[Update]Mexico: Legislation to criminalise HIV transmission withdrawn in San Luis Potosi State Congress

A House Representative withdraws opinion/ruling that would criminalize HIV transmission in San Luis Potosi

The opinion/ruling with draft decree that was intended to add the crime of risk of contagion to the penal criminal code of the State of San Luis Potosi was withdraw The document established penalties and sanctions to whom or who put someone else at risk of contagion of  “a venereal disease or other serious infective period”.

A Member of San Luis Potosí friends fight against AIDS  /, Andrés Costilla Castro denounced than this initiative was an attempt against the dignity  of PLHIV and promoted stigma towards PLHIV in San Luis Potosí and  because of that, they demanded for such decree to be eliminated.

The document was presented by Esther Angelica Martinez Cardenas of the PRI and approved by justice committees; Health and Social Welfare.

Costilla Castro reiterated that this initiative would put people with HIV under a status of potential criminals, and that it opposed their dignity as persons, attempting to take away human rights and stigmatising them because of a health condition.

The opinion/ruling read as follows:

The offence of contagion is committed if a person puts someone in danger of contagion, knowing they are suffering from a venereal disease or other serious illness during an infectious period, putting in danger of contagion the health of another person, by sexual intercourse, or other transmissible method; shall be sentenced from one month to three years in prison, and up to forty days of the value of the unit of measurement and valid update. If the condition or disease was incurable, a sentence of six months to five years in prison shall be imposed. In  the case of spouses, boyfriends or concubines, only the case could proceed following a complaint by the offended party.

The opinion/ruling was removed during the session on Thursday to be analyzed again by the committees involved in the issue.

Diputada retira dictamen para penalizar el contagio de VIH en SLP

Fue retirado el dictamen con proyecto de decreto que planteaba  la adición del delito de Peligro de Contagio al Código Penal del Estado de San Luis Potosí. El documento establecía penas y sanciones a quien o quienes pongan a otra persona en riesgo del contagio de “una enfermedad venérea u otra grave en período infectante”.

Por su parte el integrante de la organización Amigos Potosinos en Lucha Contra el Sida, Andrés Costilla Castro denunció que esta iniciativa  atenta contra la dignidad y promueve el estigma hacia las personas con VIH en San Luis Potosí por lo que solicitaron fuera bajado este dictamen.

El documento, fue presentado por la priista Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas y aprobado por las Comisiones de Justicia; y Salud y Asistencia Social.

Costilla Castro reiteró que esta iniciativa colocaría a las personas con VIH bajo un estatus de posibles criminales, contraviniendo a su dignidad como personas, a tentando a sus derechos humanos y estigmatizándolos por su condición de salud,

El dictamen marcaba lo siguiente:

Comete el delito de peligro de contagio quien, a sabiendas de que padece una enfermedad venérea u otra grave en período infectante, ponga en peligro de contagio la salud de otra persona, por relaciones sexuales, u otro medio transmisible; será sancionado de un mes a tres años de prisión, y hasta cuarenta días del valor de la unidad de medida y actualización vigente

Si la enfermedad padecida fuera incurable se impondrá la pena de seis meses a cinco años de prisión. Cuando se trate de cónyuges, concubinarios o concubinas, sólo podrá procederse por querella de parte ofendida

El dictamen fue retirado durante la sesión de este jueves para ser analizado nuevamente por las comisiones involucradas en el tema.

Published in La Orquesta on March 17, 2017

__________________________________________________________

First article published on March 16, 2017 (English google translation, scroll down for Spanish article)

Congress a step away from criminalising HIV transmission…Again

The Secretary of health, international treaties and activists are against the proposal.

By María José Puente

This Thursday, in a plenary session, the State Congress will vote on a draft decree that adds the crime of Danger of Contagion to the Penal Code of the State of San Luis Potosí. If approved, the new legislation establishes penalties and sanctions to those who put someone else at risk of contagion of “a venereal or other serious illness when being infectious.”

The document, already approved by the Justice Commissions; and Health and Social Services , was presented to the Congress by Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas, from the PRI group. There, the deputy says that it is necessary for the Potosino penal code to adopt the federal standard, where the crime is mentioned and allows for a penalty of up to 5 years in prison, equal to the one raised in the State decision.

The text reads:

“The offense of contagion is committed by a person who, knowing that he suffers from a venereal or other serious illness in an infectious period, endangers the health of another person by sexual intercourse or other transmissible means; Will be sanctioned from one month to three years in prison, and up to forty days of the value of the current unit of measurement and update.

If the illness suffered is incurable, a sentence of six months to five years’ imprisonment shall be imposed. In the case of spouses, or concubines, the case may only proceed following a complaint by the offended party “.

For the organizations that defend the rights of the LGBT population and the Ministry of Health at the national and even state level, this homologation is not only anachronistic, but it  also puts at risk the population suffering from ilnesses such as those mentioned there and particularly those who have been or may be diagnosed with HIV or AIDS.

REPEATED ERROR

In October of 2016, Juan Manuel Carreras, governor of San Luis; In conjunction with the Women’s Institute, attempted a similar legislative move, presenting a package of initiatives aimed at preventing violence against women.

The argument, said in an interview Jeús Paul Ibarra Collazo , head of Red Diversificadores Sociale was directed in such a way because the rate of contagion of women by way of their spouses could increase because part of the male population, openly heterosexual, actually had sexual relations with other homosexual men, contracted the disease and then, continued at the same time with their female partner, which resulted in her being infected as well.

Ibarra Collazo recognizes that the male homosexual population leads the statistics of HIV or AIDS, because by keeping alive what he calls internalized homophobia, the spread of the disease through sexual contact between men increases the number of cases.

Regardless of this, the Ministry of Health sent a press release specifically addressed to Juan Manuel Carreras, who asked him to take a second look at the initiative because, according to international treaties to which Mexico is a signatory, the measure that the governor and the IMES intended to boost is useless.

” The National Center for Prevention and Control of HIV / AIDS of the Ministry of Health calls for an analysis of this proposal in the framework of international and national recommendations in this area, since criminalization or criminalization of people with HIV is not a public policy that helps to reduce and control the epidemic, quite the contrary, it has been shown that the establishment of restrictions, indications or penalties for people with HIV does not prevent them from spreading the virus and there is little evidence that Criminal sanctions will ‘rehabilitate’ a person so as to avoid future risk behavior of HIV transmission, “the statement said.

After reception of the document and after a dialogue between the state agencies, Red Diversificadores Sociales and the pressure of the group Amigos Potosinos in Fight against Aids, the initiative seemed to have been withdrawn; However, this March 16, again and after already having been approved by the aforementioned committees, the article will be voted on by the 27 deputies that make up the Congress, without it being clear whether Congresswoman Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas is aware or not of the previous initiative.

STIGMA, DISCRIMINATION AND LACK OF PREVENTION POLICY

  Although the Ministry of Health points out that “imposing penalties can only be justified in case of conduct that is legally condemnable, so that criminal law based on this objective can only legitimately be applied to a subset of cases of HIV transmission” it also highlights that “this does not have anything to do with the primary goal of preventing HIV transmission. “

This can also be seen as presented by APELCS : “It is very difficult to determine causality, deceit, intentionality and various factors involved in the transmission of HIV”, and also, as stated by Paul Ibarra, and reaffirmed by the Ministry of Health, establishing punitive measures for the contagion of HIV or any other disease could inhibit the will of the key subjects to undergo the screening tests that finally have proven to be a palliative way to avoid transmission.

That is, when there is a penalty for contagion, it automatically pose a warning sign on the carriers, whether men, women, children or girls, which can facilitate discrimination and stigma on a disease that, with the advance of science and effective public policies of prevention, has ceased to be a death sentence for a large part of the population.

APELCS , on the other hand, exhorts “the members of the Health Commissions; Justice and social services; In particular to Congresswoman Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas to reconsider the criminalization of HIV and to lower this initiative, as they would put people with HIV under the status of potential criminals, in contravention to their dignity as persons, undermining their human rights and stigmatizing them for their Health condition “.

Paul Ibarra , on the other hand, points out what seems to be obvious and that is that there is a dislocation between the powers of the state, since the return of this attempt to change the Criminal Code, denotes that the deputy who is promoting it did not take into account the antecedent in October, nor was aware of the pronouncement against by the Ministry of Health, RDS and APELCS scarcely 5 months ago.

Published in La Orquesta on March 16, 2017

___________________________________________________

Congreso, a un paso de penalizar el contagio de VIH… Otra vez

Secretaría de Salud, tratados internacionales y activistas están en contra de la propuesta.

Por María José Puente

Este jueves, en el Pleno del Congreso del Estado será votado un dictamen con proyecto de decreto que plantea la adición del delito de Peligro de Contagio al Código Penal del Estado de San Luis Potosí. De aprobarse, la nueva normativa establece penas y sanciones a quien o quienes pongan a otra persona en riesgo del contagio de “una enfermedad venérea u otra grave en período infectante”.

El documento, ya aprobado por las Comisiones de Justicia; y Salud y Asistencia Social, fue presentado en el Congreso por Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas, de la bancada priista. Ahí, la diputada expone que es necesario que el código penal potosino tome de molde la norma federal, donde el delito mencionado sí se contempla y establece una pena que puede llegar a los 5 años de prisión, igual que lo plantea el dictamen estatal.

Textualmente, en el dictamen se lee:

“Comete el delito de peligro de contagio quien, a sabiendas de que padece una enfermedad venérea u otra grave en período infectante, ponga en peligro de contagio la salud de otra persona, por relaciones sexuales, u otro medio transmisible; será sancionado de un mes a tres años de prisión, y hasta cuarenta días del valor de la unidad de medida y actualización vigente.

Si la enfermedad padecida fuera incurable se impondrá la pena de seis meses a cinco años de prisión. Cuando se trate de cónyuges, concubinarios o concubinas, sólo podrá procederse por querella de parte ofendida”.

Para las organizaciones de defensa de los derechos de la población LGBT y la propia Secretaría de Salud a nivel nacional y hasta estatal, dicha homologación es no solo anacrónica, sino que pone en riesgo a la población portadora de enfermedades como las que ahí se señalan y particularmente a quienes han sido diagnosticados o podrían serlo con VIH o Sida.

ERROR REPETIDO

En octubre de 2016, Juan Manuel Carreras, gobernador de San Luis; en conjunto con el Instituto de las Mujeres intentó una movida legislativa similar, presentando un paquete de iniciativas que tenían como objetivo prevenir la violencia contra las mujeres.

El argumento, dice en entrevista Jeús Paul Ibarra Collazo, titular de Red Diversificadores Sociales; se dirigía en el sentido de que el índice de contagio de mujeres por la vía de sus cónyuges podría ir en aumento porque parte de la población masculina, abiertamente heterosexual, en realidad mantiene relaciones sexuales con otros hombres homosexuales, contrae la enfermedad y luego, al continuar con su pareja mujer, ella también resultaba contagiada.

Ibarra Collazo reconoce que la población homosexual masculina lidera la estadística de contagio de VIH o Sida, pues al mantenerse vivo lo que él llama homofobia interiorizada, el contagio y diseminación de la enfermedad por contacto sexual entre hombres incrementa el número de casos.

Independientemente de ello, la Secretaría de Salud envió un comunicado de prensa específicamente dirigido a Juan Manuel Carreras, a quien le pidió echar un segundo vistazo sobre la iniciativa pues, según tratados internacionales a los que México está suscrito, la medida que el gobernador y el IMES pretendían impulsar es inservible.

“El Centro Nacional para la Prevención y Control del VIH/Sida de la Secretaría de Salud hace un llamado para que se analice esta propuesta en el marco de las recomendaciones internacionales y nacionales en la materia, ya que la penalización o criminalización de las personas con VIH no es una política pública que ayude a la disminución y el control de la epidemia, muy por el contrario está demostrado que el establecimiento de restricciones, señalamientos o penas a personas con VIH no impide que propague el virus y existe poca evidencia de que las sanciones penales ‘rehabilitarán’ a una persona de modo que evite un comportamiento futuro de riesgo de transmisión del VIH” sentencia el comunicado.

Recibido el documento y tras un diálogo entre las dependencias estatales, Red Diversificadores Sociales y la presión del grupo Amigos Potosinos en Lucha contra el Sida, la iniciativa parece haber sido retirada; sin embargo, este 16 de marzo, nuevamente y ya aprobado incluso por las comisiones mencionadas, el dictamen será votado por los 27 diputados que integran el Congreso, sin que quede claro si la diputada Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas tiene conocimiento de la iniciativa anterior.

ESTIGMA, DISCRIMINACIÓN Y ESCASA POLÍTICA DE PREVENCIÓN

 Aunque la Secretaría de Salud apunta que “imponer penas solo puede justificarse en conductas que sean jurídicamente condenables, de modo que el derecho penal basado en este objetivo solo puede aplicarse legítimamente a un subconjunto de casos de transmisión del VIH” también remata que “esto no tiene nada que ver con el objetivo principal de prevenir la transmisión del VIH”.

Eso puede también verse como lo plantea APELCS: “Es muy difícil determinar la causalidad, el dolo, la intencionalidad ya que intervienen diversos factores en la trasmisión del VIH” además, como también secunda Paul Ibarra y reafirma la Secretaría de Salud, establecer medidas punitivas por el contagio de VIH o cualquier otra enfermedad podría inhibir la voluntad de los sujetos clave para someterse a las pruebas que finalmente sí han demostrado ser un paliativo para evitar el contagio.

Es decir, que al existir una pena por el contagio, automáticamente se establece una señal de alerta sobre los sujetos portadores, sean hombres, mujeres, niños o niñas, lo que puede favorecer la discriminación y el estigma sobre una enfermedad que, con el avance de la ciencia y las políticas públicas efectivas de prevención, ha dejado de ser, para una buena parte de la población, una sentencia de muerte.

APELCS, por su parte, exhorta “a las y los integrantes de las Comisiones de Salud; Justicia y asistencia social; en particular a la Diputada Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas a reconsiderar la penalización del VIH y a bajar esta iniciativa, pues colocarían a las personas con VIH bajo un estatus de posibles criminales, contraviniendo a su dignidad como personas, atentando a sus derechos humanos y estigmatizándoles por su condición de salud”.

Paúl Ibarra, por otro lado, señala lo que a ojos vistas parece saltar y es que existe una desarticulación entre los poderes del estado, pues el regreso de este intento de modificación al Código Penal, denota que la diputada que la promueve no tomó en cuenta el antecedente de octubre, ni tuvo conocimiento del pronunciamiento en contra hecho por la Secretaría de Salud, RDS y APELCS hace escasos 5 meses.

Published in La Orquesta on March 17, 2017

US: PWN-USA publishes framework to assert and celebrate the bodily autonomy of all women and girls, including the right to enjoy sex free from fear of HIV Criminalisation

Bodily Autonomy: A Framework to Guide Our Future

Download the printer-friendly PDF version.

Watch the recorded webinar here.

Bodily autonomy is the simple but radical concept that individuals have the right to control what does and does not happen to our bodies. When we have full bodily autonomy, not only are we empowered to make decisions about our health and future – without coercion or control by others – we also have the support and resources needed to meaningfully carry out these decisions.

The concept of bodily autonomy is central to Positive Women’s Network – USA’s vision of a world where all women and girls living with HIV can lead long, healthy, dignified and productive lives, free from stigma, discrimination, and violence in all forms. In this era of increasing surveillance and political repression, hate-fueled violence, and attempts to further restrict reproductive rights and freedom of movement, we assert the fundamental rights of all people, and in particular for women and folks of trans experience living with HIV, to control our bodies and futures. When women and girls living with HIV are free, all of us will be free.

In the U.S. context, the bodies, sexuality, reproduction, and movement of women of color have been controlled and policedfor hundreds of years, often violently and at a great cost to our rights. Today, for women and girls living with HIV, who areprimarily from communities of color, HIV stigma, misogyny, transphobia, and racism intersect to magnify attacks on our rights from all fronts. Yet we know that our human rights should never be conditioned on HIV status, race, ethnicity, sex, gender expression or identity, or any other aspect of who we are.

Bodily Autonomy Means:

Freedom from all forms of state violence.

Women and girls living with HIV deserve a world where our bodies are not threatened by state violence and brutality, and where our physical safety is protected.

This includes:

Ability to control our labor without exploitation, harassment, or policing.

All women and girls living with HIV deserve to control and be compensated fairly for our labor.

This includes:

  • Earning a living wage and receiving equal pay, without discrimination or coercion.
  • The ability to take time off from work without fear of retaliation or losing our jobs, including paid sick leave, family leave, and disability leave.
  • The right to organize in our workplaces to leverage better wages, benefits and working conditions, including forming or joining a union.
  • Those of us who engage in sex work, which is a form of labor, should be able to do so safely and without criminalization, with access to the support and resources we need to stay healthy, and without fear of violence, stigma, or harassment.
  • The ability to work without losing benefits, like health care coverage and supplemental income, that may be needed to maintain a decent quality of life.

Freedom to migrate and move within and across borders.

All women and girls living with HIV deserve to travel and live in a place that is safe and welcoming, regardless of immigration status or religion.

This includes:

  • The right to seek refuge and asylum from conditions that are physically, economically, or otherwise insecure or unsafe.
  • Staying together as a family without fear of losing a parent, child, or loved one to deportation.
  • The right to return to our country of origin if we choose.
  • The right to move around freely, without fear of profiling, detention, or harassment based on perceived immigration status.
  • The ability to enjoy the same legal rights and protections as other members of society, without regard to immigration status or previous contact with the criminal justice system.
  • The ability to access education, employment, healthcare and other opportunities in our country of residence, regardless of legal status.
  • The right to accessible, culturally and linguistically relevant public services and benefits without discrimination or government reprisal.

Freedom to express our gender and sexual orientation in a way that affirms who we are.

Women and girls living with HIV deserve to live authentically, and to express our gender and sexual orientation freely.

This includes:

  • The ability for our bodies to exist in public in a way that is comfortable for us, without being subject to homophobic or transphobic harassment, threats, or violence.
  • Recognition of our gender identity by the state and all social, political, economic, and community institutions with which we interact.
  • Health care responsive to people of all genders, and the employment opportunities, public benefits, and services necessary to thrive with dignity.
  • Support, respect and protection for the relationships and families we form.

    Freedom to choose whether or not, when, and how to form families and raise children.

    All women and girls living with HIV deserve to decide for ourselves whether or not, when, and how we will form families and raise children, regardless of age, income, disability, gender identity or expression, or sexual orientation.

    This includes:

Resources, tools, and ability to make empowered and informed decisions about sex and relationships.

All women and girls living with HIV deserve to control our sexual lives, and should have the resources we need to support pleasurable and healthy sex and relationships.

This includes:

Access to the care and services necessary to keep our bodies, minds and spirits healthy and whole.

All women and girls living with HIV deserve to receive care and services that support holistic wellness – emotionally, physically, psychologically and spiritually.

This includes:

  • Affordable, accessible, trauma-informed and culturally-competent health care, including gender-affirming health care and hormones.
  • The right to refuse medical care that does not affirm us or make us feel whole.
  • Adequate nutrition and food security.
  • Freedom to practice our faith without fear of harassment, discrimination, or violence.
  • Safe, affordable, and stable housing.
  • Mental, emotional, and spiritual support services.
  • Access to harm reduction programs, safe injection sites and equipment, and overdose prevention resources for people who use drugs.

Download the printer-friendly PDF version of this framework here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US: HIV Criminalisation laws will feature heavily in AIDSWatch 2017 conversations with Members of Congress

Every year, AIDSWatch brings together hundreds of people living with HIV and their allies to meet with Members of Congress with the aim of educating them about important issues involving HIV-positive people in the country.

Presented by The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, it is the nation’s largest annual constituent-based national HIV advocacy event, and is implemented as a partnership between AIDS United, the Treatment Access Expansion Project, and the US People Living With HIV Caucus.

In order to continue the efforts towards a cure, we must also try and mend social stigma around those living with HIV. But in order to stop new infections and successfully treat those living with the virus, we need compromise and collaboration across all sectors. One of the biggest conversations organizers plan to have at AIDSWatch 2017 centers around HIV criminalization laws.

Last month, a bill was introduced to the California state legislature by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and assembly members Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) and David Chiu (D-San Francisco) aiming to modernize these laws, which criminalize and stigmatize those living with HIV.

The bill was co-sponsored by Equality California, the ACLU California, APLA Health, Black AIDS Institute, Lambda Legal, and Positive Women’s Network. It’s purpose is to repeal all HIV specific laws that criminalize otherwise legal behavior, turning misdemeanors into felonies that put innocent people (like Michael Johnson) in prison simply for being HIV-positive.

“ETAF is putting our hearts into encouraging every state to overturn its criminalization laws,” Laela Wilding, Elizabeth Taylor’s eldest granddaughter and ambassador to ETAF, says to Plus. “Generally speaking it’s about disclosure. The problem with that is in many cases, it becomes a ‘he said, she said’ type of situation where one person may say, ‘yes I disclosed my positive status’ and eventually there’s a possibility that person could come back and accuse them of having not disclosed their status after some kind of sexual encounter or relationship, and then it’s sort of a push and pull. Usually the person who is HIV-positive is the person who is marginalized and often ends up going to jail or prison.”

There are well over 30 states in the United States with laws that discriminate against people with HIV in one form or another, and many of them are written in vague terms so they’re interpreted in different ways. That being said, it becomes incredibly important to monitor the way these laws are written and try to overturn them — much like how Colorado did last year.

Wilding says a major reason for Colorado’s victory was because people in the state were educated on the facts and medical realities of what it means to be living with HIV: that undetectable means uninfectious, yet poz people are stigmatized and marginalized in the criminalization system to almost no mercy.

“[Colorado] overturned those laws by letting people know the facts,” Wilding adds. “Then, almost everyone was behind it. Of course we don’t want to criminalize these people who are living with a disease that is considered treatable to a certain degree. If we can talk about it with our friends, talk about it in the media, I think that state-by-state we can start breaking the stigma down and change these laws. I think once people know about it, they want to help.”

HIV criminalization laws also have an invisible effect on HIV testing. For people who live in a state with these laws, it’s easy for them to brush off an opportunity to get tested. After all, why risk knowing you’re positive if you’re only going to get punished for it? As a result of people being left untested, the number of people living with HIV who don’t know it (and who aren’t getting treated) are left at risk.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in eight people have the virus and don’t know it. And while a new report shows that annual HIV infections in the U.S. dropped 18 percent between 2008 and 2014, it is still evident that Black men are not only disproportionately effected, but are also the most targeted when it comes to criminalization laws.

“The trans community and women, people of color, these people particularly in California, women in California, are being marginalized and criminalized to an even greater degree and I don’t think people have any idea that this is going on,” Wilding adds. “Once we hear about it, we get fire up. We think, ‘Why is our government spending money criminalizing these people?’ We need to protect them, and support them in the right ways. That would reduce the transmission of HIV, which is the point.”

Elizabeth Taylor’s great-grandson, Wilding’s son, Finn McMurray, spoke to Congressional members last year at AIDSWatch about the importance of sexual health education in schools. According to him, there is still very little conversation about treatment and prevention, especially around PrEP. He hopes that will change.

“Most of my peers unfortunately don’t know about these new, or do not talk about, or haven’t considered for themselves, these new breakthroughs,” the 18-year old activist says. “That’s something to work on, actually informing youth and getting youth to talk about it — not only the issues that have been around for a long time, which are still quite prevalent, but the breakthroughs that are happening now and how those can be utilized.”

McMurray will again ask for a cosponsor of the Real Education for Healthy Youth Act, which aims to fund teacher training on sex education and provide grants for comprehensive sex education. “I think that sexual health education is extremely important to not only the fight against HIV, but all STIs,” he reiterates.”The age group of 15-24 make up half of the new infections each year. I think it’s essential for the next generation to make healthy decisions for themselves. I’d really like to see a shift in the conversation that my generation is having. There’s a lot of potential, but we aren’t as a whole being exposed to enough and being pushed and supported to have these conversations.”

AIDSWatch 2017 will take place from March 27 – 28, 2017 in Washington, D.C.

Canada: Advocacy groups hope law criminalising HIV non-disclosure will change soon

Advocates hope for change in HIV non-disclosure law after Ottawa meeting with provinces

Law criminalizing HIV non-disclosure needs to catch up with science, advocates say.

Advocacy groups are hoping the law criminalizing HIV non-disclosure in Canada will change after a meeting between Ottawa and the provinces in the spring.

Under Canadian law, people with HIV are required to disclose their health status to their partner before engaging in sexual activity. Those who don’t can be charged with aggravated sexual assault, whether or not HIV is actually transmitted, and face a maximum sentence of life in prison as well as permanent status as a registered sex offender.

Criminalizing non-disclosure only compounds the marginalization and fear in the lives of people living with HIV, advocacy groups say.

“This is a really important issue. The federal government has made a commitment to review the way our justice system handles HIV-related cases. And that’s something that we fully support and welcome,” Emilie Smith, a spokesperson with the Ministry of the Attorney General, told the Star in an email.

“Ontario is currently working with the federal government on this review — so that work has already started.”

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a person with HIV can only keep their condition from a partner if they have a low viral load — the number of HIV virus particles in a millilitre of blood — and use a condom.

Advocates argue the law does not take into account science that says that as long as a person has an undetectable viral load, risk of transmission is practically zero, even if the person did not use a condom.

The Canadian medical community has also weighed in. In 2014, more than 70 national AIDS doctors and HIV researchers released a statement expressing concern for the Supreme Court’s approach to nondisclosure as “a poor appreciation of the science related to HIV contribut(ing) to an overly broad use of the criminal law.”

Internationally, the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law both urged governments to limit the use of criminal law to cases of intentional transmission of the virus.

For advocates calling on lawmakers to catch up with science and reconsider its laws on HIV criminalization, the meeting between the federal government and the provinces cannot come soon enough.

In a 2013 report on the criminalization of non-disclosure and recommendations for police, the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario underlined the “significant scientific consensus on certain key issues” as it relates to the virus.

“For over a decade, HIV has been medically understood as a chronic, manageable infection,” it reads, noting a low or undetectable viral load — usually the result of effective antiretroviral drug treatment — reduces the risks of HIV transmission through sex “to a point where the risk of transmission is negligible.”

The prosecutions are unfortunately having an impact on the most vulnerable people living with HIV, said Ryan Peck, the legal clinic’s executive director.

“There’s also the issue that the current approach to criminal law is impacting people’s decisions to test for HIV in the first place — the current use providing a disincentive to get tested.

“There is a deep fear that what people say to their health-care providers and public health authorities will end up in a court case against them.”

Last month, a protest was held outside the ministry’s office to protest the “overly broad and unjust” charges relative to HIV disclosure.

Ontario leads in the number of people charged with HIV status non-disclosure and 180 people have been charged across the country, Jonathan Valelly of Queers Crash the Beat said at the protest.

The protesters were calling for a moratorium on all HIV non-disclosure cases currently before the courts.

“This issue is just not that cut-and-dry. These cases are highly complex, and no two cases are exactly alike,” said Smith, the attorney-general spokesperson.

“What needs to happen and what is happening, is a conversation that looks at the law, how it is being applied as well as our understanding of HIV. We agree that a review is needed and the federal government has committed to look at the current law critically to see if there are changes to the Criminal Code that need to be made.”

Published in the Star on March 5, 2017

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

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

Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. March 1, 2017.

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

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

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

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

The Judge largely stated as follows:

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

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

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

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

  1. The disposition of Hon. Justice Olagunju clearly casts doubt on the ability of the court not to be swayed by the Plaintiff’s health status in coming to a decision on the matter.
  1. The Plaintiff, in her statements to COLaHR has clearly shown the fear as in above, given her Husband’s request for custody of the child is hinged on HER HIV-POSITIVE STATUS.

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

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

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

Signed

Roseline Oghenebrume,

National Coordinator, Coalition of Lawyers for Human Rights

Canada: Protesters in Ontario call for an end to the criminalization and stigmatization of people living with HIV

Protesting the Criminalization of HIV

Lives are being destroyed because the laws have not caught up to science.

A couple dozen demonstrators gathered outside the office of the Ministry of the Attorney General on Wednesday to protest the continued criminalization of HIV-positive people in Ontario.

Protesters are demanding an end to the stigmatization of positive status, as well as the ongoing inaction on the part of all levels of government to develop prosecutorial guidelines for legal cases involving HIV-positive people, who are legally required to disclose their status to all partners regardless of the actual risk of transmission.

While there are no official laws criminalizing those with HIV, the precedent of using existing offences—aggravated sexual assault, for instance—against those who fail to inform their partner of their HIV-positive status effectively criminalizes those who have the disease. This is despite the fact that there is growing scientific consensus [PDF] that those who are positive but have a low viral load pose little to no risk of infecting their partner, especially if safety measures (like condoms) are used.

The criminalization of HIV status is part of a larger structure of marginalization, activists say. “This is an intersectional issue, which involves race and class,” says Jonathan Valelly of Queers Crash the Beat. “We know that the people being most affected by this are immigrant men and men of colour. We know that gay men are being targeted, and we know that poor people are being targeted.”

The issue of HIV criminalization, and the stigma of being HIV-positive, came up recently when a Toronto police officer threatened a citizen peacefully filming an arrest. The officer claimed that the man being arrested was “going to spit in your face; you’re going to get AIDS.” This is, of course, patently false—but it reflects the immense stigma that HIV-positive individuals face.

The crowd heard statements read aloud from individuals who were affected by HIV criminalization. One man was incarcerated for not disclosing his status, despite having a low viral load and using a condom. They also heard a statement from Michelle Whonnock, a sex worker from Vancouver who was was jailed for nearly two and a half years for not disclosing her positive status to a client. Her statement described how working as a sex worker was a necessity for her to get by, how she was portrayed in the media as an “HIV infected prostitute,” and how she remains on a sex offender registry—all because she has a disease.

In 2010, then-Attorney General Chris Bentley agreed to develop prosecutorial guidelines that would help protect HIV-positive individuals, but such guidelines simply never materialized. “We have now a growing consensus in the scientific community internationally that if you are a person living with HIV with a low viral load, it’s very difficult for you to transmit HIV,” says Eric Mykhalovskiy, who works with the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure.

“That science has not being taken into account in the approach to criminal prosecutions that the ministry takes. Nor has efforts to ensure that people who are following public health advice, who are using condoms, who don’t present a risk, aren’t prosecuted.”

Published in the Torontoist on February 22, 2017

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

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

Canada: Rally against HIV criminalisation planned in Toronto for February 22 at noon

HIV is NOT A Crime! – Action against HIV criminalization

Wednesday Feb 22 12:00pm-1:30pm in Toronto
AIDS Action Now! and Queers Crash the Beat invite you to tell the Attorney General that HIV IS NOT A CRIME!

Gather for a rally this Wednesday, February 22 @ 12 noon

Ministry of the Attorney General, 720 Bay St

Ontario continues to lead Canadian provinces in charges against people living with HIV for not disclosing their status, even when they have taken precautions to protect their partners, when there no risk of transmission, and when no transmission has taken place. People are being prosecuted for aggravated sexual assault, one of the most serious charges under the Criminal Code. Conviction carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a mandatory designation as a sex offender for a minimum of 20 years.

Analysis of prosecutions shows a disproportionate number of charges against racialized people and a growing number against gay men. There is also deep concern that women with HIV who are in abusive relationships will face aggravated sexual assault charges in situations where they cannot safely impose condom use nor disclose their HIV status.

The current approach of the criminal law towards “risk” is completely out of line with current HIV science. It is clear, for example, that people living with HIV who have an undetectable viral load do not transmit HIV to their partners. Over 70 leading scientists working in the field of HIV expressed serious concern with the law in their Canadian consensus statement on HIV and its transmission in the context of criminal law (http://www.aidslaw.ca/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Canadian-statement1.pdf)

The federal government has also expressed concern. In a December 2016 statement (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1163979), the Minister of Justice stated 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. Just as treatment has progressed, the criminal justice system must adapt to better reflect the current scientific evidence on the realities of this disease.”

As pressure increases at the federal level, we must pressure the provincial government! They are responsible for carrying out these laws, to act immediately to stop the overreaching and violent criminalization of HIV.

We echo calls from the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure and demand that Attorney General Naqvi immediately takes the following actions:

1. Impose an immediate moratorium on all HIV non-disclosure prosecutions, unless there is alleged intentional transmission of HIV, while law reform options are being explored and sound prosecutorial guidelines are being developed – in conjunction with the community – to limit the current misuse and overextension of the criminal law.

2. Publicly state that the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General is committed to ending the overly broad application of the criminal law in cases of alleged HIV non-disclosure and to reviewing Ontario’s approach to these prosecutions.

3. Engage in meaningful dialogue with the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure (CLHE) as well as people living with HIV and scientific experts when developing prosecutorial guidelines and other responses to this issue.

For many years, community members have highlighted the injustices taking place and conveyed the unacceptable reality that such prosecutions are having a disproportionate impact on the most marginalized and vulnerable of persons living with HIV. It is time for Ontario to show true leadership. Unjust and harmful prosecutions must end NOW.

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