...possession of hand grenades... provided you double-dare pinky swear not to fiddle with the pin...
The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network said it is unhappy the court's ruling continues to require that HIV-positive people lower their viral count to avoid prosecution for non-disclosure.Uh-huh... because as we all know, those
"We are shocked and dismayed that even the responsible use of a condom does not protect a person living with HIV from rampant prosecution."
And seriously... "rampant prosecution?" I think I've heard of two or three cases... countrywide... over the last thirty years. Is that "rampant?"
Let's break that down. The dictionary definition of "rampant" is...
1. Extending unchecked; unrestrained....which, by the way, seems more prescriptive of the anonymous, indiscriminate, often drug-fuelled public sex that is this infections primary transmission vector.
2. Occurring without restraint and frequently, widely, or menacingly; rife.
Why would a so-called "professional journalist" not call bullshit on this hyperbole? Words are supposed to be a journalist's holy-of-holies. Words matter.
It's my lowly opinion that the only people who are actually entitled to be "shocked and dismayed" (and that's different from being absolved) here... are people who were unknowingly slipped an aids-infected penis.