look at real world example in China where prostitution and sex worker is blamed for the explosion the HIV in that country. It is a simple fact that prostitution and homosexuality are a major risk factor of HIV transmission."

The above comments may well be what you have missed, Honoured Ambassador, and if you imagine that this resolution has anything to do with protecting those vulnerable to sexual health problems then we wonder what resolution you are reading.No, I didn't miss them. I just understand what he was saying. There's quite a difference between saying homosexual behavior carries a high risk of HIV infection, and accusing gays of "spreading" the virus.

And what authority is the respected Ambassador claiming to review our delegacy's reputation?On the authority of someone who is sick and tired of hearing you scream "homophobe" at anyone who dares disagree with you.

Where will this madness end? It can take several years before you even know if you have been infected with HIV? At that stage if you are anything like a kennyite or one of those Hocek types, the person who "intentionally" gave you that disease could be one of many thousands and would probably be deated from existance due to the fact that that person was infected with the incurable disease.Hey, Gandalf-boy, it's bad enough you imply we're whores, but to compare us with the Kawaiians?!

We demand satisfaction!

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

OOC: :tongue:

Hey, Gandalf-boy, it's bad enough you imply we're whores, but to compare us with the Kawaiians?!

We demand satisfaction!

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador
Forgive me the insult Deputy Ambassador, I was led to believe you were proud to be that to which I implied. The Comparison to the Kawaiians is apt due to their stance on moral Issues being dictated via resolution. With regard to the implied insult, have I been away so long that I have returned finding the world on its head and Kennyite society has become "Respectable"?
Please say it isn't so!

OOC. LAWL

Contrary to popular myths, HIV is not transmitted by swimming, playing sports, peeling vegetables, visiting a hospital. The risk of transmission by casual contact is close to nil or very very low and can only happen if a person's blood touches another person or maybe through kissing although it is still very low. But I agree that for the purpose of this resolution, I should limit to sexual act, needle sharing, and donation of blood or organ. And not criminilize transmission through casual contact.
I know, and I agree - but I'm saying, the theoretical risk of contamination has to be weighed against your use of the word 'can'. Limiting it to risky behaviour makes it clear that the focus is on activities where the person could reasonably know their behaviour could lead to transmission.
It will be the prosecution's responsability to show in a court of justice of respective member WA country that the accused is HIV positive, knew that he was HIV positive, knew that sexual intercourse with a partner, donation of blood/organ, or needle sharing can result in the transmission of HIV, and netherless performed those acts.
I absolutely agree. But your proposals needs to explicitly say this!
I agreed wholly with promotion of HIV prevention and testing. However I think it's beyond the scope of this resolution because it will fall under social justice as it will increase government spending for basic welfare. Perhaps it belongs to a preambule to encourage WA nation to encourage safe sex?
I think the mods will allow a little category drift, so long as most of the proposal is on-topic. I mean, would there be any great harm in retooling this as a social justice, while still including the criminalisation of criminal transmission? At the very least, I would hope you could include a commitment to safe sex, but it would be good to substantively do something about this.

(My reasoning is that if you ban criminal transmission without requiring access to preventive technologies, you are de facto banning sex for people with HIV in countries that restrict access to the latter.)
As there is now no vaccines, microbicides, or PREP against HIV in the real world, I think it will be metagaming to 'create' such stuffs. Then again I'm not sure about the rules. I'm for encouraging nations to develop vaccines and microbicides by encouraging research though and it can be included in the preambule.
Yes, I meant that research could be coordinated into discovering them. But I don't see why it should be limited to the preamble: you could include a substantive commitment in the proposal body.

-- Samantha Benson

No, I didn't miss them. I just understand what he was saying. There's quite a difference between saying homosexual behavior carries a high risk of HIV infection, and accusing gays of "spreading" the virus.

On the authority of someone who is sick and tired of hearing you scream "homophobe" at anyone who dares disagree with you.

Hey, Gandalf-boy, it's bad enough you imply we're whores, but to compare us with the Kawaiians?!

We demand satisfaction!

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

OOC: :tongue:




That, respected Ambassador, is a ridiculous exageration. We have not had cause to use the term homophobe for quite some time, and putting such words in our mouth is beneath your dignity.

The honoured Ambassador may believe that this resolution is motivated by a logic other than the illogic of prejudice, we happen to see through the pretence of the resolution's authors in claiming to care about public health, primarily on the basis of their support for some of the extremely bigotted repeals which have been brought against the FoM statute.

If the respected Ambassador is playing the devil's advocate for positions they do not hold simply because they are peeved that others are not afraid to clearly state their opinions or is happy to make grubby compromises with dubious or outright immoral political points of view in the name of the highly discredited notion of moral relativity then we suggest to them that they find other less mortal battle fields upon which to engage their enemy.

This issue is hardly an appropriate one to choose to make examples of those you wish to demean.

In any case we will leave the field to you, we seek no confrontation with the Kennyite delegacy. We will remember not to imagine that we have any right to express ourselves unless we have the prior benediction of the revered and venerable delegacy for Omigodtheykilledkenny.

We wish you luck in your collaboration with the respected delegacy for Mapleleafss.


yours e.t.c

Is it my imagination, or are we unable to talk about anything other than sex? It's just sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex all day long. Maybe it's just me, but I think there are more pressing matters that the WA could be dealing with besides sex.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Holy Empire of New Illuve has several issues with this Proposal, namely:

1. With the phrase "A person who commits criminal transmission" this Proposal criminalizes criminal activity. She fails to see why this is necessary as it assumes the passing of HIV to a sero-negative person already is illegal.

2. The phrase "engages in any contact that can result in the transmission of HIV" is overly broad. Through the use of the words "any" and "can" such things as crying - since tears contain an extremely minute amount of HIV - would now fall under this Proposal, as would falling down and skinning a knee. This can hardly be the intend of this Proposal.

3. The use of the word "donate" without further specification or definition could result in providing samples for scientific study to fall under this Proposal, if the donation is made to a scientist and not to an institution.

4. Article Three means that those who cannot be reasonably held to know who has used the item in question or the sero-status of said person could fall under this Proposal. Furthermore, it would mean the disposal of items such as used syringes would fall under this Proposal.

5. The use of the word "equipment" in Article Three is overly broad. Televisions, automobiles, watches, and other things are "equipment" and would fall under the intent of this Proposal.

Furthermore, the Holy Empire feels the end result of this Proposal would be that testing for HIV will drop, with all the effects that that may hold.

The Holy Empire suggests re-examination this Proposal to determine what, exactly, is the motivation behind the suggestion and to re-write this Proposal so that it is more in line with that motivation. As it is, this Proposal does not seem to achieve the aims intended.

The intent of my resolution is if someone knows they are HIV positive, and recklessly transmit HIV to his/her sexual partner, without consent from his/her partner, then they should be held criminally accountable.
I have two problems with this. The first is that there is already a set of criminal laws applicable; the various degrees of murder and manslaughter, and attempts at them. The second is that isn't it really up to the partner to bring a civil suit in any case, if there's serious deception going on?

Flatly, I don't see the need for this law at any level of government.

Contrary to popular myths, HIV is not transmitted by swimming, playing sports, peeling vegetables, visiting a hospital. The risk of transmission by casual contact is close to nil or very very low and can only happen if a person's blood touches another person or maybe through kissing although it is still very low.
Actually playing sport, peeling vegetables and visiting a hospital are all instances where blood contact is distinctly possible -- very likely in the case of a lot of sports -- so I wouldn't be so complacent if I were you.

Thanks you all for your suggestions. They are all well received and I have made some major editing to my first proposal.



Criminal transmission of the HIV

Category: Moral Decency (Strong)


NOTING that instance of HIV/AIDs has rising recently, especially in many developing nations,

REGRETTING that there is presently no mechanism to protect honest citizen from deliberate and malicious infection of HIV which causes serious and permanent symptoms,

BELIEVING that criminalising people for reckless transmission will act as a solid deterrent,

FURTHER BELIEVING that such cases will help to uncover and warn lots of HIV positive people who might not otherwise learn their status,

hereby mandates that all WA member nations to make it illegal to the 'criminal transmission of the HIV'.


Article 1

A person shall be judged to commits 'criminal transmission of the HIV', if a person is HIV positive, knew that he was HIV positive, and:

a. engages in a intimate sexual contact with another person without use of condoms that offer protection from HIV and STDs throughout sex from start to finish.

b. transfers, donates, or provides the person's blood, tissue, semen, organs, or other potentially infectious bodily fluids for transfusion, transplantation, or insemination to another person.

c. delivers, sells, or transfers any nonsterile equipment that has been self-used.

Article 2 (Exceptions)

If a person can demonstrate that the victim consented to the risk of transmission, Article 1 shall be null and void. To demonstrate consent, a person has to disclose his/her positive HIV status. Consent cannot be inferred as a victim who simply agrees to have unprotected sex.

Article 3 (Definitions)

For the purposes of this resolution in article 1

a. "HIV or Human immunodeficiency virus" means the human immunodeficiency virus identified as the causative agent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

b. "STDs" means sexually transmitted diseases.

c. "nonsterile equipment" means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is peculiar to and marketed for use in injecting a substance into or withdrawing a bodily fluid from the human body.

...we happen to see through the pretence of the resolution's authors in claiming to care about public health, primarily on the basis of their support for some of the extremely bigotted repeals which have been brought against the FoM statute.


Frankly ambassador Urgench, you must be reading a different resolution. I don't see any corrolation between my proposal and the Freedom of Marriage (Resolution 15). Where in hell do you see any semblable of resemblence. If you can point out, I will be grateful. What is the resemblence between a resolution to curb infection of HIV and the freedom of marriage???

Frankly ambassador Urgench, you must be reading a different resolution. I don't see any corrolation between my proposal and the Freedom of Marriage (Resolution 15). Where in hell do you see any semblable of resemblence. If you can point out, I will be grateful. What is the resemblence between a resolution to curb infection of HIV and the freedom of marriage???


We did not say there was a resemblance, Ambassador, we said that your support for the repeals of the FoMa suggested that your interest in HIV infection was biased and based on a complete misaprehension. Please read more carefully.

yours e.t.c. ,

The Holy Empire of New Illuve, beyond failing utterly to see the need for this Proposal, has the following issues with it as it currently is drafted:

1. She is dumbfounded by the assertions contained within this Proposal that there is no mechanism to protect "honest" citizens. There are several mechanisms already available to all and sundry, based upon the idea of personal responsibility. To name a few: monogamy, regular testing, the choice to engage in protected sex, choosing sexual partners with discrimination, and basing sexual decisions upon knowledge. Excepting cases where force is used (such as rape), coercion (such as through abuses of power), mental incapacitation (excluding the voluntary use of mind altering substances where it could be reasonably known that a reduction of mental capabilities would be a result of said use) or where one party is legally not considered able to provide consent all responsible for what happens in that interaction. However, the Holy Empire is fully aware that Her position regarding personal responsibility is not always shared, or shared to the same extent, by other cultures.

2. The use of a condom will not protect the sero-negative partner from all forms of sexual activity that have a real risk of passing on HIV. For example: an HIV negative man wearing a condom while performing oral sex on an HIV positive woman. Focusing exclusively on condoms to the exclusion of other protective matters and methods is short sighted.

3. Article One specifically refers to "he". This would mean that this Proposal does not apply to women. The Holy Empire fails to see the justification for this.

4. Article One c has the unintended consequence that an HIV positive intravenous drug user would not be allowed to partake in needle exchange programs, or even to take advantage of biohazard waste disposal, due to the criminalization of "transfer".

5. Article Two speaks of "victim". Unless the HIV negative party was an unwilling participant in the activity, She fails to see how this word applies. In this day-and-age where information regarding HIV, how it is transmitted, and steps available to reduce the risk of transmission, is widely available not taking steps to avoid infection does not make one a victim. Again, the Holy Empire is aware not all will share Her view on this, but then - even though one's house should not be burgled does not mean one should not lock the door.

Also, Article One a is unclear with regards to the phrase "that offers protection". Does this mean that the condom must be such that it provides protection from HIV transmission, or that the use of the condom must provide protection? In any event, it does not take into account that no condom provides 100% protection, nor does correct condom use provide 100% protection. There may be manufacturing faults with the condom, it may tear, it may fall off - or an accident may simply happen.

There are also style and grammatical errors but the Holy Empire shall not deal with those at this point.

Regrettably, the Altan Steppes will not be able to support this proposal. While we do feel that nations would be well-advised to criminalize the deliberate transmission of a deadly disease, we don't feel that one particular deadly disease is more worthy of being singled out than any other. We also don't see the merit of a potential raft of resolutions for every deadly illness that can be knowingly transmitted by a malicious individual. Ultimately, we feel that individual nations should be left to address such matters as they wish in their own local legislation. The only way we'd see around our objections is to create legislation that criminalized all deliberate transmission of all deadly illnesses, and that would be so unworkable as to be impossible, in our estimation.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

2. The use of a condom will not protect the sero-negative partner from all forms of sexual activity that have a real risk of passing on HIV. For example: an HIV negative man wearing a condom while performing oral sex on an HIV positive woman. Focusing exclusively on condoms to the exclusion of other protective matters and methods is short sighted.

And that also ignores the fact that condoms aren't even 100% effective at preventing pregnancy let alone preventing STDs.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

REGRETTING that there is presently no mechanism to protect honest citizen from deliberate and malicious infection of HIV which causes serious and permanent symptoms,
Ahem. I think I already mentioned this wasn't true.

She is dumbfounded by the assertions contained within this Proposal that there is no mechanism to protect "honest" citizens. There are several mechanisms already available to all and sundry, based upon the idea of personal responsibility. To name a few: monogamy, regular testing, the choice to engage in protected sex, choosing sexual partners with discrimination, and basing sexual decisions upon knowledge. Excepting cases where force is used (such as rape), coercion (such as through abuses of power), mental incapacitation (excluding the voluntary use of mind altering substances where it could be reasonably known that a reduction of mental capabilities would be a result of said use) or where one party is legally not considered able to provide consent all responsible for what happens in that interaction. However, the Holy Empire is fully aware that Her position regarding personal responsibility is not always shared, or shared to the same extent, by other cultures.

Personal responsibility also means that if I'm HIV positive, I have a duty to inform my partner and/or take appropriate measure so that I don't transmit HIV to another HIV negative person. In my opinion, if a person is HIV positive but fails to mention it to his/her partner, it implies that he/she has no HIV. Also it is very diificult to ask HIV statue to another person.

Since use of condom is the only way to protect transmission of HIV in majority of case, I chose to exampt the use of condom from my resolution even if the person fails to mension his/her HIV positive status to his/her partner.


2. The use of a condom will not protect the sero-negative partner from all forms of sexual activity that have a real risk of passing on HIV. For example: an HIV negative man wearing a condom while performing oral sex on an HIV positive woman. Focusing exclusively on condoms to the exclusion of other protective matters and methods is short sighted.

The fact that condom don't protect 100% of STDs is beside the point. I think I made it clear in my resolution that if HIV is transmitted even if the condom is used and fails, the person will NOT be prosecuted. Only when HIV positive person fails to use any condom that he/she will be prosecuted.

I only included condom in my resolution because as far as I know, it is the only method that adequately protect transmission of HIV. If you know of any other method that protect HIV, I will be more than happy to include it in my resolution.

3. Article One specifically refers to "he". This would mean that this Proposal does not apply to women. The Holy Empire fails to see the justification for this.

The word 'he', in the article one, refers to the word person, that apply to both man and woman. But if it makes it more clear, i'll replace 'he' with 'he/she'. It was certainly not my intention to apply my resolution to only man.

4. Article One c has the unintended consequence that an HIV positive intravenous drug user would not be allowed to partake in needle exchange programs, or even to take advantage of biohazard waste disposal, due to the criminalization of "transfer".

I think that's a quite wild and exagereted interpretation of article 1c. It simply means if one person 'transfer' a needle to another person for use, knowing that a needle may be contaminated.

5. Article Two speaks of "victim". Unless the HIV negative party was an unwilling participant in the activity, She fails to see how this word applies. In this day-and-age where information regarding HIV, how it is transmitted, and steps available to reduce the risk of transmission, is widely available not taking steps to avoid infection does not make one a victim. Again, the Holy Empire is aware not all will share Her view on this, but then - even though one's house should not be burgled does not mean one should not lock the door.

Victim means someone who is transmitted by HIV. I wholly agree that one should take every precautions to not be infected STDs but it also equally applies to the person with HIV positive statue. The person who is HIV postive should also take every precaustion to not transmit HIV to another unsuspecting person, by using condom, even if he/she is unwilling to tell his/her HIV positive statue.

Are you saying that if someone is burgling a house that is not locked, he/she is not a burglar?

Also, Article One a is unclear with regards to the phrase "that offers protection". Does this mean that the condom must be such that it provides protection from HIV transmission, or that the use of the condom must provide protection? In any event, it does not take into account that no condom provides 100% protection, nor does correct condom use provide 100% protection. There may be manufacturing faults with the condom, it may tear, it may fall off - or an accident may simply happen.

I used the words 'condoms that offer protection from HIV and STDs', to differentiate with condoms that are sold in sex toys store that offer no protection and is not really condom.

Forgive me the insult Deputy Ambassador, I was led to believe you were proud to be that to which I implied. The Comparison to the Kawaiians is apt due to their stance on moral Issues being dictated via resolution. With regard to the implied insult, have I been away so long that I have returned finding the world on its head and Kennyite society has become "Respectable"?
Please say it isn't so!

We must confess that the comparison the esteemed representative of Venerable Libertarians appears to be making escapes us.