House passes HIV Bill
THE House of Representatives passed the Offences Against the Person (Amendment) (HIV) Bill 2004 after a heated debate late Wednesday night. The Bill now goes to the Senate. The Bill penalises a person who ought to know they have HIV/AIDS and deliberately or recklessly exposes another person to the virus without telling them. The Bill was passed without amendment, despite Opposition concerns that the Bill is hard to enforce and might drive the disease underground, and that it should be referred to a joint select committee for additional work. Minister in the Ministry of National Security, Fitzgerald Hinds, wrapped up the debate and tried to address those concerns. Referring to a recent People Metre television poll showing 87 percent support for the Bill, Hinds said, "The people of Trinidad and Tobago want the Bill and they will have it." He said the Bill was not an attempt to "criminalise HIV/AIDS" as suggested by the Opposition, but was to deal with a "small miscreant group" of people who were spreading the virus and could not be reached by other means because they have an "evil mind." Hinds suggested that the number of persons with the virus could be much more than the 28,000 persons suggested in a recent news story, recalling that health workers had recently revealed that many of those infected did not tell their various sexual partners. He justified the Bill outlawing the act of "exposure" to the virus rather than the actual "transmission" of the virus, saying the latter was hard to prove because it takes a long time for AIDS to show itself in someone who has the virus. Hinds addressed Opposition concerns -- that the Constitution’s guarantee of a person’s right to privacy and a family life might be violated -- as the Bill empowers a magistrate to compel a suspect to give a sample of blood. Hinds said that the well-established Children’s Bill also lets a magistrate compel blood testing, and this bill had been passed by a simple majority of Parliament instead of the special majority which would be required if it had violated the Constitution. Countering Opposition concerns, Hinds explained three law cases which had legally defined "reckless" conduct, remarking, "These cases show that it is not hard to prove recklessness."
Comments
"House passes HIV Bill"