UK: Inaccurate information around the risk of HIV or HCV transmission posed to police officers by spitting is stigmatising and hugely damaging

More than 30 years on from the start of the AIDS crisis, tabloids are still spreading a basic falsehood about HIV.

The claim has been repeatedly reported in newspapers amid a row over the use of police ‘spit hoods’ to prevent detainees from spitting at officers.

Amid a clash on the proposed use of spit hoods by the Metropolitan Police, outlets have repeated claims that their use will reduce the chances of officers being infected with HIV or hepatitis C – despite three decades of evidence that it is impossible to get HIV from saliva.

In a joint statement today, the Hepatitis C Trust and National AIDS Trust both expressed concern about the inaccurate reporting, pointing out that both HIV and hepatitis C “are blood borne viruses, and therefore cannot be transmitted via spitting.” HIV is transmitted from blood-to-blood contact.

Deborah Gold, Chief Executive of NAT said: “HIV is irrelevant to the debate about spit hoods because spitting simply is not an HIV transmission route.

“Using fear of HIV to justify spit hoods is extremely stigmatising and of great concern to NAT. This stigma and misinformation is especially damaging when a false implication of HIV risk from spitting comes from a source that people trust.”

Dr Stuart Flanagan, Clinical Research Fellow, Viral Hepatitis and HIV Medicine, Queen Mary University London, said: “Hepatitis C and HIV are not transmitted by spitting on someone else.

“Although these viruses may be theoretically present and detectable in saliva, the infection and transmission risk is negligible.

“In the UK the majority of cases of hepatitis C are transmitted by blood to blood contact, and the vast majority of HIV cases are sexually transmitted.”

The statement added that the inaccurate claims had been “hugely damaging as they reinforce existing stigma and misconceptions that surround both viruses.

“Such falsehoods also cause unnecessary alarm to police staff. Given the significant challenges faced by police officers in the line of duty, causing them to fear they have been put at risk when they have not places an undue burden upon them, and must not go unchallenged.

“While the debate around the use of spit hoods is an important one for the police, policy-makers and the public, hepatitis C and HIV are of no relevance to it and should not be used as justification for their use.”

Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, who had come under fire after saying there is “no evidence that spit hoods are necessary or useful”, told PinkNews in a statement: “This rational intervention made by the medical community is deeply appreciated. It is important that medical professionals have clarified this unfounded belief.

“The arguments for spit hoods should be evidence based. The public expect and deserve a national debate to be fact-based, not fear-based.

“Police staff, who are often under incredible stress in the line of duty, should not be led to believe that they are at high risk of HIV or HEP C from spitting.

“Disappointingly this association has been propagated widely across the media, particularly in the past few weeks. Amongst social media users and in major tabloid newspapers, including the Express, Mail, the Standard and the Sun.

“I hope they will widely report this important interjection by Hepatitis Trust and the NAT. “

US: Modernising California HIV-criminalisation laws is crucial to reduce the fear and discrimination that lead to more HIV infections

BY EDWARD MACHTINGER

Pebbles had a life filled with trauma – she had spent most of her youth in foster care and in the juvenile justice system. When she was 17, her mother died. Despite her other problems, it was her HIV diagnosis that caused her the most shame and isolation.

She was so stigmatized by having HIV, so ashamed, so fearful of rejection by family and friends, that she did not tell anyone that she had acquired the disease. This made it almost impossible for her to come to the clinic, to take her HIV medications, and to care for herself. As a result, despite our best efforts, she couldn’t take her HIV medications regularly and died of a completely preventable brain infection. She was 22 and left behind a 1-year-old daughter.

The overwhelming stigma her story illustrates is one of the greatest challenges I’ve encountered in my 20 years as a physician treating women and girls living with HIV. I see this every day in my clinic: Many of my patients do not feel safe revealing their status to anyone for fear of rejection or violence. To make matters worse, California still has a number of laws on the books that, instead of promoting public health, criminalize people living with HIV and add substantially to the stigma surrounding it.

These laws impose draconian penalties on people living with HIV even for activities that carry no risk of transmission. By treating HIV differently than other serious communicable diseases, these laws increase the sense of shame and isolation attached to HIV.

This legislation has never been shown to help prevent HIV transmission. Rather, it makes it less likely that people living with HIV will get tested and seek treatment that makes them incapable of transmitting the virus. These laws actually increase the risk of HIV transmission in our communities.

Since these laws were enacted in the 1980s and ’90s, we have developed potent HIV medications that, when taken regularly, suppress the virus so effectively that HIV-positive people can live long, healthy lives and be completely noncontagious to others – something confirmed by two international studies. We have also learned that HIV-related stigma is, itself, a serious public health issue.

A bill recently introduced in the California Senate would modernize the state’s laws targeting people living with HIV with criminal penalties and bring them in line with how we treat other serious communicable diseases. Senate Bill 239, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, eliminates this form of HIV exceptionalism by incorporating the current scientific understanding of HIV, addressing HIV in the same manner as other serious communicable diseases, and eliminating extra punishment for people living with HIV who engage in consensual sexual activity.

There are many reasons for HIV-related stigma, but state laws that criminalize HIV are among the worst offenders. These laws, as they are currently written, are not only outdated and ineffective, but they are actually dangerous because they create a climate of fear and discrimination that lead to more HIV infections.

SB 239 is not a partisan or political issue, nor is it a matter of conflict in medical science. This is a basic issue of public health. The proposal to revise and modernize these laws is crucial to achieve our shared goals of reducing new HIV infections and helping those living with the virus to be safe, healthy and empowered.

Dr. Edward Machtinger is a professor of medicine and director of the Women’s HIV Program at UC San Francisco. He can be contacted at Edward.Machtinger@ucsf.edu.

Published in The Sacramento Bee on February 28, 2917

Canada: Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization hopeful after meeting with federal justice officials but some provinces remain reluctant

Momentum building for HIV law reform

Coalition emerges from meeting with senior federal justice officials last week feeling hopeful, but provinces remain reluctant to commit to moratorium on new charges involving non-disclosure of HIV status

BY ROB EASTON

Chad Clarke says his nightmare and rebirth – he uses the two interchangeably to describe his experience with HIV laws and the justice system – made him stronger.

It started on February 12, 2009, when he turned himself in on an aggravated sexual assault charge brought by his former common-law partner. A judge found Clarke failed to disclose his HIV status, but Clarke says he didn’t know he was HIV+ at the time.

He didn’t see the light until he walked out of prison more than two years later in June 2011, but his resurrection as an HIV activist could not have happened without the experience of prison, which led to his resolve to fight so no one would have go through what he did.

Clarke found himself face to face with high-level officials in the federal justice ministry last week, telling his story and reading the testimonials of others who say they have been unfairly treated by the Canadian justice system because of their HIV status. Clarke is part of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization, a group of researchers, lawyers, service providers and people living with HIV who’ve come together to capitalize on recent momentum around getting HIV-related laws changed.

Finally, Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould seems to be listening to the latest science about HIV transmission: it’s a manageable condition for the vast majority of people living with HIV who take antiretroviral medicines. According to the latest research, a person living with HIV with a suppressed viral load for at least six months cannot pass on the virus.

It’s a major reason why advocates are calling for an overhaul of the law. On World AIDS Day (December 1, 2016), the justice minister released a statement acknowledging that “the over-criminalization of HIV non-disclosure discourages many individuals from being tested and seeking treatment, and further stigmatizes those living with HIV or AIDS.”

Clarke feels vindicated after years of feeling alone. Over the phone from his home in Dresden, Ontario, following the meeting, he says, “I’m here to open people’s eyes and let them know what happens to people when they’re criminally charged.”

Behind bars, he told justice ministry officials, people living with HIV are branded dangerous to guards and other inmates. Once he was removed from his prison laundry job after a guard was concerned that he would “give AIDS” to other inmates by handling their clothes. “I just looked at the guard,” Clarke says.

HIV cannot be transmitted through clothes, saliva, touch or a toilet seat. HIV transmission requires an exchange of blood, semen, pre-seminal, rectal or vaginal fluids, or breast milk. It is most commonly transmitted through unprotected sex or sharing of injection drug equipment.

Though the federal government has begun to engage communities on how it might change prosecutorial guidelines to reflect up-to-date science and human rights principles around HIV, some provinces – particularly Ontario, where the bulk of prosecutions occur – continue to ignore further attempts at dialogue.

Police and Crown attorneys here have aggressively pursued aggravated sexual assault charges against people even when they don’t transmit the virus, says Ryan Peck, executive director of the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO). The group has been calling for a moratorium on prosecutions in the province except in cases of intentional transmission.

“This is a very reasonable approach, and a number of communities are speaking up about the current over-broad use of the criminal law,” Peck says, citing a recent consensus statement from 70 leading HIV researchers and academics.

Emilie Smith, a spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General, responding via email to NOW’s request for comment, says that the Ontario government “is committed to working with the federal government to examine the law on this important issue.”

But she says that Crown prosecutors will continue to take direction on current HIV non-disclosure cases from the 2012 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on R. v. Mabior. Critics say the ruling outlines too low a threshold for conviction. The ministry, she says, has no further comment on the request for a moratorium until the federal government and provinces can agree on prosecutorial guidelines on the issue.

Clarke continues to push forward, telling his story and calling for greater justice for those still caught up in the system.

“There are other people out there who are experiencing this right now,” says Clarke. “It choked me up at one point when I was reading one of the testimonies, because this is not right. It’s not right.

“I can live with my HIV. It’s the PTSD that I don’t like,” says Clarke, who recently went on medication “to be able to sleep through the night, not have nightmares about people dying or stabbing one another in jail.”

Clarke, who used to be an X-ray technician, must also live the rest of his life as a registered sex offender, which affects his ability to find work. “I can’t even volunteer at an old folks home. They’re going to do a vulnerable sector screening check, and my name is going to come up on the registry.”

Published in Now on February 19th, 2017

US: Naomi Wilding, Elizabeth Taylor's granddaughter, on why the proposed bill to reform HIV criminalisation laws in California is such an important step in the fight against HIV

It is widely unknown amongst the general population in the U.S. that we currently have antiquated and discriminatory laws that criminalize people living with HIV.

Two thirds of U.S. states, territories, and possessions have HIV-specific criminal statutes used to prosecute people with HIV. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the only country that has prosecuted more people based on HIV status than the U.S. is Russia.

Repealing these laws would have been a priority for my grandmother, and I feel it is more important than ever to shine a light on these issues, especially given the new political climate we’ve entered.

Published in the Hill on February 16, 2017

Legislation criminalizing HIV began in the early 1980s when contracting the disease was thought of as “a death sentence.”

Three decades later, this is no longer the case. Current HIV medication, when taken regularly, reduces viral load (the amount of HIV in your blood) making it almost impossible to transmit the virus.

We also now have medications that can prevent HIV transmission — a daily pill called PrEP that some people have compared to the birth control pill, but for HIV prevention. Yet, the laws have not caught up with medical advances.

Most of the laws are about disclosure and make it illegal for a person with HIV to engage in sexual contact without first disclosing their status. It doesn’t matter if the person has an undetectable viral load and/ or uses a condom and no HIV transmission occurred. In some places spitting or exposure to saliva can be prosecuted as a felony, even though we’ve long known that HIV can’t be transmitted through saliva.

My advocacy work with The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation and our grantee partner, SERO Project (a network of people with HIV and allies fighting for freedom from stigma and injustice), has introduced me to some heartbreaking stories of people whose lives are ruined by these unjust laws: Kerry Thomas, a grandfather in Idaho, is serving 30 years in prison for consensual sex where both parties agreed that he always insisted on using condoms.

His medical records show he had an undetectable viral load and the virus was not passed, yet Kerry was convicted anyway. And Willie Campbell, who is serving 35 years in a prison in Texas for spitting, after the court classified the homeless man’s saliva as a “deadly weapon”.

These cases are not just happening in ‘red states.’ The state of California has arrested and charged more than 800 people under HIV criminalization statutes between 1988 and 2014.

This is a human rights issue. Lack of education and misinformation are being used as weapons of blatant discrimination. In fact, most of the laws are very vague, leaving too much to interpretation and potential discrimination.

According to the CDC, as of 2015, 92 percent of new infections occur from people who do not know their status or are not on treatment. If laws criminalizing HIV and stigma were gone, people would feel more at ease to disclose their status, whether at work, or in an intimate or sexual relationship, ultimately resulting in more people getting tested, knowing their status and directly reducing the spread of new HIV infections.

Laws that criminalize HIV increase stigma and discrimination. They hinge on the disclosure requirement, which frequently comes down to “he said-she said”, with the HIV-positive person more often than not perceived as a villain, and facing an assumption of guilt when in a courtroom.

Using updated scientific facts to educate the public can work. In Colorado, the state legislature recently voted to pass Senate Bill 146, repealing two HIV criminalization statutes and reforming others. “Most people really knew very little about this topic. Yet when presented with evidence, they quickly agreed these laws are anachronistic and are no longer based on current science and medicine,” Colorado Senator Pat Steadman said of the success local advocates had in changing the outdated legislature.

Now in California there is an opportunity to pass legislation that is inclusive, updated, and reflective of the advances we make in society.

Last week, California Senator Scott Weiner and Assembly members Todd Gloria and David Chiu introduced Senate Bill 239, a bill that will modernize laws that criminalize and stigmatize people living with HIV.

Passage of reforms like Senate Bill 239 are necessary next steps in the fight against HIV in the U.S. and around the world. We know that marginalized communities face huge disparities with HIV and AIDS rates, and specific HIV criminalization laws only exacerbate this fact.

Most people faced with HIV criminalization charges in California include people of color, cis and transgender women, and LGBTQ youth.

Thankfully we also have organizations like Equality California, the ACLU, Positive Women’s Network, and others who support medically and scientifically accurate information pertaining to HIV, and continue to work with members of the Californians for HIV Criminalization Reform (CHCR) coalition to ensure justice and empathy for people living with HIV. One thing we should all know: HIV is not a crime.

My grandmother’s work as an activist and advocate is inspiring. She had such visibility and used it so brilliantly to help raise awareness and ease the suffering of those with HIV. And while we don’t all have that same kind of visibility, if we all work to speak out about intolerance, and we do what we can to raise awareness, then we become a movement, and that’s what becomes a force for change.

Naomi Wilding is granddaughter of the legendary actress and humanitarian, Elizabeth Taylor. She is now an ambassador of The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation and has pledged to do what she can to help those living with HIV and AIDS, and in creating an AIDS-free generation.

Canada: Community organisations in Ontario call for an immediate moratorium on all prosecutions and sound prosecutorial guidelines

Stop the witch-hunt of HIV criminalization

People living with HIV are being charged with some of the most serious offences in our criminal law, even in situations where there has been no transmission of HIV, no realistic possibility of transmission, and no intent to transmit.

Witch-hunts aren’t always sudden social paroxysms. They can be pursued slowly and with a veneer of legality — a steady erosion of rights and decency tapping into, and reinforcing deep-rooted fear, stigma and prejudice. Their harm isn’t limited solely to the injustices meted out to those directly targeted; they cast a broader shadow over entire communities.

It’s what’s happening here, courtesy of the provincial Ministry of the Attorney General that has so far refused to recognize both science and human rights when it comes to prosecutions for alleged nondisclosure of HIV.

People living with HIV are being charged with some of the most serious offences in our criminal law (such as “aggravated sexual assault”), even in situations where there has been no transmission of HIV, no realistic possibility of transmission, and no intent to transmit.

Simply put, they are being criminalized for having HIV, caught up in a justice system, from policing to prosecution to prison, that too often disregards evidence and the public interest.

(After the recent incident involving a Toronto police officer talking nonsense about how “AIDS” can be transmitted, it’s clear there is much work to be done on the policing front, too. Scientific consensus is that there is zero risk of HIV transmission through spit and a vanishingly minuscule possibility of transmission through a bite. At least scientifically speaking, we’re not in 1984.)

For many years, a group of committed people living with HIV, lawyers, academics and other advocates has called on the attorney general to put an end to this overly broad use of the criminal law.

In particular, this coalition has urged the adoption of sound guidelines for prosecutors to appropriately limit the use of criminal charges. Repeatedly, it has denounced problematic prosecutions that continue in Ontario — prosecutions accompanied by media coverage that, according to a recent study, disproportionately features black and/or immigrant men and often reflects racist stereotypes. Repeatedly, the coalition has suggested remedies for this ongoing injustice, drawing on a province-wide consultation.

But successive attorneys general have been unable or unwilling to rein in overzealous prosecutors, and have failed to develop prosecutorial guidance in line with science and numerous international recommendations.

As it stands, a so-called “HIV experts group” of crown prosecutors within the ministry now runs this horrible show in Ontario, leading the charge against people living with HIV. From the outside, we don’t know the group’s composition or how they make their decisions to pursue a particular prosecution.

Community organizations have requested a meeting. So, too, have scientific experts — who have pointed out that a correctly used latex condom is 100 per cent effective in blocking passage of HIV, as well as the science now establishing that someone with an undetectable viral load (including as a result of effective treatment with anti-HIV drugs) is effectively non-infectious. Yet this group of “HIV expert” prosecutors has not responded.

However, recent reports in the Star revealed an infamous guide for prosecuting cases of HIV nondisclosure, developed by Hamilton crown attorney Karen Shea — who has played an active role in advancing such cases around the province — for use by other prosecutors. (The government was ordered to release this document after years of wrangling in court.)

A Ministry spokesperson admitted the guide takes a “prosecution at all costs” approach and “doesn’t take into consideration the kinds of situations in which a more lenient approach might be justified.”

It is therefore no surprise that we continue to see the misuse of charges of aggravated sexual assault, a criminal offence usually reserved for the most violent rapes, even in cases of consensual sex where there was negligible or no risk of HIV transmission, no actual transmission and no intent to transmit.

Such prosecutions damage individual lives and public health. As stated last month by Canada’s federal justice minister, “… the over-criminalization of HIV nondisclosure discourages many individuals from being tested and seeking treatment, and further stigmatizes those living with HIV or AIDS.”

Enough is enough. Attorney General Yasir Naqvi — and Premier Wynne herself, who expressed her concern to us in-person three years ago — must stop this witch-hunt. More than 500 letters of concern have, as of this week, been sent to both by outraged community members.

We need an immediate moratorium on all prosecutions (except in those very rare cases of intentional transmission), and we need sound prosecutorial guidelines that respect science and human rights.

Richard Elliott is the executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, a member of the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure. Stephen Lewis is board chair of the Stephen Lewis Foundation and co-director of AIDS-Free World, an international advocacy organization.

Published in The Star on February 8, 2017

Philippines: Under Philippine law, non-disclosure of HIV could be ground for annulment of marriage but not criminal liability, says Legal Advocacy Center's Director

Concealing HIV-Aids ground for annulment

The concealment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV-Aids) status could be a ground for annulment of marriage although no criminal liability will be imposed, a lawyer said. Ateneo Public Interest and Legal Advocacy Center (Apila) director Romeo Cabarde Jr. said on Friday, February 3, during the Consultation and Harmonization Meeting with Partners at Brokenshire Hospital, Davao City, that under the Republic Act 8504 (Philippine Aids Prevention and Control Act of 1998) that no legal cases will be charged if an infected person opted to hide his or her status.

But, under Section 34 that “any person with HIV is obliged to disclose his or her HIV status and health condition to his or her spouse or sexual partner at the earliest opportune time.” He made the statement after one participant raised a question during the open forum whether not revealing intentionally to his or her spouse that he or she has HIV-Aids could have legal consequences considering the serious implication, known to have no cure yet, when transmitted through sexual intercourse. The lawyer said that according to the Family Code of the Philippines, a marriage may be annulled if the consent of either party was obtained by fraud. Under Article 46, that any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage. Thus, Cabarde urged health advocates during the event to be cautious and keep the confidentiality of individuals who are positive with the disease and provide the full protection of his or her human rights and civil liberties in accordance with the law. If someone disclosed their patient’s status without permission, they could face charges and penalties for breaching the medical confidentiality of the person infected with HIV-Aids. Instead of leading the person’s admission, he said that the health advocates should instead encourage those infected to divulge their status themselves. “As an advocate, that’s the best thing we can do hindi natin pangunahan na i-reveal (spearhead the revelation) without their consent because we will have a criminal liability,” Cabarde said. Cabarde added the agency will strengthen their awareness campaign and counselling once the infected person announce that he or she is ready to disclose and further assist their partners on how they would deal with the revelation.

Published in SunStar on February 4th, 2017

European AIDS Treatment Group interviews Edwin J Bernard of the HIV Justice Network about their work so far, and what lays ahead.

Canada: Eye-opening document on how Crown attorneys approach prosecuting HIV non-disclosure cases disclosed

Document on HIV non-disclosure prosecutions disclosed

Written by Alex RobinsonFriday, 13 January 2017

A newly disclosed document sheds some light on how Crown attorneys may have approached prosecuting HIV non-disclosure cases.

The Ministry of the Attorney General has released a document written by an assistant Crown attorney detailing her approach to prosecuting HIV non-disclosure cases.

The document discusses the admissibility of an accused person’s statements to public health as incriminating evidence — something human rights lawyers and HIV activists find troubling.

“The risk has always been that the use of an accused’s statements to public health would put a damper on HIV positive peoples’ willingness to be frank with public health, which puts their own health at risk and the population also at risk as well,” says Toronto lawyer Marcus McCann.

McCann says this approach could have a chilling effect on whether people with HIV will seek help from health professionals.

McCann obtained the document through a Freedom of Information request and subsequent years-long legal battle with the provincial government over whether the document should be disclosed.

Karen Shea, an assistant Crown attorney, wrote the document during the 2009 case of Johnson Aziga, an HIV-positive man who was convicted of murder for failing to disclose his status when he had unprotected sex with two women.

In the absence of an official set of prosecutorial guidelines for HIV non-disclosure cases, McCann first requested the document in the hope it could help discussions between the government and organizations that have been pushing the issue.

In November, the Divisional Court ordered MAG to release the document, and the provincial government decided not to appeal the decision.

The document includes a list of arguments against HIV non-disclosure criminalization and responses to them, which McCann says shows the government was aware of those critiques and had discarded them.

McCann says in the past there has been a view among HIV activists that they could push MAG to make meaningful change in the area if they could educate the ministry on current science.

“One of the things this document shows is that MAG knew full well what the concerns were with their approach and they were proceeding full steam ahead,” McCann says.

“It really is a document to my mind that is focused on prosecution at all costs and doesn’t take into consideration the kinds of situations in which a more lenient approach might be justified.”

Clare Graham, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, says the document is not an official set of prosecutorial guidelines.

“The document is the work product of an individual Assistant Crown Attorney based on her knowledge and experience prosecuting HIV exposure and transmission cases,” she said in an email.

“The Assistant Crown Attorney prepared this document not only for her own use but also to assist her colleagues in a difficult and complex area of the law; however, this document is not a Ministry issued policy or guideline.”

In the legal proceedings concerning the document’s disclosure, MAG conceded that multiple versions of the document existed and that it had been shared on an intranet accessible to all Crown attorneys.

The document was disclosed as the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure called for a moratorium on prosecutions in HIV non-disclosure cases, unless they involve allegations of intentional transmission, while discussions take place to develop an official set of guidelines.

The working group and its member organizations have been working for years towards the development of a set of prosecutorial guidelines.

The working group has obtained a commitment in the past from the provincial government, only to never see any guidelines materialize, Peck says.

“Unfortunately the dialogue over the past seven or more years, from our perspective, has not been meaningful,” says Ryan Peck, the executive director of the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario, who sits on the working group.

But Peck says the working group is hopeful that it will be able to engage in meaningful dialogue with Naqvi, who has been attorney general since June.

Peck says the guidelines will need to be developed to bring the prosecutions of these cases in line with up to date science and human rights principles.

The group most recently met with Naqvi at a roundtable discussion on the topic on Dec. 5.

The federal government issued its own statement on World AIDS Day in early December acknowledging the effects of the over-criminalization of HIV non-disclosure. The statement, attributed to Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, committed to examining “the criminal justice system’s response to non-disclosure of HIV status,” saying this could include a “review of existing charging and prosecution practices, as well as the possible development of prosecutorial guidelines.”

Graham says MAG is committed to working with the federal government to “examine the law in this important area.”

McCann says he hopes the disclosure of the document will mean that both CLHE and MAG are starting future discussions on and equal footing.

“My hope is that Yasir Naqvi, the attorney general, and the ministry of the attorney general approach the next phase of this process with honesty and integrity and that they come open to making some changes,” he says.

“I feel like this document is part of a story and the last chapter is yet to be written.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He contributed his first piece to HJN last month.

Canada: Preliminary discussions said to be underway to review current practices in HIV non-disclosure cases

Advocates eager for feds to review ‘over-criminalizing’ of HIV non-disclosure

Joanna Smith, The Canadian Press

Published Wednesday, December 28, 2016 11:50AM EST

OTTAWA — Marjorie Schenkels had unprotected sex three times with a friend, while they both had been drinking, as she was going through a difficult and volatile time in her life.

The Manitoba woman was also living with HIV — a diagnosis she had told only her mother about — and feared she would lose her friends if they, including the man she was having sex with, found out.

She also did not tell the man she had sex with those three times, and he also later tested positive for HIV, although the question of where he contracted it is a matter of contention.

A jury convicted Schenkels of aggravated sexual assault in December 2014.

She did not lie, or manipulate or exploit, the sentencing judge from the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba wrote in the Mar. 1 decision that includes the details of her story.

“Rather, her silence was the result of fear and inability to accept the gravity of her situation,” the judge wrote as she sentenced Schenkels, who is now also a registered sex offender, to two years in prison less a day.

Schenkels is appealing her conviction, with arguments being heard Jan. 10.

There is no particular provision in the Criminal Code regarding the disclosure of HIV status, but there are certain circumstances in which failing to do so is a crime.

That can include having consensual sex — something the Liberal government is now open to changing.

“The over-criminalization of HIV non-disclosure discourages many individuals from being tested and seeking treatment, and further stigmatizes those living with HIV or AIDS,” Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said in a statement published online Dec. 1, which was World AIDS Day.

“Just as treatment has progressed, the criminal justice system must adapt to better reflect the current scientific evidence on the realities of this disease,” she wrote.

The statement said Wilson-Raybould would be taking a closer look at how the criminal justice system deals with non-disclosure of HIV status, which could include reviewing current practices on laying charges and going ahead with prosecutions, as well as developing prosecutorial guidelines.

The justice department did not make anyone available for an interview, but spokesman Ian McLeod said in an email that preliminary discussions are underway.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the consent someone gives to engaging in sexual activity can be considered null and void if the accused person failed to disclose, or lied about, his or her HIV status.

The Crown must also prove the person would not have consented to sex if he or she had been aware of the HIV status.

That can lead to a charge of aggravated sexual assault — the most commonly applied, although there have been others — so long as the sexual contact has either transmitted the virus to the complainant, or put them at significant risk of contracting it.

The high court clarified in 2012 that this would not apply if someone is using a condom and also has a “low viral load,” but advocates argue the law has fallen far behind the science and creates more problems than it attempts to solve.

The fact that HIV non-disclosure falls under aggravated sexual assault or other offences makes statistics harder to come by than they are for other crimes, but the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has counted at least 180 people charged for offences related to HIV non-disclosure in Canada since 1989.

This relatively high number of prosecutions — and the fact that the issue is criminalized at all — has brought Canada under scrutiny on the world stage.

In July, Justice Edwin Cameron of the Constitutional Court of South Africa shamed Canada — alongside Zimbabwe — for its approach to the issue in his keynote address at the International AIDS Conference in Durban.

“I ask all Canadians to share the blame — not just us in Africa,” he said to resounding applause.

Canadian Health Minister Jane Philpott was in the room.

The changes the Liberal government ends up proposing will likely face some opposition over the ethical challenges surrounding the issues of disclosure in intimate relationships.

“I recognize that it’s difficult, but I think it’s important to draw some lines into when the criminal law is actually warranted and not warranted,” said Cecile Kazatchkine, a senior policy analyst with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

The United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) has recommended prosecuting only those people who knowingly and intentionally transmit the virus to their partners, rather than simply not disclosing it, which some advocates say is not always possible, such as in abusive relationships.

Cynthia Fromstein, a Toronto-based defence lawyer who has represented clients facing HIV disclosure-related charges, said there is still “enormous” ignorance and fear surrounding HIV, which is only made worse by the current laws.

“The only time you see HIV, practically, is when someone’s picture is on the paper, being charged . . . with aggravated sexual assault,” said Fromstein.

Published in CTV News on Dec 28, 2016