a) They can prove he was the one that gave the victim HIV; not that the victim recently got HIV.
b) They can prove he lied about it.
c) They can prove he knew he had HIV.

I don't believe having sex with someone while having knowledge of a communicable disease, and not informing the partner, is against the law. I hope someone can cite me as wrong on that.

The Crown is seeking a 24-year prison sentence for a man who hid the fact he was HIV-positive from his young female sex partners.

Clato Mabior, 31, was convicted in July of six counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count each of sexual touching and sexual interference.

At a sentencing hearing yesterday, Mabior's lawyers asked Justice Joan McKelvey to consider a sentence of 13 or 14 years.

McKelvey reserved her decision. Mabior will return to court for sentencing Oct. 10.

At trial, the victims -- one as young as 12 -- testified Mabior plied them with booze and drugs and engaged in repeated acts of unprotected sex without disclosing he was HIV-positive.

"He knowingly withheld that information from his sexual partners on the basis that in all likelihood they would not have engaged in sexual contact with him," said McKelvey in convicting Mabior.

McKelvey called Mabior a sexual predator who preyed upon the young, vulnerable victims.

At trial, defence lawyer Chris McCoy argued in many instances, Mabior's viral load was so low he was incapable of passing on the HIV virus.

No matter the risk, Mabior had a duty to disclose his health status, McKelvey said.

"Those that are infected with HIV cannot inappropriately and indiscriminately engage in sexual relationships for their own pleasure without regard to the consequences of others," she said.

Mabior was acquitted of three additional counts of aggravated sexual assault involving three different alleged victims. Mabior, a Sudanese refugee, is likely to face certain deportation upon completing his sentence.

it's more like the woman chose to commit suicide, becuz why do we all forget that these women have a mind of their own.....

I actually know Vincent ... and although he tried to be what he thought was "safe"(by not ejaculating), he was obviously mistaken that such precautions are actually effective(agreed, a pretty stupid theory to begin with).

And yes, he did meet said girl at a BAR, but he had no idea she was 18(in a bar picking up random guys at 18??) ...

... as she lied for much of the relationship about several facts(like the fact that she was doing cocaine and sleeping with other people for instance - more information that was revealed in the courtroom but never made it into the papers oddly - hmm).

Apparently the media just printed whatever made Vincent sound more heinous, or what would sell more papers... or basically whatever the hell they felt like printing including misquoting everything he said.

I'm not trying to pick on the victim in this case, i just don't think it was fair for her and the crown to lie their way through the hearings, bending the truth at every opportunity.

Vincent did a horrible thing, but he was honest, admitted it and plead guilty - there was no reason to play as dirty as they did.

There's a reason Vincent only spent just over a year in a low security camp(more like a vacation I heard during our correspondence). It's because this case was NOT as bad as the press made it out to be, and neither is Vincent. He's a good person who made a really stupid, terrible mistake.

Thursday, November 4th, 2004 | Volume 94, Number 17

The case of a Toronto man accused of knowingly spreading HIV to a young woman
By Erika Richmond

Police arrested 28-year old Vincent Walkem at his workplace, a downtown Toronto clothing store, on August 30. Walkem, who is HIV-positive, has since been charged with aggravated assault and accused of engaging and attempting to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse with at least three women – without revealing his infection.

According to health records released to police, Walkem had known he was HIV-positive for almost three years. His name and photograph were released to the media in the hope that women who had sexual contact with him would come forward. So far, police have received several such reports.

A young woman who tested HIV-positive during her relationship with Walkem tipped off the police. That young woman is my best friend.

There is a widespread misconception among university students that the risk of HIV pertains to other, disenfranchised demographics. Not so. A 2001 study done by Health Canada shows that 44.5 per cent of new HIV cases in Canada involve young women aged 15 to 29. The stories of those who had alleged relationships with Walkem are exclusively from that demographic; my friend’s story is not as rare as it may seem.

A year and a half after her diagnosis, I felt, along with a need to understand how the law views cases like this, that it was time to share my friend’s story with other people our age, as a warning and perhaps an inspiration.

HIV/AIDS among the young a cause for concern?



HIV/AIDS is an phenomenon that is increasingly affecting women, particularly young women. They represent a growing proportion of positive HIV test reports. According to a fact-sheet put out by the AIDS Committee of Toronto, women accounted for about one in four of all HIV diagnoses in Canada from 2001 to 2003. In the years between 1985 and 1997, they accounted for only 12 per cent of HIV diagnoses.

Women also made up over 38 per cent of all positive HIV test reports among Canadians aged 15 to 29 in 2002. In the same year, heterosexual contact remained the main risk factor for HIV infection among women – accounting for 58.3 per cent of positive HIV test reports.

Women are an increasing proportion of Canadians living with AIDS, from 6.1 per cent before 1994 to 16.5 per cent in 2002.

HIV/AIDS is also an issue of concern for young people around the world and in Canada. According to the 2004 UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic, young people aged 15 to 24 account for half of all new HIV infections worldwide. An estimated 10 million young people are living with HIV/AIDS in the world today. In Canada, youth aged 15 to 29 accounted for just over a quarter of all positive HIV test reports from 1985 to 2003.

There are many possible explanations for the recent steps backward in the fight against HIV/AIDS. One is that Canadians are less wary about the risks of infection than in years past. It is an idea that seems to be disproved by a recent survey commissioned by the Public Health Agency of Canada. While nine of ten Canadians see themselves as having a low risk of contracting HIV/AIDS, higher risk groups – such as youth and those with multiple sexual partners – are conscious of their higher risk of infection. 59 per cent of youths under 25 years of age also believe that the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS is higher than it was ten years ago.

What may be a disconcerting result from the survey is the number of Canadians who do not engage in safer sex practices – almost half of respondents. Of those who do not practice safer sex, 87 per cent attributed the decision to the fact that they are in a monogamous relationship.

World AIDS day is on December 1 and will feature events at McGill.

—compiled by Rishi Hargovan, with files from the AIDS Committee of Toronto and the Public Health Agency of Canada


A typical story?

My friend, who asked not to be named, says she began a relationship with Walkem in the summer of 2002. Fresh out of high school, she stayed in Toronto to try her luck in the acting, dancing, and restaurant-waiting world. She was on her own for the first time, experiencing the thrill of a new school and the city without parents. She was also falling in love for the first time. In those first months, my friend seemed more content than she had ever been.

It was a painful awakening when Walkem’s co-worker told her to get tested for HIV. Neither of us wanted to believe she could be at risk. To be safe, she went to get tested. A family friend who is very active in the HIV non-profit community went with her to get the devastating results. At 19, she was HIV-positive.

The news confounded everyone who knew her. The relationship between my friend and Walkem ended with the news that they were both HIV-positive. This past summer, a chance encounter between my friend and Walkem’s new girlfriend led them to contact the police.

When police gained access to his public health records, they determined Walkem had tested HIV-positive and had been informed of his status a year before he met my friend. Police immediately charged Walkem with aggravated assault.

The criminalization question

In order to understand what kind of protection the law offers people like my friend, I spoke with the University of British Columbia’s Dean of Law, Mary Anne Bobinski.

Bobinski told me that in the precedent-setting case of Crown vs. Cuerrier, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that people with HIV who fail to disclose their status before engaging in unprotected intercourse can be convicted of aggravated assault.

“The central question in the Cuerrier case was: Is it better to place the responsibility on individuals to protect themselves, or should criminal law be used?” said Bobinski. The judges in that case decided that there was a “significant risk of serious harm” and therefore the law should intervene.

The failure to disclose was characterised as fraud, and therefore consent for intercourse was deemed legally invalid. Furthermore, because the HIV virus causes bodily harm, the act was determined to be aggravated assault.

At the time of the Supreme Court’s ruling, there arose considerable controversy over what was seen as the criminalization of HIV.

“There has been debate about whether or not criminalization makes sense; some groups thought that it may discourage people from getting tested,” Bobinski said.

AIDS activists argued that criminalizing HIV infection would undermine HIV prevention and make people reluctant to get tested. Many feared high profile cases would also reinforce strong stigmas against people living with HIV by portraying them as criminals.

A 2002 paper from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS questioned the utility and wisdom of criminalization. “In (using criminal law for) deterring a person who knows he or she is HIV-positive from engaging in risky behaviours without disclosure, policy-makers must consider the impact that such prosecutions may have on people’s willingness to get tested in the first place...a key element of effective HIV prevention strategies,” the paper states.

The UN report suggests that public health laws, including those compelling people with HIV to disclose their status to partners, ordering them not to have sex, or forcing medical treatment, are strong enough measures to combat acts like those alleged in Walkem’s case. Such legislation could be backed up with fines, but the report maintains that HIV transmission should not be criminalized.

After Crown v. Cuerrier, public health offices all over Canada began to warn their patients of the potential criminal charges for non-disclosure. Public health counsels all patients living with HIV on their “responsibilities” to stop the spread of the disease. Public health also engages in “contact tracing” or partner notification. The public health official will ask the patient to contact people with whom they have had sex or shared intravenous drugs. If the patient is reluctant, the official is obliged to do so.

In a September 1 interview with the Toronto Star, the Director of Public Health for the city of Toronto, Rita Shahin, said: “Most people who are infected behave responsibly.”

However, there are at least ten previous Canadian cases of people with HIV knowingly withholding information or misinforming their partners in order to have unprotected sex.

The Supreme Court of Canada chose criminal prosecution as a means to deter possible public health offenders, punish those who knowingly spread HIV, and protect innocent people from infection.

Because of my first-hand knowledge, I have been convinced that public health counselling alone does not always effectively encourage disclosure.

The Toronto Star recently interviewed another former girlfriend of Walkem’s. Jessica Whitbread told them she had just parted ways with Walkem, in December 2001, when he told her that he was HIV-positive. She too went through the ordeal of testing positive for HIV.

Seven months later, Walkem met my friend for the first time.

The new face of HIV/AIDS

Today, my friend attends university and gives AIDS awareness talks and workshops to youth. She wants to get the message out to young women that they are at risk of HIV infection. Contrary to popular belief, my friend, and Whitbread as well, are emblematic of the new face of HIV/AIDS. Young women are the fastest growing HIV risk group, but perceptions are slow to change.

“Forget stereotypes,” my friend said. “I was in a trusting, monogamous relationship. HIV can happen to anyone.”

Even with AIDS in the news almost daily, recent studies have shown that people under 24 are the most ignorant of the risks of HIV. “People talk about condom fatigue and people are tired of those messages,” said Shahin. The perception that “miracle” drugs have turned HIV into a chronic disease also may reinforce the misconception that HIV is not as dangerous as it once was.

Walkem now awaits trial for his alleged crime in the strict custody of his family. Whitbread recently participated in the Toronto AIDS walk, with 87 of her closest supporters and friends.

For my friend, the news of her infection helped her decide to get her studies started. She is now a full-time modern dance student. Touched by a horrendous betrayal and living through the fear of illness, her courage, drive, and passion are an inspiration to all those who know her. “It really put life into perspective for me,” she told me. “While at first I felt sorry for myself, it has actually made me incredibly motivated.”

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=3126

When police gained access to his public health records, they determined Walkem had tested HIV-positive and had been informed of his status a year before he met my friend. Police immediately charged Walkem with aggravated assault.

And also not a very good excuse given that health authorities are required to go into the most minute details about sex when they give you the news that you are HIV positive. And just by the way ... even if they had not done that, there is still no excuse for him not to use a condom.

So because she might have (in your opinion) questionable social behavior, that means she deserves to be infected with HIV? Her life has no value because she is 18 "in a bar picking up random guys"?

Again, because she may or may not have (in your opinion) questionable social behavior, that means she deserves to be infected with HIV?

So, Vincent is generally not a "heinous" person ... just when it comes to "getting off" and not telling his sexual partners about his incurable disease? Gee ... how very moral of him.

How did they lie? The only lie they could have possible told that would have hurt Vincent would be if she had said that he has HIV and he really didn't. But that's not the case ... eh?

And exactly when did he get honest about it? Before or AFTER his little deed(s) was(were) exposed?

A man who goes around exposing others to HIV with no regard to others is NOT merely a "good person" who made a really stupid, terrible mistake.

He is a thoughtless, selfish person who knew exactly what he was doing. It was calculated to say the least. If he had not given it any thought at all and was really "stupid", he would not have thought about NOT ejaculating ... he wouldn't have given it any thought at all. You give him way toooooooo much credit.