Livestream: HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy: Plenary 1a – Survivors and California (HJN, 2018)

HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy Live from the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 4 June 2018

Live stream hosted by Mark S King www.myfabulousdisease.com

This live stream was brought to you by HIV Justice Network

Directed and produced by Nicholas Feustel

Running order (click on the time cues to jump there):

1) Pre-show with Mark S. King and guests 00:28

2) Introduction 08:36

3) Part 1: Survivors’ Panel 09:39

4) Intermission show 1:11:09

5) Part 2: Victory in California 1:13:14

6) After show 2:02:20

Introduction by Allison Nichol SERO Project WASHINGTON DC

Part 1: Criminalization Survivors’ Panel Facilitated by Robert Suttle SERO Projekt NEW YORK With Ariel Sabillon Student FLORIDA Monique Howell HIV criminalization survivor SOUTH CAROLINA Ken Pinkela SERO Project NEW YORK Kerry Thomas SERO Project IDAHO

Part 2: Forging the Path to Victory in California Facilitated by Naina Khanna Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA With Craig Pulsipher APLA CALIFORNIA Arneta Rogers Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA Scott Scholtes Lambda Legal ILLINOIS

Side show interviews with Edwin J Bernard HIV Justice Network UK and Venita Ray Southern AIDS Coalition TEXAS 

Livestream: HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy: Opening Session (HJN, 2018)

Live from the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 3 June 2018

Live stream hosted by Mark S King www.myfabulousdisease.com

This live stream was brought to you by HIV Justice Network

Directed and produced by Nicholas Feustel

Running order (click on the time cues to jump there):

1) Pre-show with Mark S King and guests 00:09

2) Welcome 09:29 3) Intermission show 1:05:36

4) Thank you’s 1:09:25

5) Celebrating victories 1:11:40

6) After show 2:10:43

Facilitated by Tami Taught SERO Project IOWA With Melissa Williams Director of the Native American Indian Affairs and Commission INDIANA Carrie Foote HIV Modernization Movement INDIANA Mark Hughes HIV Modernization Movement INDIANA Sean Strub SERO Project PENNSYLVANIA Naina Khanna Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA Waheedah Shabazz-El Positive Women’s Network – USA PENNSYLVANIA Arneta Rogers Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA Stacy Jennings BULI participant SOUTH CAROLINA Cindy Stine SERO Project PENNSYLVANIA Robert Suttle SERO Project NEW YORK Edwin J Bernard HIV Justice Network UK Ken Pinkela SERO Project NEW YORK

Paul Kidd ASHM 2018 Lecture: HIV, Consent and the Criminal Law (Australia, 2018)

Synopsis
What is the role of the criminal law in relation to HIV medicine? Medical practitioners and other health care workers provide testing, diagnosis, counsel and care – but the use of the criminal law to prosecute people with HIV means health professionals may also find themselves entangled in a criminal investigation. What should we tell patients about their rights and responsibilities when it comes to HIV transmission or exposure? Taking medical and legal notions of consent as its starting point, this presentation will explore the complex and problematic impacts of HIV criminalisation on medical practice and the lives of people living with HIV, discuss the unrealised potential for the criminal law to be a healing process, and provide some guidance for practitioners who need to balance their roles as health providers with the legalities of HIV transmission and exposure.

Biography
Paul Kidd is an activist, writer and commentator with a particular interest in LGBTI law reform and legal issues affecting people living with blood-borne viruses. He was the founding chair of the Victorian HIV Legal Working Group, is a past President of Living Positive Victoria, has served on the boards of the Victorian AIDS Council, Hepatitis Victoria and the Equality Project, and is a member of the Victorian Government LGBTI Justice Working Group. He holds an honours degree in law from La Trobe Law School and is currently a trainee lawyer with Fitzroy Legal Service.  Paul is currently a Supervisory Board member of the HIV Justice Network.

Canada: Recent case in British Columbia demonstrates the "cycle of fear, stigma and misinformation surrounding HIV"

Misinformation is the real culprit in British Columbia HIV case

Police and media left out key details of HIV non-disclosure charges – By Niko Bell

The case of Brian Carlisle shows that when it comes to HIV, what you don’t know can hurt you.

Last summer, Mission RCMP reported that Carlisle, a 47-year-old marijuana activist, had been charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault for not disclosing to his sexual partners that he has HIV. The RCMP posted Carlisle’s name and photo, asking for any other partners who might have been exposed to come forward.

At the time, the RCMP said that while they would not normally publish private medical information, “the public interest clearly outweighs the invasion of Mr Carlisle’s privacy.”

Xtra does not usually publish the names of people charged with HIV non-disclosure, but Carlisle has given permission to Xtra to publish his name and HIV status.

In the following months, three charges of aggravated sexual assault against Carlisle swelled into 12.

But the RCMP failed to mention a crucial fact: Carlisle couldn’t transmit the virus to anyone.

After studying thousands of couples over decades of research, HIV scientists around the world have reached the consensus that people with HIV who regularly take medication and achieve a suppressed viral load cannot transmit the virus through sexual contact. Like most HIV patients in British Columbia, Carlisle’s viral load was suppressed, so none of the women he had sex with were in any danger of contracting the virus.

Months after publicly disclosing his HIV status, Crown prosecutors stayed all charges against Carlisle. But it became stunningly clear that not only had the police not fully informed the public that Carlisle was uninfectious, they also hadn’t properly informed Carlisle’s alleged victims.

One woman who had sex with Carlisle told the CBC anonymously about going through PTSD, anxiety and depression, losing her job and going bankrupt because she thought she might have HIV.

Not only did the woman mistakenly think she could have contracted HIV, she also said she thought she still might become infected. Nine months after charges were laid against Carlisle, she told the CBC she still had to “wait one more year to know if I have HIV or not,” and that she was still taking HIV tests every three months to ensure the virus did not appear. She said she still avoids sexual relationships out of fear of having to disclose that she might have HIV.

This understanding of how HIV testing works is catastrophically wrong. Modern HIV testing technology, like that used by the BC Centre for Disease Control, catches 99 percent of new HIV infections only six weeks after a new infection. If even that window is too large, new technologies like RNA amplification, also used in BC, can cut the time down to only two weeks.

Even if Carlisle’s viral load had been high enough to transmit the virus, which it was not, the women he had sex with could have been given a clear bill of health only days after the RCMP knocked on their doors.

The CBC, however, did not correct the woman’s misinformation, and reported as fact that the women involved would have to undergo annual testing to make sure they do not have HIV.

Mission RCMP would not confirm at what point they discovered that Carlisle’s viral load was suppressed, or when they informed the women involved, because they say the investigation into Carlisle is still open. It’s also not clear who told the women they might be infected, or that they required yearly HIV testing.

Regardless what you think of Carlisle’s choice not to inform his sexual partners that he had HIV, and regardless whether you care about the publication of his name and HIV positive status, much of the psychological harm suffered by the women in Carlisle’s case was for nothing. Accurate medical information might have saved them months or years of anxiety, fear and isolation.

Carlisle’s case is an example of what many HIV experts say is a cycle of fear, stigma and misinformation surrounding HIV, propelled by police and prosecutors’ use of the criminal law against people who are HIV positive. Criminal prosecutions, experts say, make people less likely to seek medical help or get tested, and can increase the likelihood of new infections. One study found thathalf of the targets of HIV non-disclosure prosecutions are Black men, and nearly 40 per cent are men with male partners.

Media reports in other high profile Canadian HIV cases have also skimmed over the medical science, adding to public confusion around HIV safety.  

In December, a federal government report recommended that prosecutors should move away from the “blunt instrument” of the criminal law to handle HIV non-disclosure cases, and the government of Ontario announced it would stop prosecuting cases involving people with low viral loads. BC’s attorney general said in December he would also reconsider the province’s policy, but recent updates to the Crown counsel policy manual do not rule out prosecuting people whose viral load makes the virus intransmissible.

Regardless of the law, the least that the police and journalists can do is be honest and accurate about the actual risks involved in HIV cases. Carlisle’s case shows just how devastating ignorance can be.

Published in Xtra on May 5, 2018

 

 

Mexico: Supreme Court finds Veracruz law criminalising ‘wilful transmission’ of HIV and STIs to be unconstitutional

Following a Constitutional challenge initiated in February 2016 by the Multisectoral Group on HIV / AIDS and STIs of Veracruz and the National Commission on Human Rights, and supported by HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE, Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice yesterday found by eight votes (out of 11) that the amendment to Article 158 of the Penal Code of the State of Veracruz to be invalid as it violates a number of fundamental rights: equality before the law; personal freedom; and non-discrimination.

The full ruling is not yet available, but according to a news story published yesterday in 24 Horas.

…it was pointed out that the criminal offense is “highly inaccurate” because it does not establish what or what is a serious illness, besides it is not possible to verify the fraud in the transmission [and] that although the measure pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the right to health, especially for women and girls, the measure did not exceed the analysis of need because it was not ideal and optimal for the protection of that purpose, especially as [Veracruz] already criminalised the ‘willful putting at risk of contagion of serious illnesses’…

Additionally, Letra S reports,

The Minister President of the Court, Luis María Aguilar Morales, took up the recommendations of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV / AIDS and the Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation, regarding the criminalization of HIV, and argued that this article left to the will of the investigating authority to decide which diseases will be considered as serious and which will not, going against the principle of legality, which implies that the crimes cannot be indeterminate or ambiguous.

In this case, the President said, the article did not establish whether STIs are only those considered serious or any, regardless of their severity. In turn, the justices determined that the resolution has a retroactive effect, that is, that those persons tried under the offense established by this article, the resolutions are invalidated.

 

Background

On August 4, 2015, the Congress of the State of Veracruz approved an amendment to Article 158 of the Criminal Code in order to add the term Sexually Transmitted Infections, which included HIV and HPV. 

It provided for a penalty ranging from 6 months to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to 50 days of salary for anyone who “willfully” infects another person with a disease via sexual transmission.

The amendment, proposed by the deputy Mónica Robles Barajas of the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico, said the legislation was aimed at protecting women who can be infected by their husbands. “It’s hard for a woman to tell her husband to use a condom,” she said in an interview with the Spanish-language online news site Animal Político.

On February 16, 2016, the National Human Rights Commission responded to the request of the Multisectoral Group on HIV / AIDS and STIs of the state of Veracruz and other civil society organizations, and filed an action of unconstitutionality against the reform in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which it said does not fulfill its objective of preventing the transmission of sexual infections to women and girls, but rather creates discrimination of people living with HIV and other STIs.

In October 2016, following a press conference at the National Commission on Human Rights (pictured above) that generated a great deal of media coverage, including a TV report, HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE delivered a letter to the Mexican Supreme Court highlighting that a law such as that of Veracruz does not protect women against HIV but rather increases their risk and places women living with HIV, especially those in positions vulnerable and abusive relationships, at disproportionate risk of both proseuction and violence.

In October 2017, the first Spanish-language ‘HIV Is Not A Crime’ meeting took place in Mexico City, supported by the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition where a new Mexican Network against HIV Criminalisation was established.

The Network issued a Statement yesterday which concluded:

We applaud the declaration of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which gives us the reason for the unconstitutionality request, shared with the National Commission of Human Rights; For this reason, we suggest to the deputies of the Congresses of the State that before legislating, they should be trained in the subject and that they do not forget that their obligation is to defend Human Rights, not to violate them.

Finally, the Mexican Network against the Criminalization of HIV recognizes that there are still many ways to go and many battles to fight, but we can not stop celebrating this important achievement.

 

Edwin Bernard (HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE) and Patricia Ponce (Grupo Multisectorial Veracruz) presenting the letter to Supreme Court of the Nation, Mexico City.
Edwin Bernard (HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE) and Patricia Ponce (Grupo Multisectorial Veracruz) presenting the letter to Supreme Court of the Nation, Mexico City.

Read the English text of the HIV JUSTICE WORLWIDE amicus letter below.

HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE

This is a letter of support from HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE[1] to Grupo Multi VIH de Veracruz / National Commission of Human Rightswho are challenging Article 158 of Penal Code of the Free and Independent State of Veracruz that criminalises ‘intentional’ exposure to sexually transmitted infections or other serious diseases, on the grounds that this law violates a number of fundamental rights: equality before the law; personal freedom; and non-discrimination.

As a coalition of organisations working to end the overly broad use of criminal laws against people living with HIV, we respectfully share Grupo Multi VIH de Veracruz’s concerns around Article 158 which potentially stigmatises people with sexually transmitted diseases and criminalises ‘intentional’ exposure to sexually transmitted infections (potentially including HIV) or other serious diseases.

All legal and policy responses to HIV (and other STIs) should be based on the best available evidence, the objectives of HIV prevention, care, treatment and support, and respect for human rights. There is no evidence that criminalising HIV ‘exposure’ has HIV prevention benefits. However, there are serious concerns that the trend towards criminalisation is causing considerable harm.

Numerous human rights and public health concerns associated with the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure and/or potential or perceived exposure and/or transmission have led the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/ AIDS (UNAIDS) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), [2] the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health,[3]  the Global Commission on HIV and the Law[4]  and the the World Health Organization[5],  to urge governments to limit the use of the criminal law to extremely rare cases of intentional transmission of HIV (i.e., where a person knows his or her HIV-positive status, acts with the intention to transmit HIV, and does in fact transmit it). They have also recommended that prosecutions [for intentional transmission] “be pursued with care and require a high standard of evidence and proof.” [6]

In 2013, UNAIDS produced a comprehensive Guidance Note to assist lawmakers understand critical legal, scientific and medical issues relating to the use of the law in this way.[7] In particular, UNAIDS guidance stipulates that:

  • “[I]ntent to transmit HIV cannot be presumed or solely derived from knowledge of positive HIV status and/or non-disclosure of that status.
  • Intent to transmit HIV cannot be presumed or solely derived from engaging in unprotected sex, having a baby without taking steps to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, or by sharing drug injection equipment.
  • Proof of intent to transmit HIV in the context of HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission should at least involve (i) knowledge of positive HIV status, (ii) deliberate action that poses a significant risk of transmission, and (iii) proof that the action is done for the purpose of infecting someone else.
  • Active deception regarding positive HIV-status can be considered an element in establishing intent to transmit HIV, but it should not be dispositive on the issue. The context and circumstances in which the alleged deception occurred—including the mental state of the person living with HIV and the reasons for the alleged deception— should be taken into consideration when determining whether intent to transmit HIV has been proven to the required criminal law standard.”

Moreover, where criminal liability is extended to cases that do not involve actual transmission of HIV (contrary to the position urged by UNAIDS and other experts), such liability should, at the very bare minimum, be limited to acts involving a “significant risk” of HIV transmission. In particular, UNAIDS guidance contains explicit recommendations against prosecutions in cases where a condom was used, where other forms of safer sex were practiced (including oral sex and non-penetrative sex), or where the person living with HIV was on effective HIV treatment or had a low viral load. Being under treatment or using other forms of protections not only show an absence of malicious intent but also dramatically reduces the risks of transmission to a level close to zero. Indeed, a person under effective antiretroviral therapy poses –  at most – a negligible risk of transmission[8] and is therefore no different from someone who is HIV-negative.

Moreover, there is growing body of evidence[9] that such laws that actually or effective criminalise HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure, or transmission, negatively impact the human rights of people living with HIV due to:

  • selective and/or arbitrary investigations/prosecutions that has a disproportionate impact on racial and sexual minorities, and on women.
  • confusion and fear over obligations under the law;
  • the use of threats of allegations triggering prosecution as a means of abuse or retaliation against a current or former partner;
  • improper and insensitive police investigations that can result in inappropriate disclosure, leading to high levels of distress and in some instances, to loss of employment and housing, social ostracism, deportation (and hence also possibly loss of access to adequate medical care in some instances) for migrants living with HIV in some cases;
  • limited access to justice, including as a result of inadequately informed and competent legal representation;
  • sentencing and penalties that are often vastly disproportionate to any potential or realised harm, including lengthy terms of imprisonment, lifetime or years-long designation as a sex offender (with all the negative consequences for employment, housing, social stigma, etc.);
  • stigmatising media reporting, including names, addresses and photographs of people with HIV, including those not yet found guilty of any crime but merely subject to allegations.

In addition, there is no evidence that criminalising HIV (or other sexually transmitted infections) help protect women and girls from infections.  

Women are often the first in a relationship to know their HIV status due to routine HIV testing during pregnancy, and are less likely to be able to safely disclose their HIV-positive status to their partner as a result of inequality in power relations, economic dependency, and high levels of gender-based violence within relationships.[10]

Such a law does nothing to protect women from the coercion or violence that effectively increases the risk of HIV transmission. On the contrary, such laws place women living with HIV, especially those in vulnerable positions and abusive relationships, at increased risks of both prosecution and violence.

Some evidence suggests that fear of prosecution may deter people, especially those from communities highly vulnerable to acquiring HIV, from getting tested and knowing their status, because many laws only apply for those who are aware of their positive HIV status. [11] HIV criminalisation can also deter access to care and treatment, undermining counselling and the relationship between people living with HIV and healthcare professionals because medical records can be used as evidence in court. [12]

Finally, there is evidence[13] of an additional negative public health impact of such laws in terms of:

  • increasing HIV-related stigma, which has an adverse effect on a person’s willingness to learn about, or discuss, HIV; and
  • undermining the importance of personal knowledge and responsibility (correlative to degree of sexual autonomy) as a key component of an HIV prevention package, when instead prevention of HIV within a consensual sexual relationship is – and should be perceived as – a shared responsibility.

We hope that the Mexico Supreme Court of Justice takes our concerns and all of this evidence into account when considering the Constitutional Challenge.

Yours faithfully,

Edwin J Bernard, Global Co-ordinator, HIV Justice Network

on behalf of all HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners: AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA); Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network; Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+); HIV Justice Network; International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW); Positive Women’s Network – USA (PWN-USA); and Sero Project (SERO).

[1] HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE is an initiative made up of global, regional, and national civil society organisations working together to end overly broad HIV criminalisation. The founding partners are: AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA); Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network; Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+); HIV Justice Network; International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW); Positive Women’s Network – USA (PWN-USA); and Sero Project (SERO).  The initiative is also supported by Amnesty International, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, UNAIDS and UNDP.

[2] UNAIDS. Policy Brief: Criminalisation of HIV Transmission, August 2008; UNAIDS. Ending overly-broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission: Critical scientific, medical and legal considerations, May 2013.

[3] Anand Grover. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, June 2010.

[4] Global Commission on HIV and the Law. HIV and the Law: Risks, Rights & Health, July 2012.

[5] WHO. Sexual health, human rights and the law. June 2015.

[6] Global Commission on HIV and the Law. HIV and the Law: Risks, Rights & Health, July 2012.

[7] UNAIDS. Ending overly-broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission: Critical scientific, medical and legal considerations, May 2013.

[8] A.J. Rodger et al., “Sexual activity without condoms and risk of HIV transmission in serodifferent couples when the HIV-positive partner is using suppressive antiretroviral therapy,” JAMA 316, 2 (12 July 2016): pp. 171–181.

[9]op cit. Global Commission on HIV and the Law.

[10] Athena Network. 10 Reasons Why Criminalization of HIV Exposure or Transmission Harms Women. 2009.

[11] O’Byrne P et al. HIV criminal prosecutions and public health: an examination of the empirical research. Med Humanities 2013;39:85-90 doi:10.1136/medhum-2013-010366

[12]Ibid.

[13]Op cit. Global Commission on HIV and the Law.

US: Survivor's story shows how Michigan's criminalisation laws impact HIV positive individuals

A Hookup Gone Wrong: Michigan’s HIV Criminalization Negatively Affects Michiganders

Jeremy Merithew’s life took a turn for the worse when what was intended to be a casual hookup earned him a brush with discrimination and substantial jail time. That’s because He was HIV-positive and his hookup, Dwayne Cook claimed Merithew failed to disclose his status before the two engaged in oral and anal sex. That’s a four-year felony in Michigan and has been since 1989.

His mother, Teresa Perrin, has been by his side for the whole fight.

“It’s been a heartbreaking experience in what he’s gone through,” she said, “and not being able to get him out of it, and the way he was treated and the unfairness of it all.”

Both Perrin and Merithew were in Lansing last week to lobby lawmakers to change Michigan’s law. Iowa, California and Illinois have all modernized their laws in recent years.

Matthew Craig, coalition director for the Michigan Coalition for HIV Health and Safety, said having Merithew accompany the group in lobbying efforts to reform and modernize Michigan’s laws is important.

“As far as when it comes to a personal story and talking about Michigan’s HIV criminalization laws affect Michiganders, I think it’s important that we have people who have been affected badly by this law be able to speak to their own experiences,” he said. “Basically, our ability to translate to lawmakers and let them know that this is something we need them to change.”

Craig’s coalition is working with lawmakers to provide them basic HIV education while lobbying for the introduction of legislation to modernize the law to require prosecutors to prove the accused had an intent to transmit the virus, as well as engaged in behavior demonstrated to transmit it. Because right now, intent doesn’t have to proven for the accused to be sentenced.

Miscommunication

In August of 2012, Merithew was finishing his studies to become a nurse. He lived in a Grand Rapids suburb, and used an app get into contact with Cook.

“Then, two days after, the police came to my door,” Merithew said. “Knocking on the door, asking all sorts of personal questions. I answered them truthfully. I willingly went down to the police station with this guy so that they could interrogate me. They basically chained me to the floor and,they sat there and interviewed me for over an hour or whatever after they let me sit there for a while and stew … I think it was the next day they came back and arrested me.”

Evidence used at trial, however, raised questions as to whether or not there was a disclosure of Merithew’s positive status. Merithew said that he was asked questions before the hookup via email and answered “yes” to each.

His accuser, Cook, had his own issues. At the time of the hookup he was a married man with a pregnant wife who worked to raise money for a local housing agency. Ironically, that agency also administered federal money for the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) program.

Despite having been on medications for years and maintaining an undetectable viral load, Merithew’s attorney, Christine Yared, was prevented by Kent County Circuit Court Judge James Redford from presenting any scientific evidence that he was incapable of transmitting the virus.

It still grinds now 37-year-old Merithew to this day.

“I mean, it’s just we live in the 21st century,” he said. “Science should be taken into account when it comes to medical-type laws.”

Publicly Outed

Before Merithew had a chance to confront his accuser in court, the local Fox News affiliate, Fox 17, revealed he had created an online profile on the same hookup app in violation of his bond terms. Judge Redford revoked Merithew’s bond and he was sent to jail.

“Yeah, there was some guy online actually (who) turned me into Fox 17 news,” he said. “And it was kind of creepy when my lawyer read after the fact, you know, who this guy was and basically said, ‘Yeah, I’ve known him for years, I’ve been following him for years.’”

And the media scrutiny didn’t stop there.

“That would be because Fox 17 news actually published my online profile picture, which was a full nude picture, on the 6 o’clock news,” he said. “So yes. The inmates were aware of what was going on. But in their minds, they saw it as I was intentionally trying to infect people, and so it’s just called perception. The general public’s idea of what HIV is, or what the criminal statute actually is.”

Stigma Surfaces

While in jail, Merithew would soon face more allegations promoted by the television station. He would stand accused of trying to infect other inmates with food.

“I was getting sandwiches with my meds and I don’t like bologna, so I was giving them away instead of throwing them in the garbage. This one guy who everybody was calling ‘Crackhead Joe,’ he would always go around saying, ‘I’m not a crack head,’ and, bang, he would hit his arm like that,” Merithew slapped his arm to indicate shooting up drugs. “He asked me, ‘Why are you giving these sandwiches to so-and-so?’ And I’m like, ‘Well do you want extra mayonnaise on it too?’ Just kind of getting him to go away, because he’s just being annoying. So he went around telling all the guys that I was trying to infect everybody by ejaculating on the sandwiches.”

According to Merithew, that attempt at getting his fellow inmate to leave him alone escalated unexpectedly and severely when others learned of his comment.

“The Bible-thumper fanatic came up to me that day and he tried to talk to me, but I was watching the news so I kind of just brushed him off,” Merithew said. “So he went and told the CO about the incident, and then he came and talked to me and they locked me in segregation.”

His attorney called the incident a “jailhouse joke,” but Judge Redford, according an MLive report, said the incident was like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Prosecutors, under the direction of then Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth, tried to get Merithew to plead guilty to one count of violating the state’s HIV disclosure law. When he refused, he received another count, this one for the oral sex he had had, as well as a felony charge of using a computer to commit a crime. He was found guilty on all three counts in May 2013, and in June of that year he was sentenced to a minimum of five years in prison.

A Tarnished Record

The stigma around his virus followed Merithew past that incident. He was sent to prison in Jackson for processing after his sentence and was kept in solitary confinement for 45 days. Then, despite having a low security risk, he was sent to a maximum security facility – Ionia, Michigan.

“Basically, Kent County contacted the prison and said that I was gonna come to the prison and intentionally try to infect everybody with HIV,” he said. “So that was the reason that they locked me up,” Merithew said. “And, during that time, I was speaking to a psychologist that was there in the seg. unit. Basically, he told me that they were saying I was vindictive, and all of this other horrible stuff. He said (that) he didn’t see that, but they kept me there in segregation until they shipped me out.”

After time in Ionia, he was transferred to the prison in Adrian — a lower-security facility. Still, his HIV status traveled with him, and it reared its head while he was taking classes to learn how to work in food service. Someone asked Merithew to do the dishes although he wasn’t yet officially qualified to do so.

“And all the guys back there in the kitchen started throwing a fit, so I went back and the next day I didn’t have a call out for the culinary arts class,” he said. “So, I basically sent — they call them kites — a note to the instructor of the class asking him why I was taken out of this.”

Merithew said that the head of the vocational programs in the Michigan Department of Corrections, or MDOC, refused him based on his history in correctional institutions.

Misinformation and Revised Rules

The MDOC has a history of rejecting HIV-positive inmates from accessing jobs in food service.

“A prison holds about 1,000 (to) 1,200 people and as those 1,000 prisoners go through for breakfast, lunch and dinner, prisoners are scooping that food onto their trays,” said MDOC’s spokesman Russ Marlan in a 2009 statement to Between The Lines. “So if a prisoner was HIV-positive and sneezed onto a food item and then a prisoner ate that food item and that prisoner had a lesion in their mouth, they could contract the disease.”

Marlan also used the concept of a prisoner bleeding on food as a potential for the spread of the virus.

“Say a prisoner cuts himself and his blood falls on a radish and somebody eats that radish and that he’s got an open lesion in his mouth. There’s a potential for him to contract that disease,” Marlan said. “As responsible corrections professionals dedicated to running a safe and secure prison system, we made the decision not to allow them (prisoners with HIV) to work in that area of prison operations.”

The department lifted that ban a year later, in 2010.

Merithew was paroled earlier this year, but he remains restricted. Because he was ordered to register as a sex offender, which the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act does not require for his specific conviction, he’s prohibited from using computers and must wear an ankle monitor. Those restrictions even prevent him from enrolling in online classes.

Merithew’s accuser, Cook, declined to comment on this story.

Published on Pride Source on April 25, 2018

Webinar: Making Media Work for HIV Justice (PWN-USA for HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE, 2018)

This 90 minute webinar introduced attendees to some of the concepts and practices highlighted in the Making Media Work for HIV Justice media toolkit, and featured formidable activists, journalists, communications professionals, and human rights defenders working at the intersection of media and HIV criminalisation.

Canadian study finds that fear of prosecution deters some men from testing

Fear of Prosecution Over HIV Non-Disclosure Reduces HIV-Negative MSM Testing

According to a recently published study, fear of prosecution over HIV non-disclosure was reported to reduce HIV testing willingness by a minority of HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM).

Even though HIV transmission risk is low with effective antiretroviral therapy (ART), non-disclosure criminal prosecutions among gay, bisexual and other MSM are increasing. Because reduced testing may decrease the impact of HIV ‘test and treat’ strategies, researchers aimed to quantify the potential impact of non-disclosure prosecution on HIV testing and transmission among MSM.

Researchers recruited 150 HIV-negative MSM attending an HIV and primary care clinic in Toronto from September 2010–June 2012. Eligible participants included males 16 years or older, HIV-negative patients, and those that had sex with another man in the previous 12 months.

Participants completed an audio computer-assisted self-interview questionnaire that incorporated demographic and sexual behavior characteristics. HIV-negative participants were asked whether concern over non-disclosure prosecution altered the likelihood of HIV testing. Answers were based on a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from much less likely to much more likely to be tested.

Responses were characterized utilizing cross-tabulations and bivariate logistic regressions, while flowcharts modeled how changes in HIV testing behaviour impacted HIV transmission rates controlling for ART use, condom use and HIV status disclosure.

Findings concluded that 129 HIV-negative participants answered the question about concern of prosecution affecting HIV-testing decisions. Seven (5.4%) were much less likely to get tested, 2 (1.6%) were less likely to get tested, 90 (69.8%) reported no change, 11 (8.5%) were more likely to get tested and 14 (10.9%) were much more likely to get tested.

A total of 7% (9/124) were less or much less likely to be testing due to concern over future prosecution. There was no obvious socio/sexual demographic characteristics associated with decreased willingness of HIV testing to due concern.

Researchers estimated that this 7% reduction in testing could cause an 18.5% increase in community HIV transmission and that 73% is driven by unmet needs of HIV-positive undiagnosed MSM individuals.

“This reduction has the potential to significantly increase HIV transmission at the community level which has important public health implications,” study authors said in the study. “There are also great concerns surrounding how negative, crime-related framing of media reports and discourse surrounding HIV criminalization cases could deter HIV testing and increase HIV stigma and discrimination. Hence, HIV criminalization laws could also make disclosure and/or condom use conversations even harder.”

Study limitations include the fact that a clinic-based recruitment was used, which could lead to selection bias with respect to MSM seeking primary care. There was also not sufficient variability in the outcome in order to carry out a multivariable analysis.

Even though the full impact of non-disclosure laws are unclear, decreasing the population on ART through reduction in HIV testing will not reduce transmissions. Future studies are needed to determine the awareness and knowledge of HIV criminalization laws among HIV-positive and HIV-negative individuals. It’s also unclear if never having had a positive HIV test would be a legitimate argument against possible future prosecution.

The study, “Prosecution of non-disclosure of HIV status: Potential impact on HIV testing and transmission among HIV-negative men who have sex with men” was published February 2018 in PLOS One.

Published in MD Magazine on April 1, 2018

HIV Criminalization in Canada: Testimonials (Alexander McClelland / Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2018)

http://www.hivcriminalization.ca/testimonials/

Australia: Interview with David Kernohan, CEO of the WA Aids Council, on U=U and law reform in Western Australia

How can we change the laws regarding HIV transmission & criminal offences in WA?

The conviction of one & charging of another HIV+ individual in Western Australia with recklessly causing grievously bodily harm by transmitting HIV to another individual has left many in the HIV+ communities concerned, what  does this mean for them, their past and the way in which people perceive them?

Dean Arcuri continues his conversation with CEO of the WA Aids Council.

This episode of The Informer aired on JOY 94.9 on 14th March 2018

https://joy.org.au/theinformer/?powerpress_pinw=3320-podcast

Published on JOY 94.9 on 14th March 2018