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

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

By Mercy Nalugo

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

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

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

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

Taking to court

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and HIV (UGANET) reiterated calls to have some of the clauses in the controversial HIV/Aids Prevention and Control law repealed saying they are discriminatory and unconstitutional.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The drugs suppress HIV multiplication in the body.

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

 
 

Infringment on rights

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

 

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

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

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

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

Arguments for the Act

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AIDS 2016: Intersectional approaches linking issues across areas of criminalisation have been key themes of AIDS 2016

Susana T. Fried – 22 July 2016

In a moment of global attacks on civil society, an intersectional approach linking issues across HIV, sexuality, adult consensual sex and bodily integrity is critical.  Now, more than ever.

Every international AIDS conference seems to have a theme or two that picks up energy as it goes. For me, at the World AIDS Conference 2016 underway in Durban, this was the growing discussion about disastrous impact of criminal law.  Of course, this isn’t a new issue – not at an international AIDS conference, nor in advocacy more generally. The 2012 Global Commission on HIV and the Law explored this in depth. However, at this AIDS conference there was a renewed energy behind it.  In addition, there were a number of conversations that added a new twist, linking criminalisation of same sex conduct, sex work and HIV criminalisation to criminalisation of abortion.

For someone who stands with one leg in the women’s movement and another in the HIV movement, this was a welcome and long overdue conversation. We know the ways in which abusive laws and practices put sex workers, gay and other men who have sex with men, transgender women (there is still a dearth of data on HIV and transmen or lesbians and other women who have sex with women) and other marginalised groups at increased risk of contracting HIV and create serious and unmanageable barriers to accessing services and justice. We also know the ways in which governments use criminal laws not just to contain and regulate the lives of individuals, but they also use it to circumscribe the work of civil society organisations working on these issues.

Laws that criminalise adult consensual sex, non-heteronormative behavior and gender transgression are used to control (often in the name of “protection”), penalise and, as a result, stigmatise a range of sexual practices and sexual and gender identities that put health and rights at risk.  Many of the groups who are on the receiving end of such punitive laws and practices are among those most at risk of contracting HIV.  This conversation, despite massive evidence, still doesn’t always inform legislation and public policy.  This is, in a sense, “old hat” to social movements across the board.

However, what was new to the conversation at this year’s International AIDS Conference (AIDS2016) in a visible way and in a public conversation was the introduction of criminalisation of abortion to the list of forms of criminalisation that intersect with HIV risk and vulnerability.  At one panel, Lucinda O’Hanlon from the UN human rights office drew out some of the parallels between criminalisation of abortion and other forms of criminalisation, stating “Restrictive legal regimes on abortions, including criminalisation, do not reduce abortion rates but rather makes them unsafe. These restrictions are rooted in societal norms that deny women’s agency and capacity to make decisions about their own lives.”  In many countries, women who undergo abortions are stigmatised as improper women, much like sex workers who, as Ruth Morgan Thomas noted “Criminalisation of sex work sends the message that sex workers are not seen as fit and worthy to enjoy rights.”

However, the linkages can be more direct.  For example, transmen who have sex with other men and become pregnant may find it impossible to find safe and non-judgmental sexual and reproductive health care, let alone abortion services.  Sex workers, too, may find their access to abortion services restricted because of the ripple effect of laws criminalising sex work.  With abortion, as with other groups whose identities and practices are penalised, other factors of marginalisation matter.  In the case of abortion, it is women with fewer resources who are at greatest risk of facing punishment for their choice.  The same could be said for those who get penalised for living with HIV.  For example, a young woman who has been coerced into having sex and fears that the man she had sex with might be living with HIV, will find it difficult in many countries, to have an abortion. In some countries, if she is under the age of consent for services, she will have to get parental consent just to be able to see a sexual and reproductive health practitioner. A limited number of countries ban abortions under any circumstances, even, in some cases, as a principle of their country’s constitution (Ecuador, for instance).  Most countries allow abortion under some circumstances, but access the services requires money, information and the ability to travel.  Such resource requirements have a particularly severe impact on young women, poor women, and women in marginalised groups.  Failing to learn lessons from HIV, women, adolescents and girls in countries affected by Zika face similar barriers to services and justice.

In a cross-issue conversation, Edwin Bernard from the HIV Justice Network also noted a “shift towards intersectionality in our efforts to end the punitive and abusive laws against various populations,” including women who seek or undergo abortions. In this context, these conversations stand as a clarion call for a new or renewed effort to link forces to challenge the growing reliance on punitive laws and practices, including those about abortion, by governments to control those who step outside of social norms around gender and sexuality.

Originally published in Crosstalk

AIDS 2016: A workshop at the 21st International Aids Conference highlights the need for collaboration across key populations to defeat unjust criminal laws

21 JULY 2016

On 19 July, a workshop was hosted at the 21st International AIDS Conference, being held in Durban, South Africa. Entitled “Common at its core: understanding the linkages for challenging the impact of criminal law across population groups,” the workshop highlighted the common root causes of the misuse of criminal law against people living with HIV, sex workers and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, as well as in the context of abortion.

The discussions noted that unjust criminal laws against those populations are due to prejudice, gender inequality and discrimination. The participants stressed that punitive laws against key populations lead to serious human rights violations, exacerbate vulnerabilities to HIV and other health issues and affect efforts to end AIDS.

To address unjust laws, the participants called for building synergies among populations affected by them. This will allow experience-sharing on successful approaches in addressing criminalization and will enable the development of joint strategies. Examples of collaborations between communities to address their common health and human rights challenges were highlighted.

The discussions were concluded with a call for more collaboration in addressing the criminal law and its impact on specific populations, including in the context of HIV. This should build on efforts to expand strategic litigation and the engagement of lawmakers, the police and the judiciary to end injustice and advance health for all.

The event was organized by UNAIDS, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International and the Global Health Justice Partnership at Yale University.

QUOTES

“CRIMINALIZATION OF SEX WORK SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT SEX WORKERS ARE NOT SEEN AS FIT AND WORTHY TO ENJOY RIGHTS. SEX WORKERS EXPERIENCE SERIOUS FORMS OF VIOLENCE AND ABUSE, OFTEN COMMITTED BY POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS. THESE ABUSIVE LAWS AND PRACTICES VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS.”

RUTH MORGAN THOMAS NETWORK OF SEX WORK PROJECTS

“RESTRICTIVE LEGAL REGIMES ON ABORTIONS, INCLUDING CRIMINALIZATION, DO NOT REDUCE ABORTION RATES BUT RATHER MAKE THEM UNSAFE. THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE ROOTED IN SOCIETAL NORMS THAT DENY WOMEN’S AGENCY AND CAPACITY TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR OWN LIVES.”

LUCINDA O’HANLON ADVISER ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS, OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

“AT ITS CORE, CRIMINALIZATION OF SPECIFIC POPULATIONS, INCLUDING LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER PEOPLE, IS BASED ON PREJUDICE, FEAR AND STIGMA. CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST OUR POPULATIONS ARE AMBIGUOUS, UNJUST AND USED MAINLY AS POLITICAL AND SOCIAL TOOLS TO ENFORCE HETERONORMATIVE AND PATRIARCHAL NORMS. WE MUST JOIN HAND AND BUILD SYNERGIES AMONG OUR COMMUNITIES AND SOLIDARITY WITH OTHER SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTS TO CHALLENGE THESE LAWS.”

KENE ESOM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AFRICAN MEN FOR SEXUAL HEALTH AND RIGHTS

“THE BREAKTHROUGH AT THIS CONFERENCE IS THE SHIFT TOWARDS INTERSECTIONALITY IN OUR EFFORTS TO END THE PUNITIVE AND ABUSIVE LAWS AGAINST VARIOUS POPULATIONS. THIS EMERGING MOVEMENT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED AND STRENGTHENED AS CRITICAL TO ADVANCING EFFECTIVE RESPONSES FOR DIGNITY, HEALTH AND JUSTICE FOR KEY POPULATIONS.”

EDWIN BERNARD  GLOBAL COORDINATOR, HIV JUSTICE NETWORK

Originally published on UNAIDS website

USA: Policy changes in Nevada will end the segregation of prison inmates living with HIV as well as implement new positive measures to end discrimination

By SCOTT SONNER

Associated Press

RENO, Nev. (AP) – Nevada’s Department of Corrections is changing a series of policies and practices that the U.S. Justice Department says illegally discriminate against prison inmates with HIV by housing them separately and denying access to work assignments that can speed their release.

The Justice Department concluded last month the state was violating inmates’ civil rights under the policies based largely on outdated and unfounded fears about the transmission of the virus that causes AIDS.

State Corrections Director James Dzurenda announced late Wednesday that inmates with HIV no longer will be segregated from the general prison population. He also said they will be provided the same opportunities as others to win assignments to work camps where they can earn credits faster to shorten their sentences.

Other changes include new protections intended to keep inmates’ HIV status confidential, and new training for inmates and prison workers alike about how HIV is transmitted.

HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus, causes AIDS. But it cannot be transmitted through ordinary activities such as shaking hands or sharing drinking glasses, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada who had complained to the Justice Department about the policies said they were impressed with the quick response by Dzurenda, who became the new corrections director in April.

“We are thrilled,” said Amy Rose, the group’s legal director in Las Vegas.

“It appears they took the recommendations from the Justice Department very seriously and took immediate corrective action,” Rose told The Associated Press. “This is good news for inmates who are currently suffering under the previous policy.”

Dzurenda said he has submitted a bill draft request to the Nevada Legislature to formalize some of the changes in state laws and regulations, and that additional changes may be forthcoming.

 “The Department of Corrections is committed to a safe and human environment for each employee and inmate and will continue to review and revise other measures suggested” by the Justice Department, said Brooke Keast, the department’s public information officer.

“In an effort to decrease any negative expectations or fears on the part of non-HIV positive inmates given the new policies above, a pamphlet is being designed covering facts about HIV and the changes in policy at the NDOC,” she said.

Justice Department lawyers warned Nevada’s attorney general in a letter June 20 the state was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. They said some inmates have been discriminated against – and in some cases threatened and harassed – as a result of the “medically unnecessary” segregation policy that stigmatizes those with HIV.

The federal agency launched an ADA compliance review after receiving complaints from the ACLU and two inmates at the High Desert State Prison in Indian Springs.

Under the new policies only limited medical personnel will have access to the identities of HIV positive inmates and that prison housing classification forms are being revised to eliminate the medical code typically associated with HIV status, Dzurenda said. If an inmate meets all the requirements for a work assignment, he or she will be considered like any other inmate, regardless of HIV status, he said.

Rose said she’s especially glad Dzurenda is submitting a bill draft request to amend the state statutes that conflict with the recommendations, and she hopes they will “continue to work toward educating inmates and staff about the real facts about HIV and the change in policy.”

Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

AIDS 2016: Discriminatory laws and policies hinder access to HIV prevention, treatment, and care for the populations most at risk of HIV

At the 21st International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2016) in Durban, researchers and community representatives discussed the impact of discriminatory laws and policies in many parts of the world that hinder access to HIV prevention, treatment, and care for the populations most at risk of HIV infection — men who have sex with men, transgender people, sex workers, people who inject drugs, and prisoners.

The latest data from UNAIDS show that these vulnerable populations account for more than one-third of all new HIV infections globally. Compared to the general population: transgender people are 49 times more likely to be living with HIV; men who have sex with men and people who inject drugs are each 24 times more likely to become infected with HIV; sex workers are 10 times more likely to become infected; and prisoners are five times more likely to be living with HIV.

“We will not end AIDS without addressing the needs of the most vulnerable individuals and communities, yet far too many are currently being left behind,” said Chris Beyrer, AIDS 2016 International Chair and President of the International AIDS Society. “Protecting human rights is not just a moral issue, it is a scientific issue. Research presented at this conference will demonstrate that exclusion and discrimination help fuel the spread of HIV.”

Beyrer recently served on a special Johns Hopkins University-Lancet Commission on Drug Policy and Health. He was lead author of the Commission’s final report, published in March 2016 in advance of the UN Special Session on the World Drug Problem. The report concluded in part that drug laws intended to protect have instead contributed to disease transmission, discrimination, lethal violence, and forced displacement, and have undermined people’s right to health.

“Dealing effectively with HIV will require our communities and societies to break down longstanding prejudice, hatred, and ignorance,” said Justice Edwin Cameron of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. “Only when scientific advances are matched by social and cultural progress can this epidemic truly be contained.”

Originally published in Edge Media Network

AIDS 2016: The criminalization of vulnerable populations fuels the HIV epidemic in many countries

THE criminalization of same-sex relationships and prostitution in most parts of the continent has been cited as the major cause of the recurrence of HIV/AIDS in recent years.

After a period of decline, new HIV infections among adults across the globe are on the rise again, it has emerged at the International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa.

South Africa is the only African country legalise same-sex unions.

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), HIV remains stubbornly high among men who have intercourse with men, sex workers, people who use drugs, and transgender women.

Groups like these, which are criminalized in many places, account for more than one-third of new HIV infections worldwide.

HRW Senior Researcher of Health and Human Rights, Megan McLemore, said criminalization restricted access to health care, forcing those most vulnerable to HIV to the margins of society.

“For the sake of populations most vulnerable to HIV, criminal laws need to be reformed, and fast. There is no time to waste,” said McLemore.

Meanwhile, a special issue of the Lancet medical journal released at the Durban conference described prisoners as the most neglected and vulnerable of all populations in the global HIV/AIDS response.

 “Prison health care is abysmal in many parts of the world, and HIV prevention and treatment inside some jails is limited or nonexistent,” said McLemore.

Human Rights Watch has documented government failure to provide HIV prevention and treatment programs to prisoners, most recently in Louisiana parish jails.

Michel Sidibe, executive director at UNAIDS, said nearly 2 million people become HIV-positive every year.

Originally published in Caj News

AIDS 2016: HIV criminalisation is on the rise, report presenters at Beyond Blame preconference

HIV criminalisation on the rise, especially in sub-Saharan Africa

Lesley Odendal

Globally, 72 countries have adopted laws that specifically allow for HIV criminalisation, either because the law is specific to HIV, or because it names HIV as one (or more) of the diseases covered by a broader law. This total increases to 101 jurisdictions when the HIV criminalisation laws in 30 of the states that make up the United States are counted individually.

Prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and/or unintentional transmission have now been reported in 61 countries.  Of the 61 countries, 26 countries applied HIV criminalisation laws and 32 applied general criminal or public-health related laws, according to HIV Justice Worldwide, an international partnership of organizations, made up of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA), the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the Global Network of People Living with HIV, the HIV Justice Network, the International Community of Women Living with HIV, the Positive Women’s Network USA and the Sero Project. The findings were presented at the Beyond Blame preconference held at the 21st International AIDS Conference, in Durban, South Africa, this week.

HIV criminalisation refers to the unjust application of criminal law to people living with HIV, based on their HIV status, either through the use of HIV-specific criminal statutes or by applying general criminal laws that allow for the prosecution of unintentional HIV transmission, potential or perceived exposure to HIV – even where HIV is not transmitted – and/or the non-disclosure of known HIV-positive status.

“HIV criminalisation is profoundly bad policy. It is based on fear and outdated understanding of HIV risk and harm and magnifies stigma and discrimination towards people living with HIV,” said Justice Edwin Cameron, judge of the South Africa Constitutional Court.

These laws are not guided by the scientific and medical evidence relating to the transmission mechanisms of HIV, fail to uphold the principles of legal and judicial fairness (such as foreseeability, intent, causality and proof) and directly infringe the human rights of those involved in these cases.

“The evidence that criminalisation as a public health strategy does not work is too plain to contest. It is our responsibility to end it”, said Hon. Patrick Herminie, Speaker of the National Assembly of Seychelles.

To date, thirty countries in sub-Saharan Africa have passed laws criminalising HIV transmission or exposure in some form, including Botswana, Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria and Uganda, which passed laws in the last year. There has also been a rise in reported prosecutions in sub-Saharan Africa since 2015, in Botswana, South Africa, Uganda and especially Zimbabwe.

An additional workshop at the conference explored the common roots of criminalisation. Panelists identified the key reasons for these misused and often overly-broad interpretations of criminal laws as being due to fear, moral panic, containment of the HIV epidemic and state-sponsored control of bodily autonomy, including sexual conduct and stigma to impose sanctions on those viewed as not being ‘fit and worthy’ of enjoying the protectionist mandate of these laws.

Pervasive gender inequality, power dynamics, and ‘victim-status’ were acknowledged as preventing women from accessing justice to the same extent as men. It was recommended that a feminist framework is used as a strategy to address the criminalisation of HIV as female and transgender sex workers, migrants, indigenous and black women suffer the most from these HIV-specific laws.

Rosemary Namiburu, an ex-nurse from Uganda, who was imprisoned after she was prosecuted for not revealing her HIV status to her partner is an example of this: “My life will not be the same after facing HIV criminalisation. My 30 years of working as a nurse and dedicated to saving lives have been erased. I have spent almost a year in prison and have been branded as a criminal and a killer, even though I have harmed no one.”

Originally published in aidsmap.com

BEYOND BLAME
Challenging HIV Criminalisation @ AIDS 2016, Durban

(29 min, HJN, South Africa, 2016)

On 17 July 2016, approximately 150 advocates, activists, researchers, and community leaders met in Durban, South Africa, for Beyond Blame: Challenging HIV Criminalisation – a full-day pre-conference meeting preceding the 21st International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2016) to discuss progress on the global effort to combat the unjust use of the criminal law against people living with HIV.

Attendees at the convening hailed from at least 36 countries on six continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America).

Beyond Blame was convened by HIV Justice Worldwide, an initiative made up of global, regional, and national civil society organisations – most of them led by people living with HIV – who are working together to build a worldwide movement to end HIV criminalisation.

The meeting was opened by the Honourable Dr Patrick Herminie, Speaker of Parliament of the Seychelles, and closed by Justice Edwin Cameron, both of whom gave powerful, inspiring speeches. In between the two addresses, moderated panels and more intimate, focused breakout sessions catalysed passionate and illuminating conversations amongst dedicated, knowledgeable advocates

France: Grindr proposed HIV filter raises fear it could be used as a new tool to target and criminalize HIV

English version (Défilez plus bas pour la version française)

Filtering for HIV status on Grindr? A proposal that is going down badly.

A questionnaire sent by the dating app for gay men to some of its users raises fear of stigmatising HIV-positive men.

Being able to search men’s profiles based on their HIV status is the idea submitted by Grindr, the most famous gay dating geo applications in a questionnaire sent out recently to some of its 10.5 million users.

Vincent received the questionnaire when connecting to the App and completed it, although he found some of the questions “very troubling.” They all revolve around HIV: information on the current HIV status of users, their sexual practices, proposal to send reminders to encourage regular screening … But among them one question in particular creates controversy:

“How would you react if Grindr allowed you to filter the men you see based on their HIV status? ”

“Not only does it send a very bad signal about the perception of HIV, but it does not create a sense of real security, it is a false protection,” notes Mathieu Brancourt, editor of AIDES.

“Grindr would not be able to verify the information”

He pointed out this questionnaire on Twitter after denunciation by several US users (including bloggers Josh Robbins and David Myles). He added: “It would be based on declarative statement, Grindr could not verify it. ”

What credibility could we give it in reality, knowing that only one American out of 10 knows that he is HIV-positive and that “the bulk of the contamination occurs in people who do not know their status,”highlights Rémi, the Leader of the commission for serophobia LGBTphobia-Act-Up Paris?

Mathieu Brancourt questions the purpose and the risks involved, particularly with regard to the criminalisation of HIV transmission, “This information could for example be exploited legally in the context of situations in which a man claiming to be seronegative transmit HIV to someone else. ”

The app designer themselves assume responsibility for the “uncomfortable questions”

Questioned by Rue89, a representative of the company ensures that it seeks only to “promote education”:

“We observed a significant increase in user profiles openly discussing their HIV status and the dates of their tests.

Since it is not part of our profile options to date, we are investigating with users to determine both if they wish to share this information, and how to avoid stigmatisation and provide appropriate support. Sometimes this involves asking awkward questions. ”

We have however received no confirmation as to the actual implementation of the option and the launch date if applicable.

“It’s stigmatizing”

Among the users we interviewed, Grindr’s survey is going down badly. “With regard to the filter, I am vehemently against it. It’s conter-productive and discriminatory. One population is de facto dismissed, “says Hugo, 20 years old.

“The idea of ​​being filtered through that test bothers me a lot. I’m already not very comfortable with the filters on these applications in general, here it goes much too far for me, “added Donald, 25 years old.

Julien (his name has been changed on request), 18 and HIV negative, “it is stigmatizing. Just because the app caters to gay does not mean they should indicate whether they have AIDS or not. ” However he admits: “If the function existed, I would tend to filter out the positive users.”

“People ask me if I’m clean ‘

Fred, 48, HIV-positive since 1986 and non-infectious, does not try to hide his HIV status:

“I say when I’m asked. It regularly happens that the boys cut the conversation short. They are idiots who are totally ignorant about HIV. ”

Beyond the problematic issue of filtering by HIV status, the Grindr survey has the merit of highlighting how HIV is still a taboo and a misunderstood subject.

“I never ask for the HIV status of the men I meet,” says Vincent, HIV-negative, 42, “but many people ask me if “I am clean “, which in reality means nothing.

I think this information should be shared especially if you have borderline practices, not always using condoms and such. But by having safer sex consistently, the issue is not important for me. ”

Fred only sleeps with positive men

Although he finds the idea of a filter totally unacceptable, Fred acknowledges that he prefers to sleep with HIV-positive men like him.

Primarily because it does not want to deal with the fear and thoughts of those who think he is infectious even though his viral load is undetectable, but also because he knows that he can have sex without a condom safely:

“People with HIV on treatment have blood tests every three months. It’s safer for my health and it makes me more comfortable with my sexuality. ”

In terms of prevention, dating applications – regularly accused of playing a part in the increase of STDs and STIs -have an important role to play among a population particularly affected by the epidemic. “Especially as practices without a condom are spreading,” notes Vincent. “Not a day goes by without someone proposing it to me. ”

Barebacking

“Barebacking”, the practice of having unprotected sex voluntarily, is commonly suggested on apps. In 2014, men who have sex with men represented 42% of cases of HIV diagnoses in France.

“Today, an HIV-positive person who is on treatment is not infectious, this is the point that should be insisted upon with users,” raises Rémi of Act-Up Paris.

He educates users on dating apps sites via profiles created for the association, like Etienne Fouquay, in charge of New health strategies and digital activism for AIDES. For him, “this is obviously the place to be.”

He explains : “We offer discussions or individual interviews to users. With the appreciation of geolocation (on Grindr for example), we can promote screening activities we lead with mobile vans in the area. ”

On Hornet, the date of the last screening

AIDES volunteers however work more or less underground and do not benefit from the official support of apps.

“It even happens that users report us and Grindr regularly deletes profiles. Each time, it is like an obstacle course. ”

AIDES however was able to negotiate the opening of popups – for which they pay – on the app, including prevention information.

But all the brands do not have the same policy, added Etienne Fouquay “Hornet and Scruff have a much more proactive approach and want us to work together. ”

On Hornet, several users told us, it is for example possible to display the date of the last screening. This is what Donald does: “I mention it to encourage people who visit my profile to do it regularly. It is unfortunately not possible to indicate the last testing date without disclosing one’s HIV status, so I check that I am HIV negative. ”

Testing kits

“It seems to me that indicating one’s status publicly on these apps could be a good thing. This may eventually allow to demystify the thing while being aware of the duty to protect oneself. However, it can also act as a deterrent. So giving it publicly yes, provided that it is a choice, “says Hugo meanwhile.

Ultimately, the ideal for AIDES would be to be able to have official profiles for the organisation on apps. “We will also send home testing kits to people via apps,” explained Stephen Fouquay.

The latter option has already been set up with Grindr in Los Angeles. Through the application, 56 African-American and Hispanic men, the populations most affected by HIV, have recently been able to receive screening kits. Among them, 69% had not been tested in the past six months. So rather than a filter by HIV status, when will this type of initiative arrive in France?

Filtrer les séropositifs sur Grindr ? La proposition qui passe mal

Un questionnaire envoyé par l’appli de rencontres gay à certains de ses utilisateurs laisse craindre une stigmatisation des hommes séropositifs.

Pouvoir rechercher des profils d’hommes en fonction de leur statut sérologique lié au VIH. C’est l’idée soumise par Grindr, la plus connue des applications de rencontres gays géolocalisées, dans un questionnaire envoyé ces derniers jours à certains de ses 10,5 millions d’utilisateurs.

Vincent l’a reçu en se connectant à l’appli et l’a rempli, bien qu’il ait trouvé certaines questions «  très gênantes  ». Celles-ci tournent toutes autour du VIH  : renseignements sur l’actuel statut sérologique des usagers, sur leurs pratiques sexuelles, proposition d’envoyer des rappels pour inciter à des dépistages réguliers… Mais parmi elles, une en particulier crée la polémique  :

«  Comment réagirais-tu si Grindr t’autorisais à filtrer les hommes que tu vois en fonction de leur statut sérologique  ?  »

«  Non seulement ça envoie un très mauvais signal concernant la perception des séropositifs, mais ça n’instaure pas un sentiment de sécurité réel, c’est une fausse protection  », fait remarquer Mathieu Brancourt, rédacteur pour l’association de lutte contre le Sida Aides.

« Grindr ne pourrait pas le vérifier »

Il a signalé ce questionnaire sur Twitter après sa dénonciation par plusieurs utilisateurs américains (dont les blogueurs Josh Robbins et David Myles). Il ajoute  : «  Ce ne serait basé que sur du déclaratif, Grindr ne pourrait pas le vérifier.  »

Quel crédit pourrait-on en effet y accorder, sachant par ailleurs qu’un Américain sur dix ignore qu’il est séropositif et que «  le gros des contaminations se fait chez des personnes qui ne connaissent pas leur statut sérologique  », comme le souligne Rémi, responsable de la commission LGBTphobie-sérophobie d’Act-Up Paris  ?

Mathieu Brancourt s’interroge sur le but recherché et les risques encourus, notamment au regard de la pénalisation de la transmission du VIH  : «  Ces informations pourraient par exemple être exploitées juridiquement dans le cadre de situations où un homme se déclarant séronégatif transmettrait le VIH à quelqu’un d’autre.  »

L’appli assume ses « questions gênantes »

Interrogée par Rue89, une représentante de l’entreprise assure que cette dernière ne cherche qu’à «  favoriser l’éducation  » :

«  Nous avons observé une augmentation significative de profils d’utilisateurs discutant ouvertement de leur statut VIH et des dates de leurs tests.

Etant donné que cela ne fait pas partie de nos options de profils à ce jour, nous enquêtons auprès des usagers pour déterminer à la fois s’ils désirent partager cette information, et les moyens d’éviter la stigmatisation et de fournir un support approprié. Parfois, cela implique de poser des questions gênantes.  »

Nous n’avons en revanche pas obtenu de confirmation quant à la mise en place effective de l’option et à la date de lancement le cas échéant.

« C’est stigmatisant »

Chez les utilisateurs que nous avons interrogés, le questionnaire de Grindr passe mal. «  S’agissant du filtre, je suis farouchement contre. C’est contre-productif et discriminant. On écarte de facto une population  », commente Hugo, 20 ans.

«  L’idée d’être filtré sur ce critère me dérange beaucoup. Je ne suis déjà pas très à l’aise avec les filtres sur ces applications en général, ici ça va beaucoup trop loin pour moi  », ajoute quant à lui Donald, 25 ans.

Pour Julien (son prénom a été changé à sa demande), 18 ans et séronégatif, «  c’est stigmatisant. Ce n’est pas parce que l’appli s’adresse aux gays qu’ils doivent indiquer s’ils ont le Sida ou pas  ». Il reconnaît néanmoins  : «  Si la fonction existait, j’aurais tendance à filtrer pour enlever les utilisateurs positifs  ».

« On me demande si je suis clean »

Fred, 48 ans, séropositif depuis 1986 et non-contaminant, ne cherche pas à cacher son statut sérologique  :

«  Je le dis quand on me le demande. Il arrive régulièrement que des garçons coupent court à la conversation. Ce sont des crétins qui ont une méconnaissance totale du VIH. »

Car au-delà de la question problématique d’un filtre par statut sérologique, l’enquête de Grindr a le mérite de mettre en lumière à quel point le VIH est encore un sujet tabou et méconnu.

«  Je ne pose jamais la question du statut sérologique aux hommes que je rencontre », confie Vincent, séronégatif de 42 ans, « mais nombreux sont ceux qui me demandent si je suis “clean”, ce qui, au fond, ne veut rien dire.

J’estime que c’est une information à partager surtout si on a des pratiques borderline, avec une rupture de capote ou autre. Mais en ayant des rapports systématiquement protégés, cette question n’a pas d’importance pour moi. »

Fred ne couche qu’avec des séropositifs

Bien qu’il trouve l’évocation d’un filtre totalement inacceptable, Fred reconnaît qu’il préfère ne coucher qu’avec des hommes séropositifs, comme lui.

Avant tout parce qu’il ne veut pas s’infliger les peurs et réflexions de ceux qui le pensent contaminant alors que sa charge virale est indétectable, mais également parce qu’il sait qu’il pourra avoir des rapports sans préservatif en toute sécurité  :

«  Les séropositifs sous traitement ont des prises de sang tous les trois mois. C’est plus sûr pour ma santé et ça me met plus à l’aise avec ma sexualité. »

En matière de prévention, les applications de rencontre – régulièrement accusées de participer à l’augmentation des MST et IST – ont justement un important rôle à jouer chez un public particulièrement touché par l’épidémie. «  D’autant plus que les pratiques sans préservatif se généralisent  », relève Vincent. «  Il ne se passe pas une journée sans que l’on m’en propose. »

Barebacking

On parle notamment de «  barebacking  », cette pratique qui consiste à avoir des relations sexuelles volontairement non protégées, couramment suggérées sur les applis. En 2014, les hommes ayant des rapports sexuels avec des hommes représentaient 42% des cas de découvertes de séropositivité en France.

«  Aujourd’hui, une personne séropositive qui est traitée n’est pas contaminante, c’est sur ça qu’il faudrait insister auprès des usagers  », soulève Rémi d’Act-Up Paris.

Il sensibilise les usagers de sites et applis de rencontre via des profils créés pour l’association, tout comme Etienne Fouquay, chargé de mission Nouvelles stratégies de santé et actions numériques à Aides. Pour lui, «  c’est évidemment là qu’il faut agir  ». Il explique  :

«  Nous proposons des discussions ou des entretiens individuels aux utilisateurs. Avec la plus-value de la géolocalisation (sur Grindr par exemple), nous pouvons promouvoir des actions de dépistage que nous menons dans des camions aux alentours. »

Sur Hornet, la date du dernier dépistage

Les bénévoles de Aides interviennent néanmoins dans une certaine clandestinité et ne bénéficient pas de l’appui officiel des applications.

«  Il arrive même que des usagers nous signalent et que Grindr supprime régulièrement nos profils. A chaque fois, c’est un parcours du combattant. »

Aides a toutefois pu négocier l’ouverture de fenêtres pop-up – payantes – sur l’application, comprenant des informations de prévention.

Mais toutes les marques n’ont pas la même politique, ajoute Etienne Fouquay  : «  Hornet et Scruff ont des démarches beaucoup plus volontaristes et veulent que l’on travaille ensemble. »

Sur Hornet, nous font remarquer plusieurs utilisateurs, il est par exemple possible d’afficher la date de son dernier dépistage. C’est ce que fait Donald :

«  Je l’indique pour inciter les gens qui visitent mon profil à le faire régulièrement. Il n’est hélas pas possible d’indiquer la dernière date sans dévoiler son statut sérologique, donc je coche que je suis bien séronégatif. »

Kits de dépistage

«  Il me semble que donner publiquement son statut sérologique sur ces applications peut être une bonne chose. Cela peut éventuellement permettre de désacraliser la chose tout en ayant conscience de l’obligation de se protéger. Pour autant, cela peut aussi agir comme un effet dissuasif. Donc le donner publiquement oui, à condition que cela soit un choix  », tranche quant à lui Hugo.

À terme, l’idéal pour Aides serait de bénéficier de profils associatifs officiels sur les applications. «  Nous allons également envoyer des kits de dépistage au domicile des personnes via les applications  », explique Etienne Fouquay.

Cette dernière option a d’ores et déjà été mise en place avec Grindr à Los Angeles. Grâce à l’application, 56 hommes afro-américains et hispaniques, populations particulièrement touchées par le VIH, ont récemment pu recevoir des kits de dépistage. Parmi eux, 69% n’avaient pas été testés dans les six derniers mois. Alors, plus qu’un filtre par statut sérologique, à quand ce type d’initiative en France  ?

Originally published on rue89

US: Second HIV is not a crime training academy creates an important intersectional shift in the US anti-HIV criminalisation movement

The second HIV Is Not a Crime Training Academy, which took place in May at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, brought together more than 300 advocates from 34 US states, as well delegations from Canada and Mexico.

Organised jointly by two of our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners, the Sero Project and Positive Women’s Network–USA, the meeting was a unique opportunity for the people most affected by HIV criminalisation to take centre stage and have their voices be heard.

As Mark S King’s blog post highlighted in his blog and video produced the week following the meeting:

The intersections of race, gender, and sexuality were given as much weight as strategy sessions on working with legislators and lawyers, and the program repeatedly drove home the fact that criminalizing behaviors related to specific groups of people is as American as apple pie. Plenary speakers included advocates for women (including transgender women), current and former sex workers, immigration reform and drug legalization advocates, and, most powerfully, people who have been prosecuted under HIV criminalization statutes.

The theme of intersectionality and what it means for HIV criminalisation advocacy was further explored in this thoughtful analysis from Olivia Ford at The Body.com.

At the first HIV Is Not a Crime gathering in Grinnell, Iowa, in 2014, the sessions focused largely on unpacking the process of mounting a legislative campaign. Huntsville attendees also received training on important skills such as using data and collaborating with attorneys. The dominant theme, however, was the mandate to understand and combat HIV criminalization as a component of the system of over-policing and mass incarceration that disproportionately and unjustly impacts black people, queer folks, immigrants, drug users, sex workers, transgender individuals and those living with and without HIV at the intersections of this constellation of experiences.

The meeting was also an opportunity to celebrate the recent modernisation of Colorado’s HIV criminalisation statutes by the Colorado Mod Squad and their political allies, notably Senator Pat Steadman; and to hear from HIV criminalisation survivors and their families about what the HIV criminalisation – and the movement to end it – means for them personally.

The biggest political coup of the meeting was a welcome video from Hilary Clinton who said that if she wins the Presidential election, she will work to “reform outdated, stigmatising” HIV criminalisation laws.

Aside from those highlighted above, a number of other blog posts and articles have been produced since the meeting.  As well as a fantastic Storify compilation by PWN-USA of social media produced during the four days, these include pieces from:

In addition, the HIV Justice Network was there with our video advocacy consultant, Nicholas Feustel of georgetown media, capturing the entire event on video, and we will be releasing a film providing a detailed overview of the entire meeting, as well as lessons learned, in the next few weeks.