India: Sex workers organisations oppose Human Trafficking Bill which would make rehabilitation mandatory and HIV transmission a criminal offence

The most pressing concern is that the bill seems to be making rehabilitation mandatory

A consortium of rights bodies, especially of those working for sex workers, have come forward to speak out against the Human Trafficking Bill, which was sent to the Cabinet last month for approval. Associations of sex workers said that they fear that the bill will make it difficult for them to function. The most pressing concern, said Kusum, President of the All India Network of Sex Workers, is that the bill seems to be making rehabilitation mandatory. “Rehabilitation is needed for thousands of women who face trafficking around the country. But scores of practicing sex workers might not want it. Why not make it voluntary,” she says.

Dr Smarajit Jana, a health practitioner and the founder of Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Samiti, the first sex workers collective, agrees. Dr Jana was on a Supreme Court panel on the rights of sex workers, which submitted a report last month. He says that not a single state has statistics on rehabilitation. “Among the secretaries of the women and child development department of over 20 states we interacted with, 15 did not have any number for their own states,” says Dr Jana.

 The definition of a trafficking victim, both Dr Jana and Kusum said, was vague enough to include practicing sex workers. As per the Bill, a sex worker who gets married and has settled down will also come under the ambit of the definition. “There is also a clause that states that if a sex worker is found drinking and smoking with her friends, they can be booked for plying substances to her and punishable for over 10 years,” says Kusum.

Tripti Tandon of the Lawyer’s Collective says that the biggest lacunae in the bill is its failure to distinguish those in need of rescue from those who do not. “Since The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act will continue to function, the government is simply creating layer after layer of law, without really taking into account the problems of livelihood, sanitation, health which sex workers face routinely, like every working-class women,” says Tandon.

Another crucial loophole is that the bill states that if a person transmits HIV to another, then they will be punishable for a period of 10 years. “The problem is that many victims do not know if they are HIV positive. Globally, the debate is on decriminalising HIV patients,” says Dr Jana.

Published in DNA India on Nov 5, 2016

Mexico: Civil association in San Luis Potosi State urges parliament to rethink proposition to criminalise HIV transmission

English translation (Para artículo en español, desplácese hacia abajo)

Civil association urges a rethink of the criminalisation of HIV transmission as such an amendment to the penal code would promote higher levels of stigma and discrimination.

San Luis Potosi, SLP.- With regard to the initiative presented during the Ordinary Session No. 44, on October 27, 2016 in the State Congress by the State Governor Juan Manuel Carreras Lopez and Erika Velasquez Gutiérrez, the president of the Women Institute in San Luis Potosi, the civil association Amigos Potosinosen Lucha Contra el Sida condemned the initiative which they say, stigmatize people living with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and have therefore called for reconsideration of the initiative put forward, conveying the following position:

1. It is important to promote actions that recognise the human rights of women through the varied international tools signed and ratified in this matter by the Mexican State,  and which have been become mandatories following the constitutional reform of 2011 in the field of Human Rights.

2. It is not advisable to seek to punish conducts that are perceived to be fraudulent with regard to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, as the evidence tell us that HIV prevention is not achieved through punitive measures, but by public health policies which promote changes at the structural level, to facilitate equal access to services that guarantee the sexual and reproductive health of women, and also strengthen programmes and activities that promote equality between women and men.

3. Criminalisation promotes stigma and discrimination against people with HIV, including girls, children, adolescents and women, contradictorily promoting actions that violate the dignity of these vulnerable groups.

4. It is very difficult to determine causality, fraud and intention and other varied factors involved in HIV transmission such as: the possibility of transmission, the type of exposure, the use of condoms or not, at what stage of infection the person is, whether the person is on antiretroviral treatment, if their viral load is undetectable, if there is any concomitant infection, the health status of the receiving partner and the agreements between spouses or casual partners, among others.

5. It is important to emphasize that punitive measures such as those intended to legislate through this initiative, could hinder and affect various multisectoral actions in prevention, detection and HIV care in our state.

6. It might influence people who perceive themselves as having  risk factors for HIV, to not undergo testing in order not to know their status and avoid any potential criminal proceedings made possible by testing. Such legislation may affect the continuous detection, prevention and care of HIV in Mexico [1], which seeks to facilitate the early diagnosis of people who perceived themselves to at risk so they can receive timely treatment to improve their quality of life and also help to curb the transmission chain.

7. Scientific evidence indicates that to stop the chain of transmission of HIV from one person to another, it is essential to combine prevention strategies, which include biomedical, behavioural and structural change, the latter emphasizing the need for actions that contribute to the eradication of stigma and discrimination associated with HIV-AIDS, and a punitive law does not contribute to these strategies.

8. The specific content of this initiative “Risk of contagion” could result in the legal responsibility for HIV prevention to fall only on those living with HIV, and could conceal the public health message that sexual partners have shared responsibility for their sexual health. People may mistakenly assume that their partners are HIV-negative because they are unaware of their status or do not disclose it, and they would therefore stop taking preventive measures.

9. Such amendments to the penal code will promote higher levels of stigma and discrimination against diverse HIV populations and their families.

Amigos Potosinos en lucha contra el Sida urges the State governor Juan Manuel Carreras Lopez and Erika Velázquez Gutiérrez president of the Women Institute in San Luis Potosi (sic), to reconsider the criminalization of HIV, as to do so would place people with HIV under a status of being possible criminals, which is contrary to their dignity as persons, violating their human rights and stigmatising them for their health condition.

Better yet, we encourage you to promote the creation of the State Council for the control of HIV, AIDS and STIs in San Luis Potosi, and to increase resources to prevent, detect and address HIV in a timely manner; to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of care services in the State that are provided by CAPASITS and by hospitals in the health system; to generate and strengthen empowerment programs for women and actions that seek to promote equal opportunities between women and men; finally to reduce stigma and discrimination against key populations affected by HIV and other STIs incorporating the MIPA principle [3] which speaks of greater involvement of people living with HIV as part of the solution and response, thereby contributing to a democratic, inclusive and non-discriminatory Mexico.

—————————————–

Asociación Civil pide reconsiderar tipificar como delito trasmisión del VIH. Este tipo de adecuaciones al código penal promoverán mayores niveles de estigma y discriminación.

San Luis Potosí, SLP.- En relación a la iniciativa presentada, en la Sesión Ordinaria No. 44, día 27 de octubre del 2016 al Congreso del Estado, por el gobernador del Estado Juan Manuel Carreras López y Erika Velázquez Gutiérrez presidenta del Instituto de las Mujeres en San Luis Potosí la asociación civil Amigos Potosinos en Lucha Contra el Sida condenaron la iniciativa que a decir de ellos, estigmatiza a las personas con contagiadas con el Virus de Inmunodeficiencia Humana (VIH), por lo que llaman a reconsiderar la iniciativa formulada, difundiendo el siguiente posicionamiento:

1.- Es importante impulsar acciones a favor del reconocimiento de los derechos humanos de las mujeres en el orden internacional de los diversos instrumentos que en esta materia ha suscrito y ratificado Estado Mexicano, lo cual se convierte en obligatorio a partir de la reforma Constitucional del año 2011 en materia de Derechos Humanos.

2.-No es recomendable buscar castigar las conductas que se perciben como dolosas en relación al VIH y otras infecciones sexuales, ya que la evidencia científica nos señala que la prevención del VIH no se logra con medidas punitivas, sino con políticas en salud pública que faciliten acciones que promuevan cambios a nivel estructural que faciliten la igualdad en el acceso a servicios que garanticen la salud sexual y reproductiva de las mujeres, así también fortalecer los programas y acciones que promuevan la igualdad entre mujeres y hombres

3.- La penalización favorece el estigma y la discriminación hacia personas con VIH, incluyendo a las niñas, niños, adolescentes y mujeres, por lo que resulta contradictorio impulsar acciones que contravienen a la dignidad de estos grupos vulnerables.

4.- Es muy difícil determinar la causalidad, el dolo, la intencionalidad ya que intervienen diversos factores en la trasmisión del VIH, como son: la posibilidad de la trasmisión, el tipo de exposición, el uso o no de condón, la etapa de la infección en la que se encuentra la persona, si lleva tratamiento antirretroviral, si tiene carga viral detectable o indetectable, si existen enfermedades concomitantes, el estado de salud de la pareja receptora y los acuerdos establecidos entre cónyuges o parejas ocasionales, entre otros.

5.- Es importante enfatizar que medidas punitivas como las que se pretende legislar a través de esta iniciativa, podrían obstaculizar y afectar las diversas acciones multisectoriales en materia de prevención, detección y atención del VIH en nuestro Estado.

6.- Podría influir a que las personas que se perciban con factores de riesgo ante el VIH, omitan realizarse una detección temprana a fin de no conocer su estado serológico en virtud de prevenir un posible proceso penal. Este tipo de legislaciones pueden afectar al Continuo de la detección, prevención y atención en VIH en México[1], el cual busca que las personas que se perciban en riesgo se realicen un diagnóstico temprano, puedan recibir un tratamiento oportuno que mejore su calidad de vida y además contribuya a frenar la cadena de transmisión.

7. La evidencia científica señala que para detener la cadena de trasmisión del VIH de una persona a otra es indispensable realizar estrategias de prevención combinada, entre las cuales, destacan las biomédicas, las comportamentales y las de cambio estructural, estas últimas enfatizan las acciones que contribuyen a erradicar el estigma y la discriminación asociado al VIH-sida, y una ley con acciones punitivas no contribuye con estas estrategias.

8.- El contenido en específico de esta iniciativa de “Peligro de contagio” podría provocar que la responsabilidad jurídica de la prevención del VIH recaiga solamente en quienes viven con VIH, y podría invisibilizar el mensaje de salud pública de que las parejas sexuales tienen responsabilidad compartida sobre su salud sexual. Las personas podrían suponer erróneamente que sus parejas son VIH-negativas porque desconocen o no revelan su estado serológico, por tal dejarían de incorporar medidas de prevención.

9.-Este tipo de adecuaciones al código penal promoverán mayores niveles de estigma y discriminación hacia las diversas poblaciones con VIH y sus familias.

Amigos Potosinos en lucha contra el Sida exhorta al gobernador del estado Juan Manuel Carreras López y a Erika Velázquez Gutiérrez presidenta del Instituto de las Mujeres en San Luis Potosí (sic), a reconsiderar la penalización del VIH, de hacerlo colocarían a las personas con VIH bajo un estatus de posibles criminales, contraviniendo a su dignidad como personas, atentando a sus derechos humanos y estigmatizándoles por su condición de salud.

Mejor aún, le exhortamos a impulsar la creación del Consejo Estatal Para el control del VIH, Sida e ITS en San Luis Potosí, además incrementar los recursos  para prevenir, detectar y atender oportunamente el VIH; mejorar la calidad e integralidad de los servicios de atención en el Estado que son otorgados desde los CAPASITS y hospitales del sector salud; generar y fortalecer programas de empoderamiento para las mujeres y acciones que busquen promover la igual de oportunidades entre mujeres y hombres; por último a disminuir el estigma y la discriminación hacia las poblaciones clave y personas afectadas por el VIH y otras ITS incorporando el principio MIPA[3] que habla del mayor involucramiento de las personas con VIH como parte de la solución y respuesta, con ello contribuir a un México democrático, incluyente y sin discriminación.

US: New report explores how HIV criminal laws in California are enforced against foreign born populations

FOR IMMIGRANTS, HIV CRIMINALIZATION CAN MEAN INCARCERATION AND DEPORTATION 

New Study Shows 15 Percent of People who had Contact with Californa Criminal System because of HIV Criminalization Laws were Foreign Born

LOS ANGELES – A new study suggests that for some immigrants, an HIV-specific criminal offense may have been the triggering event for their deportation proceedings.  In HIV Criminalization Against Immigrants in California, Williams Institute Scholars Amira Hasenbush and Bianca D.M. Wilson, explore how HIV criminal laws are enforced in California, particularly against foreign born populations.

HIV criminalization is a term used to describe statutes that either criminalize otherwise legal conduct or that increase the penalties for illegal conduct based upon a person’s HIV-positive status.  California has four HIV-specific criminal laws, and one non-HIV-specific criminal law that criminalizes exposure to any communicable disease.  All HIV-specific offenses in California have the potential to lead to deportation proceedings.

“People living with HIV still face stigma and discrimination,” said Amira Hasenbush.  “If one is HIV-positive and enters the criminal system, one may be more severely impacted than those who are HIV-negative.  A major impact for HIV positive immigrants is possible deportation, possibly a far worse outcome than the original sentence.  Living with HIV is a public health matter, not a criminal one.”

Key Findings:

-Overall, 800 people have come into contact with the California criminal system from 1988 to June 2014 related to that person’s HIV-positive status.  Among those individuals, 121 (15 percent) were foreign born.

-Thirty-six people, or 30 percent, of these foreign born individuals, had some form of a criminal immigration proceeding in their histories. Among those who had immigration proceedings in their records, nine people (25 percent) had those proceedings initiated immediately after an HIV-specific incident.

-Like their U.S. born counterparts, 94 percent of all HIV-specific incidents in which immigrants had contact with the criminal system were under California’s felony offense against solicitation while HIV-positive.

-Eighty-three percent of the immigrants who had contact with the system based on their HIV-positive status were born in Mexico, Central or South America, or the Caribbean.

-While U.S. born people were divided fairly evenly between men and women, immigrants were overwhelmingly men: 88 percent of foreign born individuals in the group were men. (It should be noted that “men” may include transgender male-to-female individuals.  Problems created by a lack of data on transgender people within criminal justice databases are highlighted in the report.)

HIV Criminalization Against Immigrants in California was developed by analyzing the California Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) data on HIV offenses in California, exploring the demographics and experiences of foreign born individuals as compared to their U.S. born counterparts. Future research beyond the enforcement data may explore whether initial patterns seen by sex and place of birth are perpetuated in other criminal systems or under other offenses. Future research can also explore the influence of sexual orientation and gender identity as a potential driver to the criminal system and as a potential mediating factor in experiences once in the system. This will help provide a more nuanced and complete picture of the experiences of people who are criminalized based on their HIV-positive status.

Read the report.

The Williams Institute, a think tank on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, is dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research with real-world relevance.

Canada: ‘HIV is not a crime’ documentary premieres in Montreal at Concordia University’s ‘The Movement to End HIV Criminalization’ event

Last week, Concordia Unversity in Montreal, Canada, held the world premiere public screening of HJN’s ‘HIV is not a crime training academy’ documentary, followed by three powerful and richly evocative presentations by activist and PhD candidate, Alex McClelland; HJN’s Research Fellow in HIV, Gender, and Justice, Laurel Sprague; and activist and Hofstra University Professor, Andrew Spieldenner.

The meeting, introduced by Liz Lacharpagne of COCQ-SIDA and by Martin French of Concordia University – who put the lecture series together – was extremely well-attended, and resulted in a well-written and researched article by student jounrnalist, Ocean DeRouchie, alongside a strong editorial from Concordia’s newspaper, The Link.

(The full text of both article and editorial are below.)

Presentations included:

  • Edwin Bernard, Global Co-ordinator, HIV Justice Network: ‘The Global Picture: Surveying the State of HIV Criminalisation’
  • Alex McClelland, Concordia University: ‘Criminal Charges for HIV Non-disclosure, Transmission and/or Exposure: Impacts on the Lives of People Living with HIV’
  • Laurel Sprague, Research Fellow in HIV, Gender, and Justice, HIV Justice Network: ‘Your Sentence is Not My Freedom: Feminism, HIV Criminalization and Systems of Stigma’
  • Andrew Spieldenner, Hofstra University: ‘The Cost of Acceptable Losses: Exploring Intersectionality, Meaningful Involvement of People with HIV, and HIV Criminalization’

Articles based on a number of these important presentations will be published on the HJN website in coming

weeks.

14333735_10154588602717139_7512296186717280700_n

The Movement to End HIV Criminalization

Decrying Criminalization

Concordia Lecture Series Prompts Discussion on HIV Non-disclosure

by Ocean DeRouchie — Published September 19, 2016 in The Link

The sentiment surrounding HIV/AIDS is often one of discomfort. But the reluctance to speak openly about such a significant and impactful disease is hurting the people closest to it.

Under current Canadian legislation, HIV non-disclosure is criminalized. It exercises some of the most punitive aspects of our criminal justice system, explained Alexander McClelland, a writer and researcher currently working on a PhD at Concordia.

McClelland was one of four panelists speaking under Concordia’s Community Lecture Series on HIV/AIDS on Thursday, Sept. 15 in the Hall building. The collective puts on multiple panel-based events in order to address the attitudes, laws, and intersections of political and socioeconomic stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS.

Talking About HIV, Legally

There are three distinct charges that guide prosecutors in HIV cases—transmission (giving the disease to someone without having disclosed your status), exposure (e.g. spitting or biting) and non-disclosure (not informing a sexual partner about your HIV/AIDS status).

Aggravated sexual assault and attempted murder are some of the charges that defendants often face, explained Edwin Bernard, Global Coordinator for the HIV Justice Network, during the discussion.

While there are clearly defined situations in which you are legally obligated to tell a sex partner about your HIV status, there are no HIV-specific laws. This results in the application of general law in cases that are anything but general.

In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada established that “people living with HIV must disclose their status before having sex that poses a ‘realistic possibility of HIV transmission.’”

Aidslaw.ca presents a clear map of situations in which you’d have to tell a sex partner about your status because, in fact, it is not in all scenarios that you’d be legally required to have the discussion.

A lot of it depends on your viral load—the amount of measurable virus in your bloodstream, usually taken in milliliters. A “low” to undetectable viral load is the goal, and is achieved with anti-viral medication.

Treatment serves to render HIV-positive individuals non-infectious, and therefore lowering the risk of transmission. A “high” viral load indicates increased amounts of HIV in the blood.

If protection is used and with a low viral load, one might not have to disclose their status at all.

That said, there is a legal obligation to disclose one’s HIV-positive status before any penetrative sex sans-condom, regardless of viral load. You’d also have to bring it up before having any sex with protection if you have a viral load higher than “low.”

But not all sex is spelled out so clearly.

Oral sex, for instance, is a grey area. Aidslaw.ca says, “oral sex is usually considered very low risk for HIV transmission.” They write that “despite some developments at lower level courts,” they cannot say for sure what does not require disclosure.

There are “no risk” activities. Smooching and touching one another are intimate activities that, as health professionals say, pose such a small risk of transmission that there “should be no legal duty to disclose an HIV-positive status.”

Moving Up, and Out of Hand

Court proceedings are based on how the jury and judge want to apply general laws to specific instances. There are a lot of factors that can influence the outcome.

The case-to-case outlook leads to the criminal justice system dealing with non-disclosure in such a disproportionate way, said McClelland.

The situation begs the question: “Why is society responding in such a punitive way?” asked McClelland.

This isn’t to say that not disclosing one’s HIV status “doesn’t require some potential form of intervention,” he explained, adding that intervention could incorporate counseling, mental-health support, encouragement around building self-esteem and learning how to deal and live with the virus in the world. “But in engaging with the very blunt instrument that is the criminal law is the wrong approach.”

He continued to explain that the reality of the criminalization of HIV ultimately doesn’t do anything to prevent HIV transmission.

“It’s just ruining people’s lives,” said McClelland, who has been interviewing Canadians who have been affected by criminal charges due to HIV-related situations. “It’s a very complex social situation that requires a nuanced approach to support people.”

“It’s just ruining people’s lives. It’s a very complex social situation that requires a nuanced approach to support people.” – Alexander McClelland, Concordia PhD student

Counting the Cases

The Community AIDS Treatment Information Exchange, a Canadian resource for information on HIV/AIDS, states that about 75,500 Canadians were living with the virus by the end of the 2014, according to the yearly national HIV estimates.

That number has gone up since. On Monday, Sept. 19, Saskatoon doctors called for a public health state of emergency due to overwhelmingly increasing cases of new infections and transmission, according to CBC.

In Quebec, there have been cases surrounding transmission and exposure. In 2013, Jacqueline Jacko, an HIV-positive woman, was sentenced to ten months in prison for spitting on a police officer—despite findings that confirm that the disease cannot be transmitted through saliva.

In this situation, Jacko had called for police assistance in removing an unwelcome person from her home. Aggression transpired between her and the officers, resulting in her arrest and eventually her spitting on them, according to Le Devoir.

“[This case] is so clearly based on AIDS-phobia, AIDS stigma and fear,” added McClelland, “and an example of how the police treat these situations and use HIV as a way to criminalize people.”

Police intervention is crucial in the fight against HIV criminalization. McClelland urged people to consider the consequences of involving the justice system in these kinds of situations.

“It’s important to understand that the current scientific reality for HIV is that it’s a chronic, manageable condition. When people take [antivirals] they are rendered non-infectious,” he said. “They should then understand that the fear is grounded in a kind of stigma and historical understanding of HIV that is no longer correct today.”

The first instinct, or notion of calling the police in an instance where one feels they may have been exposed to the virus in some way is “mostly grounded in fear and panic,” he said.

“[Police] respond in a really disproportionate, violent way towards people—so I would consider questioning, or at least thinking twice before calling the police,” McClelland explained.

On the other hand, he suggested approaching the situation in more conventional, educational and progressive methods.

“I think it could be talked through in different ways—by going to a counselor, talking to a close friend, engaging with a community organization, learning about HIV and what it means to have HIV, and understanding that the risk of HIV transmission are very low because of people being on [antivirals].”

As for the current state of Canadian legislation, there are a lot of complexities that hinder heavy-hitting changes to the laws.

Due to the Supreme Court’s rulings in 2012, they are unlikely to review the decision for another decade. For now, the main course of action is “on the ground,” said McClelland. From mitigating people from requesting police involvement in order to “slow down the cases,” to raising awareness through events such as Concordia’s Community Lecture Series, and engaging with the people to resolve issues in community-based ways and collective of care.

Then, McClelland said, “trying to do high-level political advocacy to get leaders to think about how they can change the current situation” would be the next step.

Editorial: Community-Based Research is the Key to HIV Destigmatization and Decriminalization

Opinions by The Link — Published September 19, 2016

Receiving an HIV-positive diagnosis is already a life sentence. The state of Canada’s legal system threatens to give those living with the virus another one.

An HIV diagnosis is accompanied by its own set of complexities that are not encompassed in Canada’s criminal law. By pushing HIV non-disclosure cases into the same box as more easily defined assault cases, we are generalizing an issue that frankly cannot be simplified.

This does not reflect the reality that one faces when living with HIV. Criminalizing the virus further stigmatizes what should and could be everyday activities.

This puts the estimated 75,000 Canadians living with HIV at risk of being further isolated. This takes us backwards, considering the scientific progress that has been made to make living with the virus manageable. Under the proper antiviral medication, one’s risk of transmitting the disease is incredibly low. This stigma is rooted in an antiquated understanding of what HIV is and the associated risks—much of that fear having emerged primarily as a result of homophobia.

Further, with over 185 cases having been brought to court, Canada is leading in terms of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure. This pushes marginalized communities farther away. According to estimates from 2014, indigenous populations have a 2.7 higher incidence rate than the non-indigenous Canadian average. Gay men have an incidence rate that is 131 times higher than the rest of the male population in Canada.

As of Sept. 19, doctors in Saskatchewan are calling on the provincial government to declare a public health state of emergency, with a spike in HIV/AIDS cases around the province.

In 2010, it’s reported that indigenous people accounted for 73 per cent of all new cases in the province. Outreach and treatment for these communities are at the forefront of Saskatchewan’s doctor’s recommendations for the government.

With such a highly treatable virus, however, the problem should never have gone this far. It is an excerpt from a much bigger issue.

As we can see from the available statistics, HIV—both the virus and its criminalization—is a mirror for broader inequalities that exist within society. HIV related issues disproportionately affect racialized people, gender non-conforming people, and other marginalized groups.

Discussions around HIV also must include discussions around drug use. The heavy criminalization of injection drugs has created a context where users are driven deep underground, thus putting them at an incredibly high risk for contracting the virus. Treating drug use as a health rather than a criminal issue is an integral part of any effective HIV prevention strategy. Safe injection sites, such as Vancouver’s InSite, have made staggering differences in their communities and prove to be a positive way of combating the spread of HIV.

This is just one of the many ways that we can control the spread of HIV without judicial intervention, without turning the HIV-positive population into criminals.

Using community-based research enables us to not only understand the needs of the affected population—particularly when it comes to understanding the almost inherent intersectionality associated with the spread of HIV—but also allows us to better target our resources towards those who need it most.

Often times, that stretches to include those closest to HIV-positive individuals. Spreading awareness, and developing resources and a support network for them is just as important in fighting the stigmatization of the virus.

The Link stands for the immediate decriminalization of HIV non-disclosure, and the move towards restorative justice systems in non-disclosure cases. As always, those directly affected by an issue are the ones with who are best positioned to create a solution—something that the restorative justice framework embraces.

The disclosure of one’s HIV status is important. Jailing those who don’t disclose it, however, won’t make the virus go away. It simply isolates the problem, places it out of site and out of mind.

Criminalizing HIV patients is less about justice than it is about appeasing the baseless fears of the general population. It’s time for a more effective solution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natasha Mitchell: Outside the police station?

Rosemary Namubiru: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: Criminalisation is harmful and wrong, and is also damaging prevention strategies

Over 200 activists called for an end to HIV criminalisation throughout the world saying it unjustly harms and blames HIV positive people, damages prevention strategies and undermines national and international sexual health programs.

Earlier during the week some 200 people living with HIV, human rights activists and representatives of key populations gathered for a one-day meeting,  held at Durban South Africa, challenging HIV criminalisation under the title “Beyond blame: challenging HIV criminalisation.”

The meeting, which preceded the International Aids Conference in Durban, heard individuals who have faced HIV criminalization recount the far-reaching personal, social and legal impacts of unjust prosecution on their lives and that of their families. Furthermore activists outlined how HIV criminalisation not only uses blame culture, harming not only HIV positive people, but also damaging prevention and undermining sexual health programs world-wide.

The meeting demanded that HIV scientists and clinicians become more involved in efforts to ensure that the application of the criminal law is consistent with best available evidence relating to risk, harm and proof in the context of HIV, as well as calls for members of parliament and the judiciary to end unjust HIV criminalisation.

Speaking with KaleidoScot, Edwin J Bernard, Coordinator at HIV Justice Network, who organised the meeting said: “The meeting included three HIV criminalisation survivors – including one, Kerry Thomas, who called in from behind bars in Idaho – highlighted that HIV criminalisation doesn’t just harm public health, it harms the lives of ordinary people living with HIV, who are often demonised, stigmatised and unjustly targeted by the law.

“Elizabeth Taylor’s grandchildren (and great-grandchild) Laela Wilding, Finn McMurray, Rhys Tivey, and Quinn Tivey were also there, and so incredibly moved, was also inspiring.  They have pledged to make HIV criminalisation a key issue for the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation.

“Then on Tuesday morning, following Justice Edwin Cameron’s Jonathan Mann Memorial Lecture, more than 100 of us took to the stage demanding an end to HIV criminalisation. Justice Cameron welcomed us with open arms, literally!  We chanted: WE HAVE A VIRUS! WE ARE NOT CRIMINALS! END CRIMINALISATION NOW!”

HIV medication, or antiretroviral (ARVs), is now highly effective to the point that people who have HIV and use ARVs properly are effectively non-infectious, a recent study found zero infection cases between mixed-HIV status couples. However, many new infection cases arise from people who are unaware of their HIV status – something that HIV criminalisation is likely to worsen, not help.

The general consensus among the scientific and medical communities – and HIV charities – is that ascribing personal blame for infection is neither reliable nor helpful, and that decisions on public health matters should be determined by cost-effectiveness and clinical need rather than moral judgements.

The UNAIDS guidance aims to “end overly broad criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission on the basis that it “raises serious human rights and public health concerns”. it recommends “concentrating efforts on expanding the use of proven and successful evidence-informed and rights-based public health approaches to HIV prevention, treatment and care” and “limiting any application of criminal law to truly blameworthy cases where it is needed to achieve justice.”

The Oslo Declaration also suggests that “a better alternative [to criminalisation] is to create an environment that enables people to seek testing, support and timely treatment, and to safely disclose their HIV status.”

Activists pointed out that not only is criminalisation harmful and wrong, but it is counterproductive and even endangers prevention strategies. Martha Tholanah, a feminist activist from Zimbabwe, and director of the NGO Community and Enterprise Development against Stigma, told Kaleidoscot that she agrees “with the activists on calling for an end to criminalisation of HIV. It’s scary that the criminalisation cases are increasing. I wonder if the judicial services personnel ever look at the research and consider how the evidence produced can be considered before they tackle these cases.  Criminlisation perpetuates stigma and instigates mental health problems.”

While Maurice Tomlinson, a Senior Policy Analyst at Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, commented: “To paraphrase the UNAIDS report released in advance of the ongoing International AIDS Conference, continued criminalisation has stalled the global fight against HIV by driving persons away from effective prevention, treatment, care and support interventions.  We can’t fight HIV with fear.  We must respond with facts and human rights.”

Activists have also expressed concerns about Scots law, which they believe is doing a disservice to both people who have HIV and wider issues of public health.

Under Scots law, exposing or infecting someone with HIV are considered “culpable and reckless conduct”. These are common-law offences that carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, as opposed to five years in England and Wales. If the transmission of HIV is deliberate, it would be legally considered an assault.  Scottish law focuses on behaviour (unlike English and Welsh law which focuses on the harm that results from such behaviour): thus exposing others to the risk of HIV transmission (‘HIV exposure’) can be prosecuted. The law however does not specifically mention HIV but has been used against HIV and hepatitis positive people.

Lisa Power, a sexual health campaigner who was the co-founder of Stonewall and who also served as the Secretary-General of the International Lesbian & Gay Association, believes that the “messy” and “damaging” stance of Scots law on the issue needs to be reconsidered, and that Scotland should learn from other jurisdictions.

She told KaleidoScot: ”I think that the South African model is sensible – it only prosecutes for intentional transmission, which includes transmission where there has been a sustained course of deceptive behaviour.

“Various charities have worked with Government lawyers in England and Wales to draft changes to the assault laws back in the 1990s which would have made things here much clearer, simpler and restricted to intentional transmission – but sadly the law change never got enacted so we still have the messy old Victorian laws – and the Scottish ones are even messier.

“But my experience is that trying to prosecute reckless transmission during casual sex has resulted in quite a lot of damage, including miscarriages of justice, because it’s so extremely complicated and people make all sorts of assumptions.

“The trouble with all the UK criminal laws is that we have no way of apportioning responsibility, it’s all victim and offender, which is not how most sex happens. Scotland is worse because you have laws on your books that let the Procurator Fiscal bring cases for exposure – and that’s a ridiculous charge now we have TasP and PreP and we know the relative (low) risks of any one sexual encounter.”

She added: “In my experience, people rush to conclusions, they expect the worst and they also rush to judgement. And as often as not they were wrong.”

A Scottish activist, who asked to remain anonymous, told KaleidoScot: “Criminalising HIV transmission merely perpetuates and even encourages stigmatisation, affects the ability of people to openly discuss their health issues, makes it less likely people will present for testing and ultimately plays into the spread of HIV.”

Robert McKay, National Director Terrence Higgins Trust Scotland, echoed many of these sentiments. He told KaleidoScot: “The current legal situation creates more confusion and potential challenges for people living in Scotland. Whilst it’s important to keep people safe, it’s also important that the law uses intent as a better measure of criminal behaviour as opposed to recklessness.”

When contacted, the charity HIV Scotland, however, only reiterated the current status of Scots legislation and underlined that there has been improvement with “stake holders such as Police Scotland” which resulted in zero prosecutions in the last few years.

A recent study found that prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and/or unintentional transmission have now been reported in 61 countries. This total increases to 105 jurisdictions when individual US states and Australian states / territories are counted separately.

Of the 61 countries, 26 applied HIV criminalisation laws, 32 applied general criminal or public health laws, and three (Australia, Denmark and United States) applied both HIV criminalisation and general laws.

There are reports of at least 313 arrests, prosecutions and/or convictions in 28 countries during the report period, covering 1 April 2013 to 30 September 2015.

The highest number of cases during this period were reported in: Russia (at least 115), United States (at least 104), Belarus (at least 20), Canada (at least 17), France (at least 7), United Kingdom (at least 6), Italy (at least 6), Australia (at least 5), Germany (at least 5).

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