HIV is Not a Crime Training Academy now requesting workshop submissions

The second HIV is Not a Crime meeting, now a Training Academy, will take place between May 17 – 20, 2016 at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The Training Academy will unite and train advocates living with HIV and allies from North America on laws, policies and practices criminalising people living with and vulnerable to HIV and on strategies and best practices for improving legal environments.

There will be three tracks, focused on

1) Effective and Accountable Leadership,

2) Rights, Policy and Justice, and

3) Campaign Planning, Strategy and Messaging.

Workshops will help advance informed and effective grassroots organising and coalition-building, providing participants with concrete tools and resources to work on state-level strategies when they return home.

Advocates working on HIV criminalisation in the United States, Canada or Mexico are encouraged to submit an application to conduct a workshop at the Training Academy and contribute to this growing and important movement.

Deadline for submissions is Friday, February 26, 2016 by 5:00 pm CST (6:00 pm EST, 3:00 PST).

Descriptions of workshop tracks are below:

Effective and Accountable Leadership

This track will focus on building relevant and current leadership skills for an effective and intersectional criminalisation movement.

Sessions considered may include coalition-building, development of individual leadership skills or emphasise disproportionately impacted communities.

Rights, Policy, and Justice

This track will focus on policy issues, criminal justice, and advocacy strategies relevant to disproportionately criminalized communities.

Submissions on issues specific to communities targeted by policing practices due to race, gender identity, sexual orientation, substance use, immigration status, and other forms of discrimination are encouraged.

Campaign Planning, Strategy and Messaging

This track will provide resources, tools and skills advocates need to successfully develop and implement a state-level campaign to repeal or modernize criminalization laws.

Submissions may focus on the “nuts-and-bolts” required for organizing, including messaging research and positioning, how to best utilize research to persuade media, policy leaders and legislators and creation and execution of a campaign plan.

After reviewing proposals, conference organizers may invite session organizers to collaborate on a session. All presenters are required to register for the conference. Acceptance of a proposal does not guarantee a scholarship or coverage of any of the necessary registration or travel expenses.

We expect to receive more breakout session proposals than we can actually accommodate. When making selection decisions, we have many considerations to balance, including our desire to elevate diverse leadership and new organizations and voices into the mix at each Training Academy. Please read the criteria below for what we are and are not looking for.

Proposals that meet all or most of these criteria will be given the most favorable consideration:

Participatory: Proposed session is interactive, with lots of two-way communication between participants and presenters and hands-on engaging activities.
Timely: Proposal demonstrates an understanding of current criminal justice, policing, and criminalization environment
Intersectional: Proposal demonstrates an intersectional analysis
Practical: Session proposes to leave participants with useful tools, including innovative strategies, exemplary models, powerful narratives, and accessible artistic and cultural expressions.
Action-Oriented: Session connects to active issue campaigns, grassroots community organizing, and current struggles and/or movement building efforts.
Intergenerational: The content is relevant to, and encouraging of, the participation of youth and young people, as well as multi-generational strategies.
Geographic Diversity: For national audience, we want the content and facilitators to relate to different geographic areas, especially the South.
Multiracial: Sessions include a multiracial and intersectional analysis and approach — even if there is a mono-racial emphasis. A multiracial team of facilitators is also encouraged.

Breakout Sessions should not consist of:

Lectures, presentations of academic papers or mostly theory, or panels that primarily involve people talking at others.
Sessions that do not have a connection to people working in local communities.
Sessions that focus primarily on a problem, without equal or greater attention to proposed solutions.
Sessions by individuals not engaged with, connected or accountable to social justice organizations or communities.

Important Notes:

The deadline for submission is Friday, February 26, 2016 by 5:00 pm CST (6:00 pm EST, 3:00 PST). You will receive notice of acceptance on Friday, April 1, 2016.

Applicants may submit up to two workshops for consideration. For each 90-minute workshop, applicants should follow the suggested format below. Workshops submissions must be one page in length and be in a font 11 point or over but not smaller. Your submission will not be reviewed if it is more than one page (8.5 x 11) in length or if the font is smaller than 11 point. There is no limit to the number of total presenters on a workshop.

Workshop submissions will be reviewed and evaluated by a volunteer Program Work Group on the following criteria: 1) alignment with track description, SERO and PWN-USA values, and Training Academy goals 2) clarity of description 3) appropriateness of suggested format.

We strongly encourage applicants to consider formats that engage participants, rather than simply presenting information. In addition, the program committee will review overall workshop acceptances with an eye towards diversity of presenters, particularly in demographics, geography, skills, and expertise.

Every proposal must include:

FIRST, LAST NAME OF LEAD PRESENTER(S):
FIRST, LAST NAME(S) OF ADDITIONAL PRESENTER(S):
EMAIL ADDRESS/PHONE NUMBER FOR LEAD PRESENTER:
TITLE & ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION FOR ALL PRESENTERS:
WORKSHOP TRACK: 1) Effective and Accountable Leadership 2) Rights, Policy & Justice; 3) Campaign Planning, Strategy and Messaging
PROPOSED WORKSHOP TITLE:
WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION:
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVE(S):
FORMAT OF WORKSHOP: Describe how you and/or presenter(s) will conduct the workshop, i.e. presentation style, opportunity for discussion and/or interactive activities/exercises.

Email workshop submissions by Friday, February 26, 2016 to: conference@seroproject.com

All other questions regarding the Summit should be emailed to Tami Haught at: tami.haught@seroproject.com

Czech Officials Launch Criminal Investigation Into 30 Gay Men Over HIV Exposure

Kenya: KELIN to challenge President Kenyatta's plan to keep a list of every child and breastfeeding/expectant mothers living with HIV

Czech Republic: Prague Public Health Authority initiates criminal prosecutions of 30 gay men living with HIV following an STI diagnosis

Late last month, Prague’s Public Health Authority initiated criminal investigations against 30 gay men living with HIV that had been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) during the previous year.

The Public Health Authority appear to believe that since these men acquired an STI this is proof that they must have practiced condomless sex and have therefore violated Sections 152 and 153 of the Czech Criminal Code, which a 2005 Supreme Court ruling confirmed could be used to prosecute any act of condomless sex (including oral sex) by a person living with HIV as “spread of infectious diseases”.

There are no individual complainants in these cases.

The Czech AIDS Society responded to the publication of initial media reports on January 26th, with a press release that highlighted:

They have already begun to provide legal counseling to several of these men.
Most of them have an undetectable viral load and/or only have sex only with other men living with HIV (known as ‘serosorting’).
Being diagnosed with an STI does not, in and of itself, prove that condomless sex took place because most STIs can be acquired even when condoms are used.
Fear of punishment will lead to people living with HIV and at risk of a sexually transmitted infection not getting tested or treated.

“Czech AIDS Society has long struggled against the criminalisation of the private life of people living with HIV in cases where there is no HIV transmission. We believe that the HIV epidemic must be fought not through repression, but through the treatment which, in most cases, reduces the viral load of HIV-positive patients to undetectable levels thus eliminating the risk of transmission.”

They went on to make a number of media appearances pointing out that applying criminal law to potential HIV exposure does not reduce the spread of HIV, undermines HIV prevention efforts, promotes fear and stigma, punishes behaviour that is not blameworthy and ignores the real challenges of HIV prevention in the Czech Republic.

They also published a second press release, entitled “Professional failure of public health officials” on February 10th that was strongly critical of the actions of Prague’s Public Health Authority, noting that they have greatly undermined trust in the confidentiality of the public health system which will likely lead to an increase in new HIV infections.

On February 12th, the head of Prague’s Public Health Authority, Ms. Zdenka Jagrova (pictured above), issued a statement in response, suggesting that the Authority is legally obliged to initiate such criminal complaints and that “it would be a professional failure if [we] did not do so…

[We] did not check sexual orientation of HIV-positive people who got infected with another contagious, sexually transmitted disease. It is not an attack on the gay community, but in 2014 no HIV-positive woman in Prague was diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease. A public health authority is obliged to protect the public health of the population and must act in the same manner as in case of other infectious diseases, for instance TB….This campaign aiming at questioning our practices is clearly intended to assert alleged rights of a minority at the expense of the rights of the majority, i.e. in particular the right to health, irrespective of who and how threatens the health. We consider attempts to create a privileged group that would be excluded from generally defined responsibilities very dangerous.”

A number of organisations representing communities of people living with and affected by HIV are now working together with UNAIDS to support the Czech AIDS Society, including the circulation of a Change.org petition.

It appears that none of the cases have yet been passed to the Public Prosecution office for formal prosecution. However, the investigation has set a dangerous precedent and we understand that public health departments in other regions of the Czech Republic are now considering following the Prague example.

US: Lambda Legal’s Fair Courts Project provides training for judges, court staff and attorneys nationwide on LGBT cultural competency and bias related to gender, sexuality and HIV

Through Lambda Legal’s Fair Courts Project, we provide training for judges, court staff and attorneys nationwide on LGBT cultural competency and bias related to gender and sexuality. These trainings are part of our work to increase access to justice; and we have evidence that they are making a difference in the lives of those working in the courts and those interfacing with the courts as defendants, plaintiffs, jurors and witnesses.

Here are 3 reasons we are training judges, court staff and attorneys nationwide:

1.      Cultural competency and anti-bias education affirms the dignity of LGBT court users and court users living with HIV. Most judges, attorneys and court staff want to treat every court user with respect and dignity, and all court officers have an ethical duty to treat everyone in the courtroom fairly and respectfully, but many lack the knowledge to do so. Others may treat court users with disrespect or discrimination because of deeply held, but often unconscious biases. Still others may feel justified in their explicit bias towards LGBT people or people living with HIV. Our trainings create a more fair, respectful and just court experience for litigants, jurors and witnesses by educating judges, attorneys and court staff on how to address individuals with correct names and pronouns, how to question, examine and interrupt some of their biases about gender and sexuality, and how to relate others’ identities and experiences which may be very different from their own to their common shared humanity.

2.      Cultural competency and anti-bias education improves the lives and work environments of judges, court staff and attorneys. When bias is reduced in the courthouse, working conditions are improved for judges, court staff and attorneys who are LGBT, intersex, or living with HIV. We also address intersecting forms of discrimination that affect people of color, indigenous people and people with disabilities. Our trainings can also impact participants’ lives on a personal level. After a recent training for criminal court judges and staff, an older participant told us that she had always felt as if she was an “alien” and that there was no one else in the world like her until the day of the training when she learned the word “intersex” and realized that word described her and others like her. She went on to say that this one training had changed her life and ended decades of shame, confusion and secrecy. Many other participants have said that our trainings helped them to understand and respectfully relate to LGBT family, friends and co-workers.

3.      Cultural competency and anti-bias education strengthens the judicial system. Lambda Legal’s 2015 survey of the experiences of LGBT people and people living with HIV in court, Protected and Served?, found that only 27% of transgender people and 33% of LGBT people of color who responded said they “trust the courts.” One likely reason for mistrust of the judicial system is the implicit and explicit bias of judges, attorneys and court staff that negatively impacts the experience of court users in myriad ways. Bias and lack of cultural competency (“cultural competency” is a term meaning reasonable familiarity with the experiences, language and norms of a cultural group) can lead to improper assumptions and stereotypes, disrespectful and discriminatory conduct. Our training programs educate court personnel about LGBT people and people living with HIV in order to reduce harmful bias, thereby increasing access to justice in the courts and improving public confidence because of more respectful, humane and fair treatment.

The Fair Courts Project is excited to organize trainings of trainers in cities around the U.S. in 2016 in order to replicate our judicial trainings in many more jurisdictions.

For more information on Lambda Legal’s Fair Courts Project please click here. To learn about your rights in court visit our new Know Your Rights in Court hub here. If you have experienced discrimination as a court user please contact our Help Desk at 866-542-8336.

US: Second HIV Is Not a Crime Conference, ‘a national training academy’ for HIV criminalisation advocates, announced for June 2016 (Press Release)

After a very successful inaugural HIV Is Not a Crime National Conference last year, the SERO Project and Positive Women’s Network-USA are pleased to announce that the planning process is underway for a second national conference to support repeal and modernization of laws criminalizing HIV non-disclosure, perceived or potential exposure and transmission, to be held in June 2016.

HIV is Not a Crime II, to be held in June 2016, will unite and train advocates living with HIV and allies from across the country on laws criminalizing people living with HIV and on strategies and best practices for repealing such laws. Skills-building training, with an emphasis on grassroots organizing, advocacy, coalition-building and campaign planning, will leave participants with concrete tools and resources to work on state-level strategies when they return home.

For this training academy, organizers will also emphasize movement building with other decriminalization and criminal justice reform groups. “It’s time to look at the whole context of mass incarceration, racist policing practices, drug policy, sex work policies, and the ways that LGBT and immigrant folks are disproportionately vulnerable in criminalization proceedings, as we consider strategies for repeal and modernization,” says Naina Khanna, executive director of Positive Women’s Network – USA.

Advocates say last year’s conference invigorated on the ground rights-based advocacy led by communities living with and impacted by HIV. “Last year’s HIV is Not a Crime Conference was great because it brought together advocates and people working on changing HIV criminalization laws to brainstorm best practices for people to take home to implement a plan for their state. This was incredibly helpful for us in Tennessee, and really gave us the boost we needed to work on our plan to change the laws here,” states Larry Frampton of Tennessee AIDS Advocacy Network.

“The HIV Prevention Justice Alliance is thrilled to be part of this process again that prioritizes PLHIV, builds power, and ultimately pushes the momentum from the first HIV is Not a Crime conference and this past year in a concerted organizing effort to end these laws across the U.S. in 2016,” says Suraj Madoori, manager of the HIV Prevention Justice Alliance.

“I thought last year’s conference was one of the best discussions in HIV in a long time. It was very powerful to participate in a conference organized by people living with HIV and to hear about their personal experiences around disclosure, prosecution and criminalization,” commented Marsha Martin, Director of the Urban Coalition for HIV/AIDS Prevention Services (UCHAPS). “We have to take on criminalization if we are going to bring about an end to the epidemic. That’s why continuing conferences like this one is so important–and necessary.”

“HIV is Not a Crime II will provide an opportunity for people living with HIV and their closest allies to define their priorities and agenda, educate and mobilize each other and their communities, and further strengthen the community of PLHIV advocates. Michael Callen, one of the authors of the Denver Principles, used to say there was a ‘special magic’ when people with HIV worked together to organize and that is as true today as it was 30 years ago.” states Sean Strub, Executive Director of SERO Project.

Get involved in making HIV is Not a Crime a success!

The planning partners are currently seeking volunteers for five workgroups, as well as financial support for the conference. To read about and join a working group, click here.

Are you interested in providing financial support for this important event? Please contact Sean Strub, SERO Project or Naina Khanna at Positive Women’s Network – USA for more information.

Questions? Please contact Tami Haught, SERO Organizer and Training Coordinator.

UK: Law Commission considers HIV criminalisation in great depth, but recommends no change for HIV/STI prosecutions in England & Wales, pending a wider review

Following a scoping consultation which ran from autumn 2014 to spring 2015, the Law Commission (of England and Wales) has now published its report containing their final recommendations to the UK Government.

It recommends the adoption of a modified version of a 1998 draft Bill to replace the outdated Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

However, whereas the 1998 Bill only criminalised intentional disease transmission, their recommendation is to keep the existing law relating to HIV and other serious diseases ((based on Dica and Konzani and clarified through prosecutorial policy and guidelines) which criminalises reckless as well as intentional disease transmission, pending a wider review.

Both in the scoping consultation paper and in this report, we have considered the criminalisation of disease transmission at great length. Many consultees supported fundamental reform of the law in this area. However, we conclude that the issues were more complex than time or space allowed without delaying the main aim of reforming the law of offences against the person. For this reason, we suggest modifications to the draft Bill to preserve the present position pending a wider review involving more input from healthcare professionals and bodies.

The full report, (chapter six: ‘transmission of disease’ is excerpted in full below), includes a detailed discussion of their proposals and the responses of 35 concerned stakeholders (most of them experts in law, public health and human rights. The HIV Justice Network was one of them, and our opinions are quoted throughout.)

The entire report is of interest not just to those working on this issue in England & Wales, but globally. It rehearses, in great detail, nearly all of the arguments for and against HIV (and other STI) prosecutions, and finds that “there is a strong body of opinion, especially in the medical profession and groups concerned with HIV and sexually transmissible infections, that the transmission of these diseases should never be criminal unless done intentionally.”

The report helpfully summarises the five main arguments against overly broad HIV criminalisation:

(1) an offence of reckless transmission encourages people to choose not to be tested, so as not to have the awareness of risk that might constitute recklessness;

(2) it discourages openness with (and by) medical professionals, because they may have to give evidence against their patients;

(3) it encourages people to think that disclosure of HIV status is always a duty, and that if a potential partner has not mentioned his or her status then he or she is not infected;

(4) because of the difficulty of proving transmission, the existence of the offence leads to very wide-ranging and intrusive investigations affecting a great many people, out of all proportion to the small number who will be found deserving of prosecution; and

(5) the whole topic of HIV/AIDS is affected by an atmosphere of fear (often irrationally so), and there is still an undesirable stigma against people.

Nevertheless, although the report states that “it would be preferable to revert to the law as it stood in 1998” when prosecutions were not possible and to use the draft 1998 Bill as it stands (which would only criminalise the intentional transmisison of disease), it comes to a more conservative conclusion.

The discussion of this issue has almost exclusively concerned the transmission of disease by consensual sexual intercourse, and the transmission of HIV in particular. (Also, most of the evidence for the harmful effects of criminalisation is drawn from countries where there are specific offences concerned with HIV and STIs, and may not be relevant to the use of general offences of causing injury.) The same reasoning may well not apply to other diseases and other means of transmitting them, but the draft Bill excludes disease as a whole.

For these reasons, on the evidence we have we do not feel justified in recommending a change to the position in existing law, in which the reckless transmission of disease is in principle included in an offence of causing harm. If there is to be a change, this should follow a wider review which compares the position in different countries and gives full consideration to the transmission of diseases other than by sexual means.

Of note, and of global relevance, following a great deal of discussion (and a broad range of consultation responses) regarding whether not to create an HIV/STI-specific law and/or broaden the scope of the current law to include non-disclosure and/or potential or perceived exposure, the Law Commission is clear.

We do not recommend the creation of specific offences concerned with disease transmission, either in relation to disease in general or in relation to HIV and STIs in particular: this too would require a wider review of all the available evidence. Nor do we recommend an offence of putting a person in danger of contracting a disease, or an offence of failing to disclose an infection to a sexual partner.

Law Commission Scoping Report: TRANSMISSION OF DISEASE (November 2015)

New IAPAC guidelines to achieving 90-90-90 targets recommend ending HIV criminalisation

New guidelines from the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC ) are the first to highlight that HIV criminalisation is a critical barrier to optimising the HIV care continuum.

Currently only half of people living with HIV globally are aware of their status. Of the remaining 50% many are not yet engaged in care, receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) in a timely manner or – the ultimate goal of HIV treatment and prevention – achieving sustained viral suppression.

These new guidelines are the first to include HIV criminalisation as one of eight key critical barriers that prevent people living with HIV from enjoying both the therapeutic and preventive effects of ART.

In many settings, optimizing the HIV care environment may be the most important action to ensure that there are meaningful increases in the number of people who are tested for HIV, linked to care, started on ART if diagnosed to be HIV positive, and assisted to achieve and maintain long-term viral suppression. Overcoming the legal, social, environmental, and structural barriers that limit access to the full range of services across the HIV care continuum requires multistakeholder engagement, diversified and inclusive strategies, and innovative approaches. Addressing laws that criminalize the conduct of key populations and supporting interventions that reduce HIV-related stigma and discrimination are also critically important. People living with HIV also require support through peer counseling, education, and navigation mechanisms, and their self-management skills reinforced by strengthening HIV literacy across the continuum of care.

The full HIV criminalisation recommendation (Recommendation 2) is below.

Recommendation 2: Laws that criminalize the conduct of PLHIV based on perceived exposure to HIV, and without any evidence of intent to do harm, are not recommended and should be repealed where they have been enacted. (A IV)

Numerous countries have enacted laws that criminalize behaviors associated with HIV exposure, many of which pose a low or negligible HIV transmission risk. No differences in behavior have been noted between settings that enact such laws and those that do not. Many of these laws do not take into account measures that reduce HIV transmissibility, including condom use, and were enacted before the preventive benefit of ART or antiretroviral (ARV)-based preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) was fully characterized. Most PLHIV who know their status take steps to prevent transmitting HIV to others.HIV-specific laws thus primarily exacerbate HIV-related stigma and decrease HIV service uptake.

IAPAC Guidelines for Optimizing the HIV Care Continuum for Adults and Adolescents

Canada: Academic article explores problematic police and media practices relating to allegations of HIV non-disclosure, proposes solutions

Kyle Kirkup explores Canadian police and media practices that stigmatize people living with HIV (PLWH) and facilitate the public’s belief that HIV and PLWH are dangerous. In support, Kirkup analyzes the 2010 case of an Ottawa man living with HIV arrested for sexual assault, which involved the public release of the man’s identity, photo, sexual health, and sexual encounters in an article headlined “Have you had sex with this man?”

The ensuing discourse of gay male sexuality using tropes from the HIV epidemic in the 80s illustrates, Kirkup argues, how a lack of police and media regulation and education continue to produce a punitive and isolating environment for PLWH.

Kirkup proposes several strategies for reform, including expanding publication bans and non-disclosure legislation, changing police ethics to keep private information out of the hands of journalists, educating journalists and public officials about the medial realities of HIV transmission risk and medical prognosis, and abandoning the “aggravated sexual assault” charge based on HIV status.

Canada: New film explores the impact of using sexual assault law to prosecute HIV non-disclosure

This week sees the release of an important new short film from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

Consent: HIV non-disclosure and sexual assault law interrogates whether criminalising HIV non-disclosure does what the Supreme Court of Canada believes it does – protect sexual autonomy and dignity – or whether, in fact, it does injustice both to individuals charged and to the Canadian criminal justice system’s approach to sexual violence.

Produced together with Goldelox Productions, with whom the Legal Network also collaborated on their powerful 2012 documentary’ Positive Women: Exposing Injustice, this 28-minute film features eight experts in HIV, sexual assault and law whose commentary raises many questions about HIV-related legal developments in Canada.

At a time when society seems to be taking the prevalence of sexual

violence and rape culture more seriously, this film dares to ask some

difficult questions about its limits in the law. The law of sexual

assault is intended to protect women’s sexual autonomy, equality

and dignity, yet as applied with respect to alleged HIV non-disclosure,

these values are not necessarily being advanced. Through expert

testimonies, Consent shines a light on the systemic obstacles women

face in disclosing their HIV status, points to the dangerous health

and human rights outcomes of applying such a harsh charge as

aggravated sexual assault to HIV non-disclosure, and makes the

argument that the law needs to better protect those who are living

with and vulnerable to HIV. Consent demonstrates that advocacy

efforts opposing the overly broad criminalization of HIV non-disclosure

must address the use of sexual assault law and that such efforts must

do so alongside feminist allies.

From: http://www.consentfilm.org/about-the-film/

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has for some time been exploring the implications of using sexual assault law to prosecute HIV non-disclosure cases, given the marked differences between the types of conduct that are typically referred to as sexual assault (including rape) and HIV non-disclosure cases.

In April 2014, the Legal Network convened leading feminist scholars, front-line workers, activists and legal experts for a ground-breaking dialogue on the (mis)use of sexual assault laws in cases of HIV non-disclosure. Consent: HIV non-disclosure and sexual assault law was filmed during this convening.

Their analysis demonstrates that the use of sexual assault law in the HIV non-disclosure context – where the sexual activity is consensual other than the non-disclosure – is a poor fit and can ultimately have a detrimental impact on sexual assault law as a tool to advance gender equality and renounce gender-based violence.

The Consent website ( in English / in French ) also lists future screenings across Canada, which will be accompanied by panels and workshops, as part of an ongoing strategy to build up allies among women’s rights advocates for the longer-term work.

A discussion guide will also soon be available.