Namibia: Michaela Clayton, director of ARASA, talks about HIV criminalisation in a interview with The Namibian

IT is very difficult to prove that someone infected another person knowingly with HIV and to then prosecute them, said Michaela Clayton, director of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa, last week.

Clayton said this in an exclusive interview with The Namibian on the issue of criminalising intentional HIV infection and to prosecute those believed to have transmitted the disease maliciously.

“It is very difficult to prove who the source of the infection is, because you will have to exclude every other sexual contact and every other potential risk that the person might have been exposed to in terms of HIV infections,” she said.

“You will then have to prove that the person knew that they were infected with HIV at the time of the intercourse, and that they failed to disclose that to their partner,” said Clayton, adding that many sexual offence cases were thrown out of court because “there would be no one to witness and there is no physical evidence”.

Criminalisation of intentional HIV transmission has become a concern in the management of the disease, with many countries adopting laws that allow for prosecuting those who knowingly spread the virus.

A 2008 Arasa study found that criminalising HIV did not stop the spread of the virus, but that criminalising the spread of HIV and prosecuting those implicated only increases stigma.

Clayton said the focus of lawmakers should be on how to use the law “to respond to the spread of HIV and effectively deal with the epidemic”.

Recently, the Confidénte newspaper reported about a woman who demanded money from her partner for allegedly knowingly infecting her with ‘a chronic disease’.

Pictures of the two individuals were widely shared on social media platforms, and many critics argued that intentional infection should not be criminalised as it would increase stigma and could lead to suicides and mental problems. Clayton said although it was difficult to prove the source of the infection, Namibia has laws that can be used to get justice for the person claiming to have been intentionally infected with HIV, such as “assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm”.

Clayton said the police could be approached and a case opened, and the accused person could potentially be prosecuted for assault, but then the accuser would have to prove that they had not had sexual contact with any other person.

She said a person would also not be found guilty if they had been on anti-retroviral therapy (ART), “which at times suppresses viral load and makes it impossible to infect another person”.

“If you are on ARV and you adhere to your treatment, your viral load can go down to undetectable on a test. When your viral load is undetectable, it is almost impossible to infect another person,” she said.

CRIMINALISATION AROUND THE WORLD

A report published last year indicates that 72 countries have adopted laws that criminalise intentional HIV infection. In most countries, HIV infection is listed as the only chronic disease subject to criminalisation.

The report further states that about 61 countries have recorded prosecutions for HIV “non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and/or unintentional transmission”.

According to Aljazeera reports from last year, the US has laws that allow for HIV positive people to be criminally charged for spitting on or biting someone.

Aljazeera also reported that an HIV positive person could end up serving a lengthy prison sentence for not disclosing their status before having sex or sharing needles.

According to the report, the criminalising of HIV infection has become concerning in Africa.

“The rise of reported prosecutions in Africa during this period [2016] (in Botswana, South Africa, Uganda, and especially Zimbabwe), along with the continuing, growing number of HIV criminalisation laws on the continent, is especially alarming,” stated the report.

US: PJP update – September 2017

The September 2017 edition of the Positive Justice Project newsletter is available here.

US: Missouri’s laws should encourage people to seek testing, not motivate them to avoid it

Laws motivate many to avoid testing, treatment for HIV

I agree with the sentiments expressed by St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney Tim Lohmar when interviewed following the conviction this month of former Lindenwood University wrestler Michael Johnson. Missouri’s HIV-specific criminal codes are dated and medically inaccurate and should be changed to reflect current medical knowledge.

Missouri law makes sex by an HIV-positive person subject to criminal prosecution unless the person living with HIV can prove he disclosed his HIV status. Since disclosure is very difficult to prove, many times coming down to he-said/she-said, such laws penalize knowing your status.

I’m in no way downplaying the seriousness of knowing your status and not disclosing it in a relationship. However, our laws currently motivate many to avoid being tested and treated. That is clearly not in the best interest of health in our communities and could potentially harm many of our families.

I believe Missouri can do more to reduce the rate of transmitted diseases. That’s why I sponsored House Bill 88, a needle exchange bill, in 2017. Needle exchange participants are five times more likely to enter an addiction treatment program. That’s huge.

Needle exchanges have proven that they do not increase drug use and they help prevent serious disease outbreaks caused by needle sharing. They also protect non-drug users with whom the addicted person may be in a relationship. While governor of Indiana, Vice President Mike Pence signed a needle exchange bill to respond to their outbreak of hepatitis C and HIV. Missouri can and should do this as well.

We need to modernize Missouri’s laws that encourage people to not seek diagnosis and treatment. I look forward to working on this again in the upcoming legislative session and know many others in the Legislature see the need as well.

Published in St Louis Post Dispatch on Sept 29, 2017

US: Trevor Hoppe, author of Punishing Disease, talks about HIV criminalisation and homophobia

Last week, the Missouri trial of Michael Johnson ended when Johnson pled guilty to HIV exposure to get 10 years in prison, rather than the maximum of 96 years he might face if his case went to trial.

For many people who are diagnosed with HIV today, it is a chronic manageable disease, and more and more health officials agree that people who are HIV-positive and undetectable don’t transmit the virus. But, in the eyes of the law in many states, an HIV-positive person’s sexuality is something to be handled by the criminal justice system.

For National Gay Men’s HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, INTO spoke with Trevor Hoppe, author of Punishing Disease: HIV and the Criminalization of Sickness, due out November 14th, about HIV criminalization laws. Hoppe enlightens us on why they’re bad, why they’re homophobic and why they should be tossed out.

One of the arguments you bring up in your book is that a lot of these HIV criminalization laws that we live with now were never really, when they were written, they were framed as fighting HIV, but they came from a place of “mortality” rather than trying to combat the spread of the virus.

Definitely. So that’s one of the points that I’ve been making in my research is that from day one, criminal justice officials and police have been lobbying for these laws on the basis that they wanted to punish people living with HIV. In particular, in the early days, police were very frustrated with prostitutes who were living with HIV who they couldn’t put behind bars for more than a couple of months because prostitution was a misdemeanor.

So they were seeking a felony penalty so they could keep these mostly women behind bars for longer periods of time. Then it transitioned from a kind of fear of sex work to a fear of gay sex and homophobia. It’s never been about public health. It’s always been about punishment and irrational fears — using punishment to police irrational fears of HIV.

When AIDS hit in the 1980s, the people that were most likely to be affected were people who Americans thought were already criminals — drug users, prostitutes, homosexuals. Highly denigrated groups of people whose behaviors were thoroughly criminalized under existing law already. It wasn’t a stretch to move from blaming these groups from spreading the disease to calling for them to be punished using the criminal law.

One of the things you mention in the book is that HIV transmission became a felony because sodomy was already a felony and they didn’t want to allow people to get away with sodomy to talk about an HIV transmission charge.

There was all this fear, particularly in Nevada, but in other places as well, that if we repealed the sodomy laws in place at the time, there would be this massive outbreak of HIV because if you made gay sex legal, it would be more permissive and people would go out and infect each other.

There was this great anxiety that this would happen. So one of the deals that got struck in many states was, OK if we decriminalize sodomy, at the same time we have to find a way to criminalize people living with HIV because we’re scared without a law criminalizing their behavior, the epidemic is going to run rampant.

One of the things I noticed in your chapter was that these HIV criminalization laws, you mention them being poorly written. They really remind me of the religious freedom acts now, where state legislatures kind of copy one another and lawmakers look at one another’s paper. It really just makes these easy McBills that are copied from state to state.

We have this idea that all state lawmakers get together and craft this individual, well thought out piece of legislation. Really, the way it works is that we have these lobbying groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council that create model statutes and then shop them out to legislatures across the United States. So we have a copy and paste situation for most states and that’s part of the reason we have so many messed up laws with HIV because most states didn’t take the time to think about the issues, they just copied what neighboring states were doing and said, “Well that’s good enough!”

I’m really interested in this parallel that you draw between HIV criminalization laws and early 20th century eugenicists and the ways these laws are about controlling a population. Can you elaborate on that?

There’s a long history of using the criminal law, but also the civil law and public health to control to populations that we think are dangerous, and often times that determination is based on prejudice. We have quarantine laws being more strictly enforced against Chinese populations in San Francisco. We have sex workers being rounded up in World Wars I and II because they were seen as vectors of syphilis and other diseases.

All these efforts frail from a public health perspective because they’re not aimed at controlling disease, they’re aimed at controlling stigmatized populations and controlling them because they’re members of that social group.

A lot of people don’t know there was a movement in the United States for a time to quarantine people living with HIV. You show in this chapter that one of the architects of the early HIV criminalization laws was also a fan of quarantining people with HIV.

These things went lock and step. You had people like William F. Buckley arguing that people diagnosed with HIV should be tattooed immediately upon diagnosis. You had public health experts publishing articles in the American Journal of Public Health arguing for what they called an “HIV parole system” which was effectively quarantine with the possibility of jail time if you didn’t shape up and act in a way they deemed appropriate.

There was a really widespread effort to try to regulate people living with HIV and it was really AIDS activists that we have to thank for the fact that many of those laws never came to fruition and that we don’t have quarantine for people with HIV.

Most of these laws, as we talked about earlier, end up punishing heterosexual people, but we know that one of the most high profile cases of HIV criminalization is Michael Johnson and HIV still disproportionately affects queer people. So these laws can end up criminalizing queer sexuality still.

Absolutely. We can’t just look at who is being punished under the law, we also have to think about those other effects of how the law creates or reinforces the symbolic stigma against people living with HIV.

I know plenty of people living with HIV who live in fear that their partners will turn on them or a one-night stand can land them in jail even though they did everything they could to protect that person and, in many cases, even if they disclose. There’s still this concern that their partner, whether a one night stand or a partner, can at one point wish revenge on them. That fear is really a dangerous thing.

It’s not productive, certainly from a public health perspective. It’s emotionally draining and interesting. Really, it’s not the way to live. I think these laws are more likely to do the opposite of what they’re supposed to do. These laws are poorly written, badly construed, bad for public health, and, most importantly, bad for social justice.

What would you say to another gay man who felt like these laws actually did protect them from people living with HIV?

I think many gay men have an idea of who is being prosecuted under these laws. They imagine it to be a kind of bogeyman intentionally trying to spread the disease to their partners. They have this scary image in their mind of who is being targeted.

When I went out to research these laws, I did not know who the average person being convicted under these laws was. What I found is that the vast majority of defendants are not this scary bogeyman. They’re someone who slipped up once and they owned up to the mistake and expressed regret about it or they’re someone who was in a relationship and was struggling with how to disclose in the beginning of that relationship. There are a lot of scenarios that are far more likely to play out instead of this bogeyman scenario that most people have in their heads.

I would ask people to take a moment and not just think about the worst case scenario but think about who is being punished under these laws. They’re people like a defendant in Tennessee who attempted suicide, woke up in a hospital distressed and bit a hospital attendant and was prosecuted under Tennessee law. If you really get down to brass tacks, those are not the people they think should be punished.

And yet that’s exactly who those laws are being used to punish. There’s a disconnect between how we think the law works and how the law actually does.

People still believe that HIV is an illness of personal responsibility. When HIV-negative people imagine these laws, they imagine an HIV-positive person who in the first place must have done something wrong to get it, and then they imagine that this person might do something wrong again because they’re already morally flawed. They don’t understand that HIV is a disease of poverty, racism, homophobia, and stigma and that they themselves can one day be on the other side of the law very easily. And in America, if you do something bad, you deserve to be behind bars!

These laws are based on the idea that telling someone you’re HIV positive will surely cause them to have a different kind of sex with you or no sex at all. And really at the end of the day we have so many prevention technologies now — PrEP, treatment as prevention — that can stop transmission in its tracks when you have sex with someone living with HIV.

The evidence really suggests that the best way to get HIV is to avoid having sex with HIV-positive people and only have sex with people who think they’re HIV negative. If you think you’re keeping yourself safe by relying on people to disclose your status to you, you have another thing coming. The people most likely to transmit are people who don’t know they’re positive because their viral loads are high because they’re not on treatment.

It’s a false security blanket for many HIV-negative gay men and that’s what I guess at the end of the day, for our day to day lives, is the most important point. Have sex with someone who’s positive. That’s your best prevention strategy given the technologies that are available today!

Published in September 28, on Into

US: CDC acknowledgment that Undetectable = Untransmittable is likely to have a huge impact on legal fights over HIV disclosure laws

CDC joins consensus on HIV that ‘Undetectable = Untransmittable’

The historic announcement has significant implications for HIV advocacy efforts.

In a statement acknowledging National Gay Men’s HIV/AIDS Awareness Day Wednesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) embraced a scientific consensus with profound impacts. “When [antiretroviral therapy] results in viral suppression, defined as less than 200 copies/ml or undetectable levels, it prevents sexual HIV transmission,” the statement said.

It was the first time the agency acknowledged what several massive studies have consistently found: when an individual’s HIV viral count is undetectable, it is virtually impossible for them to transmit HIV to a sexual partner. “Across three different studies, including thousands of couples and many thousand acts of sex without a condom or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), no HIV transmissions to an HIV-negative partner were observed when the HIV-positive person was virally suppressed,” the statement continued. “This means that people who take ART daily as prescribed and achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load have effectively no risk of sexually transmitting the virus to an HIV-negative partner.”

Hundreds of experts and organizations had already signed onto a massive “Undetectable = Untransmittable” (U=U) consensus statement organized by the Prevention Access Campaign. Bruce Richman, executive director of the campaign, responded to the news by telling HIV Plus Magazine, “This is the moment we have been waiting for!”

The implications of the CDC acknowledging that there is “effectively no risk” are massive in terms of both politics and policy. As HIV Plus Magazine notes, nearly half of all HIV-positive people in the U.S. have brought their viral load to an undetectable level through treatment, so it’s significant to recognize that they are not contributing to the epidemic.

As the CDC continues to roll out messaging and information, it will likely not only impact prevention campaigns, but also legal fights over HIV disclosure laws. There are 38 states that have some version of a law that criminalizes perceived or potential exposure or transmission of HIV, and another six where individuals with HIV have been prosecuted under broader statutes. These laws — some even three decades old — rely on antiquated science and punish people with HIV for not disclosing their status to sexual partners even when they pose no risk of transmission.

Though passed with the intention of trying to protect people from HIV, their enforcement actually makes it more difficult to fight the epidemic. Studies have shown that the laws discourage people from getting tested (so as to avoid culpability), which means it’s more likely that people don’t know they’re positive and aren’t in treatment. The laws simultaneously create a false sense of security, such that men who believe their state has such a law are actually slightly more likely to engage in riskier sexual behaviors like condomless sex. Instead of protecting people from HIV, these laws are actually making it far easier for HIV to spread while simultaneously reinforcing stigma against people who are HIV-positive.

The CDC’s embrace of the consensus that “undetectable equals untransmittable” could be an effective buffer for the enforcement of these laws, if not the basis for challenging them directly. In 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling overturning a conviction under that state’s HIV criminalization law specifically because of the science showing that the individual could not have transmitted the virus because of his undetectable viral load. That same year, Iowa also became one of the first states to start to dismantle its HIV criminalization laws, which had previously been some of the harshest in the country.

Overcoming these stigmatizing laws and spreading knowledge about the research on undetectable viral loads is essential to the ongoing fight against HIV. As the CDC statement notes, men who have sex with men are still “severely affected by HIV,” representing two-thirds of all new diagnoses in the United States. Some studies have indicated that more transmissions are happening from people who have been diagnosed but who have not entered treatment. The case could not be stronger that getting them into treatment will, in most cases, halt their transmission of the virus.

Ideally, the CDC will build off this endorsement of the science and do more to advocate for that treatment. Unfortunately, President Trump has proposed massive cuts to the funding that helps supply 11.5 million people worldwide with antiretroviral drugs, and the health care policies he supports also make it harder for people with HIV to afford the care they need. It’s a good sign that the government has caught up with the science, but now it will be essential for officials to fund the policies that science supports.

Published in Think Progress on September 28, 2017

US: Update on HIV criminalisation laws in the US

HIV Criminalization update: Some U.S. Nondisclosure Laws Advance, While Others Recede

By Victoria Law

From TheBody.com

Table of Contents

First, the good:

California Law Modernizing HIV Criminalization Awaits Governor’s Signature

On Sept. 11, 2017, California lawmakers passed SB 239. As reported previously, the bill reduces HIV transmission from a felony to a misdemeanor. This means that people who are convicted will face no more than six months in jail rather than years in prison. The bill also eliminates several HIV-specific criminal laws that carry severe penalties, even for activities that do not risk exposure to HIV. SB 239 now awaits Governor Brown’s signature, the final step before becoming law.

For Nestor Rogel, a California activist living with HIV, the bill’s passage brings a sense of freedom. Rogel, who was born HIV positive, has always had to take numerous precautions to document his disclosure in order to avoid potential prosecution. Not only does the bill bring a sense of personal relief, but he’s hoping for broader changes in societal attitudes. “Decriminalization is a good step to destigmatization,” he told TheBody.com. “California is used as a model for so many things. I’m hoping that other states will take California as a model in this, as well.”

Idaho Statewide Coalition Created to Modernize HIV Criminalization Laws

In 2013, fewer than 30 people were diagnosed in Idaho, ranking the state 45th in the nation for HIV cases. That’s fewer than the number of state HIV criminalization prosecutions since its nondisclosure laws were enacted in 1988. It should be noted that, in Idaho, actual transmission is not required for prosecution.

Kerry Thomas was the first person ever prosecuted under these laws; in 1999, Thomas was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison for nondisclosure. In 2009, Thomas was prosecuted and again pled guilty to nondisclosure. This time, the judge sentenced him to 30 years. Thomas is not eligible for parole until at least March 2029.

In 2016, after attending the HIV Is Not a Crime conference, Kevin Lish of All Under One Roof LGBT Advocates of Southern Idaho began pulling together a statewide coalition to modernize laws and address the harsh penalties in the state’s HIV-specific codes. “We need laws that encourage people to be tested, know their status and have honest conversations with potential partners so that we can start curbing the number of new cases in Idaho,” he told A&U Magazine.

Now, the bad: Massachusetts Bill Would Criminalize Nondisclosure

Massachusetts Bill Would Criminalize Nondisclosure

Ten Massachusetts lawmakers are sponsoring H2295, which criminalizes HIV nondisclosure before sex or sharing needles. It also further criminalizes engaging in sex work (which is already a crime punishable by prison sentence) if the person is HIV positive, as well as donating or selling blood, organs, tissue and other bodily fluids or body parts. The proposed penalty would be a minimum of five years in prison (and a maximum of 15 years).

The bill has remained in the Joint Committee on the Judiciary since its introduction in January.

Maryland Adopts Law Authorizing Court-Ordered HIV and HCV Testing

In May, Governor Larry Hogan signed HB 1375 into law. The law authorizes judges to issue “emergency orders” for HIV and hepatitis C testing if the person is believed to have “caused exposure to a victim.” Victims include law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians (EMT), forensic scientists and health care workers collecting medical evidence of sexual assault. The law authorizes the test to be conducted via oral swab.

Tennessee Adopts Law Authorizing HIV, Hepatitis Testing of Arrested Individuals

May seems to have been a bad month for HIV criminalization. Tennessee also enacted a law requiring HIV and hepatitis testing. HB 1283 requires HIV and hepatitis testing for any arrested person if requested by a law enforcement officer, firefighter or EMT exposed to blood or bodily fluids “in any manner that presents a significant risk of transmission.” It also allows any employee of the state’s bureau of investigation’s crime laboratories who might have been exposed to bodily fluids to request such a test. Unlike the Maryland law, HB 1283 requires a blood test rather than an oral swab.

Maggi Duncan, executive director of the Tennessee Association of Police Chiefs helped draft the legislation. “We’re talking about a criminal,” she reportedly said, ignoring the fact that arrests do not automatically mean convictions or guilt. “In the course of being arrested, they could have possibly exposed a first responder.”

Published in the Body on September 21, 2017

US: New coalition in Texas aims to reform HIV criminalisation laws

Reforming HIV Laws in Texas

Lone Star Justice

A new coalition in Texas aims to reform HIV criminalization & find a united voice for people living with HIV

by Chip Alfred

It’s called the Lone Star State to commemorate a single white star that signifies Texas’ battle for independence from Mexico. Now Texans living with HIV are waging another war—fighting a legal system that locks people up for decades for behavior that poses no risk of HIV transmission.

“We need to stop criminalizing people living with HIV,” says Venita Ray, public policy manager at Houston’s Legacy Community Health. Ray, fifty-eight, an African-American attorney, was diagnosed with HIV in 2013. “There’s no evidence to show that criminalization deters behavior, or that it stops transmission. It’s just to punish us for being HIV-positive,” she adds. “If we really want to end the epidemic, we can’t prosecute our way to zero.”

Texas ranks number two in the nation in number of AIDS diagnoses. It’s also the second largest state in the country in both area and population. Unlike most states, however, Texas has no HIV-specific criminal laws. Therefore, the data on the number of HIV criminalization cases and convictions is hard to gather. It also has effectively given prosecutors wide latitude in using general criminal laws to charge HIV-positive defendants with attempted murder and aggravated assault. Texas’ aggravated assault statute makes it a second-degree felony (two to twenty years in jail and a possible fine of $10,000) “to cause serious bodily injury to another or to use or exhibit a deadly weapon in the commission of an assault.” If an aggravated assault is committed against someone the perpetrator knows is a security officer, it’s a first-degree felony (punishable by five to ninety-nine years in prison and a possible fine of $10,000).

What I found most disturbing in researching this article is that the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas have consistently upheld aggravated assault convictions in which HIV was considered “a deadly weapon”—even in cases where the only body fluid exchanged was saliva, which has never been documented to transmit HIV.

An HIV-positive man from Texas who spat at a police officer during his 2006 arrest for being drunk and disorderly was sentenced to thirty-five years behind bars by a Dallas court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict, which mandates that the defendant serve at least half of his sentence before being eligible for parole. This was because the jury found that his saliva was a deadly weapon.

In the Texas legislature, there have been recent efforts to enact laws that would make it easier for prosecutors to invade the privacy of HIV-positive defendants and build criminal cases against them for no-risk behavior like spitting. Thanks to advocates like Venita Ray, none of this legislation has passed. “When I’m standing up in front of the legislature, I’m not speaking of a hypothetical person. I’m saying, ‘What you just did impacts me.’ That has power.” Ray, with the support of The Sero Project’s Assistant Director Robert Suttle and Organizing and Training Coordinator Tami Haught under the umbrella of Sero’s Network Empowerment Project, created Texans Living with HIV (TLHIV), the first statewide network of its kind in the U.S. “This network enables Texans with HIV to determine their own priorities, select and hold accountable leadership of their own choosing and to speak with a collective voice,” says Sean Strub, executive director of Sero. “Texas now has the organizational infrastructure to be better prepared to mobilize and advocate on a whole range of issues that affect people living with HIV.”

Venita Ray tells A&U the new coalition of about twenty advocates will focus on ending isolation for PLHIV and eliminating stigma. “The same communities that are already disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system are the same people impacted most by HIV criminalization—black people, brown people, people living in poverty.”

TLHIV will take on issues that impact the quality of life for people with HIV and criminalization will be one of those. “We want to be that collective voice for people living with HIV in the state of Texas,” Ray explains. “We’re building power amongst ourselves.” The key, she says, is creating an environment where individuals feel safe to stand up, show up and speak up. “We’re building an army and we need them all. I’m a grandmother; I’m an auntie; I’m a yoga teacher. The more people see people like me or your Bible school teacher, the more we humanize this disease. The best thing I ever did was deciding not to be invisible and not be silent anymore.”

Published in A&U on Sept 21, 2017

US: Gael Adrien Mbama explores why California HIV laws are antiquated and must be modernised

Gael Adrien Mbama: HIV laws must be modernized to prevent further stigmatization

More than 119,589 people diagnosed with the human immunodeficiency virus live in California. That diagnosis alone has allowed these people to be stigmatized and receive unfair treatment under the law.

Under the California Code, Health and Safety section 120291, HIV-positive individuals who knowingly expose their partners to the disease risk up to eight years in prison. Because of this law, HIV patients have been singled out and treated as felons, instead of as individuals dealing with a serious disease.

Some lawmakers seem to understand this. California State Senator Scott Wiener introduced Senate Bill 239, which lowers the offense of intentionally exposing others to HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor. While numerous lawmakers have supported the implementation of the bill, others have voiced strong disagreement.

For instance, Republican State Senator Joel Anderson is on record stating that intentionally transmitting any life-altering diseases should require jail time. This stance is shared by other Republican state senators, such as Jeff Stone, who insisted that transmitting HIV should remain a significant crime, as reclassifying this offense to a misdemeanor would be a “miscarriage of justice.”

Despite this harsh opposition, Californians must support SB 239. Passing this bill will help decrease HIV’s prevalence by encouraging people to get tested for the disease, instead of remaining clueless about their health condition, as only those aware of their HIV status can be charged. The bill would ensure that those who are HIV-positive arenot grossly persecuted with felony charges, and would place HIV on the same standardas other communicable diseases.

California’s HIV transmission laws were written in the 1980s, when HIV’s hysteria was at its pinnacle and medication for the disease was nonexistent. These laws allowed law enforcement to prosecute HIV-positive people who exposed the virus to others, even if those exposed ended up not being HIV positive. Ayako Miyashita, director of the Los Angeles HIV Law and Policy Project at UCLA School of Law, said that while scientific advancements over the past three decades have made the eradication of the HIV epidemic possible, the law has not caught up and continues to perceive HIV as an instant, life-ending disease.

Consequently, HIV is treated in California as a criminal issue, rather than a public health problem. And the results are devastating.

Like in too many criminal justice systems throughout the nation, minorities are unfairly targeted by California’s HIV laws. Black and Latino people make up an overwhelming 67 percent of individuals prosecuted for exposing others to HIV despite only representing 51 percent of HIV/AIDS cases in California.

Hussain Turk, a UCLA law alumnus who is HIV-positive, said he thinks California’s current laws promote violence and domestic abuse. Turk said people have used HIV transmission laws as a way to seek revenge against their HIV-positive partners.

This sentiment is echoed by Dr. Edward Machtinger, a UC San Francisco professor of medicine and director of the Women’s HIV Program at UCSF. Machtinger said people can be held hostage in abusive relationships because of their fear of prosecution for being HIV positive.

Machtinger said current criminalization laws written before the existence of effective HIV medications scare people away from being tested and beginning treatment. These laws also increase the risk of more infections by shaming individuals who are HIV positive.

Indeed, because of these laws and the stigmatization that they create, HIV remains a tough disease to disclose.

Today’s HIV medications, if taken regularly, allow people to have undetectable HIV viral loads in their bloodstream and thus, lead lives without the risk of transmitting the virus to their partners.

It is clear SB 239, which is awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s approval, must be signed into law given the egregious problems resulting from California’s antiquated legislation.Threatening HIV patients with felonies has never been the appropriate means to tackle the HIV epidemic. HIV-positive individuals will continue to live with the fear that a felony is running through their veins, so long as the archaic laws from the 1980s continue to be enforced.

Of course, many SB 239 opposers believe that decreasing the offense of exposing partners to HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor will lead to a resurgence of new HIV infections. But, as Weiner points out, HIV is the only communicable disease being treated as a felony. Other life-altering diseases, like syphilis for instance, only lead to misdemeanor charges. As such, those who purposely infect their partners will still be prosecuted but on the charge of a misdemeanor, which is the standard for all other serious communicable diseases.

California ranks among the highest number of HIV cases in the nation, so it is crucial to acknowledge the indisputable failures of the current law and support SB 239. This bill can put an end to the discrimination experienced by those who are HIV positive and encourage people to get tested, therefore decreasing infections.

It is time to modernize these laws that promote racial injustice and stigmatization. And ultimately, people who are HIV positive are not felons; they just have an illness.

US: New toolkit designed to support intersectional advocacy for HIV criminal law reform published by CHLP and the National LGBTQ Task Force

HIV Criminalization Beyond Non-Disclosure: Advocacy Toolkits on Intersections with Sex Work and Syringe Use, The Center for HIV Law and Policy and National LGBTQ Task Force (2017)

The Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP) and the National LGBTQ Task Force are pleased to announce the release of an exciting new resource that can help foster more intersectional advocacy for HIV criminal law reform. HIV Criminalization Beyond Non-Disclosure: Advocacy Toolkits on Intersections with Sex Work and Syringe Use is the sum of two toolkits designed for advocates who care about ending the disproportionate criminalization of people living with HIV.

The toolkits highlight the intersections between advocacy for HIV criminal law reform, decriminalization of sex work, and safe syringe access. These different advocacy communities share many common goals and constituencies, yet do not generally work in close collaboration or collectively strategize. The toolkits underscore the ways in which certain HIV criminal laws specifically target sex workers and people who inject substances, but also how these laws and those that prohibit sex work and drug use represent the systemic criminalization of safety and survival of Black and Brown bodies and of sexual and gender minorities.

The toolkits discuss the many ways in which these issues are connected and outline concrete steps advocates can take to strengthen their intersectional advocacy. They were developed in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders and organizations.

In producing the toolkits, CHLP and the National LGBTQ Task Force reaffirm their commitment to advancing progressive policy and grassroots movement rooted in bodily autonomy, self-determination, and racial and economic justice.

**Organizational sign-on/support is also welcomed and encouraged!** For organizations interested in showing their support for the toolkits and this kind of intersectional advocacy, or for other questions, please contact Kate Boulton at kboulton@hivlawandpolicy.org or Sabrina Rewald at srewald@thetaskforce.org.

Canada: COCQ-SIDA to request a moratorium on criminal prosecutions of HIV non-disclosure in Quebec

Moratorium requested on prosecutions for non-disclosure of HIV (Translation of article in French below)

The Coalition des organismes communautaires québécois de lutte contre le sida (COCQ-SIDA) will ask the minister of Justice of Quebec on Tuesday to impose a moratorium on the use of criminal prosecutions against people living with HIV who do not disclose their medical status to their sexual partner, learned The Duty.

This moratorium is called ” right now “, and this, until the end of the consultation undertaken by the federal government in order to reform this regulation. “We hope to give more information on our progress at the end of the year “, has written for Le Devoir a spokesman for the federal department of Justice on Monday evening about this.

Currently, the supreme Court ruled that an HIV-positive person must disclose his/her HIV status to his partner prior to any sexual relationship, unless you meet two requirements, either wear a condom and have a low viral load or undetectable.

“The scientific studies show that the viral load decreases drastically [with the most recent treatments], to a point where HIV is no longer transmitted“, explains a lawyer at COCQ-SIDA, Liz Lacharpagne. That is why the coalition believes that only one of the two criteria should be taken into account.

Since 2010, the COCQ-AIDS has multiplied advances to review the regulation, considered as being discriminatory and outdated, but without success. “The guidelines we asked for were never adopted,” said Ms. Lacharpagne.

“Currently, people living with HIV are the subject of allegations of severe sexual abuse […] even in the absence of intent to cause harm, even when HIV is not passed to the partner, and even when the risk of transmission is negligible, or even zero,” writes COCQ-SIDA in a press release that will be published on Tuesday.

These criminal prosecutions contribute to stigmatize people living with HIV, states the coalition. Ms. Lacharpagne cites the example of high-profile cases where accused persons have been identified publicly as a sex offender. “It does not give a nice image of these people.”

“There is a confusion between the fact of not disclosing [their HIV status] and a sexual assault “, she says.

More lawsuits

COCQ-SIDA is particularly concerned since the beginning of the year, because it has observed a substantial increase in prosecutions for non-disclosure in Quebec. The Devoir reported on this situation in August.

Faced with the refusal of the minister of Justice of Quebec, Stéphanie Vallée, to meet with COCQ-SIDA, and in the context of the increase in lawsuits, the coalition believes that they has no other recourse but to ask for a moratorium. “It is at a political level,” explains Ms. Lacharpagne.

The cabinet of Mrs Valley did not tell le Devoir if it will impose or not such a moratorium. The case depends on the federal government, has reminded the press officer for the minister, Isabelle Married St-Onge, in a reply sent by e-mail.

“Quebec is favourable to the minimization of the stigma of people living with HIV and focuses on the approach set out by the jurisprudence of the supreme Court which provides for a fair balance between the protection of society, victims and the respect for the dignity of people living with HIV “, she adds.

————————————————————————–

La Coalition des organismes communautaires québécois de lutte contre le sida (COCQ-SIDA) demandera mardi à la ministre de la Justice du Québec d’imposer un moratoire sur les poursuites criminelles contre les personnes vivant avec le VIH qui ne divulguent pas leur statut médical à leur partenaire sexuel, a appris Le Devoir.

Ce moratoire est demandé « dès maintenant », et ce, jusqu’à l’issue de la consultation menée par le gouvernement fédéral dans le but de réformer cette réglementation. « Nous espérons donner de plus amples renseignements sur nos progrès à la fin de l’année », a écrit au Devoir un porte-parole du ministère fédéral de la Justice lundi soir à ce sujet.

Actuellement, la Cour suprême établit qu’une personne séropositive doit divulguer son statut sérologique à son partenaire avant toute relation sexuelle, à moins de remplir deux exigences, soit porter un condom et avoir une charge virale faible ou indétectable.

« Les études scientifiques montrent que la charge virale diminue de façon drastique [avec les plus récents traitements], à un point où le VIH ne se transmet plus », explique l’avocate de la COCQ-SIDA, Liz Lacharpagne. C’est pourquoi la coalition estime qu’un seul des deux critères devrait être pris en compte.

Depuis 2010, la COCQ-SIDA multiplie les démarches afin de revoir la réglementation, jugée discriminatoire et désuète, mais sans succès. « Les directives qu’on demandait n’ont jamais été adoptées », déplore Mme Lacharpagne.

« Actuellement, des personnes vivant avec le VIH font l’objet d’accusations d’agressions sexuelles graves […] même en l’absence d’intention de causer un préjudice, même lorsque le VIH n’est pas transmis au partenaire et même lorsque le risque de transmission est négligeable, voire nul », écrit la COCQ-SIDA dans un communiqué qui sera publié mardi.

Ces poursuites au criminel contribuent à stigmatiser davantage les personnes séropositives, soutient la coalition. Mme Lacharpagne cite en exemple des cas médiatisés où des personnes accusées ont été identifiées publiquement comme des délinquants sexuels. « Ça ne donne pas une belle image de ces personnes ».

«Il y a une confusion entre le fait de ne pas dévoiler [son statut sérologique] et une agression sexuelle », déplore-t-elle.

Plus de poursuites

La COCQ-SIDA est particulièrement inquiète depuis le début de l’année, car elle observe une augmentation importante des poursuites pour non-divulgation au Québec. Le Devoirrapportait d’ailleurs cette situation au mois d’août.

Devant le refus de la ministre de la Justice du Québec, Stéphanie Vallée, de rencontrer la COCQ-SIDA, et dans le contexte d’augmentation des poursuites, la coalition estime qu’elle n’a d’autre recours que de demander un moratoire. « C’est à un niveau politique », explique Mme Lacharpagne.

Le cabinet de Mme Vallée n’a pas précisé au Devoir s’il imposera ou non un tel moratoire. Le dossier relève du gouvernement fédéral, a rappelé l’attachée de presse de la ministre, Isabelle Marier St-Onge, dans une réponse transmise par courriel.

« Le Québec est favorable à la minimisation de la stigmatisation des personnes atteintes du VIH et privilégie l’approche définie par la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême qui prévoit un juste équilibre entre la protection de la société, des victimes et le respect de la dignité des personnes atteintes du VIH », ajoute-t-elle.