HIV criminalisation firmly on the agenda at AIDS 2016

For those of you in Durban for AIDS 2016 this week and next, make sure you don’t miss all the amazing HIV criminalisation events taking place.

Download and print this 2-pager covering all the HIV criminalisation highlights (including posters and Global Village events) put together by the HIV Justice Network on behalf of HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE.

And of course, we hope to see you at our pre-conference this Sunday July 17th, Beyond Blame: Challenging HIV Criminalisation. Download the Beyond Blame Final Programme .

Only a few places remain, so register now if you want to attend.

HIV criminalisation highlights at AIDS 2016 by HIV Justice Network

Uganda: Civil society coalition file a constitutional petition against controversial HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2015

KAMPALA – A network of civil society organisations has dragged the Attorney General to the Constitutional Court, querying the packaging of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2015.

Representatives of the CSOs filed a constitutional petition on Thursday, lamenting that the law is undermining efforts to fight the scourge.

“I believe the law will have the overall effect of undermining public health objectives of HIV prevention and control,” the petition reads in part. –

The petitioners are Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS (UGANET), Makerere law don Prof Ben Twinomugisha, and the International Community of Women Living with HIV in Eastern Africa (ICWEA).

Government’s chief legal representative and advisor the Attorney General is listed as the respondent.

Parliament passed the bill on May 13, 2014. President Yoweri Museveni assented to the bill in August of the same year. –

USA: People living with HIV shared their determination to lead the fight for HIV decriminalization at the second HIV is Not a Crime conference

“Thirty-three years ago, a group of activists, tired of how they were being treated, drafted the Denver Principles,” Barb Cardell said to the sleepy but energized audience at an early morning session of the second HIV is Not a Crime conference. Cardell, a long-time HIV activist, is co-chair of the Colorado chapter of Positive Women’s Network, an advocacy network of women living with HIV.

In essence, recalled Cardell, activists were declaring, “Nothing is determined about us without us. … In 1983, we refused to let other people set the agenda. These are the shoes we walk in today.”

The Denver Principles opened with these words: “We condemn attempts to label us as ‘victims,’ a term which implies defeat, and we are only occasionally ‘patients,’ a term which implies passivity, helplessness and dependence upon the care of others. We are ‘People with AIDS.'”

This spring, nearly 300 activists from 34 different states and four countries (Canada, Germany, Mexico and the United States) gathered on the campus of Huntsville, Alabama, to continue that work. Many have been involved in advocacy for years, if not decades, and are determined that the fight for HIV decriminalization be led by those who are living with HIV. They are committed to fostering the meaningful involvement of people living with HIV and AIDS (commonly known as MIPA) in the discussions about policies that affect them.

Khafre K. Abif was diagnosed with HIV 27 years ago. Now, Abif is a community organizer with the Southern AIDS Coalition. “This is my first time working — and by working, I mean getting a salary — in HIV,” he said. Though this is his first paid job in the field, Abif has been advocating around HIV for nearly three decades, always as a volunteer determined to make sure that the voices of those with HIV were not left out of the discussions. “I always brought my table to the table,” he said. “I wasn’t waiting to be invited to the table.”

He doesn’t feel that his outspokenness is exceptional. “There’s a willingness [for people to speak up],” he pointed out. “But people need the support to do it. Once they know that someone will be standing beside and behind them when they speak out, they’ll do it.”

Such support has even reached behind bars to empower those traditionally silenced by prison walls. Kerry Thomas is on the board of the Sero Project. When he speaks at conferences across the country about the effects of HIV criminalization, he does so from the Idaho State Correctional Center, where he is serving a 30-year sentence under a state law criminalizing non-disclosure. Inside prison, he’s been active in combatting fear and ignorance about HIV and has been working to develop a network of imprisoned people living with HIV and other illnesses. He also reaches outside to educate people about the very real effects of criminalization laws. At 7:15 on Tuesday night, he called into the opening plenary to share his thoughts and experiences.

“A few months ago, I was sent a photo of the first HIV is Not a Crime conference,” he told the audience, his voice crackling through the cell phone set beside a microphone. He carries that photo with him at all times to remind himself that he is part of a larger movement. It’s a reminder that gets him through some of the isolation of being in prison. “There are times I may feel lonely, and that’s when the support from you guys means a lot.” At the same time, he acknowledges that the support and opportunities he has are exceptional. “I’m one of the lucky ones that has this community and has the opportunity to speak at these conferences,” he said. “But across the country, there are people who don’t.”

Naina Khanna, the executive director of the Positive Women’s Network USA, points to Thomas as an example of meaningful involvement by those most impacted by criminalization. “If you can figure out a way to have an incarcerated person regularly participate in these board meetings, then we should be able to eliminate barriers to meaningful participation,” she stated. But, she said, doing so involves creating spaces that are trauma-informed and healing as well as understanding — and that address the multiple barriers to participation. For some, physically attending a conference presents numerous challenges, including paying for travel and being targeted at airports for invasive and demeaning search procedures.

For some, having HIV is one of many identities to navigate. Ashton P. Woods refuses to compartmentalize his multiple identities as a black person, a person living with HIV, a gay man and a formerly homeless youth. “To people who say, ‘Pick an issue,’ I say, ‘That’s bullshit,'” he declared. Standing at the podium during a morning plenary, he reminded the audience of the need for solidarity and support for those even more in the crosshairs of intersecting oppressions. “We have to step up as people living with HIV because our trans sisters are at risk.”

Tommy Luckett is a black trans woman. She is also living with HIV in Arkansas, where it is a felony for people who know that they have HIV to engage in any form of sexual intercourse without disclosing their status. Spitting, biting and receiving medical and dental care are also criminalized for people who do not disclose their status.

The fear of prosecution looms over Tommy’s daily life, compounded by the fact that she is both black and trans. “All of these [identities] paint me as a target in my own home state,” she told TheBody.com. The threat of violence is ever present whenever she leaves her house. Across the country, trans women aredisproportionately targeted in hate-motivated attacks and murders. In 2015, it was reported that at least22 trans and gender non-conforming people were murdered in the U.S. This number reflects only the murders that were reported and investigated and whose victims were recognized as trans or gender non-conforming.

But despite the constant risks, Luckett is also an outspoken advocate for HIV and trans issues. She knows the importance of bringing the experiences of trans women of color living with HIV to the table so that their issues are not left out of the conversation. She often finds herself to be the only trans person around, which means having to be both cautious about her behavior and wary of her surroundings. That vigilance can be exhausting and discouraging. (There were at least eight people who identified as trans among the 300 attendees at the HIV is Not a Crime conference.)

“You want to know how to help trans women? Put them in your organization.” Luckett points to Positive Women’s Network USA and the Well Project as models. “They brought me to the table and listen to what I have to say,” she said. She also noted that, as one person, she cannot be everywhere at once — nor should she be expected to be. “When I can’t get to places, that’s where I need my allies to be and to carry my message,” she said.

Andy Spieldenner is an assistant professor at Hofstra University (where he was recently awarded the 2016 Distinguished Teacher of the Year award) and an officer of the U.S. People Living With AIDS Caucus. “Part of MIPA is making sure you’re not the only person in the room,” he noted. To expand meaningful participation — and to avoid burnout — he encouraged attendees to bring their peers along and help develop their leadership. “Ask if you can bring someone. Or just bring someone,” he recommended. Tell that person about the history of the organization, what happened at the last meeting or gathering, and anything else you know.

People living with HIV, particularly those most marginalized, are not waiting to be invited to the table. Some, like Abif, are bringing their own table to the table. Others are creating their own table, conducting research on the issues that impact them most. In 2015, sex workers and trans people published Nothing About Us Without Us: Sex Work, HIV Policy Organizing, Transgender Empowerment. The report is the first of a series and explores the ways in which HIV policies impact trans people who are sex workers or are profiled as sex workers.

That same year, the Transgender Law Center launched Positively Trans, a project to develop self-empowerment and advocacy by and for trans people living with HIV. The project conducted its own research about the experiences and challenges facing trans women living with HIV. Researchers were the trans people directly impacted; they reached out to hundreds of people, gathering partial responses from more than 400 trans people and complete responses from 157. In March 2016, Positively Trans published its first report, finding economic and systemic disparities for trans people, including the fact that the majority of trans women who are U.S. citizens earned less than $23,000 a year, more than 40% had been incarcerated in their lives and 69% had experienced HIV-related discrimination. The Center is also offeringdigital storytelling sessions, allowing people with HIV to tell their own stories instead of having them mediated by a third party.

“We need to prioritize the most impacted people,” declared Maxx Boykin, an organizer at AIDS Chicago and an organizing co-chair of the Chicago chapter of Black Youth Project 100, a national organization of young black activists. “Don’t tell them what they need. Listen — so they can tell you.”

Victoria Law is a freelance writer and editor. Her work focuses on the intersections of incarceration, gender and resistance. She is the author of Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women.

USA: Criminalisation advocates explain why using the right language is key to success

Jennie Smith-Camejo, the communications director of Positive Women’s Network – USA, stood at the podium at the second HIV Is Not a Crime conference on HIV criminalization in May. Behind her was a PowerPoint presentation with several examples of recent egregious headlines about people living with HIV.

“Woman With HIV Convicted of Biting Sister During Fight,” screamed one. “Man With HIV Assaults Hospital Employee,” read another. “Suspect Threatens to Transmit HIV to Police Officer,” announced a third.

“You don’t really hear [much] about HIV in the news anymore,” Smith-Camejo noted as she flipped through these headlines. “So, if these are what you’re seeing and hearing, what would you think?”

That is the challenge for people fighting HIV criminalization laws. How do you push past the fear and panic around HIV transmission when click-bait headlines dominate media coverage?

There’s no one opinion about what kind of messaging is most effective. For some, using language that appeals to their audience’s core values has been effective. Others reject that strategy, instead demanding more inclusive, intersectional messages that do not leave out the most vulnerable, such as sex workers and trans people.

“When you’re talking to people outside the HIV community, you have to think about what they’re thinking and hearing,” stated Jennie Smith-Camejo, the communications director of Positive Women’s Network – USA, an advocacy network of women living with HIV. “People’s views on policies and issues are more shaped by emotion than reason,” Camejo-Smith noted. But advocates have the power to appeal to these emotions. Using stories can change hearts and minds in ways that cold hard facts often do not, she said.

Jennie Smith-Camejo gives one example of messaging that appeals to a more conservative audience. When talking to people who may not care about the injustices of police profiling of trans women or HIV criminalization, she points to the way in which Cyd Nova, the harm reduction coordinator at the Saint James Infirmary, a clinic for current and former sex workers, frames the issue of policing as one that interferes with personal responsibility and protecting public health:

Trans women are disproportionately profiled and targeted by law enforcement for harassment and arrest. And because of policies like [using] condoms as evidence, trans women often face a choice between protecting themselves and their partners from HIV and risking arrest.

Effective messaging can sometimes prevent a harmful legislative amendment from even reaching the floor.LaTrischa Miles is a board member of Positive Women’s Network – USA, as well as the founder and president of Grace, a faith-based support group in in Kansas City for women affected by and living with HIV. When she learned that Missouri legislators planned to introduce a bill that would make it a crime for a person with HIV to spit at someone, she and other activists sprang into action. They contacted legislators and debunked the myths about saliva and HIV transmission. “Because they heard from us in the community, they didn’t even bring it forward for the hearing,” Miles recalled.

In Colorado, members of the Mod Squad and Senator Pat Steadman utilized language that appealed to a broader political spectrum as they pushed SB 146, a bill that repealed two criminalization statutes and reformed another. Instead of talking about criminalization as an injustice that needed to be eliminated, Steadman appealed to conservative values, such as personal responsibility. “We talked about barriers that criminalization poses to testing, treatment and public health,” Steadman stated in a celebratory address. “The biggest thing to take on is people’s fear and ignorance.”

To combat stigma and hammer home the importance of changing the law, Steadman’s talking point became: “The criminal law is a clumsy and ineffective tool for protecting public health.”

Advocates also shifted their messaging. Barb Cardell, a long-time HIV activist and member of the Colorado Mod Squad (“Mod” is short for modernization), recalled that the group had initially called themselves the HIV Decriminalization Task Force, then the STI Grassroots Modernization Alliance.

“We didn’t change anything else we were doing,” recalled John Tenorio, a rural Mod Squad member. Simply changing their name brought them more respect and support.

In Colorado, it appears that the shift worked. Steadman and the Mod Squad faced little opposition to repealing and reforming the criminalization statutes. (Instead, Steadman noted, the sticking point was the provision allowing minors to be tested and treated for HIV without parental consent.) SB 146 passed in both houses of the legislature and is now awaiting the governor’s signature.

But not everyone agrees with shifting the message to appeal to more conservative audiences. “You have to think about decriminalization — true repeal of these outrageous laws. Don’t talk to me about modernizing things to make them sound better. I am not here to wait years and years and years for this to happen,” said Maxx Boykin, an organizing co-chair of the Chicago chapter of Black Youth Project 100 (BYP100), a national organization of 18- to 35-year-old black activists, and a community organizer at AIDS Chicago. He tied HIV criminalization to the pervasive state violence against black people, particularly black youth. “You have to stop criminalizing who I am, who my friends are.”

Appeals to modernize laws will not stop the collision of criminalization faced by those marginalized by race, gender identity and poverty, he explained. “I have to talk about how [criminalization] disproportionately affects black people,” Boykin told TheBody.com. He draws parallels between HIV criminalization laws and the disparities in crack-cocaine sentencing. It’s a parallel that those already organizing against police and state violence understand all too well.

He also challenges people to think about criminalization as a whole, tying HIV criminalization to issues of racism and mass incarceration as well as explaining how people living with HIV are treated in prison and what HIV criminalization actually looks like.

Marco Castro-Bojorquez, a documentary filmmaker, community organizer and member of the steering committee for the U.S. People Living With HIV Caucus, arrived in the United States from Mexico 20 years ago. For him, an intersectional analysis needs to be present in every discussion.

“It’s difficult to talk to people about race and class,” he told The Body.com. “But you need to do it when talking about any injustice.” These conversations can be difficult, he acknowledged. “White people get offended or angry or sad,” he said. For them, he said, “it’s important to check your privilege and make sure you are not making us [people of color] responsible for your feelings. People don’t understand the amount of energy it requires for us [to explain racism and other injustices we face].”

He concentrates his energies on working with people who feel the brunt of marginalization the most — people of color, immigrants and trans people. In 2015 he helped launch Venas Abiertas: Una Red de Inmigrantes Latinxs Viviendo con el VIH/Sida (Open Veins: A Network of Latinx Immigrants Living With HIV/AIDS) for HIV-positive Latino immigrants to advocate for their needs and work with allies.

When Castro-Bojorquez talks about HIV criminalization, he’s often met with shock that such laws even exist. He recalls repeated conversations with his best friend. “He could not believe you could have sex with someone, use a condom, not transmit anything and still be thrown in jail,” he recounted. The two continued to have conversations about criminalization — and Castro-Bojorquez’s work to end it. “Now he’s super-knowledgeable about it,” he said.

Castro-Bojorquez also cautions against the tendency to characterize certain statutes as “not so bad,” explaining that “any law that criminalizes HIV is bad.”

Regardless of the words they choose, advocates say the message needs to be clear and not veer into other topics. Mark King, the blogger behind My Fabulous Disease, learned this firsthand.

In 1992, when Magic Johnson first announced that he was living with HIV, King was the newly appointed communications person for the Los Angeles Shanti Foundation, which provided emotional support for people dying from AIDS-related complications. Johnson’s announcement inevitably sparked office gossip, including speculation about which AIDS organization Johnson might endorse as well as the fact that Elizabeth Taylor had sent Johnson flowers, King recalled. That gossip was still buzzing when the phone began ringing with press requests. “I was young and stupid,” King recounted and, when he spoke with a reporter from the Los Angeles Times, he began chattering away, repeating the office gossip.

The next day, the Los Angeles Times ran King’s statements about Elizabeth Taylor and the rivalry for Johnson’s support among AIDS organizations. “I gave the reporter the story he wanted to write — about the competition among agencies — rather than the message I was supposed to deliver,” King recalled 24 years later. The lesson? “Hold on tight to your message and repeat it over and over so they can’t put in some stupid quote about Elizabeth Taylor.”

Originally published in The Body

Key HIV transmission study shows no risk to HIV-negative partner when person with HIV is on suppressive antiretroviral therapy

By Simon Collins, HIV i-Base

Tuesday 12 July 2016

Published to coincide with IAS 2016 conference that opens in Durban next week, the PARTNER study showing the impact of HIV treatment (ART) on reducing transmission will benefit millions of people globally.

The results set a new challenge about whether transmission is anything other than a theoretical risk when someone is taking effective ART. This reverses the common assumption that, by definition, some level of risk always exists when one partner is HIV positive.

The PARTNER study provides good evidence that undetectable viral load might be a threshold below which sexual HIV transmission does not occur. The importance of the PARTNER study is that it included both gay and straight couples, that it measured risk in people who were not using condoms and that it estimated absolute risks.

Previous studies have been almost exclusively in heterosexual people who still reported high rates of condom use. The PARTNER study provides more than three times the amount of follow-up time from people not using condoms than all the previous studies combined. This includes 500 couple-years of follow up from people having anal sex without condoms.

Methods

Between September 2010 and May 2014 the PARTNER study prospectively enrolled 1166 serodifferent couples at 75 clinical sites in 14 European countries. Entry criteria included that the positive partner had an undetectable viral load on ART and that the couple were not always using condoms when they had sex.

Follow-up included routine sexual health checks (including HIV testing for the negative partners) and each participant also completed sexual history questionnaires to look at risk for different activities. Couples were only included in the final analysis when the most recent viral load for the positive partners was undetectable – defined as <200 copies/mL. The primary endpoint was the rate of within-partner transmissions, determined by phylogenetic analyses for all couples in which the negative partner became positive.

Results

Of 1166 couples enrolled, 1004 couples had at least one follow-up visit and 888 couples provided 1238 couple years of follow-up (median 1.3 years (IQR 0.8 to 2.0) per couple. This included 548 heterosexual (HT) couples and 340 gay male couples. The main reasons for data not being included in the follow-up analysis was: not yet reaching first follow-up visit (n=162), lack of HIV test (n=20), use of PEP or PrEP (n=9), no condomless sex (n=15), viral load >200 copies/mL (n=55) and lack of viral load result (n=17). There were no significant differences between couples who contributed to follow-up data compared to those who didn’t.

Although 11 people became HIV positive, none of these infections were phylogenetically linked transmissions. This was after at least 58,000 distinct times when couples had penetrative sex without condoms.

Baseline demographics were reported – as with all results – by categories of HIV status, gender and sexuality, with some differences between groups. This makes summarising results complex, but the median age ranged from 40 to 44 (with IQR overall ranging from 31 to 50 years). Gay men and HT women were a few years younger than HT men. Approximately 80% of the HT men were white compared to 70% of women and 90% of gay men. A higher percentage of gay men had education to college/university or higher (approximately 50% compared to 19% to 35% for heterosexuals. Although some of these differences were significant, other than there were fewer very young adults involved, they reflect the diversity of people living with HIV.

HIV positive partners had been on ART for a median of 10.6 (IQR: 4.3 to 15.6), 7.5 (IQR: 3.3 to 14.2) and 4.8 (IQR: 1.9 to 11.4) years, for HT men, HT women and gay men respectively. At baseline, couples reported having had sex without condoms for a median of 2 years (IQR 0.5 to 6.3), with differences between groups. For example, straight couples had been having sex without condoms for roughly 3 years (IQR 0.7 to 11 years) compared to 1.5 years (IQR 0.5 to 4 years) for gay couples. Approximately 23% of couples were in new/recent relationships (<6 months). Self-reported adherence to ART was similarly high at >90% in the three positive groups. Similar proportions of each group also had CD4 counts >350 cells/mm³ (85% to 91%).

Based on data from the negative partners, overall, couples reported having sex without condoms a median of 37 times a year (IQR 15 to 71), with gay couples (median 41; IQR 17 to 75) reporting condomless sex at least 22,000 times and heterosexual couples (median 35; IQR 13 to 70) more than 36,000 times. These were rough estimates from recall and partners did not always report the same numbers. Some couples reported sex outside the main relationship: 108 gay couples (33%) and 34 heterosexual couples (4%).

None of the 11 incident HIV infections in negative partners (ten gay and one heterosexual) were phylogenetically linked to the positive partner. Most people (8/11) reported having sex without condoms with people outside the main relationship. All samples (n=22) were successfully sequenced for pol and 91% (n=20) were sequenced for env. None of the partner sequences clustered together and the results were consistent after using using several different analyses. Additional details for these analyses are described in the online supplementary material. [2]

With zero transmissions, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for the overall study was 0.3 per 100 couple years of follow up (CYFU). Each category of specific risks, given that the calculations are a factor determined by study numbers and power, had different upper 95%CI boundaries: for example, 0.88 for HT sex overall vs 0.84 for gay sex overall.

This means that the upper 95%CI for receptive anal sex for gay men (2.70 with ejaculation and 1.68 without ejaculation) needs to be interpreted as a factor of sample size: there were fewer CYFU so the upper limit is by definition higher. While this calculation is developed to define the potential range within which the true risk might lie, the 95%CI should not be interpreted as indicating a risk that has been observed in the study. To illustrate this difficulty, the higher estimated risk for heterosexual anal sex with upper 95%CI of 12.71 and 8.14 (with and without ejaculation, respectively) are driven by fewer CYFU with this as the primary risk rather than any biological reason for this to be much higher. Of note though, more than 20% of straight couples reported anal sex.

The ongoing PARTNER 2 study continues to follow up gay couples in the PARTNER study and to recruit additional gay couples, in order to produce a similarly powered evidence base for gay mean as for straight couples, with follow up until 2019. [2]

Also of note during the study, 91 HIV positive partners reported other STIs (n=16 HT men, 16 HT women and 59 gay men) – closely matching STIs in the negative partners, also without any increased risk reported for HIV transmission.

An non-technical i-Base Q&A on these results is also online. [3]

An extension of the PARTNER study is continuing to collect further data on risk for gay men. [4]

Simon Collins is a community representative on the steering committee of the PARTNER study.

comment

These results are simple to understand – zero transmissions from over 58,000 individual times that people had sex without condoms. They are also notable for the complexity of the analysis that was needed to prove that none of the new diagnoses were linked transmissions from within the couple.

Together, this provides the strongest estimate of actual risk of HIV transmission when an HIV positive person has undetectable viral load – and that this risk is effectively zero. While no study cannot exclude the possibility that the true risk might lie within the upper limit of the 95%CI, even if the true value is actually zero due to some as yet unproven mechanism, the 95%CI can never be zero, just becomes increasingly close. Neither the presence of STIs nor likely viral load blips between tests had any impact in enabling transmission.

The results provide a dataset to question whether transmission with an undetectable viral load is actually possible. They should help normalise HIV and challenge stigma and discrimination.

The results challenge criminalisation laws that in many countries, including the United States, continue to imprison hundreds of people based on assumptions of risk that these results disprove, even when condoms are used and viral load is undetectable.

Activist Sean Strub, from the SERO project (www.seroproject.com) said:

“Hundreds of people living with HIV in the US have been charged with criminal offences for the perceived or potential risk of HIV exposure or transmission. Some are serving or have served long prison sentences for spitting, scratching or biting and others for not being able to prove they had disclosed their HIV positive status before having sexual contact (even in the absence of any risk of HIV transmission). HIV criminalisation has created a viral underclass in the law, further burdening a disenfranchised community, putting a disproportionate share of the shared responsibility for preventing sexually-transmitted infections on one party, and discouraging people at risk from getting tested for HIV.”

The results will also positively impact on the quality of life for both HIV positive and HIV negative individuals who are in serodifferent relationships, irrespective of the choice to use condoms.

The ongoing PARTNER 2 study is continuing to follow-up gay couples and is still enrolling new couples to achieve a similar statistical power for anal sex compared to vaginal sex. For further details of sites please see the PARTNER2 website. [3]

Reference

Rodger AJ et al for the PARTNER study group. Sexual activity without condoms and risk of HIV transmission in serodifferent couples when the HIV-positive partner is using suppressive antiretroviral therapy. JAMA, 2016;316(2):1-11. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.5148. (12 July 2016). Full free access.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jama.2016.5148
PARTNER study, supplementary material. JAMA (16 July 2016).
i-Base Q&A from the study.
http://i-base.info/qa-on-the-partner-study/
PARTNER2 website.
http://www.chip.dk/PARTNER-2

Canada: Activist Christian Hui on why HIV criminalisation harms us all

US: Democratic Party pledges to "address HIV criminalization laws" in its 2016 draft party platform

Democratic Party Comes Out Strong for LGBTQ Equality in 2016 Party Platform

HRC Blog by post by Stephen Peters

Today, the Democratic Party released its draft 2016 party platform, including key provisions that focus on improving the lives of LGBTQ people and advocating for full equality.

“This is the most LGBTQ-inclusive platform of any major U.S. party,” said JoDee Winterhof, HRC’s Senior Vice President for Policy and Political Affairs. “We will continue to work with the Democratic Party to ensure the most robust platform for LGBTQ Americans. From protecting LGBTQ young people to ending the epidemic of violence against transgender people to passing an explicit and comprehensive federal non-discrimination law to bringing about an AIDS-free generation, the platform addresses many of the major challenges facing our community today.”

Here are some of the highlights:

LGBT Rights

Democrats applaud last year’s decision by the Supreme Court that recognized LGBT people— like every other American—have the right to marry the person they love. But there is still much work to be done. LGBT kids continue to be bullied at school, a restaurant can refuse to serve a transgender person, and a same-sex couple is at risk of being evicted from their home. That is unacceptable and must change. Democrats will fight for comprehensive federal non- discrimination protections for all LGBT Americans and push back against state efforts to discriminate against LGBT individuals. We will combat LGBT youth homelessness and improve school climates, and we will protect transgender individuals from violence. We will promote LGBT human rights and ensure America’s foreign policy is inclusive of LGBT people around the world.

Civil Rights

Democrats will always fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. We need to promote civility and speak out against bigotry and other forms of intolerance that have entered our political discourse. It is unacceptable to target, defame, or exclude anyone because of their religion, race, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation.

HIV and AIDS

Democrats believe an AIDS-free generation is within our grasp. But we know far too many Americans still suffer, which is why we will implement the National HIV and AIDS Strategy, increase research funding for the National Institutes of Health, cap pharmaceutical expenses for people living with HIV and AIDS, address HIV criminalization laws, and expand access for HIV prevention medications, particularly for the populations most at risk of infection. Abroad, we will make the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief more effective and increase global funding for HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment. Democrats will always protect those living with HIV and AIDS from stigma and discrimination.

Supporting our Troops

[…]Democrats welcome and honor all Americans who want to serve and will continue to fight for their equal rights and recognition. We are proud of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the opening of combat positions to women. Our military is strongest when people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and gender identities are honored for their service to our country.

Racial Justice

Democrats will fight to end institutional and systemic racism in our society. We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political, and social inequity. Democrats will promote racial justice through fair, just, and equitable governing of all institutions serving the public and in the formation of public policy. We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and there is no place for racism in our country.

Gun Violence Prevention

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. We will expand background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws, hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable, keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons—off our streets, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues.

Canada: Activists challenge Ontario's Premier to intervene in unjust prosecutions

Banner drop! Stop criminalizing people living with HIV!

Posted on July 3, 2016 by AAN

STOP THE WITCH-HUNT:

Activists drop banner with message to Ontario Premier

during Toronto Pride parade

TORONTO, July 3, 2016 —This afternoon, as the Ontario Premier marched in the country’s largest Pride parade, AIDS ACTION NOW! (www.aidsactionnow.org) dropped a huge banner overlooking Yonge Street, calling on Kathleen Wynne to “stop criminalizing people with HIV.”

Ontario continues to lead Canadian provinces in charges against people living with HIV for not disclosing their status, even when they have taken precautions to protect their partners, when there is little to no risk of transmission, and when no transmission has taken place. People are being prosecuted for aggravated sexual assault, one of the most serious charges under the Criminal Code. Conviction carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a mandatory designation as a sex offender for a minimum of 20 years. Analysis of prosecutions shows a disproportionate number of charges against racialized people and a growing number against vulnerable women.

Overly broad criminalization is not only unjust, it also undermines public health. Fear of being criminalized discourages people from testing for HIV or seeking counselling. Fear of prosecution also makes it more difficult for people to disclose their status. This can contribute to the spread of HIV. Two years ago, nearly 80 of Canada’s leading HIV scientists issued a ground-breaking consensus statement reviewing the scientific evidence about HIV transmission risk and expressing their concern about the increasing divergence between that science and the overly broad use of the criminal law.

In 2010, Ontario’s then-Attorney General Chris Bentley committed to developing guidelines to limit such prosecutions. Six years later, his Ministry still refuses to develop guidelines to this effect. Meanwhile, Crown attorneys in Ontario continue to pursue such cases and even seek to expand the circumstances in which people can be convicted. This is not in the public interest.

We call on Premier Wynne to intervene. Her Attorney General must instruct Crown attorneys to respect scientific evidence about HIV transmission and stop unnecessary, unjust prosecutions which undermine public health efforts to control the spread of HIV.

– 30 –

For further information:

▪ AIDS ACTION NOW!: Darien Taylor (Sunday, July 3, only), 416-516-3147

▪ For legal background: Richard Elliott, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 416 898 3313

▪ For a timeline on efforts to engage the Ministry of the Attorney General: www.clhe.ca

Webinar: HIV Criminalization Attitudes and Opinions of the American Public (Sero, 2016)

Presenters: Sean Strub and Dr. Rosita Thomas

Canada: In Nova Scotia, glimmers of hope for science in the prosecution of HIV non-disclosure

Analysis by our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partner, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

Despite very few prosecutions, Nova Scotia has become an interesting place in Canada with respect to the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure.

In April 2016, a trial judge from Antigonish ruled that non-disclosure before vaginal sex with a condom or a low viral load (< 1,500 copies/ml) did not amount to aggravated sexual assault.

Back in November 2013, a trial judge from Halifax acquitted a young man with an undetectable viral load who had not disclosed his HIV-positive status before sex without a condom.

These decisions represent significant developments in Canada, where the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in R. v. Mabior opened the door to prosecutions even if a condom was used or the HIV-positive partner had a low or undetectable viral load.

Thanks to Nova Scotia judges, science might finally prevail.

In the recent Antigonish case, three medical experts testified, all aligning themselves with the Canadian consensus statement on HIV and its transmission in the context of the criminal law that was developed by eminent HIV experts in response to the 2012 Supreme Court decision.

They clearly testified that condoms are highly effective to prevent transmission (“protection is almost 100% when a condom is used,” said the Crown medical expert) and that being on treatment and having a low viral load dramatically reduce the chance of transmitting the virus.

Remarkably, they were also testimonies that the risk of HIV transmission in the absence of ejaculation is at most “negligible” and that HIV transmission from pre-ejaculate, if even possible, is not proven (there was no ejaculation with the first complainant and a reasonable doubt about ejaculation with the second complainant).

Based on the medical evidence before the Court, the trial judge concluded that the legal test of a “realistic possibility of HIV transmission” established in Mabior, which triggers the legal duty to disclose, had not been met. The accused was found not guilty of aggravated sexual assault.

Disappointingly, despite the absence of a “realistic possibility of HIV transmission,” the accused was nevertheless convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm due to the psychological harm allegedly suffered by the complainants while waiting for their test results (neither of the complainants has contracted HIV).

Despite the progress made in acknowledging scientific evidence, this ultimate decision is highly problematic and arguably legally unfounded. It remains to be seen if the decision will be appealed.

The full decision can be downloaded from the Supreme Court of Novia Scotia’s website