Section 19 (E) of the Civil Status Act could sound outdated today, even unconstitutional. It states that a non-citizen has to produce “medical certificates attesting that he is not suffering from any infectious or contagious disease” at the time of application for the publication of his/her marriage. In fact, this section to the law was intended to protect the population as a whole.

In the 1950s, there were certainly a number of contagious and infectious diseases, which could not be easily cured but which could easily be transmitted to the population. People coming from the Far East, for instance, could introduce contagious diseases and the government felt it had to protect the population. Moreover, this law was implemented at an international level and Mauritius followed the trend.

What the law intended at the time was to protect citizens from diseases that could be spread because they were difficult to control. It is not the same with AIDS. What the government would be doing if it were to insert the words “or that he is not HIV/AIDS positive” after the word “disease”, is not only absurd but also an attempt to deprive the population of one fundamental right.

First, this approach is absurd because the government gives the impression that people need to be married to have sexual relations. Which era are we living in? Of course, our society, attached to traditions and values, advocates abstinence for youngsters. But the government is alone in believing that one is linked with the other. In addition, it treats all the adults of this country like children if it believes that they do not understand the implications of getting married to a HIV/AIDS positive person.

But the government’s naivety goes even further. AIDS can only be transmitted through blood and sexual transmission. The whole information campaign to make people conscious of AIDS consists in explaining that AIDS cannot be caught “in the air” but through irresponsible behaviour. There is a way to avoid transmitting the disease. People can protect themselves from AIDS.

By implementing this amendment, the government is attempting to prevent a citizen from having sexual relations with someone he/she chooses. This jeopardizes the most intimate right of a human being. How can government authorities interfere in citizens’ private lives by telling them whom to marry? If someone wants to have sexual relations with a HIV/AIDS positive person with full knowledge of the facts– which would be the case if they decide to get married in spite of the disease - how could law prohibit them? If both persons are aware of the situation, it’s up to them to make such a decision.

The government’s about-turn is reassuring. The prime minister seems to have realised that the amendment would undermine citizens’ freedom. “Although the government is aware that citizens should be protected from HIV/AIDS, I am also aware that the amendment proposed to the section 19 would prohibit the marriage between two consenting adults with full knowledge of the facts, that is to say that the Mauritian citizen is conscious of the fact that the foreigner is HIV/AIDS positive but nevertheless wants to marry him/her. I intend to study this provision again and may propose a more appropriate amendment.”

On the other hand, the minister of Health and Quality of life’s attitude is far more disturbing. His only comment on the issue so far is that he hopes such an amendment “will support the national campaign in the fight against HIV-AIDS, the more so as the prevalence of the disease is very low in the country”. Is the minister pretending not to know the real causes of the propagation of the disease? Doesn’t he know that most AIDS positive people are either prostitutes or prisoners? Doesn’t he know that the problem should be tackled at this level rather than implementing such ridiculous laws?