GNP+ and the HIV Justice Network release ‘Advancing HIV Justice: a progress report of achievements and challenges in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation’

A new report released today by the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) and the HIV Justice Network highlights the tireless work of advocates around the world challenging inappropriate criminal laws and prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and transmission.

Advancing HIV Justice shows that advocates around the working to repeal, modernise or otherwise limit laws and policies that inappropriately regulate and punish people living with HIV have achieved considerable success. This is especially the case when policymakers or criminal justice system actors are open to learning more about scientific and medical advances in HIV prevention, treatment, care and support, and involve civil society – led by people living with HIV – to ensure that critical criminal law and human rights principles are followed.

“That is why we welcome the new, detailed guidance on limiting overly broad HIV criminalisation that was released last week by UNAIDS,” says Kevin Moody, International Coordinator and CEO of GNP+. “The guidance will help to continue advancing HIV justice, serving as a powerful new tool for people living with HIV, and those advocating on our behalf, in our work with policymakers and criminal justice system actors.”

Writing in the foreword, Susan Timberlake, Chief, Human Rights and Law Division, UNAIDS Secretariat, notes that Advancing HIV Justice “powerfully demonstrates that civil society advocacy on this issue is not only alive – it goes from strength to strength.”

In the 18-month period covered by the report (September 2011 to March 2013), significant advances were made in terms of:

building the global evidence base in order to better understand the ‘who, what, where, when and why’ of laws and prosecutions around the world;
generating persuasive social science that shows exactly why overly broad HIV criminalisation does more harm than good, often achieving exactly the opposite of what law- and policymakers intend in terms of public health and human rights;
challenging inappropriate or overly broad new laws in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and the United States;
advocating for law reform in Europe and the United States, including successful repeal in Denmark and modernisation of one of Switzerland’s two laws used to prosecute potential or perceived HIV exposure; and
addressing legal processes and enforcement, including the creation of prosecutorial guidelines in Scotland.

However, the report also highlights that the road to law and policy reform is not always straightforward or easy, due not only to complex intersections of laws, policies and practices, but also because of each country’s unique social, epidemiological and cultural contexts.

“Despite the many incremental successes of the past 18 months, more work and more funding is required to strengthen advocacy capacity,” says the HIV Justice Network’s co-ordinator, Edwin J Bernard, who co-authored the report with Sally Cameron. “HIV criminalisation is a complex issue. It entails a detailed understanding of diverse aspects of the criminal justice system; collection and analysis of evidence of the scope and impact of prosecutions across local and national boundaries; articulation and argument about complex moral and ethical issues of trust, blame and responsibility; and inclusion of HIV prevention and human rights priorities. Development of strategies against HIV criminalisation relevant to each individual jurisdiction requires time, effort, and the involvement of multidisciplinary experts.”

Advancing HIV Justice: A progress report of achievements and challenges in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation is available as a 52 page pdf that can be read or downloaded at: http://www.advancing.hivjustice.net

Canada: HIV groups upset because attorney general has no plans to consult them on prosecutorial guidelines

The Ontario government is writing guidelines for criminal prosecutions of HIV-positive people who don’t disclose their status before having sex, according to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Positive Women: Exposing Injustice

(45 min, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Canada, 2012)

Positive Women: Exposing Injustice is a 45-minute documentary film that tells the personal stories of four women living with HIV in Canada — a Quebecker who was charged for not telling her partner that she had HIV at the beginning of an ultimately abusive relationship, a young woman who chose not to pursue charges against the man who infected her, an Aboriginal woman who has personally faced extreme stigma and threats, and a Latina woman who describes the challenges of disclosure and intimate relationships for women living with HIV. Their stories are real, raw and from the heart, and tell the truth about what it’s like to live in a society that all-too-often criminalizes intimate behaviour between consenting adults and discriminates against those living with HIV. Legal experts, doctors, counsellors and support workers also lend their voices to challenge current Canadian laws that are letting down the very women they are meant to protect.

Produced and Directed by Alison Duke
Directors of Cinematography: Kim Derko and Robin Bain
Camera: Sean Black and Richard Chong
Composer and Sound Mixing: Derek Brin
Editor: Eugene Weis
Co-producers: Janet Butler-Mcphee, Cécile Kazatchkine and Alison Symington
Executive Producer: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Kenya: Advocates lobby to repeal HIV-specific law criminalising non-disclosure/'exposure'

SOME activists want a section of HIV/Aids Prevention and Control Act that criminalise willing infection of a person with the virus to be repealed. The activists said section 22-24 which say a person who is aware of being infected with HIV shall be prosecuted, a move they say will increase infection rate in the country.

Canada: Demand Ontario's Attorney General develop prosecutorial guidelines with input from the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure

Over the past two and a half years, you signed on to our campaign calling on the Attorney General to create prosecutorial guidelines to stop unjust prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure in Ontario. It worked. Earlier this month, the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) finally told us that they are “currently developing guidance for Crown counsel” and that the guidelines “should be finalized by the fall [of 2013].”

However, we can’t celebrate this news because MAG has made it clear that they are unwilling to meet with us to discuss the content of the guidelines. We are very concerned. Given the 2012 Supreme Court decisions that made the law less evidence-based and harsher, it is more important than ever that MAG meaningfully engages with CLHE on the content of the guidelines. The guidelines must be informed by current medical and scientific knowledge about HIV and the social contexts of living with HIV.

Sign our petition to Premier Wynne and the Attorney General. We are demanding an in-person meeting to discuss the content of the prosecutorial guidelines. The campaign for justice needs your support now more than ever.

Interview with Iowa’s Tami Haught on building a broad law reform coalition

Meet Tami Haught: Iowa’s Anti-Criminalization Advocate

Tami Haught explains how, with the support of CHAIN (the Community HIV/Hepatitis Advocates of Iowa Network) and hundreds of Iowans living with HIV, she helped build a broad coalition to reform Iowa’s HIV criminalization statute, Iowa Code 709C. Haught discusses the small victories that the coalition has won over the past year.

What is the current HIV-specific law in Iowa and how does it affect Iowans living with HIV?

The old joke in Iowa is that if you’re HIV-positive and you go to a bar, make sure to bring a notary public with you, that way you can have your disclosure letter notarized to prove that you did disclose your status before you had sex. But this law is no joke, because it has negative public health consequences.

Under Iowa’s Code 709C you may be subjected to prosecution if you cannot prove that you disclosed your positive status to a partner, regardless of intent, regardless of condom use, regardless of an undetectable viral load, regardless of transmission, and the sentences can be very severe.

What are the negative public health consequences of Iowa’s HIV criminalization law?

The latest research shows that HIV criminalization legislation, like Code 709C, discourages HIV testing, treatment and care, which works against the public health recommendations being proposed by experts.

Can you tell me about your work to repeal and reform this legislation?

The bill that was proposed eliminated the HIV-specific part of the current law by including hepatitis, tuberculosis and meningitis. The proposed law would also create a tiered system of sentencing, which maintains severe sentencing in cases of intentional transmission of HIV but allows lesser sentencing in cases of nondisclosure when a condom was used, when there was no intent, or when HIV was not transmitted.

We also included direct language in the bill about what “exposure” meant, based on the latest scientific research. For example, in over 30 years of research there has been no documented case in which saliva transmitted HIV–yet, inexplicably, people are still being prosecuted in many states for spitting.

But the bill didn’t quite get passed. What happened?

The reformed bill passed through Iowa’s bipartisan Senate Judiciary Subcommittee (3 to 0) and the Senate Judiciary Committee (8 to 3), and we were very close to getting the bill passed in the legislature, but at the last minute one of our allies changed sides and introduced an amendment that scuttled the bill. Still, we’ve had great support from Senator Matt McCoy, Senator Steve Sodders, Senator Charles Schneider, and many more members of Iowa’s legislature, and we’re very grateful for the assistance we received from Deputy Attorney General Eric Tabor, and Randy Mayer from Iowa’s Department of Public Health.

One lesson we’ve learned is to never assume who is on your side, because we have some great advocates, both Democrats and Republicans, who are fighting for us. So don’t look at the “D” or the “R” behind a name, because you never know the personal story or how someone may have been personally touched by HIV/AIDS.

Why do you feel personally mobilized by this bill?

Toward the end of my husband’s life, in the mid-1990s after both of us had been diagnosed, he became very scared of laws that prosecuted people for HIV exposure. He was afraid that I would charge him with criminal transmission–which I would have never done. But my husband eventually had a nervous breakdown and the thought of these HIV criminalization laws really started his downward spiral even faster, because they increased the stigma and shame and guilt that he felt after first being diagnosed.

What are some of the lessons that you’ve learned in Iowa that can be applied elsewhere?

For HIV-negative people not familiar with these laws, it takes them a while to understand the issues. When I conduct HIV criminalization forums, I usually show Sean Strub’s documentary HIV is Not a Crime. Just seeing Nick Rhoades, Robert Suttle, and Monique Moree tell their stories does a lot to reverse people’s prejudices and preconceptions. They begin to understand that people living with HIV are just like their neighbors and families.

In Iowa we’ve found that personal stories matter in changing people’s minds about HIV criminalization laws. One focus this year is to collect people’s stories to show that disclosure is not always easy, and that sometimes disclosure comes with consequences. Many HIV-positive people still fear that they’ll lose employment or housing if they tell the wrong person about their status. Even for me, it took six years after my husband’s death to talk openly about my status.

For advocates trying to reform HIV criminalization laws in other states, I’m sure people can learn from our successes and mistakes here in Iowa. Hopefully, sharing our experiences will help advocates in other states save time and money so that we can get these laws changed faster.

From The SERO Project’s Spring 2013 Newsletter

Spring News from The SERO Project

Sero Screenings and Community Events In recent months, Sero has hosted or participated in community events in Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Washington, DC. The image above was from a joint screening of Sero’s short film HIV is Not a Crime with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Networks feature documentary Positive Women: Exposing Injustice.

Botswana’s draconian Public Health Bill approved by Parliament, BONELA will challenge it as unconstitutional once President signs into law (Update 3)

Update: April 5th 2013

Very disappointing news from Botswana. The Public Health Bill – including all of its draconian provisions on HIV – has been approved by Parliament.

BONELA issued this press release last week just prior to the vote.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (MPs) ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN SAVE US FROM THE PROPOSED PUBLIC HEALTH BILL…..IT IS IN THEIR HANDS

We knew that the Public Health Bill will be back in Parliament for further debate. However, we had anticipated that the Ministry of Health would heed calls made by stakeholders such as BONELA, UNAIDS, WHO, SALC, AIDS Alliance, ARASA, Ditshwanelo and other concerned Batswana and make amendments to the bill, particularly on the controversial, offensive and invasive provisions.

To our utter shock, the Ministry of Health intends to make no changes to the bill at all; even with the benefit of information on best practices availed to them. This to us; is a clear case of indifference and a deliberate plan to violate people’s rights.

BONELA and its stakeholders have done all that is possible to raise awareness, especially to the general public who would be affected by this law. It is now up to MPs to propose and vote on the amendments.

If MPs fail or decide not to discharge that constitutional mandate, as concerned stakeholders, we would know that our MPs are happy to see people’s rights being violated-that they are happy to see Batswana being tested for HIV without their consent, happy to give doctors sole mandates on deciding when and what to do with patients without consultations.

We would also know that MPs by failing to do their duty are happy to see litigants in court pleading not to be tested for HIV because their government want them to. Moreover, we would know that our MPs are happy to place responsibilities of sexual matters ONLY on those who are HIV positive by agreeing with forceful disclosure to all potential sexual partners by people living with HIV even if they are using protection.

Lastly, our MPs will be happy to see that whoever seeks dental services is required to do an HIV test before such services are meted.

It is therefore, in the hands of MPs to exercise their power to propose and vote for a sound Public Health bill. It is in your hands……

According to this APA piece, published on Wednesday, the Bill was approved by parliament. BONELA is now waiting for Botswana President, Ian Khama, to sign the Bill into law before it can approach the High Court to challenge the offending clauses as unconstitutional.

Botswana’s Health Minister, Dr John Seakgosing on Tuesday said the Public Health Bill, which seeks among other things, to isolate people who infect others with sexually-transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS, while knowing their status, will apply to Members of Parliament, cabinet ministers and even the president.

He explained to APA in an interview that the Bill that was passed last week, will not apply only to ordinary citizens.

According to Seakgosing, if the president, ministers and legislators are found to be infecting others carelessly, they will be brought before the courts where the magistrate will take a decision to isolate them from the public.

While he explained that the Bill does not seek to empower medical practitioners to force clients to undergo tests, but Clause 104 (3) (b) provides that “the director or a person authorised by him may where necessary and reasonable, require a person or a category of persons to undergo an HIV test”. Clause 104 (4) then provides that “where a person required to undergo a test under Clause 104 (3) refuses to do so, the director may apply to a magistrate for an order requiring that person to undergo the test.”

But some HIV/AIDS activists are up in arms saying the Bill will reverse the gains achieved in fighting the HIV scourge as it encourages discrimination.

AIDS advocacy group Botswana Network on Ethics Law and HIV/AIDS (BONELA) says it intends to take the government to court over the Public Health Bill that has been approved by parliament.

BONELA director, Uyapo Ndadi, said in an interview that his organisation is only waiting for President Ian Khama to sign the Bill into law before it can approach the high court to challenge certain clauses in it as they are unconstitutional.

Update: December 14th 2012

The Public Health Hill has been shelved until next February thanks to the advocacy against the “outrageous” HIV-related provisions (see below) spearheaded by the Botswana Network on Ethics, Law and HIV/AIDS (BONELA). That’s the good news this morning, according to Uyapo Ndadi, BONELA’s Executive Director:

I am happy to inform you that the outrageous Public Health Bill has been shelved, at least until next year February when parliament resumes business. Our collective advocacy has helped to thwart cabinet’s plans to have the bill passed into law during this sitting.

I am happy to further inform you that UNAIDS has also written to our government to remove the draconian provisions from the bill.

It is now hoped that in the intervening months, BONELA and other human rights advocates will add to the pressure created by UNAIDS to make the Government see that in order to save face internationally, they must either substantially rewrite the Bill or drop it completely.

Update: December 11th

Disappointing and worrying news today from BONELA:

Parliament yesterday voted in favour of passing the Bill from the 2nd reading stage to the Committee stage. Amendments to the Bill may be made at the Committee stage. It means that our efforts to get the Minister to withdraw the bill for lack of consultation have failed. Our hope now is that Parliament will remove from the bill the draconian parts of it.

A report in BOPA daily news highlights the debate yesterday

The Member of Parliament for Lobatse, Mr Nehemiah Modubule says he does not support the Public Health Bill in its current state. Debating the bill in parliament on Thursday, Mr Modubule said it should first be put into perspective, as some of the clauses are contradictory. He argued that they would have a hard time trying to amend such clauses if the bill passes to the committee stage. He noted that consultations with some stakeholders such as Botswana Network on Law and AIDS (BONELA) were not done. Furthermore, he said, the minister of health should have done justice to the bill by deferring it for further consultations, as some clauses touch on customs and practices of Batswana.

In his contribution, the MP for Moshupa, Mr Mokgweetsi Masisi supported the bill, arguing that prevention and control of diseases is not peculiar to Botswana, more so that new communicable diseases continue to emerge. Mr Masisi said the bill conforms to international practices in terms of public health, adding that consultations had been done and they should not delay the bill.

Original post: December 10th

On Friday, Botswana’s Parliament debated the proposed Public Health Bill which contains some shocking and regressive HIV-related provisions that, according to a strongly-worded press release from the Botswana Network on Ethics, Law and HIV/AIDS (BONELA) “have no place in a democratic and modern day Botswana..that are counter-productive, discriminatory, unconstitutional and barbaric.”

The relevant passages of the Bill are available to download here (Botswana Public Health Bill 2012.pdf, 1.4MB)

Some of the most problematic provisions as highlighted by BONELA, are below.

Clause 104 (3) b – empowering medical practitioners to force their patients to undergo HIV tests without their consent.

The Director, or any person authorised by him or her, may, where necessary and reasonable require a person or a category of persons to undergo an HIV test.

Clause 105 (2) b – empowering doctors to test patients without their knowledge.

A medical practitioner responsible for the treatment of a person may conduct an HIV test without the consent of that person where — (b) the medical practitioner believes that such a test is clinically necessary or desirable in the interests of that person.

Clause 109 (3) – allowing surgeons or dentists to test a patient for HIV before deciding on whether to carry out a non-urgent procedure.

Where, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, nurse or dental practitioner, the surgical or dental procedure is not urgently required in respect of a person, the medical practitioner, nurse or dental practitioner may require the person to undergo an HIV test before carrying out that procedure.

Clause 116 (1) – mandating HIV disclosure to all potential sexual partners or care giver and allowing prosecution for placing another at risk.

A person who is aware of being infected with HIV or is carrying and is aware of carrying HIV antibodies shall — (a) take all reasonable measures and precautions to prevent the transmission of HIV to others; (b) inform, in advance, any sexual contact or care giver or person with whom sharp instruments are shared, of that fact; and (c) not place another person at risk of becoming infected with HIV.

Clause 116 (7) empowering doctors to disclose their patient’s HIV status to their sexual partner without their consent.

A medical practitioner who is responsible for the treatment of a person and who becomes aware that the person has not, after a reasonable opportunity [disclosed their HIV status] may, after consultation with an approved specialist medical practitioner, inform any sexual contact or care giver of that person of the HIV or HIV antibody status of that person.

Clause 116 (9-12) – limiting the right to freedom of movement for people with HIV without sufficient legal checks and balances.

(9) The Director or any officer representing the Director may, in writing, apply to a magistrate for an order where the Director reasonably believes that a person infected with HIV — (a) is not complying with this Part; b) knowingly or recklessly places another person at risk of becoming infected with HIV without the knowledge of that person of the infected person’s HIV status; or (c) is likely to continue the behaviour referred to in paragraph (b). (10) For the purpose of subsection (9), a magistrate may make any or all of the following orders — (a) an order that the person infected with HIV undergo such medical and psychological assessment as the Minister determines; (b) an order imposing restrictions on the person for a period not exceeding 28 days; or (c) an order requiring that the person be isolated and detained by a person, at a place and in the manner specified in the order for a period not exceeding 28 days. (11) In making an order in respect of a person under subsection (10), a magistrate shall take into account the following matters — (a) whether, arid by what method, the person transmitted HIV; (b) the seriousness of the risk of the person infecting other persons; (c) the past behaviour and likely future behaviour of the person; and (d) any other matter the magistrate considers relevant. (12) The Director may, in writing, apply to a magistrate to renew an order made under subsection (10) for a further period or periods not exceeding 28 days.

According to BONELA, the Bill appeared from out of the blue without any public consultation.

We are concerned by government attitude and tendency of introducing Bills in Parliament and debating them before engaging all stakeholders, including the civil society and Batswana as a whole. We know that the Botswana Health Professions Council is not aware of this Bill for they have not been consulted on it. As custodians of health we expect them to be intimately involved as this Bill is going to affect the way they work. This bill is significant in the lives of all of us and we therefore call upon [Minister of Health] Reverend Dr. John G.N. Seakgosing [contactable via phone on +267313632521] to withdraw it and if he refuses to, we urge MPs to reject it.

Although the Bill was discussed last Friday – and a copy of the Bill obtained only then – Parliament adjourned before voting, but will continue this week. Action, therefore, is urgently required.

Advocates Urge Repeal of U.S. Laws Criminalizing HIV

Advocates Urge Repeal of U.S. Laws Criminalizing HIV The producer of a new documentary about criminalizing those with HIV summed up such laws’ effects at a public showing of the film. “These horrendous punishments are vastly disproportionate to the crime,” said the film’s producer, Sero Project founder Sean Strub.

Iowa legislators introduce HIV de-criminalization bill – The Daily Iowan

State lawmakers introduced a bill this week that, if passed, would change the human immunodeficiency virus criminalization laws in Iowa. Sen. Steve Sodders, D-State Center, worked extensively on the bill with Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines. “[Iowa’s criminal HIV law] was put on the books when HIV and AIDS were first coming out and little was known about it,” Sodders said. “We have more information, better drugs, and we know more about the transmission of HIV so we also need to update our law to avoid being overly punitive in cases where they don’t need to be.”