Insane aids people

NRT grabs the wrong end of the stick complaining about Selwyn and declaring that htey are "ignorant rural hicks"

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2004/12/ignorant-rural-hicks.html

regarding this article

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3142462a10,00.html

Not that I want to create discrimination against aids victims or intellectually handicapped people or that the selwyn people may not partly be motivated by irational fear BUT two things

1) From a protection of society point of view
"Was prosecuted in 1999 for having unprotected sex with four men."
That would potentially make him a serial killer right? Even if the insanity defence was "accepted" (which is what seems likely)he is still technically a person who repeatedly takes action that can/will kill others.

"Truscott was "absolutely no risk whatsoever unless those residents choose to indulge in unsafe sex with him".”

In which case it would be his job to refuse, or hte trust's job to restrain him - it is not the general public's job to use their psychic powers to tell that he has aids. If you place such oblications o npoeple you may as well give up on public health altogether. AND if he does not refuse we have a major problem - the deaths should be on his or his immediate care givers head.

2) Now a trust (as opposed to a proper government facility) seems to be taking care of this person - bringing us to the point of the article - are they violating his rights? I.e. do they have the right to detain him? Surely the question should not even arise. It sounds like it may breach the council rules at least since to me - although I dont know his case in detail - "he is not a danger" and "he is not being detained" sound likely to involve a contradiction.