Nigeria: Advocates successfully argue for removal of HIV criminalisation clause from draft HIV and AIDS Anti-Discrimination Act

Advocates in Nigeria have successfullly argued to remove a clause criminalising the ‘willful or deliberate spead of HIV’ from the latest draft of the long-awaited HIV and AIDS Anti-Discrimination Act.

Last week, the National Agency for the Control of AIDS (NACA) held a two-day stakeholders forum on the much delayed national anti-discrimination law. The meeting aimed to re-energize the passing of the bill into law, and to ensure that it incorporated international human rights conventions and standards as they relate to people living with HIV.

The national law also aims to harmonise state anti-discrimination laws. Currently, three states – Lagos, Enugu and Cross River State –  include HIV criminalisation statutes in their their laws.

The vaguely-worded proposed HIV criminalisation statute of the draft national anti-discrimination bill read as follows:

Section 31 Willfull or Deliberate Spread of HIV Virus

Any person, having known his/her seropositive status, deliberately transmits the HIV directly or indirectly shall be guilty of an offence and, upon conviction be sentenced up to twelve months imprisonment or fine of up to N500,000 or both.

At the meeting, many stakeholders proposed to keep the HIV criminalisation statute in the bill, but civil society organisations, led by the Network of People Living with HIV and AIDS in Nigeria (NEPWHAN), successfully advocated against the statute.

Instead, the provisions of the anti-discrimination bill were expanded from covering workplace discrimination to be broadly applicable at the workplace, school, correctional institutions, religious institutions, and in society at large.

The draft harmonized bill as proposed with input from NEPWHAN and other civil society organisations is below. Note the absence of Section 31. Although this is unlikely to be the final wording of the law, it certaily shows how successful advocacy can remove problematic provisions in otherwise supportive and enabling HIV-related laws.

Draft Harmonized Nigerian HIV and AIDS Anti-Discriminational Act 2013

Norway: National Association of People Living with HIV responds to Norwegian Law Commission report

Yesterday was the deadline for written responses to the Norwegian Law Commission report which shocked and disappointed HIV and human rights advocates in Norway and around the world on its release last October.

After spending almost two years examining every aspect of the use of the criminal law to punish and regulate people with communicable diseases (with a specific focus on HIV) the Commission recommended that Norway continues to essentially criminalise all unprotected sex by people living with HIV regardless of the actual risk of HIV exposure and regardless of whether or not there was intent to harm.  The only defence written into the new draft law is for the HIV-negative partner to give full and informed consent to unprotected sex that is witnessed by a healthcare professional.

Since then, Professor Matthew Weait has published Some Reflections on Norway’s Law Commission Report on Criminal Law and the Transmission of Disease on his blog highlighting some of problems with the arguments used in the report.

We have also published an interview with Kim Fangen, the only member of the Commission to vote against the use of a specific law to control and punish people with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, which presented an alternative vision.

Today, we publish the English translation of the written response by Nye Pluss, the Norwegian national association of people living with HIV.

The organisation found that, overall, the report has three key weaknesses:

• It does not take into account the formidable global challenges related to HIV and AIDS and is not consistent with the international responsibilities that Norway has to follow-up recommendations that have come from a variety of organisations, including UNAIDS.

• It does not take into account the medical advances that have taken place in the HIV field over the past few years., in particular that HIV treatment is, in fact, now prevention, and that testing and treatment (“treatment as prevention”) is one of the most important preventive measures to combat the global HIV epidemic.

• It does not acknowledge that HIV criminalisation will help to prevent effective contact tracing and counselling, and thus influence the HIV response in the wrong direction. A desire for the use of punishment is, therefore, at the expense of public health.

Nye Pluss recommends that the Government and Parliament reject the choice of the majority’s conclusions in this area and remove the particular provisions of the Criminal Code.

The HIV Justice Network fully supports their arguments and conclusions and hopes that Norways parliamentarians follow the lead of Labour’s Håkon Haugli and The Conservative Party’s Bent Høie who came out against any specific law last July.

Below is the English translation of the Nye Pluss response, shortened and paraphrased in some areas, but with their full agreement and permission.  The original Norwegian version can be read here.

Nye Pluss’s board has read and discussed the Norwegian report. Our perspective is that, as people living with HIV, all aspects of Norwegian HIV policies, including any special penal provision, must have the net result of fewer new infections. Our primary perspective is therefore one of public health.

We have found that, overall, this report has three key weaknesses:

• It does not take into account the formidable global challenges related to HIV and AIDS and is not consistent with the international responsibilities that Norway has to follow-up recommendations that have come from a variety of organisations, including UNAIDS.

• It does not take into account the medical advances that have taken place in the HIV field over the past few years., in particular that HIV treatment is, in fact, now prevention, and that testing and treatment (“treatment as prevention”) is one of the most important preventive measures to combat the global HIV epidemic.

• It does not acknowledge that HIV criminalisation will help to prevent effective contact tracing and counselling, and thus influence the HIV response in the wrong direction. A desire for the use of punishment is, therefore, at the expense of public health.

Below, we elaborate our views on these three objections.

Norway’s international responsibility in the fight against HIV

The fight against HIV and AIDS is one of the biggest challenges we face in the world: two million die every year due to AIDS-related illnesses. Around 35 million people live with HIV globally. Nearly three million are newly infected with HIV each year. Norwegian authorities have a responsibility to contribute to the international HIV response. We therefore believe that the discussion on penalising HIV exposure or transmission in Norway must be seen in relation to  the international challenges we face. This report does not live up to those challenges.

At page 184 the report states:

“UNAIDS ‘work is global, but is mainly aimed at countries where the prevalence of HIV and AIDS is high. UNAIDS has no European office, such as WHO and recommendations etc. have a global objectives and are hardly suitable for Scandinavian or European conditions. The committee’s review will be largely based on our cultural context, which can be very different from the global.”

It therefore concludes that UNAIDS’ work and recommendations specifically relating to criminal laws are not relevant for Norway, while Norwegian authorities support UNAIDS efforts globally. This is, in our opinion, a somewhat arrogant and culturally discriminatory attitude to the situation in other countries. Although Norwegian law is only applicable in Norway, we expect that Norwegian laws at home should also follow, and are not contrary to, the beliefs and policies that we export to other countries in the world.

“Treatment as prevention” – a medical breakthrough in the fight against HIV

A medical breakthrough took place when the first effective HIV medicines appeared in 1996. In countries where there was good access to these medicines, the number of AIDS-related deaths fell quickly and drastically.  Treatment as prevention is, perhaps, just as big a breakthrough – we now know that effective HIV medication prevents new HIV infections. New research shows that the risk of infection is reduced by 96%, more than any other prevention method.

[Several paragraphs discuss international policy relating to ‘treatment as prevention’….]

Nye Pluss notes with surprise that the report only once refers to “treatment as prevention” and even then in a way that gives the impression that the authors of this section have not acquired up-to-date knowledge of the issue. It is regrettable that such an important resource which claims to provide a basis for Parliament to examine Norwegian HIV policy in a holistic context – not least relating to the criminal law – treats such an important part of international HIV policy so superficially. We believe that it is a serious academic failure not to discuss the effects of punitive sanctions on earlier testing and treatment.

Criminal law regulation of serious infectious diseases – an obstacle in the fight against HIV

HIV criminalisation has been a growing problem in many countries around the world in recent years. Criminalisation helps to maintain stigma and prevent openness about HIV, and is thus an unwanted obstacle in HIV treatment and prevention. In addition, HIV criminalisation in many countries works to suppress women and minority groups that are particularly vulnerable to HIV.

Nye Pluss believes that the criminalisation of HIV exposure and transmission has been a barrier to effective HIV prevention in Norway. In some groups, annual HIV figures have tripled over the last ten years, compared with the previous decade.

A future, efficient Norwegian HIV policy will depend on effective and efficient testing, counselling, contact tracing and treatment, such as a “treatment as prevention” strategy. Effective testing of affected populations, effective tracing of possible infected sexual partners and effective treatment is, along with condoms and awareness, cornerstones of reducing new infections in Norway.

For those of us living with HIV, it is important that a future Norwegian strategy is successful, so that fewer people acquire HIV in Norway….One such major obstacle to achieve reduced infection figures is the criminalisation of HIV through a special provision in the Criminal Code, as advocated by the majority of the committee behind the report.

In the pharmaceutical industry….the manufacturer must show that the drug’s harmful effects do not exceed its positive effects… Surely it is possible that an HIV law will negatively impact vulnerable groups of people with HIV who have immigrated from countries with non-democratic regimes, who are more likely to go underground if there are threats of punitive sanctions, so that testing, disclosure, contact tracing, treatment and counselling is not available to them? Nye Pluss consider it obvious that there exists such a legitimate doubt and that this is precisely one of the reasons that some MPs have requested a separate investigation of the criminal law as it relates to HIV. “It is therefore surprising that the majority of the commission’s members argue, without any scientific evidence, that there would be no negative impact to an HIV law.”

Moreover, many members of the committee suggest that “decriminalization could be perceived as a signal that infecting others or exposing others to infection, is no longer a serious matter”(page 248). This is an unscientific, tautological statement based on the completely undocumented assumption that because HIV exposure and transmission is criminalised in Norway it has worked as a prevention tool, and that decriminalising it would lead to more infections, despite a lack of any evidence supporting this.

Nye Pluss believes the committee majority here are completely wrong, and we can refer to international research studies that support this.

[A summary of studies from Canada (O’Byrne, 2012), the US (Sero, 2012), Scotland (Bird and Leigh-Brown, 2001), and England (Whitlock, Warwick et al, 2010) showing a negative impact of HIV criminalisation follows.]

Nye Pluss finds it surprising that the majority of the Committee does not seem to be familiar with the research that has been done in recent years which shows that HIV criminalisation has unique negative impacts on willingness to test, to disclose to sexual partners, and in the creation of uncertainty amongst health care workers and counsellors. This somewhat surprising rejection of the existence of such research and thus a lack of discussion of such readily available research, weakens, in Nye Pluss’s perception, a range of the majority’s conclusions on the importance of the criminal law’s impact on public health: not to discuss the importance of documented research in this area is a serious mistake and results in the majority’s conclusions on public health failing in crucial ways.

Another key point of the debate around a penalty provision for people with HIV is the growth we have seen in HIV figures among particularly vulnerable groups, such as men who have sex with men, over the last ten years…The extremely serious issue that is raised is whether the relatively large number of prosecutions over the past decade has affected HIV testing behaviour, thus increasing the number of untreated individuals, resulting in more new infections.

It is a serious public health issue when there is a tripling of HIV infection among men who have sex with men for the last ten years in Norway. We are in absolutely no doubt that public health has not benefitted from the use of the Penal Code, and are of the opinion that the studies and analyses conducted to date, and as mentioned above, show with great clarity that the increased number of criminal trials over the last decade have impacted Norwegian society and public health in an extremely negative way. Nye Pluss cannot see that the Criminal Code’s provisions against HIV, which the majority recommend, will result in fewer HIV cases.

Nye Pluss believes that the latest scientific advances pertaining to HIV treatment and prevention will do perfectly well by themselves without assistance from the criminal law, including those few cases where restrictive measures for infection control law would be needed against an individual.


Nye Pluss believes that the Committee’s recommendations to maintain the criminal regulation of HIV exposure and transmission and other general dangerous diseases, would undermine Norway’s international responsibility to participate in a common front to combat HIV in the world.

We must recognise that since 100% safe sex is not possible it would be impractical to allow the courts to put a specific limit on what is punishable in a world where sex is a universal activity for the continuation of humanity … To punish a select few who have not mastered ‘safer sex’ – defined narrowly as condom use – is neither a fair or an effective tool in this fight, but rather the opposite.

No matter where you draw the line regarding what is, or is not, a criminal offense, a specific penal code criminalising HIV exposure and transmission will prevent effective prevention, early testing, contact tracing, treatment and counselling, and will put a spoke in the wheels of the “treatment as prevention” strategy that promises to be the breakthrough in the fight against HIV. That the criminal law should be both an obstacle to international responsibility and to effective measures for domestic public health in this area is unacceptable for society.

Nye Pluss recommends that the Government and Parliament reject the choice of the majority’s conclusions in this area and remove the particular provisions of the Criminal Code.

Philippines updates HIV law to provide supportive and enabling legal environment

A MEASURE seeking to strengthen the country’s comprehensive policy on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV-AIDS) is expected to be approved on third and final reading when Congress resumes session next week. One of the proponents of House Bill 6751, Ilocos Norte Rep.

Lawyers petition government for protection to mark Human Rights Day | SW Radio Africa

The Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) marched from Harare Gardens through the streets of the capital on Thursday, to commemorate International Human Rights Day, which falls on December 10th. The lawyers delivered petitions to the Supreme Court, the High Court, Parliament, the Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs and the Attorney General’s Office, asking for protection for legal practitioners while they do their work.  Makoni said the lawyers expect the level of intimidation and harassment of lawyers to increase as the country heads towards elections, because that is when violence levels go up and lawyers are called upon to represent victims and perpetrators. Kenya: Its Criminal to Sterilise a HIV Postive Woman Without Consent

Any doctor found guilty of sterilizing a HIV positive woman without her consent,is liable to prosecution. Public Health Minister Beth Mugo says sterilization of HIV Positive Women violates their human rights as guaranteed in the constitution.

Dr. Shereen El Feki hopes that legal environment will improve following Global Commission report

This myriad of laws, across multiple legal systems, has one thing in common: by punishing those who have HIV, or the practices that may leave them vulnerable to infection, such laws simply serve to drive people further from disclosure, testing and treatment—fostering, not fighting, the global epidemic. It is time to say, “No more.” Just as we need new science to help fight the viral epidemic, we need new thinking to combat an epidemic of bad laws that is undermining the precious gains made in HIV awareness, prevention and treatment over the past thirty years.

Legal and policy alternatives to HIV criminalisation: community-level and societal approaches

by Edwin J Bernard

Legislators in Mauritius decided not to criminalize exposure to HIV or even HIV transmission. Legislators realized that legislation criminalising HIV exposure and/or transmission would not be able to withstand a constitutional challenge, because of the difficulties with proof, the likely vagueness of the definition of exposure, and the risk of selective prosecution. The main reason for not criminalising HIV transmission was, however, the concern about detrimental impacts on public health and the conviction that it would not serve any preventive purposes. Criminalisation would have created more problems than solving them. Therefore, Mauritius decided to put its resources where they are most likely to have a positive impact on reducing the spread of HIV: increased funding for HIV testing and counselling and for evidence-informed prevention measures.

Rama Valayden, Attorney General and Minister of Justice and Human Rights, Republic of Mauritius[i]

Policymakers may well feel under pressure to use the criminal law in response to HIV to be seen to be “doing something” that appears to have an impact upon their local HIV epidemic. This pressure is likely to be felt more acutely where it appears that HIV prevention programmes have failed.[ii]

Nevertheless, UNAIDS recommends that instead of being tempted to apply the criminal law in these situations, governments should implement evidence-informed and human rights-based (but sometimes controversial) HIV prevention programmes to deal with the myriad underlying causes of HIV transmission and acquisition.

This way, the significant personal and financial resources that may be spent on pursuing a limited number of individual cases within the criminal justice system could be more productively used to expand HIV prevention efforts, including individual, society- and community-wide education; making available condoms and other HIV prevention tools (including ART), MTCT services, sterile drug use equipment, and other strategies designed to reduce HIV infection on an individual and population level. In short, they should be aiming for policies that support universal access to HIV testing, treatment and support services.[iii] [iv]

In many jurisdictions around the world, a substantial number of individuals at highest risk of acquiring HIV – people who use drugs, sex workers, men who have sex with men – are criminalised and punitive approaches drives people underground. [v] Consequently, UNAIDS recommends fewer punitive laws and more supportive policies in favour of expanding programmes proven to reduce HIV transmission while protecting the human rights both of people living with HIV and those who are HIV-negative. These include:

  • Removing criminal offences against men who have sex with men;
  • Removing criminal sanctions on sex work so as to promote empowerment of sex workers;
  • Allowing the provision of evidence-informed harm-reduction programmes for people who use drugs;
  • Enacting privacy and anti-discrimination laws that protect people living with HIV;
  • Enacting laws that ensure prevention and treatment programmes reach all people living with HIV and empower them with information, education, and treatment.[vi]

In addition, governments may also consider addressing some of the root causes underlying vulnerability to HIV infection, such as income and gender inequality, sexual violence, discrimination, and problematic substance use. Since women are both biologically and socio-economically more vulnerable to acquiring HIV, UNAIDS suggests that governments strengthen and enforce laws against rape (inside and outside marriage), and other forms of violence against women and girls; improve the efficacy of criminal justice systems in investigating and prosecuting sexual offences against women and girls, and support women’s equality and economic independence through legislation, programmes and services.[vii]

Case study: South Africa – HIV-specific criminal law not necessary

In 2001, the South African Law Commission undertook a comprehensive review of the need for an HIV-specific criminal law, concluding that such a law was not necessary due to a lack of evidence that alleged wilful or negligent behaviour by people with HIV was occurring frequently enough to warrant such a law and that “a change to the law would therefore probably be based (without denying that real instances of dangerous conduct occur) on general fears, anxieties and “urban legends”. It also concluded that: “an HIV-specific statutory offence/s will have no or little practical utility; the social costs entailed in creating an HIV-specific statutory offence/s are not justified; and an HIV-specific statutory offence/s will infringe the right to privacy to an extent that is not justified.”[viii]

Nevertheless, pressure to create an HIV-specific law continued during debates for the new Sexual Offences Bill. In submissions made to the Parliamentary Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Socio-Economic Development, the National Working Group on the Sexual Offences Bill, a consortium of civil society groups, stated in 2005: “There are existing common law offences that already criminalise the deliberate transmission – these have rarely been used and give rise to difficult questions of evidence and proof. A new offence will not change this in any way.”[ix] Earlier versions of the Bill sought to define non-disclosure of HIV status prior to otherwise consensual sex as rape. However, that definition was not included in the Sexual Offences Act that was ultimately approved in 2007. [x] Rather, the legislation mandated HIV antibody testing for suspected rapists and allows for longer prison sentences for rapists subsequently found to be HIV-positive.[xi]


[ii] Human Right Watch. World AIDS Day: Punitive Laws Threaten HIV Progress. Press Release, November 25, 2009.

[iv] Op cit. UNAIDS/UNDP (2008b).

[vi] GNP+ and UNAIDS. Positive Health Dignity and Prevention. Technical Consultation Report, Tunisia, April 2009.

[vii] Op cit. UNAIDS/UNDP (2008a)

[ix] National Working Group on the Sexual Offences Bill. Submission to the Parliamentary Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Socio-economic Development. South Africa, 2005.

[x] South African Department of Justice and Social Development. The New Sexual Offences Act. (Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007.

[xi] Proposal discussed in Matthews S. Criminalising deliberate HIV transmission – is this good public health? SAMJ 96 (4): 312-314, 2006. See also Bernard EJ. South Africa: New rape laws mandate HIV testing for alleged offender. Criminal HIV Transmission. January 8, 2008.

Norway: Dissenting Law Commission member, Kim Fangen, ‘stands alone’

Last week’s publication of the Norwegian Law Commission’s disappointing report was “a crucial moment for us in Norway – actually for all HIV activists in the Nordic countries,” says Kim Fangen, the only member of the Commission to vote against the use of a specific law to control and punish people with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Kim’s alternative vision, as detailed in Chapter 10 of the report (only available in the full Norwegian version, not the English summary, but translated into English by the HIV Justice Network and included in full below) is one of a supporting and enabling environment, where people living with HIV are seen as part of ‘the solution’ and not ‘the problem.’

“It is not through criminal law that we reduce the spread of HIV,” he writes. “I believe that HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are solely a health issue. That’s where the focus should and must be, if one wants to prevent more infections. This means that we must change our mindset and change our course from criminal regulation to a health-related approach.”

His solution is a uniqely Norwegian version of the new paradigm of HIV prevention for people living with HIV, known as Positive, Health, Dignity and Prevention –  a comprehensive approach to supporting people living with HIV with their prevention and social needs, not through fear or coercion but through empowerment and with dignity.  Much of the solution is already there in Norway’s HIV Action Plan – but as Kim notes, with a few exceptions, little of the plan has actually been actioned.

In his first interview since the Commission report was released, Kim tells the HIV Justice Network how he feels about the report and what the rest of us can do to help effect a change for the better to mitigate the Nordic region’s overly harsh and punitive approaches to people living with HIV.

Q: As the only person openly living with HIV on the twelve person Commission, what did you hope to achieve?

When I was asked to be asked to be part of the Norwegian Law Commission, I was very happy and proud.  I, and many of my friends and colleagues living with HIV, believed it was a promising sign that they had reserved one of the Commission’s twelve seats for someone living with HIV.

I actually believed that there was a genuine will and desire to investigate the issues raised in our mandate and to produce recommendations that hopefully would point Norway in a new direction, towards decriminalising potential HIV ‘exposure’ and unintentional transmission.

I did not think that it would be easy, but I thought it would be possible. I honestly thought that finally there would be no need to single out people with HIV as group so hazardous that Norwegian society felt the need of a specific law to protect itself.

What I never envisaged was that, in the end, I would be standing alone.

Q: When did you realise that you point of view was not going to be supported by the rest of Commission?

It was quite early in the process. I realised that not only was it going to be difficult, but that I was quite alone not wanting a specific law.

I really feel that the reason for my inclusion on this Commission was not to learn more from those of us living with HIV, but was instead a kind of tokenism – by having a person living with HIV on board I believe they thought they would be able to silence us once and for all.

Q: What disappoints you the most about the report?

I cannot help feeling that a great opportunity has been lost and the goodwill of people with HIV misused. This is a sentiment I share with many of my friends and colleagues both at home and abroad. Many of us are so very disappointed. We honestly believed we would finally experience a change now,  just as we, ironically, are about to commemorate 30 years since the first Norwegian was diagnosed with HIV.

And so I am afraid that we will not get the debate we so desperately need. I worry that this report will provide politicians with easy solutions, something Norway will not benefit from.

Q: Is there anything positive in the report’s recommendations that you would like to highlight? For example, I was impressed by the recognition that people with HIV (and other communicable diseases) require “psychosocial support to enable them to handle the risk of infection properly, and assistance in dealing with any underlying problems such as mental illness or substance use.”

I’m glad that you pointed this out. I do feel that I have been listened to when I have spoken of supporting people living with HIV, and the clinics can do much more to help in guiding and strengthening each individual. This is the kind of work I am directly involved in myself.

Q: Do you think the report’s content and conclusions are completely consistent with Norway’s commitments to human rights and in terms of making laws based on evidence and not ideology?

No, I do not. I have on several occasions talked about our responsibility to practise what we preach. I do not think Norway is doing that.

Q: How might the report impact the rest of the Nordic region?

HIV and the law are being debated and discussed all over the Nordic region. All of the four countries are at different stages but our goals are the same, to end the overly broad criminalisation of HIV.

My hope is that Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway will join forces. We will be so much stronger if we pull together. Next year will we will be commemorating 30 years since Norway had its first HIV diagnosis.  We, in the newly-established HIV Patient Network will be using that to the fullest and, of course, criminalisation will be on top of the list.

Q: The process will take another 18 months before parliament decides on whether or not to enact or abolish a specific criminal law. What are your plans?

My only hope now is that the international response to this report will be so substantial, so clear, and so loud that it will have an impact on Norway’s politicians.

I am hoping to organise a joint Nordic meeting in Oslo sometime during 2013, preferably before the deadline for the hearing letter goes out, when we are still able to influence the process before it is finalised some time in 2014.

If we can thoroughly examine the situation in all of the Nordic countries, invite politicians, medical and legal practitioners, experts and specialists in fields like sexuality, ethics and human rights, as well as members of the international civil society, we should be able to strengthen our arguments and support those in office who actually can directly influence the debate.

In the meantime, for those who haven’t already signed the Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation, please take a moment to read it and support our efforts. I would like thank everyone who contributed, who made this possible, and especially to the HIV Justice Network.  I know that it has already caused a stir in Norway, and I feel that there is so much more to gain from it. It’s like a tool that is still in its wrapping, and it has yet to reach its full potential.

Below is the full English translation of Kim’s submission to the Commission, outlining his alternative vision, from Chapter 10 of the report.

One of the committee members, Kim Fangen, lives with HIV and has been involved in working in this field for many years.

As stated during the assessments in Section, Mr Fangen says that there should be no special penal targeting disease transmission directly between humans. Mr Fangen believes that any criminal proceedings should take place using the general penalty provisions of bodily harm, and that these penal provisions should only be applied where the perpetrator acted with the intent to infect another, and the disease is transferred.

The rationale for this position is stated in the following that Mr Fangen has written on this matter:


New time. New inspiration.


HIV has been a part of our global reality for over 30 years. It is estimated that 60 million people have been infected during this period, 35 million of whom are alive today. For the first time in the history of HIV in the world, data show that the number of people that are newly diagnosed HIV positive is on a downward trend. This is primarily because many people with HIV have access to treatment. Treatment not only allows people with HIV to live a long healthy life, but the majority who are on treatment have a fully suppressed HIV viral load and are thus very unlikely to be infectious. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reviewed the latest research data and concludes that antiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of a person with HIV transmitting the virus to an HIV-negative person by 96%. UNAIDS has begun to talk about a world without HIV in its 2011-2015 strategic plan, ‘Getting To Zero’. Medical progress has thus changed the situation in a very positive direction. This change should also be reflected in legislation and case law.

However, the situation is not only positive. In some countries and in some groups, we are seeing an increase in the number of new HIV diagnoses. In Norway, the number of annual new HIV diagnoses among gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men has tripled since 2002. This increase is very serious and requires that we strengthen and develop prevention among both HIV-negative and HIV-positive individuals.


Does HIV belong in the criminal code?


As person living with HIV, my primary focus has been on HIV when the committee has discussed details of the currently adopted provisions for serious communicable infectious diseases in the 2005 Penal Code § § 237 and 238. Most of my arguments stem from the experiences we have had with HIV in the applicable provisions of the 1902 Penal Code § 155, which for years has rightly been called the ‘HIV paragraph’. As you know, this is not an HIV-specific law, but in practice it has, almost without exception, been used to prosecute HIV. There are only a few cases where it has been applied with another communicable disease (respectively, hepatitis B and hepatitis C).

I think that HIV-related work, both in terms of caring for people with HIV, and preventing new infections, has not well been served by such legislation, which stigmatises  those of us with HIV and creates the perception that were are potential criminals, and does not take into account that people with HIV have the right to a good sex life. The legislation does not relate to the psycho-social challenges it means to live with HIV, and is not adapted to the fact that the reduced quality of life and difficulty in coping with safer sex are often intertwined. The legislation has not been clear on what constitutes unlawful sexual behaviour, and criminal liability is not consistent in relation to current knowledge about HIV and the risk of transmission.

Furthermore, I believe that the implementation of this legislation violates the fundamental principles of equality before the law. It seems as if the law is both random and unfair when only a few cases have been filed in recent years, despite the fact that several hundred people are diagnosed with HIV each year. It also seems unfair and counterproductive that all responsibility should rest on those of us who are familiar with our own HIV status, when we know that many are not aware of their own status and that new infections require HIV-negative individuals to choose to have unsafe sex.

In light of the increasing number of new HIV diagnoses among gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men, one can rightly ask what does that suggest for this law in terms of HIV prevention? My contention is that it has not served its purpose, whether viewed from a public health perspective or an individual prevention perspective. HIV is no longer a threat to public health, as one assumed it was going to be early in the 1980s. We have been aware of this for many years now. Even before effective treatment arrived, this was a fact. Nevertheless, it seems that the ‘epidemic’ mentality lingers in the minds of many people.

A public health perspective, however, is important when it comes to the spread of other communicable diseases through air, water and food. I have therefore, together with a committee unanimously decided that § 238 should be amended to apply only to such infections, see chapter 11 and the committee draft laws in Chapter 14

It is not through criminal law that we reduce the spread of HIV. I believe that HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are solely a health issue. That’s where the focus should and must be, if one wants to prevent more infections. This means that we must change our mindset and change our course from criminal regulation to a health-related approach. Both partners should be responsible for their own sexual health, but this should not be linked to punishment. I do not believe that criminal law is a suitable tool for regulating health-related behaviours. Using the Penal Code, however, can make it appear as if the Government has been pro-active on this issue when instead it actually creates a false sense of security.




I believe that one should not criminalise unprotected sex and consequently the transmission of sexually transmitted infections. In sexual relations between two equal  partners who voluntarily decide to have sex, no heed is given to criminalisation / criminal law at home, regardless of whether HIV is transmitted or not. I believe that punishment should only be used in cases where you can prove that someone has intended to transmit a communicable disease and succeeded in doing this. Then the general provisions on bodily harm can be used, but in all other cases general laws on ‘offences against the person’ should not be used.

My suggestion therefore implies a clear decriminalisation, as I suggest that prosecutions should only occur where there is intent in the form of wilful intent and infection actually occurs. Transmission that occurs through dolus eventualis [recklessness] should, I suggest, not be prosecuted, even if infection actually occurs. This also applies to cases where there is only a negligent state of mind. If there has only been the potential for exposure, i.e. infection has not occurred, as I have already suggested, this should not be punished.


People with HIV – an untapped resource


Those of us who are living with HIV want to be involved in reducing infection rates. We want to be “part of the solution” and not be seen as a “problem”. Just as our society desires that all groups of patients are equal partners in health, I believe that people with HIV in particular are an important group to include. I think we are an untapped resource in prevention. We have unique knowledge in that can say something about why we were infected. This knowledge has so far not been made use of – no one asks us about possible underlying / contributory reasons why we were infected. Here, there is a great potential in terms of prevention of new infections, and we want to be involved in this work.


Common goals


Whatever we may think of the Penal Code as all actors within the HIV field (whether government, organisation or activist) a common goal is to prevent people from becoming infected with HIV.

How do we reach this goal? Measures should focus on the HIV-positive and HIV-negative. We must strengthen and set clear requirements for disease control. We need to improve the coping ability of all people living with HIV. We need more testing, more often. Those who are newly diagnosed who wish to start treatment should be allowed to do so. We need to focus on the importance of risk/harm reduction, and realise that it can make a substantial contribution to ‘traditional’ prevention. Doing even something right is better than doing nothing at all.

There is no reason that Norway might not become the best in the world in this area – we have the knowledge, skills and the economy. We have a clear situation, and we are able to reach everyone.

Sexually transmitted infections are a part of our shared reality. It’s not just HIV that is increasing in scope, but other infections. There are an increasing number of challenges, such as treatment-resistant gonorrhoea. We do not yet know the extent to which this will continue and what consequences will ensue. The more times a person is treated for a sexually transmitted infection, the greater the risk of complications or of developing resistance potentially resulting in a chronic condition. Although this information has reached the majority of the population it does not change the habit of having unprotected sex. We can surmise this from the ever increasing number of cases of sexually transmitted infections.

We should find a way to prepare a comprehensive plan as to how Norway should tackle all areas of sexual health. This plan must address both the dark and light sides of sexuality and must deal with sexuality throughout our life. Such a plan must aim to enhance the general population’s sexual health, while also dealing with special measures for vulnerable groups with special challenges, such as gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men, refugees, asylum seekers and their families.

This could be done by a committee that will have the mandate to prepare an action plan to enhance overall sexual health, including prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The current national strategic plan for improving sexual health is too one-sided by focusing on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Such a committee should have representatives of health authorities as well as representatives of relevant groups and relevant organisations.


National Action Plan


There are many HIV-positive people who believe that the National Action Plan ‘Acceptance and Coping, 2009-2014’ is a very important and appropriate plan for HIV prevention efforts. Here are six ministries and several agencies that are committed to comprehensive efforts in HIV-related work by defining objectives and strategic actions in a number of areas. Some of this is already implemented, but much remains to be done, and the recent mid-term conference showed that things are tough and that there is great frustration among the players.

What has been implemented includes the initiation of the first learning and activity courses for people with HIV. This course was developed through a partnership between The Health Information Centre and Department of Infectious Diseases, both at Oslo University Hospital, and the newly established Council for Patients with HIV has also contributed. Here, among other things, the mastery of sex life is an important part. This has been a successful pilot project that is supposed to be a constant for all who are living with HIV, and to all who are diagnosed with HIV, regardless of nationality, ethnicity and sexual orientation. We believe this is an important service for this patient group that until now has received little follow-up beyond the purely medical field. Another important measure implemented under the HIV plan is the training of health professionals who work with people with HIV to assist in their conversations with patients about changes in health-related behaviours, including sexual behaviour. The tool used is a method called motivational interviewing (MI) which increases the patient’s motivation to change. In 2011 almost 100 health professionals participated in such courses organised by the Directorate of Health. More such courses are needed, and these courses should be offered at different levels, so that MI is an integral part of care.

Such courses for both patients and healthcare providers is something that can increase both the efficacy and quality of life for people with HIV and are therefore very important health promotion and HIV prevention measures. Earlier initiation of treatment and increased focus on testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are other measures that work to prevent new infections.

Apart from the above-mentioned exceptions, very few of the other parts of the HIV plan have been completed. Why has this happened? Why has this work come to a standstill? Why have we not managed to achieve several more goals outlined in the plan? Is it due to a lack of real will of the health authorities and other ministries to drive this plan forward? Have they declared themselves satisfied with making a good plan, and then delegated the responsibility for implementation to civil society and health care providers? Success requires national management and monitoring.

The way forward – a new tool offers new opportunities


I believe we have a unique opportunity now to show other countries how HIV and other sexual transmitted infections can and should be dealt with in a constructive and inclusive manner. By focusing on sexual health in general, and for the whole population, we could experience a reduction of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. We must work to motivate and to inspire each individual and thus safeguard the best interests of society.

It’s a new era that should inspire all who live and work in this field. We know so much more now than when HIV was incorporated into the Penal Code. We have completely different opportunities today to fight this virus, by helping as many as possible to independently maintain their health. This is where we can help to reverse the negative trend we are experiencing nationally, and it will also give us an opportunity to show the way internationally. There are many eyes focused on Norway these days who are most interested in how we choose to move forward with this challenge. We have a responsibility to make this our opportunity to achieve the very best possible outcome.