A public outcry has greeted the setting of an international legal precedent concerning HIV+ people. A Wellington court Wednesday that 36-year-old Justin Dalley did not have to tell his female partner he was HIV-positive because he had used a condom. The New Zealand AIDS Foundation welcomed the decision as a victory for common sense and an affirmation of their core message of the last twenty years – that condoms prevent HIV, not disclosure of the virus. We talk to Executive Director Rachael LeMesurier about the public reaction so far: GAYNZ.COM: The Dalley decision is a positive one as far as the NZAF is concerned, but to what extent do you think that has got through to the public at large? RLM: I would say that it's a such a complex issue, highly emotive, which means many people initially respond by taking a very high moral ground. I'm really very aware that the ability to ask people to take a breath, step back and consider some of the more complex issues is not really happening in the media environment unfortunately. GAYNZ.COM: Probably the worst examples of this have been seen on talk radio over the last twenty-four hours. How do you manage facts in a situation like this? RLM: I think what we are very grateful for is that the judge looked at the facts. So, what we're able to say is that the judge made a decision based on the science and the evidence that confirmed that what we're talking about is the risk of transmitting HIV, and that condom use reduces that risk to the point where its negligible. GAYNZ.COM: Some of the commentary has disagreed with that, though, and used junk science to claim that condoms do not work. How do you manage that? RLM: Fortunately, there are some forms of media that allow us more of a debate, and print media is one of them. I think that we do have to accept that because it's so highly emotive, we have talkback going wild. But we have to remember, that if we gauged New Zealand's reaction on talkback callers then we wouldn't have got the election result we just had. So we have to really reach the larger proportion of New Zealand, both gay and heterosexual community, by trying to appeal to reason, and hope that a proportion of people hear that. GAYNZ.COM: So balance is achieved across a range of media? RLM: Absolutely. Obviously the gay community media is central in the way in which we try to explain what's gone on, but also the TV, the newspapers, those sorts of places, means we can reach gays and heterosexuals who are at risk in a broader way. GAYNZ.COM: You're not worried that the noise is so loud at the moment that you can't get the message out? RLM: We're pragmatic. The fact that the noise is so loud does make it hard. It's so emotive that many people don't want to listen. In the few situations that we've had the opportunity to have this discussion, get some core simple information out, keeping it simple as possible, there will be a proportion of people who will see the reason. GAYNZ.COM: One of the accusations levelled so far is that the NZAF's support of this decision shows that it cares too much about positive people and not enough about negative people. How would you respond to that? RLM: We've had phone calls and emails along those lines. Again, we need the opportunity to have the discussion to say that actually, we believe we're supporting negative people in a very powerful and significant way by saying, the person they're about to have sex with may not know they're HIV+, so they may disclose a negative status, and they may be wrong. So disclosure won't stop the HIV spreading, condoms will. GAYNZ.COM:Do you think people have assumed that this decision has changed something, i.e. that a positive person would have always disclosed before? RLM: I think what we're trying to respond by saying is, take a breath, step back – think about all the different ways in which people get sexually involved. Often there's alcohol involved, quite often its non-verbal, frequently people are very focussed on the lust, desire or love that's going on. It's highly unusual to expect people to sit down for half an hour and go through their STI history. And it should be both parties – because ironically, someone who is HIV+ is probably more at risk of picking up an STI that is not going to be prevented by a condom – that would be more damaging to them. GAYNZ.COM: Would you agree to an extent that even the negative, ill-informed reactions from some quarters are positive because it has put HIV/AIDS back into the frame of public discussion? RLM: We welcome any opportunity to both be able to say HIV is here, its in New Zealand, Justin was a heterosexual man. It brings a far broader focus on HIV, and it's obviously one that we want to keep at that high level – ideally when it's not damaging or hurting people who are HIV+, or giving the wrong messages but it is something that's of value. GAYNZ.COM: So having a straight man involved has been positive? RLM: It's been constructive because it has meant that we haven't had all the other baggage that comes when it's a gay man: ridiculous statements on purported promiscuity, we haven't gone down the road of ‘sin'. It has actually shaken up the mainstream population, because some of the media may not have even reported it if it wasn't a heterosexual man. Chris Banks - 6th October 2005