More than 180 people in Canada have faced criminal charges related to HIV nondisclosure. Media coverage is often sensational and commonly portrays people living with HIV as hypersexualized threats to the (inter)national body politic. This article analyzes mainstream news media coverage of four HIV nondisclosure cases to examine how the accused (two men, two women) are constructed as sexual predators, which we found occurs through two key discursive moves. First, by tying the narrative to stereotypical conceptualizations of hegemonic and toxic masculinity and pariah femininity to construct the individual as promiscuous, hypersexual and dangerous. Second, by crafting a narrative that evokes complex moral emotions; notably, these include the ‘negative’ emotions of anger, disgust and fear. Given that racialized men are disproportionately represented and demonized in media accounts, and the tense race relations in the current western political landscape, it is important to consider how emotions (rather than medical evidence of the risks of transmission, intent to infect or actual transmission) might contribute to shaping punitive mentalities and the harsh application of the law. By examining how race, gender, class and sexuality are mobilized to construct narratives of Black masculinity as inherently toxic and women’s sexual freedom as exemplifying pariah femininity, and the ways in which the coverage evokes negative moral emotions, we contend that media coverage shores up moralized discourses about sexuality, masculinity and femininity and HIV/AIDS.

This article examines how the judge, defence counsel and Crown prosecution in R. v. T.S. mobilised feeling and framing rules to assess the credibility of the complainants and accused. T.S. is a former Canadian Football League linebacker who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose to two women that he is HIV positive. Our analysis of the trial transcripts reveals how T.S.’s failure to disclose his HIV-positive status and his lack of an overtly emotional courtroom display led to his construction as callous towards the health of his sexual partners and subsequently to his characterisation as noncredible. Alternatively, the complainants had to authentically re-perform their original emotional reactions to learning that T.S. was HIV positive while testifying in court in order to be deemed credible. This signals the retroactive aspect of emotions in the context of a trial. Using Ahmed’s notion of the ‘stickiness of emotion’, our second finding reveals that while the type and intensity of emotional courtroom displays structure interpretations of credibility in criminal trials, moral emotions such as indignation, fear and disgust stick to HIV. This implies a connection between perceptions of morality and credibility where people living with HIV/AIDS who fail to disclose are assessed as always-already unremorseful and noncredible thereby showcasing the continuity of HIV stigma. We show how determinations of credibility in HIV nondisclosure cases can problematically devalue the emotions that structure disclosure decision making in favour of prioritising the feelings of anger, shock, fear, frustration and disgust felt by complainants.

This article explores emotional harm in the context of the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure in Canada. With the exception of Matthew Weait in the United Kingdom, few scholars have examined what harm means in cases of HIV nondisclosure. We conceptualize the harm that follows nondisclosure as an affective response to the “HIV positive Other” and argue that law creates a legal norm about what harm is and feels like in cases of HIV nondisclosure when there is no clear consensus about how harm should be defined. Mobilizing the sociology of emotions literature, we contend that criminalizing HIV nondisclosure engages affective, moral, and criminal censure to regulate the behaviours of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH), thus reproducing HIV stigma and propagating emotional harm for PLWH. Canada’s response to HIV nondisclosure should instead involve a transformative justice approach that avoids the harm of criminalization and imprisonment while recognizing the emotional harm experienced by complainants.

No abstract

No abstract