US: Jacob Anderson-Minshall from HIV Plus mag reacts to the latest biting case in Marlyand

When will law enforcement get the message? HIV is neither a death sentence nor transmittable through saliva. So why do they keep arresting HIV-positive people for spitting and or biting and, as in the latest case, charging them with attempted murder?

According to the Baltimore, Maryland-based Capital Gazette, 46-year-old Jeffery David Crook, has been charged with attempted murder for allegedly biting an Anne Arundall County police officer during a tussle.

Crook is being held on half a million dollar bond and has reportedly been charged with multiple counts related to an alleged burglary and the assault on the officer. Crook was reported to the cops after “banging” on the outside of the home of Crook’s ex-boyfriend. Refused entry into the home, Crook allegedy “forced his way” into the house through a sliding glass door and was punched in the face by another man who was in the house.

Officers reported that they located Crook “rambling and incoherent” in an upstairs bedroom and he refused to obey their commands. When they attempted to forcedly arrest him, he resisted so a scuffle ensued. Police say that Crook was then Tasered, which, they allege, had no effect on him, and Crook bit an officer’s arm.

Police stated that the bite broke the officer’s skin, but it was Crook who was immediately transported to a local hospital center for “minor injuries,” the Gazette reported, citing local court records. “While there, he indicated that he was HIV-positive and bit the officer knowing the risk of transmitting the infection.”

Police spokesman Lt. Ryan Frashure said he couldn’t recall another incident where an officer was exposed to a “highly infectious disease,” especially “where it was done intentionally.”

Crook was charged with attempted second-degree murder, home invasion, second-degree assault, third-degree burglary, and reckless endangerment, according to court records.

From a public and mental health perspective, there are so many things wrong with this story, it’s hard to know where to begin. Crook’s mumbling, incoherent demeaner should have been a sign he may have been suffering from mental health issues. After entering his former partner’s house (through an unlocked sliding glass door, mind you), he was assaulted and his lip was cut. But instead of calling mental health professionals, officers tried to cuff him. When he struggled, they tased him. Although they reported that Tasing “had no effect,” he was taken to a hospital. Since few suspects are taken to a medical center for “minor injuries” before being interogated, it seems likely they realized he could not give clear answers because of his condition.

More to the point, once at the hospital, Crook disclosed his HIV status. His indication that he bit the police officer “knowing the risk of transmitting the infection,” could have been him simply acknowledging he was aware of his HIV status before he bit the man, or even that he knew there was little or no risk of transmitting HIV through saliva.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is clear “HIV isn’t spread through saliva.” 

According to the CDC, biting, spitting, and throwing body fluids all carry “negligible” risk of infection. It is particularly disheartening for activists fighting the criminalization of HIV when poz individuals are convicted of felony crimes for having spat at, bit, or thrown fluids at an officer when it is nearly impossible to transmit HIV that way.

In this specific case, no doubt the argument is that Crook was bleeding from the mouth when he bit the officer hard enough to break skin. But breaking skin and having a small amount of each person’s blood comingling is still highly unlikely to transmit HIV.

Even if a person with HIV gets hurt playing tackle football or boxing at the gym, it’s “highly unlikely that HIV transmission could occur in this manner,” according to the University of Rochester Medical Center. “The external contact with blood that might occur in a sports injury is very different from direct entry of blood into the bloodstream, which occurs from sharing needles or works.”

Even if the officer in question did defy all odds and turn up HIV-positive, there’s no way to be sure it was transmitted in this occassion. Moreover, there’s still a significant problem with the charge of attempted murder. Like many laws that criminalize behavior like sex work or add sentencing penalties only for those who are HIV-positive, charging someone with attempted murder instead of assault is based entirely on the outdated equation that HIV equals death. It’s based on an outdated view of the HIV-positive body not as a human being but as a “deadly weapon.”

These offensive tropes are decades out of date, have been out-and-out discredited by modern science, and rendered obsolete by the development of highly active antiretroviral medications that have transformed HIV from a terminal disease to a manageable chronic condition.

And yet, when confronted with even the tiniest of bodily fluid of HIV-positive individuals, police officers continue to overreact with fear (the officer in the Crook case “remained out of work” days after the incident) and arrest people for actions that cannot transmit HIV, simply because they discover their alleged perp also has HIV.

Around the country, district attorneys in these cases continue to charge HIV-positive individuals with crimes for things that are not criminal, continue bumping up simple charges from misdemeanors to felonies just because the individuals involved are poz, and continue to claim that exposure to HIV is a death sentence when it isn’t. Judges continue to accept these arguments, and continue handing down these overblown sentences, often without the abiility for parole.

Most of the law and order representatives who embrace HIV criminalization do so out of ignorance, but some are aware of the facts and proceed anyway because the law was written in such a way that facts, medical findings, and scientific proof simply have no bearing on the case.

Many of those who are serving extended prison terms have not even transmitted HIV to another person (think Michael Johnson in Missouri and Kerry Thomas in Idaho, both serving 30 year sentences). Yet they often face sentences higher for spitting or having sex without disclosure than if they had actually murdered the person they are accused of “infecting.”

How flawed is this system? And what kind of lesson does this teach people about those living with HIV? For one thing, it teaches that knowing one’s status is a legal liability. In Crook’s case — as in most other cases — the determining factor of guilt is often based on whether the individual knew they were HIV-positive at the time. Spit on a police office without knowing you’re poz, it’s a misdemeanor assault. Spit on an officer once you know have HIV? It’s attempted murder. Neither one can actually transmit HIV.

To us, it’s just insane.

HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE releases ‘HIV IS NOT A CRIME’ training academy video documentary

Today, HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE releases a 30-minute video to support advocates on how to effectively strategise on ending HIV criminalisation, filmed at the second-ever ‘HIV IS NOT A CRIME’ meeting, co-organised by Positive Women’s Network – USA and the Sero Project and held earlier this year at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

This advocacy video distils the content of the three-day training academy into four overarching themes: survivors, victories, intersectionality and community.

Filmed, edited and directed by HIV Justice Network’s video advocacy consultant, Nicholas Feustel, of georgetown media, it features interviews conducted by Mark S King of MyFabulousDisease.com.

“The idea,” says HIV Justice Network’s Global Co-ordinator Edwin J Bernard, who wrote, narrated and produced the video, “is that it can be used as a starting point for discussions at HIV criminalisation strategy meetings around the world, to help advocates move forward with their own state or country plans to achieve HIV justice.”

The video was produced by the HIV Justice Network on behalf of HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE, and supported by a grant from the Robert Carr civil society Networks Fund provided to the HIV Justice Global Consortium.

You can share, embed or download the full-length video at: https://youtu.be/B433fMElc_c The video is also being hosted at http://www.hivisnotacrime.com.

HIV IS NOT A CRIME Training Academy (HINAC2)
Huntsville, Alabama

(33 min, HJN, USA, 2016)

HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE presents a video documentary on the second-ever ‘HIV IS NOT A CRIME’ training academy held in Huntsville, Alabama.

To support advocates on how to effectively strategise on ending HIV criminalisation, this 30-minute video distils the content of this unique, three-day training academy into four overarching themes: survivors, victories, intersectionality and community.

We hope this video can be used as a starting point to help advocates move forward in their own state or country plans to achieve HIV justice.

For more information about the training academy visit: http://www.hivisnotacrime.com/

Canada: Stigma and HIV criminalisation deter people from getting tested

Stigma remains a major problem that discourages people from getting tested

Two studies released last month show the tools exist to potentially end the more than three-decades-old scourge of HIV/AIDS, but activists and front-line public health workers in Canada say we simply aren’t using them effectively.

The first study found it’s nearly impossible for an HIV-positive person to transmit the virus if they’re undergoing effective antiretroviral therapy (ART).

The other showed the impressive ability of a drug called Truvada — if taken properly — to protect HIV-negative people who would otherwise be at high risk of contracting the virus.

“I think there’s a real frustration of those of us on the ground, those of us working in public health and epidemiology who know absolutely that the tools are out there and we’re not seeing the support,” says Joshua Edward, a program manager at Vancouver’s Health Initiative for Men(HIM).

High-profile figures in the global fight against HIV/AIDS, including Bill Gates at last month’s World AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, have suggested talk of “the end of AIDS” is perhaps premature given its continued spread in much of the developing world, particularly Africa.

Such talk also seems premature in Canada.

Two big problems

Edward says there are two major problems in Canada that deny the promise described in the two studies.

First, there remains a powerful stigma around HIV that discourages people from getting tested.

The second problem is Truvada, approved as a pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP, is very expensive, up to $1,000 a month, and isn’t widely available to those who don’t have generous private insurance plans.

The PARTNER study looked at couples where only one partner had HIV but with a viral load suppressed by medication. Out of nearly 60,000 condomless sex acts, not a single HIV transmission occurred.

But HIV infection rates in Canada remain relatively steady, with an estimated 2,500-3,500 new transmissions every year, in part because one in five HIV-positive Canadians don’t even know they have the virus, and so they aren’t receiving the treatment that will keep them healthy and prevent further spread.

Activists argue stigma is a big reason why so many Canadians don’t get tested, and it’s fuelled by the fact that our laws criminalize the non-disclosure of one’s HIV-positive status, even if no transmission occurs and despite the latest evidence that shows viral suppression makes it virtually impossible to transmit the virus.

Stigma encourages spread

Sandra Ka Hon Chu, director of research and advocacy with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network (CHALN), says criminal sanctions of HIV-positive people encourage the spread of the virus.

“People who might not know their status won’t get tested because you would have the knowledge of your HIV status, which is a requirement of a conviction,” she says. “That then deters open discussions with health-care providers and creates a lot of stigma that prevents people from getting on ART.”

More than 180 people to date in Canada have been charged for not disclosing their HIV status, according to CHALN. In most cases, they were charged with aggravated sexual assault, which carries a maximum life sentence and a possible sex offender designation.

In 2011, for example, an HIV-positive woman north of Toronto had oral sex with a man and unprotected vaginal sex with two others. She didn’t disclose her HIV status and was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault.

Though she was acquitted for the oral sex based on the unlikelihood of transmission, the trial judge convicted her for one of the counts related to vaginal sex — even though she was taking her medication, had an undetectable viral load and no transmission occurred — because the victim was “exposed to a significant risk of the transmission of HIV and that risk endangered his life.”

Law is a ‘blunt instrument’

Chu says the law needs to be updated given the recent scientific evidence that shows even condomless vaginal sex with an HIV-positive-but-undetectable partner carries very low risk of transmission.

Criminal law, she says, is too much of a “blunt instrument” to regulate a moral problem with so many grey areas. She says most people fail to disclose their status because they fear rejection, physical violence, or, for example, because they fear the disclosure may be used against them later.

“A woman who might be living in an abusive relationship who is positive might decide to go to the police to charge their partner with violence and that partner might threaten to say they didn’t disclose their HIV status to them,” Chu says.

She sees many possible solutions.

The provinces enforce the Criminal Code, so they have the power to rewrite prosecutorial guidelines on what should and should not be pursued by the Crown.

The federal government could also change the Criminal Code to match international guidelines put forward by UNAIDS, the Global Commission on HIV and the Law and others. This would include limiting criminalization to cases where a person knows their HIV-positive status, acts with the intention to transmit HIV, and does in fact infect the negative partner with the virus.

More education and testing

Edward says Canada also needs to invest more in HIV education and testing outside of the major cities, where the stigma is greatest and HIV rates are often higher, including in some First Nations communities.

“If you live outside of a metro area, those barriers can be significant.”

He also says Canada needs a national HIV strategy that includes investing in PrEP for HIV-negative people who are at higher risk of contracting the virus.

“We need broader access,” he says. “We need insurance companies to be more generous in their support. You have to have a really high degree of privilege to be able to access it,” he says.

“You have to know how the medical system works. Mine is covered by insurance. It took probably a good two, three weeks of back and forth with my insurance company to access it, including being able to advocate for myself, able to speak from my perspective with righteous indignation.”

Delays

Health Canada expedited the process for approving Truvada as PrEP. It signed off in February, months before many expected, and emphasized Truvada should be used along with condoms.

But Quebec is the only province to publicly fund the drug, while the rest wait for the results of the Common Drug Review (CDR), which is expected to be complete in the fall. From there, the provinces will make their own decisions on whether to cover it, which could take months.

Michael Fanous, a Toronto-based pharmacist who specializes in HIV medications, thinks there should be an expedited process to get the drug listed for provincial drug plans.

“We’ve run into this problem for 30 years in treatment as new HIV drugs take much longer to get approved in Canada and then even longer to get covered.”

Edward’s organization in Vancouver, HIM, isn’t waiting around for government action. Instead, it launched getpreped.ca to get more people educated about PrEP.

“It gets back to almost every day in this province, someone is going to receive an HIV diagnosis … and at least for some of them, PrEP could have prevented that diagnosis,” he says.

“If you want to talk criminality, that’s criminal to me.”

Canada: Advocates call for change to HIV disclosure law

Canada’s HIV disclosure law ‘unfair,’ say advocates calling for change

“To equate not disclosing one’s HIV status with the traditional understanding of aggravated sexual assault, we don’t think is fair,” said an advocate from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

The recent arrests of two men accused of failing to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners have led to renewed calls for changes to legislation that advocates say contributes to the fear and stigma surrounding the disease.

Canadians with HIV are legally required to disclose their status to their partner before engaging in sexual activity. Those who fail to do so can be charged with aggravated sexual assault, whether the virus is transmitted or not.

If convicted, they are automatically added to the sex-offenders registry and face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

But advocates say Canada’s HIV disclosure law has never been shown to deter unsafe sexual practices. Rather, they argue, it has made patients feel more isolated and fearful.

“People living with HIV tend to come from many marginalized groups already,” said Sandra Chu, of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. “(The law is) adding a further layer of marginalization and fear.”

Chu said she would like Canada to adopt HIV legislation proposed by the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), which would prosecute only people who knowingly and intentionally transmit the HIV virus to their partner.

There is a lack of definite evidence on whether criminalization deters HIV patients from exposing others, UNAIDS said in a report released in 2012. It also said that studies from Canada and the U.S. show few people with HIV are aware of the legal requirements pertaining to their illness, and those who are probably already disclose their status to partners.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) has said people with HIV/AIDS report increased feelings of fear and stigma as a result of high-profile non-disclosure criminal cases.

 “Stigma has a negative impact on prevention efforts by contributing to secrecy and HIV non-disclosure, reinforcing HIV risk and discouraging condom use in some communities,” the agency said in a 2015 report.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said the Canadian government is “aware of some of the criticisms of non-disclosure laws and appreciates the difficult circumstances individuals face” with regards to HIV disclosure.

In 2012, UNAIDS reported that Canada had convicted more people in connection with HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission than any country in the world except the United States.

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network says there have been at least 180 people charged with HIV non-disclosure-related offences in Canada — with five new cases in 2015.

Earlier this month, Toronto police charged a man with sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault for allegedly having unprotected sex with a woman multiple times over the course of 18 months without telling her he had HIV.

A few days later, Canadian Forces investigators charged a civilian cadet instructor with four counts of aggravated sexual assault for allegedly failing to disclose his HIV status before engaging in a relationship with a member of the military.

In a 1998 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada said a legal requirement to disclose HIV will, “through deterrence … protect and serve to encourage honesty, frankness and safer sexual practices.”

The court clarified its stance in 2012, ruling that a person with HIV does not have to disclose it to a partner as long as a condom is used and the person has a “low viral load.” A viral load measures the number of copies of the HIV virus per millilitre of blood — the lower a viral load, the lower the chance of transmitting HIV.

However, a group of more than 50 Canadian doctors and researchers released a statement in 2014 saying that “a poor appreciation of the science related to HIV contributes to an overly broad use of the criminal law against” individuals living with the virus.

Using a condom during sexual intercourse is enough to render the risk of transmission negligible, the group said, regardless of viral load.

The fact that people can be charged with mere exposure when there’s “a negligible risk” of transmission is unjust, said Chu.

“To equate not disclosing one’s HIV status with the traditional understanding of aggravated sexual assault, we don’t think is fair.”

Originally published in The Star

Uganda: ABC Radio interviews HIV criminalisation survivor, Rosemary Namubiru, and UGANET’s Dora Kiconco Musinguzi

Listen to Natasha Mitchell compelling interview with HIV criminalisation survivor, Rosemary Namubiru, and UGANET’s Dora Kiconco Musinguzi on the challenge to the problematic HIV criminalisation statutes within Uganda’s HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Act.

This seven minute audio report from AIDS 2016 in Durban is excerpted from ABC Radio’s longer podcast, The brutal politics of a virus that won’t go away, by reporter Natasha Mitchell for Background Briefing. 

Listen to and/or download the full podcast and read the transcript on ABC Radio’s website.

The transcript of Natasha’s HIV criminalisation-related report is below.

Natasha Mitchell: In Uganda, around 7% of people are infected, and while the country is recognised for taking decisive action against HIV, the government’s harsh attitude and laws is dramatically undermining that progress.

Rosemary Namubiru is a 66-year-old nurse, mother and grandmother. She found out she had the virus just three years ago, and she thinks she got it from a patient.

Rosemary hadn’t yet disclosed her status at work, but when she was wrongly accused of intentionally infecting a patient, before she knew it the full force of the law was thrown at her.

Rosemary Namubiru: I saw the police coming, and they were holding me, ‘You are under arrest for murder.’ Then they called the media, so when I was in that room they called and told me, ‘Come out.’ I came out and I found a crowd of cameramen, media people.

Natasha Mitchell: Outside the police station?

Rosemary Namubiru: Yes.

Natasha Mitchell: Rosemary was charged with attempted murder after she accidentally pricked herself with a needle while treating a child. The mother watching on was worried and reported Rosemary. While the child wasn’t infected, thankfully, all hell broke loose when Rosemary’s HIV positive status was confirmed and made public. Rosemary was arrested and paraded in front of the media, who labelled her a ‘killer’ and a ‘murderer’.

Rosemary Namubiru: They were trying to manhandle me. They were taking photographs of me. They were calling me all sorts of names, ‘Murderer, killer. Look at this woman, a killer, a murderer.’ And it went all over the country in the national newspapers, in the English newspapers. ‘That murderer, the murderer. If we see her we shall beat her, we shall kill her.’ It was the talk of town. Even my village. Initially, they labelled it as ‘murder’. Then it was reduced, ‘attempted murder’, and then it was eventually changed into ‘negligence’.

Natasha Mitchell: Rosemary was publicly shamed, and sentenced to three years in prison for negligence.

Lawyer Dora Kiconco Musinguzi is the executive director of Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS or UGANET.

Dora Kiconco Musinguzi: Rosemary’s story sent so many chills across the country amongst people living with HIV. She was the headline of the news. ‘Killer nurse’. ‘Monster nurse’. She was treated so cruelly at the police, she was beaten, her hair was pulled, right, left, and centre, and that caused a lot of fear among people living with HIV. So we see discrimination written on walls, written in political statements, discrimination is still real, so that is where we are. That’s Uganda’s story currently.

Natasha Mitchell: Rosemary Namubiru was released at the end of 2014 after her case received international attention.

In the same year, Uganda introduced the HIV Prevention and Control Act. At face value it’s about controlling HIV, promoting testing and treatment, and preventing discrimination. Uganda’s not alone here, HIV specific criminal laws are on the increase worldwide, and also exist in America and Europe.

But Dora Kiconco Musinguzi and colleagues are leading a legal challenge in the Ugandan Constitutional Court against key parts of the law, including certain provisions that demand disclosure of your HIV status, and criminalise those who transmit the virus intentionally.

Dora Kiconco Musinguzi: The question is at what point do you establish intention. In a circumstance where we have so many people that have not yet tested, how do you know that a person infected another? So anybody could blame the other for infecting them, and what should be a human condition, a disease, then becomes a criminal object and lives break, and families break, and you know how the media picks on this, and totally takes it out of context. We believe it’s going to be really dangerous.

Natasha Mitchell: At least half of the Ugandan population still don’t know their HIV status. And Dora Kinconco Musinguzi believes the HIV Prevention and Control Act will exacerbate their reluctance to get tested and treated and so cause the virus to spread.

Dora Kiconco Musinguzi: So if people fear, relate HIV testing with obligation, with imprisonment, with undue power of the law, we believe this is going to create a bigger barrier to testing, and that fails the objective of prevention and control because then we shall have more people left out of the treatment area.

Natasha Mitchell: And because pregnant women have to be tested for HIV, they’re at greater risk under this law.

Dora Kiconco Musinguzi: They are going to be found to be HIV positive fast, and if they don’t disclose then they are in the ambit of attempting to transmit, so that makes the women criminals. So there’s lots of unanswered questions. And yet on the other side science has given us hope that people who test and take their medicines very well, they become less infectious, so they don’t transmit HIV. The law neglects this science. The law does not consider what public health specialists are saying, but the Ugandan government has not put this into consideration.

Natasha Mitchell: The experience of Rosemary Namubiru is a cautionary lesson about why laws that criminalise HIV positive people can be so bad for public health.

Dora Kiconco Musinguzi: You shouldn’t be criminalised. These cases could be handled in another way. We are really asking the Constitutional Court to find out whether this is the law that will present and control HIV, and still afford dignity and non-discrimination for living with HIV.

Natasha Mitchell: Based on your experience, Rosemary, what do you feel about the criminalisation law in Uganda against people with HIV?

Rosemary Namubiru: It hurts. Ignorance kills, but it hurts when people just carry on, and people keep on saying, ‘Oh, that one, that one.’ Me, I didn’t get it sexually. It was during the course of saving lives of human beings, so it is not something to laugh about. I wouldn’t wish anybody to go through what I went through.

Natasha Mitchell: Rosemary Namubiru. She’s now retired from nursing.

USA: New report shows LGBTQ minorities face discriminatory laws and arrests

These Stats Prove LGBTQ Minorities Face ‘Unjust’ Treatment in US Criminal Justice Systems

A new report released Monday on LGBTQ people and the U.S. criminal justice system shows the community is overrepresented in jails and prisons. Additionally, LGBTQ people who are young and of color face disproportionate levels of homophobia and transphobia, and are subject to discriminatory laws and arrests that lead to their incarceration.

Analyzed data from U.S. Department of Justice, public polling and a U.S. inmate population survey shows that one in five people in juvenile justice detention facilities identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender orquestioning. Among them, 85% are racial minorities, according to the study, released by the Center for American Progress.

The report, titled “Unjust: How the Broken Criminal Justice System Fails LGBT People of Color,” pegs the overrepresentation of LGBTQ people of color in the criminal justice system to three major factors — racism and anti-LGBTQ stigma in their communities, drug and HIV criminalization laws, and local policing priorities that result in racial profiling.

“Whether they are interacting with law enforcement, going to court, confined in prisons or jails, or preparing for reentry into society, the story is the same: LGBT people of color face an extraordinarily high risk of discriminatory treatment and abuse in our criminal justice system,” Ineke Mushovic, executive director of the Movement Advancement Project, said in a statement about the data analysis. MAP and seven other criminal justice reform and LGBTQ advocacy organizations partnered with the Center for America on the report.

The report’s focus on LGBTQ people of color was deliberate, given the most recent polling on this population and what federal data reveals. A 2012 Gallup survey of U.S. adults revealed that 33% of adults who identified as LGBTQ were people of color. People of color and women were also more likely than whites to identify as such, according to the survey results.

LGBTQ overrepresentation in the criminal justice system — they accounted for 7.9% of the U.S. jail and prison population in 2011-2012, but just 3.4% of the overall U.S population — is a reflection of laws that criminalize their identity and behaviors, stated the report.

For example, HIV criminalization laws, which penalize behaviors of LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ people living with HIV, even if their behavior carries no risk of transmitting or exposing the uninfected to the virus, were a response to the health crisis in the 1980s and 1990s. More recent laws, such as North Carolina’s 2016 bathroom bill restricting public bathroom access to the gender marked on an individual’s birth certificate, also present a threat of incarceration for those who are transgender or gender nonconforming.

Uganda: Uganda Network on Law, Ethics, and HIV (UGANET) leads call to repeal some provisions of the HIV/Aids Prevention and Control law as discriminatory and unconstitutional

Uganda: Activists Go to Court As Call Raises for Equal Rights for People With HIV/Aids

By Mercy Nalugo

HIV/Aids activists delegations comprising policy makers, medical practitioners, researchers, sex workers and other key stakeholders converged in Durban, South Africa, last month for this year’s International Aids Conference.

The conference was geared towards forging ways and sharing knowledge on new developments and what ought to be done to reduce new infections as well as sharing experiences and analysing statistics related to the HIV/Aids trend.

The five-day conference, which kicked off on July 18, was marked under the theme “Access Equity Rights Now”.

Back in the country, in a bid to step up activism and rhyme with this year’s theme, HIV/Aids activists called on the government to implement the right to equity.

Taking to court

More than 100 civil society groups led by the Uganda Network on Law, Ethics, and HIV (UGANET) reiterated calls to have some of the clauses in the controversial HIV/Aids Prevention and Control law repealed saying they are discriminatory and unconstitutional.

This time they did not petition President Museveni, or other implementing agencies having been frustrated several times before, but the Constitutional Court.

They are asking the court to quash some provisions in the HIV/Aids law they say are unconstitutional and promote discrimination and stigmatisation of those with the disease.

One of the contested clauses allows medical practitioners to disclose a client’s HIV status to others.

 

The law would according to activists contravene the right for HIV positive people to keep their status confidential and would in essence promote stigma while criminalisation of the spread would keep away people from testing.

The same activists in May 2014 strongly opposed certain sections days after Parliament had passed the Bill into law.

They included the Human Rights Watch, Health Global Advocacy Project and the Uganda Network on Law and Ethics and HIV/Aids (UGANET) who said it is “deeply flawed” and promotes “discrimination”.

They later sought the attention of President Museveni asking him not to assent to the law although this did not stop him from doing so. However, the President assented to the law on July 31, 2014.

According to statistics released by the ministry of Health last year, the number of people starting anti-retroviral treatment (ART) in Uganda stood at 713,744.

In just three months, between June and September 2014, a total of 33,744 people enrolled for HIV/Aids treatment, raising the overall number from the previous 680,000 to the above-mentioned number (713,744).

The drugs suppress HIV multiplication in the body.

Activists, however, say that the hardline approach to prevention of HIV/Aids spread has instead discouraged those living with HIV from voluntary testing for fear of victimisation.

 
 

Infringment on rights

According to the activists, some clauses were passed without the amendments sought by an all-encompassing network.

 

Prosper Byonanebye, UGANET head of programmes, says: “The petition among others challenges section 18 (e), on ‘Disclosure of one’s HIV status to undisclosed parties. This is overly-broad, vaguely worded and thus unclear.

It also raises legality questions and infringes on the right to privacy. Same as Section 41 of the HIV prevention and Control Act on attempted transmission which is subject to misuse and can be a ticket to punish innocent Ugandans by self-seekers because it is not specific and it’s difficult to define.

According to Byonanebye, some of the clauses infringe on the right to equality and right to dignity and worsens discrimination hence pushing people living with HIV into hiding instead of the intended policy objective of supporting more of them to disclose as has been the case.

Chapter four of the Constitution emphasises the promotion and protection of several human rights and freedoms by the state including equality and freedom from discrimination (Article 21), right to dignity (Article 24) and right to privacy ( Article 27) among others.

Arguments for the Act

On disclosure of one’s status to other people, Maj (Rtd) Rubaramira Ruranga, a leading HIV/Aids advocate, however tows a different line.

He stresses the need for HIV positive people to open up about their status if solutions are to be found.

“Methodology is what we need to look into to find solutions to the wide spread of HIV/Aids and stigma, which is closely related to HIV/Aids. If we had a method of going house to house and educate the masses about the dangers of HIV and the need to know their status, the infection rate would be reduced. If we test from house to house, we would get rid of stigma,” he says.

 

“I no longer believe in confidentiality because people have continued to sleep with each other without bothering about the need to test. We should stop hiding something which can be served better Let us fight the conspiracy of the unknown.”

Commenting about the intentional spread of HIV/Aids, Maj Ruranga backs the proposal saying it will go a long way in protecting innocent Ugandans from selfish offenders who knowingly conceal their results away from their partners and infect them with HIV/Aids.

He noted: “Not everybody is bad but there are those spreading HIV intentionally. We do work with a team of young people but we have discovered that some health workers are giving false results at a request.

People know that they are reactive but ask for non-reactive results. I have arrested some and we are still arresting many. What other method is workable other than the law? Let the activists prove beyond reasonable doubt that this law will not work.”

Maj Ruranga adds that the country has lived with the deadly disease for over two decades and it has continued to spread.

“We have become so negligent as a result of pampering certain things. Why should the virus continue spreading? My coming out helped so many. Why do people continue hiding? We need to get out of this and find a solution.”

He emphasises the use of condoms as a preventive measure to guard against HIV/Aids as he opposed calls from the South African conference pushing for PEP to be given to the youth free of charge as a way of guarding against the spread of HIV.

USA: Three-part webinar series to build on the conversations from the HIV is Not a Crime Training Academy

HIV PJA and the SERO Project are coming together to present a three-part webinar series continuing conversations from the HIV is Not a Crime Training Academy, which was held in May 2016. With all that was learned and discussed at the second training academy, we would like to give those who were not able to attend and those who have more questions a chance to continue the conversation.

The three topics – anti-blackness, immigration and transgender issues – were chosen based on training plenaries and workshops that received significant interest. Join us for these three discussions highlighting the fight to end HIV criminalization and ensuring that HIV status is no longer a crime in this country.

Check out the details below. You must register for each webinar individually. 

HIV Is Not a Crime: Anti-blackness and HIV criminalization

Wednesday, Aug. 17 – 3:30 – 5 p.m. ET

Click here to register! 

Recent research has shown there are specifically racist and anti-black dimensions to HIV epidemiology, as well as the criminalization of HIV. We have also seen that these laws disproportionately impact black people and black communities. During this webinar we will define what anti-blackness means in connection to HIV criminalization laws and discuss why and how HIV laws tend to be anti-black.

Panelist include:

  • Charles Stephens, Founder and Executive Director, The Counter Narrative Project
  • Robert Suttle, Assistant Director, The SERO Project

Register now!

HIV Is Not a Crime: Immigration and HIV decriminalization

Wednesday, Aug. 24 – 3:30 – 5 p.m. ET

Click here to register! 

Foreign born citizens and those who come to this country seeking a better life in the U.S. frequently encounter challenges due to their immigration status. This is especially true for those living with HIV. This webinar will touch on intersectional issues of being an immigrant living with HIV and HIV criminalization. We will also discuss the synergy of the movement to end deportations and the movement to end the AIDS epidemic.

Panelist include:

  • Marco Castro-Bojorquez, Community Educator, Lambda Legal
  • Gonzalo Aburto, Longtime Community Advocate

Register now!

HIV Is Not a Crime: Criminalization’s impact on trans communities

Wednesday, Aug. 31 – 3:30 – 5 p.m. ET

Click here to register! 

Transgender rights have gained more mainstream attention but transgender people are still disproportionately criminalized. This webinar will discuss many of the challenges trans people face and highlight the stories of trans people who are fighting to eradicate new transmissions in the transgender community.

Panelist include:

  • Cecilla Chung, Senior Strategist, Transgender Law Center
  • Tiommi Luckett, Communications Coordinator, The Well Project
  • Arianna Lint, East Coast Co-Chair, TransLatin@ Coalition

Register now!

USA: Clinton commits to work with advocates and HIV and AIDS organizations to reform outdated HIV criminalization laws

By Karen Ocamb

The history books will record that the 2016 presidential race produced the first woman and the first Reality TV star as nominees from the two major political parties. But while the world stares agog at the American political process following the Republican and Democratic conventions last month, a critical national issue is being depressingly overlooked—the dire impact of HIV on young gay and bisexual men of color.

In keeping with the spirit of her meeting with HIV/AIDS activists last May, Hillary Clinton’s campaign included Georgia HIV/AIDS activist Daniel Driffin on the roster of speakers at the DNC convention on Wednesday, July 27.

“Together with more than 1 million Americans, I’m living with HIV,” said Driffin, 30, the first HIV-positive speaker at the DNC since 2004. “Who is most at risk? Young, gay black men. Men like me. In fact, one in two black gay men will be diagnosed in their lifetime if the current rates continue. And if we had enough data, I’m sure black transgender women are more at risk, too.”

Stop. Think about that: “one in two black gay men will be diagnosed in their lifetime if the current rates continue.” Driffin did not speak in primetime so it is unclear how many were moved by his words.

But his was not a slap-dash rhetorical comment crafted for effect. These are statistics from the Centers for Disease Control. Last February, the CDC reported: “If current HIV diagnoses rates persist, about 1 in 2 black men who have sex with men (MSM) and 1 in 4 Latino MSM in the United States will be diagnosed with HIV during their lifetime.”

In fact, evidence presented at the 2016 International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa July 18-22 (during the Republican Convention) suggests that HIV is becoming a young person’s disease—worldwide.

“While all other demographics are in decline, more and more young people are being diagnosed with the disease. Globally, 11.8 million people ages 15-24 are currently living with HIV/AIDS, with this demographic also accounting for more than half of new infections. In the U.S., young Black, gay and bisexual men make up the largest population of people who are infected, and young women of color bear the largest burden of the disease among women in the U.S. Globally, adolescent and young women are fast becoming the most at risk: in Sub Saharan Africa, women ages 15 to 19 make up two thirds of the population of infected adolescents,” reports Kali Villarosa for The Black AIDS Institute.http://www.aids2016.org

Stigma is the key to the ongoing infections.

“Even among young gay and bisexual men, who initially bore the brunt of the disease and its associated deaths, discussion remains unsophisticated and un-textured. My friend Wen, an openly gay 20-year-old from Brooklyn, told me: ‘The disease is seen as a joke, but those diagnosed are shamed. There still remains a lot of stigma around the disease and people are scared to get tested,’” Villarosa wrote.

“But this stigma often perpetuates the risk of these already vulnerable communities,” she continued. “A study of over 15,000 high school boys released [at the IAC] by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier this week found that gay and bisexual teen males were no more likely than their straight peers to engage in risky sexual behavior, but still had a higher chance of contracting HIV. It was actually homophobia, bullying and violence that spread the disease—not promiscuity, alcohol and drugs and avoiding condom use.”

That CDC report also reveal what many suspected but could not verify—the invisible gay/bi drug crisis and its connection to HIV infection. “Overall, MSM – including those who inject drugs – account for 60 percent of the 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States. In 2014, 13- to 24-year-olds accounted for more than one in five (22 percent) HIV diagnoses. Among the 13- to 24-year-olds diagnosed with HIV in 2014, 80 percent were gay and bisexual males.”

Gasps, anyone?

Having a long history of involvement with both young people and the AIDS crisis— including losing friends to AIDS such as Los Angeles-based Bob Hattoy who spoke at Bill Clinton’s nominating convention in 1992—Hillary Clinton may be starting to feel like an AIDS Movement mother herself after hearing Driffin and learning of the new International AIDS statistics.

Clinton’s Republican opponent Donald Trump, meanwhile, had an early history with AIDS, attending fundraisers thrown by his beloved socialite sister-in-law Blaine Trump, actively on the board of New York City’s “God’s Love We Deliver.” It is unknown if Donald Trump ever actually gave money or only showed up for appearances. He has not, however, offered any plans for ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic during his presidential campaign nor does he announce a position on his website.

Clinton, however, has a detailed AIDS platform on her website and added to her “comprehensive agenda” in a post-convention press release. She committed to:

•    Convene an “End the Epidemic” working group to adopt aggressive and attainable timelines for ending AIDS as an epidemic in the United States and globally. Clinton’s Office of National HIV/AIDS Policy will immediately begin to engage a wide range of experts, advocates, and stakeholders to adopt timelines for ending AIDS as an epidemic in the United States and globally.

•    Work to fully implement and strengthen the National HIV/AIDS Strategy to meet these timelines. Clinton’s Office of National HIV/AIDS Policy will work to fully implement the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, and strengthen it to align with the timelines developed for ending AIDS as an epidemic. Particular emphasis will be placed on expanding evidenced-based prevention, treatment, and community outreach initiatives for at-risk groups, including black men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender individuals, African American women, and injection drug users. She will also account for regional variations, like the particular needs of the southeast corridor of the United States.

•    Launch a campaign to end the stigma and discrimination associated with HIV and AIDS. Nearly 40 years have passed since the HIV/AIDS crisis first began, and yet even with everything we have learned, intolerance and stigma still exist. This stigma manifests itself in our criminal laws, and also serves as a barrier to effective prevention and treatment. That’s why, as president, Clinton will launch a campaign to end stigma associated with HIV/AIDS. She will work to reform outdated HIV criminalization laws, aggressively enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act, and partner with advocacy groups and community organizations to conduct public education.

Indeed, stigma is like a boulder dropped in the middle of a lake—the ripple effects are large and possibly dangerous, especially to young black men and women “wrestling with the idea that people think you’re a threat . . . from the beginning,” says writer Kai Wright. “So that’s your starting point for many inside institutions. The harsh discipline that we’ve seen scale up in schools has been uniquely reserved for black students. We know that the harsh police policies have been uniquely reserved for black neighborhoods. So we know what it means for the system: this cultural idea that young black men, and again for women too, that they are disruptive threats, that people see you as a monster.”

Adding to the context of the real and perceived criminalization of black bodies and resulting internalized stigma that might inhibit HIV testing is the fact that two-thirds of American states and territories have laws criminalizing HIV.

“[P]eople with HIV are potentially subject to prosecution for non-disclosure, potential exposure or transmission in every jurisdiction under general criminal statutes,” including Texas and New York, that do not have HIV-specific statutes, says the Sero Project. That means that for people who are HIV positive, “a contentious relationship, a personal misunderstanding or even a minor infraction of the law can lead to a long jail sentence, public shaming and registration as a sex offender. HIV-specific criminal charges have been filed more than 1,000 times.”

A 2011 analysis by the CDC and Department of Justice researchers found that the laws vary by state, behavior and penalties. But the majority of laws were passed before antiretroviral therapy reduced HIV transmission and before studies indicated the success of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). According to an extensive, detailed 2013 ProPublica investigation, at least 35 states have laws that criminalize exposure of HIV or failure to disclose HIV status. That’s a felony crime in 29 states and 25 states criminalize one or more behaviors that pose a low or negligible risk for HIV transmission.

“People with HIV have even done time for spitting, scratching or biting. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, spitting and scratching cannot transmit HIV, and transmission through biting “is very rare and involves very specific circumstances” — namely, “severe trauma with extensive tissue damage and the presence of blood.” Many law enforcement officials and legislators defend these laws, saying they deter people from spreading the virus and set a standard for disclosure and precautions in an ongoing epidemic,” ProPublica reports.

ProPublica found and scoured a record 1,352 HIV-related criminal cases from 2003 to 2013, with 541 cases resulting in conviction.

The real shocker for those unaware of HIV criminalization laws is that most laws don’t require an actual transmission of or even an exposure to HIV for someone to be arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted and receive a harsh sentence. Additionally, it isn’t a requirement for the HIV-negative partner to even file a complaint. According to a PBS report, “there have been cases of HIV-negative partners who go to the ER for PEP, don’t file charges, and their partner is still prosecuted under HIV criminalization laws.”

The issue of HIV criminalization came to national LGBT attention inJuly 2015 after Michael Johnson, a 30-year old, Black Missouri college student and star wrestler, was sentenced to 30 ½ years for the felony of having sexual contact without documenting that he had disclosed his HIV status.

“The criminal statute that Michael Johnson was convicted of violating was originally passed in 1988, at a time when HIV was considered a ‘death sentence.’ Today, with proper treatment, HIV is a chronic, manageable disease and those with HIV can expect to live a full, healthy life. Yet violation of the Missouri law is a class A felony, with a sentencing range of 10-30 years or life imprisonment. Other class A felonies include murder or child abandonment resulting in death.  Punishing Michael Johnson as if he is a murderer because state officials have failed to address a severely outdated, irrational criminal law is not only fundamentally unfair, it is barbaric,” said Mayo Schreiber, Deputy Director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy.

“HIV should be treated as a public health issue not as a criminal one. Legally requiring disclosure privileges the lives of White people not living with HIV over Black people who are living with HIV,’ wrote 89 Black gay men from The Counter Narrative Project.

A 2013 study by the National Institutes of Health in Nashville, Tennessee found that most of those convicted under prostitution and HIV criminalization laws were more likely to be black than white. “We conclude that enforcement of US HIV-specific laws is underestimated. Fifty-two arrests over 11 years were recorded in one jurisdiction. Over half of the arrests involved behaviors posing minimal or no HIV transmission risk. Despite concerns about malicious, intentional HIV transmission, no cases alleged malice or intention,” the abstract says.

New data indicate that the US is second only to Russia in HIV criminalization cases from April 2013 to Oct 2015. Additionally, a new report issued Thursday, Aug. 4, entitled Unjust: How the Broken Criminal Justice System Fails LGBT People of Color, examines “how racism and anti-LGBT discrimination combine to make LGBT people of color particularly vulnerable to entering the system and facing unfair and abusive treatment once they are in it,” according to a press release from lead authors the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) and the Center for American Progress.

“Whether they are interacting with law enforcement, going to court, confined in prisons or jails, or preparing for re-entry into society, the story is the same: LGBT people of color face an extraordinarily high risk of discriminatory treatment and abuse in our criminal justice system,” said MAP Executive Director Ineke Mushovic.

In another startling statistic, the report says that “one in five young people in U.S. juvenile justice facilities identify as LGBTQ, and 85% of these individuals are youth of color.” The report also points out being treated unjustly by law enforcement, courts, immigration authorities and other programs puts LGBT people of color at grave risk.

“Statistically, it is quite clear that the criminal justice system has prospered from the disproportionate impact it has had on black and brown people. As LGBT people of color, this impact is twofold as our multiple identities too often represent threats and garner disrespect,” said Isaiah Wilson, External Affairs Manager of the National Black Justice Coalition. “If we are not resolute to acknowledge and address this reality, we will lose a generation of unapologetic, young LGBT people of color to the flaws of our justice system.”

The Unjust report specifically identifies three factors in creating the overrepresentation of LGBT people of color in the system: “racism combined with pervasive anti-LGBT stigma and discrimination in communities, schools and families; discriminatory enforcement of drug laws and HIV criminalization laws; and policing strategies and tactics that increase the likelihood of LGBT people of color being subject to police stops, arrest and incarceration.”

The report also focuses on the issues LGBT youth of color face at home, in school, or in their communities that result in them “spending some or all of their time living on the street, putting them at increased risk of encountering law enforcement and having their lives criminalized.”

The inequities of the criminal justice system regarding race, sexuality and HIV are stark—and political.

Through his appearance at the DNC and his work for LGBT equality and HIV awareness in Georgia, Driffin works hopes to help his peers.

“We know how to prevent the virus now. We know how to diagnose the virus now. We know how to treat it. We know how to suppress it,” Driffin said to millions watching the convention. “So as an organizer, as an advocate, as a black man, as a gay man, as a man living with HIV, I ask you: Go get tested, and then go vote.”

Originally published in EQ CA

You can select your preferred language from the 'Select Language' menu at the top of the page.

Continue