The November 2017 edition of the Positive Justice Project newsletter is available here.
US: HIV Criminalisation Webinar on Dec 7 for criminal defense attorneys about the current state of medicine
2017 FREE Webinar: HIV Criminalization Webinar
On December 7, 2017, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and The Center for HIV Law & Policy (CHLP), will co-host a webinar on HIV Criminalization that will provide participants with a medical primer about the current state of medicine with regard to HIV research and treatment. This primer, geared toward criminal defense attorneys, but open to all, will be coupled with a discussion on how to use medical research to develop defenses, present the court with mitigation, negotiate favorable pleas for clients, and litigate constitutional, evidentiary, and discovery issues. There will also be a section exploring the ethical issues that attorneys must grapple with when handling these cases. See attached event flyer.
Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017
When: 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. ET
Cost: FREE
CLE credit: Available for up to *1.5 hours of CLE (general) where self-study credit authorized and approved.
Register: Click here to register.
Canada: Canadian organisations issue joint statement on the federal Justice Minister report “Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV.”
AN IMPORTANT, MODEST ADVANCE ON WORLD AIDS DAY Federal and Ontario governments take first steps toward limiting unjust HIV criminalization, but must work with community and experts to go further The following statement is issued jointly by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO), Canadian Positive People Network (CPPN), the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law + HIV Exposure (CLHE), and the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization: December 1, 2017—
Today, after years of advocacy by community organizations, both the federal and Ontario governments have finally recognized the need to limit the “overcriminalization of HIV” in Canada. They have each taken a first step toward that end— specifically, by recognizing that a person living with HIV who has a suppressed viral load should not be criminally prosecuted, because this is at odds with the science. This morning, the federal Justice Minister released her department’s long-anticipated report, “Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV.”
The report contains a number of important conclusions warranting a more limited application of the criminal law than is currently the case. In particular, the report explicitly recognizes that HIV is first and foremost a public health matter, that the use of the blunt instrument of the criminal law should be a matter of last resort, that the application of the criminal law to HIV non-disclosure is likely to disproportionately affect people Indigenous, gay and Black people. The report also recognizes that it is problematic, in at least some circumstances, to use the law of sexual assault to deal with allegations of HIV non-disclosure.
Meanwhile, the Ontario Attorney-General and Minister of Health have released a joint statement confirming that “HIV should be considered with a public health lens, rather than a criminal justice one, wherever possible,” and that in light of the overwhelming scientific consensus for cases where an individual has a suppressed viral load for six months, Ontario’s Crown Prosecutors will no longer be proceeding with criminal prosecutions in such cases.
These are welcome first steps. But what is needed is deeper, broader reform. Earlier this week, the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization (CCRHC) released a joint Community Consensus Statement endorsed by more than 150 organizations across the country, from the HIV sector and beyond. Developed through several months of cross-country consultation, the statement shows clear consensus against the current overly broad use of the criminal law in Canada against people living with HIV and the urgent need for action from federal, provincial and territorial governments.
The Community Consensus Statement declares that, in accordance with international guidance, criminal prosecutions should be limited to cases of actual, intentional transmission of HIV. It also specifically identifies circumstances in which criminal prosecution for alleged HIV non-disclosure is clearly inappropriate. In particular, the Community Consensus Statement declares that HIV related criminal charges are not appropriate where a person living with HIV engaged in activities that, according to the best available scientific evidence, posed no significant risk of transmission, which activities include: § oral sex; § anal or vaginal sex with a condom; and § anal or vaginal sex without a condom while having a low viral load.
It is encouraging, therefore, that Justice Canada’s report recommends that the criminal law should not apply to people who have a suppressed viral load.
Furthermore, Justice Canada recommends that: The criminal law should generally not apply to persons living with HIV who: are on treatment; are not on treatment but use condoms; or, engage only in oral sex (unless other risk factors are present and the person living with HIV is aware of those risks), because the realistic possibility of transmission test is likely not met in these circumstances.
These conclusions need to be reflected in clear prosecutorial directives issued by federal and provincial Attorneys General. However, the announcement today by the Attorney General of Ontario – which province accounts for more than half the prosecutions to date in Canada – falls well short of this, as it only commits to refraining from prosecutions in cases where someone has a suppressed viral load.
These conclusions by Justice Canada should also be recognized by judges across Canada when they are called upon by prosecutors to apply the existing legal framework, under the law of sexual assault as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.
However, it remains that case that prosecuting HIV non-disclosure as sexual assault is misguided and damaging, not only to people living with HIV but also to the integrity of the law of sexual assault. We therefore welcome Justice Canada’s conclusion that, in the absence of intent to transmit HIV to a sexual partner, sexual offences are not appropriate.
As declared in the Community Consensus Statement released earlier this week, HIV non-disclosure must be removed from the reach of sexual assault law. We note that the Ontario Attorney General has explicitly echoed the call by the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization to examine potential Criminal Code reform.
Canada: Ontario will no longer prosecute people who don't disclose their HIV status if they have a suppressed viral load
Ontario to curb prosecution of HIV non-disclosure cases
Crown attorneys will not prosecute cases of HIV-positive people who do not disclose they have HIV if they have had a “suppressed” viral load, or amount of HIV, in their blood for six months.
The Ontario government announced Friday, World AIDS Day, that Crown attorneys will no longer prosecute cases of HIV-positive people who don’t disclose their status to their sexual partner when the person who is HIV-positive has had a suppressed viral load for six months.
Viral load is the amount of the HIV virus in a person’s blood.
The announcement was a response to the federal justice department’s report titled “Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV,” released Friday.
The report, backed by analysis from the Public Health Agency of Canada, concludes that the criminal law should generally not apply to people who are on HIV treatment (which suppresses their viral load and makes transmission unlikely), are not on treatment, but use condoms, or engage only in oral sex.
“The realistic possibility of a transmission test is likely not met in these circumstances,” the report concludes.
The federal report recognized that HIV “is first and foremost a public health issue,” and concluded that non-disclosure prosecutions disproportionately affect people who are Indigenous, gay and Black.
While the province’s announcement to limit prosecutions was seen as modest progress, a number of organizations quickly pointed out that the government should only be prosecuting cases where there was actual, intentional transmission of HIV.
Ontario has been criticized by advocates as being a world leader in unjustly prosecuting HIV-positive people, typically charging them with aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partner.
Published in the Star on Dec 1, 2017
Philippines: LGBTQ rights groups and advocates appeal to government authorities and medias to "Stop HIV shaming"
‘Stop HIV shaming’: When status is not the story
MANILA, Philippines – When agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) arrested 11 men in a drug bust at a hotel in Taguig City on Monday, November 27, the agency revealed more information than necessary during its press conference the following day.
Aside from announcing the raid yielded P387,000 worth of party drugs, PDEA showed mug shots of suspects and even mentioned that one of them is positive for HIV.
Immediately, mugshots photos of the suspects and keywords like “gay men,” “orgy,” and, “HIV” appeared in headlines and social media posts referring to the raid.
Netizens and advocates from the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transexual, and queer (LGBTQ) community slammed the PDEA and media outlets that carried the angle for baring the mugshots and the disclosure of one’s HIV status. They argued that, by doing so, PDEA and the media outlets only helped perpetuate the stigma attached to the LGBTQ community and people living with HIV.
Unfortunately, this incident took place only 3 days before the world observes the World AIDS Day on Friday, December 1.
Guidelines for authorities
Disclosing to the media that one of the suspects tested positive for HIV was unnecessary, according to Senator Risa Hontiveros and several LGBTQ rights groups and advocates, like Dakila, Red Whistle, Pedal HIV, and UP Babaylan.
Their appeal to government authorities is the same: Stop HIV shaming. (READ: [DASH of SAS] Better police handling, media coverage of drugs and HIV needed)
“While the use of prohibited drugs is illegal, their sexual orientation and HIV status are unimportant and should have been treated with utmost sensitivity and respect,” UP Babaylan said in a statement.
While PDEA has since apologized, Hontiveros said in a statement released on Wednesday, November 29, that PDEA and law enforcement agencies should train themselves on the ethics and protocols in the proper handling of persons living with the human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV).
“I welcome PDEA’s apology, but we cannot ignore the mental and emotional damage already inflicted on the said person. Living with HIV is not a crime. Whatever legal and criminal charges he is facing, testing positive for HIV has nothing to do with them,” Hontiveros said.
Hontiveros added that government agencies like PDEA should be at the forefront when it comes to fighting the stigma attached to PLHIV.
“Our authorities should help in telling the public that the HIV-AIDS epidemic can be effectively addressed and that persons living with HIV should have their rights protected. Our authorities should not aid the further stigmatization of those living with the disease,” she added.
Media reporting
Advocates, on the other hand, chided media groups that carried the angle for their unethical and sensational reporting. According to them, media groups that unnecessarily highlighted the HIV reference violated the confidentiality clause stated in the Republic Act 8504 or the Philippines AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998.
Article 6 of the HIV law generally aims to promote confidentiality in handling all medical information, particularly the identity and status of PLHIV. (INFOGRAPHIC: How is HIV transmitted?)
In the Philippines, there are no clear guidelines and prohibition in media on HIV disclosure. Bills filed by Dinagat Island Representative Kaka Bag-ao and Senator Risa Hontiveros seek to address this gap by strengthening the confidentiality clause of the current HIV law.
Globally, groups observe the following ethical guidelines and principles in reporting about HIV and AIDS:
- Accuracy is critical.
- Misconceptions should be debunked.
- Clarity means being prepared to discuss sex.
- Balance means giving due weight to the story.
- Journalists should hold all decision makers to account.
- Journalists should ensure that the voices and images of people living with and affected by HIV and AIDS are heard and seen.
- Journalists should respect the rights of people with HIV and AIDS.
- Particular care should be taken in dealing with children.
- Discrimination, prejudice, and stigma are very harmful.
These guidelines were echoed by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), a media watchdog.
In a phone interview with Rappler, CMFR editorial manager Lawrence Idia said journalists bear the responsibility of discerning which information to report to the public.
“On the part of the media, when you obtain information, you should also make sure that it does not cause any harm or violate privacy. In this case, the stigma should not have been reinforced,” he said in a mix of English and Filipino.
Idia said setting guidelines for the media on reporting sensitive issues like HIV and AIDS would be good starting point in helping break the stigma.
Fighting the stigma
Advocates agreed that the actions of PDEA and some media groups greatly affected the country’s fight against the stigma attached to PLHIV and against the health epidemic in general.
Last August, the Department of Health (DOH) cited the latest data from the UNAIDS Report on global HIV epidemic states, and announced that the Philippines has the “fastest growing” HIV epidemic in Asia-Pacific.
According to the report, the new HIV cases among Filipinos more than doubled from 4,300 in 2010 to 10,500 in 2016.
“Just reading the comments from the articles about the buy-bust is disheartening. This stigma against the LGBTQ+ Community and people with HIV/AIDS should not be tolerated,” Dakila communications director Cha Roque said.
In any case, this drawback did little to dampen the spirits of advocates who are at the frontlines in the goal to raise awareness about HIV and AIDS.
“We need to be constantly talking about how our society deals with the LGBTQ+ community. Dakila believes that as much as we celebrate that ‘love wins,’ we shall also remember that with love comes the right to express yourself, and not to be discriminated for it,” added Roque. – Rappler.com
US: Exploring the link between HIV criminalisation, the threat of long prison sentences, racial inequalities and plea bargains
Michael Johnson, HIV Disclosure, and the Coercive Nature of Plea Bargains
On Sept. 21, 2017, Michael Johnson, a former college wrestler, entered a no-contest plea in the St. Charles Circuit Court in Missouri. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, which includes time served for the four years he has already spent behind bars.
As readers might remember, Johnson was arrested in 2013 and charged with non-disclosure of his HIV status to six sexual partners. Johnson said that he had disclosed; the prosecution argued that he hadn’t and that one of Johnson’s partners later tested positive for HIV.
In a trial rife with racism and homophobia, the young black gay college student was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He appealed and, in April 2017, the state supreme court upheld his right to a new trial.
However, Missouri’s laws around HIV non-disclosure are among the harsher in the country. Under the state’s statute, originally passed in 1988 and made harsher in 1997 and 2002, HIV non-disclosure before sex is a felony. So is HIV transmission. It doesn’t matter whether a condom was used; what matters is whether defendants can prove that they told their partner before having sex.
If he had taken his chances at a new trial, Johnson risked a 100-year prison sentence if another jury of twelve found him guilty.
Johnson’s experience, complete with the threat of a century in prison, might seem shocking, but the reality is that plea bargains are extremely common.
Plea Bargains: An Everyday Occurrence
Nearly all felony convictions — 94% at the state level and 97% at the federal level — are the result of plea bargains.
This has even been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court, coincidentally in a case that originated in Missouri. In August 2007, college student Galin Frye was arrested and charged with driving with a revoked license. Because he had been convicted of the same offense three times before, the state of Missouri charged him with a class D felony, which carried a maximum sentence of four years. Three months later, the prosecutor sent Frye’s attorney a letter offering two plea bargains. If Frye pled guilty to the felony charge, the prosecutor would recommend that Frye serve only 10 days of a three-year sentence. This still meant that Frye would be saddled with a felony record (and have to spend 10 days in jail). The second offer reduced the charge to a misdemeanor, which carried a maximum sentence of one year behind bars; the prosecutor would recommend that Frye serve only 90 days. These offers, the letter continued, would expire on Dec. 28, one week before Frye’s Jan. 4 court hearing.
But Frye’s attorney didn’t bother to tell his client about the letter or the plea offers. Two days after the offer had expired, on Dec. 30, 2007, Frye was again arrested for driving with a revoked license. Frye pled guilty and, though the prosecutor requested 10 days in jail, the judge sentenced Frye to three years in prison. It was only after he had been sentenced that Frye learned about these plea offers. He filed for post-conviction relief, arguing that, had his attorney told him about the letter, he would have accepted the misdemeanor plea bargain.
His case made it to the Supreme Court, which, in 2012, sided with him. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged the overwhelming significance of the plea bargain: “‘[H]orse trading [between prosecutor and defense counsel] determines who goes to jail and for how long. That is what plea bargaining is. It is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system.'” But, by the time the decision was issued, Frye had already served his sentence.
When he was arrested in 2013, a year after the Missouri v. Frye decision, Michael Johnson had no prior criminal record. However, he was a black gay man being tried in St. Charles, a county that is 90% white and among the country’s top 100 conservative counties. During his summation, the prosecutor freely admitted to intentionally including prospective jurors who considered gay sex a sin. The jury deliberated for just over two hours before convicting Johnson of five of the six counts and recommended 30 years in prison.
“Pleas Are the Norm and Trials Are Not”
Even those facing charges for the first time have a high incentive to accept a plea rather than wait (and wait and wait) for their constitutional day in court.
Mariame Kaba is the director and founder of Project NIA, a nonprofit organization based in Chicago that works toward ending youth criminalization and incarceration. She told TheBody.com that in her years working with criminalized youth, less than a quarter of those facing criminal charges have ever taken their case to trial. “Pleas are the norm,” she said, “Trials are not.” The threat hanging over each defendant’s head is that, if he or she exercises the constitutional right to a trial and loses, the prosecutor will demand the highest possible penalty. If people plea bargain, they can receive a more lenient sentence.
In 2009, Robert Suttle pled guilty to HIV non-disclosure. In Louisiana, where Suttle had been arrested and was facing trial, intentional exposure to HIV carries a possible ten-year prison sentence. When his attorney told him that he could plead guilty and instead serve two years of probation, he decided to do just that. “They already have evidence that you are HIV positive,” he explained to TheBody.com. “You know your status, which shouldn’t be a crime, but the burden is on you to prove that you did disclose.” Facing the chance that a guilty verdict would mean a decade in prison, Suttle opted for what he felt was the lesser punishment.
Like many defendants, Suttle was never in the room when his attorney and the prosecutor hashed out a possible plea bargain. In fact, he told The Body, he had already started working in another state by the time his attorney and the prosecutor began negotiations.. It was only after pleading guilty that he learned that he would not only spend two years on probation, but also six months behind bars and 15 years on the sex offender registry. “I pled to something not fully understanding the implications,” he reflected.
But it’s not simply the threatened sentence that pushes many towards plea bargains. Kaba noted that many youth, particularly those who are low-income youth of color, are assigned bail amounts that their families cannot afford, which results in them spending lengthy amounts of time in jail as they await their day in court. “And,” Kaba added, “Jail is hellish.” In addition, more often than not, they’re assigned public defenders who are overloaded with other cases and unable to provide any shadow of time-intensive, let alone zealous, representation.
At the same time, the hammer of the criminal justice system doesn’t fall equally on everyone. “Race is involved in the criminal punishment system at every level,” Kaba reminded TheBody.com. Black people are up to ten times more likely to be arrested than people of other ethnicities. Black people are also 10% more likely than whites to be either remanded to jail before trial or unable to afford bail; they are also more likely to be offered pleas involving incarceration rather than probation.
HIV criminalization follows that same pattern. The Williams Institute found that, in California, white men were significantly more likely to be released without charge (61% of HIV-specific criminalization cases). But black men, while making up 14% of people living with HIV in California, made up nearly one-fifth (19%) of those criminalized because of their HIV status. The disproportion for black women was even higher: Though they are only 4% of the state’s population living with HIV, they make up 21% of those who have had contact with the criminal justice system because of their status.
As reported previously, HIV criminalization has long been used as a prosecutorial threat, even if HIV-specific charges are never filed in court. In New Orleans, Women With a Vision organizes with low-income African-American women, many of whom are living with HIV. Policy director Nia Weeks, who previously worked as a public defender, noted that the city’s district attorney often threatens to upcharge (or increase criminal charges) or to use the state’s habitual offender laws to coerce people to plead guilty.
Race and Place Matter
When considering whether to take a chance at trial or to accept a plea bargain, race and place matter.
Kaba of Project NIA has co-founded campaigns to support abuse survivors criminalized for self-defense. She points to the case of Ky Peterson, a black trans man incarcerated in Georgia for shooting the man who raped him. When he was taken to a clinic for a rape exam, the woman conducting the exam told him that he didn’t look like a rape victim. The police and prosecutors didn’t believe him either, instead accusing Peterson, whom they assumed to be a woman, of luring the man into a trailer with promises of sex and setting him up to be robbed by his brothers.
After a year in jail, Peterson signed a plea agreement for what he thought was involuntary manslaughter and a ten-year sentence. (According to the court transcripts, however, Peterson actually pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 20 years.) “He knew that people were not going to believe him, that as a black trans man he was raped,” Kaba stated.
But it’s not just race and place. There’s also understanding — or a lack of understanding — about HIV. Suttle, a black man living in Shreveport, Louisiana, recalled that the prosecutor in his case was a black woman; the judge was a black man. “We have people in places of power prosecuting people based on their limited knowledge of HIV: that it is a death sentence,” he explained. At the same time, he recalled, he didn’t know anything about HIV criminalization — or resources to help him fight the charges. “People now have resources — the Sero Project, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, advocates to consult with, opportunities to reach out and get more information rather than relying on courts to be fair,” he reflected. At the same time, he realizes that many people remain unaware that such resources exist and, like him, sit in court feeling alone and desperate. “That means there’s a lot more work for us to do,” he said.
In Missouri, with the threat of a 100-year sentence hanging over his head, Michael Johnson, a black gay man living with HIV, might also have feared that a jury would not believe him.
“It takes a lot here for people to be open about their HIV status,” said Devin Hursey, a member of the steering committee for the U.S. People Living With HIV caucus and a member of the Missouri HIV Justice Coalition. Hursey lives in Kansas City, a three-hour drive across the state from St. Charles, where Johnson was tried and convicted. “Prevention workers are very progressive, but the average Missourian, unless they know about public health and the way that HIV is transmitted, is not.”
Hursey, now age 27, still remembers learning about HIV in 7th grade when the Dramatic Health Education Project through the Coterie Theater performed at his junior high. “They did two monologues,” he recounted. “The actors told stories of people living with HIV.” But, he acknowledges, that particular learning experience doesn’t happen in every school.
Symptoms of the System
The white, conservative suburb of St. Charles is approximately 15 miles from the suburb of Ferguson, where the police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown sparked protests both locally and nationwide. St. Charles is also less than 25 miles from St. Louis, where police officer Jason Stockley was recently acquitted in the 2011 fatal shooting of Anthony Lamar Smith. His acquittal triggered weeks of protest, which were often met by police violence.
Not that Missouri’s racial tensions are restricted to St. Louis and its suburbs, Hursey reminded TheBody.com. Last year, the state passed a law allowing prosecutors to charge schoolchildren, regardless of age, with a class E felony for a school fight in which someone is injured. Class E felonies carry a penalty of up to four years in prison. Missouri already has a high suspension rate — and the highest racial disparity among suspensions in the nation. During the 2011 to 2012 school year, the state suspended 14.3% of its black elementary schoolchildren at least once; in contrast, only 1.8% of white schoolchildren were suspended. Missouri elementary schools go from kindergarten to fifth grade, meaning that their students range from ages five to ten.
For Michael Johnson, pleading guilty means that parole is his next hope of an earlier release. But parole practices in Missouri have long been fraught with opportunities for parole board members to humiliate prisoners seeking early release. One parole commissioner, who was particularly known for humiliating and intimidating parole applicants, has since resigned, but Johnson will still face an uphill battle not only to obtain parole but also not to be returned to prison for a petty parole violation.
As they regroup and plan to continue supporting Johnson, HIV activists recognize that the struggle doesn’t end with Johnson or even the repeal or modernization of HIV criminalization statutes. Charles Stephens, executive director of the The Counter Narrative Project, which advocates around issues that impact black gay men, told TheBody.com: “Racist sentencing practices in the criminal justice system have been a key tactic in the practice of white supremacy throughout history. Michael Johnson is very much a victim of this system. We must continue to recognize that the struggle against HIV criminalization is also connected to the struggle against mass incarceration and racism.
Victoria Law is a freelance writer and editor. Her work focuses on the intersections of incarceration, gender and resistance. She is the author of Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women. You can find more of her work at Victorialaw.net.
Canada: Over 150 Canadian organisations call on Federal Government to reform the Criminal Code
Time to act: Over 150 organizations across Canada call on Federal and Provincial Governments to end unjust criminalization of HIV
For The First Time, The HIV Community And Other Concerned Organizations Are Calling On The Federal Government To Reform The Criminal Code.
TORONTO, November 27, 2017 — With World AIDS Day just a few days away, the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization (CCRHC) has released a joint Community Consensus Statement endorsed by over 150 organizations across the country, from the HIV sector and beyond. Developed through several months of cross-country consultation, the statement shows clear consensus against the current overly broad use of the criminal law against people living with HIV and the urgent need for action from federal, provincial and territorial governments.
For the first time, the HIV community and other concerned organizations are calling on the federal government to reform the Criminal Code. They are also calling on federal and provincial Attorneys General to develop sound prosecutorial guidelines to prevent further miscarriages of justice, and for training of police, prosecutors and judges.
A year ago, on World AIDS Day 2016, federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould acknowledged that the “over-criminalization of HIV non-disclosure” contributes to stigma and undermines public health, and that the criminal justice system has not caught up to the existing science. Indeed, Canadian scientists have repeatedly expressed their concern about the misuse of the criminal law.
“That was a welcome statement by the Justice Minister,” said Chad Clarke, a member of the Coalition who has spoken publicly about the toll on him and his family of being prosecuted and imprisoned. “People living with HIV in Canada continue to be singled out for prosecution and sent to jail for allegedly not disclosing their status to a sexual partner even if they have no intent to harm their partners, take precautions to protect their partner and do not transmit the virus. People are being prosecuted even when there is little or no possibility of transmission.”
After a year of study, it is time to act.
The Community Consensus Statement declares that, in accordance with international guidance, criminal prosecutions should be limited to cases of actual, intentional transmission of HIV.
“With more than 200 prosecutions to date, Canada has the third-largest total number of recorded prosecutions for alleged HIV non-disclosure in the world, and one of the highest rates of prosecution in the world. This is simply not acceptable,” said Cécile Kazatchkine, senior policy analyst with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, a member of the Coalition. “People accused of HIV non-disclosure most often face charges of aggravated sexual assault, one of the most serious charges in the Criminal Code. Conviction carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and mandatory designation as a sex offender. This approach has been criticized both domestically and internationally, including by United Nations expert bodies.”
“People living with HIV in Canada deserve better and demand better,” said Alex McClelland, a member of the Coalition’s steering committee and a researcher at Concordia University whose current project documents the first-hand experience of people who have faced charges for allegedly not disclosing their HIV status. “Right now, lives are being ruined by an outdated and stigmatizing approach to criminal justice.”
“We can’t ignore how the misuse of the criminal law, including sexual assault charges, is harming some of those people living with HIV who are most vulnerable,” said Muluba Habanyama, a member of the Coalition who was born with HIV. “It is time that the federal and provincial ministers of justice take action and work with stakeholders—people living with HIV, HIV organizations and service providers, women’s rights advocates and scientific experts—to limit the unjust use of criminal law which discriminates against people living with HIV.”
The Community Consensus Statement comes shortly before the UNAIDS Executive Director arrives in Ottawa for an official visit in conjunction with World AIDS Day (from November 29 – December 1). UNAIDS has previously recommended much narrower limits on the use of the criminal law than is currently the case in Canada.
The Community Consensus Statement, including the full list of endorsers, is available online.
About The Canadian Coalition To Reform HIV Criminalization
The Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization (CCRHC) is a national coalition of people living with HIV, community organizations, lawyers, researchers and others formed in October 2016 to progressively reform discriminatory and unjust criminal and public health laws and practices that criminalize and regulate people living with HIV in relation to HIV exposure, transmission and non-disclosure in Canada. The Coalition includes individuals with lived experience of HIV criminalization, advocates and organizations from across the country. It includes a steering committee on which a majority of members are people living with HIV.
Malawi: Human Rights Activists celebrate adoption of amended HIV Law that removes rights-infringing provisions (Press Release)
PRESS RELEASE 28 November 2017
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS CELEBRATE MALAWI’S ADOPTION OF AMENDED HIV LAW THAT REMOVES RIGHTS-INFRINGING PROVISIONS
Lilongwe – On Tuesday, 28 November, Malawi Members of Parliament voted to reject coercive and criminalising provisions that threatened human rights in a long-deliberated HIV (Prevention and Management) Bill.
Activists and people living with and affected by HIV celebrated outside Parliament after having protested for months against rights-infringing provisions in the HIV Bill, tabled earlier this year. The Bill, which had its origins in a 2008 Law Commission Report, included provisions to make HIV testing and treatment mandatory for select populations on a discriminatory basis, and provisions that would criminalise HIV exposure and transmission, amongst others.
Civil society and activists argued that these provisions would violate the Malawi Constitution, be at odds with international best practice, and compromise the country’s efforts to advance HIV treatment and prevention.
On Tuesday, Members of Parliament debated amendments to the Bill advanced by Members and its HIV Committee. Minister of Health, Hon. Atupele Muluzi, urged Members to endorse these amendments when adopting the Bill, emphasizing that criminalising HIV had negative public health implications. Parliament voted to support all the amendments proposed by the HIV Committee and, in addition, voted to delete a contentious provision relating to “deliberate infection” with HIV. After a second reading, the Bill was passed subject to these amendments.

“It is thanks to women activists who fought to have their voices heard that Parliament has recognised that abandoning human rights protections will only drive vulnerability to HIV,” said Sarai-Chisala Tempelhoff of the Women Lawyers Association (WLA Malawi). “When the evidence tells us women and girls should be at the forefront of our response to HIV, it is important to understand the criminalisation would only increase the risk of violence and abuse that Malawian women face; strengthen prevailing gendered inequalities in healthcare and family settings; and further drive stigma, fear and discrimination around HIV.”
“Mandatory testing and treatment and criminalization of HIV transmission and exposure are counter-productive to reaching the goals of the HIV response in Malawi. We are glad our voices have been heard through the work of organisations like ICW Malawi, the Coalition of Women Living with HIV/AIDS (COWLHA), the Female Sex Workers Association, the Women Farmers Coalition and others. Human rights have prevailed today in Malawi.” said Clara Banya of the International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW) Malawi.
“We are elated that Parliament has chosen to endorse a law based on evidence and reason and not on stigma and fear. It is people who are most marginalized in our society who would suffer most under coercive and criminalising laws – these are people who need society’s support, not punishment.” said Victor Mhango, Executive Director of the Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance (CHREAA).
Gift Trapence, Executive Director of the Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP), agreed, “While we urgently need to embrace key populations to advance human rights and the HIV response in Malawi, the Bill was proposing to create further barriers. While the amended version adopted by Parliament does not speak to key populations directly, we must celebrate that at least it hasn’t added to the legal barriers as initially proposed.”
MacDonald Sembereka, Executive Director of the Mango Key Populations Network said, “As actors in the sector we urge for the prompt assent and implementation of the Act as it is long overdue.”
“We commend and support the incredible advocacy of Malawian civil society and women activists in particular who have refused to be silenced into accepting compromises on punitive laws and policies,” said Michaela Clayton, Director of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA). “The role of human rights in an effective HIV response is as important now as it has always been.”
“While some provisions remain that are perplexing and of which we should remain wary (such as those placing duties on people living with HIV to adhere to treatment), Parliament’s acceptance of the amendments in the Act is a victory for citizens and supporters of human rights in Malawi who resisted efforts to enact the Bill in its original form at all costs,” said Annabel Raw, health rights lawyer at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC).
Laurel Sprague, Executive Director of Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) said, “GNP+ applauds the remarkable community effort that focused on education, current science and best practices. Women living with HIV, sex workers, and women lawyers led the way in explaining why punitive laws harm the HIV response and ensuring that a human rights approach is at the centre of Malawi’s HIV response.”
Statement by:
The AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA)
The Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP)
The Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance (CHREAA)
The Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+)
The International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW) Malawi
The MANGO Key Populations Network
The Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)
Women Lawyers Association, Malawi
ENDS
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Lesley Odendal (Communications Lead, AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa) Email: communications@arasa.info; Tel: + 27 72 960 8991.
Annabel Raw (Health Rights Lawyer, Southern Africa Litigation Centre) Email: AnnabelR@salc.org.za; Tel: +27 10 596 8538.
Mexico: First Spanish language ‘HIV is Not A Crime’ meeting leads to new Network and impressive early results
In October 2017 the first Spanish-language ‘HIV Is Not A Crime’ meeting took place in Mexico City, supported by the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition.
The two-day meeting brought together people living with HIV, activists, lawyers, human rights defenders, and academics from across Mexico – alongside HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners CNET+ (Belize), Sero Project (USA), and the HIV Justice Network – to discuss the current state of HIV criminalisation nationally, regionally and globally.
As well as learning about HIV criminalisation around the world; the global movement to end HIV criminalisation; and the importance of the leadership of Networks of People Living with HIV, participants discussed reform initiatives in the three states where specific problematic laws exist (Veracruz) or were recently proposed (and Quintana Roo and San Luis Potosí).
In 2015, the Congress of Veracruz approved a reform of the Penal Code in order to add to the crime “of contagion” the term “sexually transmitted infections” (STI), among which are HIV and HPV, to “try to prevent the transmission of such infections, mainly to (vulnerable) women and girls.” The penalty includes six months to five years in prison and a fine of up to 50 days minimum wage for anyone who “maliciously” infects another person with an STI.
In San Luis Potosí, the governor, Juan Manuel Carreras López, proposed reforms to the Criminal Code, including the creation of article 182 bis, to punish “the person knowing that he is a carrier of a sexually transmitted disease. ..) endangers the health of another person through sexual intercourse “. Thanks to quick action by local activists, the proposed reforms did not pass.
In Quintana Roo, last year Congresswoman Laura Beristain proposed reforming Article 113 of the Criminal Code to punish anyone who transmits HIV with up to 25 years in prison. A few weeks ago, following a meeting with activists including those who attend the ‘HIV is not a crime meeting’, she committed to dropping the proposal.
In addition to these HIV-specific laws, the meeting heard that 30 the 32 states that make up the Mexican Republic have a public health law that sanctions exposure to sexually transmitted infections. Only the states of Aguascalientes and San Luis Potosí do not have this law.
According to data from Letra S, at least 39 people have been prosecuted under this law between 2000 and 2016 on suspicion of having transmitted a sexual infection and / or HIV. The state with the highest number of registered cases is Veracruz, with 15; Sonora follows, with nine; Tamaulipas and State of Mexico, with five; Chihuahua, with three, and Mexico City and Nuevo León with a case.
Last year, the Veracruz Multisectoral Group on HIV / AIDS and STIs and the National Commission on Human Rights challenged the Veracruz law on unconstitutionality grounds at the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The challenge was supported by HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE in a widely reported press conference last year. However, the Supreme Court has yet to rule.
As a result of the meeting, the Mexican Network of organisations against the criminalisation of HIV was formed, bringing together 29 organizations from all over the country. During, and immediately following the meeting, the Network drafted an 11-point Declaration addressed to various governmental agencies in charge of responding to the epidemic, as well as to society in general.
Among the key points in the Declaration, they note that the Mexican State is required to assume the commitment to guarantee an integrated response to HIV (prevention, timely diagnosis and comprehensive attention) and stresses that it is not the task of the judicial authorities to develop and implement measures to prevent transmission of HIV.
The declaration also emphasises that the criminalisation of HIV exposure through “risk or danger of HIV infection” and other public health statutes that appear in the laws of individual Mexican states are generating more harm than good in terms of impact on public health, in addition to preventing the guarantee of respect for the human rights of people with HIV.
With two weeks of the meeting, Network representatives met with Congresswoman Laura Beristain, who had proposed the new unjust, overly broad HIV criminal law in Quintana Roo. She listened to their arguments, read the Declaration, and immediately gave a firm commitment to repeal Quintana Roo’s problematic provisions in Article 113.
Watch and share short video below about the meeting and the Network’s immediate advocacy win.
US: New initiative launched by Equality Florida hopes to convince lawmakers to update laws exposing people with HIV to criminal prosecution
HIV Panic in Florida Is Turning Into a Health Catastrophe
The spread of HIV in Florida has outpaced any other state in the union, yet draconian laws turn getting tested into a risky legal gamble. Now a new initiative launched by Equality Florida aims to combat the virus through education, and maybe an update in the state’s legal statutes.
The HIV Advocacy Project hopes to better educate residents about the truth of living with HIV today — information Equality Florida hopes will convince lawmakers to update regulations that effectively expose individuals to criminal prosecution once their HIV status is known to them.
Alejandro Acosta is the coordinator for the project. He’s known his poz status for a while now. How long? He won’t say, in part because of the hefty risks that come with such disclosures in Florida. “I hesitate,” Acosta says, “because of how people can use that information.”
People living with HIV in the state can face up to 30 years in prison for failing to disclose their status to a consensual partner prior to any sexual contact, even if transmission is not possible. That means prosecutors can pursue convictions whether a partner contracts the virus or not, and whether or not the HIV-positive person uses a condom or has an undetectable viral load and cannot transmit the virus.
Three years ago a Palm Beach, Fla., prosecutor arrested one man and sought 10 separate charges for his alleged failure to disclose his status to one girlfriend. The prosecutor then went to the press, asking other members of the public to come forward if they’d had sex with the defendant in the previous eight years. Stories like that, Acosta says, do little to encourage people to get tested, since knowing one’s status is an essential element in the statute. That’s particularly troubling as Florida continues to see so many new transmissions, and those could just be the tip of the iceberg.
In 2016 alone, 4,972 people were newly diagnosed with HIV in Florida (more than any other state). Gay and bisexual men in Florida continue to live with a higher risk of transmission, as do trans women of color. Youth under 25, according to the Florida Department of Health, represented 16 percent of all new HIV infections in 2014. And Equality Florida estimates that over 20,000 people in the state are already HIV-positive but just don’t know it yet.
Hannah Willard, senior policy director for Equality Florida, says it’s important to acknowledge that HIV has “never stopped being an LGBTQ issue,” but it’s also “an issue of racial and economic injustice.” That’s one reason the Florida HIV Justice Coalition involves groups like Equality Florida and The Sero Project in collaboration with the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU.
Florida’s HIV criminalization laws date back to the 1990 passage of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act (or CARE Act); the federal law required states to criminalize deliberate transmission of disease. This was seven years before antiretroviral drugs turned HIV from a deadly disease to a manageable chronic condition and 17 years before the government officially announced that HIV-positive folks with undetectable viral loads could not transmit HIV. (That federal requirement has since been dropped from Ryan White.)
In 1997, Florida legislators added HIV to a list of diseases that were criminal not to disclose. That list also included other STIs like gonorrhea, herpes, and syphilis. The law provides confidentiality to those reporting a violation — a stipulation that activists say leaves room for misuse or abuse. A California study by the Williams Institute found that prosecutors disproportionately applied a similar law there to sex workers.
“We don’t yet know how these statutes are being used by law enforcement,” in Florida, Willard says, while noting some anecdotal evidence about reports motivated by revenge.
Acosta says poz individuals in the state fear a scorned lover could claim they weren’t told of their partner’s HIV status. Social stigma immediately taints those who are accused once allegations are made public, even if there’s no evidence that they failed to disclose their status. In a 2009 case, a woman faced prosecution based on multiple long-term relationships and was hit with separate charges for each individual sexual encounter.
Now two decades old, the Florida disclosure law hasn’t been updated, and therefore ignores conclusive evidence that those with HIV who are virally suppressed to undetectable levels are no longer at risk of transmitting HIV to sexual partners.
Acosta says there are significant repercussions to the way the law discourages people from finding out if they have HIV. He grew up in Puerto Rico and says two people he knew there died from HIV-related illnesses last year.
“Nobody should be dying of HIV these days,” he says. Proper and timely treatment can prevent HIV from entering the final, often terminal, stage of the disease (also known as AIDS).
But it still happens, particularly when people don’t realize they are HIV-positive until they are physically ill. That’s a failure in testing. Others have known they were HIV-positive but never realized it can be managed as a chronic condition. That’s an issue with education, and Acosta says a big part of his job will be making sure the public knows how to control transmission through proper health care.
“[I] worry about bad policy that makes access to treatment harder, discourages people from learning their status, or creates laws that are outdated and based on fear and stigma, not science,” Acosta says.
Willard is optimistic that policy opinions across the state’s political spectrum are beginning to change through effective lobbying. She notes a bill that would have changed the law to apply only when there was a “substantial risk of transmission” won a unanimous vote in the state Senate’s Criminal Justice Committee, but died before a full Senate vote. Still, it proved strong bipartisan support could be rallied. Willard says, “I’m very optimistic and see forward movement in 2018.”
Stopping HIV transmission in Florida also requires fighting social stigma. In a state with a large Latin immigrant population, that means challenging a number of prejudices: “You have a huge number of Haitians, Jamaicans, Salvadorans with different cultural, religious, and machismo issues,” Acosta says.
The impact hurricanes Irma and Maria will have on HIV prevention and treatment in Florida and Puerto Rico aren’t yet known, but will likely linger for years. Advocates like Acosta know their complex jobs are made more difficult by laws that put people in legal crosshairs for failing to disclose their HIV-positive status — unless they don’t know they are poz.
“It goes against every policy for public health because it incentivizes not getting tested,” Acosta says.
Published in the Advocate on Nov 20, 2017