Africa: Civil society organisations deliver statement condemning HIV criminalisation at African Commission on Human and People's Rights

MEDIA RELEASE: Civil society statement on the criminalisation of HIV at the 61st Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights

6 November 2017

BANJUL, The Gambia—Civil society organisations working on HIV and human rights, delivered a statement at the 61^st Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights condemning the disturbing trend of the enactment of repressive HIV specific laws which often contain provisions that criminalise HIV, transmission, non-disclosure and exposure. These laws also often provide for compulsory HIV testing, disclosure of HIV status and involuntary partner notification.

“These provisions are overly broad and disregard the best available scientific evidence. They fail to pass the human rights test of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness; rather, they have the effect of exacerbating stigma, discrimination and prejudice against people living with HIV. These measures undermine both an effective public health response to the HIV epidemic, as well as the human rights of people living with HIV,” said Michaela Clayton, Director of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA).

In sub-Saharan Africa, while there were no HIV-specific criminal laws at the start of the 21st century, 31 countries have since then enacted overly broad or vague HIV-specific criminal statutes. These laws and policies provide, inter alia, for the criminalisation of HIV transmission, exposure and non-disclosure despite the fact that in all of these countries there are existing penal provisions which can be invoked in those rare cases of intentional HIV transmission. The number of prosecutions continues to rise at an alarming rate in countries where HIV specific criminal laws have been promulgated. To date, prosecutions have been documented in 16 countries.[1]

“We are concerned that the current advancements in the HIV response in Africa are being threatened by the misguided use of criminal sanctions by States, to – as they argue – ‘control the spread of the HIV epidemic’. These laws, policies and practices violate the rights of people living with HIV and of all healthcare users to informed consent, bodily integrity, dignity, freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment, and fair trial rights, amongst others. The protection of these rights is specifically provided for in Article 4 (bodily integrity), Article 5 (dignity), Article 7 (fair trial), and Article 16 (right to health) of the African Charter,” said Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Executive Director of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre.

Women living with HIV face surveillance and state control in terms of their reproduction, family planning, childbirth, child feeding, and child raising choices. In many contexts, HIV criminalisation laws, policies, and practices have a disproportionately punitive effect on women, as evidenced by recent cases. For example, in Malawi a woman living with HIV was prosecuted for breastfeeding. In addition, there are numerous examples of prosecutions of people living with HIV in Zimbabwe, Uganda, and Nigeria, particularly women. In our patriarchal societies, it is women who already disproportionately face the burden of the HIV epidemic due to their inability to negotiate protective sexual intercourse in relationships, and are often the first to be tested for HIV.

“We, however, would like to recognise the positive developments made by some African countries due to consistent advocacy on the part of civil society. Two countries have strongly rejected HIV criminalisation: Mauritius in 2007 and Comoros in 2014. Furthermore, Mozambique revised its HIV law in 2014 to remove HIV criminalisation, and in Kenya the High Court has ruled that section 24 of HIV Prevention and Control Act 2006, which forced people with HIV to disclose their status to any ‘sexual contacts’, was found to contravene the Kenyan constitution that guarantees the right to privacy,” said Victor Mhango, Executive Director of the Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance (CHREAA).

As HIV and human rights organisations we call on the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights to take leadership in protecting the rights of people living with and affected by HIV, including women living with HIV by:

Encouraging and reminding member states about their obligations under the African Charter and the Maputo Protocol, including Resolutions adopted by the Commission;
Reminding states of their duties and mandates to protect and promote the rights of people living with and affected by HIV, including women and girls who are vulnerable to HIV, by prioritising the urgent needs for access to justice and the upholding of the rights to bodily integrity, autonomy, and health;
Calling on states to repeal laws that unjustly criminalise HIV transmission, exposure, and non-disclosure.

The full statement can be found here: HIV_Criminalisation_statement__African_Commission_SALC_ARASA.pdf

Signed:

AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa http://www.arasa.info

Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance http://chreaa.org

Centre for the Development of People http://www.cedepmalawi.org

Coalition of Women Living with HIV in Malawi https://cowlhamalawi.wordpress.com

Southern Africa Litigation Centre https://southernafricalitigationcentre.org

Women Lawyers Association of Malawi https://womenlawyersmalawi.com

Zambia Network of Religious Leaders Living With or Affected by HIV and AIDS http://zanerela.weebly.com

[ENDS]

FCAA Philanthopy Summit: Growing the Global Movement to End Criminalization (Funders Concerned About AIDS, 2017)

This session aimed at philanthropic funders discussed the growing global movement to end HIV criminalization – overly broad and/or vague criminal laws, that unjustly regulate, control, and/or punish people living with HIV solely based on their HIV status. The panel’s participants exemplify the uniqueness of the Robert Carr Fund model of incentivizing collaborative and joint efforts of networks across movements – who join into consortia of, for example, people living with HIV and human rights defenders/lawyers – and the model of linking activities at global, regional and national levels, which catalyzes a more aligned and impactful effect in resisting and fighting HIV criminalization.

Moderator: Sergey Votyagov, Robert Carr Fund for Civil Society Networks (RCF)
Introduction: Luisa Cabal, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
Panelists:
• Edwin Bernard, HIV Justice Network (HJN)
• Laurel Sprague, Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+)
• Lynette Mabote, AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA)

Africa: Moving towards revolutionising approaches to HIV criminalisation

“We have all agreed with the Sustainable Development Goal of ending HIV and Tuberculosis by 2030. We cannot get there while we are arresting the same people we are supposed to ensure are accessing treatment and living positively,” said Dr Ruth Labode, a member of Parliament from Zimbabwe opening remarks at a two-day global meeting co-hosted by the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA) and HIV Justice Worldwide (HJWW) on 24 and 25 April 2017 in Johannesburg, South Africa, which focused on “Revolutionising approaches to Criminalisation of HIV Non-disclosure, Exposure and Transmission”.

The meeting was attended by advocates, civil society organisations, lawyers, judges, national human rights institutions and Members of Parliament from all over Africa and with some delegates from North America. Central to these deliberations was the draconian provisions within numerous HIV-specific laws being developed as government responses to the prevention and control of the HIV epidemic. The good intentions inherent in these pieces of legislation are often marred with provisions, which criminalise people based on their HIV status. Punitive provisions relating to ‘compulsory testing’, ‘involuntary partner notification’, ‘non-disclosure’ and ‘transmission’ of HIV are often cited, fueling stigma against people living with HIV.

The common theme binding these deliberations, was the negative impact of HIV criminalisation and the stories that were shared by colleagues. The increasing trend of imposing criminal sanctions against people living with HIV, had resulted in adverse impact on public health outcomes for certain populations, especially women. While reinforcing stigma, HIV criminalisation impedes access to sexual and reproductive health services such as condoms, HIV testing and treatment. Further, HIV criminalisation discourages HIV-positive women from accessing ante-natal care, which leads to increased maternal and child mortality. The overly broad and vague nature of most HIV specific laws, accompanied by the imposition of criminal sanctions without empirical or scientific support, further underpins the rift between public health goals and the protection of human rights.

Representing the AIDS Legal Network, one of the partners who led the development of the 10 Reasons Why Criminalisation Harms Women, Johanna Kehler mentioned the fact that, “HIV criminalisation and HIV specific laws are often set against a social milieu that is patriarchal, heteronormative and perpetuates gender inequalities and utilises punitive approaches to “correct” imbalances.” She went on to add that these laws ultimately maintain and widen the divide between public health needs and human rights obligations.

“Most prosecutions globally involve no or negligible risk of transmission. Among the thousands of known prosecutions, cases where it was clear, much less proven beyond reasonable doubt, that an individual planned on or wanted to infect another person with HIV, are exceedingly rare. People are being convicted of crimes contrary to the best public health advice, but also contrary to scientific and medical evidence”, said Dr Laurel Sprague of the HIV Justice Network, who has since become the Executive Director of the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+).

During the meeting, various organisations shared their experiences around litigating these matters and community advocacy mounted to reform problematic laws or specific draconian provisions. Cases from Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Niger showcased that challenges were experiences in most contexts.

The Uganda Network on Law, Ethics & HIV/AIDS (UGANET), together with other advocates and activists, continue to challenge the Ugandan law and constitutionality of the criminalisation provisions contained in the HIV Prevention and Control Act of 2014. The Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) spoke to the extensive work that they furthered in Malawi, which included a focus on arbitrary arrests and dentition. Malawi has taken the centre stage where HIV criminalisation is concerned, as they are currently in the process of tabling a decade-old Draft HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Management) Bill, which contains draconian provisions around HIV criminalisation.

Amplifying the voice of survivors of HIV criminalisation, the meeting was privileged to engage with Kerry Thomas via telephone from a state correctional facility in Boise, Idaho in the United States of America. Mr Thomas, who was prosecuted for HIV non-disclosure and the sentence that he is serving, reinforced the unjust nature of these laws. Mr Thomas is currently serving his eighth year out of a 30-year sentence for non- disclosure to his ex-partner, despite there being no proof of transmission and the fact that he had consensual and protected sex. His appeal on the unconstitutionality of Idaho’s non-disclosure law, was overturned in the District courts in 2016.

The meeting concluded with very strong calls for everyone to joining the global HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE movement and organisations committed to utilise their existing resources to galvanise advocacy focusing on ending HIV criminalisation.

Participants agreed that there was a need to focus on the inter-sectionalities within the HIV criminalisation discourse, as well as a need for coordination and collaboration amongst legislators, members of the judiciary, parliamentarians, health care workers and civil society organisations to further advocacy related to this issue.

The participants also agreed that transformative approaches to HIV criminalisation, require both legal and social reforms, such as sensitisation of community members and the media. ARASA has committed to working with colleagues in developing a timeline of key events and advocacy opportunities, at which colleagues could participate.

Revolutionising approaches to Criminalisation of HIV Non-disclosure, Exposure and Transmission was supported by a grant from the Robert Carr civil society networks Fund.

Since its inception, ARASA has played an active role in addressing HIV criminalisation in the region and globally. ARASA has strengthened the capacity of civil society on the issue and supported partners to work with the media, parliamentarians, members of the judiciary and lawyers to address HIV criminalisation.

To read more about the meeting, follow #Decrim4Health on Facebook and Twitter. You can also view a gallery of photos taken during the meeting here.

Canada: People of African, Caribbean and black descent over-represented in the mainstream media coverage of HIV non-disclosure.

Skewed Stories: Race and HIV Criminalization in the Media

By Sané Dube

From Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange

June 12, 2017

In Canada, not disclosing your HIV status to a sex partner can, in some circumstances, be deemed a crime. Media stories of people prosecuted for not disclosing their status show black men on trial in disproportionate numbers. What impact does this have on African, Caribbean and black communities?

“In a word, it’s dehumanizing.” Robert Bardston is talking about media coverage of HIV non-disclosure cases. I’ve spent the past couple of months engaged in a series of poignant, inspiring and sometimes-heartbreaking conversations about the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure. I am trying to understand how mainstream media stories on the issue impact African, Caribbean and black (ACB) people across the country. Robert and I are speaking on the phone — miles stretch between his Medicine Hat and my Toronto. It’s early and the sleep is still working its way out of his voice.

He lets out a weighty sigh and continues: “It’s dehumanizing to see yourself branded as deviant in the public eye, especially through the media.” Robert, an HIV activist and co-chair of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Black, African and Caribbean Network (CHABAC), has lived with the virus since 1988.

In an illuminating conversation, we explore what it feels like to see and hear stories of people criminalized for not disclosing their HIV status before sex. We cycle through the emotional toll the coverage can take and the complicated feelings it evokes. Robert says that people living with HIV are treated as pariahs and that black people living with HIV face both HIV stigma and debilitating racism in how their stories are told.

Throughout our conversation he juxtaposes two key elements of his identity — his status as a person living with HIV and his identity as a black person in Canada. As Robert points out, African, Caribbean and black people living with HIV have pressing and unique concerns regarding the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure. To fully understand how deeply this issue impacts individuals and communities, we must first understand what it means to inhabit both of these spaces. To understand this moment in time, we must look at it in context.

The first cases of people being charged for not disclosing their HIV status to sex partners date back to the late 1980s. Since 1989, more than 180 HIV-positive people have been prosecuted in Canada for not disclosing their status. A sharp rise in the number of cases, which began in 2004, has been accompanied by increasing severity in the type of criminal charges laid at the feet of people living with HIV.

Today, someone facing prosecution typically faces an aggravated sexual assault charge — a serious criminal charge with potentially grave consequences. If convicted, a person can be added to the sex-offenders registry and face a sentence of up to life in prison. In cases where the accused has immigrated to Canada, they may also face deportation.

In all of my conversations, the year 2012 pops up as a recurring focal point. That year the Supreme Court of Canada released decisions on two highly anticipated cases. The Court had been asked to clarify the conditions under which people living with HIV could face criminal prosecution for not disclosing their HIV status to sex partners. Legal obligations to disclose one’s status had already been in effect since the late ’80s, but in 2012 the court was asked to determine how using a condom or having a low viral load could impact criminal liability in cases of HIV non-disclosure.

By 2012 the global HIV epidemic was entering its third decade. Tremendous gains had been made in better understanding the biology of HIV transmission and advocates hoped that the highest court in Canada would seize this opportunity to integrate the latest scientific evidence on HIV transmission risks — showing that condoms and maintaining a low viral load significantly cut the risk — into legal processes. In a 1998 decision the Court had ruled that people living with HIV had a legal duty to disclose their status before having sex that might pose a “significant risk” of transmission. The court’s definition of “significant risk,” however, was vague and unclear, and advocates hoped that the 2012 ruling would bring greater clarity to the law.

Instead, the law became stricter. People living with HIV were now required to disclose their status before sex that posed a “realistic possibility” of HIV transmission. The problem was that sex posing a realistic possibility included situations where there is effectively zero risk. Critics called the decision a step back that diminished the rights of people living with HIV.

While the cases were being deliberated in the highest court in the land, they were also being dissected in the court of public opinion. One case involved a black man accused of failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to several sex partners. Although HIV was never transmitted to any of his partners, he was charged with six counts of aggravated sexual assault.

By the time the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling, dangerous and harmful ways of talking about HIV and, in particular, African, Caribbean and black men living with HIV had become the norm. Some of the most discussed cases of that period involved black men; the result was a disturbing fusion of blackness and criminal deviance.

Looking back, people living with HIV and advocates describe popular coverage of criminalization cases during that era as uniformly poor, increasing stigma and undermining education and knowledge about the science of HIV. The coverage not only normalized language that framed people living with HIV as inherently deceptive and dangerous to the public, the disproportionate focus on people of African, Caribbean and black descent, particularly straight black men, told a singular, dangerous story.

The fusion of black identity and negative stereotypes is not new. Indeed, it is something black people and communities contend with daily. In another illuminating conversation, Shannon Ryan, the executive director of Black CAP (Black Coalition for AIDS Prevention), who has worked in HIV organizations for two decades, tells me, “Being black in Canada means something. Systemically and institutionally, it means something — whether you stepped off a plane this morning or your family has been here since the 1700s. I try to remind the people I work with that our blackness is something to celebrate and includes strength and solidarity. But in the world outside these doors, being black can also include facing anti-black racism, it means marginalization, it means oppression and vulnerability.” Contemporary narratives about the criminalization of black people who don’t disclose their HIV status draw from and feed into these problematic and stifling conceptions.

Equally stifling is the criminalization that black communities must contend with in the first place. Black people are vastly over-represented in Canada’s prisons. A 2015 report from the Office of the Correctional Investigator found that the federal incarceration rate for African, Caribbean and black people in Canada is three times their representation rate in the general population.

“The criminalization of HIV non-disclosure is another way our communities are being criminalized and torn apart,” says Ciann Wilson, an assistant professor at Wilfred Laurier University who has worked with African, Caribbean, black and Indigenous communities responding to HIV. “HIV follows lines of existing inequity and the criminalization of people living with HIV further disenfranchises communities that are already dealing with structural racism.”

There’s an old adage that we understand the world around us by the stories we tell about it. A team of Ontario researchers analyzed 1,680 Canadian newspaper articles about HIV non-disclosure criminalization cases that were published between 1989 and 2015. They found that 62 percent of the stories focused on cases involving black immigrant defendants, yet only 20 percent of the 181 people charged during the same period were African, Caribbean or black men. The research team concluded that the media disproportionately focuses on cases involving black people facing prosecution for non-disclosure.

“There’s no question about it: Straight black men in particular are over-represented in the media coverage of these cases,” says sociologist Eric Mykhalovskiy, one member of the research team. “If you take a closer look at the coverage, half of the 1,680 articles focused on four black men facing prosecution. The fact that the coverage is so skewed toward those defendants really produces in the public imagination the idea that HIV non-disclosure is a crime of black heterosexual men — when it’s not,” he says. “It’s a profound example of what is clearly a long history of over-representing black people in crime stories in the media.” [To read the full report, Callous, Cold and Deliberately Duplicitous: Racialization, Immigration and the Representation of HIV Criminalization in Canadian Mainstream Newspapers, click here.]

The storytelling pattern Mykhalovskiy references traces back to some of the first HIV non-disclosure cases involving African, Caribbean and black men in Canada. Early media reports drew from racialized stereotypes about black men, masculinity and gender. They conjured images of hyper-sexualized black men maliciously transmitting HIV to unsuspecting partners — usually white and female. News headlines frequently described defendants as “predators” while making reference to “potent” African strains of HIV.

The same patterns emerge in contemporary mainstream coverage of HIV non-disclosure cases involving ACB individuals. “Many people may not personally know someone who is HIV positive. They know about HIV through the media,” Mykhalovskiy says. “When you look at the stories that are told, you see that the kind of knowledge that’s available paints black people living with HIV as a significant threat and danger. It’s really concerning.”

The effects are far reaching. HIV is a pressing concern for many African, Caribbean and black communities across the country and these problematic narratives impact the ways in which communities and individuals experience and respond to HIV.

Take, for example, Linda, who has had HIV since 2003. She currently lives in B.C., where she’s been working with groups supporting black people living with HIV in that province. Linda is a force to reckon with. She is a quiet revolution who resists the oversimplification of the lives of people living with HIV. Yet it’s impossible to miss the fatigue that clouds her voice when she talks about the impact of HIV non-disclosure media stories on the lives of people with HIV.

“The ways they talk about us in the media — it makes you feel worthless. It’s a huge problem for us African people living with HIV. We talk amongst ourselves and we are scared.” She continues after a measured pause: “I think it’s cruel. It’s only expanding the stigma. It’s pushing people away instead of encouraging people with HIV to come forward and talk about stigma.”

Increasing stigma and isolation are top concerns for service providers at HIV organizations, too. These organizations work to disrupt the problematic stories told in the popular press about HIV and the criminalization of non-disclosure. They have been working diligently to shift the conversation and advocate for laws that don’t further marginalize people living with HIV. They argue that stigma is a major barrier in effective responses to HIV.

Two such organizations — Black CAP and the African and Caribbean Council on HIV/AIDS in Ontario (ACCHO) — are located in an inconspicuous office building in downtown Toronto. I’m delivered to the fourth floor of the building by a shaky elevator reminiscent of an earlier time. Stepping into the waiting area I am aware of the unique place in the Canadian conscience and HIV service organization landscape held by agencies like Black CAP and ACCHO.

African, Caribbean and black people make up less than 3 percent of Canada’s population, yet they account for 14 percent of HIV infections. Here again, African, Caribbean and black communities are over-represented and disproportionately impacted. Despite these telling demographics, organizations like Black CAP and ACCHO, which both work specifically with and for ACB communities, are few, far between and often crippled by limited funding.

The situation creates a paradox — one where ACB communities are over-represented among people living with HIV and where the public imagination creates strong links between blackness and HIV — yet interventions that cater specifically to ACB communities are limited. HIV in ACB communities is simultaneously hyper-visible and erased in the same breath.

ACCHO director Valérie Pierre-Pierre begins our conversation by reflecting on the coverage of HIV criminalization cases. “Even though high-profile cases don’t necessarily represent the majority of cases, the media covers those cases in ways that further demonize the accused. They elicit negative reactions toward people living with HIV, especially black men.” She is referring to narratives that frame people living with HIV as maliciously transmitting the virus to unsuspecting partners. She and others in HIV service organizations argue that these portrayals have driven misinformation and stigma — which fuel fear and, in turn, create barriers to addressing HIV in ACB communities.

Black CAP executive director Shannon Ryan, reflecting on the aftermath of the Supreme Court rulings and the media coverage, says, “It does not help us do our work. It does not promote testing. It does not promote diagnosis. It does not promote disclosure. It does not reduce stigma. It diminishes our work.”

While proponents of the current law argue that it helps prevent HIV (that the fear of prosecution will make people living with HIV take precautions with their sex partners), many people living with HIV and many working in the field argue that the criminalization of non-disclosure and the discourses around it become marginalizing forces. In African, Caribbean and black communities, this can have a particularly damaging and splintering effect.

Months after my first call with Robert Bardston and many conversations later, I have talked to people living with HIV, service providers, legal experts and researchers about the impact of HIV non-disclosure criminalization on African, Caribbean and black communities and the stories we tell about it. To be sure, this is a difficult and divisive issue. Yet in the midst of it all, there are extraordinary individuals and groups resisting and challenging harmful narratives about these communities and criminalization.

They are claiming space and demanding this story be told a different way. They want the story to begin with an acknowledgment that structural violence and marginalizing narratives about African, Caribbean and black communities drive increasing rates of HIV and, indeed, criminalization. Many also want to make it clear that the current system does not serve already-vulnerable communities.

Listening to their stories of resistance, I allow myself to start imagining and dreaming about a system that better serves our communities.

For more on the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, visit the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network‘s website.

Sané Dube is a Zimbabwean transplant to Canada. She lives in Toronto.

Canada: Two staff members of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network discuss how the 'Undetectable = Untransmittable' campaign might best be understood to impact HIV criminalisation advocacy

U=U and the overly-broad criminalization of HIV nondisclosure

Published on CATIE’s blog on 06/06/2017

By Nicholas Caivano and Sandra Ka Hon Chu

People living with HIV in Canada have been charged with some of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code, even in cases of consensual sex where there was negligible or no risk of HIV transmission, no actual transmission and no intent to transmit.

The Undetectable=Untransmittable (“U=U”) campaign is based on scientific research, including the ground-breaking PARTNER study, establishing that when a person living with HIV on treatment maintains an undetectable viral load for at least six months, the risk of transmitting the virus through sex is effectively non-existent. As advocates for persons living with HIV await action from federal, provincial and territorial governments to address the overly-broad criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, how might the U=U campaign and the results of the PARTNER study impact ongoing prosecutions under the current state of the law?

Canada has the dubious distinction of being a world “leader,” after Russia and the United States, in prosecuting people living with HIV. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), in R. v. Cuerrier, decided that people living with HIV have a legal duty to disclose their HIV-positive status to sexual partners before having sex that poses a “significant risk” of HIV transmission.

In 2012, in R. v. Mabior, the SCC ruled that people living with HIV have a legal duty to disclose before having sex that poses a “realistic possibility of HIV transmission,” which the Crown must prove. Commenting specifically in the context of a case involving penile-vaginal sex, the Court stated that “as a general matter, a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if: (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low and (ii) condom protection was used.”

In Canada, people who face criminal charges related to HIV non-disclosure are typically charged with aggravated sexual assault, a criminal offence usually reserved for the most violent rape, on the theory that the absence of disclosure renders a partner’s consent to sex invalid. Despite the requirement of a “realistic possibility” of transmission, charges are being brought, even when people living with HIV engage in conduct that, based on medical evidence, poses a negligible possibility of transmission.

As U=U makes clear, the available information about HIV transmission has changed dramatically since the SCC’s decision in 1998. The results of the PARTNER study add to the mounting pile of evidence available to assist courts in making sure the law is consistent with science and with human rights.

Advancing U=U as part of broader advocacy efforts to curb unjust prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, however, warrants further consideration. Individuals who already face discrimination and marginalization may face unique barriers to attaining undetectable status. Research has shown, for example, that people who use drugs have a harder time attaining and maintaining an undetectable viral load. This is also likely to be true for people in prison, many of whom face HIV treatment disruptions because of the temporary unavailability of medications or transfers between institutions. Treatment for Indigenous communities may also be challenging due to the shameful inadequacy of culturally appropriate health care services in rural and remote communities. And women may have a harder time achieving undetectable viral loads for various reasons, including being diagnosed later in life, prioritizing the health of others, and higher rates of poverty, violence, housing instability and food insecurity.

While a growing body of research provides further evidence to consider when determining what constitutes a “realistic possibility of HIV transmission,” advocacy concerning cases of HIV non-disclosure must be informed by the unique challenges that marginalized groups living with HIV face in attaining undetectable status, so that the criminal law does not reproduce further inequities. Advocates must also acknowledge that the criminalization of people living with HIV has a negative impact on public health, regardless of viral load. Without laws and policies to ensure the removal of all barriers to HIV prevention and treatment, new scientific discoveries and their role in the courts may leave disparities between people living with HIV intact — or ultimately, do more to perpetuate them.

Nicholas Caivano is a lawyer and Policy Analyst at the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, where he works on human rights issues related to access to harm reduction services and access to medicines, and leads the work on law reform possibilities for HIV criminalization in Canada.

Sandra Ka Hon Chu is the Director of Research and Advocacy at the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, where she works on HIV-related human rights issues concerning prisons, harm reduction, sex work, women, and immigration.

[Update] India: Parliament passes landmark bill ensuring equal rights to people living with HIV and giving them the right not to disclose their status

Lok Sabha passes ‘historic’ bill ensuring equal rights to HIV-affected people

The Lok Sabha on Tuesday passed a crucial bill that ensures equal rights to the people affected by HIV and AIDS in terms of getting treatment, jobs or admissions to educational institutions.

Moving the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2017 for passage, health minister JP Nadda said the government stood for free treatment to HIV patients.

The Rajya Sabha had passed the bill last month.

The “historic” and “people centric” legislation will strengthen rights of people infected with HIV, Nadda said.

Various clauses pertaining to prohibition of discrimination against HIV-positive patients have been enlisted in the bill. “Whosoever does not adhere to the provisions of the bill, will be penalised. Civil and criminal proceedings will be launched against such persons”, Nadda said, adding that action would also be taken against those who attempted to block the implementation of the bill.

The legislation, he added, has provisions to safeguard the property rights of HIV positive people.

“Every HIV infected or affected person below the age of 18 years has the right to reside in a shared household and enjoy the facilities of the household”, Nadda said.

Further, the bill prohibits any individual from publishing information or advocating feelings of hatred against HIV positive persons and those living with them.

Nadda said the government will also promote research to check the spread of HIV virus and come out with aggressive strategies, especially in high risk areas.

Opposition members had several suggestions and observations during the Bill’s passage, TMC member Ratna De Nag regretted that stigma related to HIV remains intense . P Ravindra Babu (TDP) emphasized that the stigma associated with the disease could not be eradicated by laws alone. Varaprasad Rao (YSR Congress) pitched for insurance cover for the affected people with the premium being paid by the government.

Heena Gavit (BJP) said couples affected with HIV should be given the right to adopt children.

Text of the full bill is available here

——————————————————————

The new HIV and AIDS Bill will work to reduce stigma and discrimination

By JP Nadda

Two decades ago India was considered a hotspot and emerging centre of the world’s HIV epidemic. Since then, India has made tremendous progress in controlling HIV. Through its continuing efforts including targeted programmes and support of affected communities, India has demonstrated that the course of an epidemic can be reversed by public education, mass awareness and wide scale availability of testing and treatment.

Today, approximately 21 lakh people are living with HIV, as per government estimates. The adult prevalence is in the range of 0.3%, of which around 40% are women. Despite this enormous progress and the availability of testing and treatment, stigma and discrimination against HIV affected individuals in India remains widespread.

India made some efforts at stigma reduction in the early part of the epidemic. Yet social attitudes do not transform easily. The HIV AIDS bill approved by the Cabinet and pending approval in Parliament is an important step in ensuring that the progress made against HIV is not halted and discrimination against HIV affected individuals is reduced.

How is this being done? It’s important to reflect on the many progressive aspects of the bill. To start with, numerous provisions of this bill ensure government accountability and commitment into providing HIV prevention, testing, treatment and care to those at risk. Why is this necessary? Because every government irrespective of political affiliations must commit to fighting HIV. For the first time, the bill brings together a human-rights perspective to public health, and makes antiretroviral treatment a right of HIV/AIDS patients. The central and state governments are duty bound to provide for treatment and also arrange for the management of risk reduction of vulnerable populations. This will ensure that in the future no Indian has to struggle for diagnosis or treatment.

Considering widespread stigma and the need for privacy, the bill also mandates that no HIV test, medical treatment, or research can be conducted on a person without their informed consent. This ensures that those affected by HIV have the right to privacy and confidentiality. The bill also mandates that no person can be compelled to disclose their HIV status except with informed consent, and if required by a court order.

The bill also addresses discrimination in everyday life through numerous provisions especially at the workplace and within communities. It prohibits discrimination against HIV positive persons and those affected in numerous aspects. These include the denial, termination, discontinuation or unfair treatment with regard to employment and in educational establishments, health care services, residing or renting property, standing for public or private office, and provision of insurance (unless based on actuarial studies). The bill also prohibits the requirement for HIV testing as a pre-requisite for obtaining employment or accessing health care or education.

The intention is to ensure that no HIV infected individual is the subject of discrimination and there is legal accountability and recourse for them. The bill also mandates the appointment of an ombudsman in every state to inquire into complaints related to the violation of the Act and the provision of health care services. This ombudsman will submit reports every six months stating the number and nature of complaints received and the actions taken on them.

Populations who are most vulnerable to HIV/AIDS are female sex workers (FSWs), men who have sex with men (MSMs), transgenders and intravenous drug-users. The bill seeks to protect these high-risk groups from discrimination, both through administration of treatment for their infections as well as improving their access to welfare schemes and services.

The bill also mandates that cases relating to HIV positive persons shall be disposed off by the court on a priority basis. If an HIV infected or affected person is a party in any legal proceeding, it shall be conducted so as to supress the identity of the person, and restrain any person from publishing information that discloses the identity of the applicant. Also when passing any order with regard to a maintenance application filed by an HIV infected or affected person, the court shall take into account the medical expenses incurred by the applicant.

While social change will take time and stigma will not end immediately, this bill is a step in the right direction. It is a much needed and long awaited measure that will work to reduce stigma and discrimination towards people living with HIV. It will also ensure enhanced access to and privacy for those seeking care.

The foundation of every significant legislation is that it must safeguard civil liberties. This is exactly what this bill intends to do. It intends to ensure that those living with HIV do so with dignity and respect enjoying all their rights as citizens.

In the long-term, our goal is an India where no new HIV infection occurs and where living with HIV is neither a matter of fear or of shame.

Originally published in Hindustan Times on 24 March 2017

India: HIV/AIDS (Prevention & Control) Bill strongly criticised for not guaranteeing universal access to HIV treatment

Delhi, Gaborone, New York – The International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC) and its global coalition partners are outraged following a decision by the Indian Parliament to absolve itself from responsibility of providing treatment for people living with HIV in India. The HIV/AIDS (Prevention & Control) Bill was passed in the upper house of the Indian Parliament yesterday, 21 March 2017. The Bill states that the government will provide treatment for people living with HIV ‘as far as possible’ (see full text below) absolving the government from its responsibility to protect the right to life.

“This is a step backwards for human rights, and a tremendous blow for all people living with HIV in India,” said Gregg Gonsalves, Chair of ITPC-Global. “It is extremely concerning that the India government has given itself this loophole at a time when the government program is in disarray, with the worst period of antiretroviral drug stock outs.”

Networks of people living with HIV and other civil society organizations lobbied Members of Parliament to amend the draft Bill that was first tabled in February 2014. In response to civil society concerns, senior Members of Parliament urged the Union Minister JP Nadda to make the amendment. HIV treatment activists were stunned when these parliamentarians withdrew their amendment at the last minute, thus giving way to the Bill passing into legislation.

“As the biggest supplier of generic medicines to the developing world, India could be the leading light in HIV treatment, an example to the rest of the world,” said Solange Baptiste, ITPC-Global’s Executive Director. “Instead this new Bill fails to enshrine the rights of its own people. I fear it’s an omen of things to come. We, HIV treatment activists, will be watching and monitoring to make sure the Indian government upholds its responsibility to all its citizens living with HIV.”

“Nothing in the world is more important than securing treatment for me, and my community of people living with HIV,” said Loon Gangte Regional Coordinator ITPC-South Asia. “I earnestly appeal to the government to delete the loophole ‘as far as possible’ and assure our right to life”.

Editor’s Note:

HIV/AIDS Bill Final Text

The provision for HIV treatment in Section 14 of the HIV/AIDS Bill, reads as follows:

1. The measures to be taken by the Central Government or State Government under section 13 shall include the measure for providing, as far as possible, Anti-Retroviral and Opportunistic Infection Management to people living with HIV or AIDS.

2. The Central Government shall issue necessary guidelines in respect of protocols for HIV and AIDS relating to Anti-Retroviral Therapy and Opportunistic Infection Management which shall be applicable to all persons and shall ensure their wide dissemination.

About International Treatment Preparedness Coalition

International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC) is a global coalition of HIV treatment activists formed in 2003 to respond to the needs of communities worldwide. The global network is driven by individual activists, peer support groups, grassroots networks, community-based organizations, and non-governmental organizations. Each of our partners share our values and vision and come together to address issues around access to treatment issues in their countries, regions and at the global level.

US: Article (including quotes from Sero's Sean Strub) highlights how movement against HIV criminalisation is growing stronger in 2017

HIV Criminalization Is Detrimental to Public Health. It’s Time for the Law to Catch Up. By Matt Baume. Outward: Expanding the LGBTQ Conversation on Slate.com

It was in the summer of 2015 that then-23-year-old Michael Johnson was sentenced to thirty 30 years in prison for transmitting HIV. Since 1988, his home state of Missouri has imposed harsh penalties for what prosecutors call “reckless infection,” and it’s hardly alone: Most states have, at some time, prosecuted people for transmitting the virus. But those prosecutions may soon come to an end.

Laws that establish HIV-specific crimes date back to the dark years of the epidemic: “Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users,” wrote William F. Buckley Jr. in the New York Times in 1986, “and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.” At the time, hysteria over AIDS produced a national wave of stigmatizing laws—laws that have now been shown to have worsened the epidemic.

“If people are so concerned with HIV transmission, then perhaps the Missouri legislature and Governor Nixon should start by repealing this law,” wrote Kenyon Farrow, the U.S. and global health policy director for the Treatment Action Group, in response to Michael Johnson’s prosecution.

Though it may seem appropriate to discourage HIV transmission, laws that create HIV-specific crimes “are unjust and harmful to public health around the world,” according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Rather than discouraging transmission, the laws actually discourage patients from seeking testing and care, which in turn leads to more transmissions. Numerous other public health experts and political leaders have called for an end to HIV prosecutions, including the American Medical Association, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the U.S Conference of Mayors, and the Obama administration’s Department of Justice.

But reform comes slowly, and advocates for repeal have found themselves toiling for years to overturn the harmful statutes. Now, at last, a coordinated nationwide effort is taking shape, and 2017 is likely to see significant advances in the decriminalization of HIV.

“There’s two big shifts over the last five or six years,” said Sean Strub, executive director of the Sero Project, a group that advocates for repeal. “One, the people in the LGBT community … have an understanding of what HIV criminalization is. It’s a general awareness of the phenomenon in the communities most directly affected.” He estimates that his organization has had over a thousand speaking engagements in the last half-decade.

“Second: The issue is increasingly seen in public health terms,” he said. “To be fair, there wasn’t a lot of hard evidence [until recently]. We now know that 25 percent of people with HIV in the U.S. know one or more individuals who are afraid to get tested for HIV for fear of getting criminalized.” That statistic is based on a Sero Project survey of over 2,000 people, designed to determine how the partners of people with HIV access health care. Their findings indicate that criminalization has a public health impact beyond people who already have HIV.

Organizations like Sero Project have learned some valuable lessons over the last few years about harm reduction, and they’re now leveraging those best-practices in communities and legislatures around the country. Those strategies include coordinated educational efforts that simultaneously hit multiple communities: Faith, LGBTQ, public health, and legal. In addition, advocates are establishing local coalitions so that legislative pressure comes from constituents, rather than national groups. And they’re engaging with individual prosecutions around the country.

This year will see particularly intense focus in midwestern and southern states: Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, the Carolinas, Ohio, and Indiana will see intensive outreach efforts. California is making great strides, with a bill announced earlier this month to modernize the state’s laws. That effort has included a detailed study of prosecutions, with an analysis of demographic data that could become a model for modernization in other states.

Customized approaches are key to the approach in each state. In Florida, for example, advocates have reached out to members of the criminal justice system, from police officers all the way up to judges. Iowa’s decriminalization effort included a collaboration between hepatitis and HIV groups.

Another important evolution is how closely reform advocates are working with advocates for other forms of social change. “Whether it’s trans activists or drug policy people or sex work activists or Black Lives Matter or penal system reform, HIV decriminalization seems to be a nexus for those efforts,” said Strub. “It’s so closely tied to the criminalization of bodies. … Five or six years ago, other organizations were not involved in this work.”

At the national level, advocates are sponsoring a Congressional lobbying campaign in March. Top priorities include reforms to Army policy, as well as the creation of incentives for states to modernize their laws. (An old provision in the Ryan White CARE Act, a 1990 law that provided funding for HIV programs, prompted many states to impose criminalization in the first place.) The Repeal HIV Discrimination Act, sponsored by Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), would provide a framework for state-by-state repeal—and although it’s languished since 2013, it will see a renewed push next month.

Among the states to watch: Missouri, home of Michael Johnson. The state is in the midst of an organizing effort that Strub estimates could take two or three years. Johnson’s conviction was recently overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct, and he’s been remanded for a retrial likely to happen sometime this year. That’s encouraging news, though Missouri Court of Appeals refused to rule on the constitutionality of the law under which Johnson was convicted.

As a result, Johnson and many others like him will remain tangled in a maze of trials, legislation, and lobbying efforts, trapped by misguided laws that impose preventable harm—for now.

Nigeria: On Zero Discrimination Day, Coalition of Lawyers for Human Rights strongly denounce judicial HIV stigma in ongoing child custody case (Press release)

Breach of HIV status confidentiality and discrimination by the Hon Justice Olagunju of the Oyo State Judiciary

Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. March 1, 2017.

Coalition of Lawyers for Human Rights, COLaHR, is a Coalition of Human Rights Lawyers working on issues of Persons Living With, Affected By or Most at Risk of HIV.

COLaHR has been following and monitoring a case involving a mother living with HIV, which is being adjudicated upon before the Hon Justice Olagunju of Court 7 of the Oyo State High Court of Justice.

Our interest in the matter is basically to monitor how courts, in the dispensation of justice involving persons living with HIV, respect their confidentiality and possible traces of stigma and discrimination, in accessing justice.

COLaHR is concerned with the attitude of the Honourable Justice on all fronts in this regard. On the 20^th of February 2017, while lawyers on both sides were delivering their final addresses, the presiding Judge, publicly made comments which publicly revealed the HIV status of the plaintiff. Not only was this wrong and a gross breach of confidentiality, the Judge also made comments obiter in the case of custody of the child, which exhibited gross stigmatisation and discrimination.

The Judge largely stated as follows:

“putting the interest of the child first, imagine the trauma that the little girl will pass through when the news of her mother being HIV-positive spreads across her school.”

The above quote, which was made in passing (obiter) and may not be included in the courts records, is patently discriminatory and coated with stigma. It betrays lack of appreciation of the prevailing HIV and AIDS laws at the federal and state levels. Several questions arise from Justice Olagunju’s statement:

What happens if both parents of the child are HIV-positive? Will such a child be handed over to foster parents?
Are we saying that persons with HIV in Nigeria are not fit for parenthood?
Should all HIV-positive adults therefore be sterilised?
Who will spread the news of Omolara being HIV-positive all over her daughter’s school?
Is the right to confidentiality of HIV status not guaranteed under Nigerian laws?

COLaHR makes the following findings from our monitoring of this case:

The disposition of Hon. Justice Olagunju clearly casts doubt on the ability of the court not to be swayed by the Plaintiff’s health status in coming to a decision on the matter.

The Plaintiff, in her statements to COLaHR has clearly shown the fear as in above, given her Husband’s request for custody of the child is hinged on HER HIV-POSITIVE STATUS.

It is in light of the above that COLaHR calls on Hon. Justice Olagunju to excuse himself from the case as justice must not only be done, but must be seen to have being done.

We call on the Chief Justice of the State, to direct Hon. Justice Olagunju to step down from the case.

We will in consonance with the law, share our findings with the Federal Attorney General and Minister of Justice and the State Attorney General respectively.

Signed

Roseline Oghenebrume,

National Coordinator, Coalition of Lawyers for Human Rights

Canada: Toronto’s ‘Now’ weekly newspaper prominently features HIV criminalisation impact, advocacy and advocates

This week, Toronto’s weekly newspaper, ‘Now’, features four articles on HIV criminalisation and its impact in Canada.

The lead article, ‘HIV is not a crime’ is written from the point of view of an HIV-negative person who discovers a sexual partner had not disclosed to him. It concludes:

After my experience with non-disclosure, I felt some resentment. But while researching this article, I reached out to the person who didn’t disclose to me. We talked about the assumptions we’d both made about each other. It felt good to talk and air our grievances.

I realized I’d learned something I’d never heard from doctors during any of my dozens of trips to the STI clinic, something I’d never heard from my family, my school, in the media or from the government – that you don’t need to be afraid of people living with HIV.

A second article, Laws criminalizing HIV are putting vulnerable women at greater risk, highlights the impact HIV criminalisation is having on women in Canada, notably that it is preventing sexual assault survivors living with HIV from coming forward due to a fear they will be prosecuted for HIV non-disclosure (which, ironically, is treated as a more serious sexual assault than rape).

Moreover, treating HIV-positive women as sex offenders is subverting sexual assault laws designed to protect sexual autonomy and gender equality. Front-line workers and lawyers say they’re hearing from HIV-positive women who are afraid to report rape and domestic abuse for fear of being charged with aggravated sexual assault themselves.

“People come to me all the time who don’t know what to do,” says Cynthia Fromstein, a Toronto-based criminal lawyer who’s worked on 25 to 30 non-disclosure cases. “Canada, unfortunately, is virulent in its zeal to prosecute aggravated sexual assault related to HIV non-disclosure.”

It also features a strong editorial, ‘HIV disclosure double jeopardy’ by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network’s Cecile Kazatchkine and HALCO’s Executive Director, Ryan Peck, which notes:

In a statement that mostly flew under the radar, Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould declared, on World AIDS Day (December 1), her government’s intention “to examine the criminal justice system’s response to non-disclosure of HIV status,” recognizing that “the over-criminalization of HIV non-disclosure discourages many individuals from being tested and seeking treatment, and further stigmatizes those living with HIV or AIDS.”

Wilson-Raybould also stated that “the [Canadian] criminal justice system must adapt to better reflect the current scientific evidence on the realities of this disease.”

This long-overdue statement was the first from the government of Canada on this issue since 1998, the year the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on R v. Cuerrier, the first case to reach the high court on the subject.

Finally, the magazine features a number of promiment HIV activists from Canada, including Alex McClelland, who is studying the impact of HIV criminalisation on people accused and/or convicted in Canada.

He contributed his first piece to HJN last month.