Skip to content
HIV Justice Network
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Home
  • About
    • HIV Justice Network
    • Staff and Consultants
    • Supervisory Board
    • Global Advisory Panel
    • Our Policies
    • Our Funders
      • ANBI Status
  • News
    • By the HIV Justice Network
    • Curated from other sources
    • HIV JUSTICE NEWS (Newsletter)
  • Academy
  • Database
    • Overview
    • Laws and Analyses
    • Cases
    • Organisations
    • Disclaimer
  • Publications
  • Video
  • Contact Us
  • Donate

US: Think Progress highlight latest research into HIV disclosure laws amongst gay men

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

US: Stigma and healthcare provider caution impacts people with HIV's beliefs about their infectiousness despite undetectable viral loads

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

US: Some gay men are relying on HIV criminalisation to protect them

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Ireland: Social science research article explores impact of HIV stigma on gay men's willingness to disclose HIV status

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

The accounts of a group of gay men living with HIV in Dublin, most of whom rarely, if ever, disclose their HIV status to casual sexual partners, starkly reveal the extent of HIV stigma within the gay community, according to a qualitative study published online ahead of print in Qualitative Health Research. While interviewees feared being sexually and socially excluded on account of their HIV status, they also stigmatised others living with HIV and rejected a shared identity.

For this in-depth, small-scale study, Patrick Murphy of the National University of Ireland Galway interviewed 15 gay men living with HIV in Dublin, all of whom were taking HIV treatment and had casual sexual partners. Participants were aged between 21 and 48 years and had been diagnosed with HIV for between six months and 20 years. Half were born in other European countries or in the Americas. Interviews were conducted in 2013.

Among these individuals, not disclosing HIV status to casual partners was common. In addition more than half had never disclosed their status to a gay friend. Murphy identified three ways in which the interviewees constructed the experience of not disclosing their status, each inextricably linked with stigmatising discourses surrounding HIV.

Canada: New study finds majority of women living with HIV who also inject drugs face legal obligation to disclose HIV status to sexual partners

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

A new study presented to the International AIDS Society conference in Vancouver, Canada last week (IAS 2015) found that 44 per cent of participants within a research cohort of people who use injection drugs living with HIV in Vancouver would be legally obligated to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners. Within the study, 65 per cent of male participants compared with only 45 percent of female participants satisfied the Supreme Court of Canada’s legal test for HIV non-disclosure, based on the October 2012 ruling in R v. Mabior.

Under current case law, people living with HIV must disclose their HIV status to a partner before sexual activity unless both a condom is used and a low HIV viral load is present.

The vast majority (98 per cent) of cohort participants in this study either self-reported always using a condom or achieved a low HIV viral load (<1500 copies/ml), and as such took steps to reduce the risk of HIV transmission to sexual partners. A person living with HIV who is appropriately treated and sustained on effective antiretroviral therapy will have an undetectable viral load, meaning the chance they will spread the virus is extremely low.

“The law as it currently stands places an additional veil of threat over an already vulnerable and criminalized population within one of Canada’s most impoverished communities,” said British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS Director, and IAS 2015 conference co-chair, Dr. Julio Montaner. “Current non-HIV non-disclosure laws in Canada are not aligned with the state of the scientific evidence, and as a result create further stigma and fear around HIV.”

“The criminalization of HIV non-disclosure can affect people living with HIV in Canada in many ways,” said Valerie Nicholson, an Aboriginal woman living with HIV and the Chair of the Board of Directors at Positive Living BC. “People may face criminal charges for not disclosing, which can lead to lengthy and damaging criminal prosecutions – based on no scientific evidence. In the wider community, the law increases stigma and discrimination, does not account for power or control imbalances in relationships, compromises our ability to lead healthy sex lives and may introduce questions about the limits of confidentiality in the health care setting.”

The poster presentation of the study, “Gender differences in meeting legal obligations to disclose HIV status within a cohort of HIV-positive illicit drug users in Vancouver” is below.

Patterson, Sophie. Gender differences in meeting legal obligations to disclose HIV status within a cohort o…

The public health implications of HIV criminalization: past, current, and future research directions

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

(2015). The public health implications of HIV criminalization: past, current, and future research directions. Critical Public Health: Vol. 25, Special Section: HIV Criminalisation and Public Health. Guest Editor: Eric Mykhalovskiy, pp. 373-385. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2015.1052731

This contains the following articles:

EDITORIAL

The public health implications of HIV criminalization: past, current, and future research directions

Eric Mykhalovskiy

Pages: 373-385

DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2015.1052731

RESEARCH PAPERS

HIV disclosure as practice and public policy

Barry D. Adam, Patrice Corriveau, Richard Elliott, Jason Globerman, Ken English & Sean Rourke

Pages: 386-397

DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2014.980395

Examining public health nurses’ documentary practices: the impact of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure on inscription styles

Chris Sanders

Pages: 398-409

DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2015.1019834

Keeping confidence: HIV and the criminal law from HIV service providers’ perspectives

Catherine Dodds, Matthew Weait, Adam Bourne & Siri Egede

Pages: 410-426

DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2015.1019835

Counselling anomie: clashing governmentalities of HIV criminalisation and prevention

Martin French

Pages: 427-440

DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2015.1046814

Criminalizing HIV transmission using model law: troubling best practice standardizations in the global HIV/AIDS response

Daniel Grace

Pages: 441-454

DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2015.1049121

Canada: Provocative new resource from anonymous collective of people living with HIV explains how to protect yourself from prosecution

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
This is not intended as legal advice. Please always consult a lawyer if you are concerned about issues related to HIV non-disclosure or exposure. And do your own research! Some of the tactics suggested in this document are within a grey area of the law. Make sure you are aware of this, and make onlydecisions that you are comfortable with to protect yourself. We do notpromote non-disclosure of one’s HIV status, nor do we support the stigma that

can make it so difficult to do so.

An anonymous collective of people living with HIV and

our allies produced this document. We have no leaders, no spokespeople, and no

meetings. Copy this, share it, add to it, and adapt it to your own setting.

Join us by doing it. Time is running out. 

 *The photos in this document are from the July 1990

Montreal Sex Garage riots download booklet version here!

HOW

TO HAVE SEX IN A POLICE STATE: OUR APPROACH In 1983, Americans Richard Berkowitz and

Michael Callen published the book How to

Have Sex in an Epidemic: One Approach, which is credited as being the first

piece of safer sex literature for gay men. In the early days of the AIDS

epidemic and in the absence of state action people with HIV and their friends

banded together and took things into their own hands. Through advocating the

use of condoms and by sharing available HIV prevention information, safer sex in

the late 80s and 90s was conceived as a way to take collective accountability

for addressing the epidemic, care for one another, and resist fear-based and

abstinence-only responses.

Thirty-years after the publication of How to Have Sex in an Epidemic we face a

new type of emergency here in Canada. State neglect in the response supporting

people with HIV is now coupled with intensified forms of state control,

surveillance and criminalization. Canada is among the most punitive countries

in the world for HIV-positive people, where the state is turning towards

criminalization instead of public education and support.

WHAT

YOU NEED TO KNOW: The “Law” in Canada

The landmark 2012 Mabior and D.C. Supreme

Court decisions outline that people are required to tell a partner they have

HIV before they engage in sex that poses a ‘realistic

possibility’ of transmission. This legal test requires disclosure for

vaginal intercourse unless a condom is used and the person with HIV has a "low" viral load. This decision

did not address same sex relations, anal sex, or oral sex. Anyone who doesn’t

disclose their HIV positive status when having sex with a condom OR low viral

load can be arrested and prosecuted. Since this decision at the Supreme Court

prosecutions are on the rise. The risk of being labeled a criminal is now

biologically marked – we are infected with criminal potential. Acquiring a low

viral load requires access to anti-HIV drugs, which are still out of reach for

many of us. Condom use is also complex when power and gender-based violence are

factors. Charges can range from assault to attempted murder and do not require

HIV transmission to occur. A majority of people in these cases are charged with

aggravated sexual assault, one of the most serious offences in the Criminal

Code reserved for violent sexual assaults. Those prosecuted can face long

sentences, are registered as sex offenders and held in segregation units. One

accusation from an angry or upset former lover can result in lengthy court

battles, incarceration and sensationalized media exposure. Even if the person

decides to drop the charges, the state can pursue criminal prosecution in the "public interest". 

Within this context of intensified

criminalization we see the reversals of hard-fought protections for our privacy

and rights. Under the AIDS Industry’s “treatment

as prevention” project, people living with HIV are now understood as

carriers of disease who must be neutralized through medical treatment. This

treatment imperative plays out regardless of if we have access to the expensive

medications, if we can tolerate their many side effects, or even if there is a

medical necessity to go on them. The fundamental principles underlying HIV

testing (i.e. consent, confidentiality, and counseling) are rapidly

disappearing. Voluntary and anonymous HIV testing are being replaced by

involuntary and coercive forms of testing, now called “routinized testing”, where people can be systematically tested in health-care settings –

many of them without their knowledge. The

names and HIV-status of people who test positive can end up on government

databases for life. Also, through increased public health oversight,

community–based organizations have now become an arm of state surveillance,

discipline and control. Many of them now fully endorse and implement new

coercive testing approaches in the community.

What

follows is a list of suggestions gathered by people living with HIV to help one

another steer clear of the law and the state, to protect our communities and

ourselves. 

TAKE

THE TEST &amp; RISK ARREST

People who test HIV-positive will in most

cases have this information collected by public health officials. In the early

days of the epidemic activists and other people with HIV fought to have their

information about their HIV-status be anonymous and out of the hands of state

officials. Today things are different.

Today, in order to prevent intervention

from the criminal justice system and public health officials it could

technically be in your best interest not

to know your HIV status. While this is still a grey area within the law, if you

do not “officially” know you have HIV, then you could have less of a chance of

being charged or prosecuted in relation to non-disclosure. Although, if you

have engaged in activities that are commonly understood to put you at risk of

HIV infection then you could have a legal obligation to disclose these

activities to other partners. In 2003, a case went to the Supreme Court called

R. v. Williams, and while the case did

not fundamentally alter how the law is applied it did outline that if someone

has an awareness of risk, then they have a duty to disclose, even if they are

not aware of their HIV status. So we know that willful ignorance about your

status is not going to keep you completely out of the courtroom if someone

presses charges against you or the police and public health come knocking at

your door. But being careful about where you get tested and who knows your HIV

test results could prove helpful in some cases. You can order home HIV testing

kits online, or buy them while travelling to other countries where they are

available. 

Avoid

all HIV or STI tests at clinics where your real name is recorded. If you do not already know your HIV status, only go for anonymous

tests (ensure the clinic you go to does not record your name, or any contact

information), or get an at home test from across the border or online. The

police and others can use medical records to confirm that someone has HIV, has

been counseled about their status, is aware of their viral load etc. and that

they are thus criminally liable regarding cases of non-disclosure. To prevent

this from happening, try your best to keep your HIV status out of official state,

public health, and AIDS service organization record keeping practices.

If you test HIV-positive through anonymous

testing and you want to go to a doctor – ask your doctor if they do a

confirmatory HIV test. Some doctors are mandated by public health to do a

confirmatory HIV test, which will have your name attached to it. However, there

are some HIV specialists that do not follow this mandate. Ask your friends and

look for a doctor who will not submit your HIV status to public health.

Sometimes a doctor needs to make sure you have HIV before they are willing to

provide care. You can ask that they do a viral load test, as public health

authorities do not as of yet collect this data. Having a record of your viral

load can act as an equivalent to a positive HIV-positive test for you, and also

for your doctor to provide appropriate care, while keeping you out of the

public health database. But this strategy will not help if the medical records

your doctor keeps are subpoenaed in the case of arrest. 

If

you are arrested on a charge in relation an HIV, do not tell the police your

HIV status, or anything else without a lawyer. Do

not volunteer any information to the police. It is important to try and get a

lawyer who is knowledgeable on HIV exposure and non-disclosure cases, so that

you can get an adequate defense. Legal HIV organizations have connections to

knowledgeable lawyers who understand these sorts of cases.

FUCK

SAFELY: HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF

While we need to protect ourselves from

public health and the state, we also need to protect ourselves from potential

partners who may call the cops on us out of fear, lack of information or

AIDS-phobia.

If

disclosing is not possible, maintaining a low viral load and using

condoms are the only way to comply with the law. But we know that both acquiring a low viral load and always using

condoms is not possible for everyone. Also, there have been cases where people

have been charged despite disclosing their HIV status to a sex partner, or have

used condoms and had a low viral load. So if you are in position to do so, ask

your partners to sign a statement agreeing that they know your HIV-positive

status and have agreed to have sex with you. Alternatively, you can keep a

record of having disclosed on your phone or computer.  Take a screen capture of your disclosure on

hook up sites. Remember to record the date and time. Recording your disclosure

on a social media app is also a potential strategy. If possible, consider the

idea of disclosing your status to person in front of a trusted witness, friend,

or at a trusted counselor at a community organization. 

We know that disclosure can result in

violence or other consequences. In this case there are still things that you

can do to protect yourself and your partners. If condom use is possible, some

people will make sure to keep used condoms from past partners labeled and

frozen in the freezer as evidence that the sex they had was protected. These

are ridiculous measures, but these are ridiculous times. 

If you have questions about safe sex, talk to

people you know and learn about different ways to fuck safely. If you talk to a

health care provider, ask general questions and don’t detail challenges that

you may be having with disclosure and condom use. If you have questions about

your legal duties, for example if the condom breaks, don’t ask a health care

provider. Ask a person who is familiar with the law (there are organizations

what work on HIV and the law in Canada, look them up online). Make sure the

person you talk to does not document your concerns in your health records or

some other form of record (like records they keep on clients at AIDS Service

Organizations).

KEEP

YOURSELF OFF THE PUBLIC HEALTH RECORD

The

less information the state has on you the harder it will be for them to

develop a criminal or public health case against you. This doesn&#8217;t mean that you shouldn&#8217;t notify people of your own

status, but can be a strategy of keeping the state out of your sex

life.

Sometimes public health officials do

‘contact tracing’ or ‘partner notification’ where they document who has come

into contact with whom (or in this case, who has had sex with whom) to notify

other partners of the potential “risk”. If you come into contact with public

health officials who are doing &#8216;contact tracing&#8217; tell them that you do not know

the names of anyone you have had sex with. This collection of information by

public health could later lead to potential criminal charges, a public health

order, or other consequences. One strategy is to tell public health officials

that you only have anonymous sex and that you do not know the names of any

people you have sex with, or that you don&#8217;t have the means of contacting them.

If your HIV status is already recorded by

public health, and you test positive for another sexually transmitted infection

(STI), you could be asked to meet with a public health nurse. The nurse may ask

you to give them the names of whom you have had sexual contact with. Never give

names or contact information of other people to public

health.  Public health could contact them and notify them of your HIV

status and that person could press charges if you have not disclosed to them.

Some public health officials can be very

aggressive and stigmatizing towards people living with HIV and they may harass

you once they have any of your contact information. If this happens, you can

make an official complaint against them by contacting the health unit where

they work.  Each province has its own public health

department and health units. Some public health units are more concerned with

regulating people living with HIV than others. Some provinces have public

health laws that allow for the issuance of public health orders. Under public

health law people can be mandated with legal orders to disclose their

HIV-positive status to all sex partners in specific terms, practice sex in

specific ways, or even be put under house arrest, as well as being

court-ordered to take pharmaceuticals. To better protect yourself, know what

public health jurisdiction you are in, and if they issue public health orders

to people living with HIV. 

 If you receive a public health order,

or get arrested call a lawyer right away! You often only have 15 days to

respond to a public health order, and you will need a lawyer as soon as

possible to support you in this process.

ACCESS

SUPPORT NOT SURVEILLANCE

When going to a community organization,

AIDS Service Organization or healthcare provider always ask any counselor, nurse, doctor, social worker, peer

worker, or other support worker how, why, and under what circumstances they

are professionally required to document their interactions with you, and

if this data can be used to identify you. In many organizations, there is an

increasing push to collect more and more information on people who access

services, but this information can also be used against you. Anything they

write down or collect about you can be subpoenaed and used as evidence in a

court of law. Make sure that you trust your healthcare providers and they are

transparent about how and why they keep records on you. Do not give out any

information about your sex life, sex partners, HIV status or sex practices

unless you are absolutely certain that they will respect your confidentiality

and not document what you tell them.  You can always request a copy of your

file or any notes kept on you. Alternately, if you are disclosing to your

sexual partners, you can ask your care provider to note this in your file to

further protect yourself against accusations.

MAKE

THIS AN ISSUE IN YOUR COMMUNITY

We

are in a dangerous moment under the watch of a hostile regime and we urgently

need to take back control of our lives, our health and our freedom. When possible, talk about HIV and talk about the potential impacts

of HIV criminalization with friends, sex partners, colleagues, family and with

communities that you are part of. Make it known that you are a person that

other people can talk to about these issues. Work in your communities to build

consensus at a grass-roots level to end the criminalization of HIV. 

Police can pressure people in these cases

into pressing charges. Refuse to be a witness and help prosecutions. Respect

people’s decisions about disclosing. This complex social issue cannot be

understood within - or reduced to - a legal and policing framework of “victim”

and “perpetrator”.  Work to undermine

these practices that support criminalization. Encourage dialogue over calling

the cops.

Be

proactive and hold community organizations accountable. Call for AIDS Service Organizations, health-care providers, or other

community groups to not participate in reporting or record keeping practices

that could support HIV criminalization investigations. Ask these organizations

to be transparent about what they do and what their policies are around

reporting and collection of information. If they do not have policies or

practices around this, push them to develop them. Ask community organizations,

if their records are subpoenaed, to tell the cops to seal the evidence and

instruct them that it can only be opened before a judge. This can buy you time

to oppose the use of these records as evidence.

This issue is not over. There are

opportunities for change if people start taking action now! As people living

with HIV, we know this: We are responsible and we already practice care for the

health of our sex partners. Now we must take action to protect ourselves from

the violence of the state, the violence of the AIDS Industry, the violence of

AIDS-phobia, and the violence of the criminal injustice system. As the carceral

system becomes the watermark of our everyday life it is becoming clear that we

are not the “public” that public health is interested in protecting. But we can

protect ourselves if we work together, support each other, share strategies and

push for change. This is not intended as legal advice. Please always consult a lawyer if you are concerned about issues related to HIV non-disclosure or exposure. And do your own research!

Some of the tactics suggested in this document are within a grey area of the law. Make sure you are aware of this, and make onlydecisions that you are comfortable with to protect yourself. We do notpromote non-disclosure of one’s HIV status, nor do we support the stigma that can make it so difficult to do so.

An anonymous collective of people living with HIV and our allies produced this document. We have no leaders, no spokespeople, and no meetings. Copy this, share it, add to it, and adapt it to your own setting. Join us by doing it. Time is running out. 

*The photos in this document are from the July 1990 Montreal Sex Garage riots

Download booklet version here!

HOW TO HAVE SEX IN A POLICE STATE: OUR APPROACH

In 1983, Americans Richard Berkowitz and Michael Callen published the book How to Have Sex in an Epidemic: One Approach, which is credited as being the first piece of safer sex literature for gay men. In the early days of the AIDS epidemic and in the absence of state action people with HIV and their friends banded together and took things into their own hands. Through advocating the use of condoms and by sharing available HIV prevention information, safer sex in the late 80s and 90s was conceived as a way to take collective accountability for addressing the epidemic, care for one another, and resist fear-based and abstinence-only responses.

Thirty-years after the publication of How to Have Sex in an Epidemic we face a new type of emergency here in Canada. State neglect in the response supporting people with HIV is now coupled with intensified forms of state control, surveillance and criminalization. Canada is among the most punitive countries in the world for HIV-positive people, where the state is turning towards criminalization instead of public education and support.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: The “Law” in Canada

The landmark 2012 Mabior and D.C. Supreme Court decisions outline that people are required to tell a partner they have HIV before they engage in sex that poses a ‘realistic possibility’ of transmission. This legal test requires disclosure for vaginal intercourse unless a condom is used and the person with HIV has a “low” viral load. This decision did not address same sex relations, anal sex, or oral sex. Anyone who doesn’t disclose their HIV positive status when having sex with a condom OR low viral load can be arrested and prosecuted. Since this decision at the Supreme Court prosecutions are on the rise. The risk of being labeled a criminal is now biologically marked – we are infected with criminal potential. Acquiring a low viral load requires access to anti-HIV drugs, which are still out of reach for many of us. Condom use is also complex when power and gender-based violence are factors. Charges can range from assault to attempted murder and do not require HIV transmission to occur. A majority of people in these cases are charged with aggravated sexual assault, one of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code reserved for violent sexual assaults. Those prosecuted can face long sentences, are registered as sex offenders and held in segregation units. One accusation from an angry or upset former lover can result in lengthy court battles, incarceration and sensationalized media exposure. Even if the person decides to drop the charges, the state can pursue criminal prosecution in the “public interest”.

Within this context of intensified criminalization we see the reversals of hard-fought protections for our privacy and rights. Under the AIDS Industry’s “treatment as prevention” project, people living with HIV are now understood as carriers of disease who must be neutralized through medical treatment. This treatment imperative plays out regardless of if we have access to the expensive medications, if we can tolerate their many side effects, or even if there is a medical necessity to go on them. The fundamental principles underlying HIV testing (i.e. consent, confidentiality, and counseling) are rapidly disappearing. Voluntary and anonymous HIV testing are being replaced by involuntary and coercive forms of testing, now called “routinized testing”, where people can be systematically tested in health-care settings – many of them without their knowledge. The names and HIV-status of people who test positive can end up on government databases for life. Also, through increased public health oversight, community–based organizations have now become an arm of state surveillance, discipline and control. Many of them now fully endorse and implement new coercive testing approaches in the community.

What follows is a list of suggestions gathered by people living with HIV to help one another steer clear of the law and the state, to protect our communities and ourselves. 

TAKE THE TEST & RISK ARREST

People who test HIV-positive will in most cases have this information collected by public health officials. In the early days of the epidemic activists and other people with HIV fought to have their information about their HIV-status be anonymous and out of the hands of state officials. Today things are different.

Today, in order to prevent intervention from the criminal justice system and public health officials it could technically be in your best interest not to know your HIV status. While this is still a grey area within the law, if you do not “officially” know you have HIV, then you could have less of a chance of being charged or prosecuted in relation to non-disclosure. Although, if you have engaged in activities that are commonly understood to put you at risk of HIV infection then you could have a legal obligation to disclose these activities to other partners. In 2003, a case went to the Supreme Court called R. v. Williams, and while the case did not fundamentally alter how the law is applied it did outline that if someone has an awareness of risk, then they have a duty to disclose, even if they are not aware of their HIV status. So we know that willful ignorance about your status is not going to keep you completely out of the courtroom if someone presses charges against you or the police and public health come knocking at your door. But being careful about where you get tested and who knows your HIV test results could prove helpful in some cases. You can order home HIV testing kits online, or buy them while travelling to other countries where they are available.

Avoid all HIV or STI tests at clinics where your real name is recorded. If you do not already know your HIV status, only go for anonymous tests (ensure the clinic you go to does not record your name, or any contact information), or get an at home test from across the border or online. The police and others can use medical records to confirm that someone has HIV, has been counseled about their status, is aware of their viral load etc. and that they are thus criminally liable regarding cases of non-disclosure. To prevent this from happening, try your best to keep your HIV status out of official state, public health, and AIDS service organization record keeping practices.

If you test HIV-positive through anonymous testing and you want to go to a doctor – ask your doctor if they do a confirmatory HIV test. Some doctors are mandated by public health to do a confirmatory HIV test, which will have your name attached to it. However, there are some HIV specialists that do not follow this mandate. Ask your friends and look for a doctor who will not submit your HIV status to public health. Sometimes a doctor needs to make sure you have HIV before they are willing to provide care. You can ask that they do a viral load test, as public health authorities do not as of yet collect this data. Having a record of your viral load can act as an equivalent to a positive HIV-positive test for you, and also for your doctor to provide appropriate care, while keeping you out of the public health database. But this strategy will not help if the medical records your doctor keeps are subpoenaed in the case of arrest.

If you are arrested on a charge in relation an HIV, do not tell the police your HIV status, or anything else without a lawyer. Do not volunteer any information to the police. It is important to try and get a lawyer who is knowledgeable on HIV exposure and non-disclosure cases, so that you can get an adequate defense. Legal HIV organizations have connections to knowledgeable lawyers who understand these sorts of cases.

FUCK SAFELY: HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF

While we need to protect ourselves from public health and the state, we also need to protect ourselves from potential partners who may call the cops on us out of fear, lack of information or AIDS-phobia.

If disclosing is not possible, maintaining a low viral load and using condoms are the only way to comply with the law. But we know that both acquiring a low viral load and always using condoms is not possible for everyone. Also, there have been cases where people have been charged despite disclosing their HIV status to a sex partner, or have used condoms and had a low viral load. So if you are in position to do so, ask your partners to sign a statement agreeing that they know your HIV-positive status and have agreed to have sex with you. Alternatively, you can keep a record of having disclosed on your phone or computer.  Take a screen capture of your disclosure on hook up sites. Remember to record the date and time. Recording your disclosure on a social media app is also a potential strategy. If possible, consider the idea of disclosing your status to person in front of a trusted witness, friend, or at a trusted counselor at a community organization.

We know that disclosure can result in violence or other consequences. In this case there are still things that you can do to protect yourself and your partners. If condom use is possible, some people will make sure to keep used condoms from past partners labeled and frozen in the freezer as evidence that the sex they had was protected. These are ridiculous measures, but these are ridiculous times.

If you have questions about safe sex, talk to people you know and learn about different ways to fuck safely. If you talk to a health care provider, ask general questions and don’t detail challenges that you may be having with disclosure and condom use. If you have questions about your legal duties, for example if the condom breaks, don’t ask a health care provider. Ask a person who is familiar with the law (there are organizations what work on HIV and the law in Canada, look them up online). Make sure the person you talk to does not document your concerns in your health records or some other form of record (like records they keep on clients at AIDS Service Organizations).

KEEP YOURSELF OFF THE PUBLIC HEALTH RECORD

The less information the state has on you the harder it will be for them to develop a criminal or public health case against you. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t notify people of your own status, but can be a strategy of keeping the state out of your sex life.

Sometimes public health officials do ‘contact tracing’ or ‘partner notification’ where they document who has come into contact with whom (or in this case, who has had sex with whom) to notify other partners of the potential “risk”. If you come into contact with public health officials who are doing ‘contact tracing’ tell them that you do not know the names of anyone you have had sex with. This collection of information by public health could later lead to potential criminal charges, a public health order, or other consequences. One strategy is to tell public health officials that you only have anonymous sex and that you do not know the names of any people you have sex with, or that you don’t have the means of contacting them.

If your HIV status is already recorded by public health, and you test positive for another sexually transmitted infection (STI), you could be asked to meet with a public health nurse. The nurse may ask you to give them the names of whom you have had sexual contact with. Never give names or contact information of other people to public health.  Public health could contact them and notify them of your HIV status and that person could press charges if you have not disclosed to them.

Some public health officials can be very aggressive and stigmatizing towards people living with HIV and they may harass you once they have any of your contact information. If this happens, you can make an official complaint against them by contacting the health unit where they work.

Each province has its own public health department and health units. Some public health units are more concerned with regulating people living with HIV than others. Some provinces have public health laws that allow for the issuance of public health orders. Under public health law people can be mandated with legal orders to disclose their HIV-positive status to all sex partners in specific terms, practice sex in specific ways, or even be put under house arrest, as well as being court-ordered to take pharmaceuticals. To better protect yourself, know what public health jurisdiction you are in, and if they issue public health orders to people living with HIV.

If you receive a public health order, or get arrested call a lawyer right away! You often only have 15 days to respond to a public health order, and you will need a lawyer as soon as possible to support you in this process.

ACCESS SUPPORT NOT SURVEILLANCE

When going to a community organization, AIDS Service Organization or healthcare provider always ask any counselor, nurse, doctor, social worker, peer worker, or other support worker how, why, and under what circumstances they are professionally required to document their interactions with you, and if this data can be used to identify you. In many organizations, there is an increasing push to collect more and more information on people who access services, but this information can also be used against you. Anything they write down or collect about you can be subpoenaed and used as evidence in a court of law. Make sure that you trust your healthcare providers and they are transparent about how and why they keep records on you. Do not give out any information about your sex life, sex partners, HIV status or sex practices unless you are absolutely certain that they will respect your confidentiality and not document what you tell them.  You can always request a copy of your file or any notes kept on you. Alternately, if you are disclosing to your sexual partners, you can ask your care provider to note this in your file to further protect yourself against accusations.

MAKE THIS AN ISSUE IN YOUR COMMUNITY

We are in a dangerous moment under the watch of a hostile regime and we urgently need to take back control of our lives, our health and our freedom. When possible, talk about HIV and talk about the potential impacts of HIV criminalization with friends, sex partners, colleagues, family and with communities that you are part of. Make it known that you are a person that other people can talk to about these issues. Work in your communities to build consensus at a grass-roots level to end the criminalization of HIV.

Police can pressure people in these cases into pressing charges. Refuse to be a witness and help prosecutions. Respect people’s decisions about disclosing. This complex social issue cannot be understood within – or reduced to – a legal and policing framework of “victim” and “perpetrator”.  Work to undermine these practices that support criminalization. Encourage dialogue over calling the cops.

Be proactive and hold community organizations accountable. Call for AIDS Service Organizations, health-care providers, or other community groups to not participate in reporting or record keeping practices that could support HIV criminalization investigations. Ask these organizations to be transparent about what they do and what their policies are around reporting and collection of information. If they do not have policies or practices around this, push them to develop them. Ask community organizations, if their records are subpoenaed, to tell the cops to seal the evidence and instruct them that it can only be opened before a judge. This can buy you time to oppose the use of these records as evidence.

This issue is not over. There are opportunities for change if people start taking action now! As people living with HIV, we know this: We are responsible and we already practice care for the health of our sex partners. Now we must take action to protect ourselves from the violence of the state, the violence of the AIDS Industry, the violence of AIDS-phobia, and the violence of the criminal injustice system. As the carceral system becomes the watermark of our everyday life it is becoming clear that we are not the “public” that public health is interested in protecting. But we can protect ourselves if we work together, support each other, share strategies and push for change.

UK: Law Commission scoping consultation deadline this week; key findings and outputs from ‘Criminalizing Contagion’ seminar series may help inform the process

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

This week, the Law Commission – which reviews areas of the law in England and Wales that have become unduly complicated, outdated or unfair –  will conclude its scoping consultation of the reform the Offences Against The Person Act, the law that is currently used to prosecute people living with HIV (and occasionally other sexually transmitted infections; one each so far for gonorrhoea, hepatitis B and genital herpes) for ‘reckless’ or ‘intentional’ transmission, as grievous bodily harm.

The deadline for responses is this Wednesday 11 February 2015.

The consultation is a scoping review – it is looking at the scope of whether a further full review of the existing law should take place, rather than examining what the law should be.

The consultation asks six key questions (out of 38) specifically relating to HIV (and STI) criminalisation:

  1. We consider that future reform of offences against the person should take account of the ramifications of disease transmission.  Do consultees agree?
  2. We also consider that in such reform consideration should be given to:  (1)  whether disease should in principle fall within the definition of injury in any reforming statute that may be based on the draft Bill; (2)  whether, if the transmission of sexual infections through consensual intercourse is to be excluded, this should be done by means of a specific exemption limited to that situation.  This could be considered in a wider review; alternatively (3)  whether the transmission of disease should remain within the offences as in existing law. Do consultees agree?
  3. If the transmission of disease is to be included in any future reform including offences causing injury, it will be necessary to choose between the following possible rules about the disclosure of the risk of infection, namely: (1)  that D should be bound to disclose facts indicating a risk of infection only if the risk is significant; or (2)  that D should be bound to disclose facts indicating a risk of infection in all circumstances; or that whether D was justified in exposing V to that risk without disclosing it should be a question for the jury in each particular case. Do consultees have any preference as to these possible rules?
  4. We consider the reform of offences against the person should consider the extent to which transmission of minor infections would be excluded from the scope of injury offences.  Do consultees agree?
  5. Do consultees consider that future reform should pursue the possibility of including specialized offences of transmission of infection, endangerment or non-disclosure?
  6. Do consultees have observations on the use of ASBOs, SOPOs or other means of penalizing non-disclosure?

Responses to the scoping consultation, including those from the HIV Justice Network, will be published soon. Following the consultation, the Law Commission will decide on their recommendations for the scope of reform in this area and present them to Government in the form of a scoping report.

In the meantime, the summary of key findings and outputs from the Economic and Social Research Council’s seminar series ‘Criminalizing Contagion: legal and ethical challenges of disease transmission and the criminal law’, which took place at the Universities of Southampton and Manchester from January 2012 until September 2014, provides a comprehensive legal and academic overview regarding how the law should treat a person who transmits, or exposes others to the risk of, a serious infection such as HIV.

Written jointly by David Gurnham, Catherine Stanton and Hannah Quirk, the report provides a detailed overview of the discussions in the seminars as well as the numerous publications arising from them, and acknowledges contributions made by various groups and individuals.

UK: Study of people with HIV in Manchester finds legal literacy lacking on criminal prosecutions

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

People living with HIV in Manchester appear to have little understanding of their rights and responsibilities under English law to avoid prosecution for ‘reckless’ HIV transmission, according to a study presented to the British HIV Association Conference in Liverpool earlier this year.

Matthew Phillips and Gabriel Schembri surveyed 33 individuals (85% male, 64% gay, average age 36) attending the Manchester Centre for Sexual Health. The questionnaire contained four key prompts to discuss personal understanding of the law in relation to HIV. Participants were invited to write as much or as little as they wished in response to each of the prompts.

The investigators found that many of the participants had either a flawed understanding of the law, the sentences that could be passed, or both. They also found that some participants had very strong views on the morality of HIV transmission and had a range of views on the appropriateness of prosecutions for reckless HIV transmission.

When asked if the law had ever been discussed at their HIV clinic, or where they got their information from, many answered ‘no’ or ‘none’.

Participants discussed rights and responsibilities in relationship only to themselves, with responsibilities of a person with HIV potentially varying based on duration and status of a relationship. Conspicuous by its absence was any discussion of partner responsibility in attempting to avoid acquisition of HIV.

The authors concluded that

People living with HIV sometimes have a weak grasp of how the law relates to their behaviours, which places them at greater risk of prosecution in addition to unfounded fears about what is actually prosecutable in England and Wales. Relating HIV to the law brought out a complex range of issues, ranging from technicalities of how to disclose in relationships to morality of transmission. Participants considered relationship status to be important in relation to the law rather than actual transmission risk. Using Grounded Theory to inform a hypothesis, we can hypothesise that information regarding the law in relationship to HIV transmission is not reaching those actually living with HIV. Effort must be made by clinicians and advocacy groups to ensure that PLWHA have accurate information about the circumstances under which prosecution may occur, with sensitive exploration of beliefs which may impact on this understanding.

The poster of their presentation is below. The full text is currently in press in the Journal of the Faculty of Reproductive Healthcare.

Phillips M, Schembri G. HIV Transmission and the Law- What Do People Living With HIV Understand?

.

Panel asks how HIV criminalization affects positive women

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network discussion explored nondisclosure and sexual assault laws

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 … Page 7 Next page
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
Disclaimer

This website operates as a global hub, consolidating a wide range of resources on HIV criminalisation for advocates working to abolish criminal and similar laws, policies and practices that regulate, control and punish people living with HIV based on their HIV-positive status. While we endeavour to ensure that all information is correct and up-to-date, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of laws or cases. The information contained on this site is not a substitute for legal advice. Anyone seeking clarification of the law in particular circumstances should seek legal advice. Read more

Registered office:
Stichting HIV Justice (HIV Justice Foundation), Korte Lijnbannssteeg 1, Kamer 4007, 1012 SL Amsterdam, the Netherlands

You can select your preferred language from the 'Select Language' menu at the top of the page.

Continue

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time if you want. Find out more in our Privacy & Cookie Policy.

Accept Close