Canada: Decades of advocacy ignored as Canada rejects HIV criminalisation law reform

Why is the federal government still refusing to decriminalize HIV?

Advocates have demanded change for decades. Canada’s government says there’s no path forward for legal reform.

Since 1989 in Canada, more than 200 people have faced charges related to HIV non-disclosure. Here, a person can be charged for not disclosing their positive HIV status to someone they’ve had sex with, even if they have no intention of harming the other person, and even if they don’t transmit the infection. While activists have been fighting for nearly a decade to have these laws repealed, the federal government announced last year they would not be moving forward with efforts to decriminalize HIV non-disclosure. Xtra has spoken with the people at the front of the fight for decriminalization—and the people that these antiquated laws affect.

These are their stories.

The phone call

On November 5, 2024, a phone call that didn’t even last five minutes ended almost a decade of work to decriminalize HIV non-disclosure in Canada. Despite previously indicating that the law might be changed, a representative from the Justice Department told advocates that there would be no path forward to reform a set of policies that criminalize HIV non-disclosure in the country.

Never mind that for the past eight years, various promises had been made. Since 2016, Ottawa has acknowledged the overcriminalization of HIV non-disclosure in Canada. This recognition prompted hearings, consultations and studies that advocates had hoped would lead to reforming the country’s criminal code.

Despite not having HIV-specific legislation, Canada has some of the highest numbers of reported cases of HIV criminalization in the world—a burden, advocates say, that is felt disproportionately by LGBTQ2S+, Black and Indigenous peoples.

According to a 2022 report by the HIV Legal Network, from the first prosecution in 1989 until the end of 2020 in Canada, 206 people faced charges related to HIV non-disclosure in 224 separate cases. Of those cases, only the outcomes of 187 cases were known: 70 percent ended in convictions, and 83 of those convictions resulted from a guilty plea, rather than a guilty verdict following trial.

Although HIV non-disclosure prosecutions affect people of all genders in Canada, 89 percent of people charged are men, and nine percent are women. Of all prosecutions, an estimated 22 percent were Black men and 33 percent were Indigenous women.

On the day of the government’s phone call in November, André Capretti picked up the call on behalf of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization (CCRHC), an organization founded in 2016 that calls on the federal government to engage in legal reform and limit HIV criminalization.

“It was, of course, very frustrating to hear. It felt like we had been taken for a ride and our time was wasted,” he says.

Capretti, who’s also a policy analyst and a lawyer at the HIV Legal Network, says that, at the time, he hadn’t been feeling optimistic, given the delays he and his fellow advocates had experienced while awaiting the federal government’s answer. In a way, he says, the phone call was a form of closure. However, he also felt frustrated—as an advocate but also on behalf of the people who are in the crosshairs of the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure in Canada.

“This is their everyday lived realities, and these are the risks that they face when they are in intimate relationships or choose to engage in sexual encounters with people,” he says.

“If they’re frustrated, disappointed or feel let down, that’s all completely valid.”

The human cost of a cruel policy

Tammy Jones still remembers the afternoon in July 2007 when she was arrested. (Xtra has given her a pseudonym to protect her privacy.) She was doing her chores and affirmations at a recovery home in Abbotsford, B.C., when she heard a knock at the door.

“Tammy Jones?” a police officer asked.

“Yeah,” Jones answered.

“We have a warrant for your arrest.”

The police didn’t explain what crime she’d committed. Jones thought to herself: Was it drug-related? Prostitution? Before going to the recovery house, Jones had worked as a sex worker in Vancouver and had been battling drug addiction.

Months before her arrest, a man with whom she’d had a relationship was diagnosed as HIV-positive. He confronted her and blamed her for transmitting the virus to him. At the time this ex-partner was diagnosed, Jones had been living with HIV for six years. She was on medication to treat her HIV, and sexual contact with him had always involved the use of condoms—her partner, she said, was aware of her positive status. But then, one night, Jones alleges, her ex-partner assaulted her while she was sleeping. He didn’t use a condom.

On the day of her arrest, Jones was driven about an hour away to Vancouver. When she arrived at the police station, she heard the cops saying: “She’s a sex offender.” She was confused by this remark initially, but she soon learned she was being charged with aggravated sexual assault for HIV non-disclosure.

Jones eventually met with a lawyer, who encouraged her to take a plea deal to shorten her sentence from eight years to three. She accepted the deal and was given a statutory release after serving two and a half years. But her guilty plea also meant that her name would be added to the national sex offender registry.

Jones and I first met in Vancouver last spring. While the sun was out, a slight breeze made us shiver. Jones cried as she remembered what had happened during her arrest and eventual release. She told me the lawyer who represented her didn’t put up a fight. She said she didn’t understand the implications of accepting the guilty plea—and didn’t grasp that she’d be registered as a sex offender—until after she got out of prison.

As we sat on a bench in the Olympic Village neighbourhood, Jones spoke so softly that the wind sometimes overpowered her voice. Recalling that day in 2007 and its implications to her life almost two decades later, she said: “They make me out to be this scary person, and I’m not that person. I’m not who they think I am.”

Jones said she feels there’s an irony—and an injustice—to being labelled as a sex offender when, she said, she was sexually assaulted by a family member as a kid, as well as by the man who laid the charges that led to her arrest. She turned to alcohol and drugs to cope with the trauma of both these abuses.

For people like Jones, who’s been on the sex offenders list for almost 20 years now, the brunt of the label reverberates in various aspects of her life, limiting her employment opportunities and holding her from achieving the future she dreams for herself.

Tricky legal ground 

Despite the severity of punishment HIV-positive Canadians can face for non-disclosure, there is no specific law that explicitly prohibits the non-disclosure of HIV status in Canada. Instead, legal precedents have developed through court decisions. Courts have relied on existing criminal offences, such as criminal negligence causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault, to convict people who are HIV-positive and who have failed to inform their sexual partner of their status.

While arrests related to non-disclosure date back to 1989, it wasn’t until 1998 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that people must disclose their HIV status before engaging in any type of sex with a new partner. Failing to do so, the court ruled, could be interpreted as a form of fraud that invalidates consent. In the court’s eyes, if a person has sex without disclosing their status, that sex is seen as non-consensual, similar to coercion in sexual assault cases.

Capretti, the lawyer at the HIV Legal Network, says that before a case is seen as an act of fraud, it needs to have two elements: proof that a person lies or hides their status, and an element of harm. “There’s physical harm from contracting HIV,” Capretti says. “But the law also considers the risk of exposing someone to HIV, even if they don’t get it, as harm.”

According to him, the legal framework in Canada still relies on outdated understandings of how HIV is transmitted, which can lead to unjust criminalization. He says people with a suppressed viral load pose virtually no risk of transmitting the virus, yet the law still requires disclosure in situations where the actual risk is minimal. This disconnect, he says, leads to unjust charges and perpetuates stigma against those living with HIV.

In more recent history, the 2012 Supreme Court ruling, R. v. Mabior,has shaped how cases of alleged HIV non-disclosure are treated in the country. In this case, a man was charged with nine counts of aggravated sexual assault based on his failure to disclose his HIV‑positive status to nine complainants, although none of them contracted HIV. The Supreme Court ruled in that case that people living with HIV have a legal responsibility to disclose their status if they have a “realistic possibility” of transmitting the virus. (According to the ruling, an HIV-positive person is not required to disclose their status if they use a condom and have a viral load below 1,500 copies/ml.)

This precedent has since been interpreted differently in various parts of the country, Capretti says. For example, in 2018, a directive was issued to limit charges for HIV non-disclosure in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon, ending the use of sexual assault laws in these cases; instead, they could be prosecuted on simple assault or other charges like criminal negligence. It also specified that individuals with a suppressed viral load (under 200 copies/ml) should not be prosecuted for HIV exposure, as they are unlikely to transmit the virus. Cappreti says using simple assault and other charges, as opposed to a sexual assault charge, is important to continue to fight stigma related to HIV.

 “The whole country’s legal landscape has failed to evolve alongside the scientific advances in HIV research.”

In Ontario, B.C., Alberta and Quebec, prosecutors have been instructed not to charge individuals with a suppressed viral load, whether or not they used a condom. Policies differ on how long a person’s viral load must be suppressed—Ontario requires at least six months, while B.C., Quebec, and Alberta allow four to six months. There is no minimum time limit in the three territories, and information from other provinces is limited.

“The state of the law in Canada is inconsistent,” Capretti says. “It means that someone in Ontario would have different legal obligations than someone in Manitoba, someone in New Brunswick, or someone in British Columbia.” If a person travels outside their home province, they would be subject to the rules of the province in which sexual contact occurs.

On top of this, he says the type of sex a person has is significant because of the different levels of risk associated with HIV transmission. A partner who is receptive during anal sex, for example, has a higher risk of contracting HIV than someone who engages in oral sex.

“That’s relevant because certain provinces have prosecutorial directives,” Cappretti says. He gives B.C. and the Territories as an example. There, someone who has oral sex without disclosing their status would not be prosecuted.

These policy differences mean that while the whole country’s legal landscape has failed to evolve alongside the scientific advances in HIV research, some regions lag further behind than others.

A changing scientific landscape

While HIV prevention and treatment have greatly improved in the past decade, non-disclosure laws have not moved at the same pace. Daily antiretroviral medications now allow those who take them to lessen the amount of HIV in the blood to the point that the virus is undetectable through testing—and therefore untransmittable to anyone else. When taken correctly, HIV drugs that prevent infection, such as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), can also help those who are exposed to HIV avoid contracting the virus. In May last year, Health Canada approved APRETUDE, the first long-acting injectable for HIV prevention. Earlier this year, Quebec became the first province to offer injectable PrEP for free.

These massive scientific advancements have saved lives and transformed what it means to be diagnosed with HIV today. Still, Canada’s judicial system largely fails to take the usage of these drugs into account.

Capretti says this ultimately undermines public health by discouraging testing and treatment. In the recent national HIV estimates, 65,270 Canadians are living with HIV. Of this number, it’s estimated that around 10 percent don’t know their status.

HIV activist Muluba Habanyama says criminalizing HIV non-disclosure impacts treatment in Canada. She warns that fear of criminal charges may lead people to avoid testing. “If you don’t want to risk criminalization, you might not want to know your status.”

Habanyama was born with HIV and has long fought against HIV stigma. She recalls being eight when her mother told her: “You’re Black, you’re female and you’re living with HIV. You have to work three times [harder] to get half of what others have.”

The criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, according to Habanyama, creates a dilemma where people may avoid testing to escape legal risks, which in turn harms public health efforts. “It’s sad that people feel they have to pick one or the other,” she says. “I don’t think we should be a country that promotes that.”

Removing this barrier to testing is particularly urgent, as HIV is on the rise in Canada. According to the most recent data, 1,848 new infections occurred in Canada in 2022, a 15 percent increase from 2020. That means five people were infected with HIV in the country each day.

“On the one hand, the public health response is encouraging people to get tested, and then on the other hand, it’s putting them in jail.”

Canada has failed to meet its testing, treatment, and prevention targets. The country initially pledged to achieve a 90-90-90 target by 2020, meaning 90 percent of people living with HIV know their status, 90 percent of HIV-positive people have access to treatment and 90 percent of people receiving treatment are undetectable. However, by 2022, Canada had still not met those goals. The new target is to reach 95-95-95 by 2025.

Brook Biggin, director of Education, Knowledge Mobilization, and Policy at the Community-Based Research Centre (CBRC), an organization that promotes the health of people of diverse sexualities and genders, says the government’s investment in reaching undiagnosed individuals is a major focus of the public health response in Canada.

“On the one hand, the public health response is encouraging people to get tested, and then on the other hand, it’s putting them in jail. And so it’s contradictory,” he says. “Until that’s resolved, I think Canada’s HIV response will continue to be hobbled.”

How criminalization affects LGBTQ2S+ people 

Biggin got involved in HIV awareness advocacy shortly after being diagnosed with HIV in 2011. Eight years later, he spoke in front of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during one of its meetings to study the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure.

“I do not believe that we would have the rights that we have today as queer and trans people if it weren’t for people living with HIV,” he says. “I think it’s incumbent on us as queer people who gain so much from people living with HIV over the years to return the favour.”

In the 2022 report from the HIV Legal Network examining key trends and patterns of HIV criminalization in Canada, 27 percent of all the HIV non-disclosure cases from 1989 to 2020 involve gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). GBMSM are still the demographic that makes up the highest proportion of new HIV cases in the country, and according to the report, they also represent the highest risk of prosecution.

“I see criminalization as unhelpful and counterproductive to all the advances that have been made in science,” says Sean Hosein, science and medicine editor at CATIE, a national organization that aims to strengthen Canada’s response to HIV, hepatitis C and drug use.

Hosein was working in Toronto as a community educator when the AIDS crisis erupted. He turned his attention to HIV education and advocacy in 1986, motivated by the impact of HIV on his friends and community. Hosein watched some fall ill to the virus, and others die. “I have lost people, and it still hurts,” he says. “I want to try and make sure that doesn’t happen to other people.”

Biggin would like to see more people respond this way. “It’s a shame that so many years have passed and that we, as a community, have, in some ways, been relatively silent about this injustice that’s facing people living with HIV,” he says.

“Leaders in the early days of the AIDS crisis demonstrated that when something’s not right, when marginalized people within our communities are struggling, we have to respond.”

A string of broken promises 

On June 3, 2011, Chad Edward Clarke’s family picked him up as he was released from prison in Ontario. He walked right past his teenage son. He didn’t recognize him; he had grown taller since the last time he saw him almost four years prior.

“Dad!” his son called. “What are you doing?”

Clarke had been incarcerated for more than three years after a former partner said she contracted HIV from him. He was charged with aggravated sexual assault and was put on the national sex offender registry for life.

His uncle and son had come to pick him up, and the trio drove away from the prison along the highway. As he looked around the areas they passed by, Clarke started to cry—it was the first time in more than three years that he saw the wide roads from a vast window and not through the peephole of the van they used to transport him on the way to court or the hospital.

Clarke’s uncle took him and his son to some of their favourite spots in Toronto, including a sandwich place he had missed and a harbour by Lake Ontario. As they stood by the water, Clarke and his son hugged. They skipped rocks. Clarke accidentally threw his ring, a Celtic knot, a homage to his Irish heritage, right into the lake.

“I guess it’s time for new beginnings, Dad,” his son said.

He was right; it was a new beginning in Clarke’s life. That year, he promised to fight so that other people would not experience what he and his family had been through.

Thirteen years later, in April 2024, Clarke spoke to me from his home in Chatham, Ontario. He told me about his family and how his home keeps him grounded. He then showed me a new tattoo he said he had just gotten the day before: a red ribbon that passes through another tattoo of a jail cell.

“It’s the cell I was in,” he said. “The red ribbon is the blood that runs through my body, which caused me to experience injustice in Canada.”

Since 2011, Clarke has become an advocate, sharing his story throughout his journey. Nine years ago, he even testified in front of the justice committee about the effects of the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure on him. He said he’s seen multiple cabinet shuffles and different ministers of justice come and go, yet there’s not much political will to change.

In a run-in with former minister of justice David Lametti in Ottawa, Clarke said he told the minister: “I’m tired of the lip service, ‘When are you going to fix this and give me my life back?’”

Clarke said the minister acknowledged his remark and said only: “Those are strong words, Chad.” That acknowledgment did not translate into meaningful action, Clarke said, which fuelled his determination to continue fighting for justice and reform in the system.

Being on the national sex offender registry has limited Clarke’s ability to find full-time employment and move through life. It’s also affected his family, as well as his children’s mental health. He knows sharing his story is essential, but he admits reliving it puts his mental health in a regressive state too.

“How many more times do I have to pull this scab off?” he asks.

In 2019, after meeting with scientists, researchers, and legal and public health experts, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report that recommended the federal government limit the use of criminal law in dealing with HIV non-disclosure. It suggested that HIV non-disclosure should not be an offence punishable by sexual assault charges. The committee also recommended that the government limit the prosecution to extreme cases where it can be shown that a person intentionally transmits HIV with malicious intent.

In October 2022, the Department of Justice launched a consultation website to solicit input on possible criminal law reforms related to HIV non-disclosure—part of the federal government’s first 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan, launched in August of that year.

The following June, the department released the result of the consultation in a report titled What We Heard. In an online survey responded to by 980 people, 85 percent agreed that the Criminal Code should be amended to ensure that sexual assault offences cannot be used where the only issue in the case is HIV non-disclosure, demonstrating the public’s will to reform the law.

Capretti says that after the release of What We Heard, the coalition had direct conversations with then justice minister Lametti and his policy advisors to discuss the decriminalization of HIV non-disclosure cases in Canada. He says it felt like the process was moving forward at the time. But things stalled after a 2023 cabinet shuffle, which saw Lametti removed from the Justice file and replaced by Arif Virani.

According to Cappretti, after Virani stepped in at the end of July 2023, the federal government scheduled—then postponed—multiple meetings with the CCRHC.

In May 2024, Virani finally met with the CCRHC for the first and only time. Advocates say it seemed like the meeting was an “appearance for the sake of an appearance” and still didn’t have any commitment to the promise of law reform.

Almost six months later, in November, Cappreti, on behalf of the coalition, received the call from the Justice Department saying there was no path forward in decriminalizing HIV non-disclosure in Canada.

“After years of promises and commitments, we have been told by the Canadian government that there is no longer a path forward on law reform as the federal election looms. Instead of demonstrating bravery and finally ending criminalization, our political leaders have shut down progressive reforms,” Alexander McClelland, chair of the CCRHC, said in a press conference weeks after the CCRHC received the phone call.

“They have told us they are not moving forward on evidence-based approaches, that they are not moving forward on findings from their consultations, and that they are not going to change this context, which puts the over 65,000 people living with HIV in this country at risk, who are currently made to live their lives in a context of fear and uncertainty and violence.”

Shortly after the press conference, Xtra contacted then minister of justice Virani to ask what he would say to the advocates who felt the federal government had abandoned years of discussion and collaboration. Virani’s spokesperson, Chantalle Aubertin, said via email at the time: “Minister Virani remains committed to listening and working toward evidence-based changes within the Canadian criminal justice system. This is a sensitive and deeply important matter that has required thoughtful input from all affected groups.

“Regrettably, Conservative obstructing and filibustering through privilege motions this fall has disrupted much of our Government’s ability to move forward on important priorities. This has forced us to make difficult decisions about what can be advanced in this session. We deeply appreciate the patience and resilience of advocates and want them to know that their efforts continue to inspire the work ahead.”

Various emails between the coalition and the federal government, however, show multiple attempts to meet the then minister before the fall of 2024 and before the federal NDP withdrew its support for then prime minister Justin Trudeau’s minority government in September of last year.

Since the Liberals won a minority government under Prime Minister Mark Carney, no further movement appears to have been made this spring.

When asked whether Sean Fraser, Canada’s new minister of justice, will pick up this file and continue looking into the issue that was dropped in the last Parliament, Aubertin, who still works as a spokesperson with the Justice Department, says Fraser has not yet been “fully briefed” on the file. She said that the department will “follow up as soon as [they’re] in a position to offer more detail.” They declined to provide any more information.

Capretti points out that the new Liberal justice minister already has access to the same resources his predecessors have. “We’ve come up with different proposals, we’ve come up with ideas. So he’s coming to the position with much of the work already done,” Capretti says.

“We’ve done a lot of groundwork. He’s not starting from zero, and we shouldn’t act like we’re starting from zero.”

A lasting legacy

For as long as the government fails to take action, Canadians will continue to suffer.

Back in Vancouver on that day in April 2024, Tammy Jones gave a small smile when asked how she’d been doing these days.

She said she’d been focused on improving her life for years, going to therapy and building bridges to rekindle relationships with her children. An Indigenous woman, she said she also tried traditional medicines and sweat lodges. But, amidst all the progress, one thing still haunts her: being listed on the sex offenders’ registry. Most devastating is the way it prevents her from strengthening her bond with her family. The “sex offender” label, she said, feels like a firm grip that keeps holding her to a past she doesn’t want to define her future.

“I’m supposed to meet my niece this weekend, and she has a daughter,” she said. “I’m kind of nervous because of my [sex offender] label.”

In the long term, Jones said she hopes to take her case to the Supreme Court to try to clear her name. She said it would be an uphill battle, but she told me she believed it was worth the fight for her freedom.

She said she’s not losing hope that one day she’ll just be able to be herself: a proud Indigenous woman, a mother and someone not defined by a harmful label.

In that future, she’s just Tammy, and Tammy is enough.

US: PA House Committee considers bill to end HIV criminalization

Pennsylvania House committee hears testimony on bill to decriminalize HIV

On June 2, the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to debate HB632, “Decriminalizing HIV in Pennsylvania.” The bill, primarily sponsored by Philadelphia Rep. Ben Waxman (D-Dist 182), if enacted, would remove the last bit of criminal stigma attached to HIV in the PA Criminal Code.

Referring to the part of the Criminal Code his bill will change, Waxman said, “This is a statute of a bygone era.” The current Code provides that a person engaged in prostitution or other sex crime who exposes another person to HIV can face a “sentence enhancement” from a misdemeanor to a class 3 felony.

According to supporters, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and other professional organizations have put forth guidance around HIV transmission. HB632 would modernize the criminal code to follow the guidance and science behind HIV transmission and remove stigmatizing language.

In his initial co-sponsorship memo, Waxman explained the rationale of decriminalization. In it, he said, in part, “While prostitution is typically a misdemeanor offense, people living with HIV in Pennsylvania who are charged with prostitution can be charged with a felony even if transmission would not be possible, because no physical contact occurred or the nature of contact is not a method of transmission. HIV criminalization laws do not reflect the science around HIV prevention, transmission and treatment. Instead, they stigmatize people living with HIV, and are contrary to federal and state anti-disability discrimination laws. Criminalizing conduct that cannot result in HIV transmission is stigmatizing as everyone living with HIV becomes a potential criminal by virtue of their diagnosis. Stigma undermines public health goals. According to the White House’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States 2022-2025, ‘HIV-related stigma and discrimination continue to undermine the effective use of tools to reduce HIV transmissions.’”

In addition to picking up over half a dozen co-sponsors (all Democrat), the bill has been supported by the PA District Attorneys Association. The AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania also provided significant lobbying support, in collaboration with the Pennsylvania HIV Justice Alliance.

The committee heard testimony from a number of supporters in addition to Rep. Waxman, including Dr. Jay Kostman, Chief Medical Officer of Philadelphia FIGHT; Sean Strub, founder of POZ magazine; Ronda Goldfein, Executive Director of the AIDS Law Project; and Andrea Johnson, activist and HIV advocate.

In their testimony, Strub and Johnson spoke of their personal experiences with the stigma attached to HIV criminalization, while Dr. Kostman and Goldfein spoke from a medical and legal perspective.

Dr. Kostman emphasized public health goals.

“If people know they could face legal consequences for testing positive for HIV, they may avoid getting tested,” Dr. Kostman said. “In addition, fear of prosecution may prevent individuals from seeking care or disclosing their status to partners, contrary to what the laws are intended to encourage. These fears actually produce the opposite public health effect from what would be expected, and treating and identifying people with HIV becomes more difficult.

“We now know that when people are taking effective treatment against HIV (called antiretroviral treatment) the amount of HIV in their blood is at an undetectable level. There is broad scientific data that when people reach this undetectable level, they cannot transmit the virus to other people. The phrase U=U (undetectable = untransmittable) has been widely used based on extensive scientific data. So, when people are identified as HIV positive and stay in care and stay healthy, they will NOT transmit the virus to others.

“We should not subject people to laws that were enacted out of fear and reinforce stigma, and are not based on current scientific understanding.”

Ronda Goldfein addressed the impact of the stigma attached to HIV criminalization. “Over the years, the Pennsylvania Legislature has removed all but one reference to HIV in the criminal code. HB632 would remove the final reference, which is the felony enhancement for prostitution with HIV.

“This enhancement has never served an effective law enforcement purpose. In the 30 years since its enactment, it’s rarely been charged, and no credible research links harsher penalties with a reduction in HIV transmission.

“In 37 years, the AIDS Law Project has provided free legal services on 50,000 legal matters to 25,000 people living with HIV. We regularly hear from our clients how stigma impedes their life and dissuades them from seeking health care and sharing their diagnosis with others.

“To remove stigma, we need to root it out wherever it can be found, including in outdated legislation that doesn’t protect anyone.”

After listening to testimony and questioning the panelists, the committee adjourned without voting on the measure. That will happen at a future committee meeting, though supporters think it likely the bill will be approved. It then goes to the full State House for a vote; supporters are optimistic about passage. Then, it goes to the State Senate.

Mexico: Lawmaker introduces initiative to repeal HIV criminalisation from criminal code

As it is obsolete and discriminatory, PRI proposes to eliminate the crime of “risk of contagion”

Translated with Deepl. Scroll down for original article in Spanish.

Its existence in the Penal Code has served more as a tool for repression, has dissuaded people from going to health services and has sown fear in people living with HIV of being criminalized.

Mérida, Yucatan, May 22, 2025

With a call to ensure that no one is criminalized for their sexual identity or for living with HIV, the coordinator of the Legislative Fraction of the PRI, Gaspar Quintal Parra, presented an initiative to eliminate the crime of risk of contagion from the Yucatan Criminal Code, since it is totally discriminatory.

This proposal, which is an old demand of the LGBTQ+ population, does not arise between desks or from technical isolation, but is a direct result of the participation of active and committed citizenship.

In that sense, the deputy especially recognized the law student Isabel Martínez, member of the Diversity Front of the UADY, who, hand in hand with her legislative technical team, has been able to give life to this proposal.

“Organized citizens told us clearly: the crime of contagion risk is obsolete, ambiguous and discriminatory. Its existence has served more as a tool for repression than for justice. He has dissuaded people from going to health services for fear of being criminalized and has sown fear where there should be protection,” said the PRI leader.

For this reason, he proposed to repeal article 189 and modify other provisions, such as articles 361 and 379 of the local Criminal Code itself, in order to distinguish between living in a health condition and committing a crime with malice or intent to harm another person.

He added that the legislation must sanction wilful conduct, but never penalize a person’s state of health or make them a subject of criminal prosecution for living with a sexually transmitted disease.

“In a context such as Yucatan, which ranks first nationally in cumulative cases of HIV-AIDS, the punitive approach has proven to be ineffective. On the contrary, legislation is required that promotes evidence-based prevention, universal access to treatment, respect for confidentiality and the fight against all forms of stigmatization,” Gaspar Quintal emphasized.

The initiative of the PRI legislator also proposes to modify the Law to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination in Yucatan, to update its language and incorporate a broader vision that makes sexual diversity visible, including concepts such as sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, replacing ambiguous terms such as “sexual preference” or phrases that reinforce heteronormativity.

Likewise, it incorporates new discriminatory behaviors that are not recognized in the law today, such as the non-consensual disclosure of the state of health, the arbitrary requirement of medical tests or harassment based on gender expression.

As it is obsolete and discriminatory, PRI proposes to eliminate the crime of “risk of contagion”

Su existencia en el Código Penal ha servido más como herramienta de represión, ha disuadido a personas de acudir a servicios de salud y ha sembrado miedo en las personas que viven con VIH de ser criminalizadas.

Mérida, Yucatán, 22 de mayo de 2025

Con un llamado a garantizar que nadie sea criminalizado por su identidad sexual o por vivir con VIH, el coordinador de la Fracción Legislativa del PRI, Gaspar Quintal Parra, presentó una iniciativa para eliminar del Código Penal de Yucatán el delito de riesgo de contagio, ya que es totalmente discriminatorio.

Esta propuesta, que es una antigua demanda de la población LGBTQ+, no surge entre escritorios ni desde el aislamiento técnico, sino que es resultado directo de la participación de la ciudadanía activa y comprometida.

En ese sentido, el diputado reconoció especialmente a la estudiante de Derecho Isabel Martínez, integrante del Frente por la Diversidad de la UADY, quien, de la mano con su equipo técnico legislativo, ha podido dar vida a la presente propuesta.

“La ciudadanía organizada nos lo dijo con claridad: el delito de riesgo de contagio es obsoleto, ambiguo y discriminatorio. Su existencia ha servido más como herramienta de represión que de justicia. Ha disuadido a personas de acudir a servicios de salud por miedo a ser criminalizadas y ha sembrado miedo donde debería haber protección”, sostuvo el dirigente priista.

Por tal razón, propuso derogar el artículo 189 y modificar otras disposiciones, como los artículos 361 y 379 del propio Código Penal local, a fin de distinguir entre vivir con una condición de salud y cometer un delito con dolo o intención de dañar a otra persona.

Agregó que la legislación debe sancionar la conducta dolosa, pero nunca penalizar el estado de salud de una persona ni convertirla en sujeto de persecución penal por vivir con alguna enfermedad de transmisión sexual.

“En un contexto como el de Yucatán, que ocupa uno de los primeros lugares a nivel nacional en casos acumulados de VIH-SIDA, el enfoque punitivo ha demostrado ser ineficaz. Por el contrario, se requiere una legislación que promueva la prevención basada en evidencia, el acceso universal al tratamiento, el respeto a la confidencialidad y la lucha contra toda forma de estigmatización”, enfatizó Gaspar Quintal.

La iniciativa del legislador del PRI también plantea modificar la Ley para Prevenir y Eliminar la Discriminación de Yucatán, para actualizar su lenguaje e incorporar una visión más amplia que visibilice la diversidad sexual, incluyendo conceptos como orientación sexual, identidad de género y expresión de género, sustituyendo términos ambiguos como “preferencia sexual” o frases que refuerzan la heteronormatividad.

De igual modo, incorpora nuevas conductas discriminatorias que hoy no están reconocidas en la ley, tales como la divulgación no consentida del estado de salud, la exigencia arbitraria de pruebas médicas o el acoso basado en la expresión de género.

Mexico: LGBTI groups ask for the repeal of HIV criminalisation law

LGBT+ groups demand legislation to punish discrimination against people with HIV

Translated with Deepl. Scroll down for the original article in Spanish.

They demanded to eliminate article 302 of the Tlaxcala Criminal Code, which criminalizes people living with HIV under the figure of “danger of contagion”, considering it obsolete and stigmatizing.

LGBTTTI+ collectives showed that in the state of Tlaxcala there are still areas with high levels of discrimination against people of diverse sexual orientation or with sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV.

In the framework of the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, the collectives demanded a halt to legislative omissions that result in criminalisation and hate speech that violate justice, equality and dignity of people of sexual diversity.

They denounced that, according to the National LGBTQ+ Youth Mental Health Survey 2024, more than 50% of the LGBT+ community in Tlaxcala have been victims of discrimination, mainly by public institutions and in legal spaces.
“There is a systematic resistance of the local Congress to legislate in favour of equality. This phenomenon translates into omissions, freezing of initiatives and evasive speeches in the face of the urgency of guaranteeing human rights”, they affirmed.

Among their demands, they demanded the elimination of article 302 of the Penal Code of Tlaxcala, which criminalises people living with HIV under the figure of ‘danger of contagion’, considering it obsolete and stigmatising.

They also requested to sanction and eliminate hate speech on digital platforms and to establish protocols for institutional response to digital violence against LGBTTTI+ people.

It is worth noting that Congresswoman Mí Pérez Carrillo presented an initiative to reform the local Penal Code to criminalise hate speech against the LGBTIQ+ community, which is expected to be taken up in the coming days.

Exigen colectivos LGBT+ legislar para castigar discriminación a personas portadoras de VIH

Exigieron eliminar el artículo 302 del Código Penal de Tlaxcala, que criminaliza a las personas que viven con VIH bajo la figura de “peligro de contagio”, por considerarlo obsoleto y estigmatizante.

Colectivos LGBTTTI+ evidenciaron que en el estado de Tlaxcala persisten zonas con altos niveles de discriminación hacia personas con orientación sexual diversa o con enfermedades de transmisión sexual como el VIH.

En el marco del Día Internacional contra la Homofobia, la Transfobia y la Bifobia, los colectivos exigieron un alto a las omisiones legislativas que derivan en la criminalización y en discursos de odio que vulneran la justicia, igualdad y dignidad de las personas de la diversidad sexual.

Denunciaron que, de acuerdo con la Encuesta Nacional de Salud Mental de Juventudes LGBTQ+ 2024, más del 50% de la comunidad LGBT+ en Tlaxcala ha sido víctima de discriminación, principalmente por parte de instituciones públicas y en espacios legales.

“Existe una resistencia sistemática del Congreso local a legislar en favor de la igualdad. Este fenómeno se traduce en omisiones, congelamiento de iniciativas y discursos evasivos ante la urgencia de garantizar derechos humanos”, afirmaron.

Entre sus demandas, exigieron eliminar el artículo 302 del Código Penal de Tlaxcala, que criminaliza a las personas que viven con VIH bajo la figura de “peligro de contagio”, por considerarlo obsoleto y estigmatizante.

Asimismo, solicitaron sancionar y eliminar discursos de odio en plataformas digitales y establecer protocolos de respuesta institucional ante la violencia digital contra personas LGBTTTI+.

Es de destacar que la diputada Madaí Pérez Carrillo presentó una iniciativa de reforma al Código Penal local para tipificar los discursos de odio contra la comunidad LGBTIQ+, por lo que se espera que sea retomada en los próximos días.

US: Governor signs bill to repeal HIV criminalisation statute in Maryland

Maryland Repeals HIV Criminalization Law

State advocates succeed in making Maryland the 5th U.S. state to repeal biased HIV criminalization laws 

(Washington, DC) – Today, the governor of Maryland signed a bill repealing the state’s HIV criminal offense, making it the fifth state to do so and the second state to do so in the last 60 days. 

The successful enactment of HB 39 resulted from the work of the Coalition to Decriminalize HIV in Maryland, a project led by FreeState Justice. CHLP supported the coalition’s repeal efforts through strategic contributions and collaborative engagement throughout the campaign.

“This victory reflects years of tireless advocacy by people living with HIV, legal experts, and public health leaders who know that criminalization undermines public health goals,” said Jada Hicks, PJP Senior Attorney at CHLP. “It is especially monumental to achieve this victory in a time when the very existence and rights of our communities are under attack. This is what resistance against systemic injustice and discrimination looks like in action.”

The bill was named to honor the legacy of Carlton R. Smith, a long-term HIV survivor, Baltimore-area activist, and member of the Coalition to Decriminalize HIV in Maryland, who passed away last year.

“At FreeState Justice, we are proud to stand with advocates, health experts, and lawmakers who worked diligently to advance this bill. The bipartisan support for the Carlton R. Smith Act is a testament to the power of education, research, and courageous leadership,” said Phillip Westry, Executive Director of FreeState Justice. “It sends a clear message: Maryland is committed to evidence-based policymaking and to ending the criminalization of people living with HIV. We honor the memory of Carlton R. Smith by continuing the work of building a more just, inclusive, and informed society,” he continued.

Sponsored by Delegate Kris Fair, the bill had broad bipartisan support. Senator Will Smith, Chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee and sponsor of the Senate counterpart bill, emphasized the discriminatory nature of the old law, noting that no other communicable disease was singled out in this manner. He stated in a news report that the law was“skewed towards, frankly, Black men,” underscoring the disparate impact of the law.

In Maryland, Black men are 14% of the state’s population, 44% of those living with HIV and 68% of those accused in HIV-related criminal cases As a result of this law’s passage, there are 14,837 Black men living with HIV in Maryland who will no longer live under the threat of being criminalized due to their health status as people living with HIV.

In the United States, 32 states continue to criminalize people living with HIV and 28 states have harsh criminal penalty enhancements that elevate charges based on a person’s knowledge of their HIV status. In Maryland, the now-repealed law had imposed severe penalties on individuals “knowingly transmitting” or “attempting” to transmit HIV, including up to three years of imprisonment and fines up to $2,500. The law did not require actual transmission of HIV, intent to transmit, or even conduct that can transmit HIV.

The repeal of Maryland’s HIV criminal offense reflects the power of state-level advocacy to lead the way in the face of federal inaction and regression under the Trump administration. The process highlights the importance of advocacy and educating lawmakers about the impacts of overcriminalization on Black people and those living with HIV.

Canada: Canada’s broken promise on HIV criminalisation reform

HIV criminalization and the Canadian government’s failed law reform project: Another. Incredible. Disappointment. Surprise!

By Chad Clarke with contributions from Colin Johnson 

The Government of Canada has broken its promise to reform the laws that criminalize people living with HIV. In November 2024, the Federal Justice Minister’s office informed the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization (CCRHC) that the federal government’s long-promised initiative addressing the “overcriminalization” (their term) of HIV was not going to move forward. This announcement came after almost a decade of difficult work on the part of the HIV community. Blood, sweat and tears and some lives were lost while we worked on developing a workable consensus statement that would satisfy a majority of Parliament.

The government squandered time, money, people’s energy and people’s lives. By conducting a public consultation on “reforming the criminal law regarding HIV non-disclosure” only to appear like they were doing something, when in fact they weren’t, the government failed to address the harms associated with stigma, discrimination and criminalization! It has failed to address the way our current Criminal Code harms people and communities affected by HIV. “Silence = Death” is an iconic slogan in the history of AIDS activism and we can not be silent on our incredible disappointment with the government’s inaction.

A backdrop of struggle

Back in July of 2024, I sat down with fellow CCRHC steering committee member Colin Johnson to discuss HIV criminalization and to urge the government to act. Our CATIE Blog article, entitled “HIV law reform”, began by listing some of the emotions that I was feeling at the time: “Anger! Disappointment! Betrayal!” I still feel these emotions as I write this follow-up blog post.

I feel like I’m playing a game of chess with this government and once again we’re locked in a stalemate. Our current feelings of disappointment are experienced against the backdrop of 44 years of struggle.

While there have been notable improvements in Canada for people living with HIV/AIDS, for example in antiretroviral medicines, in some respects we are backsliding. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, we saw 2,434 new HIV diagnoses in 2023, a 35.2% increase from the previous year.

Consultation games

In the face of rising HIV cases, it makes sense to ask how the government is funding the HIV response. Short answer: it’s not funding it enough.

In 2003, more than 20 years ago, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health recommended that $100 million per year be allocated to support the HIV response in Canada. While funding did increase, it fell short of this recommendation. The government promised to spend $84.4 million annually as of 2008, but in reality, this figure has been frozen at about $73 million. This means over $123 million promised for the HIV response was never delivered. This lack of funding has had a crippling effect on the services and community organizations working to respond to and prevent HIV.

In 2019, the Standing Committee on Health, once again, recommended $100 million per year to fund the HIV response in Canada. But, we’re still waiting!

On the one hand, the government is clearly not spending enough on the HIV response. But on the other hand, how much money was spent on the nationwide consultation that was destined to go nowhere? We already had so much data showing that the criminal law needed to be changed. For example, back in 2019 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled a report calling on the government to change the criminal code.

The CCRHC even developed proposed language for reforming the Criminal Code. We didn’t need this expensive consultation.

A consequence of inaction

As I write this, people living with HIV are still being convicted of serious criminal offences and sentenced to years in prison for allegedly not disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners, even in situations where there was little to no risk of transmission.

Beyond the horrible, violent ways that HIV criminalization harms individuals—too numerous and too painful for me to recount here (see Alexander McClelland’s book on this topic)—we know that it has also caused significant harmful consequences for our wider communities. To quote a recent publication in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, HIV criminalization

“…is applied in uneven and discriminatory ways, hinders public health HIV prevention efforts, and has damaging effects on the everyday well-being, safety, security, and rights of people living with HIV. Studies also show that the mainstream press reinforces damaging, racist, stigmatizing messages about HIV in its coverage of criminal non-disclosure cases.”

If anyone reading this thinks they might be in favour of a criminal law response to HIV, let me ask you this: how many cases of HIV has the criminal law ever prevented? To answer this question, I’ll offer this quote from an article in the journal of Critical Public Health: “One of the defining features of the literature is the absence of a single study demonstrating that HIV criminalization has a positive impact on HIV prevention.”

HIV criminalization is killing people. I tell you this based on my own personal experience. As a criminalization survivor, I sometimes feel like I am being inexorably, slowly, killed by a brutal system that has abandoned me to poverty, precarious housing, stigma, discrimination and ongoing criminalization. I served my time, but there are so many other ways that my life is still criminalized today because of the unjust Criminal Code that persecuted me in the first place, and because of the government’s inaction and failure to right this historic wrong.

From inaction to action

I don’t want to end this piece with the government’s inaction. Instead, I want to leave us with a call to action. In the coming federal election, we can ask how parties and leaders will address community calls for criminal law reform. We can ask them to commit to taking real action: we don’t need another public consultation that goes nowhere.

Also, we can inform ourselves and others about the harms of HIV criminalization. I don’t know exactly where this quotation comes from, but it’s one that my friend, the late Cindy Stine, once told me: “If you don’t know your rights… you don’t have any!”

As we head into this next election, we as a community can keep HIV criminalization on the political agenda. We know that HIV criminalization harms public health—it harms everyone. Time to ACT UP!

I encourage you to stand with me by joining the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization. HIV IS NOT A CRIME!!

Chad Clarke has been living with HIV for more than 15 years. His personal experience of prosecution and imprisonment has transformed him into a passionate leader and activist working against the discriminatory criminalization of HIV non-disclosure. Chad’s voice has been a spark that has inspired many to get involved in the movement for change. He is a current member of the steering committee of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization.

Colin Johnson is a Black gay man who has lived with HIV for the past 40 years. He has been an advocate for African, Caribbean and Black communities for decades, with a focus on queer folk and substance use. He is the co-chair of the Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance (THRA) and sits on the steering committee for the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization.

US: North Dakota Governor signs into law House Bill 1217 to reform outdated HIV criminalisation laws

North Dakota decriminalises State HIV laws

This week, Gov. Kelly Armstrong signed into law House Bill 1217, legislation to reform North Dakota’s outdated laws that unfairly criminalized and stigmatized people living with HIV. North Dakota is the fourth state in the country to fully repeal HIV criminalization laws and the first state in the Midwest to do so.

The ACLU of North Dakota, along nonprofit organizations like Shine Bright & Live and a bipartisan group of legislators, supported House Bill 1217.

“Laws that criminalize living with HIV fundamentally undermine the constitutional rights and dignity of individuals by penalizing them for a health condition rather than any criminal behavior,” said Cody Schuler, ACLU of North Dakota advocacy manager. “We are happy that North Dakota’s laws will now become more fair, less discriminatory and will promote treatment and prevention rather than criminalization. This is a huge step forward in reducing stigma, increasing HIV testing and humanizing those living with HIV,”

In the late 1980s and ‘90s at the height of the HIV epidemic, lawmakers throughout the country passed laws that criminalized otherwise legal behaviors of people living with HIV or added HIV-related penalties to existing crimes. These laws were based on fear and the limited medical understanding of the time. When most of these laws were passed, there were no effective treatments for HIV and discrimination against people living with HIV was rampant. Research now demonstrates that people living with HIV on effective treatment cannot transmit the virus to their partners. And HIV-negative individuals can take medication, known as PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV by up to 99 percent.

“The criminalization of HIV has harmed communities in North Dakota state for decades. It has done nothing other than spread fear and stigma, and it discouraged people from getting tested or knowing their status,” said Jason Grueneich, executive director and founder of Shine Bright & Live, a nonprofit organization that provides resources, support and advocacy for North Dakotans affected by HIV and AIDS. “HIV is not a crime, and we should not be treating those living with it as criminals. As a person living with HIV, I am thrilled to have been a part of this monumental progressive move forward in this national movement started by so many a decade ago.”

About the ACLU of North Dakota

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota is a non-partisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of civil liberties and civil rights. The ACLU of North Dakota is part of a three-state chapter that also includes South Dakota and Wyoming. The team in North Dakota is supported by staff in those states.

The ACLU believes freedoms of press, speech, assembly and religion, and the rights to due process, equal protection and privacy, are fundamental to a free people.  In addition, the ACLU seeks to advance constitutional protections for groups traditionally denied their rights, including people of color, women and LGBTQ+ and Two Spirit communities. The ACLU of North Dakota carries out its work through selective litigation, lobbying at the state and local level, and through public education and awareness of what the Bill of Rights means for the people of North Dakota.

Zimbabwe’s victory:
A beacon of hope for HIV justice amid global challenges

In a landmark victory for human rights, Zimbabwe repealed its HIV criminalisation law in 2022, marking a significant step forward in the global fight for HIV justice. This historic reform, detailed in a new case study and documentary by the HIV Justice Network (HJN), was the result of years of dedicated advocacy by Zimbabwean activists, legal experts, and community organisations. Their success serves as both an inspiration and a blueprint for other nations still grappling with punitive HIV laws.

For decades, Zimbabwe’s Section 79 of the Criminal Law Code unfairly targeted people living with HIV criminalising alleged transmission without regard for intent, transmission risk, or scientific evidence. These laws, rooted in stigma rather than science, disproportionately harmed women, but mostly deterred men from seeking testing and treatment. The repeal of Section 79 was a hard-won victory that showcased the power of coalition-building and sustained advocacy.

Yet, as we celebrate Zimbabwe’s progress, we must confront a sobering reality: the global movement for HIV decriminalisation faces an existential crisis due to dwindling funding. Many donors are shifting priorities, putting essential advocacy work at risk. The HIV response itself is in peril, making it even more critical to sustain efforts to challenge unjust laws and protect the rights of people living with HIV.

The HIV Justice Network has been at the forefront of this struggle, playing an irreplaceable role in co-ordinating the global movement against HIV criminalisation. In a recent meeting, our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition partners re-affirmed the immense value of our work, emphasising our deep institutional knowledge, comprehensive legal monitoring, and convening power. Our two databases – the Global HIV Criminalisation Database and Positive Destinations – are vital resources for advocates, helping to expose patterns of injustice and build evidence-based arguments for reform.

Moreover, in environments where local organisations face political or legal risks, we serve as a powerful global voice, shining a spotlight on abuses and advocating for change. The network’s ability to bring together diverse stakeholders – activists, lawyers, researchers, and policymakers – ensures that no-one is fighting this battle alone.

Despite the funding crisis, the fight for HIV justice has never been more urgent. Punitive, discriminatory, outdated laws and policies continue to undermine public health efforts, fuel stigma, and violate human rights. The repeal of Zimbabwe’s HIV criminalisation law is a powerful reminder that change is possible, but it does not happen in isolation. It requires sustained, co-ordinated efforts – exactly the kind of work that HJN has championed for years.

The Zimbabwean victory is a beacon of hope, but it also serves as a call to action. We must not allow financial constraints to derail the progress we have fought so hard to achieve. Now, more than ever, we need to stand together to ensure that HIV criminalisation becomes a relic of the past. The future of HIV justice – and, therefore, the HIV response itself – depends on it.

Ukraine: Parliament approves bill removing HIV criminalisation article from criminal code

A separate article for HIV or other incurable infectious disease virus will be removed from the Criminal Code – the Verkhovna Rada has approved the changes

Translated with Deepl.com – Scroll down for original article

The Verkhovna Rada has approved a bill presented by Oleksandra Ustinova, which proposes to remove a separate article for HIV infection from the Criminal Code. According to the authors, the criminalisation of HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases is a ‘Soviet tradition’.

The Verkhovna Rada has passed in the first reading a bill that proposes to exclude Article 130 from the Criminal Code, which provides for criminal liability for infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or other incurable infectious disease.

The corresponding draft law No 9398 was introduced by MPs Oleksandra Ustynova, Mykhaylo Radutskyy and others.

The bill also proposes to remove from Article 131 of the Criminal Code the responsibility of medical workers for improper performance of their duties, which led to the infection of a person with another incurable disease.

As the authors note, ‘the Criminal Code of Ukraine, preserving the Soviet tradition of criminalising infection with only sexually transmitted diseases, actually provides liability for infection with HIV/AIDS (Article 130 of the Criminal Code) and venereal diseases (Article 133 of the Criminal Code).’

‘This situation leads, on the one hand, to the existence of a gap in the criminal-legal protection of a person from guilty actions resulting in the infection of a communicable disease, on the other hand, to the stigmatisation of persons on the basis of their health condition.

The said stigmatisation consists in the fact that primarily HIV-positive people, as well as people suffering from venereal diseases are under the threat of criminal liability and are regarded as potential criminals,’ the people’s elected representatives point out.

However, it is not clear enough why the authors decided to remove liability for medical workers as well, and whether this is a ‘Soviet tradition’ or just a simplification of life for negligent doctors who infected a healthy person.

The proposed changes, according to the MPs, ‘will enable HIV-positive people, people suffering from AIDS or venereal diseases to focus their efforts on treatment and the quality of their own lives, rather than fighting fears of being punished’.

At the same time, the MPs also point out that ‘Ukraine is currently facing the challenge of a new wave of HIV epidemic’ and ‘one of the effective mechanisms to reduce the spread of HIV is decriminalisation of contact and transmission of the disease’.

‘According to estimates by international organisations, there were more than 240,000 HIV-infected people in Ukraine at the time of the full-scale invasion, each of whom is already potentially the subject of an offence under Part 1 Article 130 of the Criminal Code.

Given the manifestation of HIV in the temporarily occupied territories, the state and society as a whole should already create conditions to prevent HIV epidemics after their de-occupation. People’s fear of potential criminal liability will lead to reluctance to undergo screening, which will have a negative impact on the epidemic situation. In addition, the existence of liability for knowingly putting another person at risk of HIV infection makes it possible to interfere in a person’s private life, restrict his or her right to reproduction and normal coexistence with the outside world,’ the authors of the bill believe.

Из Уголовного кодекса уберут отдельную статью за заражение ВИЧ или вирусом другой неизлечимой инфекционной болезни – Верховная Рада одобрила изменения

Верховная Рада приняла за основу законопроект Александры Устиновой, которым предлагается исключить из Уголовного кодекса отдельную статью за заражение ВИЧ, ведь, по мнению авторов, криминализация заражения ВИЧ/СПИДом и венерическими заболеваниями – это «советские традиции».

Верховная Рада приняла в первом чтении законопроект, которым из Уголовного кодекса предлагается исключить статью 130, предусматривающую уголовную ответственность за заражение вирусом иммунодефицита человека (ВИЧ) или другой неизлечимой инфекционной болезни.

Соответствующий законопроект №9398 внесли народные депутаты Александра Устинова, Михаил Радуцкий и другие.

Также законопроект предлагает убрать из статьи 131 УК ответственность медицинских работников за ненадлежащее исполнение их обязанностей, что привело к заражению человека другой неизлечимой болезнью.

Как отмечают авторы, «Уголовный кодекс Украины, сохраняя советские традиции криминализации заражения только болезнями, передающимися половым путем, фактически предусматривает ответственность за заражение ВИЧ/СПИДом (статья 130 УК) и венерическими заболеваниями (статья 133 УК)».

«Такая ситуация приводит, с одной стороны, к существованию пробела в уголовно-правовой защите человека от виновных действий, повлекших заражение инфекционной болезнью, с другой – к стигматизации лиц по состоянию здоровья.

Указанная стигматизация заключается в том, что под угрозой уголовной ответственности находятся, в первую очередь, ВИЧ-позитивные люди, а также люди, страдающие венерическими заболеваниями, которые рассматриваются как потенциальные преступники», – указывают народные избранники.

Впрочем, недостаточно понятно, почему авторы решили убрать ответственность и для медицинских работников, и является ли это «советскими традициями» или просто упрощением жизни для нерадивых медиков, повлекших заражение здорового человека.

Предложенные изменения, по мнению народных избранников, «дадут возможность ВИЧ-позитивным людям, людям, страдающим СПИДом, или страдающим венерическими болезнями, сосредоточить свои усилия именно на лечении и качестве собственной жизни, а не борьбе со страхами быть наказанными».

При этом одновременно народные депутаты также указывают, что «в настоящее время Украина стоит перед вызовом новой волны эпидемии ВИЧ» и «одним из действенных механизмов уменьшения распространения ВИЧ является декриминализация контактов и передачи заболевания».

«По оценочным данным международных организаций, в Украине на момент полномасштабного вторжения находились более 240 000 ВИЧ-инфицированных, каждый из которых уже потенциально является субъектом преступления, предусмотренного ч. 1 ст. 130 УК.

Учитывая проявление ВИЧ на временно оккупированных территориях, государство и общество в целом уже должны создать условия для недопущения эпидемии ВИЧ после их деоккупации. Страх людей перед потенциальной уголовной ответственностью приведет к нежеланию проходить обследование, что негативно повлияет на эпидемическую ситуацию. Кроме того, наличие ответственности за сознательное поставление другого лица в опасность заражения ВИЧ делает возможным вмешательство в частную жизнь человека, ограничение его права на репродукцию и нормальное сосуществование с окружающим миром», – считают авторы законопроекта.

[Update] US: After years of effort, HIV decriminalisation bill heads to Governor’s desk

State lawmakers vote to decriminalize HIV in North Dakota

BISMARCK, ND (KXNET) — It took years of effort, but one new bill that passed the senate on Thursday will head to Governor Kelly Armstrong’s desk.

House Bill 1217 removes the criminal penalty for people living with HIV in North Dakota. For years under North Dakota law, people could be charged with a felony if they knowingly gave someone else HIV.

Fargo democrat Gretchen Dobervich spent the last three legislative sessions trying to get the bill passed.

“Because the only way we can stop the spread of any infectious disease is by testing and treatment,” Rep. Dobervich said. “This bill has not stopped any transmission of any infectious disease at all. In fact, no one has ever been charged with this bill in the 30 plus years that it’s been on the books.”

Spokespeople with North Dakota’s health and human services department supported the bill, arguing that people who live with HIV can now receive anti-retroviral therapy or ART, where they can become undetectable for the virus and cannot give the virus to someone else sexually.