India: Sex workers organisations oppose Human Trafficking Bill which would make rehabilitation mandatory and HIV transmission a criminal offence

The most pressing concern is that the bill seems to be making rehabilitation mandatory

A consortium of rights bodies, especially of those working for sex workers, have come forward to speak out against the Human Trafficking Bill, which was sent to the Cabinet last month for approval. Associations of sex workers said that they fear that the bill will make it difficult for them to function. The most pressing concern, said Kusum, President of the All India Network of Sex Workers, is that the bill seems to be making rehabilitation mandatory. “Rehabilitation is needed for thousands of women who face trafficking around the country. But scores of practicing sex workers might not want it. Why not make it voluntary,” she says.

Dr Smarajit Jana, a health practitioner and the founder of Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Samiti, the first sex workers collective, agrees. Dr Jana was on a Supreme Court panel on the rights of sex workers, which submitted a report last month. He says that not a single state has statistics on rehabilitation. “Among the secretaries of the women and child development department of over 20 states we interacted with, 15 did not have any number for their own states,” says Dr Jana.

The definition of a trafficking victim, both Dr Jana and Kusum said, was vague enough to include practicing sex workers. As per the Bill, a sex worker who gets married and has settled down will also come under the ambit of the definition. “There is also a clause that states that if a sex worker is found drinking and smoking with her friends, they can be booked for plying substances to her and punishable for over 10 years,” says Kusum.

Tripti Tandon of the Lawyer’s Collective says that the biggest lacunae in the bill is its failure to distinguish those in need of rescue from those who do not. “Since The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act will continue to function, the government is simply creating layer after layer of law, without really taking into account the problems of livelihood, sanitation, health which sex workers face routinely, like every working-class women,” says Tandon.

Another crucial loophole is that the bill states that if a person transmits HIV to another, then they will be punishable for a period of 10 years. “The problem is that many victims do not know if they are HIV positive. Globally, the debate is on decriminalising HIV patients,” says Dr Jana.

Published in DNA India on Nov 5, 2016

Mexico: Civil association in San Luis Potosi State urges parliament to rethink proposition to criminalise HIV transmission

English translation (Para artículo en español, desplácese hacia abajo)

Civil association urges a rethink of the criminalisation of HIV transmission as such an amendment to the penal code would promote higher levels of stigma and discrimination.

San Luis Potosi, SLP.- With regard to the initiative presented during the Ordinary Session No. 44, on October 27, 2016 in the State Congress by the State Governor Juan Manuel Carreras Lopez and Erika Velasquez Gutiérrez, the president of the Women Institute in San Luis Potosi, the civil association Amigos Potosinosen Lucha Contra el Sida condemned the initiative which they say, stigmatize people living with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and have therefore called for reconsideration of the initiative put forward, conveying the following position:

1. It is important to promote actions that recognise the human rights of women through the varied international tools signed and ratified in this matter by the Mexican State, and which have been become mandatories following the constitutional reform of 2011 in the field of Human Rights.

2. It is not advisable to seek to punish conducts that are perceived to be fraudulent with regard to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, as the evidence tell us that HIV prevention is not achieved through punitive measures, but by public health policies which promote changes at the structural level, to facilitate equal access to services that guarantee the sexual and reproductive health of women, and also strengthen programmes and activities that promote equality between women and men.

3. Criminalisation promotes stigma and discrimination against people with HIV, including girls, children, adolescents and women, contradictorily promoting actions that violate the dignity of these vulnerable groups.

4. It is very difficult to determine causality, fraud and intention and other varied factors involved in HIV transmission such as: the possibility of transmission, the type of exposure, the use of condoms or not, at what stage of infection the person is, whether the person is on antiretroviral treatment, if their viral load is undetectable, if there is any concomitant infection, the health status of the receiving partner and the agreements between spouses or casual partners, among others.

5. It is important to emphasize that punitive measures such as those intended to legislate through this initiative, could hinder and affect various multisectoral actions in prevention, detection and HIV care in our state.

6. It might influence people who perceive themselves as having risk factors for HIV, to not undergo testing in order not to know their status and avoid any potential criminal proceedings made possible by testing. Such legislation may affect the continuous detection, prevention and care of HIV in Mexico [1], which seeks to facilitate the early diagnosis of people who perceived themselves to at risk so they can receive timely treatment to improve their quality of life and also help to curb the transmission chain.

7. Scientific evidence indicates that to stop the chain of transmission of HIV from one person to another, it is essential to combine prevention strategies, which include biomedical, behavioural and structural change, the latter emphasizing the need for actions that contribute to the eradication of stigma and discrimination associated with HIV-AIDS, and a punitive law does not contribute to these strategies.

8. The specific content of this initiative “Risk of contagion” could result in the legal responsibility for HIV prevention to fall only on those living with HIV, and could conceal the public health message that sexual partners have shared responsibility for their sexual health. People may mistakenly assume that their partners are HIV-negative because they are unaware of their status or do not disclose it, and they would therefore stop taking preventive measures.

9. Such amendments to the penal code will promote higher levels of stigma and discrimination against diverse HIV populations and their families.

Amigos Potosinos en lucha contra el Sida urges the State governor Juan Manuel Carreras Lopez and Erika Velázquez Gutiérrez president of the Women Institute in San Luis Potosi (sic), to reconsider the criminalization of HIV, as to do so would place people with HIV under a status of being possible criminals, which is contrary to their dignity as persons, violating their human rights and stigmatising them for their health condition.

Better yet, we encourage you to promote the creation of the State Council for the control of HIV, AIDS and STIs in San Luis Potosi, and to increase resources to prevent, detect and address HIV in a timely manner; to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of care services in the State that are provided by CAPASITS and by hospitals in the health system; to generate and strengthen empowerment programs for women and actions that seek to promote equal opportunities between women and men; finally to reduce stigma and discrimination against key populations affected by HIV and other STIs incorporating the MIPA principle [3] which speaks of greater involvement of people living with HIV as part of the solution and response, thereby contributing to a democratic, inclusive and non-discriminatory Mexico.

—————————————–

Asociación Civil pide reconsiderar tipificar como delito trasmisión del VIH. Este tipo de adecuaciones al código penal promoverán mayores niveles de estigma y discriminación.

San Luis Potosí, SLP.- En relación a la iniciativa presentada, en la Sesión Ordinaria No. 44, día 27 de octubre del 2016 al Congreso del Estado, por el gobernador del Estado Juan Manuel Carreras López y Erika Velázquez Gutiérrez presidenta del Instituto de las Mujeres en San Luis Potosí la asociación civil Amigos Potosinos en Lucha Contra el Sida condenaron la iniciativa que a decir de ellos, estigmatiza a las personas con contagiadas con el Virus de Inmunodeficiencia Humana (VIH), por lo que llaman a reconsiderar la iniciativa formulada, difundiendo el siguiente posicionamiento:

1.- Es importante impulsar acciones a favor del reconocimiento de los derechos humanos de las mujeres en el orden internacional de los diversos instrumentos que en esta materia ha suscrito y ratificado Estado Mexicano, lo cual se convierte en obligatorio a partir de la reforma Constitucional del año 2011 en materia de Derechos Humanos.

2.-No es recomendable buscar castigar las conductas que se perciben como dolosas en relación al VIH y otras infecciones sexuales, ya que la evidencia científica nos señala que la prevención del VIH no se logra con medidas punitivas, sino con políticas en salud pública que faciliten acciones que promuevan cambios a nivel estructural que faciliten la igualdad en el acceso a servicios que garanticen la salud sexual y reproductiva de las mujeres, así también fortalecer los programas y acciones que promuevan la igualdad entre mujeres y hombres

3.- La penalización favorece el estigma y la discriminación hacia personas con VIH, incluyendo a las niñas, niños, adolescentes y mujeres, por lo que resulta contradictorio impulsar acciones que contravienen a la dignidad de estos grupos vulnerables.

4.- Es muy difícil determinar la causalidad, el dolo, la intencionalidad ya que intervienen diversos factores en la trasmisión del VIH, como son: la posibilidad de la trasmisión, el tipo de exposición, el uso o no de condón, la etapa de la infección en la que se encuentra la persona, si lleva tratamiento antirretroviral, si tiene carga viral detectable o indetectable, si existen enfermedades concomitantes, el estado de salud de la pareja receptora y los acuerdos establecidos entre cónyuges o parejas ocasionales, entre otros.

5.- Es importante enfatizar que medidas punitivas como las que se pretende legislar a través de esta iniciativa, podrían obstaculizar y afectar las diversas acciones multisectoriales en materia de prevención, detección y atención del VIH en nuestro Estado.

6.- Podría influir a que las personas que se perciban con factores de riesgo ante el VIH, omitan realizarse una detección temprana a fin de no conocer su estado serológico en virtud de prevenir un posible proceso penal. Este tipo de legislaciones pueden afectar al Continuo de la detección, prevención y atención en VIH en México[1], el cual busca que las personas que se perciban en riesgo se realicen un diagnóstico temprano, puedan recibir un tratamiento oportuno que mejore su calidad de vida y además contribuya a frenar la cadena de transmisión.

7. La evidencia científica señala que para detener la cadena de trasmisión del VIH de una persona a otra es indispensable realizar estrategias de prevención combinada, entre las cuales, destacan las biomédicas, las comportamentales y las de cambio estructural, estas últimas enfatizan las acciones que contribuyen a erradicar el estigma y la discriminación asociado al VIH-sida, y una ley con acciones punitivas no contribuye con estas estrategias.

8.- El contenido en específico de esta iniciativa de “Peligro de contagio” podría provocar que la responsabilidad jurídica de la prevención del VIH recaiga solamente en quienes viven con VIH, y podría invisibilizar el mensaje de salud pública de que las parejas sexuales tienen responsabilidad compartida sobre su salud sexual. Las personas podrían suponer erróneamente que sus parejas son VIH-negativas porque desconocen o no revelan su estado serológico, por tal dejarían de incorporar medidas de prevención.

9.-Este tipo de adecuaciones al código penal promoverán mayores niveles de estigma y discriminación hacia las diversas poblaciones con VIH y sus familias.

Amigos Potosinos en lucha contra el Sida exhorta al gobernador del estado Juan Manuel Carreras López y a Erika Velázquez Gutiérrez presidenta del Instituto de las Mujeres en San Luis Potosí (sic), a reconsiderar la penalización del VIH, de hacerlo colocarían a las personas con VIH bajo un estatus de posibles criminales, contraviniendo a su dignidad como personas, atentando a sus derechos humanos y estigmatizándoles por su condición de salud.

Mejor aún, le exhortamos a impulsar la creación del Consejo Estatal Para el control del VIH, Sida e ITS en San Luis Potosí, además incrementar los recursos para prevenir, detectar y atender oportunamente el VIH; mejorar la calidad e integralidad de los servicios de atención en el Estado que son otorgados desde los CAPASITS y hospitales del sector salud; generar y fortalecer programas de empoderamiento para las mujeres y acciones que busquen promover la igual de oportunidades entre mujeres y hombres; por último a disminuir el estigma y la discriminación hacia las poblaciones clave y personas afectadas por el VIH y otras ITS incorporando el principio MIPA[3] que habla del mayor involucramiento de las personas con VIH como parte de la solución y respuesta, con ello contribuir a un México democrático, incluyente y sin discriminación.

Mexico: Quintana Roo activists submit proposal for a change in the State HIV criminalisation law

Submission to eliminate the criminalisation of people with HIV (Desplácese hacia abajo para el artículo original)

This initiative has been proposed by the organisation ‘Vida Positiva’.

PLAYA DEL CARMEN, Q. Roo

A proposition to eliminate the criminalization and general criminalization of people with HIV having sex, focussing on cases of willful intent by amending Article 113 of the Criminal Code of Quintana Roo, is being put forward.

This initiative has been proposed by the civil association ‘Vida Positiva’ and delivered to deputy Laura Beristain Navarrete, president of the Commission for Health and Social Welfare of the XV Legislature to be adapted and submitted to the State Congress at the beginning of October.

Rudolf Geers, president of the activist group said that its aims are for the legislation mentioned to be replaced by a new article which sanction the transmission of a chronic or fatal disease deceitfully and when protection methods have not been used.

“What we propose is that the law be changed to only prosecute cases of actual transmission, removing talks of risks, and cases where there was actual deception and where people did not use protection, in order to qualify the intent of the situation. In the case of pregnant women, to only prosecute cases where the mother had the express intention of infecting the baby. There was one prosecution in January this year, “said the leader of Vida Positiva.

On this matter, Deputy Beristain Navarrete said it was an issue that will be analyzed in a responsible manner, which will be reviewed properly to be subsequently pass on to the committee because every project must be adapted for proper submission, especially when concerning such a sensitive issue as health risks.

Background information

Meanwhile, Geers highlighted that looking at the history of the law, this Article has only served to motivate cases of blackmail and extortion, which have threatened to expose people because of their HIV status, even without evidence, and even when cases did not proceed, the name of the person with the condition had been made public.

“This year, we have had reports of four cases and the advice was to ignore them and just 3 years ago, a lawsuit under this law was recorded. Furthermore this legislation is based on a federal law adopted in 1991; a time when it was a deadly disease with no treatment; It also violates several national and international standards and is counterproductive to an effective response to HIV.

According to CENSIDA, this measure was taken internationally, including in Mexico since the last decade of the last century as a preventive measure against transmission or as a punishment of behaviours that are perceived as ‘willful’, however, we can state that this has not worked with punitive measures, and without public health policies.

“We need to increase resources and efforts with recommended HIV prevention strategies, improve the quality and comprehensiveness of care and reduce stigma and discrimination towards key populations and people living with HIV and other STIs, considering them as part of the solution and contributiors to a fair, inclusive and democratic Mexico”, stated the National Center for the Prevention and Control of HIV and AIDS on the criminalisation of HIV and other STIs transmission.

Rudolf Geers, president of the civil association Vida Positiva stressed that in these cases the responsibility to prevent further transmission is shared; anyone who has casual sex should use a condom.

—————————————————————————

Proponen eliminar la criminalización de las personas con VIH

Esta iniciativa ha sido propuesta por la asociación civil ‘Vida Positiva’.

PLAYA DEL CARMEN, Q. Roo.- Proponen eliminar la criminalización y la penalización general de las personas con VIH por tener relaciones sexuales, especificando casos de intencionalidad consumada, mediante la modificación del artículo 113 del Código Penal de Quintana Roo.

Esta iniciativa ha sido propuesta por la asociación civil ‘Vida Positiva’ y entregada a la diputada Laura Beristaín Navarrete, presidenta de la Comisión de Salud y Asistencia Social de la XV Legislatura para su adecuación y presentación ante el Congreso del Estado a inicios del mes de octubre.

Rudolf Geers, presidente de dicha agrupación activista explicó que se tiene como objetivo que dicha legislación se sustituya por un nuevo artículo el cual sancione una transmisión de una condición de salud crónica o mortal con engaño y sin usar métodos de protección.

“Lo que nosotros proponemos que se cambie esta ley para que solo se castigue en caso de existir una transmisión, quitar la palabra peligro, castigando los casos en que hubo engaño y que no usaron protección, para poder calificar la intencionalidad de la situación. En el caso de la mujer embarazada, solo cuando la madre tiene la intención expresa de infectar al bebé sea castigado. De estos tuvimos un caso en enero de este año”, dijo el dirigente de Vida Positiva A.C.

Antecedentes registrados

Al respecto la diputada Beristain Navarrete señaló que es un tema que se estará analizando de manera responsable, que se revisará de manera adecuada para posteriormente pasarla a comisión, ya que todo proyecto hay que adecuarlo para su correcta presentación, en especial un tema delicado en referencia a riesgos sanitarios.

Por su parte, Geers aseguro que de acuerdo a los antecedentes registrados, este artículo solo ha servido para motivar casos de chantajes y extorsiones, que han amenazado con exponer a personas por su condición de VIH, incluso sin pruebas y aunque posteriormente no proceda la demanda, pero si haciendo público el nombre de la persona con este padecimiento.

“De estos hemos tenido este año reportes de cuatro casos y el consejo simplemente fue ignorarlos y hace 3 años se registró un caso de una demanda por esta ley. Además esta legislación, está basada en una federal de 1991; época en que era un padecimiento mortal al no haber tratamiento; además viola varias normas nacionales e internacionales y es contraproducente para una respuesta eficiente ante el VIH.

De acuerdo a CENSIDA, esta medida había sido tomada a nivel internacional, incluyendo a México desde la última década del siglo pasado como una medida de prevención de transmisión o castigo de conductas que se perciben como ’dolosas’, sin embargo, aseguran que esto no tendrpa éxito con medidas punitivas si no políticas de salud públicas.

Prevención y control

“Es necesario incrementar recursos y esfuerzos en las estrategias recomendadas para prevenir la transmisión del VIH, mejorar la calidad y la integralidad de la atención y disminuir el estigma y la discriminación hacia las poblaciones clave y las personas afectadas por el VIH y otras ITS, considerándolas como parte de la solución y contribuyendo a un México justo, incluyente y democrático”, señala sobre la penalización por transmisión del VIH y otras ITS en Centro Nacional para la Prevención y Control del VIH y el Sida.

Rudolf Geers, presidente de la asociación civil Vida Positiva enfatizó que en estos casos la responsabilidad para evitar nuevas transmisiones es compartida; cualquier persona que tenga relaciones sexuales casuales sebe de usar condón.

Canada: ‘HIV is not a crime’ documentary premieres in Montreal at Concordia University’s ‘The Movement to End HIV Criminalization’ event

Last week, Concordia Unversity in Montreal, Canada, held the world premiere public screening of HJN’s ‘HIV is not a crime training academy’ documentary, followed by three powerful and richly evocative presentations by activist and PhD candidate, Alex McClelland; HJN’s Research Fellow in HIV, Gender, and Justice, Laurel Sprague; and activist and Hofstra University Professor, Andrew Spieldenner.

The meeting, introduced by Liz Lacharpagne of COCQ-SIDA and by Martin French of Concordia University – who put the lecture series together – was extremely well-attended, and resulted in a well-written and researched article by student jounrnalist, Ocean DeRouchie, alongside a strong editorial from Concordia’s newspaper, The Link.

(The full text of both article and editorial are below.)

Presentations included:

Edwin Bernard, Global Co-ordinator, HIV Justice Network: ‘The Global Picture: Surveying the State of HIV Criminalisation’
Alex McClelland, Concordia University: ‘Criminal Charges for HIV Non-disclosure, Transmission and/or Exposure: Impacts on the Lives of People Living with HIV’
Laurel Sprague, Research Fellow in HIV, Gender, and Justice, HIV Justice Network: ‘Your Sentence is Not My Freedom: Feminism, HIV Criminalization and Systems of Stigma’
Andrew Spieldenner, Hofstra University: ‘The Cost of Acceptable Losses: Exploring Intersectionality, Meaningful Involvement of People with HIV, and HIV Criminalization’

Articles based on a number of these important presentations will be published on the HJN website in coming

weeks.

The Movement to End HIV Criminalization

Decrying Criminalization

Concordia Lecture Series Prompts Discussion on HIV Non-disclosure

by Ocean DeRouchie — Published September 19, 2016 in The Link

The sentiment surrounding HIV/AIDS is often one of discomfort. But the reluctance to speak openly about such a significant and impactful disease is hurting the people closest to it.

Under current Canadian legislation, HIV non-disclosure is criminalized. It exercises some of the most punitive aspects of our criminal justice system, explained Alexander McClelland, a writer and researcher currently working on a PhD at Concordia.

McClelland was one of four panelists speaking under Concordia’s Community Lecture Series on HIV/AIDS on Thursday, Sept. 15 in the Hall building. The collective puts on multiple panel-based events in order to address the attitudes, laws, and intersections of political and socioeconomic stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS.

Talking About HIV, Legally

There are three distinct charges that guide prosecutors in HIV cases—transmission (giving the disease to someone without having disclosed your status), exposure (e.g. spitting or biting) and non-disclosure (not informing a sexual partner about your HIV/AIDS status).

Aggravated sexual assault and attempted murder are some of the charges that defendants often face, explained Edwin Bernard, Global Coordinator for the HIV Justice Network, during the discussion.

While there are clearly defined situations in which you are legally obligated to tell a sex partner about your HIV status, there are no HIV-specific laws. This results in the application of general law in cases that are anything but general.

In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada established that “people living with HIV must disclose their status before having sex that poses a ‘realistic possibility of HIV transmission.’”

Aidslaw.ca presents a clear map of situations in which you’d have to tell a sex partner about your status because, in fact, it is not in all scenarios that you’d be legally required to have the discussion.

A lot of it depends on your viral load—the amount of measurable virus in your bloodstream, usually taken in milliliters. A “low” to undetectable viral load is the goal, and is achieved with anti-viral medication.

Treatment serves to render HIV-positive individuals non-infectious, and therefore lowering the risk of transmission. A “high” viral load indicates increased amounts of HIV in the blood.

If protection is used and with a low viral load, one might not have to disclose their status at all.

That said, there is a legal obligation to disclose one’s HIV-positive status before any penetrative sex sans-condom, regardless of viral load. You’d also have to bring it up before having any sex with protection if you have a viral load higher than “low.”

But not all sex is spelled out so clearly.

Oral sex, for instance, is a grey area. Aidslaw.ca says, “oral sex is usually considered very low risk for HIV transmission.” They write that “despite some developments at lower level courts,” they cannot say for sure what does not require disclosure.

There are “no risk” activities. Smooching and touching one another are intimate activities that, as health professionals say, pose such a small risk of transmission that there “should be no legal duty to disclose an HIV-positive status.”

Moving Up, and Out of Hand

Court proceedings are based on how the jury and judge want to apply general laws to specific instances. There are a lot of factors that can influence the outcome.

The case-to-case outlook leads to the criminal justice system dealing with non-disclosure in such a disproportionate way, said McClelland.

The situation begs the question: “Why is society responding in such a punitive way?” asked McClelland.

This isn’t to say that not disclosing one’s HIV status “doesn’t require some potential form of intervention,” he explained, adding that intervention could incorporate counseling, mental-health support, encouragement around building self-esteem and learning how to deal and live with the virus in the world. “But in engaging with the very blunt instrument that is the criminal law is the wrong approach.”

He continued to explain that the reality of the criminalization of HIV ultimately doesn’t do anything to prevent HIV transmission.

“It’s just ruining people’s lives,” said McClelland, who has been interviewing Canadians who have been affected by criminal charges due to HIV-related situations. “It’s a very complex social situation that requires a nuanced approach to support people.”

“It’s just ruining people’s lives. It’s a very complex social situation that requires a nuanced approach to support people.” – Alexander McClelland, Concordia PhD student

Counting the Cases

The Community AIDS Treatment Information Exchange, a Canadian resource for information on HIV/AIDS, states that about 75,500 Canadians were living with the virus by the end of the 2014, according to the yearly national HIV estimates.

That number has gone up since. On Monday, Sept. 19, Saskatoon doctors called for a public health state of emergency due to overwhelmingly increasing cases of new infections and transmission, according to CBC.

In Quebec, there have been cases surrounding transmission and exposure. In 2013, Jacqueline Jacko, an HIV-positive woman, was sentenced to ten months in prison for spitting on a police officer—despite findings that confirm that the disease cannot be transmitted through saliva.

In this situation, Jacko had called for police assistance in removing an unwelcome person from her home. Aggression transpired between her and the officers, resulting in her arrest and eventually her spitting on them, according to Le Devoir.

“[This case] is so clearly based on AIDS-phobia, AIDS stigma and fear,” added McClelland, “and an example of how the police treat these situations and use HIV as a way to criminalize people.”

Police intervention is crucial in the fight against HIV criminalization. McClelland urged people to consider the consequences of involving the justice system in these kinds of situations.

“It’s important to understand that the current scientific reality for HIV is that it’s a chronic, manageable condition. When people take [antivirals] they are rendered non-infectious,” he said. “They should then understand that the fear is grounded in a kind of stigma and historical understanding of HIV that is no longer correct today.”

The first instinct, or notion of calling the police in an instance where one feels they may have been exposed to the virus in some way is “mostly grounded in fear and panic,” he said.

“[Police] respond in a really disproportionate, violent way towards people—so I would consider questioning, or at least thinking twice before calling the police,” McClelland explained.

On the other hand, he suggested approaching the situation in more conventional, educational and progressive methods.

“I think it could be talked through in different ways—by going to a counselor, talking to a close friend, engaging with a community organization, learning about HIV and what it means to have HIV, and understanding that the risk of HIV transmission are very low because of people being on [antivirals].”

As for the current state of Canadian legislation, there are a lot of complexities that hinder heavy-hitting changes to the laws.

Due to the Supreme Court’s rulings in 2012, they are unlikely to review the decision for another decade. For now, the main course of action is “on the ground,” said McClelland. From mitigating people from requesting police involvement in order to “slow down the cases,” to raising awareness through events such as Concordia’s Community Lecture Series, and engaging with the people to resolve issues in community-based ways and collective of care.

Then, McClelland said, “trying to do high-level political advocacy to get leaders to think about how they can change the current situation” would be the next step.

Editorial: Community-Based Research is the Key to HIV Destigmatization and Decriminalization

Opinions by The Link — Published September 19, 2016

Receiving an HIV-positive diagnosis is already a life sentence. The state of Canada’s legal system threatens to give those living with the virus another one.

An HIV diagnosis is accompanied by its own set of complexities that are not encompassed in Canada’s criminal law. By pushing HIV non-disclosure cases into the same box as more easily defined assault cases, we are generalizing an issue that frankly cannot be simplified.

This does not reflect the reality that one faces when living with HIV. Criminalizing the virus further stigmatizes what should and could be everyday activities.

This puts the estimated 75,000 Canadians living with HIV at risk of being further isolated. This takes us backwards, considering the scientific progress that has been made to make living with the virus manageable. Under the proper antiviral medication, one’s risk of transmitting the disease is incredibly low. This stigma is rooted in an antiquated understanding of what HIV is and the associated risks—much of that fear having emerged primarily as a result of homophobia.

Further, with over 185 cases having been brought to court, Canada is leading in terms of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure. This pushes marginalized communities farther away. According to estimates from 2014, indigenous populations have a 2.7 higher incidence rate than the non-indigenous Canadian average. Gay men have an incidence rate that is 131 times higher than the rest of the male population in Canada.

As of Sept. 19, doctors in Saskatchewan are calling on the provincial government to declare a public health state of emergency, with a spike in HIV/AIDS cases around the province.

In 2010, it’s reported that indigenous people accounted for 73 per cent of all new cases in the province. Outreach and treatment for these communities are at the forefront of Saskatchewan’s doctor’s recommendations for the government.

With such a highly treatable virus, however, the problem should never have gone this far. It is an excerpt from a much bigger issue.

As we can see from the available statistics, HIV—both the virus and its criminalization—is a mirror for broader inequalities that exist within society. HIV related issues disproportionately affect racialized people, gender non-conforming people, and other marginalized groups.

Discussions around HIV also must include discussions around drug use. The heavy criminalization of injection drugs has created a context where users are driven deep underground, thus putting them at an incredibly high risk for contracting the virus. Treating drug use as a health rather than a criminal issue is an integral part of any effective HIV prevention strategy. Safe injection sites, such as Vancouver’s InSite, have made staggering differences in their communities and prove to be a positive way of combating the spread of HIV.

This is just one of the many ways that we can control the spread of HIV without judicial intervention, without turning the HIV-positive population into criminals.

Using community-based research enables us to not only understand the needs of the affected population—particularly when it comes to understanding the almost inherent intersectionality associated with the spread of HIV—but also allows us to better target our resources towards those who need it most.

Often times, that stretches to include those closest to HIV-positive individuals. Spreading awareness, and developing resources and a support network for them is just as important in fighting the stigmatization of the virus.

The Link stands for the immediate decriminalization of HIV non-disclosure, and the move towards restorative justice systems in non-disclosure cases. As always, those directly affected by an issue are the ones with who are best positioned to create a solution—something that the restorative justice framework embraces.

The disclosure of one’s HIV status is important. Jailing those who don’t disclose it, however, won’t make the virus go away. It simply isolates the problem, places it out of site and out of mind.

Criminalizing HIV patients is less about justice than it is about appeasing the baseless fears of the general population. It’s time for a more effective solution.

Ethics of consent explored in provocative article highlighting concerns with criminalising HIV non-disclosure

Joyce Short was young and single, enjoying a thriving career on Wall Street, when she went out with some friends to a bar after work. She met a “very handsome, debonair young man” who seemed perfect for her: Jewish, single, with a degree in accounting from NYU. She would learn much later, after they had begun dating, that none of this was true. Now, she has a mission: she wants to show people the seriousness of what she calls “rape by fraud.”

“I am going to shout it from every rooftop,” Short told VICE. “All lies that undermine a person’s self-determination regarding their reproductive organs are a form of assault.”

Most of us have played with the truth or held back information about ourselves to impress someone—white lies, like “Yeah, I thought Interstellar was brilliant too!” or “What a coincidence, I also love winter hiking!” Short is not alone, however, in thinking that such lies can sometimes cross a line. And as the law stands in America, cases like Joyce’s—in which someone deceives their partner to get them into bed—are not illegal.

In 2013, Tom Dougherty, a philosophy professor at Cambridge University, published apaper arguing that if you lie or withhold information about anything that would be considered a deal-breaker by your partner—anything that, had they known it, would have changed their mind about sleeping with you—you have sexually assaulted them. The logic is simple: If your partner had known the truth beforehand, they wouldn’t have consented, and the sex wouldn’t have happened. Therefore, there was no consent. And sex without consent is assault. Fiona Elvines, of the UK national charity Rape Crisis, put this view bluntly to the Telegraph in 2014: “If you need to trick someone into having sex with you, you’re a perpetrator.”

The deal-breaker view is based on the powerful idea that free and open consent is an absolute requirement for all sexual activity. President Obama has, for instance, launched the “It’s On Us” campaign, aimed at teaching people that all non-consensual sex is assault. But for consent to be free and open, it seems that it should also be fully informed. That’s the standard we hold people to in medicine and business—why not sex? As the Anti Violence Project at the University of Victoria explained, “Informed consent means that someone who is being asked for their consent has full information about what they are being asked to consent to.” In other words, we should have all the information that we consider relevant before getting into bed with someone.

Joyce Short wants us to go further than moral condemnation. “Lying to induce sex is not seduction, it’s a crime,” she told VICE. After her experience, Short has become vocal about the need to reclassify lying to one’s sexual partner as a form of criminal sexual assault. Jed Rubenfeld, a professor at Yale, recently argued in the Yale Law Journalthat this view is the logical outcome of the importance we now place on fully-autonomous consent as a precondition to sexual activity.

Some lawmakers agree. Today, American laws generally make two kinds of sexual deception illegal: cases where someone impersonates a person’s partner (by sneaking into their bedroom at night, for instance), and cases where someone such as a doctor tricks a patient into thinking a sex act is actually some sort of medical procedure. Legislators in two states have proposed broadening the law to make it illegal, as Short thinks it should be, to deceive someone to get them into bed: An assemblyman in Massachusetts proposed such a law in 2008, as did a New Jersey legislator in 2014. Both proposals were defeated. However, as the national dialogue around sexual assault continues, there may well be similar attempts in the future.

But others have concerns over the push to criminalize sexual deception. First, if we do make sexual deception criminal, it would give enormous power to police and prosecutors to regulate our sexual lives—for example, to draw the line when it comes to determining exactly what separates a white lie from true deception. “If we are going to invite the criminal justice system to adjudicate relationships, I don’t think the result is going to be a good one,” Kim Buchanan, a criminal justice researcher in Connecticut who has spoken publicly on the issue, told VICE.

Second, if we move to prosecute sexual deception, those targeted will likely be people who are already vulnerable or stigmatized. It is revealing that in the United States, one very specific, additional form of sexual deception is aggressively criminalized and prosecuted: the failure to disclose one’s HIV status to your partner. As the Center for HIV Law and Policy has documented, nearly every state has prosecuted people for HIV non-disclosure. No equivalent laws criminalize the failure to disclose diseases that are much easier to transmit, such as herpes. “There are no public health reasons to single out this particular deception,” said Buchanan, who published a paper last May documenting the history of HIV prosecutions in the US.

There have also been cases of people prosecuted for so-called “gender fraud”—lying about, or failing to disclose, their birth gender to sexual partners. Sean O’Neill wasconvicted of this in Colorado in 1996, and, while his case proved an isolated one in the US, there has been an upsurge of such prosecutions in the UK, with five people convicted since 2012.

Consent must continue to be at the forefront of all discussions about right and wrong when it comes to sex. But as the problem of sexual deception—and the ire of victims like Short—shows, for American courts, many thorny problems remain to be solved when it comes to self-disclosure and sexual ethics.

Neil McArthur is the director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at University of Manitoba, where his work focuses on sexual ethics and the philosophy of sexuality. Follow him on Twitter.

US: Jacob Anderson-Minshall from HIV Plus mag reacts to the latest biting case in Marlyand

When will law enforcement get the message? HIV is neither a death sentence nor transmittable through saliva. So why do they keep arresting HIV-positive people for spitting and or biting and, as in the latest case, charging them with attempted murder?

According to the Baltimore, Maryland-based Capital Gazette, 46-year-old Jeffery David Crook, has been charged with attempted murder for allegedly biting an Anne Arundall County police officer during a tussle.

Crook is being held on half a million dollar bond and has reportedly been charged with multiple counts related to an alleged burglary and the assault on the officer. Crook was reported to the cops after “banging” on the outside of the home of Crook’s ex-boyfriend. Refused entry into the home, Crook allegedy “forced his way” into the house through a sliding glass door and was punched in the face by another man who was in the house.

Officers reported that they located Crook “rambling and incoherent” in an upstairs bedroom and he refused to obey their commands. When they attempted to forcedly arrest him, he resisted so a scuffle ensued. Police say that Crook was then Tasered, which, they allege, had no effect on him, and Crook bit an officer’s arm.

Police stated that the bite broke the officer’s skin, but it was Crook who was immediately transported to a local hospital center for “minor injuries,” the Gazette reported, citing local court records. “While there, he indicated that he was HIV-positive and bit the officer knowing the risk of transmitting the infection.”

Police spokesman Lt. Ryan Frashure said he couldn’t recall another incident where an officer was exposed to a “highly infectious disease,” especially “where it was done intentionally.”

Crook was charged with attempted second-degree murder, home invasion, second-degree assault, third-degree burglary, and reckless endangerment, according to court records.

From a public and mental health perspective, there are so many things wrong with this story, it’s hard to know where to begin. Crook’s mumbling, incoherent demeaner should have been a sign he may have been suffering from mental health issues. After entering his former partner’s house (through an unlocked sliding glass door, mind you), he was assaulted and his lip was cut. But instead of calling mental health professionals, officers tried to cuff him. When he struggled, they tased him. Although they reported that Tasing “had no effect,” he was taken to a hospital. Since few suspects are taken to a medical center for “minor injuries” before being interogated, it seems likely they realized he could not give clear answers because of his condition.

More to the point, once at the hospital, Crook disclosed his HIV status. His indication that he bit the police officer “knowing the risk of transmitting the infection,” could have been him simply acknowledging he was aware of his HIV status before he bit the man, or even that he knew there was little or no risk of transmitting HIV through saliva.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is clear “HIV isn’t spread through saliva.”

According to the CDC, biting, spitting, and throwing body fluids all carry “negligible” risk of infection. It is particularly disheartening for activists fighting the criminalization of HIV when poz individuals are convicted of felony crimes for having spat at, bit, or thrown fluids at an officer when it is nearly impossible to transmit HIV that way.

In this specific case, no doubt the argument is that Crook was bleeding from the mouth when he bit the officer hard enough to break skin. But breaking skin and having a small amount of each person’s blood comingling is still highly unlikely to transmit HIV.

Even if a person with HIV gets hurt playing tackle football or boxing at the gym, it’s “highly unlikely that HIV transmission could occur in this manner,” according to the University of Rochester Medical Center. “The external contact with blood that might occur in a sports injury is very different from direct entry of blood into the bloodstream, which occurs from sharing needles or works.”

Even if the officer in question did defy all odds and turn up HIV-positive, there’s no way to be sure it was transmitted in this occassion. Moreover, there’s still a significant problem with the charge of attempted murder. Like many laws that criminalize behavior like sex work or add sentencing penalties only for those who are HIV-positive, charging someone with attempted murder instead of assault is based entirely on the outdated equation that HIV equals death. It’s based on an outdated view of the HIV-positive body not as a human being but as a “deadly weapon.”

These offensive tropes are decades out of date, have been out-and-out discredited by modern science, and rendered obsolete by the development of highly active antiretroviral medications that have transformed HIV from a terminal disease to a manageable chronic condition.

And yet, when confronted with even the tiniest of bodily fluid of HIV-positive individuals, police officers continue to overreact with fear (the officer in the Crook case “remained out of work” days after the incident) and arrest people for actions that cannot transmit HIV, simply because they discover their alleged perp also has HIV.

Around the country, district attorneys in these cases continue to charge HIV-positive individuals with crimes for things that are not criminal, continue bumping up simple charges from misdemeanors to felonies just because the individuals involved are poz, and continue to claim that exposure to HIV is a death sentence when it isn’t. Judges continue to accept these arguments, and continue handing down these overblown sentences, often without the abiility for parole.

Most of the law and order representatives who embrace HIV criminalization do so out of ignorance, but some are aware of the facts and proceed anyway because the law was written in such a way that facts, medical findings, and scientific proof simply have no bearing on the case.

Many of those who are serving extended prison terms have not even transmitted HIV to another person (think Michael Johnson in Missouri and Kerry Thomas in Idaho, both serving 30 year sentences). Yet they often face sentences higher for spitting or having sex without disclosure than if they had actually murdered the person they are accused of “infecting.”

How flawed is this system? And what kind of lesson does this teach people about those living with HIV? For one thing, it teaches that knowing one’s status is a legal liability. In Crook’s case — as in most other cases — the determining factor of guilt is often based on whether the individual knew they were HIV-positive at the time. Spit on a police office without knowing you’re poz, it’s a misdemeanor assault. Spit on an officer once you know have HIV? It’s attempted murder. Neither one can actually transmit HIV.

To us, it’s just insane.

Canada: Stigma and HIV criminalisation deter people from getting tested

Stigma remains a major problem that discourages people from getting tested

Two studies released last month show the tools exist to potentially end the more than three-decades-old scourge of HIV/AIDS, but activists and front-line public health workers in Canada say we simply aren’t using them effectively.

The first study found it’s nearly impossible for an HIV-positive person to transmit the virus if they’re undergoing effective antiretroviral therapy (ART).

The other showed the impressive ability of a drug called Truvada — if taken properly — to protect HIV-negative people who would otherwise be at high risk of contracting the virus.

“I think there’s a real frustration of those of us on the ground, those of us working in public health and epidemiology who know absolutely that the tools are out there and we’re not seeing the support,” says Joshua Edward, a program manager at Vancouver’s Health Initiative for Men(HIM).

High-profile figures in the global fight against HIV/AIDS, including Bill Gates at last month’s World AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, have suggested talk of “the end of AIDS” is perhaps premature given its continued spread in much of the developing world, particularly Africa.

Such talk also seems premature in Canada.

Two big problems

Edward says there are two major problems in Canada that deny the promise described in the two studies.

First, there remains a powerful stigma around HIV that discourages people from getting tested.

The second problem is Truvada, approved as a pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP, is very expensive, up to $1,000 a month, and isn’t widely available to those who don’t have generous private insurance plans.

The PARTNER study looked at couples where only one partner had HIV but with a viral load suppressed by medication. Out of nearly 60,000 condomless sex acts, not a single HIV transmission occurred.

But HIV infection rates in Canada remain relatively steady, with an estimated 2,500-3,500 new transmissions every year, in part because one in five HIV-positive Canadians don’t even know they have the virus, and so they aren’t receiving the treatment that will keep them healthy and prevent further spread.

Activists argue stigma is a big reason why so many Canadians don’t get tested, and it’s fuelled by the fact that our laws criminalize the non-disclosure of one’s HIV-positive status, even if no transmission occurs and despite the latest evidence that shows viral suppression makes it virtually impossible to transmit the virus.

Stigma encourages spread

Sandra Ka Hon Chu, director of research and advocacy with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network (CHALN), says criminal sanctions of HIV-positive people encourage the spread of the virus.

“People who might not know their status won’t get tested because you would have the knowledge of your HIV status, which is a requirement of a conviction,” she says. “That then deters open discussions with health-care providers and creates a lot of stigma that prevents people from getting on ART.”

HIV non-disclosure charges not science-based, doctors say

More than 180 people to date in Canada have been charged for not disclosing their HIV status, according to CHALN. In most cases, they were charged with aggravated sexual assault, which carries a maximum life sentence and a possible sex offender designation.

In 2011, for example, an HIV-positive woman north of Toronto had oral sex with a man and unprotected vaginal sex with two others. She didn’t disclose her HIV status and was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault.

Though she was acquitted for the oral sex based on the unlikelihood of transmission, the trial judge convicted her for one of the counts related to vaginal sex — even though she was taking her medication, had an undetectable viral load and no transmission occurred — because the victim was “exposed to a significant risk of the transmission of HIV and that risk endangered his life.”

Law is a ‘blunt instrument’

Chu says the law needs to be updated given the recent scientific evidence that shows even condomless vaginal sex with an HIV-positive-but-undetectable partner carries very low risk of transmission.

Criminal law, she says, is too much of a “blunt instrument” to regulate a moral problem with so many grey areas. She says most people fail to disclose their status because they fear rejection, physical violence, or, for example, because they fear the disclosure may be used against them later.

“A woman who might be living in an abusive relationship who is positive might decide to go to the police to charge their partner with violence and that partner might threaten to say they didn’t disclose their HIV status to them,” Chu says.

She sees many possible solutions.

The provinces enforce the Criminal Code, so they have the power to rewrite prosecutorial guidelines on what should and should not be pursued by the Crown.

The federal government could also change the Criminal Code to match international guidelines put forward by UNAIDS, the Global Commission on HIV and the Law and others. This would include limiting criminalization to cases where a person knows their HIV-positive status, acts with the intention to transmit HIV, and does in fact infect the negative partner with the virus.

More education and testing

Edward says Canada also needs to invest more in HIV education and testing outside of the major cities, where the stigma is greatest and HIV rates are often higher, including in some First Nations communities.

“If you live outside of a metro area, those barriers can be significant.”

He also says Canada needs a national HIV strategy that includes investing in PrEP for HIV-negative people who are at higher risk of contracting the virus.

“We need broader access,” he says. “We need insurance companies to be more generous in their support. You have to have a really high degree of privilege to be able to access it,” he says.

“You have to know how the medical system works. Mine is covered by insurance. It took probably a good two, three weeks of back and forth with my insurance company to access it, including being able to advocate for myself, able to speak from my perspective with righteous indignation.”

Delays

Health Canada expedited the process for approving Truvada as PrEP. It signed off in February, months before many expected, and emphasized Truvada should be used along with condoms.

But Quebec is the only province to publicly fund the drug, while the rest wait for the results of the Common Drug Review (CDR), which is expected to be complete in the fall. From there, the provinces will make their own decisions on whether to cover it, which could take months.

Michael Fanous, a Toronto-based pharmacist who specializes in HIV medications, thinks there should be an expedited process to get the drug listed for provincial drug plans.

“We’ve run into this problem for 30 years in treatment as new HIV drugs take much longer to get approved in Canada and then even longer to get covered.”

Edward’s organization in Vancouver, HIM, isn’t waiting around for government action. Instead, it launched getpreped.ca to get more people educated about PrEP.

“It gets back to almost every day in this province, someone is going to receive an HIV diagnosis … and at least for some of them, PrEP could have prevented that diagnosis,” he says.

“If you want to talk criminality, that’s criminal to me.”

Canada: Advocates call for change to HIV disclosure law

Canada’s HIV disclosure law ‘unfair,’ say advocates calling for change

“To equate not disclosing one’s HIV status with the traditional understanding of aggravated sexual assault, we don’t think is fair,” said an advocate from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

The recent arrests of two men accused of failing to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners have led to renewed calls for changes to legislation that advocates say contributes to the fear and stigma surrounding the disease.

Canadians with HIV are legally required to disclose their status to their partner before engaging in sexual activity. Those who fail to do so can be charged with aggravated sexual assault, whether the virus is transmitted or not.

If convicted, they are automatically added to the sex-offenders registry and face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

But advocates say Canada’s HIV disclosure law has never been shown to deter unsafe sexual practices. Rather, they argue, it has made patients feel more isolated and fearful.

“People living with HIV tend to come from many marginalized groups already,” said Sandra Chu, of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. “(The law is) adding a further layer of marginalization and fear.”

Chu said she would like Canada to adopt HIV legislation proposed by the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), which would prosecute only people who knowingly and intentionally transmit the HIV virus to their partner.

There is a lack of definite evidence on whether criminalization deters HIV patients from exposing others, UNAIDS said in a report released in 2012. It also said that studies from Canada and the U.S. show few people with HIV are aware of the legal requirements pertaining to their illness, and those who are probably already disclose their status to partners.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) has said people with HIV/AIDS report increased feelings of fear and stigma as a result of high-profile non-disclosure criminal cases.

“Stigma has a negative impact on prevention efforts by contributing to secrecy and HIV non-disclosure, reinforcing HIV risk and discouraging condom use in some communities,” the agency said in a 2015 report.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said the Canadian government is “aware of some of the criticisms of non-disclosure laws and appreciates the difficult circumstances individuals face” with regards to HIV disclosure.

In 2012, UNAIDS reported that Canada had convicted more people in connection with HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission than any country in the world except the United States.

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network says there have been at least 180 people charged with HIV non-disclosure-related offences in Canada — with five new cases in 2015.

Earlier this month, Toronto police charged a man with sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault for allegedly having unprotected sex with a woman multiple times over the course of 18 months without telling her he had HIV.

A few days later, Canadian Forces investigators charged a civilian cadet instructor with four counts of aggravated sexual assault for allegedly failing to disclose his HIV status before engaging in a relationship with a member of the military.

In a 1998 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada said a legal requirement to disclose HIV will, “through deterrence … protect and serve to encourage honesty, frankness and safer sexual practices.”

The court clarified its stance in 2012, ruling that a person with HIV does not have to disclose it to a partner as long as a condom is used and the person has a “low viral load.” A viral load measures the number of copies of the HIV virus per millilitre of blood — the lower a viral load, the lower the chance of transmitting HIV.

However, a group of more than 50 Canadian doctors and researchers released a statement in 2014 saying that “a poor appreciation of the science related to HIV contributes to an overly broad use of the criminal law against” individuals living with the virus.

Using a condom during sexual intercourse is enough to render the risk of transmission negligible, the group said, regardless of viral load.

The fact that people can be charged with mere exposure when there’s “a negligible risk” of transmission is unjust, said Chu.

“To equate not disclosing one’s HIV status with the traditional understanding of aggravated sexual assault, we don’t think is fair.”

Originally published in The Star

Uganda: ABC Radio interviews HIV criminalisation survivor, Rosemary Namubiru, and UGANET’s Dora Kiconco Musinguzi

Listen to Natasha Mitchell compelling interview with HIV criminalisation survivor, Rosemary Namubiru, and UGANET’s Dora Kiconco Musinguzi on the challenge to the problematic HIV criminalisation statutes within Uganda’s HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Act.

This seven minute audio report from AIDS 2016 in Durban is excerpted from ABC Radio’s longer podcast, The brutal politics of a virus that won’t go away, by reporter Natasha Mitchell for Background Briefing.

Listen to and/or download the full podcast and read the transcript on ABC Radio’s website.

The transcript of Natasha’s HIV criminalisation-related report is below.

Natasha Mitchell: In Uganda, around 7% of people are infected, and while the country is recognised for taking decisive action against HIV, the government’s harsh attitude and laws is dramatically undermining that progress.

Rosemary Namubiru is a 66-year-old nurse, mother and grandmother. She found out she had the virus just three years ago, and she thinks she got it from a patient.

Rosemary hadn’t yet disclosed her status at work, but when she was wrongly accused of intentionally infecting a patient, before she knew it the full force of the law was thrown at her.

Rosemary Namubiru: I saw the police coming, and they were holding me, ‘You are under arrest for murder.’ Then they called the media, so when I was in that room they called and told me, ‘Come out.’ I came out and I found a crowd of cameramen, media people.

Natasha Mitchell: Outside the police station?

Rosemary Namubiru: Yes.

Natasha Mitchell: Rosemary was charged with attempted murder after she accidentally pricked herself with a needle while treating a child. The mother watching on was worried and reported Rosemary. While the child wasn’t infected, thankfully, all hell broke loose when Rosemary’s HIV positive status was confirmed and made public. Rosemary was arrested and paraded in front of the media, who labelled her a ‘killer’ and a ‘murderer’.

Rosemary Namubiru: They were trying to manhandle me. They were taking photographs of me. They were calling me all sorts of names, ‘Murderer, killer. Look at this woman, a killer, a murderer.’ And it went all over the country in the national newspapers, in the English newspapers. ‘That murderer, the murderer. If we see her we shall beat her, we shall kill her.’ It was the talk of town. Even my village. Initially, they labelled it as ‘murder’. Then it was reduced, ‘attempted murder’, and then it was eventually changed into ‘negligence’.

Natasha Mitchell: Rosemary was publicly shamed, and sentenced to three years in prison for negligence.

Lawyer Dora Kiconco Musinguzi is the executive director of Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS or UGANET.

Dora Kiconco Musinguzi: Rosemary’s story sent so many chills across the country amongst people living with HIV. She was the headline of the news. ‘Killer nurse’. ‘Monster nurse’. She was treated so cruelly at the police, she was beaten, her hair was pulled, right, left, and centre, and that caused a lot of fear among people living with HIV. So we see discrimination written on walls, written in political statements, discrimination is still real, so that is where we are. That’s Uganda’s story currently.

Natasha Mitchell: Rosemary Namubiru was released at the end of 2014 after her case received international attention.

In the same year, Uganda introduced the HIV Prevention and Control Act. At face value it’s about controlling HIV, promoting testing and treatment, and preventing discrimination. Uganda’s not alone here, HIV specific criminal laws are on the increase worldwide, and also exist in America and Europe.

But Dora Kiconco Musinguzi and colleagues are leading a legal challenge in the Ugandan Constitutional Court against key parts of the law, including certain provisions that demand disclosure of your HIV status, and criminalise those who transmit the virus intentionally.

Dora Kiconco Musinguzi: The question is at what point do you establish intention. In a circumstance where we have so many people that have not yet tested, how do you know that a person infected another? So anybody could blame the other for infecting them, and what should be a human condition, a disease, then becomes a criminal object and lives break, and families break, and you know how the media picks on this, and totally takes it out of context. We believe it’s going to be really dangerous.

Natasha Mitchell: At least half of the Ugandan population still don’t know their HIV status. And Dora Kinconco Musinguzi believes the HIV Prevention and Control Act will exacerbate their reluctance to get tested and treated and so cause the virus to spread.

Dora Kiconco Musinguzi: So if people fear, relate HIV testing with obligation, with imprisonment, with undue power of the law, we believe this is going to create a bigger barrier to testing, and that fails the objective of prevention and control because then we shall have more people left out of the treatment area.

Natasha Mitchell: And because pregnant women have to be tested for HIV, they’re at greater risk under this law.

Dora Kiconco Musinguzi: They are going to be found to be HIV positive fast, and if they don’t disclose then they are in the ambit of attempting to transmit, so that makes the women criminals. So there’s lots of unanswered questions. And yet on the other side science has given us hope that people who test and take their medicines very well, they become less infectious, so they don’t transmit HIV. The law neglects this science. The law does not consider what public health specialists are saying, but the Ugandan government has not put this into consideration.

Natasha Mitchell: The experience of Rosemary Namubiru is a cautionary lesson about why laws that criminalise HIV positive people can be so bad for public health.

Dora Kiconco Musinguzi: You shouldn’t be criminalised. These cases could be handled in another way. We are really asking the Constitutional Court to find out whether this is the law that will present and control HIV, and still afford dignity and non-discrimination for living with HIV.

Natasha Mitchell: Based on your experience, Rosemary, what do you feel about the criminalisation law in Uganda against people with HIV?

Rosemary Namubiru: It hurts. Ignorance kills, but it hurts when people just carry on, and people keep on saying, ‘Oh, that one, that one.’ Me, I didn’t get it sexually. It was during the course of saving lives of human beings, so it is not something to laugh about. I wouldn’t wish anybody to go through what I went through.

Natasha Mitchell: Rosemary Namubiru. She’s now retired from nursing.

USA: New report shows LGBTQ minorities face discriminatory laws and arrests

These Stats Prove LGBTQ Minorities Face ‘Unjust’ Treatment in US Criminal Justice Systems

A new report released Monday on LGBTQ people and the U.S. criminal justice system shows the community is overrepresented in jails and prisons. Additionally, LGBTQ people who are young and of color face disproportionate levels of homophobia and transphobia, and are subject to discriminatory laws and arrests that lead to their incarceration.

Analyzed data from U.S. Department of Justice, public polling and a U.S. inmate population survey shows that one in five people in juvenile justice detention facilities identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender orquestioning. Among them, 85% are racial minorities, according to the study, released by the Center for American Progress.

The report, titled “Unjust: How the Broken Criminal Justice System Fails LGBT People of Color,” pegs the overrepresentation of LGBTQ people of color in the criminal justice system to three major factors — racism and anti-LGBTQ stigma in their communities, drug and HIV criminalization laws, and local policing priorities that result in racial profiling.

“Whether they are interacting with law enforcement, going to court, confined in prisons or jails, or preparing for reentry into society, the story is the same: LGBT people of color face an extraordinarily high risk of discriminatory treatment and abuse in our criminal justice system,” Ineke Mushovic, executive director of the Movement Advancement Project, said in a statement about the data analysis. MAP and seven other criminal justice reform and LGBTQ advocacy organizations partnered with the Center for America on the report.

The report’s focus on LGBTQ people of color was deliberate, given the most recent polling on this population and what federal data reveals. A 2012 Gallup survey of U.S. adults revealed that 33% of adults who identified as LGBTQ were people of color. People of color and women were also more likely than whites to identify as such, according to the survey results.

LGBTQ overrepresentation in the criminal justice system — they accounted for 7.9% of the U.S. jail and prison population in 2011-2012, but just 3.4% of the overall U.S population — is a reflection of laws that criminalize their identity and behaviors, stated the report.

For example, HIV criminalization laws, which penalize behaviors of LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ people living with HIV, even if their behavior carries no risk of transmitting or exposing the uninfected to the virus, were a response to the health crisis in the 1980s and 1990s. More recent laws, such as North Carolina’s 2016 bathroom bill restricting public bathroom access to the gender marked on an individual’s birth certificate, also present a threat of incarceration for those who are transgender or gender nonconforming.