Delete sections of the HIV/Aids Prevention and Control Act, on transmission of HIV to others. HIV prevention groups are lobbying the government to do so because they are vague. Nelson Otuoma from the Network of Persons Living with HIV also says that some people are using the act to blackmail spouses and other individuals.
The battle of civil society against reinstatement of mandatory HIV testing legislation in Greece
The day after he was appointed, Greek Health Minister Adonis Georgiadis brought back in to force health regulation 39A on July 1, 2013. The regulation forces mandatory testing for HIV and other communicable diseases. It specifies certain groups like people who inject drugs, sex workers and undocumented migrants as a priority, with the argument that this is in the interest of public safety.
US: House Appropriations Committee passes amendment that would fund review of HIV-specific criminal laws
The United States is closer than ever before in ensuring that their HIV-specific laws are reviewed and amended in order to be consistent with current medical and scientific knowledge.
Earlier this week, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee passed an amendment proposed by Congresswoman Barbara Lee to the FY2014 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Act that would require the Attorney General to initiate a review of Federal and State laws, policies, and regulations regarding criminal and related civil commitment cases involving people living with HIV.
This wording is very similar to the content of Lee’s REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act, which was re-introduced in May with bi-partisan support, and which currently has 32 co-sponsors.
“HIV criminalization laws breed, discrimination, distrust, and hatred. These laws are based on fear, not science. This is an important first step in ensuring that our laws reflect current scientific understandings of HIV.” notes Congresswoman Lee in a press release. This amendment passed on a voice vote as part of the manager’s amendment.
The amendment reads as follows:
Modernizing laws with respect to people living with HIV/AIDS.
The Committee is aware of the position of the President’s Advisory Council on AIDS (PACHA) that current criminal laws require modernization, should be consistent with current medical and scientific knowledge and avoid imposition of unwarranted punishment based on health and disability status. The Committee directs the Attorney General, within 90 days following enactment of this Act, to initiate a review of Federal and State laws, policies, and regulations regarding criminal and related civil commitment cases involving people living with HIV/AIDS. The Committee further directs the Attorney General, no later than 180 days from initiating the review, to make best practice recommendations to ensure such policies do not place unique or additional burdens on individuals living with HIV/AIDS and reflect contemporary understanding of HIV transmission routes and associated benefits of treatment.
The Appropriations Act (officially titled ‘S.1329 : An original bill making appropriations for Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes’) has now been placed on Senate Legislative Calendar.
The Sero Project has issued a press release welcoming the amendment and explaining what it means for advocacy against overly-broad HIV-specific criminal laws in the United States.
UK: NAT (National AIDS Trust) produces new guide for police on occupational exposure to HIV
NAT (National AIDS Trust) is calling on all UK police forces to ensure their guidance and policies on HIV are up-to-date – and to use NAT’s new resource ‘HIV: A guide for Police Forces’ for this purpose.
“HIV: A guide for police forces” is endorsed by BHIVA (the British HIV Association) and includes information about how HIV is and isn’t transmitted, what to do if you are exposed to HIV, how to respond to someone with HIV, and information about criminal prosecution for HIV transmission. It also includes an easy-to-use check-list to ensure blood borne virus training and occupational health policies are fit for purpose and up-to-date.
The guide was produced in response to a review of a sample of policies and guidelines from 15 police constabularies out of the 50 in the UK, revealed in a 2012 report. NAT found some forces wrongly cited spitting, scratching, urine, sharing toothbrushes and handling or lifting of people as routes to transmission and also found policies recommending the use of “spit hoods” to protect police from HIV transmission, or stating that people living with HIV and in custody should be held separately and that interviews should be conducted through cell doors or cell door hatches.
The guide is especially targeted at police occupational health trainers, health and safety officers and medical advisers in police forces to improve existing HIV training and guidance. Advocates working with police in jurisdictions around the world may also find this guide useful as a way to encourage the police to update their training and improve the way they treat people living with HIV.
“By producing this guidance we have given police forces the information and evidence they need to ensure their policies and procedures on dealing with HIV are up-to-date and non-stigmatising and to help reduce unnecessary worry about HIV transmission amongst police officers. We are now calling on them to make sure it is put into practice.”
Deborah Jack, Chief Executive of NAT
Uganda: Advocates oppose mandatory HIV testing, disclosure of status to partners, of pregnant women in draft HIV law
Civil society organisations have opposed a proposal in the HIV Prevention and Control Bill providing for mandatory testing of pregnant women and others. The proposal of the coalition of civil society organisations, led by the Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS, was presented during a dialogue on the Bill with members of the Uganda Parliamentary Women Association at Protea Hotel in Kampala yesterday.
The meeting aimed at assisting the legislators in coming up with a common position on the Bill to be forwarded to the committee on HIV/AIDS under whose docket the Bill falls for onward submission to Parliament for approval. The civil society organisations and activists contended that international standards require HIV/AIDS testing to be confidential accompanied by counselling and to be conducted with voluntary and informed consent.
They further argued that mandatory testing of drug users and workers would discourage them from seeking treatment and care. The civil society organisations are also against a provision that allows a medical practitioner to disclose HIV test results without the consent of the affected person. “Mandatory disclosure obligations run the risk of deterring people, especially women, from getting tested,” they stated, arguing that where due caution is not exercised, informing a woman’s partner of her HIV status may expose her to the risk of violence, eviction, disinheritance and severe abuses.
The MPs agreed to do further consultations on the Bill and to study the law enacted by the East African Community assembly on the subject. The Bill has also been heavily criticised by international human rights organisations.
India: Advocates push for enactment of enabling, supportive omnibus HIV/AIDS Bill
“When we first started talking about the HIV/AIDS Bill, we were talking about how our children needed to be taken care of. Today, those children are adults waiting to be married, and have a different set of problems, but there is no law yet,” Daisy David, a woman living with HIV says. After about three years of preparation in consultation with many groups, the HIV/AIDS Bill took final shape in 2006 and was submitted to the Law Ministry the next year.
The Law Ministry took three years to clear it, and sent it back to the Health Ministry. Since then it has been lying idle or being foot balled between the Health and Law Ministries, activists charged. Meanwhile, the community got tired of waiting for the State to take over and do the rest. So they took to the street again, campaigning for the bill to be tabled in the coming session of the Parliament.
“It is extremely disappointing, the way this Bill has been shuttling between the two Ministries. We demand that the government should table the Bill in this monsoon session,” says Reni Jacob of World Vision. He stresses the importance of bringing into force a law that will protect the rights of persons living with HIV and offer them a forum for redress. The Bill envisaged wholesome coverage of issues relating to persons living with HIV/AIDS addressing issues of stigma and discrimination, care and protection, treatment and ensuring their rights. “We have a lot of problems now, from access to anganwadis, health care, and education, to denial of property rights. We can only keep quiet because there is no law to protect us,” Ms. David says, detailing her own experiences.
The Bill protects people living with, and affected by HIV from discrimination in both private and public sectors, bringing the private sector into the ambit for the first time, Kumaravel of the Tiruvallur Network of Positive People explains. Also, the Bill puts an obligation on the State to provide complete treatment including antiretrovirals, diagnostics, treatment for opportunistic infections, and nutritional supplements to every person living with HIV in the country, adds Noori of the South Indian Network of People with HIV/AIDS.
Surekha N of the Lawyers Collective, which originally drafted the Bill, explained that it has recently been sent to the Law Ministry.
Greece: Scientists and human rights campaigners condemn the reinstatement of Provision 39A allowing forced HIV testing of suspected sex workers, drug users and undocumented migrants
Reinstatement of controversial Health Provision slammed by HIV and Human Rights Groups, by Zoe Mavroudi
[Republished from the radiobubble blog, with thanks to Zoe Mavroudi]
A legal provision that led to mass arrests of HIV-positive women in Greece in 2012 has been reinstated, causing widespread condemnation by local and international organizations and human rights advocates.
Provision No 39A was voted by former socialist Health Minister Andreas Loverdos in April 2012 and led to an unprecedented case of HIV criminalization a few weeks later when the Greek police in cooperation with the country’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, KEELPNO, rounded up hundreds of women from the center of Athens and force-tested them for HIV inside police stations. A total of 30 who tested positive were imprisoned on charges of felony and prostitution, in spite of a lack of significant evidence that they had been working as prostitutes or that they had infected anyone with the virus. Their mug-shots and personal data were then published upon order by a prosecutor on the Greek police website as well as on major TV channels.
The arrests prompted an international backlash against the Greek government when organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the European AIDS Treatment Group and UNAIDS called for the withdrawal of laws that enabled the targeting of HIV-positive people labeling them unproductive and in violation of international conventions.
The women were held in prison for a months-long detention period under inhumane conditions. The charges have since been dropped or reduced in the courts. After months of negotiations following Loverdos’ exit from the government and socialist PASOK party, non-governmental organizations and activist groups in Greece scored a victory in May 2013, when former Deputy Health Minister Foteini Skopouli finally repealed the provision.
The move was welcomed as a step toward correcting the damage inflicted on the country’s medical services by the 2012 arrests. Drug rehabilitation groups, which have been hit hard by austerity cuts, have repeatedly complained that the arrests had serious implications in the exercise of their outreach work among vulnerable groups.
But last Tuesday, newly-appointed health minister Adonis Georgiadis (pictured above), formerly a member of the far-right LAOS partly and currently a New Democracy majority party MP, reinstated the provision unexpectedly, the day after his swearing-in ceremony that followed a cabinet reshuffle of the country’s coalition government. In a short announcement, KEELPNO welcomed the reinstatement citing a necessity to “cover the country” until revisions to the provision were agreed on. Georgiadis addressed the reinstatement on twitter, saying the repeal by Skopouli had left a “legal void.”
But the legal grounds upon which the provision was voted into law were questionable. Last year, Loverdos signed 39A alone, in spite of a legal requirement for a minimum of four official signatures in order for a provision to be enacted into law.
At the time, he claimed that its content had originated in a 1940 regulation, which allowed for sanitation measures in public places for the protection of public health. However, new language included in 39A, pointed at immigrants, homeless people, intravenous drug users and sex workers as possible sources of epidemics. 39A also cited a need to perform mandatory tests on individuals from these groups as part of controlling diseases that are currently not endemic in Greece, such as malaria, polio and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.
Greece has seen a spike in HIV infections among injecting drug users during the crisis, mostly in the country’s capital, although there is no official data on a significant rise among sex workers or undocumented immigrants. Men who have sex with men remain the main population group that suffers most of the country’s new HIV infections.
In spite of citing a need for mandatory testing, the provision is also unclear about the nature of measures that the police and health authorities should take in order to test individuals without their informed consent. A law-suit has been brought by some of the women arrested in 2012 and by Greek NGOs against police officers present in the arrests as well as KEELPNO doctors for sharing test results with the police and violating patient confidentiality.
Calls to take back the measure came from abroad almost immediately after the reinstatement was announced. In her closing speech at the annual convention of the International Aids Society in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday, French Nobelist Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, the scientist accredited with co-discovering the HIV virus, expressed her “strong disappointment.”
“As President of the IAS I strongly condemn this move and urge the Greek Government to rethink its position. HIV infections are already increasing in Greece due to the economic crisis and a mandatory policy of detainment and testing will only fuel the epidemic there.” Barré-Sinoussi added: “As we keep repeating over the years, there will be no end to the HIV epidemic without advancing human rights in parallel.”
Sinoussi’s concerns were echoed in a damning announcement by Human Rights Watch, which called the reinstatement “a big step backward for human rights and public health.“
“Addressing infectious diseases such as HIV, hepatitis, and tuberculosis requires investing in health services, not calling the police. If the government is serious about addressing HIV and other infectious diseases, it should focus on access to health care and public information,” wrote HRW in a statement earlier this week. “Any detention for public health reasons must have a lawful basis, be demonstrably necessary and proportionate, and be nondiscriminatory. Anyone detained, irrespective of the grounds, is entitled to guarantees of due process.”
On their part, local Greek NGOs and human rights initiatives saw the reinstatement as a betrayal of their year-long battle for its repeal. HIV NGOs and LGBT and human rights initiatives chided the new leadership in a joint statement, for ignoring the unanimous decision that prompted its repeal as well as the recent report by the Greek Ombudsman citing the provision’s unconstitutionality.
“We cannot allow the implementation of practices that lead our society to the Middle Ages,” the statement by Positive Voice, Center for Life and Praksis, among other groups, said. “Access to free and public health services, access to medical coverage and a respect for human rights are non-negotiable for us. Since the leadership of the Health Ministry obviously does not share this view, we have a responsibility to make it clear with our actions.”
Protests against the reinstatement of 39A are continuing with a gathering outside the Ministry of Health in Athens [on Monday July 8th].
Latest update July 16th: Greek Health Minister says he will not repeal health provision that led to forced HIV tests, says he welcomes proposals.
In a Parliamentary question to Minister Georgiadis on Friday July 12, SYRIZA opposition party MP Vassiliki Katrivanou asked for a new repeal of the provision. On the same day, four Greek NGOs (Positive Voice, Praksis, Act Up Hellas and Center for Lsife) said in a joined announcement that they requested that a health committee assigned by Georgiadis with negotiating changes to the provision provide them with documentation that substantiates the urgency of the provision’s recommendations to protect public health, before they can return to the negotiations.Read more here
A new documentary produced by radiobubble about the 2012 arrests called “Ruins: Chronicle of an HIV witch-hunt,” is due for release this September. It features interviews by women who were arrested and their families. You can watch a trailer here:
Global Commission newsletter highlights recent developments on HIV and the law around the world
Dear subscribers, We are delighted to share issue 2 of the Global Commission on HIV and the Law Newsletter – Issue 2 for 2013. Since the last Newsletter was released, there have been a number of significant developments on HIV and the law some of which are briefly described below in digest format.
US: Sero Project and Transgender Law Center highlight the threat to transgender health created by HIV criminalisation
People living with HIV (PLHIV) who identify as transgender or third sex are more likely than any other group to feel that it is reasonable to avoid HIV testing (58%), disclosure of one’s HIV positive status to sex partners (61%) or accessing HIV treatment (48%) because of fear of HIV criminalization and distrust of the U.S. criminal justice system. The new findings from the National HIV Criminalization Survey were presented at the National Transgender Health Summit on May 15, 2013.
“These findings don’t surprise us,” said Cecilia Chung, Senior Strategist at the Oakland, California-based Transgender Law Center. “The data speaks to the long-standing history of stigmatization and discrimination of trans people, especially trans people of color, by the criminal justice system, because of either their race or their gender identity.” Chung was the first trans woman elected to chair the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, and she is currently a board member of the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+).
More than 3,000 people living with and affected by HIV participated in the National HIV Criminalization Survey from June to August 2012, conducted online by the Sero Project in conjunction with Eastern Michigan University. The principal investigator, Laurel Sprague, is the Sero Project’s Research Director, Regional Coordinator of GNP+ North America, and a PhD candidate at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan.
Sprague noted, “Laws that criminalize non-disclosure of HIV status raise key issues about community norms, expectations of fair treatment by authorities, privacy and the increased vulnerability of certain communities.”
While the results revealed that HIV criminalization can discourage HIV testing—nearly 25% of HIV-positive respondents said that they knew one or more people who did not get tested for fear of criminal prosecution—when researchers returned to the survey results to closely examine transgender and third sex responses, they found that these particular respondents faced increased levels of vulnerability in relation to the U.S. justice system.
The majority of transgender and third sex respondents living with HIV (57%) reported that they feared false accusations of non-disclosure either a few times or frequently—a figure higher than that of any other group surveyed. Only 14% of transgender and third sex respondents living with HIV felt that a U.S. person living with HIV could get a fair court hearing if accused of non-disclosure.
When transgender and third sex respondents were asked their opinions about HIV criminalization, two out of three respondents (67%) said that non-disclosure of HIV status should not be criminalized. When asked if a sex worker living with HIV should disclose to clients, most transgender and third sex respondents (41%) said it depends on the circumstances. In fact, transgender and third sex respondents were the most likely to focus on the context (“it depends on the circumstances”) when determining whether there should be criminal charges for non-disclosure related to sex, drug use or sex work.
The transgender community’s historically fraught relationship with public health authorities, law enforcement and the criminal justice system also likely affects transgender and third sex attitudes about HIV criminalization.
Sprague shared a range of quotes from the survey to illustrate various nuanced transgender and third sex experiences and opinions regarding HIV criminalization:
• One trans woman explained why she didn’t press charges for non-disclosure: “In order to file charges, I [would have] had to disclose my rape, my [HIV] status and I would have to give up my privacy and be subjected to public scrutiny.”
• A third sex respondent said, “I think in cases of rape, incest and other power- or force-related situations, prosecutions should go forward. Otherwise, NO!”
• Another trans woman said that she didn’t press charges for non-disclosure because of the “difficulty in proving in court that he had infected me—and also accepting that we took equal risk in being intimate without protection.”
For policy makers and public health workers, the transgender and third sex responses to Sero’s National HIV Criminalization Survey should raise concern, especially the survey results that show increased barriers to HIV testing and treatment, as well as deep feelings of legal vulnerability due to HIV criminalization.
The responses highlight a critical need for access to legal education and legal services, safe and confidential locations for accessing health care, and support for spaces where transgender people living with HIV can share their experiences, provide mutual support, and work together to identify resilience strategies and advocacy priorities.
United States Conference of Mayors calls for “the elimination of HIV-specific criminal laws”
Today, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution calling for “the elimination of HIV-specific criminal laws and implementation of approaches to HIV within the civil and criminal justice systems that are consistent with the treatment of similar health and safety risks.”
It goes on to support the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act and endorses the recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS for ending federal and state HIV-specific criminal laws, prosecutions, and civil commitments.
Full text below.
HIV DISCRIMINATION AND CRIMINALIZATION
WHEREAS, The U.S. Conference of Mayors has been a national leader on strategies to address HIV/AIDS for three decades, establishing in 1984 an HIV/AIDS Program and implementing a HIV/AIDS Prevention Grants Program with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and
WHEREAS, The National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) released by the White House includes a statement on the problem and public health consequences of HIV criminalization and notes that many state HIV-specific criminal laws reflect long-outdated misperceptions of HIV’s modes and relative risks of transmission; that criminal law has been unjustly used in the United States to prosecute and disproportionately sentence people with HIV; and that legislators reconsider whether these laws further the public interest and support public health approaches to preventing and treating HIV; and
WHEREAS, nearly all HIV-specific criminal laws do not consider correct and consistent condom use and effective antiretroviral therapy that reduces the risk of HIV transmission to near-zero as evidence of a lack of intent or ability to harm; and behaviors that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have negligible risk of transmitting HIV, such as spitting and biting, have resulted in sentences as long as 35 years: and
WHEREAS, sound criminal justice and public health policy toward people living with HIV is consistent with an evidence-based approach to disease control and research demonstrates that HIV-specific laws do not reduce transmission or increase disclosure and may discourage HIV testing; and
WHEREAS, The Presidential Advisory Council on HIV AIDS, the Centers for Disease Control, and the United Nations Global Commission on HIV and the Law have conducted extensive scientific research and evidence reviews, finding that public health is endangered by HIV discrimination and criminalization and calling for comprehensive revision of state and federal laws and regulations,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls for the elimination of HIV-specific criminal laws and implementation of approaches to HIV within the civil and criminal justice systems that are consistent with the treatment of similar health and safety risks; and supports legislation, such as the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act, that advances these objectives: and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors endorses the recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS for ending federal and state HIV-specific criminal laws, prosecutions, and civil commitments.
Projected Cost: Unknown
US Conference of Mayors HIV Criminalization Resolution, June 25 2013