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.

Australia: Controversial HIV testing bill in South Australia faces backlash from experts

Alarm raised over proposed HIV testing laws in South Australia

South Australia is moving to bring in laws forcing people to be tested for HIV despite a report in New South Wales describing similar legislation as ineffective and unneeded.

Health organisation Thorne Harbour Health has expressed strong opposition to the South Australian Government’s proposed Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing) Amendment Bill 2024, citing concerns over its scientific validity, potential to spread disinformation, and its exacerbation of stigma toward people living with blood-borne viruses (BBVs).

The bill intends to protect frontline emergency services workers by mandating blood testing of individuals who spit at or bite them. Yet, expert bodies such as the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine have firmly stated that mandatory testing for BBVs is not an effective or evidence-based approach to public health.

“We support policies that ensure a safe workplace for all workers, including emergency services personnel. However, this bill is not an evidence-based approach to achieving that goal. It creates unnecessary anxiety for workers and does nothing to improve public health outcomes,” said Thorne Harbour Health Vice President and Secretary of the HIV Justice Network, Paul Kidd.

“The bill, as drafted, does not consider the actual risk of transmission,” said Kidd.

Throne Harbour Health argues that Testing should only be permitted where there is risk of transmission. HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C cannot be transmitted through saliva, meaning spitting does not pose a risk.

They also advocate that testing should only be ordered within 72 hours of alleged exposure, as this is the window in which prophylactic interventions (such as post-exposure prophylaxis, or PEP) can prevent transmission. They say the proposed six-month time frame is ineffective and misleading.

They also highlight that emergency service workers should undergo immediate medical treatment if a risk is identified, rather than waiting for mandatory test results that may be misleading or delayed.

“People living with HIV continue to face stigma across many aspects of our lives, including in our interactions with police. It’s vital that emergency workers understand how HIV is transmitted and when they are at risk of transmission. There have been zero recorded cases of HIV transmission to an on-duty police officer in Australia,” said President of Positive Life SA, Kath Leane.

“By promoting inaccurate information about how BBVs are transmitted, this legislation does more harm than good. Not only does it put emergency workers at risk of misunderstanding real threats, but it also increases discrimination against people living with HIV,” said Leane.

Similar legislation has been passed in New South Wales and Western Australia. Last month the New South Wales Ombudsman questioned if the laws truly served the purpose they were designed for.

The NSW Ombudsman report monitoring the operation and administration of the Mandatory Disease Testing Act 2021, tabled in Parliament on 5 February, found the Act does not have “clear and measurable benefits” for workers.

The report recommends the NSW Government consider whether the Act “should be continued at all”. The report also found that the Act is mostly being used in situations where there is no risk of blood-borne transmission to a frontline worker.

Similar legislation was introduced in Western Australia by both the Barnett Liberal and McGowan Labor governments similarly against the recommendations of experts in the field of HIV. There were suggestions in 2019 that WA’s mandatory disease testing laws were being overused.

OUTinPerth recently approached both the Labor party and the Liberal party and asked if they still supported the Western Australian laws. We are waiting for a response.

US: Advocates hope report update will finally push Ohio to end HIV criminalisation

‘Guilty until our status is proven innocent’: Update on Ohio’s outdated HIV criminalization laws

With six Ohio decades-old laws still currently on the books that criminalize living with HIV, there is a new effort to give voice to the negative consequences ​and long-term impacts of the laws.

The Equality Ohio Education Fund and  Ohio Health Modernization Movement (OHMM) released an update last week to their 2024 report, “The Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Ohio,”which documents the use of Ohio’s HIV criminalization laws from 2014 to 2020 and the consequences of HIV criminalization across the state.

Key findings of the 2024 report include:

  • From 2014 to 2020, there were at least 214 confirmed HIV-related prosecutions in Ohio, of which over half (120 cases) came from the state’s “harassment with a bodily substance” law and about a third (77 cases) came under Ohio’s felonious assault law. The remainder (17 cases) were related to sex work.
  • The enforcement of Ohio’s HIV criminal statutes is geographically concentrated, with at least 26% (56 cases) of prosecutions occurring in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). The other most-represented counties include Hamilton County (Cincinnati), with at least 26 cases, Lucas County (Toledo) with at least 16 cases, Franklin County (Columbus) with at least 15 cases and Montgomery (Dayton) and Warren counties, each with at least 10 cases.
  • Ohio’s HIV criminalization laws disproportionately impact Black communities, with at least 36% of defendants identifying as Black. Statewide, 29% of all defendants (62 people) were Black men.
  • In Cuyahoga County, 68% of HIV-related cases impacted Black Ohioans.

Most of the charges examined in the report fall under two Ohio laws.

One law makes it a crime for a person living with HIV (or hepatitis or tuberculosis) to “harass” someone with their bodily fluids. That would include spitting or throwing urine, feces or blood at another person.

Under the other law, a person can be charged with felonious assault if they have sex with another person without telling them that they are living with HIV.

The penalties for failing to disclose HIV status in Ohio are stiff regardless of whether the virus was actually transmitted or whether it was even possible for a person to transmit the virus. Possible sentences for individuals living with HIV can be anywhere from two to 29 times longer than those for Ohioans who are HIV-negative.

Most of the laws were passed decades ago, at a time fueled by fear and absent scientific understanding about how HIV is transmitted and before advancements in HIV-related treatment were widely introduced. Laws still remain in place in 34 states.

Giving voice

New to the report are the stories of three Ohioans who have been impacted by the state’s HIV criminalization laws.

Adam Reilly, OHMM legislative co-chair, said the goal of including these narratives is to humanize the laws to help Ohioans connect HIV criminalization to actual people.

“These are real people: your neighbors or even your family who have been directly affected,” said Reilly. “We hope that people finish reading the report, see the injustice and take action.”

One of those narratives came from Bryan C. Jones, a longtime HIV decriminalization advocate who lived with HIV for more than 42 years before passing away in December.

“To this day I’m still scared of having sex with someone,” Jones said. “The law says we are innocent until proven guilty, but for us [persons living with HIV/AIDS], we’re guilty until our status is proven innocent.”

Another narrative came from Anna – a pseudonym to protect her – a 37-year-old Black trans woman from Cleveland who was arrested for solicitation by an undercover detective. During the arrest, she confirmed her status of living with HIV.

“They asked me, was I HIV positive? I told them, ‘yeah,’” Anna said. “And next thing I know, they just blew it all out of proportion. Transgender woman, HIV positive, soliciting. They was trying to give me five years in prison.”

Anna took a plea deal, was sentenced to 18 months in a men’s prison – without access to gender-affirming care – and had to register as a sex offender, a consequence of Ohio’s laws that does not exist as a penalty in other states.

A part of her plea deal included making a mandated statement about her HIV status to the media.

“I [felt] like I was nobody. I mean, it’s like they made a debacle out of me,” Anna said. “Could you imagine walking out the courtroom and there’s cameras everywhere?”

The third narrative came from Kelley, a 46-year-old woman in Warren living with HIV. Kelley was was arrested and charged with felonious assault after her ex fiance claimed that she did not disclose her HIV status to him, which she states is untrue.

Kelley served five years of an eight year prison sentence.

“To this day, I still don’t understand why this is felonious assault,” Kelley said.

The hope for new legislation

Two bills were introduced in the Statehouse in late 2024 by then-Rep. Sara Carruthers (R-Hamilton) to bring the six laws more in line with modern science and research.

Although neither bill advanced beyond an initial November hearing, advocates are hoping future legislation is introduced to accomplish the same science-based approach.

“Spread the word about these narratives and contact your representatives,” the OHMM’s Reilly said. “The more that lawmakers hear from their constituents, the more that they will see that there is a want, a need and a desire to modernize these laws.”

At the very least, advocates hope the updated report educates more Ohioans and inspires strong emotion. In his other role as outreach and testing manager at Caracole – the Cincinnati-based AIDS-service organization – Reilly said he regularly speaks with clients who don’t know about the six laws, including those who are living with HIV.

“I have never had an experience of someone saying, ‘These laws sound like a good idea,’” Reilly said. “Maybe if people know more about the laws, they will become enraged and something can change.”

IGNITE ACTION

  • Read the updated report “The Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Ohio” by going here.
  • To access The Buckeye Flame’s full 2025-2026 Guide to Ohio’s LGBTQ+ Legislation, click here.

Mexico: Criminalisation of HIV in Tamaulipas has a negative impact on public health

Danger of contagion: Tamaulipas criminalizes people with HIV

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

The offence that penalises HIV carriers who have sexual contact with others is still in force. Morena has not supported the initiative to repeal it presented by deputy Magaly Deandar.

Tamaulipas criminalises and stigmatises people with HIV or any other disease considered ‘contagious’, ‘incurable’ or a ‘bad gene’. The offence of risk of transmission, a measure that punishes the risk of spreading a virus with imprisonment, is still in force.

The Penal Code of Tamaulipas maintains this offence with penalties ranging from six months to three years in prison. In twenty-five other states in Mexico, the penalties include the impediment to marry, denial of custody of one’s children and financial fines.

State law stipulates that a person who knowingly carries a venereal disease or HIV in an infectious period and who puts another person at risk of infection through sexual relations commits the offence of danger of contagion. In the case of spouses or cohabiting partners, the offence only proceeds if the offended party files a complaint.

In particular, article 203 of the Penal Code of Tamaulipas punishes HIV carriers. In a large part of the country, the ‘danger of contagion’ sanctions other sexually transmitted diseases.

Criminalisation encourages discrimination

According to the Mexican Network of Organisations against the Criminalisation of HIV, the criminalisation of the ‘risk of HIV transmission’ or similar concepts that appear in the legislation of the federal states generate more harm than benefits in terms of impact on public health.

This criminalisation undermines respect for and guarantees of human rights by promoting fear, stigma and discrimination, reinforcing the idea that people living with HIV or AIDS are criminals, dangerous and immoral.

The organisation points to the criminalisation of HIV patients, turning carriers into both victim and perpetrator. Focusing efforts on judging and punishing rather than promoting the prevention of contagion.

Tamaulipas seeks to decriminalise the danger of contagion

In 2022, deputy Magaly Deandar Robinson presented an initiative to repeal Article 203 in the Tamaulipas Congress. The Morenista argued that this measure violates human rights rather than recognising the institutional vacuum on the part of the public health service.

‘More than a question of laws, it is a question of human rights. That is how it should be for everyone,’ the legislator for Reynosa explained in an interview for Elefante Blanco,

Despite international recommendations from organisations such as the United Nations (UN), this proposal was rejected by the Morena majority. However, Deandar Robinson emphasised, the state congress could take it up for a second time in the next three months.

Magaly Deandar recognised that although this illicit act sought to stop the HIV pandemic, it ended up criminalising and making it difficult for people and carriers to approach specialised care centres.

‘It is the perfect time to reactivate the government to carry out HIV prevention tasks,’ she added.

In 2024, Mexico City, Nayarit, Jalisco, Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosí and Tabasco removed the danger of contagion from their penal codes.

Peligro de contagio: Tamaulipas criminaliza a personas con VIH

El delito que sanciona a las personas portadoras de VIH que tienen contacto sexual con otras sigue vigente. Morena no ha acompañado la iniciativa para derogarlo presentada por la diputada Magaly Deandar.

Tamaulipas criminaliza y estigmatiza a personas con VIH o alguna otra enfermedad considerada «contagiosa», «incurable» o un «mal venero». El delito de peligro de contagio, medida que castiga con cárcel el riesgo de propagación de un virus, sigue vigente.

El Código Penal de Tamaulipas mantiene este ilícito con penas que van de los seis meses a tres años de prisión. En otros veinticinco estados de México, las penas incluyen el impedimento para casarse, negar la custodia de sus hijos y multas económicas.

La ley estatal estipula que comete peligro de contagio la persona con conocimiento de ser portador de un mal venéreo o VIH en periodo infectante y que pone en riesgo de contagio a otra mediante relaciones sexuales. En el caso de cónyuges o concubinos, el delito procede únicamente si él o la agraviada lo denuncia.

De manera particular, el articulo 203 del Código Penal de Tamaulipas castiga a portadores de VIH. En gran parte del territorio nacional, el “peligro de contagio” sanciona otras enfermedades de transmisión sexual.

Criminalización fomenta la discriminación

De acuerdo con la Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH, la penalización del “riesgo de contagio del VIH” o figuras análogas que aparezcan en las legislaciones de las entidades federativas generan más daños que beneficios en términos de impacto en la salud pública.

Esta penalización atenta contra el respeto y garantía de los derechos humanos al promover el miedo, el estigma y la discriminación, fortaleciendo la idea de que quien vive con VIH o SIDA es criminal, peligroso e inmoral.

Dicha organización señala la criminalización de la que son víctimas los pacientes con VIH al convertir al portador en víctima y victimario. Centrando los esfuerzos en juzgar y castigar en lugar de fomentar la prevención del contagio.

Tamaulipas busca despenalizar el peligro de contagio

En 2022, la diputada Magaly Deandar Robinson presentó una iniciativa para derogar dicho el artículo 203 en el Congreso de Tamaulipas. La morenista argumentó que esta medida vulnera los derechos humanos antes que reconocer el vacío institucional por parte del servicio de salud publica.

“Más que un tema de leyes, es un tema de derechos humanos. Así debería de ser para todos”, explicó la legisladora por Reynosa en entrevista para Elefante Blanco,

Pese a las recomendaciones internacionales por organismos como la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), esta propuesta fue rechazada por la mayoría de Morena. Sin embargo, enfatizó Deandar Robinson, el Congreso estatal podría retomarla por segunda ocasión en los próximos tres meses.

Magaly Deandar reconoció que aunque esta ilícito buscó frenar la pandemia por VIH, terminó por criminalizar y dificultar el acercamiento de las personas y portadores a los centro de atención especializados.

“Es el tiempo perfecto para reactivar al gobierno para realizar tareas de prevención contra el VIH”, agregó.

En 2024, Ciudad de México, Nayarit, Jalisco, Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosí y Tabasco retiraron el peligro de contagio de sus códigos penales.

 

US: Lashanda Salinas and Kerry Thomas share their experiences of being incarcerated under HIV criminalisation laws

I want my name back

Lashanda Salinas and Kerry Thomas share their experiences of being incarcerated under state HIV criminalization laws—and talk about how they’re working to change them

In 2006, a former boyfriend accused Lashanda Salinas of never having disclosed her HIV status while they had been dating. Unable to prove she had told him (and that she had an undetectable viral load, meaning she was unable to transmit HIV during sex), Salinas accepted a plea deal and was convicted under Tennessee’s criminal exposure to HIV law. She was sentenced to three years’ probation—and then learned she was required to register as a sex offender. In May 2023, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed a bill amending the state’s law, allowing people charged with criminal exposure of HIV to be removed from the registry. Less than two months later, Salinas’s name was taken off the list. She’s started to open up about her experience, talking with audiences across the country, from small groups of individuals living with HIV to state and federal elected officials. She is an active member of the Tennessee HIV Modernization Coalition, a Health Not Prisons advocate, member of The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation Council of Justice Leaders and is a graduate of Justice Institute 3.0, a program of The Sero Project, a national advocacy and HIV decriminalization organization for people with HIV.

Kerry Thomas has been living with HIV for 36 years, having served 15 years of a 30-year prison sentence at the Idaho State Penitentiary. Although he was undetectable and had used a condom, he was convicted of not telling the woman he had had sex with of his HIV status. Like many state laws that criminalize HIV, Idaho’s law took no account of Thomas’s undetectable status and that no transmission of the virus had occurred. Now 60, Thomas is the community decriminalization strategist for The Sero Project. He also contributes to several organizations, including the Center for HIV Law and Policy’s Aging Advisory Council, the U.S. People Living with HIV Caucus, the Idaho Coalition for HIV Health and Safety and the Vera Institute of Justice’s Designed for Dignity project.

The two advocates talked about their experiences and insights in a Zoom conversation for POSITIVELY AWARE in November. The 80-minute exchange has been excerpted and edited for brevity and clarity. —Rick Guasco

Kerry Thomas: Let’s start with a little bit of your story, wherever you want to start.

Lashanda Salinas: Back in 2006 I was dating a gentleman. We met online. Before we met [in person] I told him, I’m HIV-positive—are you okay with that? He said he was okay with it, and we proceeded to date. But the relationship wasn’t what I thought it would be, so we decided to break up. About a week or two after we broke up, two police officers walked into my job and asked to speak to me. The first thing that ran through my head was, What did I do? I had just moved to Nashville a month or so earlier. They tell me, Your boyfriend has filed charges against you stating that you did not tell him you were HIV-positive. I said I had told him. And they’re like, Well, do you have proof? I said that I didn’t. I didn’t think I ever needed proof. That night, they arrested me. I was under a $100,000 bond. There was no way I was going to ask my family to come up with 10% [to be released from custody]. I wasn’t about to do that. So, I stayed in there about two days shy of two months. My public defender came back with a plea deal, three years’ probation. I didn’t want to take the plea because I knew I was innocent, but in order to get out and spend time with my family, because my father had just passed, I took the plea. I thought, I can get out, spend time with my family and not have to worry about anything. When I got out, my probation officer calls me while I’m at work and tells me that I have to register as a sex offender. I’m like, You got the wrong person. She said because I was charged with criminal exposure of HIV, that this was part of the sentence. I was on the sex offender registry for about 17 years, when Governor Lee amended the criminal exposure law to remove the sex offender registration. I was the first person with HIV to come off the registry. And from there, my life has taken off.

Kerry: You mentioned that you didn’t want to ask your family for bond money. Why? Was it financial?

Lashanda: It was financial. I knew that my family wasn’t able to come up with $10,000. I didn’t want to put that on my mom, because she was at the hospital every day to see my father. It was just something I didn’t want to ask them for.

Kerry: Stigma is such a big part of HIV criminalization—someone being able to just make an accusation. What were your thoughts and feelings when the police came to your job?

Lashanda: When they said that my boyfriend had pressed charges because I didn’t tell him I was HIV positive, my heart sank to my feet.

Kerry: I’m assuming you had never been arrested before?

Lashanda: Well, I have, but nothing like this. When you get arrested for a little thing, you pretty much know what the outcome will be. I knew this was a big thing. I thought I would have a bond of maybe $100 and then get out of there. But when I went before the judge and she said $100,000, I was like, Are you serious?

Kerry: If you look at cases across the country, that’s one of the things that we notice, extremely high bonds that are placed again and again. The narrative from the public becomes, Holy cow, why would they give someone such a high bond? She must’ve done something serious. Instantly, it’s no longer about medical facts. It’s about stigma and criminalizing the person, dehumanizing them. Because you’re a person living with HIV, they paint it as if you’re an imminent threat to society. If we let you out on a low bond, you’re going to try to spread this to everybody.

Lashanda: Exactly, and that’s what they did with me. I was trying to get a bond reduction. The prosecutor said, You’ve got family in such and such cities; you’re a flight risk. Because he said flight risk, the judge agreed and there was no bond reduction.

Kerry: One thing I want folks to know because it’s not talked about much, and if it’s something that you’re not comfortable speaking to, I understand. Can you describe what it was like when they put the [handcuffs] on you? Especially from a woman’s standpoint.

Lashanda: Luckily, I had a woman police officer there. When she told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back, and I did that, you could hear a pin drop, it was so quiet. And then you hear the cuffs clink. At that time, I was like, You are about to go to jail for something you really don’t know nothing about. And I’ll never forget the booking process.

Kerry: What was that like?

Lashanda: Oh, my Lord. It made me feel dirty because you’ve got these males patting you down, touching you where you don’t feel comfortable for them touching you, and then they ask you all these questions, like, Have you been arrested before? If you have been arrested, what was it for? When did you get arrested?

Kerry: Do you think that they knew that you were a person living with HIV?

Lashanda: I don’t think they knew because they didn’t treat me any different. But the thing was, after the booking, they put you in what they call a holding cell. That holding cell, to me, was like I was in a dog kennel.

Kerry: Were you in there by yourself?

Lashanda: No. This is where they put everybody. It’s an open space that’s a fenced in pen. I just felt like a dog. After the bond hearing, I was placed in what they call a pod with all these other women. How they heard about my charge before you get there, I will never know.

I went to sleep, woke up the next morning for breakfast, and the lady that was in the room with me said, Oh, you have HIV. I’m like, How do you know I have HIV? What are you talking about?She said, Well, your charges are criminal exposure of HIV. And I’m like, Oh, God, she knows I’m HIV-positive. How is she going to treat me? Is she going to treat me like the judge did? I told her, Yes, I am HIV-positive. I am undetectable. She said she doesn’t know what “undetectable” meant. But you can’t give it to me, can you? she asked. I was like, Just by sleeping in the room with you, on my own in this bed? How am I supposed to give it to you? She said, Well, I heard you can get it by touching something that an HIV-positive person has touched. At that point, I just sat her down and explained it to her. Ma’am, by you touching my toothbrush or touching my towel or whatever, you’re not going to get HIV. It doesn’t work that way. The sad part was that the lady was 50-something years old; I was in my late 20s at the time and was having to explain this to her.

In there, you’re always thinking, What’s the next step? What do I need to do to get myself out of the situation? You hear about the public defenders having a bad rep, they don’t help you with your case or they don’t care. But I have to applaud my public defender. After my bond hearing, her next step was to have somebody from Vanderbilt [University], from their infectious disease department, come and basically state, She’s undetectable, there is no way she can pass HIV on to anybody. But then the plea came—three years’ probation. I didn’t want to take it, but I did.

Kerry: Why did you?

Lashanda: I took that plea only to get out and be with my family.

Kerry: There’s a public narrative that only guilty people take a plea, only guilty people need a lawyer. So, if you didn’t take the plea?

Lashanda: A year and a half in a women’s prison and a year and a half on probation. I was thinking of taking the plea, but then I was like, No, I’m innocent. I’m not taking that plea.And then I had to request a furlough—that’s what I thought I was going to court for that day, but there was the plea with three years’ probation. I’m sitting there debating, Okay, do you want to take this plea or do you take the furlough, go to the funeral and come back.

Kerry: Whose funeral was it?

Lashanda: It was for my father. [Salinas’ father died in the hospital while she was in custody.] I was thinking, Lashanda, what do you want to do? You know you’re innocent, but people are making it out that you’re guilty, that you did not tell [your boyfriend]. If I take this plea, are people going to think that I’m guilty? I made the decision to take the three years’ probation just to get out and be with my family because that seemed like the only way I could get out.

Kerry: Do you bake? Have you ever made bread?

Lashanda: No, I’ve never made bread.

Kerry: You get the dough, you spin it around, put it on the table and you start kneading it. You soften

it up a bit. That’s what they do at the prosecutor’s office. I call it knead ’em and plead ’em. They put you

in difficult conditions. They’re kneading you, then they hit you with a plea deal. That’s knead ’em and plead ’em. That’s why I’ll push back on anyone who says only guilty people take a plea. No, not when you’re in that oven.

It’s amazing to me how our stories are so similar. This is my 14th month since returning to the community after serving 15 years under Idaho’s criminalization statute. They didn’t play around. I had a $1 million bond. Basically, you’re saying, This dude ain’t getting out. And then you compound that with the ignorance surrounding HIV. If he’s got a $1 million bond, he must be a real threat to society.

I remember going for sentencing the day after I accepted the plea. I was sentenced to 30 years of incarceration. Similar to your circumstances, one of the reasons I took the plea was because at the time, both my parents were elderly. Because of the bond, the media attention on my case was through the roof. As naïve as I was, I thought the best thing to do to cut off the media attention was to accept the plea, go to the judge and for the judge to make an honest decision. Not one time in the sentencing hearing did anything about HIV come up. It was about villainizing the individual. Not one time in the sentencing does the fact that you’re undetectable come up.

Lashanda: It becomes about you and your character, exactly.

Kerry: We need to talk about the scientific facts, the medical facts, about HIV.

I think it’s important that folks understand that both of us are doing amazing things now. Maybe you can share a little bit of some of the projects you’ve worked on after incarceration.

Lashanda: Where do I start?

Kerry: How about start with why? Why did you choose to get involved in HIV decriminalization advocacy?

Lashanda: I chose to get involved after I realized that so many people were being criminalized. There’s advances in medication for HIV, and I realized that the laws didn’t match today’s science. I knew there were people out there who wanted to speak, but were afraid.

Kerry: Afraid of what?

Lashanda: Afraid of being stigmatized, of being told, you’re dirty. At first, I was scared to speak out because I was like, Now everybody in the world is going to know I’m HIV-positive. So I had a conversation with myself, had a conversation with my family to ask how they felt about it. Everybody said they were okay. I put on the whole armor of God to do this. I will take the beatings and the backlash on behalf of people who feel they cannot speak for themselves.

Kerry: I think we’re similar that way. And what I had to realize is that part of my recovery, for lack of a better term, has been I do it because no one should ever have to go through the experience of HIV criminalization. I’ve been very blessed that almost from the moment of my arrest to this day, that I’ve had a lot of support. I’m thankful for that.

The question for me is, What do I want my son to think of me? When I was arrested, my son was 14 years old. He had just turned 14. I made a conscious choice to do my time with dignity. How I’m gonna do my time is how I define myself as an adult, as a man. I’m not talking about machismo stuff, but I’m gonna live my life the best I can, on my terms. Part of the willingness to have a conversation like this is to reclaim that. I want my name back, I want some respect on my name.

Lashanda: Exactly. I want that back.

Kerry: That’s my motivation. That is decriminalization to me.

I was very fortunate to have an opportunity to work with The Sero Project upon my release. I worked with them for 12 years while I was incarcerated. I did 15 [years], 12 of those years was being a part of The Sero Project, on their board and in other capacities. That has been my focus, my outreach into the community. I love that you said that you’re motivated to advocate for the many people who don’t have the capacity.

Lashanda: When I was in jail, I had no resources whatsoever. There was no support besides my family, but I needed somebody else there. I didn’t have anybody to tell me what criminal exposure to HIV was, no one to give me advice as to what I should do. When I felt like I needed to cry, I had nobody.

Kerry: And there was nobody there to tell you that it was going to be okay.

Lashanda: Exactly. Nobody, not even me. I didn’t say that to myself because of the simple fact I didn’t know if it was gonna be okay.

Kerry: I’m often asked, How did you do 15 [years]? You know what? I can’t do 15 years, but I can do today. And God willing, I can do tomorrow. That literally became my mantra, I can do today.Sometimes

I had to break it down—I can do this. I can do this hour. Sometimes it was, I can do this minute.

Lashanda: Exactly.

Kerry: Early on, I said, There’s no such thing as a bad day. I never had 24 hours of that. I might’ve had an hour here, an hour there. I’ve had multiple bad moments in the course of a day, over the course of a lifetime, but God, I’m blessed. There’s something to be thankful for every day, if not every moment, and that speaks to gratitude.

One thing that The Sero Project does is that we have our HINAC [HIV Is Not A Crime] 6 training academy [to be held May 31–June 3 at North Carolina State University in Raleigh]. It’s more than just an academy. It’s about coming together in a sense of community. The training is teaching us how to love each other and work together.

Lashanda: I think of it as, I’m going somewhere to visit with my family, to come together with one goal. We’re going to see how we can take this a step further.

Kerry: I always say HIV is not a crime, but choosing to be ignorant of it is. What is it that motivates you to swing your feet out of bed?

Lashanda: It all boils down to somebody needs me. So I’ve got to swing my feet out of this bed and get started. If everybody else can do it, I can do it as well.

‘There’s advances in medication for HIV, and I realized that the laws didn’t match today’s science.’

Lashanda Salinas

Kerry: Yes, you can. You can reach out to organizations like Sero, reach out to your local clinic, to your state’s legislature. You can reach out and get training. You can stand up.

Lashanda: I think I want to do one-on-one advocacy training. I don’t know what that looks like yet…

Kerry: Why not?

Lashanda: Because when I started, there was no blueprint. I was just throwing it out there. And it just so happened that Sero caught me.

Kerry: If you want to do one-on-one advocacy training, we can plan for that. I choose the term mentorship. I’ll even take it further and call it peer support. Because that’s what it takes, having one-on-one life conversations with folks. That’s what moves the needle.

Lashanda: This is one of the ways to get started in advocacy. Reach out to an organization. It all starts with reaching out.

Kerry: It’s empowering. Just like with our HIV care, we have to become an active participant in our own survival. Surviving criminalization is the same thing. You gotta be an active participant in your own survival.

For more information about the HIV Is Not A Crime 6 summit, GO TO seroproject.com/hinac.

US: New report from the Williams Institute on the enforcement of Indiana’s HIV-related body fluid laws

US: Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Indiana: Body Fluid/Waste Enhancement Laws

Using data obtained from the Indiana Office of Court Services, online court-tracking tools, and Probable Cause Affidavits, this study examines the enforcement of Indiana’s HIV-related body fluid laws.

Overview

The Williams Institute examined arrest and court records from Indiana regarding people living with HIV (PLWH) who were prosecuted for an alleged HIV-related body fluid exposure crime. Indiana has six laws criminalizing PLWH spanning both the criminal and health codes. This report—one in a series examining HIV criminalization in Indiana—analyzes the enforcement of HIV-related body fluid/ waste penalty enhancements between 2012 and 2023.1 Almost all charges under these two statutes involved bodily fluids (such as saliva and urine) and conduct (such as spitting and coughing) that do not transmit HIV. None of the charges involved an allegation that HIV was actually transmitted.

  • IC § 35-42-2-1(c2)(f)(h), Battery by Bodily Fluid or Waste, creates penalty enhancement when a person, knowingly or intentionally, “in a rude, insolent or angry manner places any bodily fluid or waste on another person” and the “person knew or recklessly failed to know that the fluid or bodily waste was infected” with HIV.
    • The base misdemeanor becomes a Felony 6 if the person accused is living with HIV. If the victim is a “public safety official,” the base Felony 6 penalty increases to a Felony 5.
  • IC § 35-45-16-2(c-f), Malicious Mischief by Body Fluid or Waste, creates a penalty enhancement when a person causes another involuntarily to come into contact with or ingest a body fluid or waste and “the person knew or recklessly failed to know that the body fluid or fecal waste is infected with” HIV.
    • The base misdemeanor becomes a Felony 6 if the person accused is living with HIV. If transmission occurs, it further increases to a Felony 4.

In Indiana, a Felony 6 conviction can result in incarceration for up to 2.5 years. A Felony 5 conviction can result in incarceration for up to 6 years, and a Felony 4 conviction can result in incarceration for up to 12 years.

Key Findings

  • We identified 42 unique people across 51 unique cases who were charged under the two body fluid/waste HIV penalty enhancements between 2012 and 2023. In each battery case, the PLWH was charged with a penalty enhancement for behaviors that pose no transmission risk.
    • No cases under either law involved allegations of or charges for HIV transmission.

Battery by Bodily Fluid or Waste

  • In all, there were 41 cases involving 38 PLWH charged with an HIV-related battery by bodily fluid or waste crime. Of those, about half (49%) involved the public safety official HIV penalty enhancement.
  • None of the cases reviewed alleged actual HIV transmission or conduct that can transmit HIV.
    • In all, 82% of the alleged acts solely involved exposure to saliva, mainly through spitting. Saliva exposure is not an HIV transmission route. Urine exposure occurred in 3% of the incidents. Urine exposure is not an HIV transmission route.
    • Only 15% of cases involved exposure to blood. However, HIV is not transmitted by blood via the acts described in the cases reviewed (for example, spitting saliva mixed with blood at someone).
  • Enforcement increased over time, from 2.7 cases per year between 2012 and 2018 to 4.4 per year between 2019 and 2023.
  • About four in five (81%) of people charged were men.
  • White people were 64% of people charged, although they accounted for only 45% of the state’s population of PLWH. Likewise, white men were overrepresented, accounting for about half (51%) of all people accused of an HIV-related battery by bodily fluid crime, although they made up only 38% of the state’s population of PLWH.
  • Cases were highly concentrated in 17 of Indiana’s 92 counties, with about a third (31%) of cases occurring in Marion County—home to Indianapolis, the state capital and largest city.
  • Most alleged crimes took place in private residences (29%), public spaces (27%), hospitals (24%), and jails or prisons (15%).
  • In more than one in five (22%) cases, victims were advised to undergo HIV testing or post-exposure treatment even though none of the cases analyzed in this report alleged conduct that can transmit HIV.
  • Many cases indicated a period of heightened tension prior to alleged exposure:
    • Just over half (54%) of cases reviewed involved officer use of force prior to the alleged exposure incident.
    • Just under half (46%) of the cases described the person accused as apparently experiencing acute mental distress, intoxication, or both.
  • Nearly all (93%) people accused were found indigent by the courts and assigned a public defender.
  • Among the cases for which we have final outcomes, about four in ten (42%) had all charges dismissed.
  • In all, 17 cases led to a conviction on at least one HIV-related battery by bodily fluid charge; of those, 41% also included a public safety official enhancement. All convictions came from plea agreements. None of these cases proceeded to trial.
    • HIV-related convictions disproportionately resulted in incarceration in the Indiana Department of Corrections (72%), compared to just 32% for other non-HIV-related offenses connected to the analyzed cases.
    • HIV-related offenses resulted in significantly longer sentences, averaging 2.3 years, compared to 1.2 years for other offenses. Sentences for battery by bodily fluid/waste HIV offenses with public safety official enhancements averaged 3.1 years, more than double the 1.5-year average for those without enhancements.

Malicious Mischief

  • Only four people, involving 10 cases, were charged under malicious mischief enhancement. Many (eight in total) of these may have been inappropriate applications of the law—they involved conduct not intended to be covered by the law.
    • Two of the four people (eight cases) involved a person living with HIV allegedly failing to disclose their HIV status to an intimate partner. All eight resulted in convictions. The other two cases involved a person throwing a towel with urine and a person coughing; both were dismissed.
  • None of these cases involved charges for or allegations of HIV transmission.

Indiana’s HIV-related body fluid/waste exposure laws continue to punish PLWH more severely. None of the cases reviewed alleged actual HIV transmission. All the battery by bodily fluid cases describe conduct that does not transmit HIV, such as spitting or biting. The handful of malicious mischief cases that alleged conduct capable of HIV transmission appeared to be a misapplication of the law. None of these alleged HIV transmission either. Indeed, neither of Indiana’s HIV-related bodily fluid exposure laws contemplate behaviors that can normally transmit HIV. Rather, the laws appear to single PLWH out for harsher punishment merely because of their HIV status.

Download the full report

Senegal: “The application of criminal law is an injustice against people living with HIV”

A magistrate laments the ‘unfair’ criminalisation of HIV transmission

Translated from French with Deepl.com. Scroll down for the original article.

The deputy director of human rights, Babacar Diouf, deems it unfair to criminalise the transmission of HIV-AIDS, except in cases of intentional transmission.

‘The application of criminal law is an injustice against people living with HIV, unless a person deliberately decides to infect another person’, said the magistrate.

He was hosting a conference on the theme of ‘Following the path of rights to eliminate AIDS in Senegal’, an event organised on Wednesday as part of the celebration of World AIDS Day by the National AIDS Council.

According to the deputy director of human rights at the Ministry of Justice, the right to health in Senegal is not subject to judicial review. ‘What’s not working is criminalisation. This is an obstacle to the fight against AIDS’, he maintained.

‘The criminalisation of HIV is detrimental to rights. It is unfair when it targets a person who cannot disclose his or her status’, he argued.

‘We need to be aware that proclaimed rights that are not effective are of no use’, he said, pointing out that “the law on AIDS is unknown to some judicial actors”.

‘The lack of information among the judiciary is a hindrance to the fight against AIDS. They have no information about certain health data’, he said.

With this in mind, Babacar Diouf called on the National AIDS Council to ‘equip the judiciary’ so that they can play a greater role in the fight against AIDS.

He believes it is imperative to combat stigmatisation and discrimination.

Samba Cor Sarr, Director of Cabinet at the Ministry of Health and Social Action, pointed out that the theme of World AIDS Day, ‘Following the path of rights to eliminate AIDS in Senegal’, revived the issue of human rights in the fight against HIV.

‘The path of the fight against AIDS is strewn with rights-related issues: the right to health, the right to access to care and treatment, the right to a favourable environment, the right to a fairer, more equitable world’, listed the representative of the Minister of Health.

He also spoke of ‘the right to life, to a positive life for all those directly or indirectly affected by HIV’.

He also emphasised that Senegal, like other countries, still faces ‘significant challenges in the fight against HIV/AIDS’, including strengthening the fight against HIV at community level.

These challenges include stepping up the fight against HIV at community level. These challenges include stepping up care for children living with HIV, engaging young people and combating stigma and discrimination. Samba Cor Sarr also cited the fight against inequalities in access to care and the strengthening of support mechanisms.

In the Senegalese context, he added, this year’s theme ‘takes on its full meaning insofar as it enables a more specific and tailored response to the needs of communities affected by HIV/AIDS in order to reduce stigma and discrimination’.

Un magistrat déplore la pénalisation de la transmission du Sida, « une injustice »

Dakar, 12 déc (APS) – Le directeur adjoint des droits humains, Babacar Diouf, juge injuste la pénalisation de la transmission du VIH Sida, sauf dans les cas de contamination intentionnelle.

« L’application du droit pénal est une injustice contre les personnes vivant avec le VIH, sauf si une personne décide délibérément de contaminer une autre personne », a déclaré le magistrat.

Il animait une conférence sur le thème « Suivre le chemin des droits pour l’élimination du Sida au Sénégal », une activité organisée mercredi dans le cadre de la célébration de la Journée mondiale de lutte contre le Sida par le Conseil national de lutte contre le Sida.

Selon le directeur adjoint des droits humains au ministère de la Justice, le droit de la santé n’est pas judiciarisé au Sénégal. « Ce qui ne va pas, c’est la pénalisation. Il s’agit d’un obstacle à la lutte contre le Sida », a-t-il soutenu.

« La pénalisation du VIH nuit au droit. Elle est injuste lorsqu’elle vise une personne qui ne peut pas dévoiler son statut », a-t-il argumenté.

« Nous devons savoir que des droits proclamés qui ne sont pas effectifs n’ont pas d’utilité », a-t-il dit, en faisant observer que « la loi sur le Sida est inconnue de certains acteurs judiciaires ».

« Le manque d’information des acteurs judiciaires est un frein à la lutte. Les acteurs n’ont pas d’information sur certaines données sanitaires », a-t-il indiqué.

Dans ce sens, Babacar Diouf invite le Conseil national de lutte contre le Sida à « outiller les acteurs judiciaires », afin qu’ils puissent mieux participer à la lutte contre le Sida.

Il juge impératif de lutter contre la stigmatisation et la discrimination.

Samba Cor Sarr, directeur de cabinet du ministère de la Santé et de l’Action sociale, a pour sa part relevé que le thème consacré à la Journée mondiale de lutte contre le Sida, à savoir « Suivre le chemin des droits pour l’élimination du Sida au Sénégal », fait renaitre la question des droits humains dans la lutte contre le VIH.

« Le chemin de la lutte contre le Sida est parsemé de problématiques liées aux droits : droit à la santé, droit à l’accès aux soins et aux traitements, droit à un environnement favorable, droit à un monde plus juste, plus équitable », a énuméré le représentant du ministre de la Santé.

Il a également évoqué « le droit à la vie, à une vie positive pour toutes les personnes touchées directement ou indirectement par le VIH ».

Il a par ailleurs souligné que le Sénégal, à l’instar des autres pays, demeure « confronté à des défis significatifs dans la lutte contre le VIH/Sida », parmi lesquels le renforcement de la lutte contre le VIH au niveau communautaire.

Le renforcement de la prise en charge des enfants vivant avec le VIH fait partie de ces défis, de même que l’engagement de la jeunesse, la lutte contre la stigmatisation et la discrimination. Samba Cor Sarr a également cité la lutte contre les inégalités en matière d’accès aux soins et le renforcement des mécanismes de soutien.

Dans le contexte sénégalais, ajoute-t-il, le thème retenu cette année « prend tout son sens dans la mesure où il permet une réponse plus spécifique et plus adaptée aux besoins des communautés touchées par le VIH/Sida afin de réduire la stigmatisation et la discrimination »

Canada: Calls for action grow as political calculations leave HIV law reform in limbo

Government abandons efforts to decriminalise people living with HIV

Translated from French with Deepl.com – For original article, please scroll down.

In the run-up to World AIDS Day on 1 December and the federal election of 2025, the Government of Canada has informed the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalisation (CCRCV) of its decision to abandon any plans for legislative reform concerning the criminalisation of HIV. People living with HIV are left with no explanation, knowing only that their rights are being set aside once again. Anger and disappointment at this abandonment.

A critical moment

This decision could not have come at a worse time. Canada currently ranks last among G7 countries when it comes to reducing new HIV infections. The number of reported cases has been rising steadily in Canada since 2020, taking us further and further away from our targets. The criminalization of HIV and the resulting stigma contribute to this alarming trend, in addition to placing Canada at odds with science and outside the global consensus on how best to reduce HIV transmission and respect the rights and dignity of people living with HIV. In a press release issued on November 26, UNAIDS pointed out that ‘the criminalization and stigmatization of marginalized communities hinders access to life-saving HIV services’.

The current situation

Currently, people living with HIV in Canada are subject to criminal prosecution under sexual assault laws, resulting in convictions, imprisonment and inclusion on the sex offender registry even in cases where there is little or no risk of transmission. Legal and medical experts around the world agree that this is not in line with current scientific knowledge about transmission and can deter people from getting tested and accessing treatment and support. In Canada, it is well documented that the harms of HIV criminalisation are uniquely, disproportionately and often insidiously experienced by black and aboriginal people.

A call to action

‘We’ve had enough of the lives of people living with HIV being used to play political games,’ says Alex McClelland of the CCRVC. ‘Good intentions and scrapped action plans don’t change the reality of life for people in Canada who are persecuted because of their health status. Law reform requires a concrete effort, a real commitment and the political will to do the right thing. Unfortunately, the Canadian government seems to be putting people living with HIV on the back burner in favour of political calculations for an election’.

A history of broken commitments

Members of the CCRCV have been working with the current federal government to reform the criminalisation of HIV since it was elected in 2015. The CCRCV had hoped that change would come soon, following national consultations launched by the government in December 2022. These consultations followed numerous acknowledgements by the government that the status quo is harmful:

  • In 2016, Canada’s Minister of Justice acknowledged for the first time that the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure in this country is excessive.
  • In 2018, the Minister implemented a directive to limit charges related to HIV non-disclosure from federal jurisdictions (which is limited to the three territories), ending the use of sexual assault laws in this context. This recommendation was reiterated in a 2019 government report following its own review of HIV criminalisation.
  • In 2022, Canada launched a Federal 2ELGBTQI+ Action Plan promising to hold consultations on reforming the Criminal Code. These consultations, announced on the world stage on the eve of the 2023 International AIDS Conference, concluded in January 2023. The report of the consultations reaffirmed that the use of sexual assault laws was inappropriate.
  • Then the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, reiterated in his statement on World AIDS Day last year: ‘The current criminal law regarding non-disclosure punishes people living with HIV and AIDS too harshly and stigmatises them, discouraging them from seeking treatment and testing.’

Members of the CRCVC met with the Minister of Justice on several occasions after the consultations ended (in early 2023) and were promised concrete reform measures. To date, the Government of Canada has still not publicly informed people living with HIV why the promises made to them will not be kept, and why it is abandoning the path of law reform.

A new call to action

On World AIDS Day, the CCRCV is once again calling on the federal government to show good faith, leadership and concrete action to end the excessive criminalisation of people living with HIV in this country. The community has been fighting this battle for a long time, and what is lacking today is the government’s will to adopt a reform that is consistent with human rights and scientific consensus. The Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization remains committed to this long-overdue change – and the power of the community’s collective voice will not be silenced.

The Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization is a national coalition of people living with HIV, community organizations, advocates, researchers and others. It was formed in October 2016. To find out more, click here.

The Community Consensus Statement 2022, which details the community’s demands for law and policy reform, following consultation, is online here.

What is HIV criminalisation?

HIV criminalisation describes the unfair application of criminal law against people living with HIV solely on the basis of their HIV status. This includes the application of specific criminal law provisions or the application of general criminal law to prosecute people living with HIV for unintentional transmission of HIV, perceived or potential exposure to HIV and/or non-disclosure of HIV by a person who knows their status.

The criminalisation of HIV is a growing global phenomenon that undermines public health and human rights, thereby weakening the response to HIV.

What behaviours are targeted by these laws?

The criminalisation of HIV exists through the application of specific criminal law provisions or through the application of general criminal law exclusively or disproportionately against HIV-positive people.

In many cases, laws relating to the criminalisation of HIV are overly broad, either in their explicit wording, or in the way they have been interpreted and applied, leaving people living with HIV (and those perceived by the authorities to be at risk of HIV) extremely vulnerable to numerous human rights violations.

In general, these laws are used to prosecute individuals who are aware of their HIV status, who are presumed not to have disclosed their HIV status prior to having sex (HIV non-disclosure), or who are perceived to have potentially exposed others to HIV (HIV exposure), or who are perceived to have transmitted HIV (HIV transmission).

In many countries, a person living with HIV convicted of other ‘crimes’, including, but not limited to, sex work, or a person who spits or bites a member of law enforcement at the time of arrest or during incarceration, often faces harsher sentences, even when HIV exposure or transmission was not possible, or at most represented a very small risk.

How widespread is the criminalisation of HIV?

As of March 2023, 91 countries (114 jurisdictions) have some form of HIV-specific criminal law, and a further 41 countries (61 jurisdictions) are known to have applied general criminal provisions to prosecute people living with HIV for presumed non-disclosure of HIV, perceived or potential exposure to HIV, and/or unintentional transmission.

What impact does the criminalisation of HIV have on the HIV response?

The criminalisation of HIV compromises public health objectives in many ways.

Prosecutions, and the media attention that follows, isolate and dramatise HIV in a highly stigmatising way, presenting the HIV diagnosis as a catastrophe and HIV-positive people as an inherent threat to society. Suggesting criminal prosecution as a first or appropriate response to perceived or potential exposure to HIV is not an appropriate approach. This type of stigma makes it even more difficult to disclose HIV to intimate partners. Some evidence suggests that the criminalisation of HIV may discourage individuals from getting tested, particularly among communities most vulnerable to HIV infection. Encouraging HIV testing is an essential element of an effective response: a positive diagnosis is the first step towards access to health-enhancing antiretroviral treatment, and a negative result is the first step towards access to pre-exposure prophylaxis, two essential tools in HIV prevention.

The criminalisation of HIV can also undermine the therapeutic relationship between a person living with HIV and healthcare staff, and thus reduce the ability of carers to offer frank support and advice on risk reduction strategies. Indeed, some healthcare providers have been forced to testify in court about their exchanges with their patients.

The criminalisation of HIV also undermines research into HIV prevention, treatment and care because researchers and participants fear that data normally kept confidential will be seized by law enforcement agencies and used in a criminal case. It also reinforces concerns about the use of new technologies to monitor the epidemic, such as HIV molecular surveillance.

What impact does the criminalisation of HIV have on human rights?

The criminalisation of HIV undermines the rights of people living with HIV, many of whom also belong to marginalised or criminalised communities. Threats of denunciation to the police for non-disclosure of HIV have been used as a form of abuse or reprisal against current or former HIV-positive partners. The criminalisation of HIV exposes people living with HIV – particularly women (but not only) – to increased risks of violence and abuse and ignores the fact that some people are unable to safely disclose their status or ask their partner to use a condom.

Stigmatising statements by law enforcement or public health agencies, and media coverage, including the publication of full names and photos of people being prosecuted – even if they are only allegations – can have dramatic consequences for people living with HIV whose HIV status is publicly revealed in this way and who are portrayed as criminals. Such revelations can lead to loss of employment or housing, social ostracism or even physical violence. Investigations and prosecutions often have a disproportionate impact on racial and sexual minorities, migrants and women. Defendants with few resources do not necessarily have access to adequate legal representation.

In some cases, the most serious offences under a country’s criminal law (e.g. aggravated assault, sexual assault and attempted murder) are used to prosecute alleged HIV non-disclosure prior to consensual sex. Penalties are often disproportionate to the harm caused, such as long prison sentences and/or registration as a sex offender. People who do not have the nationality of their country of residence also risk deportation if found guilty, which for some may mean the end of their treatment or access to care.

À l’approche de la Journée mondiale du sida, 1er décembre, et des élections fédérales de 2025, le Gouvernement du Canada a communiqué à la Coalition canadienne pour réformer la criminalisation du VIH (CCRCV) sa décision d’abandonner tout projet de réforme législative concernant la criminalisation du VIH. Les personnes vivant avec le VIH sont laissées sans explication, sachant seulement que leurs droits sont mis de côté une fois de plus. Colère et déception devant cet abandon.

Un moment critique

Cette décision ne pourrait pas tomber à un pire moment. Le Canada se classe actuellement dernier parmi les pays du G7 en ce qui concerne la réduction des nouvelles infections à VIH. Le nombre de cas déclarés est en hausse constante au Canada depuis 2020, nous éloignant de plus en plus de nos objectifs. La criminalisation du VIH et la stigmatisation qui en résulte contribuent à cette tendance alarmante, en plus de placer le Canada en contradiction avec la science et hors du consensus mondial sur la meilleure façon de réduire la transmission du VIH et de respecter les droits et la dignité des personnes vivant avec le VIH. L’ONUSIDA a souligné dans son communiqué de presse, le 26 novembre dernier, que « [l]a criminalisation et la stigmatisation des communautés marginalisées entravent l’accès aux services de lutte contre le VIH qui peuvent sauver des vies ».

La situation actuelle

Actuellement, les personnes vivant avec le VIH au Canada sont passibles de poursuites pénales en vertu des lois sur les agressions sexuelles, entraînant des condamnations, l’emprisonnement et l’inscription au registre des délinquants sexuels même dans des cas où le risque de transmission est faible ou nul. Des expert-es juridiques et de la médecine, aux quatre coins du monde, s’accordent pour dire que cela ne correspond pas aux connaissances scientifiques d’aujourd’hui sur la transmission et peut dissuader des personnes de se faire dépister et d’accéder aux traitements et à du soutien. Au Canada, il est bien documenté que les préjudices de la criminalisation du VIH sont vécus de manière unique, disproportionnée et souvent insidieuse par les personnes noires et les autochtones.

Un appel à l’action

« Nous en avons assez de voir la vie des personnes vivant avec le VIH servir à des jeux politiques! », déclare Alex McClelland, de la CCRVC. « Les belles intentions et les plans d’action mis au rancart ne changent pas la réalité de la vie pour les personnes au Canada que l’on persécute en raison de leur état de santé. La réforme du droit exige un effort concret, un véritable engagement et une volonté politique de faire ce qui est juste. Malheureusement, le gouvernement canadien semble mettre de côté les personnes vivant avec le VIH au profit d’un calcul politique en vue d’une élection. »

Un historique d’engagements non respectés

Des membres de la CCRCV travaillent avec le gouvernement fédéral actuel pour réformer la criminalisation du VIH depuis son élection en 2015. La CCRCV espérait que le changement ne tarde plus, après les consultations nationales lancées par le gouvernement en décembre 2022. Ces consultations faisaient suite à de nombreuses reconnaissances, par le gouvernement, que le statu quo est néfaste :

  • En 2016, la ministre de la Justice du Canada a reconnu pour la première fois que la criminalisation de la non-divulgation du VIH au pays est excessive.
  • En 2018, la ministre a mis en œuvre une directive visant à limiter les accusations liées à la non-divulgation du VIH, de la part des instances fédérales (ce qui se limite aux trois territoires), mettant fin à l’utilisation des lois sur les agressions sexuelles dans ce contexte. Cette recommandation a été réitérée dans un rapport gouvernemental de 2019 à l’issue de sa propre étude de la criminalisation du VIH.
  • En 2022, le Canada a lancé un Plan d’action fédéral 2ELGBTQI+ promettant de tenir des consultations sur la réforme du Code criminel. Ces consultations, annoncées sur la scène mondiale à la veille du Congrès international sur le sida de 2023, se sont conclues en janvier 2023. Le rapport des consultations a réaffirmé que le recours aux lois sur l’agression sexuelle était inapproprié.
  • Puis le premier ministre du Canada, Justin Trudeau, a réitéré dans sa déclaration à l’occasion de la Journée mondiale du sida de l’an dernier : « Le droit pénal actuel en ce qui a trait à la non-divulgation réprime trop durement les personnes vivant avec le VIH et le sida et les stigmatise, ce qui les décourage de se faire soigner et dépister.»

Des membres de la CCRVC ont rencontré le ministre de la Justice à plusieurs reprises après la fin des consultations (début 2023) et se sont vu promettre des mesures de réforme concrètes. À ce jour, le Gouvernement du Canada n’a toujours pas informé publiquement les personnes vivant avec le VIH des raisons pour lesquelles les promesses qu’on leur a faites ne seront pas tenues, et des raisons pour lesquelles il abandonne la voie de la réforme du droit.

Un nouvel appel à l’action

Dans le cadre de la Journée mondiale du sida, la CCRCV appelle une fois de plus le gouvernement fédéral à démontrer sa bonne foi, à faire preuve de leadership et à agir concrètement pour mettre fin à la criminalisation excessive des personnes vivant avec le VIH dans ce pays. La communauté mène depuis longtemps cette bataille, et ce qui manque aujourd’hui est la volonté du gouvernement d’adopter une réforme en accord avec les droits humains et le consensus scientifique. La Coalition canadienne pour réformer la criminalisation du VIH reste engagée en faveur de ce changement qui est dû depuis longtemps – et le pouvoir de la voix collective de la communauté ne sera pas réduit au silence.

Rappelons que la Coalition canadienne pour réformer la criminalisation du VIH est une coalition nationale de personnes vivant avec le VIH, d’organismes communautaires, d’avocat-es, de chercheur(-euse)s et d’autres intéressé-es. Elle a été formée en octobre 2016. Pour en savoir plus, cliquez ici.

La Déclaration de consensus communautaire 2022, qui décrit en détail les demandes de la communauté pour réformer le droit et les politiques, après des consultations, est en ligne ici.

Qu’est ce que la pénalisation du VIH?

La criminalisation du VIH décrit l’application injuste du droit pénal contre les personnes vivant avec le VIH sur la seule base de leur statut sérologique. Ceci comprend l’application de dispositions pénales spécifiques ou l’application du droit pénal général pour poursuivre des personnes vivant avec le VIH pour transmission involontaire du VIH, exposition perçue ou éventuelle au VIH et/ou non-divulgation du VIH par une personne qui connaît son statut.

La criminalisation du VIH est un phénomène mondial croissant qui nuit à la santé publique et aux droits humains, affaiblissant ainsi la riposte au VIH.

Quels sont les comportements visés par ces lois?

La pénalisation du VIH existe avec l’application de dispositions pénales spécifiques ou par l’application du droit pénal généralexclusivement ou disproportionnellement contre les personnes séropositives

Dans de nombreux cas, les lois se rapportant à la pénalisation du VIH sont trop générales, que ce soit dans leurs formulations explicites, ou dans la façon dont elles ont été interprétées et appliquées, ce qui rend les personnes vivant avec le VIH (et les personnes perçues par les autorités comme exposées aux risques de VIH) extrêmement vulnérables à de nombreuses violations des droits de l’homme.

En général, ces lois sont utilisées pour poursuivre les individus conscients de leur VIH, qui sont présumés ne pas avoir divulgué leur statut sérologique avant d’avoir des rapports sexuels (non-divulgation du VIH), ou qui sont perçus comme ayant potentiellement exposé autrui au VIH (exposition au VIH), ou perçus comme ayant transmis le VIH (transmission du VIH).

Dans de nombreux pays, une personne vivant avec le VIH reconnue coupable d’autres “crimes”, notamment, mais pas exclusivement, pour le travail du sexe, ou une personne qui crache ou qui mord un membre des forces de l’ordre au moment de son arrestation ou pendant son incarcération, fait souvent face à des condamnations plus sévères, même lorsque l’exposition ou la transmission du VIH n’était pas possible, ou qu’elle représentait au plus, un risque très petit.

Quelle est l’étendue de la pénalisation du VIH?

En mars 2023, 91 pays (114 juridictions) disposent d’une forme de droit pénal spécifique au VIH, et on sait que 41 autres pays (61 juridictions) ont appliqué des dispositions pénales générales pour poursuivre des personnes vivant avec le VIH pour non-divulgation présumée du VIH, exposition perçue ou potentielle au VIH, et/ou transmission non intentionnelle.

Quelles sont les conséquences de la pénalisation du VIH sur la riposte au VIH?

La pénalisation du VIH compromet les objectifs de santé publique à bien des égards.

Les poursuites, et l’attraction médiatique qui s’ensuit, isole et dramatise le VIH de façon fortement stigmatisante, en présentant le diagnostic de VIH comme une catastrophe et les personnes séropositives comme une menace inhérente pour la société. Suggérer des poursuites pénales comme une première réponse ou une réponse adaptée en cas d’exposition perçue ou éventuelle au VIH n’est pas une approche appropriée. Ce type de stigmatisation rend encore plus difficile la divulgation du VIH aux partenaires intimes. Certaines données suggèrent que la pénalisation du VIH pourrait dissuader les individus à faire le test de dépistage, particulièrement parmi les communautés les plus vulnérables à l’infection au VIH. Encourager le dépistage du VIH est un élément essentiel pour une riposte efficace: un diagnostic positif est la première étape vers l’accès au traitement antirétroviral bénéfique à la santé, et un résultat négatif, la première étape vers l’accès à la prophylaxie pré-exposition, deux outils essentiels de la prévention du VIH.

La pénalisation du VIH peut également nuire à la relation thérapeutique entre une personne vivant avec le VIH et le personnel de santé, et ainsi réduire la capacité des soignants à offrir un soutien et des conseils francs sur les stratégies de réduction des risques. En effet, certains prestataires de santé ont été obligés de témoigner devant les tribunaux au sujet de leurs échanges avec leurs patients.

La pénalisation du VIH porte également atteinte à la recherche dans les domaines de la prévention, du traitement et des soins du VIH en raison de la crainte des chercheurs et des participants de voir des données normalement tenues confidentielles saisies par les forces de l’ordre et utilisées dans une affaire criminelle.  Elle renforce également les inquiétudes quant à l’utilisation de nouvelles technologies pour suivre l’évolution de l’épidémie, comme par exemple la surveillance moléculaire du VIH.

Quel est l’impact de la pénalisation du VIH sur les droits de l’homme?

La pénalisation du VIH porte atteinte aux droits des personnes vivant avec le VIH, dont beaucoup appartiennent aussi à des communautés marginalisées ou criminalisées. Des menaces de dénonciation à la police pour non-divulgation du VIH ont été utilisées comme forme d’abus ou de représailles à l’encontre de partenaires séropositifs présents ou passés. La pénalisation du VIH expose les personnes vivant avec le VIH – et plus particulièrement les femmes (mais pas uniquement) – à des risques accrus de violence et de maltraitance et ignore le fait que certaines personnes ne sont pas en mesure de divulguer leur statut sans danger ou de demander à leur partenaire d’utiliser un préservatif.

Les déclarations stigmatisantes des forces de l’ordre ou des agences de santé publique, et la couverture médiatique, y compris la publication des noms complets et de photos de personnes poursuivies– même s’il ne s’agit que d’allégations – peuvent avoir des conséquences dramatiques pour les personnes vivant avec le VIH dont le statut sérologique est ainsi révélé publiquement et qui sont présentés comme des criminels. De telles révélations peuvent entrainer une perte d’emploi, de logement, l’ostracisme social ou même à la violence physique. Les enquêtes et les poursuites ont souvent un impact disproportionné sur les minorités raciales et sexuelles, les migrants et les femmes. Les accusés disposant de peu de ressources n’ont pas forcément accès à une représentation juridique adéquate.

Dans certains cas, les infractions les plus graves du droit pénal d’un pays (par exemple voies de fait graves, agression sexuelle et tentative de meurtre) sont utilisées pour poursuivre la non-divulgation du VIH alléguée avant des relations sexuelles consensuelles. Les sanctions sont souvent disproportionnées par rapport au préjudice causé, comme de longues peines d’emprisonnement et / ou l’enregistrement en tant que délinquant sexuel. Les personnes qui n’ont pas la nationalité de leur pays de résidence risquent aussi d’être expulsées s’ils sont reconnus coupable, ce qui peut signifier, pour certains, la fin de leur traitement ou et de l’accès aux soins.

Uganda: Controversial proposals on HIV transmission and the death penalty rejected

The following is an extract from an article on the inaugural consideration of the Sexual Offences Bill, 2024, a comprehensive piece of legislation aimed at reforming laws around sexual violence and exploitation

The proposal to include the deliberate transmission of HIV to minors as an aggravating factor in cases of sexual violence was debated during the inaugural consideration of the Sexual Offences Bill by the Joint Committee of Legal and Gender Affairs.

Anna Adeke, the Member of Parliament for Soroti District Woman Representative, who had tabled the Sexual Offences Bill had suggested that spreading HIV to a minor during a sexual assault should elevate the crime to aggravated rape, carrying heavier penalties.

However, Fox Odoi, the MP for West Budama North East, and several other MPs rejected this idea, arguing that it could further stigmatize people living with HIV and be difficult to prove.

“There are many people living with HIV who are not aware of their status, and others who are on ARV treatment but still test positive,” Odoi explained.

“The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) herself has expressed concerns about the difficulty of prosecuting these cases, as proving knowledge of an HIV-positive status is virtually impossible.”

The debate also extended to the issue of the death penalty for rapists. Adeke had proposed that the death penalty be imposed on individuals convicted of rape, particularly in cases where the victim is a minor. Odoi, a staunch opponent of the death penalty, questioned the fairness and necessity of such a harsh punishment.

“Why are we introducing the death penalty for rape when other more egregious crimes like mass murder and genocide do not carry such a penalty?” Odoi asked.

He further criticised the proposal, stating, “In principle, I don’t support the death penalty for any offense. I thought we had moved away from this position as a country.”

While Adeke expressed disappointment over the rejection of her proposals, she acknowledged the challenges in achieving consensus on the Bill.

The Joint Committee of Legal and Gender Affairs is expected to continue its review of the Sexual Offences Bill, 2024, with further consultations and amendments.

The Bill, which aims to tackle issues of sexual violence, exploitation, and human trafficking, has sparked heated debates on the appropriate legal framework for addressing these sensitive issues.

As MPs grapple with the complexities of regulating sex work, preventing the spread of HIV, and ensuring justice for sexual violence victims, the discussions on the Bill are likely to remain contentious.

The Committee will be under pressure to strike a balance between protecting vulnerable groups and adopting practical policies that reflect the realities of Ugandan society.

 

Australia: Migration policies for People with HIV perpetuate criminalisation and expose them to harm

David Carter Delivers Keynote at the Australasian HIV&AIDS Conference

Health+Law’s research lead David Carter, delivered a keynote address at the recent ASHM HIV Conference in Sydney, exploring the controversial past and present of HIV criminalisation in Australia. His urgent, provocative address challenged us to consider how current legal and policy processes in migration law recreate conditions of criminalisation, producing serious health and other harms for people living with HIV. 

Talking to Health+Law researchers in an interview about legal issues, Sergio*, a man in his thirties originally from South America and living with HIV, described the experience of migration to Australia:

I didn’t have to face any court, but I [did] have to prove that I wasn’t a bad person just because I have HIV […] I [had] to prove myself to someone else, who probably is not living with HIV, that I was not a bad person, and I was a good citizen and I deserve to be here.

The migration process is a complex one – and this complexity is amplified for people living with HIV.  Sergio’s reflections express a particularly grim aspect of this process for migrants, especially those living with HIV.

Indeed, as Scientia Associate Professor David Carter, Health+Law’s research lead, argued in an invited keynote at the 2024 Australasian HIV&AIDS Conference hosted by ASHM Health in September this year, the experience of people living with HIV seeking to migrate to Australia is part of Australia’s long history of the criminalisation of HIV.  Speaking to delegates from Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific at Sydney’s International Convention Centre on Gadigal Country, David reminded the audience that criminalisation is a policy approach, that doesn’t just use the criminal law. To show this he set out five stages of criminalisation that are also evident in the migration process for those living with HIV.

First, as he explained, criminalisation characterises specific behaviour as harmful or carrying a risk of harm to the community. In this case the harm presented is, to quote Australian migration law, that a person’s HIV care represents a ‘significant cost to the Australian community or prejudice [to] the access of Australian citizens or permanent residents to health care or community services’.

Second, criminalisation creates a suspect population, made up of people thought to warrant suspicion because they come to be associated with the potential harm.

Third and fourth, this suspect population attracts surveillance from the state, with a hierarchy created within the suspect population whereby some members are subject to further and intensified surveillance.

Fifth, and finally, some members of this suspect population are subjected ‘to the most severe forms of the state’s coercive and punitive authority’, including investigation, more intensive supervision, detention or arrest, and in some cases, criminal or civil proceedings.

The criminalisation of HIV has a long and storied history, going back to the very early days of the AIDS crisis. Vocal members of HIV-affected communities, legal and human rights advocates and many others have argued strongly against criminalisation, viewing it as draconian and as an approach to public (health) policy with very negative consequences for HIV epidemics.

In Australia, arguments against HIV-specific criminal offences have been broadly successful, and yet the ‘temptation’ to criminalise – as the very first Australian National HIV Strategy described it – continues to emerge in some policy responses to HIV and other communicable diseases.

In 1987, when the authors of the first national HIV strategy were writing, they were warning against measures including compulsory universal HIV testing, the closure of gay venues, criminal penalties for HIV transmission, and limitations on the movement of HIV positive people, including forced quarantine. Today, HIV criminalisation is operating in Australian migration policy and law.

‘This contemporary criminalisation of HIV begins’, David argued, ‘like all criminalisation, with the characterisation of behaviour in terms of harm and risk of harm’. He continued, arguing that:

This characterisation of migrating while HIV positive as harmful establishes, and in-turn enlivens, the suspect population management and criminalising processes of our medical border […] This criminalising logic establishes an adversarial relationship between the person living with HIV and the state, and between them and members of the Australian community, whose access to health care it is alleged may be prejudiced by providing care for a person living with HIV who wishes to migrate.

Among the many negative effects of this process is that it can discourage migrants living with HIV from engaging in testing, treatment and HIV care. Interviews conducted by Health+Law as part of our national legal needs (LeNS) study confirm that this is happening. They show that many migrants living with HIV in jurisdictions across Australia experienced an alienating and hostile environment: a ‘threat environment so elevated’, as David described it in his keynote, that they frequently described withdrawing from HIV care and community life as a coping mechanism.

Unfolding the history of ‘unjust and unhelpful’ HIV criminalisation in Australia, David outlined how the current legal and policy conditions that prospective migrants living with HIV face in Australia today work to recreate conditions of criminalisation and expose both individuals and the community to multiple health harms.

You can read more about David’s keynote in The Medical Republic’s coverage of the conference.