Register now for ARASA’s online course on HIV criminalisation; deadline March 8th

Applications are now invited for participation in the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA) 2016 online training course on the criminalisation of HIV transmission, exposure and non-disclosure.

Civil society, policymakers and service providers – including health care providers and law enforcement officials – working in Africa are eligible for the course, which will last for six weeks from 14 March 2016 to 22 April 2016, and require four hours’ commitment per week.

The deadline for applications is 8th March 2016.

More details below and on ARASA’s website.

Download the full announcement here.

ABOUT THE COURSE

The criminalisation of HIV transmission, exposure and non-disclosure, which is often referred to as ‘HIV criminalisation’, is the unjust application of criminal law based solely on HIV status – either by enacting and applying HIV-specific criminal laws, or by applying general criminal laws exclusively or disproportionately against people with HIV.

Law makers who try to enact HIV-specific laws to criminalise HIV transmission are often driven by public pressure to be seen to be doing something about HIV in their country without stopping to consider the effects of HIV criminalisation on the spread of HIV.

Human rights experts argue that most countries already have criminal laws, such as the laws against assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, that can be used to deal with intentional transmission of HIV and therefore there is no need to create new laws to deal specifically with HIV.

This online course will introduce participants to information about the criminalisation of HIV transmission, exposure and non-disclosure, the negative impact it has on the human rights of people living with HIV and key populations and on universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support. The focus is on providing knowledge and skills so that participants can identify harmful HIV-specific transmission, exposure and non-disclosure laws and advocate for the removal of these laws.

COURSE OUTCOMES

After taking the course, students will be able to:

Understand what criminalisation of HIV transmission, exposure and non- disclosure is and the difference between transmission, exposure and non- disclosure
Identify the links between human rights, universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support, and the negative impact of criminalisation of HIV transmission, exposure and non-disclosure
Understand the disproportionate impact of criminalisation on women and key populations
Understand international and regional guidance on criminalisation of HIV transmission, exposure and non-disclosure and be aware of model laws and other instruments that can be used as advocacy tools to advocate against HIV criminalisation
Advocate for laws that do not criminalise HIV transmission, exposure and non- disclosure and respect the rights of people living with HIV and promote universal access or for the repeal or amendment of laws that do criminalise.

WHO MAY APPLY?

In the selection of participants preference will be given to persons who:

Are staff members of civil society organisations working on HIV, TB and human rights in African countries;
Are fluent in English;
Have existing skills and experience in human rights, TB, HIV and/or Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights (SRHR);
Have daily access to the internet as well as access to a computer;
Are committed to participating fully in all the elements of the short course and carrying out training and advocacy for increased access to HIV and TB servicesfor prisoners; and
Are committed to promoting a rights-based response to HIV and TB in their own countries and in the region, and to engage in regional collaboration for advocacy.

HOW TO APPLY

Send us:

A one page letter of motivation, setting out why you feel that you would benefit from participating in the short course and outlining how you will use the skills acquired during the course;
Your resume / CV; and
A letter of support from the organisation you are currently working with / affiliated to.

DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS

All applications must be received by no later than close of business 8 March 2016. Kindly note that applications received after the closing date will not be considered.

Application should be submitted by email to courses@arasa.info (and copy Jacob Segale (jacob@arasa.info) and Nthabiseng Mokoena (nthabiseng@arasa.info)). Successful applicants will be notified by no later than 11 March 2016. Should you not receive any feedback from us by 14 March 2016, kindly consider your application to have been unsuccessful.

ABOUT ARASA

Established in 2002, ARASA is a regional partnership of 89 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working together to promote a human rights-based response to HIV and TB in Southern and East Africa, through capacity strengthening and advocacy.

ARASA’s purpose is to promote the rule of law and respect for human rights to safeguard the health status of all, especially of people living with HIV and TB and key populations at higher risk of HIV and TB, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people, sex workers, people who use drugs and prisoners. ARASA’s overall objective is to ensure that legal, policy and social environments exist in Southern and East Africa (18 countries) in which people living with HIV and TB and key populations most at risk (prisoners, LGBTI persons, sex workers and people who use drugs) access acceptable, affordable and quality sexual and reproductive health and rights, HIV and TB prevention, treatment and care services.

HIV is Not a Crime Training Academy now requesting workshop submissions

The second HIV is Not a Crime meeting, now a Training Academy, will take place between May 17 – 20, 2016 at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The Training Academy will unite and train advocates living with HIV and allies from North America on laws, policies and practices criminalising people living with and vulnerable to HIV and on strategies and best practices for improving legal environments.

There will be three tracks, focused on

1) Effective and Accountable Leadership,

2) Rights, Policy and Justice, and

3) Campaign Planning, Strategy and Messaging.

Workshops will help advance informed and effective grassroots organising and coalition-building, providing participants with concrete tools and resources to work on state-level strategies when they return home.

Advocates working on HIV criminalisation in the United States, Canada or Mexico are encouraged to submit an application to conduct a workshop at the Training Academy and contribute to this growing and important movement.

Deadline for submissions is Friday, February 26, 2016 by 5:00 pm CST (6:00 pm EST, 3:00 PST).

Descriptions of workshop tracks are below:

Effective and Accountable Leadership

This track will focus on building relevant and current leadership skills for an effective and intersectional criminalisation movement.

Sessions considered may include coalition-building, development of individual leadership skills or emphasise disproportionately impacted communities.

Rights, Policy, and Justice

This track will focus on policy issues, criminal justice, and advocacy strategies relevant to disproportionately criminalized communities.

Submissions on issues specific to communities targeted by policing practices due to race, gender identity, sexual orientation, substance use, immigration status, and other forms of discrimination are encouraged.

Campaign Planning, Strategy and Messaging

This track will provide resources, tools and skills advocates need to successfully develop and implement a state-level campaign to repeal or modernize criminalization laws.

Submissions may focus on the “nuts-and-bolts” required for organizing, including messaging research and positioning, how to best utilize research to persuade media, policy leaders and legislators and creation and execution of a campaign plan.

After reviewing proposals, conference organizers may invite session organizers to collaborate on a session. All presenters are required to register for the conference. Acceptance of a proposal does not guarantee a scholarship or coverage of any of the necessary registration or travel expenses.

We expect to receive more breakout session proposals than we can actually accommodate. When making selection decisions, we have many considerations to balance, including our desire to elevate diverse leadership and new organizations and voices into the mix at each Training Academy. Please read the criteria below for what we are and are not looking for.

Proposals that meet all or most of these criteria will be given the most favorable consideration:

Participatory: Proposed session is interactive, with lots of two-way communication between participants and presenters and hands-on engaging activities.
Timely: Proposal demonstrates an understanding of current criminal justice, policing, and criminalization environment
Intersectional: Proposal demonstrates an intersectional analysis
Practical: Session proposes to leave participants with useful tools, including innovative strategies, exemplary models, powerful narratives, and accessible artistic and cultural expressions.
Action-Oriented: Session connects to active issue campaigns, grassroots community organizing, and current struggles and/or movement building efforts.
Intergenerational: The content is relevant to, and encouraging of, the participation of youth and young people, as well as multi-generational strategies.
Geographic Diversity: For national audience, we want the content and facilitators to relate to different geographic areas, especially the South.
Multiracial: Sessions include a multiracial and intersectional analysis and approach — even if there is a mono-racial emphasis. A multiracial team of facilitators is also encouraged.

Breakout Sessions should not consist of:

Lectures, presentations of academic papers or mostly theory, or panels that primarily involve people talking at others.
Sessions that do not have a connection to people working in local communities.
Sessions that focus primarily on a problem, without equal or greater attention to proposed solutions.
Sessions by individuals not engaged with, connected or accountable to social justice organizations or communities.

Important Notes:

The deadline for submission is Friday, February 26, 2016 by 5:00 pm CST (6:00 pm EST, 3:00 PST). You will receive notice of acceptance on Friday, April 1, 2016.

Applicants may submit up to two workshops for consideration. For each 90-minute workshop, applicants should follow the suggested format below. Workshops submissions must be one page in length and be in a font 11 point or over but not smaller. Your submission will not be reviewed if it is more than one page (8.5 x 11) in length or if the font is smaller than 11 point. There is no limit to the number of total presenters on a workshop.

Workshop submissions will be reviewed and evaluated by a volunteer Program Work Group on the following criteria: 1) alignment with track description, SERO and PWN-USA values, and Training Academy goals 2) clarity of description 3) appropriateness of suggested format.

We strongly encourage applicants to consider formats that engage participants, rather than simply presenting information. In addition, the program committee will review overall workshop acceptances with an eye towards diversity of presenters, particularly in demographics, geography, skills, and expertise.

Every proposal must include:

FIRST, LAST NAME OF LEAD PRESENTER(S):
FIRST, LAST NAME(S) OF ADDITIONAL PRESENTER(S):
EMAIL ADDRESS/PHONE NUMBER FOR LEAD PRESENTER:
TITLE & ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION FOR ALL PRESENTERS:
WORKSHOP TRACK: 1) Effective and Accountable Leadership 2) Rights, Policy & Justice; 3) Campaign Planning, Strategy and Messaging
PROPOSED WORKSHOP TITLE:
WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION:
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVE(S):
FORMAT OF WORKSHOP: Describe how you and/or presenter(s) will conduct the workshop, i.e. presentation style, opportunity for discussion and/or interactive activities/exercises.

Email workshop submissions by Friday, February 26, 2016 to: conference@seroproject.com

All other questions regarding the Summit should be emailed to Tami Haught at: tami.haught@seroproject.com

US: Second HIV Is Not a Crime Conference, ‘a national training academy’ for HIV criminalisation advocates, announced for June 2016 (Press Release)

After a very successful inaugural HIV Is Not a Crime National Conference last year, the SERO Project and Positive Women’s Network-USA are pleased to announce that the planning process is underway for a second national conference to support repeal and modernization of laws criminalizing HIV non-disclosure, perceived or potential exposure and transmission, to be held in June 2016.

HIV is Not a Crime II, to be held in June 2016, will unite and train advocates living with HIV and allies from across the country on laws criminalizing people living with HIV and on strategies and best practices for repealing such laws. Skills-building training, with an emphasis on grassroots organizing, advocacy, coalition-building and campaign planning, will leave participants with concrete tools and resources to work on state-level strategies when they return home.

For this training academy, organizers will also emphasize movement building with other decriminalization and criminal justice reform groups. “It’s time to look at the whole context of mass incarceration, racist policing practices, drug policy, sex work policies, and the ways that LGBT and immigrant folks are disproportionately vulnerable in criminalization proceedings, as we consider strategies for repeal and modernization,” says Naina Khanna, executive director of Positive Women’s Network – USA.

Advocates say last year’s conference invigorated on the ground rights-based advocacy led by communities living with and impacted by HIV. “Last year’s HIV is Not a Crime Conference was great because it brought together advocates and people working on changing HIV criminalization laws to brainstorm best practices for people to take home to implement a plan for their state. This was incredibly helpful for us in Tennessee, and really gave us the boost we needed to work on our plan to change the laws here,” states Larry Frampton of Tennessee AIDS Advocacy Network.

“The HIV Prevention Justice Alliance is thrilled to be part of this process again that prioritizes PLHIV, builds power, and ultimately pushes the momentum from the first HIV is Not a Crime conference and this past year in a concerted organizing effort to end these laws across the U.S. in 2016,” says Suraj Madoori, manager of the HIV Prevention Justice Alliance.

“I thought last year’s conference was one of the best discussions in HIV in a long time. It was very powerful to participate in a conference organized by people living with HIV and to hear about their personal experiences around disclosure, prosecution and criminalization,” commented Marsha Martin, Director of the Urban Coalition for HIV/AIDS Prevention Services (UCHAPS). “We have to take on criminalization if we are going to bring about an end to the epidemic. That’s why continuing conferences like this one is so important–and necessary.”

“HIV is Not a Crime II will provide an opportunity for people living with HIV and their closest allies to define their priorities and agenda, educate and mobilize each other and their communities, and further strengthen the community of PLHIV advocates. Michael Callen, one of the authors of the Denver Principles, used to say there was a ‘special magic’ when people with HIV worked together to organize and that is as true today as it was 30 years ago.” states Sean Strub, Executive Director of SERO Project.

Get involved in making HIV is Not a Crime a success!

The planning partners are currently seeking volunteers for five workgroups, as well as financial support for the conference. To read about and join a working group, click here.

Are you interested in providing financial support for this important event? Please contact Sean Strub, SERO Project or Naina Khanna at Positive Women’s Network – USA for more information.

Questions? Please contact Tami Haught, SERO Organizer and Training Coordinator.

Canada: New film explores the impact of using sexual assault law to prosecute HIV non-disclosure

This week sees the release of an important new short film from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

Consent: HIV non-disclosure and sexual assault law interrogates whether criminalising HIV non-disclosure does what the Supreme Court of Canada believes it does – protect sexual autonomy and dignity – or whether, in fact, it does injustice both to individuals charged and to the Canadian criminal justice system’s approach to sexual violence.

Produced together with Goldelox Productions, with whom the Legal Network also collaborated on their powerful 2012 documentary’ Positive Women: Exposing Injustice, this 28-minute film features eight experts in HIV, sexual assault and law whose commentary raises many questions about HIV-related legal developments in Canada.

At a time when society seems to be taking the prevalence of sexual

violence and rape culture more seriously, this film dares to ask some

difficult questions about its limits in the law. The law of sexual

assault is intended to protect women’s sexual autonomy, equality

and dignity, yet as applied with respect to alleged HIV non-disclosure,

these values are not necessarily being advanced. Through expert

testimonies, Consent shines a light on the systemic obstacles women

face in disclosing their HIV status, points to the dangerous health

and human rights outcomes of applying such a harsh charge as

aggravated sexual assault to HIV non-disclosure, and makes the

argument that the law needs to better protect those who are living

with and vulnerable to HIV. Consent demonstrates that advocacy

efforts opposing the overly broad criminalization of HIV non-disclosure

must address the use of sexual assault law and that such efforts must

do so alongside feminist allies.

From: http://www.consentfilm.org/about-the-film/

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has for some time been exploring the implications of using sexual assault law to prosecute HIV non-disclosure cases, given the marked differences between the types of conduct that are typically referred to as sexual assault (including rape) and HIV non-disclosure cases.

In April 2014, the Legal Network convened leading feminist scholars, front-line workers, activists and legal experts for a ground-breaking dialogue on the (mis)use of sexual assault laws in cases of HIV non-disclosure. Consent: HIV non-disclosure and sexual assault law was filmed during this convening.

Their analysis demonstrates that the use of sexual assault law in the HIV non-disclosure context – where the sexual activity is consensual other than the non-disclosure – is a poor fit and can ultimately have a detrimental impact on sexual assault law as a tool to advance gender equality and renounce gender-based violence.

The Consent website ( in English / in French ) also lists future screenings across Canada, which will be accompanied by panels and workshops, as part of an ongoing strategy to build up allies among women’s rights advocates for the longer-term work.

A discussion guide will also soon be available.

US: As college student, Michael Johnson, 23, is sentenced to 30 1/2 years for HIV exposure, advocates organise and condemn Missouri’s HIV-specific law as ‘barbaric’

Yesterday, Michael Johnson, 23, was sentenced to 30 1/2 years in prison after being found guilty on May 14th of five counts stemming from the accusations of three people who said he exposed them to the virus without their knowledge.

For the most serious charge, recklessly infecting another with HIV, Johnson will serve 30 years in prison. The remaining four charges, for HIV ‘exposure’, carried sentences of 5.5, 5.5, 5.5 and 14 years. Johnson will serve his sentences concurrently, meaning he will spend a total of 30 1/2 years in prison.

Mr Johnson’s case created considerable attention from HIV, gay and social justice advocates, such as this open letter from black gay men, and the press release from The Center for HIV Law and Policy below.

Tomorrow (Wednesday 15th July), the Counter Narrative Project, HIV Prevention Justice Alliance and Positive Women’s Network – USA will hold a webinar to provide an update on the current on-the-ground efforts to support his appeal and a discussion of advocacy strategy from a legal, media, intersectional and activism perspective.

Click on this link to register for Michael L. Johnson: Strategizing collectively for justice.

Sentencing of Missouri College Student in HIV “Exposure” Case Decried As “Barbaric”

US: REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act reintroduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee even as some US states propose new HIV-specific criminal laws

The past month or so has seen a huge amount of activity around overly broad HIV criminalisation in the United States, culminating the reintroduction of the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act by Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

As well as on-going arrests and prosecutions of individuals for alleged non-disclosure (and some excellent reporting on certain cases, such as that of Michael ‘Tiger Mandingo’ Johnson in Missouri or of two new cases on the same day in Michigan) new problematic HIV-related criminal laws have been proposed in Alabama, Missouri, Rhode Island and Texas.

Fortunately, most of these bills have been stopped due to rapid responses from well networked grass roots advocates (many of whom are connected via the Sero Project’s listserv) as well as state and national HIV legal and policy organisations, including the Positive Justice Project.

REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act

On March 24th, Congresswoman Barbara Lee reintroduced a new iteration of the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act (H.R.1586), “to modernize laws, and eliminate discrimination, with respect to people living with HIV/AIDS, and for other purposes”.

The full text of the bill can be found here.

The last time the REPEAL Act was introduced, in 2013, it had 45 co-sponsors before dying in committee. The first iteration, introduced in 2011, achieved 41 co-sponsors.

As of April 15th, the 2015 iteration has three co-sponsors, two Democrats – Jim McDermott and Adam B Schiff – and one Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

As in 2011 and 2013, the bill has been referred to three House Committees: Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Armed Services.

Back in 2013, the Positive Justice Project produced an excellent toolkit that provides advocates with resources which “can be used in outreach efforts, including a guide for letter writing campaigns, calling your representative’s state and Washington D.C. offices, or meeting with your representative or the representative’s legislative staff.”

If you’re in the US, you can also show Congress that you support this bill at: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/114/hr1586

Alabama

On April 1, 2015 the House Judiciary Committee of the Alabama Legislature held a hearing on HB 50, proposed by Democrat Representative Juandalynn Givan, that would increase the penalty for exposure or transmission of a sexually transmitted infection from a class C misdemeanour (punishable by up to 3 months in jail and a $500 fine) to a class C felony (punishable by up to 10 years in prison).

Representative Givan was apparently inspired to propose the bill after reading about a pastor in Montgomery, Alabama, who admitted in an October 2014 sermon that he was living with HIV and engaging in sex with women in his congregation without having disclosed his status. (He wasn’t prosecuted, but appears to have lost his job, as of the last news report in December 2014.)

In an interview in March 2015, she told AL.com that Alabama is one of only 16 states in the nation where it is a misdemeanour rather than a felony to ‘knowingly expose another person to a sexually transmitted disease’.

“What this bill is about is responsibility and accountability…The aim of this bill is not to punish those people with a sexually transmitted disease but to hold those people accountable,” that knowingly transmit dangerous illnesses to other people.

Some of the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee – most of it against the bill – is reported (rather poorly) in the Alabama Political Reporter.

Before the hearing began, the Positive Justice Project Steering Committee sent a powerful letter to the members of the House Judiciary Committee, voicing their strong opposition to the bill.

Medical experts and public health officials agree that criminalizing the conduct of people living with HIV does nothing to decrease the rates of infection, and may actually deter conduct and decisions that reduce disease transmission. Consequently, the American Medical Association, HIVMA, ANAC, and NASTAD have issued statements urging an end to the criminalization of HIV and other infectious diseases. Notably, the U.S. Department of Justice recently issued “Best Practices Guide to Reform HIV-Specific Criminal Laws,” which counsels states to end felony prosecutions of people living with HIV as contrary to the relevant science and national HIV prevention goals.

The bill remains with the House Judiciary Committee, but seems unlikely to be passed given that there are no co-sponsors.

Missouri

On March 10th, Republican Representative Travis Fitzwater introduced HB 1181, which proposed adding ‘spitting whilst HIV-positive’ to Missouri’s (already overly draconian) current HIV-specific criminal statute.

It is unclear what caused Rep Fitzwater to introduce the bill. However, advocacy against it was swift, with the local chapters of both ACLU and Human Rights Campaign, and Missouri-based HIV advocate, Aaron Laxton, planning to testify against it within days of it being introduced.

Although the bill was scheduled for a public hearing before the Civil and Criminal Proceedings Committee on April 7th, the community’s quick response meant the bill was not heard. According to Laxton, “within a matter of hours every member of the Civil and Criminal Proceedings Committee has received calls, emails, tweets and messages from many people” against the bill.

The proposed bill now appears to be dead, and advocacy in Missouri is now focused on modernising the existing HIV-specific law (which includes criminalising biting whilst HIV-positive) to take into account the latest science around HIV risk and harm.

Rhode Island

On February 24th, Republican Representative Robert Nardolillo introduced a new HIV-specific criminal law (H 5245) that would have criminalised HIV non-disclosure in the state for the first time.

In an interview with Zack Ford on thinkprogress.org, Rep Nardolillo said that as a survivor of sexual abuse he was surprised to discover that Rhode Island law does not allow for harsh enough penalties if HIV is passed on during a sexual assault.

However, although his proposed bill created a felony when someone with HIV “forcibly engages in sexual intercourse,” it also criminalised when someone “knowingly engages in sexual intercourse with another person without first informing that person of his/her HIV infection.”

The entire hearing before the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee was captured on video, and an excellent blog post by Steve Ahlquist on RIFuture.org highlighted both Rep Nardolillo’s ignorance of the potential harms of the bill, and the sustained and powerful testimonies against the bill from public health experts, people living with HIV and HIV NGOs alike.

Ahlquist concludes, “In the face of such strong opposition, it seems extremely unlikely that this legislation will advance out of committee.”

All testimonies are available to view in short video clips on the blog. You can also read the written testimony of the AIDS Law Project of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) here.

Texas

On February 25, Republican Senator Joan Huffman introduced SB 779, which would essentially have created an HIV-specific criminal law by the back door.

Texas repealed its previous HIV-specific criminal law in 1994 and uses general criminal statutes, including attempted murder and aggravated assault, for potential or perceived HIV exposure and alleged HIV transmission cases.

According to the Advocacy Without Borders blog, “SB 779 proposes to amend the state Health and Safety Code to allow for HIV test results (which are currently confidential) to be subpoenaed during grand jury proceedings – and for a defendant’s medical records to be accessed without their consent to establish guilt/innocence and also potentially to be used to determine sentencing. Essentially, this bill proposes to criminalize having HIV.”

The proposed law, and a number of other proposed HIV-related laws, was also critiqued in a Dallas Voice article highlighting the opinion of Januari Leo, who works with Legacy Community Health Service.

Leo, a longtime social worker who has worked with clients living with HIV, is blunt about the three bills: “They would criminalize HIV. HIV isn’t a crime. It’s a public health problem…These new bills use HIV status as a crime, against people who are suspects in a crime but have yet to be proven guilty. They’re allowing prosecutors to use private medical records, as mandated under HIPPA, as a weapon.”

Although it was considered in a public hearing before the State Affairs Committee on April 16, it now appears to be dead.

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

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

The deadline for responses is this Wednesday 11 February 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada: Social media campaign ‘Think Twice’ uses video to ask gay men to reconsider pressing charges for HIV non-disclosure

Last week saw the launch of a new phase of a targeted social marketing campaign by AIDS ACTION NOW! (AAN) that features 42 short videos from members and allies of Toronto’s LGBTQI community.

‘Think Twice’ asks HIV-negative and untested gay, bi, queer and trans men to reconsider pressing charges for HIV non-disclosure (where there was no alleged HIV transmission) when they discover that a sexual partner has not disclosed their HIV-positive status before sex.

In October 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that non-disclosure of known HIV status can be charged as aggravated sexual assault – with up to life imprisonment and sex offender registration – even if the person with HIV uses a condom: in order to avoid legal liability, they must also have a low viral load.

‘Think Twice’ is an AAN campaign originally launched just prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling aimed at decreasing the number of criminal prosecutions related to HIV non-disclosure. AAN want people involved in the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure—people living with HIV, their sexual partners, police, Crown prosecutors, health care providers and others—to consider the complexity and uncertainty of Canada’s overly broad approach to HIV criminalisation, and the implications of their role in criminal prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure.

The first part of their campaign targeted Crown prosecutors since they play a pivotal role in driving criminal prosecutions.

Since December 2012, the ‘Think Twice’ campaign has also focused on another key advocacy target – potential complainants.

This new phase of the ‘Think Twice’ campaign focuses specifically on gay, queer, and trans men and other men who have sex with men, due a change in community norms in the past few years that has resulted in an increase in the numbers of men going to the police to lay charges against other men living with HIV.

According to the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, while the majority of cases in Canada are against men who had sex with women, an increasing number of gay men and other men who have sex with men are being charged and prosecuted in Canada. Whereas there were only five known cases prior to 2006, a further 25 cases have been tracked up to December 2013.

In 2014, there has been at least one new case against a gay man. Another – where two men met in a Montreal sauna – dating back to 2005, is due to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada next month.

For this latest phase of the ‘Think Twice’ campaign, AAN placed an open call for gay, queer, bi and trans men, and their allies, to make a video that answered the question: ‘In 45 seconds what would you say to gay men to convince them to think twice before going to the police when a sex partner hasn’t disclosed to them.’

Although they only expected to make 25, a total of 42 individuals made videos, in a project organised by Jordan Bond-Gorr, Lauryn Kronick, Tim McCaskell and Eric Mykhalovskiy and filmed by multi-disciplinary artist, John Caffery, in Toronto over one weekend in August.

The videos – along with the website www.thinktwicehiv.com – were launched on 18th November at Toronto’s Buddies in Bad Times theatre.

This compilation of 18 of the videos, produced by the HIV Justice Network, highlights the breadth of messages and the range of stakeholders involved.

It features (in order of appearance):

and John Greyson.

For more information about this campaign, visit the ‘Think Twice’ FAQ page.

[Feature] Beyond Blame: Challenging HIV Criminalisation

Beyond Blame: Challenging HIV Criminalisation

A pre-conference meeting for AIDS 2014

In July 2014, at a meeting held to just prior to the International AIDS Conference in Melbourne, Australia around 150 participants from all regions of the world came together to discuss the overly broad use of the criminal law to control and punish people living with HIV – otherwise known as ‘HIV criminalisation’.

The meeting was hosted by Living Positive Victoria, Victorian AIDS Council/Gay Men’s Health Centre, National Association of People Living with HIV Australia and the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, with the support of AIDS and Rights Alliance of Southern Africa, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Global Network of People Living with HIV, HIV Justice Network, International Community of Women Living with HIV, Sero Project and UNAIDS.

The meeting was financially supported by the Victorian Department of Health and UNAIDS.

This highlights video (12 mins, 50 secs) was directed, filmed and edited by Nicholas Feustel, with interviews and narration by Edwin J Bernard. The video was produced by georgetown media for the HIV Justice Network.

Download the highlights video from:http://vimeo.com/hivjustice/beyondblame

Below is a feature story based on the transcript of the highlights video, with additional links and information. You can also read Felicita Hikuam’s excellent (and remarkably quickly-written) summary of the day in ‘Mujeres Adelante’ and Daniel Reeders’s impressive collection of tweets from the meeting.

FEATURE STORY

A day to come together, find solutions, and move forward

Paul Kidd: On behalf of Living Positive Victoria, the Victorian AIDS Council, Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, and the National Association of People with HIV Australia, welcome to Beyond Blame: Challenging HIV Criminalisation. We hope today’s event is inspiring and productive and that it kicks off the discussion about HIV criminalisation that will continue through the week and beyond.

Edwin Bernard: I think this is the largest HIV Criminalisation Pre-Conference to date at an International AIDS Conference. So the idea of the meeting is to bring people together. People who are working on this issue, who are interested in learning more about it, and we’re going to really work hard to come together, find solutions, and move forward.

Julian Hows: GNP+ has been involved in this issue of criminalisation since 2002, 2003, when we noticed an increase in the rates of prosecution in Europe effectively and started the first scan of the 53 signatory countries of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This has since become the Global Criminalisation Scan, an international ‘clearing-house’ of resources, research, and initiatives on punitive laws and policies impacting people living with HIV.

Jessica Whitbread: And ICW are really, really excited to be here and part of this. Criminalisation is a huge issue for us. Over 50% of people living with HIV are women and many of these laws initially and still continue to be created as a way to protect women when actually they put us more at risk.

Getting the criminal law changed and out of the HIV response

The meeting began with a surprise announcement by the Minister of Health for Victoria, David Davis, about Australia’s only HIV-specific criminal law, Section 19A of the Victorian Crimes Act. Read more about the campaign to reform the law here.

David Davis: And as a further step in our efforts to reduce the impact of HIV and reduce stigma and discrimination, the coalition government will amend section 19A of the Crimes Act 1958 to ensure that it is non-discriminatory.

Following the announcement Victoria’s Shadow Health Minister, Gavin Jennings, committed to removing (and not just amending) Section 19A within the next 12 months, should Labor win the state election in November.

A keynote address by the Honourable Michael Kirby, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, and a member of the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, reminded us why an overly broad criminal justice apporach to prevention does more harm than good.

Michael Kirby: In the big picture of this great world epidemic, the criminal law has a trivial role to play. What is most important is getting the law changed and out, not getting the law into the struggle against HIV and AIDS.

The Iowa example: laws are subject to change and should be subject to change

The meeting then focused on Iowa in the United States where both law reform and judicial rulings have limited the overly broad use of the criminal law.

Matt McCoy: You know, in Iowa, we had a very bad law on the books, but it’s not unlike a lot of other places in the country in the United States and in the world. So there was no need for transmission, and with it, the penalty was so extreme, a mandatory lifetime sex offender registry and 25 years in prison.

Watch the video that Senator McCoy showed at the meeting explaning how law reform in Iowa happened.

Sean Strub: Iowa is a conservative farm-belt state. And the effort there began with a small group of people with HIV who started organising others with HIV and educating their own communities and then educating public health officials and reframing the issue in terms of a public health issue rather than simply an issue of justice for people with HIV. Last month, we held a conference at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa. It was the first national conference on HIV criminalisation in the US. The Friday before our conference began, Governor Branstad in Iowa signed a criminalisation reform measure and made Iowa the first state in the United States to subtantively reform and modernise their statute.

Two videos of the HIV Is Not A Crime conference (also known as the Grinnell Gathering) are available. One shows the opening ceremony and can be viewed on the Sero website. A second video highlights the voices of US HIV criminalisation survivors featured at the meeting, and can be viewed on the Sero website.

Nick Rhoades: About a week after the conference was over, the timing was just a little bit off, nonetheless, it’s fantastic. My conviction was overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court. Yeah. Thank you… It’s kinda groundbreaking, their decision, and I, first of all, think that it’s going to have an effect beyond Iowa’s borders, but it basically said that there has to be more than a theoretical chance of transmission to be prosecuted under the law. And previously, that’s not been the case. Basically, it was just if you didn’t disclose, and you had sex, that that would be enough to convict someone. So, for the first time, they basically said that factors such as using protection, being on antiretroviral medication, having an undetectable viral load specifically, should affect whether or not prosecution is able to happen.

Senator McCoy took the opportunity to urge parliamentarians to rethink how they treat HIV in a criminal context.

Matt McCoy: Many of these laws went into effect in the United States during the AIDS crisis and the scares that society had around the issue, and in many cases they were put into effect using a one-size-fits-all measure. And so this is a great opportunity to go back and to revisit that and to realise that our laws are subject to change and should be subject to change.

Science can change laws and limit prosecutions

A number of countries in Europe have also recently revisited their criminal laws, policies or practices. A poster, Developments in criminal law following increased knowledge and awareness of the additional prevention benefit of antiretroviral therapy, presented at AIDS 2014 by the HIV Justice Network, showed where and how this has taken place.

Edwin Bernard: We have to salute the Netherlands, the very first place in the world that actually, way before the Swiss statement, between 2004 and 2007, managed to change the application of the law through a variety of Supreme Court rulings, but also because of advocacy that happened with advocates and healthcare workers and people in the community who limited the role of the criminal law to only intentional exposure or transmission. Denmark was the only country in Western Europe that had an HIV-specific criminal law, and a huge amount of advocacy went on behind the scenes and that law was suspended in 2011 based on the fact that the law was about a serious, life-threatening illness, and the reality was that in Denmark, people living with HIV have exactly the same life expectancy as people without HIV. And so the law just couldn’t apply anymore. And so, we hope that the places like Denmark and the Netherlands will provide inspiration for the rest of us.

Urgent need to focus on global South

But with two-thirds of all HIV-specific criminal laws enacted in the global South, there is now an urgent need to re-focus our efforts.

Patrick Eba: For a long time, we have been saying that there is no prosecution happening in the Global South, particularly in Africa, because we were lacking the information to be able to point to those instances of criminalisation. In fact, there is a lot of prosecution that is happening, and in the past year, if you look at the data that is being maintained by the HIV Justice Network, it is clear. We’ve seen the case in Uganda. We know of a decision that came out some time late last year in South Africa. We know of a number of cases in Kenya, in Gabon, in Cameroon [and especially in Zimbabwe]; and these really show that where we celebrate and are able today to know what is happening in the Global North, our lack of understanding of the situation in the Global South is one that requires more attention.

Dora Musinguzi: Uganda is right now grappling with lots of human rights and legal issues, and it’s going to be such a high climb to really convince our governments, our people, government agencies to make sure that we really have this reform of looking at HIV from a human rights angle, public [health] angle, gender justice angle, if we are going to achieve the gains that we have known to achieve as a country. …But we stand strong in this, we are not giving up. We are looking to a future where we shall challenge this criminalisation, and we hope to come back with a positive story.

Workshops on advocacy messages, science and alternatives to a punitive criminal justice approach

After the morning plenary sessions, participants then attended one of three workshops. The first workshop explored how to get advocacy messages right, in terms of what arguments need to be delivered by whom and to whom.

Laurel Sprague: We talked about the importance of stories. In particular, the stories of people who have been prosecuted, both because of the dignity it gives them to be able to share their own experience, and also because what we’re seeing is so broadly understood to be disproportionate once the details come out.

Laurel’s rapporteur notes can be downloaded in full here. For an example of advocacy messagaging aimed at communities impacted by HIV see this video from Queensland Positive People.

A second workshop highlighted the way that up-to-date science on HIV-related risks has limited the application of the criminal law in Sweden and Canada.

David Mejia-Canales: Really mobilising their scientists, their researchers and really connecting with the lawyers, the judiciary, the prosecutors and putting to them the best evidence that they have.

Download the Powerpoint presentation given by Cecile Kazatchine of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network here.

The third workshop examined alternatives to a punitive criminal justice system approach, and the risks and benefits of using, for example, public health law or restorative justice.

Daniel Reeders: So if someone shows up at a police station or talks to their doctor about being exposed or infected with HIV, a restorative justice approach would talk about giving them an opportunity to work that issue through with the person who they are otherwise trying to report, either for criminal prosecution or public health management. It acknowledges that people experience HIV infection as an injury and that there is a lack of a process offering them an opportunity to heal.

Daniel’s entire rapporteur report can be read on his blog.

Going home with more ideas and tools and inspiration to continue our work

As the meeting came to a close participants appreciated the day as a rare and much needed opportunity to discuss advocacy strategies.

Paul Kidd: What a day! It is just so amazing to be in this room with all of these incredible people and the sense you have of how much passion and energy and commitment there is around this issue.

Richard Elliott: Even as we face numerous setbacks in our own context sometimes, we see that in fact people are making breakthroughs elsewhere and then that helps us put pressure domestically on decision makers, on legislators, on judges.

Michaela Clayton: It’s important to learn from how people have achieved successes and what have been peoples’ problems in achieving successes in different countries in addressing criminalisation. So for us it’s a wonderful opportunity to learn from others.

Dora Musinguzi: I was encouraged to know that the struggle is not only for us in Africa, in Uganda, and I was also encouraged to know that our colleagues have made progress, and so we can.

Sean Strub: I think everywhere that there is an effort for this advocacy for reform, it is a constantly evolving effort. And the fact that the HIV Justice Network and others brought together this global community which is incredibly mutually supportive. I think of any aspect of the epidemic, I can’t think of an area where there is more collegiality and mutual respect than those of us who’ve centered our work around criminalisation reform. That’s what we’re seeing here in Melbourne, just an expansion of that, and all of us going home with more ideas and tools and inspiration to continue our work.

To remain connected with the global advocacy movement against overly broad HIV criminalisation, like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter and sign the Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation to join our mailing list.

BEYOND BLAME
Challenging HIV Criminalisation @ AIDS 2014, Melbourne

(13 min, HJN, Australia, 2014)