The unseen consequences of HIV criminalisation and its impact on marginalized communities

How civil commitment can ensnare people prosecuted under HIV criminalization

By
Robert Suttle

TheBody recently published, “We Keep Ignoring HIV Criminalization,” an article that addressed the lack of attention given to HIV criminalization laws.

These laws criminalize people living with HIV for a range of actions―such as having sex without first disclosing their serostatus―often, even when they are virally suppressed and therefore incapable of transmitting the virus. As is always the case, ignorance of the law is no defense against it.

In some states, HIV criminalization laws punish people living with HIV for biting or spitting even though, once again, these acts cannot transmit the virus. But losing one’s freedom under these laws doesn’t stop at simple prosecution. In some states, people prosecuted under these laws are required to register on state sex-offender registries, even when no sexual assault has taken place.

It should be noted that prosecuting and equating people living with HIV with rapists and other violent sexual assailants does nothing to decrease HIV transmissions. Rather, as “We Keep Ignoring HIV Criminalization” notes, these harsh measures promulgate stigma, possibly discourage people from getting tested, and place targets on the foreheads of anyone living with the virus.

Beyond this, part of what makes HIV criminalization laws so insidious is that they have additional components to them that can destroy a person’s life in ways that few people are aware of—until they’ve been prosecuted and deemed a “sexually dangerous person” by the state. This is called civil commitment and can keep a person imprisoned indefinitely without the basis of a new offense.

To help shed light on this shadowy form of incarceration and what can happen to people who have been prosecuted for HIV criminalization, TheBody spoke with two members of the Center for HIV Law and Policy: staff attorney Kae Greenberg (pronouns he/him), and policy and advocacy manager Amir Sadeghi (pronouns he/him).

Robert Suttle: The Prison Policy Initiative recently published, “What Is Civil Commitment?” Can you speak about how it can be applied to HIV criminalization, especially when sex offense has been included in the prosecution?

Amir Sadeghi: I’m so glad we’re talking about this. People across the country have been wrestling with this because 20 states have these laws in place. Civil commitment is a system of civil laws that detain people convicted of certain sex offenses long after serving their criminal sentences. This kind of state custody and detention happens on top of somebody’s criminal sentence.

Suttle: So basically an added punishment after one has “repaid their debt to society.” Some people might look at this and celebrate. How do you talk about this with people who are opposed to eliminating these laws?

Sadeghi: I think about questions that people usually ask prison abolitionists: What are you going to do about sexual violence? What are you going to do about these really hard cases?

I think the most important thing I want to foreground in discussions about sex offense civil commitment is that I don’t downplay the harm of sexual violence. It’s a deeply personal and real thing that happens in our society.

However, it is unclear that detaining people with very little due process has any measurable or meaningful impact on reducing gender-based violence and sexual violence. And actually, there’s been a huge mobilization of survivor-led movements and organizations who have begun to condemn harsh responses that happen in their name. For instance: sex-offense civil commitment, sex-offense registries, detention, and state violence.

I think that the history of laws that punish people long after their criminal sentence via sex-offense civil commitment [comes from] highly publicized cases about sexual violence [and has] motivated politicians and the public to react very strongly against these cases. It has created a very draconian system of facilities that many advocates and people who’ve been in sex-offense civil commitment themselves call shadow prisons.

Kae Greenberg: I want to clarify something about people serving or being punished long after their crimes. People are incarcerated because they have been convicted or have pleaded guilty to a crime. But they are in civil commitment because they have been deemed a potential [risk] of reoffending in some way or incapable of controlling themselves. It’s essentially some dystopian RoboCop or Judge Dredd situation where they’re trying to predict whether or not you will potentially commit a future serious crime and, therefore, lock you away from society just in case.

When we talk about the minimal protections in the criminal justice system, like the standard of proof or reasonable doubt, we know that’s a very high standard, hypothetically. Something that would stop you or cause you to make an important life decision. Civil commitment is a much lower standard of proof; it’s just beyond 50%. We only know a little about what happens in these hearings because they are not open to the public.

What’s used is the speculation of mental health practitioners, and I’m not trying to disparage the mental health community. I’m a big proponent of mental health practitioners, but we’re talking about having someone confined indefinitely for something they “might do.” There is potentially no end to this. It’s until [the state] decides that you’re done.

Suttle: Let’s address the elephant in the room: Nushawn Williams. Where do things stand with his ongoing detainment related to the civil commitment in New York?

Sadeghi: Many people know that the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP) has filed amicus briefs supporting Nushawn Williams in the past. We are a proud member of the Free Nushawn Coalition, which was founded by Brian C. Jones and Davina Connor, who I think a lot of HIV activists know warmly and lovingly.

The New York State Department of Health cooperated with prosecutors in the case to criminalize Nushawn Williams. Why did they do this? Because his HIV status and race were weaponized against him. Newspapers called Nushawn an AIDS monster, an AIDS predator. Then-Mayor [of New York City] Rudy Giuliani said he wanted Nushawn Williams tried for, quote, “attempted murder or worse.” There was a horrific stigmatizing frenzy to lock him up and throw away the key.

Nushawn pled guilty in 1999 to statutory rape and reckless endangerment and served his maximum criminal sentence relating to that plea agreement. But in 2010, his release from Wende Correctional Facility in upstate New York was blocked by then–Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who filed an Article 10 Mental Hygiene Law petition to have Nushawn civilly committed. I think the frenzy and racist spectacle that was made to paint Nushawn as a monster makes it clear that his HIV status and race are major factors in what the state decided to do.

Editor’s note: An example of this spectacle is that two corrections officers reported that Williams “stated that he intended to continue that behavior [sex without sharing his HIV status] upon his release, specifically referencing underage girls”―an absurd and unlikely contention when one considers that such a statement would expose him to undue scrutiny as well as the very punitive treatment he is currently experiencing. In its explanation for why Williams is still detained, the state lists his prior substance use, sexual offenses, prison record prior to 2006, and his “failure to complete sex offender treatment,” without detailing what completion entails. Taken as a whole, it is clear that the state unfairly views Williams as the person he was when he entered prison 24 years ago.

I would just like to let folks know that Nushawn is still in state custody today, well over a decade beyond his maximum criminal sentence. And there is no end in sight to his civil commitment. Many people, especially people living with HIV, were rightfully dismayed and disturbed by the prosecution and the decision to civilly commit him. That has brought, I think, a lot of energy and activism to addressing the systemic issue of sex-offense civil commitment. For instance, Black men in New York are nearly two times more likely to be civilly committed than white men.

Suttle: When you talk about detainment, this is in a civil commitment facility. How do they look? Are they different from prisons?

Sadeghi: They have iron-clanging doors. They are surrounded by barbed wire. You are heavily surveilled and subjected to constant searches. They look like prisons because they are prisons. And people are not being successfully or meaningfully treated. People are being detained and punished, often as political prisoners.

So, you don’t have a lot of the protections afforded by the safeguards of the criminal legal system because you are not in criminal custody anymore. You are a “patient” being “treated” in a “secured treatment facility.”

Suttle: The idea that this is being done against a person’s will is obviously troubling. But how do you respond to people who diminish treatment for a sexual offense as being “not so bad?”

Greenberg: The idea of sex-offender “treatment” is very complicated. If one meaningfully engages in some treatment and talks about anything that could potentially (A) allude to their being a risk to others or (B) shows they engaged in some other potentially criminal activity, they could find themself facing new charges or extended civil commitment―just because they were trying to engage in this treatment honestly.

Being engaged in this kind of sex-offender rehabilitation and treatment is kind of a sword of Damocles. One needs to engage in it enough socially. But, potentially, if one engages with full force, they might be putting themself at further risk of consequence. I join with Amir in saying I’m not trying to minimize sexual violence or what the victims of sexual violence have gone through. But it also scares me to live in a society where we lock up people for something they haven’t done.

If we want to talk about how this is tied to other systems―they’re trying to roll out all kinds of sentencing algorithms to determine what someone’s bail should be. What’s scary is it’s all about whether there’s a scientific way to decide who will recidivate and essentially plan to punish people for future crimes [they might not commit]. Ruha Benjamin has done a lot of writing about this, showing how racist and awful these algorithms and sentencing are. Civil commitment is tied to other larger systems throughout the criminal legal system.

Suttle: Would you say that’s why marginalized groups or people should be concerned about this?

Sadeghi: Yes. It’s a really important issue at the intersection of criminalizing sex identity, class, race, and beyond. Research by the Williams Institute on sex-offense civil commitment has shown that Black men are two times more likely than their white peers to be civilly committed after they’ve already served their criminal sentences.

If you think about sexual violence and you find yourself overwhelmed with a sense that people are irredeemable and need to be warehoused in a cage indefinitely, I’d like you to reflect on how that same mentality and rhetoric has often been used to justify HIV criminalization. HIV criminalization laws are often defended and justified by arguments that they prevent intimate partner violence and sexual violence.

But, in reality, we know that women living with HIV have higher rates of experiencing sexual violence. And that women living with HIV are overwhelmingly overrepresented in arrests and prosecutions of people targeted because of their health status as people living with HIV. So I think when we recognize the truth about HIV, health, and criminalization, we can start to understand the rationale that has gone into justifying detaining people. And then we can think about how the state has used these instruments to target and punish “undesirable people,” who are often also suffering in the middle of an axis of different kinds of marginalization.

Again, I think it’s important to note that networks of survivors of sexual violence think it’s ridiculous to confront unconsensual acts of violence with unconsensual treatment and state violence. And we have to take that seriously.

Suttle: Going back to Nushawn, is there anything that people can do to support him or get involved in the coalition to end civil commitment in New York?

Sadeghi: There is a burgeoning campaign of sexual survivor–led movements, people living with HIV, and racial justice advocates. If you’re feeling animated and ready to challenge these draconian systems that target and criminalize and incarcerate people, please reach out to us at CHLP. We’d love to work with you to challenge and end sex-offense civil commitment and other harsh policies that target, criminalize, and incarcerate folks who have been historically marginalized.

Suttle: What is your hope for the future of health and human rights for communities most affected by these issues?

Greenberg: To a certain extent, my hope combines two parts of the question. Health is seen as a human role and not limited by access. As awful as things are―following the Dobbs decision―we’ve also been presented with an opportunity to reframe some of these issues. So instead of dealing with individual access, individual rights to privacy, individual concerns, we can reframe them as public health concerns and about a right to health. We’ve been stripped down to the bare bones, but I’m holding on to that right now. In terms of hope, we can build up in a way that will reach and impact people who haven’t previously had access to meaningful health care and health.

Sadeghi: Over the years, I’ve observed that in the face of this kind of injustice and stigma, it is so important to build power from the bottom up and by cross-movement organizing. I think we, as HIV advocates and people working in the HIV anti-criminalization space, really need to deepen our relationships, partnerships, and accountability to sex worker–led groups, advocacy groups, sex work decriminalization groups, racial justice groups, and prison industrial complex (PIC) abolitionists.

To do that, we need to partner with and build power with these very communities and people who are most likely to be criminalized because of their health status. I’m excited about that new direction. I think I feel it in our movement that we are going there. And I’m looking forward to seeing what happens over the next few years.

Robert Suttle:  Robert Suttle is a New York City-based advocacy consultant and movement leader in the global HIV community with expertise in decriminalization, human rights, and the intersection between equity and social justice.

Russia: Court finds refusal to let migrant woman stay in Russia because of her HIV status unlawful

Court in Krasnodar invalidates refusal to allow a foreigner with HIV to stay in Russia

Translated via Deepl.com. For original article in Russian, please scroll down.

The Krasnodar Territory Department of the Russian Federal Consumer Rights Protection and Human Health Control Service decided that Uzbek citizen X. was undesirable in Russia because of her HIV positive status. The Leninskiy Court in Krasnodar found the ban discriminatory and unlawful.

The foreigner went to court to challenge the decision to ban her from staying in Russia, pointing out that her parents, brother and sister reside in Russia and have Russian citizenship, and she has never violated the law. When Rosia appealed to Rospotrebnadzor to cancel the decision, they replied that the procedure for cancellation or suspension under this category was not regulated by law and that the contested decision could only be cancelled on the basis of a court decision.

The court found that under the law On the Prevention of the Spread of Disease Caused by HIV in the Russian Federation, foreigners and stateless persons with such status may stay in the country if they do not violate administrative and criminal law. The Russian Constitutional Court has also confirmed the illegality of such restrictions.

As a result, the Leninskiy Court in Krasnodar ordered the regional department of Rospotrebnadzor to reverse the decision on the undesirability of the Uzbekistani citizen, who is now allowed to enter the country.

Суд в Краснодаре признал незаконным отказ во въезде в Россию иностранке с ВИЧ

Управление Роспотребнадзора по Краснодарскому краю приняло решение о нежелательности нахождения в России гражданки Узбекистана Р.Р. из-за ее положительного ВИЧ-статуса. Ленинский суд Краснодара признал запрет дискриминационным и незаконным.

Иностранка обратилась в суд, оспаривая решение о запрете пребывания в России, указав: ее родители, брат и сестра проживают в России и имеют российское гражданство, она ни разу не нарушала законодательство. Когда Розия обратилась в Роспотребнадзор с требованием отменить решение, там ответили – порядок отмены или приостановления по этой категории законодательно не урегулирован и отмена оспариваемого решения возможна только на основании решения суда.

Суд установил, что по закону “О предупреждении распространения в Российской Федерации заболевания, вызываемого ВИЧ” иностранцы и лица без гражданства с подобным статусом могут находиться в стране, если не нарушают административное и уголовное законодательство. Незаконность такого ограничения подтверждает и Конституционный суд России.

В итоге Ленинский суд Краснодара обязал региональное управление Роспотребнадзора отменить решение о нежелательности пребывания гражданки Узбекистана, которой теперь разрешен въезд в страну.

US: Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) issues resolution on Molecular HIV Surveillance and Cluster Detection

PACHA Unanimously Approves Resolution to Create Safeguards for People Living with HIV

PACHA UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES RESOLUTION TO CREATE SAFEGUARDS FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV

Directs CDC to Adapt Surveillance Activities to Better Protect Human Rights for Vulnerable Communities

October 18, 2022–PWN commends and applauds the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) for their leadership in unanimously passing an historic resolution that is critical to protecting the human rights and dignity of people living with HIV, the Resolution on Molecular HIV Surveillance and Cluster Detection Response.

This resolution responds to concerns raised by public health officials and community advocates, especially networks of people living with HIV and human rights and data privacy experts, and urges the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to change their guidance on cluster detection and response (CDR) activities. Specifically, the resolution clearly and forcefully recommends that the CDC direct jurisdictions funded for such activities adapt their implementation of CDR to account for local conditions, including health data privacy protections and laws criminalizing people living with HIV.

“Basically, PACHA told the CDC that local context matters: if jurisdictions do not have adequate safeguards to protect the human rights and privacy of people living with HIV, the CDC must allow for a moratorium on CDR activities,” said Kelly Flannery, policy director at Positive Women’s Network-USA. “There is still room to create more robust protections for people living with HIV, such as informed consent standards. Going forward, we must ensure that there are no further developments and integration of new public health surveillance technologies impacting people living with HIV absent community input, oversight, and specifically involvement from networks of PLHIV.”

In the resolution, PACHA also urged CDC to work in partnership with networks of people living with HIV to create a stronger system of informed consent around the use of molecular HIV surveillance data. U.S.-based networks of PLHIV have been sounding the alarm about molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) since 2018, when the federal government first required that states and jurisdictions scale up the use of molecular surveillance technologies and activities as a condition of HIV prevention funding. By 2019, MHS was named one of the core pillars of the federal “End the HIV Epidemic” (EHE) Plan.

“As a result of massive mobilization and outcry by networks of people living with HIV and our allies, yesterday, we finally saw a response addressing community concerns,” said Venita Ray, co-executive director of Positive Women’s Network-USA. “Now it’s time for the CDC to take swift action to implement the recommendations from PACHA and networks of PLHIV.”

This resolution is a tremendous step forward for communities that are dually most impacted by HIV and by surveillance and policing – especially Black, Indigenous and People of Color, migrants, queer and transgender people, people who use drugs, those who work in in the sex trade, and those with the least access to quality, affordable healthcare. We are deeply appreciative to PACHA leadership and to the PACHA Stigma and Disparities Subcommittee for their tremendous efforts in response to concerns from networks of people living with HIV.

Now that it has now been unanimously approved by PACHA, what happens next will speak to the character and integrity of the CDC. Failing to implement these recommendations would represent an egregious breach of public trust. We will be closely monitoring the adoption of these important recommendations throughout the federal response.

The full PACHA resolution is available here.

Canada: Federal government must review past criminal cases of HIV nondisclosure for possible wrongful convictions

Ottawa urged to review past HIV cases for wrongful convictions

Canada has been described as a “global hot spot” by advocacy groups for HIV nondisclosure prosecutions. One lawyer hopes to change that.

The federal government must review past criminal cases of HIV nondisclosure for possible wrongful convictions, says the president of Ontario’s Criminal Lawyers’ Association.

Such a review would highlight the pressing need for a permanent commission to proactively review wrongful convictions in all cases, said Daniel Brown — something that a panel of retired judges recommended to the government, but which has yet to take shape.

“Yes, we want the government to carefully consider how this commission should be established, but they’ve had more than enough time to get this commission off the ground,” Brown said, “and if the government was motivated to see a wrongful conviction commission, it would exist already.”

Brown was speaking in the wake of the recent successful appeal of his firm’s client, Jennifer Murphy.

She had been convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 2013 for not disclosing her HIV-positive status in a consensual sexual encounter, despite having a low viral load due to antiretroviral medication which made it impossible for her to transmit the virus.

Canadian law requires an individual living with HIV to disclose their status to a sexual partner if there is a realistic possibility of transmission. At the time of Murphy’s conviction, it was generally understood within the legal system that disclosure was not necessary if the individual had both a low viral load and used a condom. No condom was used in the Murphy case.

The federal government says it wants to reform the law around nondisclosure, recognizing that a low viral load alone means there can be no realistic possibility of transmission. Consultations with advocacy groups are set to take place this month.

Canada has been described as a “global hot spot” by advocacy groups for HIV nondisclosure prosecutions, with more than 220 by the end of last year. Individuals are usually convicted of the crime of aggravated sexual assault, which carries a prison sentence and mandatory registration on the sex offenders registry.

Brown said there needs to be a plan to review those cases for circumstances similar to Murphy’s, where individuals had been convicted of a serious criminal offence despite being unable to transmit the virus — in other words, convicted because the law had not caught up with the science.

Reviewing wrongful convictions is also one of the four main demands put to the government in a statement released this year by the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization and signed by dozens of organizations.

Without commenting on specific cases, a spokesperson for Justice Minister David Lametti pointed out that individuals can appeal their case if they believe there has been an error. “Many errors and miscarriages of justice are corrected by appeal courts across the country,” said Chantalle Aubertin.

But Brown said that’s an “exhaustive and expensive” process, even more so for individuals convicted for HIV nondisclosure, who may already face stigma along with barriers to employment due to having a criminal record. It’s not a process they can navigate on their own, he said.

In the Murphy case, Brown said she had to file a formal motion seeking an extension of time to bring her appeal, retain an infectious diseases expert, and have lawyers spend multiple days arguing over admissibility of evidence.

“It was a lengthy process that lasted well over three years and an expensive one as well, even with lawyers who were prepared to donate their time for free,” Brown said.

“Simply saying that people can take their case before the appeal courts fails to recognize those barriers that exist, and that’s why it’s important that a wrongful conviction review be created to address these concerns.”

Under the current wrongful conviction review process, once an individual convicted of any crime has exhausted all of their rights to appeal, they can request that their case be reviewed by a special group at the justice department — a process that can take years. The minister then ultimately decides whether the application should be granted or dismissed.

“This is the process now, and it is one we accept needs to be improved,” Aubertin said.

Last year, a report to the government from former judges Harry LaForme and Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré recommended the creation of an independent commission to proactively review cases that might have resulted in wrongful convictions, saying such a body was “urgently required.”

Aubertin said Lametti is “fully committed” to the creation of a commission, and that the policy work necessary to create it is underway.

“Minister Lametti would like the commission ready to launch by the end of his mandate — but it is important that we take the time to do this properly. Too much is at stake,” she said.

When law and science part ways: the criminalization of breastfeeding by women living with HIV

The HIV Justice Network (HJN) has been monitoring a disturbing phenomenon — at least 12 women living with HIV have faced criminal prosecution in relation to breastfeeding or comfort nursing.  

In addition, women living with HIV have been threatened with punitive public health processes and child protection interventions for breastfeeding their children in multiple countries.

To bring this important issue to the attention of women’s health experts and advocates, HJN worked with our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners to write a paper for a Special Collection on Women’s Health and HIV for the peer-reviewed, open access journal Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Diseases.     

In “When law and science part ways: the criminalization of breastfeeding by women living with HIV,” published last week, Alison Symington (HJN’s Senior Policy Analyst), Nyasha Chingore-Munazvo (Programmes Lead, AIDS and Rights Alliance of Southern Africa) and Svitlana Moroz (Chair of the Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS) place the criminalisation of women with HIV for breastfeeding within the context of current medical recommendations and cultural views of breastfeeding. They review the criminal cases against women living with HIV for breastfeeding around the globe, examine the injustice of these prosecutions, and provide recommendations for decriminalisation.

This Special Collection includes papers addressing a wide range of health issues impacting women with HIV. According to lead author Alison Symington, “We felt it was important to submit a paper on breastfeeding and HIV criminalisation because so few people are aware of these horrible cases. Healthcare providers have an important role to play in protecting women from punitive actions and providing them with information and support so that they can make the best decisions for themselves and their children.”

To make the paper even more widely accessible, HJN has provided translations into French, Russian and Spanish.

It is HJN’s aim to collaborate with advocates, researchers, service providers, organisations and community members around the world to raise awareness and prevent further unjust prosecutions against women living with HIV who breastfeed or comfort nurse. We are therefore grateful to both the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation and the Robert Carr Fund for their financial support for this work.

Further resources

Mwayi’s Story is a short film about courage, and about women standing up for their rights. The film is based on a real case in Malawi and the subsequent successful advocacy to prevent an HIV criminalisation statute being passed. The full story of the woman who was prosecuted for briefly breastfeeding another woman’s baby is told in an HJN feature, It Takes More Than A Village to End HIV Criminalisation, by Sally Cameron, based on a report by Peter Gwazayani, Edna Tembo and Charity Mkona.

 

 

Canada: Ruling from Ontario court of appeal opens the door for other people with HIV to seek to have their convictions overturned

‘I was made out to be a monster’: With her conviction for not disclosing her HIV status now overturned, one woman wants Canada’s laws to change

Jennifer Murphy was convicted for not disclosing her HIV status to a sexual partner, despite being unable to transmit the virus.

When Jennifer Murphy was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault, her face was splashed all over the news — her life changed due to a conviction that has now been overturned.

The 2013 conviction in a Barrie, Ont. courtroom was for not disclosing her HIV-positive status to a sexual partner in a consensual encounter. At the time, she had an undetectable viral load thanks to medication, and was therefore unable to transmit the virus.

“I was made out to be a monster,” she said in a statement to the Star last week.

Murphy was sentenced to more than three years in prison, minus 15 months for time served in pre-sentence custody.

“It was all over the news and my family and friends had to read that and feel the pain and agony,” she said. “They had to worry about their daughter or their mother and what would happen to her.”

Canadian law requires an individual living with HIV to disclose their status to a sexual partner if there is a realistic possibility of transmission. At the time of Murphy’s conviction, it was generally understood within the legal system that disclosure was not necessary if the individual had both a low viral load and used a condom. No condom was used in the Murphy case.

Earlier this month, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Murphy’s conviction and entered an acquittal, accepting fresh expert evidence that Murphy’s undetectable viral load meant there was no realistic possibility of transmission of the virus.

The decision opens the door for other people with HIV in Ontario, found guilty in situations similar to Murphy’s, to seek to have their convictions overturned.

“I want them to get justice, too,” she said.

The ruling also comes as the federal government plans to reform the law on HIV nondisclosure, impacting the whole country — a move advocates hope will see the justice system finally recognize that the science has evolved around HIV, and that a person with an undetectable viral load simply cannot transmit the virus.

They say the ongoing criminalization of HIV nondisclosure continues to perpetuate stigma against people living with HIV.

“The community has been calling on the government to act for years,” said Alexander McClelland, assistant professor at the Institute of criminology and criminal justice at Carleton University, and a member of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization.

“People living with HIV, legal experts, have been calling out the heinous record of Canada being a leading country in the world for criminalizing HIV nondisclosure.”

There are a number of reasons why a person doesn’t disclose their HIV status to a sexual partner, he said, including fear of violence.

“Our faces are on the covers of newspapers framed as violent perpetrators,” he said. “As someone who has done research on this, I can tell you nothing is further from the truth. People living with HIV want to protect their partners, they want to protect themselves, they want to live lawfully and freely and be able to have positive, healthy sex lives.”

As Murphy put it, “Right now, you can be convicted despite doing everything right — taking medication and suppressing your viral load.”

After several months of community consultation, the coalition released its second consensus statement in July, calling for changes to the Criminal Code that would limit prosecutions to the “very rare” instance where there was intentional, actual transmission of the virus.

The statement, signed by dozens of organizations, describes Canada as a “global hot spot” for nondisclosure prosecutions, saying there had been more than 220 by the end of last year, with the Black, Indigenous and gay communities being disproportionately affected.

There are no HIV-specific offences in the Criminal Code. The consensus statement points out that police and prosecutors will typically use the charge of aggravated sexual assault in nondisclosure cases, which carries a maximum prison term of life, mandatory designation as a sex offender, and “almost certain deportation” for non-citizens.

Murphy was required to take sex offender counselling in prison, “which was degrading and humiliating,” and she also had to deal with other inmates also knowing about her case.

“The outside world was judging me while the inside world was doing the same,” she said. “I would put myself in segregation just to get away from everyone.”

The federal government announced at the end of July that it will hold consultations in October “on how best to modernize the criminal justice system’s response to nondisclosure of HIV status” given the scientific evidence on sexual transmission of HIV.

Faced with criticism as to whether further consultation is necessary, Justice Minister David Lametti said in an interview last week it will not be lengthy, but rather “focused and targeted” with expert advocacy groups.

“I’m going to try to put an end, a positive end, to all of this as soon as possible,” he said. “No one should underestimate my good faith on this.”

After studying the issue, the House of Commons standing committee on justice recommended in 2019 that the government create a specific Criminal Code offence for actual transmission of infectious diseases, including HIV. The coalition is against adding an HIV-specific offence to the code for fear of perpetuating further stigma.

“I understand very well the point that such an offence would, in all likelihood, lead to continued stigmatization of people living with HIV and that is something we do not want to do,” Lametti said.

The coalition is calling for Criminal Code reform that would prohibit the ability to prosecute nondisclosure cases under sexual assault offences, and to limit the use of any other offence to intentional, actual transmission of the virus, while stating that the use of the criminal law should be a measure of last resort.

“The science around HIV has evolved, we know more now,” Lametti said. “We know that there’s stigma that’s been attached, that sexual assault laws are not appropriate and cumbersome and lead to results that are frankly unjust.”

An undetectable viral load can be achieved by taking medication, and essentially means “you cannot see the virus based on the conventional systems that we have to detect it,” said infectious diseases physician Dr. Isaac Bogoch. He highlighted a slogan that has gained much traction in recent years: U = U, undetectable equals untransmittable.

“It’s not only scientifically accurate, but it’s a way that we can help destigmatize HIV infection because it’s simple, it’s easy to understand, and it’s universal,” said Bogoch, a physician with the HIV Clinic at Toronto General Hospital.

“These are individuals who will not be able to transmit HIV to others. They just won’t.”

It was a 2012 Supreme Court of Canada decision known as R. v. Mabior that found a low viral load and condom were required to avoid prosecution for HIV nondisclosure, and it was that standard that was applied to Murphy’s case in 2013. But the top court also said the double requirement “does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment.”

Murphy’s appeal lawyer, Colleen McKeown, asked the Court of Appeal to “identify a new set of circumstances” in which there’s no realistic possibility of transmission — and therefore disclosure is not necessary — namely that the person has a suppressed viral load and is taking antiretroviral medication. The court’s ruling on that issue is pending.

“I hope that it offers a path forward for people who might be in a similar situation to see their convictions overturned as well,” McKeown said of the Murphy appeal. She said even individuals who pleaded guilty when the “legal landscape” was different could take steps to see if they could get their convictions overturned.

In the years since the Mabior decision, at least four provinces — Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta — have adopted a mix of official guidelines and unofficial policies to curb HIV nondisclosure prosecutions.

In the territories, where federal prosecutors handle criminal cases, Crown attorneys have been told not to prosecute if there is an undetectable viral load, and to “generally” not prosecute where a condom was used or if the person engaged only in oral sex, even if the viral load was not suppressed.

In Ontario, Crowns were instructed through provincial guidelines in 2017 not to prosecute if the individual is on medication and had an undetectable viral load for at least six months, but is silent on condom use alone.

“The result of prosecutorial guidance is you get an inconsistent approach across Canada,” said India Annamanthadoo, policy analyst at the HIV Legal Network and member of the coalition. “Why we’re advocating for Criminal Code reform is that it will be a consistent approach across Canada.”

McClelland added that “being someone living with HIV, having an inconsistent understanding or uncertainty about what I could be prosecuted with and where, is a completely unreasonable way to live a life in Canada as a Canadian resident.”

The coalition is also calling on the government to end the deportation of non-citizens following a conviction, and to review past convictions.

“There are a lot of people who were convicted in discriminatory and unscientific circumstances and those convictions need to be reviewed,” said Annamanthadoo, “so people do not have to live under the label of a criminal and a sex offender.”

Murphy said she’s still absorbing the impact of the Court of Appeal’s decision.

“I am worried that, even with my conviction overturned, there will still be people who will judge me. I shouldn’t have to live with it, but I do,” she said. “It doesn’t erase the stories on the internet. All the negative publicity will still be there.”

But she said it means she gets to focus on changing the law, urging the federal government to take action and finally provide some certainty to people living with HIV.

“It’s a human rights issue. It discriminates against people who have an illness,” she said.

“I want the public to know that people with a suppressed viral load pose no threat to anyone.”

 

United Nations Development Program continues to advocate for the global decriminalization of HIV

Decriminalization of HIV is ‘Scientifically Proven and Morally Correct’

Across the globe, one hundred and thirty-four countries are criminalized or prosecuted due to criminal laws against HIV transmission, non-disclosure and exposure. Lower rates of HIV treatment and viral suppression are present and more likely in those countries that criminalize the virus. In a recent article by Mandeep Dhaliwal, director of the HIV and Health Group for the United Nations Development Program, states that the decriminalization of HIV is “scientifically proven and morally correct.”

Laws that target people living with HIV hinder the progress of the United Nations’ political declaration to ends AIDS by 2030, which is supported by 165 countries.

Dhaliwal explains that criminalization is constructively harmful, cost lives, and wastes money. HIV criminalization targets fixed populations that include sex workers, men that have sex with men, transgender people, needle users and their partners, and other marginalized groups. In 2021, these groups, combined, accounted for 70 percent of new HIV cases.

In order to reach the goal to end HIV as a public health threat, the idea to achieve “10-10-10.” The 10-10-10 initiative is a set of targets that encourages countries to repeal punitive laws and policies in conflict with ending stigma, discrimination, and gender-based violence.

Specifically the targets would need to achieve: “less than 10 percent of people living with HIV and key populations experiencing stigma and discrimination; less than 10 percent of people living with HIV, women and girls, and key populations experiencing gender-based inequalities and gender-based violence; and less than 10 percent of countries with legal and policy environments that deny or limit access to HIV services.”

Dhaliwal also helped assemble the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, which works to help countries and their communities end discriminatory laws that wrongfully punish people, perpetuate illness and poverty, and prevent the progress of ending HIV.

Pressure to produce more content with fewer staff hinders journalists ability to improve their media coverage of HIV criminalisation

Journalists’ working conditions foster stigmatising coverage of HIV criminalisation

For many years, HIV activists and researchers have criticised the stigmatising way that HIV criminalisation cases are covered in the mainstream press. However, an ethnographic study recently published in the Canadian Review of Sociology argues that the working conditions in which journalists now operate makes it extremely challenging for them to improve their reporting on HIV criminalisation.

With the shift to online news creating revenue challenges, newsrooms are under pressure to produce more content with fewer staff. This has resulted in journalists relying on police press releases as sources of news for crime stories, including HIV criminalisation. The author of the study argues that, without targeted efforts to disrupt the mainstream narrative on HIV criminalisation, “this type of newswork makes it likely that longstanding patterns of sensational, stigmatising news will persist.”

Previous studies highlight how reporting on HIV criminalisation often makes people living with HIV seem dangerous to society and exaggerates the risks of HIV transmission. Such messaging frequently relies on harmful gender and racial stereotypes and serves to increase stigma towards people living with HIV and other marginalised communities. It also has serious negative repercussions for those individuals involved in cases, making them ‘eternally googleable’ which can prevent them from gaining employment or housing.

HIV criminalisation laws in Canada are especially severe, with people living with HIV at risk of conviction for non-disclosure of their HIV status to sexual partners – even when transmission has not occurred.

Dr Colin Hastings of Concordia University in Canada wanted to understand how journalists go about writing stories on HIV criminalisation, with the hope that this might reveal opportunities for HIV activists and advocates to improve reporting on this topic. He therefore undertook ethnographic interviews with 20 journalists and one police communications representative. The interviews generally started with a question asking the participants to describe a typical workday and explored the conditions which influence their everyday activities.

Findings

The interviews revealed that the pressure on journalists to produce a constant flow of content across multiple platforms hinders their ability to conduct fact-checking or more in-depth investigation. A reporter described how he considers:

“Every hour as a deadline… so sometimes I’m like, ugh, this story could have been so much better had I had time to go through everything.”

In this context, repurposing ready-made text from other sources represents a quick and efficient strategy for producing content. When writing crime stories, this usually means relying on press releases issued by the police – whose communications departments are adept at ensuring that their texts flow easily into newsrooms.

An online web editor described how her work consisted of “copy and pasting it pretty much” while a reporter said:

“With the police, I just usually do the stuff they send out, they send a daily update of what’s happening on their side, the police side, and usually I take a look at that and re-write those.”

Many of the interviewees felt this was an unfortunate but inevitable fact of contemporary journalism, as they struggle to keep pace with the unrelenting online news cycle. Yet the interviews demonstrated how the reliance on police press releases means that it is not only information provided by the police but also the police’s perspective on an event that is repackaged as ‘news’.

A police communications representative mentioned in their interview that a key factor in the police’s decision to publish a press release about a case is whether they believe there is a threat to public safety. This threat is made clear by combining an individual’s name, photo, and personal information with descriptions of criminal charges they face and language emphasising the danger they pose – for example, “police are concerned there may be more victims”.

In the context of HIV criminalisation, this means equating non-disclosure of HIV with dangerous criminality. Journalists covering crime stories often do not have the experience, time, or resources to question this, as outlined by a veteran reporter:

“HIV non-disclosure was always covered as a crime if the police think it’s a crime… the cops say this is a crime, and you say oh god this is a crime, crime is bad, this person is a bad person.”

The language of public safety also serves as a signal to journalists that a case may be particularly newsworthy. A breaking news reporter said:

“They [the police] might say very clearly that there is a huge public safety element… Language like that is a really good indicator [of newsworthiness] for us.”

What determines newsworthiness is also directed by what is likely to be read and shared widely. ‘Good’ headlines are those that draw the highest volume of readers to the story. An experienced reporter named Lisa explained how this creates pressure to choose more salacious wording for headlines about HIV criminalisation:

“You can write two headlines for your story, and the [software] system will push them out there and then you can see which headline is attracting more clicks so that at a certain point you can just bail on the more boring headline and go to the salacious headline that’s working better.”

As well as the police press releases serving to provide journalists with ready-made sources of content, the police communications representative recognised the work of journalists as a cost-effective and time-efficient part of policing work:

“We now see regularly criminals surrendering shortly after we put their pictures up. And if you think about, our main account we reach thousands of people, but if a news organization with 1.75 million retweets, it means everyone in the city is going to get it… Out of all the stuff that we do, that’s the most satisfying because no one expects us to be able to get a homicide investigation to surrender, and these things are very expensive and very time consuming.”

Given that the police often reinforce social, racial, and economic inequities in society, this extension of their influence is likely to be perceived by many as a worrying development.

Conclusion

This study exposes how the pressure on journalists to produce a constant flow of online news content has reduced many to copying and pasting police press releases, since they have little time to investigate and provide further context. This results in journalists reproducing the perspective of the police in news coverage, which constructs people living with HIV as a threat to public safety.

Hastings notes that not all of the journalists interviewed felt comfortable with the reliance on police press releases as sources of news. Yet their working conditions have made it increasingly difficult for them to disrupt problematic news coverage.

While acknowledging the significant contributions already made by HIV activists to improving media coverage of HIV criminalisation stories, Hastings makes the following suggestions for activists’ efforts:

  • Producing texts (such as press releases) that can compete with those published by the police
  • Campaigning to update and reform journalistic style guides which reporters follow when crafting a story
  • Producing specialised guides for reporting on social justice issues
  • Supporting and investing in news organizations and alternative presses that practice slower, long-form journalism
  • Expanding the efforts of community-based organizations to produce their own messaging through independent publishing, social media campaigns, or in-person community forums
  • References

    Hastings C.  Writing for digital news about HIV criminalization in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology, online ahead of print, 7 February 2022. doi: 10.1111/cars.12374