You care about Criminalisation (You just don't know it yet): A site-specific project by Avram Finkelstein for Visual AIDS

YOU CARE ABOUT HIV CRIMINALIZATION (YOU JUST DON’T KNOW IT YET)* is a site-specific project by artist/activist and SILENCE=DEATH co-creator Avram Finkelstein for Visual AIDS, created for the 2018 New York City Pride March.

This past Sunday, Visual AIDS was involved in the NYC Pride March for the first time in decades, distributing over 7,500 copies of the newly commissioned artistic broadsheet project about the stakes of HIV criminalization to thousands of people along the march route.

The criminal justice system considers HIV a deadly weapon and in many states exposing someone to HIV is a crime, regardless of condom use, viral load, or actual risk of transmission.

For people living with HIV, a contentious relationship, a personal misunderstanding or even a minor infraction of the law can lead to prison sentences of over thirty years, sensationalized media coverage, and registration as a sex offender.**

Know the facts. AIDS is not over. HIV criminalization can be.

* Courtesy of HIV Is Not a Crime Flash Collective

** Courtesy of Sero Project

Visual AIDS has been deeply inspired by the significant strides made by activists working against HIV criminalization over the past several years and hope that this project will raise awareness and inspire people to take action.

Join our efforts as we continue to advocate against HIV criminalization by distributing YOU CARE ABOUT HIV CRIMINALIZATION (YOU JUST DON’T KNOW IT YET): View, download or print the broadsheet for distribution here.

Visual AIDS would like to sincerely thank the dozens of volunteers who joined us at the NYC Pride March this year for their energy and efforts to support the project and advocate against HIV criminalization. We also thank Avram Finkelstein for his visionary collaboration on this project.

US: North Carolina's HIV criminalisation reform protects people who are undetectable but leaves others vulnerable

In North Carolina, an HIV Criminalization Reform Bill Passed, but People Who Aren’t ‘Undetectable’ Remain at Risk

Until recently, North Carolina was one of two-dozen states that directly criminalize HIV exposure, but in a historic move this year, the state updated its HIV control measures to conform with the modern understanding of transmission risk.

North Carolina’s unique journey to HIV criminalization reform might serve as a roadmap for other advocates hoping to modernize their own state’s laws. But it hasn’t been without controversy, with some advocates taking issue with North Carolina’s new carve-out for HIV-positive people who have achieved viral suppression.

Thanks to antiretroviral treatment, people who take a pill every day are no longer capable of transmitting the virus to others, a scientific framework called “undetectable equals untransmittable” or “U=U.” North Carolina’s new rule protects that population completely, but it leaves others vulnerable to legal ramifications.

That’s a problem, some argue, because it might deepen racial disparities that already exist in prison sentences and in viral suppression. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, black North Carolinians make up only 22% of the state’s population yet account for 55% of all people in state prisons and local jails; whites comprise 65% of the state’s population but only 36% of those in state prisons or jails. When it comes to viral suppression, in North Carolina, 62% of all people with HIV are virally suppressed. But 66% of whites living with HIV in the state are undetectable, compared with 61% of blacks and 51% of Latinx people.

“These concerns are valid and need to be addressed,” says Christina Adeleke, communications and development coordinator with North Carolina AIDS Action Network (NCAAN). But addressing these “bigger system issues … is a conversation that’s way bigger than HIV criminalization.”

Adeleke and her colleagues at NCAAN were instrumental in bringing about North Carolina’s reform and presented their process for advocating for reform at the 2018 HIV Is Not a Crime Training Academy in Indianapolis. If it were up to NCAAN’s executive director Lee Storrow, he would repeal HIV criminalization laws outright. But Storrow and Adeleke both emphasize that they are working in a Southern state, where it’s tough to move the needle on HIV criminalization reform.

“We wanted to advance it as far forward as we had the capacity to, without going so far that we wouldn’t achieve anything,” explains Storrow.

“We had to be very mindful to be in lockstep with the state,” Adeleke adds. “Where we landed was as far as we could go at this point.”

According to Storrow, North Carolina now has the most progressive HIV criminal law in the South. He argues that decriminalizing behaviors for people who have achieved viral suppression is an important first step. Additionally, North Carolina’s reform contained other important changes, eliminating stigmatizing words, such as “infected” and “retarded,” and conforming with new federal rules around HIV-positive organ donation.

Now, NCAAN is hoping that North Carolina’s modernized rules will encourage people who are living in the shadows to seek treatment, knowing that they’ll be protected from prosecution if they’re able to take their medications every day.

NCAAN’S Journey

Dozens of HIV criminalization laws were passed in the 1990s and 2000s when fear of the epidemic was at an all-time high. But, today, some lawmakers are rethinking these decades-old rules in the wake of mounting evidence that they’re based on outdated science. California recently modernized its law to reduce HIV transmission from a felony to a misdemeanor — a reform advocates consider a best-case scenario. Meanwhile, other states have moved in a different direction, broadening their HIV criminalization laws to include hepatitis C and other sexually transmitted infections.

But, unlike other states, North Carolina’s HIV criminalization rules are not baked into the legal code. Instead, the rules exist as part of the state’s public health control measures, under the purview of the Commission for Public Health.

In 2017, those control measures were up for review, and NCAAN saw an opportunity to finally modernize the state’s criminalization rules. Initially, state officials only wanted to reform the control measures to include the federal HIV Organ Policy Equity Act (HOPE Act), which legalizes organ donation between HIV-positive people, said Storrow.

However, NCAAN advocated for broader reforms, arguing that the state should decriminalize condomless sex between HIV-positive couples and mixed-status couples who use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Moreover, NCAAN fought to eliminate non-disclosure prosecutions for HIV-positive people who are virally suppressed, based on the contemporary understanding that effective treatment prevents people with HIV from passing the virus to others.

It took months of meetings and many strained conversations to convince some state officials that HIV criminalization rules should be modernized. In part, that’s because many people still believe that HIV is a highly contagious death sentence.

People assume that if you are living with HIV, you are in a constant state of being able to transmit HIV to other people,” says Adeleke. “In reality, if you are on medication and in treatment and virally suppressed, it is physically not possible to do that. You can live a normal life.”

Eventually, a compromise took shape, and the new, modernized rule took effect in January 2018. Storrow says the changes made are meaningful to many North Carolinians, especially couples who are on treatment and no longer need to fear prosecution. But he also called the changes “incomplete,” asserting that there’s a long way to go in the effort to completely decriminalize HIV in his state.

Adeleke hopes North Carolina’s journey can be a model for other Southern states that must balance the desire for radical reform against the backdrop of conservative-leaning leadership.

Adeleke recommends that other advocates working in the South familiarize themselves with specific legislation and public health laws in their own states.

“See who specifically is in charge of making certain decisions; you may find you have allies waiting in certain parts of government who can help you move this along,” she adds.

In North Carolina, the majority of people on the HIV reform task force were people living with HIV, Adeleke says.

“The process was inspiring because it showed how a community can take ownership of a particular topic that’s really affected them,” she says. “To be able to achieve the result we did was exciting.

Sony Salzman is a freelance journalist reporting on health care and medicine, who has won awards in both narrative writing and radio journalism. Follow Salzman on Twitter: @sonysalz.

Published in the Body on June 25, 2018

Canada: The treatment of people living with HIV at the hands of Canada Supreme Court perpetuates stigma and fear

Our Highest Court’s Position On HIV Disclosure Is Steeped In Stigma

It perpetuates fear through a set of decisions that force those living with HIV to disclose their status, even if the risk of transmission is non-existent.

Canada’s reputation as a caring and progressive society has been tarnished by how the nation’s highest court has stigmatized people living with HIV. And, as recent court battles show, the supreme court rulings aren’t just charged and stigmatizing, they are also on shaky legal ground.

During an impassioned lecture at the University of Calgary recently, celebrated human rights advocate and HIV activist Justice Edwin Cameron, of South Africa’s highest court, described the treatment of those living with HIV at the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) as a “uniquely Canadian monstrosity.

“Worldwide, despite antiretroviral treatment, about one million people die of AIDS annually. Many of them, roughly but accurately expressed, are dying of stigma,” said Cameron, who was diagnosed with HIV in 1986. His struggle with the virus, and his advocacy work, formed part of his best-selling memoir, Witness To AIDS.

Stigma, he argued, is “a social brand of judgment, an imprint of contempt and ostracism” that perpetuates silence and shame, and even fear of diagnosis, meaning too many people are not accessing the treatment that can restore their health.

The Supreme Court of Canada, charged Cameron, has served to perpetuate that fear with a set of decisions that imposed a legal duty on those living with HIV to disclose their status to partners even if they are receiving antiretroviral treatment, which reduces the virus to virtually undetectable levels.

“Canada has a dubious distinction. After the United States and Russia and eastern European countries,” said Cameron. “It has prosecuted more cases, it has put more people in prison for simple non-disclosure of HIV infection, than any other country. It lags behind only a handful of jurisdictions in absolute numbers of convictions.”

And all the prosecution, which results from non-disclosure being treated in Canada as a criminal offence, is doing more harm than good, according to the Community, AIDS, Treatment, Information Exchange (CATIE), a Canadian group that promotes good practices for treatment and prevention programs for those living with HIV and hepatitis C.

CATIE points out there is zero evidence to show criminal penalties deter participation in behaviours that present risk of transmission. But prosecution is effective in deterring people from getting tested, while giving the public a false sense of security that criminal prosecutions will somehow protect them, Cameron pointed out. CATIE has recorded at least 184 instances of criminal charges in Canadian cases of non-disclosure.

“How can it be that Canada places so injurious a brand mark of stigma on people living with HIV, more so than many other western countries,” stated Cameron.

At the heart of it lie two supreme court decisions — (R v.) Currier and (R v.) Mabior.

‘Rape with no rapist’

Henry Currier of B.C. was charged with aggravated assault for not disclosing his HIV to two women with whom he had consensual, unprotected sex. Neither of his partners contracted the virus but the Supreme Court ruled his failure to disclose his condition constituted fraud, thus negating consent.

“The result was rape with no rapist, but instead only a sexual partner with a medical condition that was neither communicated, nor transmitted to the other partner,” said Cameron. The decision, “punished those with HIV solely for having HIV and for not disclosing it.”

“In doing so (R. v.) Currier created a new monster legal category of aggravated assault with no assault, except emotional exposure to an infectious disease, and no aggravation, except judicial enforcement of societal condemnation of the accused person’s conduct… in not disclosing his infection.”

“This criminal category, the most expansive, judicially created doctrine targeting HIV on the planet, is a uniquely Canadian monstrosity.

The issue of HIV non-disclosure returned to the Supreme Court in 2012 with R. v. Mabior.

Clato Mabior stood trial on 10 counts of aggravated assault involving nine women and was sentenced in 2008 to 14 years for not disclosing his status. Mabior was receiving antiretroviral treatment at the time and none of his partners contracted HIV.

Cameron said the court failed to take into account established medical evidence of the efficacy of antiretroviral treatment and HIV transmission. Furthermore, other people living with more communicable and deadly diseases are not bound to disclose.

“From a moral point of view, Mr. Mabior, like Mr. Currier, are unappealing. But it is not the court’s task to yield to moralism or to invent overbroad criminal doctrines to enforce it.”

Published in the HuffPost on June 14, 2018

US: The criminal law is falling behind, ignoring advances in HIV science

Fighting for HIV justice

Writer and advocate Olivia Ford argues that the modern realities of living with HIV are being overlooked by the criminal justice system.

Advances in global HIV prevention, care, science, and treatment in recent years — and the potential benefits to the lives of people living with, at risk of acquiring and affected by HIV— are astounding. Effective HIV treatment has made healthy and normal lifespans a reality for millions of people living with HIV across the globe, and treatment and human rights advocates continue to work to secure access to these lifesaving treatments for everyone living with HIV.

The science is clear: When taking effective anti-HIV medication, a person living with HIV cannot transmit the virus to a sexual partner. If they are pregnant, the chance that their baby will acquire HIV during birth can drop to less than one percent.

Even without being on treatment or using a condom or other barrier, HIV is difficult to transmit. And if HIV transmission occurs, the person acquiring HIV has a serious but manageable disease and can expect to live a normal lifespan with adequate treatment. Yet these soaring advances — which have saved and extended countless lives — have all-too-often been misunderstood, misrepresented, or ignored within criminal justice systems the world over.

So what is HIV criminalisation?

HIV criminalisation is a term that describes the unjust use of the criminal law (or similar laws, such as public health, civil and/or administrative law) to punish and control the behaviour of people living with HIV based on their HIV status. Behaviour in these cases is most often consensual in nature.

This can happen through HIV-specific criminal statutes, or by applying general criminal laws governing offences such as assault (including sexual assault), reckless endangerment, or even attempted murder, to instances of potential or perceived exposure to HIV. Use of the law in this way ignores robust and widely available scientific and medical evidence related to HIV and its transmission, and to the realities of living with HIV in the modern era of the epidemic.

HIV criminalisation is a growing, global phenomenon. However, it seldom receives the attention it ought to, considering not only that it undermines the HIV response by compromising public health and the human rights of people living with and affected by HIV, but also that there is no evidence of any benefit from these laws.

In many instances, laws that criminalise HIV are exceedingly vague or broad — either in their wording, or in the way they have been interpreted and applied. This opens the door to a host of potential human rights violations against people living with HIV.

Usually these laws are used to prosecute individuals who are aware they are living with HIV and allegedly did not disclose their HIV status prior to sexual relations (HIV non-disclosure); are perceived to have potentially exposed others to HIV (HIV exposure); or are thought to have transmitted HIV (HIV transmission). The laws are often enacted, and applied, based on myths and misconceptions about HIV transmission — as well as stigma against communities living with or affected by HIV.

Some of these laws allow prosecution for acts that constitute no, or a vanishingly low, risk of HIV transmission: spitting, biting, scratching, oral sex, sex with condoms or a low viral load. In many countries a person living with HIV who is found guilty of other “crimes” — notably, but not exclusively, sex work, or someone who spits at or bites law enforcement personnel during their arrest or incarceration — often faces enhanced sentencing even when HIV exposure or transmission was impossible, or virtually impossible.

Two significant problems with most HIV criminal laws and prosecutions are that they typically focus on proof of HIV disclosure, rather than on whether a person had any intent to do harm or whether a perceived harm (i.e., transmission) actually occurred; and felony punishments and severe sentences sometimes treat any level of HIV exposure risk as the equivalent of murder, manslaughter, or rape with a weapon — a patently false and dangerous equivalency. One key aim in reforming HIV criminal laws can be to challenge these two problems by advocating for the corresponding core legal principles that convictions must require proof that the person intended to do harm; and the degree of punishment must be closely related to the level of harm.

As of February 2018, HIV Justice Worldwide estimates that 68 countries currently have laws that specifically allow for HIV criminalisation; including the 29 individual states in the United States with such laws raises the total to 97 jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions have non-specific laws that are still used to criminalise people living with HIV. Prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, exposure, and transmission have been reported in 69 countries — 116 jurisdictions, including 38 US states and the US military. HIV-related cases can be challenging to track — even more so in countries where such information is not freely available. Therefore, it is impossible to determine an exact number of HIV-related criminal cases for every country in the world.

Much of what is known about individual cases comes from media reports. Mainstream media plays a significant role in reinforcing a society’s prejudices, and HIV criminalisation is just one lens for witnessing that insidious process. Because HIV criminalisation stories may involve salacious details of “sex, drugs, and crime,” media outlets may use dramatic headlines highlighting those details to grab attention in busy media markets. The images and language used in these stories increase the notoriety of specific defendants, and can serve to further marginalise and target individuals who are already members of vulnerable groups.

Where do the criminalisation laws come from?

The world’s first HIV-related prosecutions, and eventually HIV-specific laws, occurred in the mid-late 1980s, when HIV was truly a death sentence for millions of people who acquired the virus. These legal actions grew out of lack of control of the epidemic and widespread ignorance about the nature of HIV transmission. Their enactment was also driven by stigmatising myths of “intentional HIV transmitters” fed by mainstream media reports that often exploited other forms of bias, such as anti-black racism and homophobia.

The number of countries enacting such laws has increased in the decades since, even as powerful HIV drugs became available which dramatically lengthened lifespans for those with access to them, and reduced to zero the risk of HIV transmission from those taking them. Sub-Saharan Africa had no HIV-specific laws when the 21st century began; now nearly half the countries on the continent have a mechanism for prosecuting people living with HIV. This trend has also been presenting in high-income countries in recent years.

Who do these laws target?

Under these overly broad statutes, virtually anyone who is living with HIV could be prosecuted. Laws that criminalise people living with HIV disproportionately affect communities that already face undue levels of policing, incarceration, and human rights abuses — including people of colour; sex workers; women, inclusive of transgender women; and people living at the intersections of these identities.

These laws are often framed as protecting women “victims” from dishonest partners. But laws that criminalise HIV exposure do not protect women. Women living with HIV may face violence if they disclose their HIV status, but risk arrest and prosecution if they do not disclose — or they do disclose, but their partner claims they did not. Many women have been arrested or sent to prison based on accusations by former partners who used HIV criminal laws as a tool of harassment or control, often after the woman attempted to end the relationship.

Because women may be more likely than men to engage with sexual and reproductive healthcare due to pregnancy, women are often the first person in a relationship to be tested for HIV and to know their HIV-positive status. Even just an allegation of being the one to “[bring] HIV into the home” or simply an accusation of non-disclosure that leads to an encounter with the criminal system, can result in a woman losing her housing, property, child custody, and more, creating negative repercussions for her entire family.

Most laws require only that a person knew their HIV status for a successful prosecution. This effectively punishes a person living with HIV for the health-seeking action of knowing their HIV status, and can result in a “he said/she said/they said” battle in court, in which the person who knows their HIV-positive status usually loses.

HIV criminalisation is at odds with public health objectives, such as UNAIDS’ 90-90-90 goals for ending epidemic HIV. Anecdotal evidence as well as several analyses have suggested that fear of prosecution may deter people — especially those from communities highly vulnerable to acquiring HIV — from getting tested and knowing their status, because laws apply mainly to those who are aware they are living with HIV. HIV criminalisation can also block access to HIV care and treatment, undermining counselling and the relationship between people living with HIV and healthcare professionals, because medical records can be made publicly available and used as evidence in court.

There is no evidence that HIV criminalisation laws deter behaviour that can transmit HIV, or reduce the number of new HIV cases. Further, by making it illegal for a person with HIV to have sex without disclosing their status, HIV criminalisation delivers the inaccurate message that all people with HIV are inherently dangerous, and that an adequate prevention strategy is to rely on partners to disclose and avoid those who share the information that they are living with HIV.

In reality, a large proportion of new HIV cases result from unprotected sex with a person who is living with HIV, but has not become aware of their HIV status through testing — or has had barriers to staying connected to HIV care. In a true public health approach, all consenting partners must take responsibility to engage in safer sex.

The above is an extract from Making Media Work for HIV Justice. Read in full here

Published in NAPWHA on June 13, 2018

Day With(out) Art 2018: ALTERNATE ENDINGS, ACTIVIST RISINGS (Mark S King, Sero, US, 2018)

A showcase of visual art and poetry made by advocates working against HIV criminalization at HINAC 3.

Mark S King’s film, produced for SERO, for Visual AIDS’ Day With(out) Art.

Canada: Advocates frustrated by lack of clarity of British Columbia's new prosecutorial guidelines on HIV non-disclosure

BC’s HIV non-disclosure rules are falling behind

Advocates for people living with HIV say they are disappointed and frustrated by new guidelines from the BC Prosecution Service on how to handle HIV non-disclosure cases.

Medical and legal experts on HIV issues agree nearly unanimously that criminal law should not be used in HIV non-disclosure cases except in the most extreme circumstances. The BC Prosecution Service — government lawyers responsible for deciding whether to lay criminal charges — say it isn’t their job to update the law.

The new guidelines give little detail about when people with HIV have a legal duty to disclose to sexual partners, or in what situations transmission should be considered an insignificant risk.

The ambiguity over laws on HIV non-disclosure recently raised its head in the case of Brian Carlisle, a BC marijuana activist who was charged last summer with 12 counts of aggravated sexual assault. The charges were later dropped when prosecutors concluded Carlisle could not have transmitted the virus because his viral load was too low.

As Ontario and the federal government move to update their stances to reflect modern medical science and understandings of the disease, BC is stalled at an impasse. The lack of clarity on who might be charged and for what, HIV advocates say, casts a shadow over people living with HIV in the province.

Here’s a quick primer on HIV and the law in Canada:

In the defining case R v Mabior in 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that people should only be charged for non-disclosure if there is a “realistic possibility of transmission.” This could be avoided, the court decided, if an HIV-positive person has a low viral load and also uses a condom. Otherwise, the accused could be found guilty of aggravated sexual assault, a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a lifetime on a sexual offender registry.

HIV advocates have long argued that applying criminal law to HIV non-disclosure is almost always a mistake. Criminalization leads to fear and stigma, they say, and disincentivizes people from getting tested or informing past sexual partners that they might have been exposed to the virus.

Studies have shown that prosecutions disproportionately target gay, Black and Indigenous men, and police sometimes publish online the names, faces and HIV status of people charged with not disclosing they have HIV before they have even seen a day in court.

Advocates say that public health interventions, such as getting offenders access to HIV medication and mental health services, are more effective than the brute force of criminal prosecution.

The medical understanding of HIV has also progressed since Mabior. In 2016, hundreds of scientists around the world issued a consensus statement concluding that people with HIV who take antiretroviral drugs (medications used to manage HIV infection) and thereby achieve an undetectable viral load have effectively no risk of transmitting the virus sexually, even through condomless sex. More than half of people with HIV in Canada are estimated to have an undetectable viral load.

On Dec 1, 2017, World AIDS Day, both the Ontario and federal governments took serious steps to catch up to the science on HIV. Ontario’s attorney general announced that the province would no longer prosecute non-disclosure cases if the suspect has a suppressed viral load. At the same time, a federal Department of Justice report argued that Canada should move away from the “blunt instrument” of the law to managing HIV.

On the same day, newly-appointed BC Attorney General David Eby floated his own trial balloon, telling CBC that the province was ready to rethink the issue. Decriminalization advocates were hopeful. After all, Eby was a past president of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the same organization that had fought against criminalization in the Mabior courtroom.

When BC published new prosecutorial guidelines in March, their hopes were deflated. The policy largely summarizes the conclusions of Mabior, adding that prosecutors should “consider the available medical information specific to the accused.” It isn’t clear what medical conditions would need to be the case for a prosecution to go ahead.

That’s not enough, says Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

“They’re really abdicating responsibility, and hiding falsely behind the Supreme Court ruling,” Elliott says. “It’s a kind of intellectual dishonesty.”

Elliott says at the very least the policy should make it clear what counts as a realistic possibility of transmission, ruling out people who wear condoms, have an undetectable viral load, or only have oral sex.

In an email to Xtra, BC Prosecution Service lawyer Daniel McLaughlin says it isn’t the prosecution service’s job to explain how the law will be applied. The service’s policies are simply meant to give prosecutors a guide for how to evaluate cases on an individual basis, and reflect what the criminal law says.

“Policy provides guidance, but it cannot and should not dictate the result in every case,” McLaughlin writes. “Crown counsel need to make decisions that fit the unique circumstances of each case. For this reason, very few policies contain mandatory directives.” Prosecutorial guidelines, McLaughlin says, can’t override the law, and are meant to reflect what judges have decided on the issue.

Elliott disagrees. “There is this line being repeated that ‘We’re just doing what we’re required to do by the Supreme Court in Mabior,’” he says. “And it doesn’t really hold any water. It doesn’t make sense.”

“The ruling in Mabior doesn’t mean that you must prosecute people in all of these circumstances,” Elliott adds. “Just because you can pursue one doesn’t mean you ought to.”

BC has prosecuted far fewer HIV non-disclosure cases than Ontario, but Elliott says even if the Crown chooses not to lay charges, the threat still hangs over the heads of HIV-positive people.

“If you’re not going to prosecute these cases, why not just say it?” he says.

Xtra also reached out to BC Attorney General David Eby’s office. Eby replied in a written statement that he was not involved in the development of the prosecutorial policies. He also said he supports federal reform of the criminal laws, which could “provide clarity and consistency across the country and provide much-needed guidance to police, prosecutors and the judiciary.”

In addition to federal law reform or new guidance from prosecutors, it’s also possible change in HIV law will arrive through the courts. In a recent high-profile case, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal threw out an aggravated sexual assault conviction against a man after hearing expert testimony that his low viral load meant he effectively could not have transmitted the virus to his sexual partners.

Published in Xtra on June 11, 2018

Livestream: HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy: Closing Plenary (HJN, 2018)

HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy Live from the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 6 June 2018

Live stream hosted by Mark S King www.myfabulousdisease.com

This live stream was brought to you by HIV Justice Network www.hivjustice.net

Directed and produced by Nicholas Feustel

Running order (click on the time cues to jump there):

1) Pre-show with Mark S King and guests 00:08

2) Rapporteur session 03:48

3) Issues around the AIDS 2020 conference 13:30

4) State reports 16:17

5) Breaking news 40:14

6) Thank you’s 41:37

7) Chant 48:04

8) After show 49:59

Facilitated by Naina Khanna Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA With Susan Mull Rapporteur PENNSYLVANIA and many, many others

Side show interviews with Sean Strub SERO Project PENNSYLVANIA and Edwin J Bernard HIV Justice Network UK

Livestream: HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy: Plenary 6 – Leave No One Behind: Intersections of HIV Criminalization with Sex Work, Drug / Syringe Use, and Immigration (HJN, 2018)

HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy Live from the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 6 June 2018

Live stream hosted by Mark S King www.myfabulousdisease.com

This live stream was brought to you by HIV Justice Network www.hivjustice.net

Directed and produced by Nicholas Feustel

Running order (click on the time cues to jump there):

1) Unscheduled action by people with disabilities 00:08

2) Pre-show with Mark S King and guests 05:39

3) Plenary 09:35

4) After show 1:28:39

Introduced by Allison Nichol SERO Project WASHINGTON DC Facilitated by Carrie Foote HIV Modernization Movement INDIANA With Tiffany Moore Criminalization survivor TENNESSEE Cris Sardina Desiree Alliance ARKANSAS Marco Castro-Bojorquez US PLHIV Caucus and HIVenas Abiertas CALIFORNIA Chris Abert Indiana Recovery Alliance INDIANA Zaniya James L.A.T.E. Project INDIANA

Side show interviews with Arneta Rogers Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA

Livestream: HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy: Plenary 5 – From Mexico to Colombia: The Latin-American Fight Against Criminalization (HJN, 2018)

HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy Live from the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 5 June 2018

Live stream hosted by Mark S King www.myfabulousdisease.com

This live stream was brought to you by HIV Justice Network www.hivjustice.net

Directed and produced by Nicholas Feustel

Running order (click on the time cues to jump there):

1) Pre-show with Mark S King and guests 00:08

2) Plenary 13:02

3) After show 1:53:48

Introduced by Naina Khanna Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA Facilitated by Gonzalo Aburto SERO Project NEW YORK Dr Patricia Ponce Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH MEXICO Ricardo Hernandez Forcada Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH MEXICO Leonardo Bastidas Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH MEXICO Brisa Gomez Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH MEXICO Dr Alfredo Daniel Bernal Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH MEXICO Paola Marcela Iregui Parra Universidad del Rosario COLOMBIA German Humberto Rincon Perfetti Lawyer COLUMBIA Interpreter: Liz Essary Cabina Event Interpreting INDIANA

Side show interviews with Diego Grajalez CNET+ Belize, Edwin J Bernard HIV Justice Network UK and Marco Castro-Bojorquez USPLHIV Caucus and HIVenas Abiertas CALIFORNIA

Livestream: HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy: Plenary 4 – Towards Liberation: Advancing a Racially Just HIV Criminalization Reform Movement (HJN, 2018)

[FYI: We didn’t live stream Plenary 3 due to confidentality concerns

HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy Live from the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 5 June 2018 ]

Live stream hosted by Mark S King www.myfabulousdisease.com

This live stream was brought to you by HIV Justice Network www.hivjustice.net

Directed and produced by Nicholas Feustel

Running order (click on the time cues to jump there):

1) Pre-show with Mark S King and guests 00:08

2) Plenary 11:06 3)

After show 1:30:01

Introduced by Rebecca Wang Positive Women’s network – USA CALIFORNIA Facilitated by Kenyon Farrow The Body NEW YORK With Waheedah Shabazz-El Positive Women’s Network – USA PENNSYLVANIA Robert Suttle SERO Project NEW YORK Marco Castro-Bojorquez US PLHIV Caucus and HIVenas Abiertas CALIFORNIA Maxx Boykin Black AIDS Institute CALIFORNIA Naina Khanna Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA Toni-Michelle Williams Racial Justice Action center GEORGIA

Side show interviews with Stacy Jennings BULI participant SOUTH CAROLINA and Barb Cardell Colorado Mod Squad COLORADO