US: 2018 HIV Is Not a Crime National Training Academy to be held in Indianapolis, Indiana (Press Release)

SERO Project and Positive Women’s Network-USA Announce 2018 HIV Is Not a Crime National Training Academy in Indianapolis

May 15, 2017: Building on the amazing success of the HIV Is Not a Crime II National Training Academy last year, the SERO Project and Positive Women’s Network-USA are pleased to announce that the planning process is underway for the third HIV Is Not a Crime National Training Academy to support repeal or modernization of laws criminalizing the alleged non- disclosure, perceived or potential exposure or transmission of HIV. The training academy will be held at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) June 3-6, 2018.

As part of the announcement of HIV is Not a Crime III, Tami Haught, Conference Coordinator with the SERO Project says, “Dr. Carrie Foote and the HIV Modernization Movement, in coordination with other state organizations, will provide the conference with great support and leadership as a host committee. We hope that hosting the Training Academy in Indiana will highlight the archaic HIV-specific laws and empower advocates and allies to modernize Indiana’s statues.”

HIV is Not a Crime III will once again 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.

“The HIV Modernization Movement (HMM) is excited to welcome HIV is Not a Crime III to the IUPUI campus! Science has made extraordinary advances since the HIV epidemic began in the 1980s, but one area that hasn’t kept up is the body of laws that criminalize HIV. Lacking in scientific merit, these harmful laws stigmatize people living with HIV and are counterproductive to HIV treatment and prevention efforts. Organized activities like this one, that bring together people living with HIV and their allies to collectively strategize on reforming these draconian laws, are critical to ending the HIV epidemic,” says Dr. Carrie Foote, HMM Chair and Associate Professor at IUPUI.

Get involved in making HIV is Not a Crime a success! Sign up to participate in one of our planning workgroups here (bit.ly/HINAC-workgroup).

Are you interested in providing financial support for this important event?Please contact Sean Strub, SERO Project (sean.strub[at}seroproject.com) or Naina Khanna at Positive Women’s Network – USA (naina.khanna.work[at]gmail.com) for more information.

Questions? Please contact Tami Haught, SERO Organizer and Training Coordinator, at: tami.haught[at]seroproject.com.

Canada: The 7th symposium on HIV, Law and Human Rights organised by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network will take place on June 15, 2017

Rethinking Justice: Seventh Symposium on HIV, Law and Human Rights

You’re invited to join us for the day symposium on Thursday, June 15, 2017, for rethinking Justice, our 7th symposium on HIV, Law and Human Rights

This year’s Symposium is devoted to a critical look at the unjust criminalization of HIV non-disclosure. Themes to be discussed include:

Current state of criminalization: Canada and the world
Voices rising: Speaking out about the experience of HIV criminalization
Science of HIV transmission: recent applications, emerging issues
Advocacy updates and ways forward

The full-day event will take place at the Chelsea Hotel, 33 Gerrard St. W., in Toronto. We will release a list of speakers and topics for this year’s Symposium shortly.

Please save the date for this exciting and informative event on June 15. Keep an eye on our webpage at aidslaw.ca/symposium for more information, including a list of speakers.

You can register to attend the Symposium today. Visit our registration page to confirm your spot.

For more information, please contact info@aidslaw.ca.

Unable to join us at the Symposium? Consider making a gift to the Legal Network to support our work, including resisting unjust HIV criminalization.

US: California LGBT Caucus holds briefing on the proposed repeal of HIV criminalisation laws

On Thursday, the LGBT Caucus held a briefing on the decriminalizing HIV and SB 239 introduced by State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).

The controversial bill, Senate Bill 239, introduced in early February, would repeal laws passed more than three-decades ago that Wiener and supporters say are discriminatory and not based in science. The proposed bill would treat HIV like other communicable diseases under California Law.

According to the proposed bill, it would make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony to intentionally expose someone to HIV.

Here is a look at the Legislative Digest regarding the bill:

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 239, as introduced, Wiener. Infectious and communicable diseases: HIV and AIDS:criminal penalties.

(1) Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 3, 5, or 8 years in the state prison to expose another person to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by engaging in unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV. Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 2, 4, or 6 years for any person to donate blood, body organs or other tissue, or, under specified circumstances, semen or breast milk, if the person knows that he or she has acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), or that he or she has tested reactive to HIV. Existing law provides that a person who is afflicted with a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease who willfully exposes himself or herself to another person, or any person who willfully exposes another person afflicted with the disease to someone else, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill would repeal those provisions. The bill would instead make the intentional transmission of an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor, if certain circumstances apply, including that the defendant knows he or she is afflicted with the disease, that the defendant acts with the specific intent to transmit the disease to another person, that the defendant engages in conduct that poses a substantial risk of transmission, as defined, and that the defendant transmits the disease to the other person. The bill would impose various requirements upon the court in order to prevent the public disclosure of the identifying characteristics, as defined, of the complainant and the defendant. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2) Under existing law, if a defendant has been previously convicted of prostitution or of another specified sexual offense, and in connection with the conviction a blood test was administered, as specified, with positive test results for AIDS, of which the defendant was informed, the previous conviction and positive blood test results are to be charged in any subsequent accusatory pleading charging a violation of prostitution. Existing law makes defendant guilty of a felony if the previous conviction and informed test results are found to be true by the trier of fact or are admitted by the defendant.

This bill would delete that provision. The bill would also vacate any conviction, dismiss any charge, and legally deem that an arrest under the deleted provision never occurred. The bill would require any court or agency having custody or control of records pertaining to the arrest, charge, or conviction of a person for a violation of the deleted provision to destroy, as specified, those records by June 30, 2018. By imposing this duty on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also authorize a person serving a sentence as a result of a violation of the deleted provision to petition for a recall or dismissal of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case. The bill would require a court to vacate the conviction and resentence the person to any remaining counts while giving credit for any time already served.

(3) Existing law requires the court to order a defendant convicted for a violation of soliciting or engaging in prostitution for the first time to complete instruction in the causes and consequences of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and to submit to testing for AIDS. Existing law requires such a defendant, as a condition of either probation or participating in a drug diversion program, to participate in an AIDS education program, as specified.

This bill would repeal those provisions.

(4) The bill would also make other conforming changes.

(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Here is a copy of the Press Release introducing the Bill on Feb 6

Senator Wiener and Assemblymember Gloria Announce Bill to Modernize Discriminatory HIV Criminalization Laws

Equality California, Positive Women’s Network – USA, ACLU and others join in support of bill to reform outdated laws enacted during a time of fear and ignorance to make them more consistent with laws involving other serious communicable diseases

February 6, 2017

Today, Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) introduced a bill to modernize laws that criminalize and stigmatize people living with HIV. Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco) is also a co-author of the bill. Senate Bill 239 would amend California’s HIV criminalization laws, enacted in the 1980s and ‘90s at a time of fear and ignorance about HIV and its transmission, to make them consistent with laws involving other serious communicable diseases.

The bill is cosponsored by the ACLU of California, APLA Health, Black AIDS Institute, Equality California, Lambda Legal and Positive Women’s Network – USA. The organizations are part of Californians for HIV Criminalization Reform (CHCR), a broad coalition of people living with HIV, HIV and health service providers, civil rights organizations and public health professionals dedicated to ending the criminalization of HIV in California. San Francisco Supervisor Jeff Sheehy also attended the announcement.

“These laws are discriminatory, not based in science, and detrimental to our HIV prevention goals,” said Senator Wiener. “They need to be repealed. During the 1980s — the same period when some proposed quarantining people with HIV — California passed these discriminatory criminal laws and singled out people with HIV for harsher punishment than people with other communicable diseases. It’s time to move beyond stigmatizing, shaming, and fearing people who are living with HIV. It’s time to repeal these laws, use science-based approaches to reduce HIV transmission (instead of fear-based approaches), and stop discriminating against our HIV-positive neighbors.”

SB 239 updates California criminal law to approach transmission of HIV in the same way as transmission of other serious communicable diseases. It also brings California statutes up to date with the current understanding of HIV prevention, treatment and transmission. Specifically, it eliminates several HIV-specific criminal laws that impose harsh and draconian penalties, including for activities that do not risk exposure or transmission of HIV. It would make HIV subject to the laws that apply to other serious communicable diseases, thereby removing discrimination and stigma for people living with HIV, and maintaining public health.

“It’s time for California to reevaluate the way it thinks about HIV and to reduce the stigma associated with the disease,” said Assemblymember Gloria. “Current state law related to those living with HIV is unfair because it is based on the fear and ignorance of a bygone era. With this legislation, California takes an important step to update our laws to reflect the medical advances which no longer make a positive diagnosis equal to a death sentence.”

“As a former prosecutor, I know firsthand the need to get outdated and unscientific laws based on homophobia and fear off the books,” said Assemblymember Chiu. “These laws criminalize and stigmatize people with HIV, and they must be updated.”

Legislators passed a number of laws three decades ago, at the height of the HIV epidemic, that criminalized behaviors of people living with HIV or added HIV-related penalties to existing crimes. These laws were based on fear and on the limited medical understanding of the time. When most of these laws were passed, there were no effective treatments for HIV and discrimination against people living with HIV was rampant.

In the decades since, societal and medical understanding of HIV has greatly improved. Effective treatments dramatically lengthen and improve the quality of life for people living with HIV—treatments that also nearly eliminate the possibility of transmission. In addition, similar treatments are available to HIV-negative people to nearly eliminate risk of infection. Laws criminalizing people with HIV do nothing to further public health and, in fact, stigmatize them, discouraging testing or obtaining necessary medical care. The laws also reduce the likelihood of disclosure of a positive HIV status to sexual partners.

“These laws are disproportionately used against women and people of color, and fuel stigma, violence and discrimination,” said Naina Khanna, executive director of the Positive Women’s Network – USA. “Despite their claims to protect vulnerable communities, these laws actually cause further harm, both to people living with HIV and the broader public.”

HIV criminalization disproportionately affects women and people of color. Forty-three percent of those criminalized under California’s HIV-specific criminal laws are women, despite comprising only 13 percent of people living with HIV in the state. Blacks and Latinos make up two-thirds of people who came into contact with the criminal justice system based on their HIV status, despite comprising only about half of people living with HIV/AIDS in California.

“These laws impose felony penalties and harsh prison sentences on people who have engaged in activities that do not risk transmission and do not endanger public health in any way,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California. “Modernizing them would reduce discrimination and stigma for people living with HIV. Ending stigma is at the core of ending HIV. Treatment of HIV has entered the 21st century – it’s time for California’s laws to reflect that, as well.”

“Living with HIV should not be a crime in California,” said Supervisor Jeff Sheehy, who is the first HIV positive member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and a leader in San Francisco’s Getting to Zero coalition to end all new HIV infections. “That’s why I support Senator Wiener’s legislation.”

In addition to the organizations sponsoring the bill, it is currently supported by CHCR members which include the Los Angeles LGBT Center, the Los Angeles HIV Law and Policy Project, the Transgender Law Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the Free Speech Coalition, Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP) and Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education, and Research Project (ESPLERP).

Published on East County Today on March 10th, 2017

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: Prosecuting HIV: Is it a crime to have sex without disclosing? Public Roundtable in Toronto – Ontario on Feb 3, 2017

Public Roundtable on February 3, 2017 – Prosecuting HIV: Is it a crime to have sex without disclosing?

Posted on January 30, 2017

Prosecuting HIV: Is it a crime to have sex without disclosing? public roundtable discussion will take place:

Friday February 3^rd, 2017, from 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm

Canadiana Gallery – Room 160, 14 Queen’s Park Crescent West, Toronto, Ontario

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that when HIV+ people do not disclose their status to sex partners they are committing a serious crime (often, aggravated sexual assault) if there is a realistic possibility of HIV transmission. Many HIV+ people have been prosecuted and jailed even if their sex partners did not contract HIV. Efforts are now underway to use prosecutorial guidelines and other tools to make Canada’s criminal law less punitive towards HIV+ people, and updated information on these efforts will be presented at the panel.

Roundtable Panelists will include:

Maureen Owino, Director, Committee for Accessible AIDS Treatment
Ryan Peck, Executive Director, HIV&AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO)
Amy Swiffen, Sociology Department, Concordia University, and Visiting Professor at the Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies
Chris Tatham, Sociology Department, University of Toronto

The Panel Moderator is Audrey Macklin, Director, Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies.

All are welcome to attend.

The event poster is available as a pdf on our website: http://www.halco.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/HIV-disclosure-public-roundtable-2017Feb3.pdf.

US: Georgia activists want state lawmakers to revisit HIV criminalisation laws

Activists: Change Georgia laws that unfairly punish HIV-positive people

‘I am not a walking infection. I am a human. Don’t lock me up for who I am’.

SEAN KEENAN

Georgians living with HIV can be locked away for up to a decade for neglecting to inform sexual partners of their status, even if they’ve been told by a doctor that their viral loads are too low to transmit the virus.

Under Georgia law, HIV-positive people are required to tell partners of their status prior to sex. If they don’t, they could be charged and convicted for “reckless conduct” — a felony — even if they don’t transmit the virus. People who divulge such personal info to others can face harsh discrimination, and even violence, for saying they have HIV. In other cases, their privacy could be compromised.

According to the Center for HIV and Law Policy, more than 30 states have laws about prior notification and spitting or biting, even though medical experts say such behavior does little, if anything, to contribute to the transmission of HIV. And Georgia activists who are trying to end HIV stigma want state lawmakers to revisit laws here.

The topic was raised on Nov. 30, the evening before World AIDS Day, at an event organized by advocacy group Georgia Equality. During a panel discussion at the event, four HIV-positive people talked about the stigma that comes with living with the condition.

Nina Martinez, a public health analyst and Georgia Equality activist, said she hasn’t had a relationship in 11 years. That’s because Martinez is worried she could be beaten or criminally charged for merely engaging in romantic endeavors with someone who is not aware of her condition. Martinez told the few dozen people in attendance that, after being sexually assaulted, she kept quiet in fear of “going to prison for my own rape.”

Panel speakers said they’re working with local politicians to create legislation that could reduce the stigma surrounding HIV. Many people don’t know that HIV-positive people taking proper medication can have normal sex lives with virtually no risk of passing the virus to others, said panel moderator Dazon Dixon Diallo, founder and president of SisterLove, an advocacy group focused on African-American women with HIV/AIDS.

Dixon Diallo said appropriate use of pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, and antiretroviral therapy can now virtually quash the chances of transmission during intercourse or other exchanges of bodily fluids, citing a two-year study of more than 1,000 couples that knew of their partner’s status.

“Treatment is prevention,” said Dr. Richard Rothenberg, associate dean of faculty development and research at Georgia State University’s school of public health. “Getting people on adequate treatment (defined as no detectable viral load) clearly diminishes transmission considerably.”

Georgia has one of the highest diagnosis rates of HIV in the nation. According to a recent study by the Big Cities Health Coalition, metro Atlanta had the country’s second-highest rate of HIV diagnoses, second to Washington, D.C. Nearly half of metro Atlanta cases are in Fulton County.

“So how well has our criminalization law done to drive down [HIV] cases?,” asked Mel Medalle, a SisterLove policy and advocacy advisor. “I don’t think very well.”

To people who aren’t knowledgeable of advancements in HIV treatment and prevention, Dixon Diallo said, “it might seem like these laws are helping people … But there is no sense of agency or responsibility to someone who is not HIV positive.” For example, Martinez said she could be taken to court for not informing a partner of her status prior to having sex, even if she contracts an STD her partner might be carrying in the process. “Complying with the law assumes that disclosure is safe,” she said. “But there’s nothing to stop that guy on a Friday night from giving me syphilis.”

One audience member asked whether a pre-sex, contractual understanding could thwart cases in which people raise issues with the terms of their sexual exploits after the fact. Medalle said having such a document in theory but “in the real world, the stigma would outweigh that every single time.”

Charles Stephens, director of The Counter Narrative Project, an advocacy group supporting gay black men, said HIV criminalization is also used as a means of endorsing homophobic and xenophobic policy. Stephens has followed the case of Michael Johnson, a gay black college wrestler who last summer was jailed after being convicted of transmitting HIV to one man and risking the infection of four others. Johnson was sentenced by a Missouri court to more than 30 years in prison. A Missouri appeals court yesterday ordered he receive a new trial.

“A lot of national organizations are only interested in people with perfect narratives,” Stephens said. “No one was talking about this…If Michael had blonde hair and blue eyes, the cavalry would have come a lot sooner.”

Marxavian Jones, an activist with NAESM, a group that provides education and services for people affected by HIV/AIDS, reminded the crowd that the virus does not discriminate.

“When talking about HIV, it’s not just numbers, these are lives,” Jones said. “People who are married catch HIV. People who have one partner catch HIV. People who have sex for the first time catch HIV. Everyone’s story is different, and it’s unfair to put rules and labels on how people have to share their private and personal information.”

The panelists said they’re working to draft a legislative proposal — they said it’s too early to share specifics — for the upcoming General Assembly to address Georgia’s laws and “decriminalize HIV,” once and for all.

“The H in HIV stands for humans, and we seem to be missing that humanistic approach,” Jones said. “I am not a walking infection. I am a human. Don’t lock me up for who I am.”

Published in Creative Loafing on Dec 21, 2016

US: Discussion about the decriminalisation of HIV takes centre stage at World AIDS day panel in Georgia

A panel of HIV activists and LGBT organizers took aim at laws in Georgia that criminalize people with HIV and can leave them facing prison sentences of up to 20 years.

The discussion about decriminalizing HIV took center stage at a World AIDS Day panel on Nov. 30. People with HIV in Georgia can face a prison term of up to 10 years for having sex with someone without disclosing their HIV status. Even acts like spitting – which do not transmit HIV – are criminalized when directed towards a law enforcement officer with penalties that include up to 20 years of prison time.

Last year, a gay Atlanta man was charged in South Carolina with exposing a sex partner to HIV. Tyler Orr said he did disclose and as the panelists pointed out during the recent discussion, what counts as disclosure and how to avoid “he said, she said” debates in court is unclear.

“What advocates have tried to encourage folks to do in this really unwinnable situation is to have a notarized document or affidavit before you engage in one of these punishable acts,” Mel Medalle of SisterLove told the crowd of about 40 people.

“Which almost never happens, but that is how extreme and absurd this situation is,” Medalle added.

Nina Martinez, a member of the Coalition to End HIV Criminalization in Georgia, pointed out that disclosure laws can also create safety risks for people with HIV.

“Every single time, especially as a woman, every single time, it’s me risking my personal safety,” Martinez said.

Marxavian Jones, who serves as one of Georgia Equality’s Youth HIV Policy Advisors, echoed agreed with Martinez.

“Who is going to defend me when I disclose my status to someone and they take it to social media and decide they want to tell everybody,” Jones said.

The Center for HIV Law & Policy has pointed to the increased risk of intimate partner violence that can come with disclosure, writing that disclosure can “provide an additional excuse, or cover, for physical violence.”

The ongoing stigma of HIV-positive individuals also means that – as Jones pointed out – a disgruntled lover posting a partner’s HIV status to social media can have real consequences, including job loss or being outed to family.

During the National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta last year, public health experts and HIV activists argued that rather than criminalizing HIV-positive people, and adding to the stigma they face, people with HIV should be pushed to treatment options.

At the recent panel, participants also highlighted legislation being drafted by the Coalition to End HIV Criminalization in Georgia. The coalition is currently reaching out to legislators to find a sponsor for the bill.

“[The legislation is] so we can repeal, which would completely get rid of it,” Medalle said. “The other option would be to reform it, so to make changes to it but to ultimately have some semblance of it.”

While Medalle said it may seem like a “no brainer that we wouldn’t want this [law],” stigma and other means of criminalizing HIV-positive individuals makes the issue more complicated. In Texas and a handful of other states, there are no specific statutes that target people with HIV but they are still prosecuted under other laws including reckless endangerment.

Reforming the law means that advocates can create better standards for prosecutions, and can “craft a law that comports with modern HIV science, what we know about the routes of transmission,” Medalle said.

Martinez, who is a member of the coalition, said the HIV criminalization law in Georgia also falls short in other aspects.

“The law in Georgia doesn’t require intent to infect, it doesn’t require likelihood of transmission because it has things like spit, urine, feces in it. It doesn’t require transmission,” Martinez said.

The Georgia law also doesn’t take into account issues like condom usage or advising a partner to take PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis) after sexual intercourse – acts which reduce the likelihood of transmission. The reforms to the law would change that, the panelists said.

Emily Halden Brown, a Georgia Equality field organizer who organized the panel discussion, said the event highlighted how people with HIV are impacted by it.

“I think the most valuable moment in all of the discussions I’ve ever been a part of on this, are the moments where people living with HIV share the stories of how they are directly impacted,” Brown said. “Anytime someone shares their personal story you can just feel the change in the audience.”

The event was hosted by Georgia Equality, SisterLove, and The Counter Narrative Project at Gallery 874. The panel discussion coincided with the “Living With” art exhibit, which featured art about the experiences of living with HIV. A closing reception helped raise funds for Georgia Equality’s HIV policy work.

Published in Project Q on Dec 12, 2016

Canada: ‘HIV is not a crime’ documentary premieres in Montreal at Concordia University’s ‘The Movement to End HIV Criminalization’ event

Last week, Concordia Unversity in Montreal, Canada, held the world premiere public screening of HJN’s ‘HIV is not a crime training academy’ documentary, followed by three powerful and richly evocative presentations by activist and PhD candidate, Alex McClelland; HJN’s Research Fellow in HIV, Gender, and Justice, Laurel Sprague; and activist and Hofstra University Professor, Andrew Spieldenner.

The meeting, introduced by Liz Lacharpagne of COCQ-SIDA and by Martin French of Concordia University – who put the lecture series together – was extremely well-attended, and resulted in a well-written and researched article by student jounrnalist, Ocean DeRouchie, alongside a strong editorial from Concordia’s newspaper, The Link.

(The full text of both article and editorial are below.)

Presentations included:

Edwin Bernard, Global Co-ordinator, HIV Justice Network: ‘The Global Picture: Surveying the State of HIV Criminalisation’
Alex McClelland, Concordia University: ‘Criminal Charges for HIV Non-disclosure, Transmission and/or Exposure: Impacts on the Lives of People Living with HIV’
Laurel Sprague, Research Fellow in HIV, Gender, and Justice, HIV Justice Network: ‘Your Sentence is Not My Freedom: Feminism, HIV Criminalization and Systems of Stigma’
Andrew Spieldenner, Hofstra University: ‘The Cost of Acceptable Losses: Exploring Intersectionality, Meaningful Involvement of People with HIV, and HIV Criminalization’

Articles based on a number of these important presentations will be published on the HJN website in coming

weeks.

The Movement to End HIV Criminalization

Decrying Criminalization

Concordia Lecture Series Prompts Discussion on HIV Non-disclosure

by Ocean DeRouchie — Published September 19, 2016 in The Link

The sentiment surrounding HIV/AIDS is often one of discomfort. But the reluctance to speak openly about such a significant and impactful disease is hurting the people closest to it.

Under current Canadian legislation, HIV non-disclosure is criminalized. It exercises some of the most punitive aspects of our criminal justice system, explained Alexander McClelland, a writer and researcher currently working on a PhD at Concordia.

McClelland was one of four panelists speaking under Concordia’s Community Lecture Series on HIV/AIDS on Thursday, Sept. 15 in the Hall building. The collective puts on multiple panel-based events in order to address the attitudes, laws, and intersections of political and socioeconomic stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS.

Talking About HIV, Legally

There are three distinct charges that guide prosecutors in HIV cases—transmission (giving the disease to someone without having disclosed your status), exposure (e.g. spitting or biting) and non-disclosure (not informing a sexual partner about your HIV/AIDS status).

Aggravated sexual assault and attempted murder are some of the charges that defendants often face, explained Edwin Bernard, Global Coordinator for the HIV Justice Network, during the discussion.

While there are clearly defined situations in which you are legally obligated to tell a sex partner about your HIV status, there are no HIV-specific laws. This results in the application of general law in cases that are anything but general.

In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada established that “people living with HIV must disclose their status before having sex that poses a ‘realistic possibility of HIV transmission.’”

Aidslaw.ca presents a clear map of situations in which you’d have to tell a sex partner about your status because, in fact, it is not in all scenarios that you’d be legally required to have the discussion.

A lot of it depends on your viral load—the amount of measurable virus in your bloodstream, usually taken in milliliters. A “low” to undetectable viral load is the goal, and is achieved with anti-viral medication.

Treatment serves to render HIV-positive individuals non-infectious, and therefore lowering the risk of transmission. A “high” viral load indicates increased amounts of HIV in the blood.

If protection is used and with a low viral load, one might not have to disclose their status at all.

That said, there is a legal obligation to disclose one’s HIV-positive status before any penetrative sex sans-condom, regardless of viral load. You’d also have to bring it up before having any sex with protection if you have a viral load higher than “low.”

But not all sex is spelled out so clearly.

Oral sex, for instance, is a grey area. Aidslaw.ca says, “oral sex is usually considered very low risk for HIV transmission.” They write that “despite some developments at lower level courts,” they cannot say for sure what does not require disclosure.

There are “no risk” activities. Smooching and touching one another are intimate activities that, as health professionals say, pose such a small risk of transmission that there “should be no legal duty to disclose an HIV-positive status.”

Moving Up, and Out of Hand

Court proceedings are based on how the jury and judge want to apply general laws to specific instances. There are a lot of factors that can influence the outcome.

The case-to-case outlook leads to the criminal justice system dealing with non-disclosure in such a disproportionate way, said McClelland.

The situation begs the question: “Why is society responding in such a punitive way?” asked McClelland.

This isn’t to say that not disclosing one’s HIV status “doesn’t require some potential form of intervention,” he explained, adding that intervention could incorporate counseling, mental-health support, encouragement around building self-esteem and learning how to deal and live with the virus in the world. “But in engaging with the very blunt instrument that is the criminal law is the wrong approach.”

He continued to explain that the reality of the criminalization of HIV ultimately doesn’t do anything to prevent HIV transmission.

“It’s just ruining people’s lives,” said McClelland, who has been interviewing Canadians who have been affected by criminal charges due to HIV-related situations. “It’s a very complex social situation that requires a nuanced approach to support people.”

“It’s just ruining people’s lives. It’s a very complex social situation that requires a nuanced approach to support people.” – Alexander McClelland, Concordia PhD student

Counting the Cases

The Community AIDS Treatment Information Exchange, a Canadian resource for information on HIV/AIDS, states that about 75,500 Canadians were living with the virus by the end of the 2014, according to the yearly national HIV estimates.

That number has gone up since. On Monday, Sept. 19, Saskatoon doctors called for a public health state of emergency due to overwhelmingly increasing cases of new infections and transmission, according to CBC.

In Quebec, there have been cases surrounding transmission and exposure. In 2013, Jacqueline Jacko, an HIV-positive woman, was sentenced to ten months in prison for spitting on a police officer—despite findings that confirm that the disease cannot be transmitted through saliva.

In this situation, Jacko had called for police assistance in removing an unwelcome person from her home. Aggression transpired between her and the officers, resulting in her arrest and eventually her spitting on them, according to Le Devoir.

“[This case] is so clearly based on AIDS-phobia, AIDS stigma and fear,” added McClelland, “and an example of how the police treat these situations and use HIV as a way to criminalize people.”

Police intervention is crucial in the fight against HIV criminalization. McClelland urged people to consider the consequences of involving the justice system in these kinds of situations.

“It’s important to understand that the current scientific reality for HIV is that it’s a chronic, manageable condition. When people take [antivirals] they are rendered non-infectious,” he said. “They should then understand that the fear is grounded in a kind of stigma and historical understanding of HIV that is no longer correct today.”

The first instinct, or notion of calling the police in an instance where one feels they may have been exposed to the virus in some way is “mostly grounded in fear and panic,” he said.

“[Police] respond in a really disproportionate, violent way towards people—so I would consider questioning, or at least thinking twice before calling the police,” McClelland explained.

On the other hand, he suggested approaching the situation in more conventional, educational and progressive methods.

“I think it could be talked through in different ways—by going to a counselor, talking to a close friend, engaging with a community organization, learning about HIV and what it means to have HIV, and understanding that the risk of HIV transmission are very low because of people being on [antivirals].”

As for the current state of Canadian legislation, there are a lot of complexities that hinder heavy-hitting changes to the laws.

Due to the Supreme Court’s rulings in 2012, they are unlikely to review the decision for another decade. For now, the main course of action is “on the ground,” said McClelland. From mitigating people from requesting police involvement in order to “slow down the cases,” to raising awareness through events such as Concordia’s Community Lecture Series, and engaging with the people to resolve issues in community-based ways and collective of care.

Then, McClelland said, “trying to do high-level political advocacy to get leaders to think about how they can change the current situation” would be the next step.

Editorial: Community-Based Research is the Key to HIV Destigmatization and Decriminalization

Opinions by The Link — Published September 19, 2016

Receiving an HIV-positive diagnosis is already a life sentence. The state of Canada’s legal system threatens to give those living with the virus another one.

An HIV diagnosis is accompanied by its own set of complexities that are not encompassed in Canada’s criminal law. By pushing HIV non-disclosure cases into the same box as more easily defined assault cases, we are generalizing an issue that frankly cannot be simplified.

This does not reflect the reality that one faces when living with HIV. Criminalizing the virus further stigmatizes what should and could be everyday activities.

This puts the estimated 75,000 Canadians living with HIV at risk of being further isolated. This takes us backwards, considering the scientific progress that has been made to make living with the virus manageable. Under the proper antiviral medication, one’s risk of transmitting the disease is incredibly low. This stigma is rooted in an antiquated understanding of what HIV is and the associated risks—much of that fear having emerged primarily as a result of homophobia.

Further, with over 185 cases having been brought to court, Canada is leading in terms of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure. This pushes marginalized communities farther away. According to estimates from 2014, indigenous populations have a 2.7 higher incidence rate than the non-indigenous Canadian average. Gay men have an incidence rate that is 131 times higher than the rest of the male population in Canada.

As of Sept. 19, doctors in Saskatchewan are calling on the provincial government to declare a public health state of emergency, with a spike in HIV/AIDS cases around the province.

In 2010, it’s reported that indigenous people accounted for 73 per cent of all new cases in the province. Outreach and treatment for these communities are at the forefront of Saskatchewan’s doctor’s recommendations for the government.

With such a highly treatable virus, however, the problem should never have gone this far. It is an excerpt from a much bigger issue.

As we can see from the available statistics, HIV—both the virus and its criminalization—is a mirror for broader inequalities that exist within society. HIV related issues disproportionately affect racialized people, gender non-conforming people, and other marginalized groups.

Discussions around HIV also must include discussions around drug use. The heavy criminalization of injection drugs has created a context where users are driven deep underground, thus putting them at an incredibly high risk for contracting the virus. Treating drug use as a health rather than a criminal issue is an integral part of any effective HIV prevention strategy. Safe injection sites, such as Vancouver’s InSite, have made staggering differences in their communities and prove to be a positive way of combating the spread of HIV.

This is just one of the many ways that we can control the spread of HIV without judicial intervention, without turning the HIV-positive population into criminals.

Using community-based research enables us to not only understand the needs of the affected population—particularly when it comes to understanding the almost inherent intersectionality associated with the spread of HIV—but also allows us to better target our resources towards those who need it most.

Often times, that stretches to include those closest to HIV-positive individuals. Spreading awareness, and developing resources and a support network for them is just as important in fighting the stigmatization of the virus.

The Link stands for the immediate decriminalization of HIV non-disclosure, and the move towards restorative justice systems in non-disclosure cases. As always, those directly affected by an issue are the ones with who are best positioned to create a solution—something that the restorative justice framework embraces.

The disclosure of one’s HIV status is important. Jailing those who don’t disclose it, however, won’t make the virus go away. It simply isolates the problem, places it out of site and out of mind.

Criminalizing HIV patients is less about justice than it is about appeasing the baseless fears of the general population. It’s time for a more effective solution.

Canada: Global Fund Replenishment Conference puts the spotlight on Canada HIV criminalisation laws

Friday and Saturday, Montreal will play host to the Fifth Replenishment Conference of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. While much of the discussion will be focused on developing countries (the Global South), where the fund has played a crucial role since is creation in 2002, this is also an appropriate time to take stock of Canadian realities.

At a time when the global effort is suffering from precarious funding, Canada has stepped up to the plate by increasing its contribution by 20 per cent, to a total of $785 million over the next three years. This commitment is to be applauded. It proves that there is a willingness on the part of government to make Canada a leader once again on the international scene. It is also a promising reminder that increased donations will get us closer to beating these diseases once and for all.

But good leadership also puts the spotlight on Canada’s own responsibility to address human-rights issues that are impediments to the improvement of public health and fair access to health services.

In the HIV sector, we know that gender inequality, racism and homophobia are the breeding grounds for the epidemic. Poverty and discrimination are further barriers to access and care. As was recently pointed out by Canada’s Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Marie-Claude Bibeau, HIV has a particularly heavy impact on young women.

In order to continue to play its part as an international leader, Canada has to make good on commitments to end these epidemics here at home. We have work to do in our own backyard in order to align the fight against HIV/AIDS with human-rights advocacy.

Canada in 2016 is a country that still imposes criminal penalties on people living with HIV: they still risk prison sentences for having sexual relations without disclosing their HIV status to their partners when they have taken the necessary precautions to avoid transmission (use of a condom or undetectable viral load), and when there has been no transmission. This increases stigma, goes against science and UNAIDS recommendations, and should not be the case in a country that otherwise is helping lead the way.

Leadership comes from inspiring the best public policy, especially when it is supported by scientific data. In this regard, Canada must go farther and support the opening of supervised-injection sites. Such harm-reduction approaches are proven to reduce rates of infection.

Furthermore, we must work to create social and legal frameworks that help sex workers, as recommended by such NGOs as Amnesty International. It is crucial that we repeal Bill C-36, the so-called “Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act” that criminalizes sex work in Canada.

This major international event will also be an opportunity to highlight how these epidemics affect migrants. Mandatory testing by immigration authorities contradicts recommendations by Canadian health experts. Rejecting migrants on the basis of their HIV or health status continues to foster prejudice in this regard. Economic arguments for refusing them entry only serve to exacerbate such inequalities. It is high time to look at universal access to treatment and the real cost of its being denied to certain people.

The Global Fund Replenishment Conference is a fitting time to demonstrate Canada’s financial support for countries most affected by HIV, TB, and malaria. Canada’s commitment to international aid is a solid foundation for global action on these issues.

But now is also the time for us to lead by example in our own country. There is much work to be done before we can truly “End it. For Good.” We need concrete measures that show Canadians stand with and support HIV-positive people.

Gabriel Girard is a post-doctoral researcher in sociology at Université de Montréal. Pierre-Henri Minot is executive director of Portail VIH/sida du Québec in Montreal. This article is based on an open letter that has been co-signed by more than 150 others. The full list is available at pvsq.org/globalfunds2016.

Mexico: HIV Justice Worldwide supports Mexican organisations' constitutional challenge against law criminalising HIV transmission in the State of Veracruz

English translation (para la versión en español, ver más abajo)

International organisations support the constitutional challenge against the law criminalizing HIV transmission in Veracruz

Before the amendment to Article 158 of the Criminal Code of Veracruz, entitled “Contagion”, which added the term Sexually Transmitted Diseases to the article, and was adopted on August 4, 2015 by the Congress of the State, the National Commission on Human Rights, in response to the request of the Multisectoral Group on HIV / AIDS and STIs of the State of Veracruz and other organisations of civil society, brought the constitutional challenge 139/2015 against the amendment to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation this past December.

This is because the legal reform indicates that among these infections, HIV and human papilloma virus are outlined and a penalty ranging from 6 months to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to 50 days salary is established for those “deceitfully” infecting another person of any sexually transmitted disease.

The reform presented by Deputy Monica Robles Barajas from the Ecologist Green Party of Mexico, was intended to “try to prevent the transmission of these infections, mainly to women and girls who are in a vulnerable position…”.

Unconstitutionality

For the CNDH, the new content of Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the State of Veracruz “generates a discriminatory treatment to the detriment of the people, and that criminalising the willful endangerment of disease transmission, generates two assumptions: that it concerns sexually transmitted infections and that it concerns serious diseases. “

In addition, he said the agency does not meet its objective of preventing the spread of sexually transmitted infections against women and girls, finding themselves in vulnerable situations, but that it create a differentiation based on the condition of certain types of infections, in this case of sexual transmission, and that it casts them as serious, a fact that is not real, because not all infections of this type are serious.

International support

A little after half a year after the appeal, organisations of international civil society such a HIV Justice Worlwide have delivered a letter to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation for the legal challenge to be considered as “there is no evidence that criminalising perceived or potential exposure to HIV or STI benefits prevention; however, there are serious concerns that criminalisation can cause considerable damage. “

The document submitted to the Court, reminds us that various international bodies such as UNAIDS, the Special Rapporteur on the right to health to the United Nations, the Global Commission on HIV and the Law and the World Health Organization, have recommended to governments to limit the use of criminal law to the extremely exceptional cases of intentional transmission of HIV (for example, when the person knows their own HIV positive status, acts with the intention to transmit HIV, and in fact transmit it).

The letter also notes that laws criminalizing HIV affect the rights of people with HIV because they cause confusion and fear about their duties under the law; they generate failures in the justice system, often as a result of inadequately informed and competent legal representation; they risk triggering prosecutions as a means of abuse or retaliation against a current or former partner; Police investigations are disproportionate and insensitive and can cause stigma and discrimination, and they promote sentences and disproportionate penalties.

In addition, fear of prosecution may discourage people, especially those belonging to those populations highly vulnerable to HIV, to get tested and know their status, because many laws apply only to those who are aware of their HIV status and thus prevent access to care and treatment because medical records can be used in evidence against them in the courts.

Worrying situation

Patricia Ponce, researcher at the Center for Research and Studies on Social Anthropology and member of the Multisectoral Group on STI and HIV / AIDS of the State of Veracruz, stated that the situation in the state is worrying because it is the region with the third highest number of cumulative cases of AIDS throughout Mexico, the second in HIV cases, the second in the number of women living with the virus and the second in the number of children affected by HIV.

Meanwhile, Edwin J. Bernard, global coordinator of the HIV Justice Network Worldwide, said that the fight against the epidemic requires the eradication of stigma and discrimination, not to add further through the legal system.

For the specific case of Veracruz, he explained that “if you want to protect women and girls from HIV, what should be done is to strengthen and empower women”.

Sean Strub, CEO of the Sero Project of the United States, explained that the existence of laws that criminalize HIV transmission is a public health issue because sanction reduces the possibility of new diagnoses.

“The best way to combat the criminalization of HIV is that people with the virus raise their hands to eradicate the situation,” he added.

Alejandro Brito, director of the civil organization Letra S, warned that if this situation is allowed to pass, “this can become a domino effect and similar changes could be approved in other states.”

In this regard, Ricardo Hernandez Forcada, director of the Programme for HIV AIDS and Human Rights at CNDH said that practically in every state, and even in federal criminal codes, there is a penalty for the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, and it is known that in Baja California Sur people have been jailed under that criterion.

——————————————————————————————————-

Organizaciones internacionales respaldan acción de inconstitucionalidad contra la ley que criminaliza transmisión del VIH en Veracruz

Ante la modificación al artículo 158 del Código Penal de Veracruz, denominado “Del Contagio”, a fin de adicionar el término Infecciones de Transmisión Sexual, aprobada el 4 de agosto de 2015 por el congreso de la entidad, la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos, en respuesta a la petición del Grupo Multisectorial en VIH/sida e ITS del estado de Veracruz y otras organizaciones de la sociedad civil, interpuso la acción de inconstitucionalidad 139/ 2015 en contra de la reforma en la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación en diciembre pasado.

Eso, debido a que la reforma legal señala que entre dichas infecciones se contempla al VIH y al virus del papiloma humano y se establece una pena que va de los 6 meses a los 5 años de prisión y multa de hasta 50 días de salario para quien “dolosamente” infecte a otra persona de alguna enfermedad de transmisión sexual.

La reforma, presentada por la diputada Mónica Robles Barajas del Partido Verde Ecologista de México, tenía la finalidad de “tratar de prevenir la transmisión de dichas infecciones, principalmente a las mujeres y las niñas que se encuentren en condición de vulnerabilidad…”.

Acción de inconstitucionalidad

Para la CNDH, el nuevo contenido del artículo 158 del Código Penal del Estado de Veracruz “genera un trato discriminatorio en perjuicio de las personas, ya que al tipificar como delito la puesta dolosa en peligro de contagio de enfermedades, genera dos supuestos: que se trate de infecciones de transmisión sexual y que se trate de enfermedades graves”.

Además, señaló el organismo, no cumple su objetivo de prevenir la transmisión de infecciones sexuales hacia mujeres y niñas, por encontrarse en condiciones de vulnerabilidad, sino que provocó una diferenciación basada en el padecimiento de cierto tipo de infecciones, en este caso de transmisión sexual, y calificarlas como graves, hecho que no es real, pues no todas las infecciones de este corte son graves.

Respaldo internacional

A poco más de medio año de haberse presentado el recurso, organizaciones de la sociedad civil internacionales como Red Justicia por VIH en todo el Mundo entregaron una carta a la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación para solicitar la admisión del recurso legal tomando en cuenta que “no hay evidencia de que criminalizar la exposición potencial o percibida al VIH o ITS beneficie la prevención; sin embargo, hay serias preocupaciones de que la criminalización puede causar un daño considerable”.

En el documento entregado a la Corte, se recuerda que diversos organismos internacionales como el Programa Conjunto de las Naciones Unidas sobre el VIH/Sida, el Relator Especial del derecho a la salud de las Naciones Unidas, la Comisión Global de VIH y la Ley y la Organización Mundial de la Salud han recomendado a los gobiernos limitar el uso del derecho penal a situaciones extremadamente excepcionales casos de transmisión intencional de VIH (por ejemplo, cuando la persona conoce su propio estatus seropositivo, actúa con la intención de transmitir el VIH, y de hecho lo transmite).

La misiva también señala que las leyes que criminalizan al VIH afectan los derechos de las personas con VIH porque provocan confusión y miedo sobre obligaciones en virtud de la ley; generan fallas en los sistemas de justicia, a menudo como resultado de una representación legal inadecuadamente informada y competente; surgen amenazas que desencadenan el enjuiciamiento como medio de abuso o represalia contra una pareja actual o anterior; las investigaciones policiales son desproporcionadas e insensibles, pudiendo provocar estigma y discriminación, y propicia condenas y sanciones desproporcionadas.

Además, el miedo al procesamiento judicial puede desalentar a las personas, especialmente a aquellas pertenecientes a poblaciones altamente vulnerables al VIH, de examinarse y conocer su estatus, porque muchas leyes se aplican sólo a quienes son conscientes de su estatus seropositivo e impide el acceso a la atención y tratamiento porque las historias clínicas pueden ser usadas como evidencia en su contra en las Cortes.

Situación preocupante

Para Patricia Ponce, investigadora del Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios sobre Antropología Social Unidad Golfo e integrante del Grupo Multisectorial en ITS y VIH/sida del Estado de Veracruz, la situación en el estado es preocupante debido a que es la entidad con el tercer número más alto de casos acumulados de sida de toda la República Mexicana, el segundo de casos de VIH, el segundo en número de mujeres viviendo con el virus y el segundo con niños afectados por VIH.

Por su parte, Edwin J. Bernard, coordinador global de la Red Justicia por VIH en todo el Mundo, consideró que el combate contra la epidemia requiere erradicar el estigma y la discriminación, no añadirle aún más a través del orden jurídico.

Para el caso concreto de Veracruz, explicó que “si se quiere proteger a las mujeres y niñas del VIH, lo que se debe hacer es fortalecerlas y empoderarlas”.

Sean Strub, director ejecutivo de Sero Project de los Estados Unidos, explicó que la existencia de leyes que penalizan la transmisión del VIH son un asunto de salud pública porque sancionar reduce la posibilidad de realizar nuevos diagnósticos.

“La mejor manera de combatir la criminalización del VIH es que las personas con el virus alcen la mano para erradicar la situación”, añadió.

Alejandro Brito, director de la organización civil Letra S, advirtió que si se deja pasar la situación, “esta se puede convertir en un efecto domino y podrían aprobarse modificaciones similares en otros estados”.

Al respecto, Ricardo Hernández Forcada, director del Programa de VIH SIDA y Derechos Humanos de la CNDH, señaló que, prácticamente, en todos los códigos penales estatales, e incluso el federal, hay alguna penalización por la transmisión de infecciones de transmisión sexual, y se tiene conocimiento de que en Baja California Sur se ha encarcelado gente bajo dicho criterio.

Fuente: Notiese