U =U. The SC of Canada just doesn’t recognise this.

[Poz50something]

The current situation in Canada is that individuals who are aware of their HIV status have to inform their potential sexual partners when they both embark on a condomless relationship. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its infinite wisdom, has made this situation possible, and one result is that it does not encourage people to get tested.

 I am appalled the in 2024, there are adults who aren’t ready to take charge of their own sexuality and know the risks beforehand of foregoing condom use. Are there any differing opinions? 

[PozBearWI]

It is why I am searching for my tattoo.  A more natural conversation starter than saying, "hey stud I wanna fuck you.  BTW I am poz and not on meds".  

I have a bunch of the HIV INSIDE temp tats I am using and honest, I really like them.  First group event this weekend and I'll have a fresh one on for that.  It may morph before I get a permanent tat into POZ INSIDE or B+ INSIDE.  But I am pretty close on what the tat will look like, it's down to three specific options.  

My temp tats are similar blue to the old Intel Inside logo; and that is a nice look for a tat.  But I might consider black or even red as a tat color.

[PupBoiRapeSlut]

37 minutes ago, PozBearWI said:

It is why I am searching for my tattoo.  A more natural conversation starter than saying, "hey stud I wanna fuck you.  BTW I am poz and not on meds".  

I have a bunch of the HIV INSIDE temp tats I am using and honest, I really like them.  First group event this weekend and I'll have a fresh one on for that.  It may morph before I get a permanent tat into POZ INSIDE or B+ INSIDE.  But I am pretty close on what the tat will look like, it's down to three specific options.  

My temp tats are similar blue to the old Intel Inside logo; and that is a nice look for a tat.  But I might consider black or even red as a tat color.

I’d love to see them they sound hot

[PozBearWI]

@PupBoiRapeSlut image added to my library of images

[PupBoiRapeSlut]

3 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

@PupBoiRapeSlut image added to my library of images

I don’t see any images

[PozBearWI]

You're right, I see the album I created, and it appeared to get the image I put there, but alas...  I'll seek moderator help.

[Nude]

Heard from many who live in Canada that their free medical care isn't the greatest.  Lack of education with doctors and country leadership might be a part of that?  Or maybe they didn't get the memo of U=U from the USA

[Poz50something]

1 hour ago, Nude said:

Heard from many who live in Canada that their free medical care isn't the greatest.  Lack of education with doctors and country leadership might be a part of that?  Or maybe they didn't get the memo of U=U from the USA

Thing is, we pay lots of taxes to get the medical care we have, so it’s not free. Québec has one of the highest tax rates in Canada, and when I first got here, I had a bad case of orchitis and there were no beds available in the wards, so I slept in the corridors, along with a lady who was in constant pain, yelling and screaming the whole night. I was later told she had stage four cancer. But that was in 2003. Things have improved quite a bit since .

When my hubs had his fatal heart attack, the ambulance came within a few minutes, and I wasn’t charged. It’s not perfect, but here in Quebec they’re trying to bring in a private healthcare system and nobody wants it. 

[Guest]

Please stop posting alarmist message which are bending the reality to suit a certain POV. 

The view presented by the Supreme Court of Canada is that “HIV non-disclosure” refers to criminal cases where a person living with HIV, who is aware of their status and knows they are infectious, does not disclose their HIV status before sexual activity that poses a realistic possibility of transmission.

If there is no realistic possibility of transmission, failure to disclose will not constitute a crime. 

So, yes, the onus is correctly put on the person who is aware of their status and do not disclose it IF there is a REALISTIC possibility of transmission. Furthermore, the Department of Justice Canada released a report which provides an overview of important considerations, including that: "Sexual activity with an HIV positive person poses a negligible risk of transmission where that person has maintained a suppressed viral load (i.e., a viral load of under 200 copies per ml of blood) as a result of anti-retroviral therapy. This is the case regardless of whether a condom was used."

 

On 10/10/2024 at 1:48 AM, Nude said:

Heard from many who live in Canada that their free medical care isn't the greatest.  Lack of education with doctors and country leadership might be a part of that?  Or maybe they didn't get the memo of U=U from the USA

It is true that our free medical care isn't the greatest. But then only a handful of countries have free medical care and claim to be the best. I certainly don't want to pay $10k for a night in a US hospital and $700 for clipping the nail - not infected or anything of consequence. (actual amounts have been made public in Canadian newspapers a few years ago). 

I certainly take offence when somebody describes the doctors in Canada as lacking education. And that's a very biased and ill-mannered way of characterising something you just hear "from many who live in Canada".  And certainly our country (Canada) leadership doesn't lack education. That's a pretty broad insult.

 

Edited October 11 by PollaDeMiel

[Nude]

Good to know!  Thank you for the clarification!  These cool things were at the end of statements (?), so it was more of a question than a statement.  US Doctors aren't the brightest.  Many of them missed my cancer.  It's good to see you can express and own your personal feelings.  All humans should always own their personal feelings.  Have an awesome day! 

[Poz50something]

2 hours ago, PollaDeMiel said:

Please stop posting alarmist message which are bending the reality to suit a certain POV. 

The view presented by the Supreme Court of Canada is that “HIV non-disclosure” refers to criminal cases where a person living with HIV, who is aware of their status and knows they are infectious, does not disclose their HIV status before sexual activity that poses a realistic possibility of transmission..... Furthermore, the Department of Justice Canada released a report which provides an overview of important considerations, including that: "Sexual activity with an HIV positive person poses a negligible risk of transmission where that person has maintained a suppressed viral load (i.e., a viral load of under 200 copies per ml of blood) as a result of anti-retroviral therapy. This is the case regardless of whether a condom was used."

 

 

Respectfully, this ruling by the Supreme Court doesn't encourage people to get tested, because once you know your status, you ARE OBLIGATED BY THE LAW to tell someone who you want to bareback with there is a distinct possibility of acquiring HIV from the act. Yes, I do say this to everyone, but it's 2024. There are people from the wop wops who don't know anything about HIV transmission? As a gay man, isn't it necessary to find out whether the act that one engages in could possibly result in a HIV-positive test result? The Department of Justice may have released that statement, but I know of people who have had to register as sex offenders because of non-disclosure of their HIV status. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.hivjustice.net/country/ca/ca-quebec/.

This is a case of someone I know personally, because we volunteer in the same NGO. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.journaldequebec.com/2019/12/09/atteint-du-vih-il-recidive-en-prison. The article states "Plutôt que d’y récupérer des médicaments pour un problème cardiaque comme il le faisait croire, la victime a plutôt découvert qu’il s’agissait de la trithérapie pour traiter le VIH. L’ex-conjoint et son nouveau partenaire ont immédiatement fait un dépistage qui s’est heureusement avéré négatif.  Ils avaient porté plainte par la suite...". (Rather than retrieving medication for a heart condition, as he would have us believe, the victim discovered that it was HIV triple therapy. The ex-spouse and his new partner immediately took a test, which fortunately proved negative. They subsequently filed a complaint.)

The person mentioned in the article was already on triple therapy, but it didn't matter, as he was sentenced to 43 months in prison for sexual assault. He also has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Rather than being alarmist, these prosecutions are taking place in Québec, which, as you may or may not be aware of, still carries the moral outrage of Catholic spinster nuns despite 50 plus years of secular public life. It may not be happening in your neck of the woods, but it sure as hell is in mine. I get it - tell everyone ad nauseam, but there should be protections under the law, which don't exist in Québec. Under Québec law, you being poz, and not taking medication would be subject to prosecution for non-disclosure. Even if you DID disclose your status, it's your word against your complainant's. 

 

Edited October 11 by Poz50something
Providing further clarification and information

[PozBearWI]

Indeed, the main point for me being that I have to be able to prove what I told the other person.  While my VL is pretty doggone modest, it isn't below 200 copies per ml which was the standard in place for the Partner studies from whence u=u was proven.  So I haven't had much sex since testing poz.  I am not happy about that, and tend to seek other poz guys as sex partners as 'it's just easier'.  

I really don't want to be a test case; but it would be interesting if my Intelesque TAT reading "HIV Inside" is adequate notice?  🙂

[Poz50something]

3 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

 

I really don't want to be a test case; but it would be interesting if my Intelesque TAT reading "HIV Inside" is adequate notice?  🙂

I am wondering if a biohazard tattoo as a tramp stamp is sufficient notice of HIV status? I have often thought of inking my cheek or my lower back…

[PozBearWI]

Indeed, I do it now with a temp tat, although this one or a slight variation of it are going to be my TAT when I get one.  It is essentially the old Intel Inside logo but words being HIV Inside.  That's my temp tat, although possible it'll be Poz Inside or B+ Inside.

Poz Inside is in the lead today.

B+ Inside combines my blood type, plus the fact I am poz if anyone asks "what does that mean".  Happy to answer but I think an ice breaker tatted on my body would help that along.  

@BootmanLA is a friend of mine from here who is pretty well versed in how our legal/legislative system works and might have a better idea.

[BootmanLA]

I can't speak to Canadian law, but I would think that the specifics of the tattoo and the circumstances of the sex would matter.

A "Proudly HIV+" tattoo on the chest or abdomen, clearly visible in good light where the sexual encounter was also in good light, might well count as disclosure. On the flip side, a small "+" sign, which is certainly ambiguous, or even a biohazard tattoo of some sort, might not be considered clear enough. And of course, if the sexual encounter occurred in a dark room, or even a dimly lit one, where the other person could arguably miss the tattoo, I don't think it would count for much at all.