Kenya: Mandatory HIV reporting directive challenged as unconstitutional and a violation of people's rights

A directive by President Uhuru Kenyatta requiring the compilation of a report on all school children living with HIV and Aids has been challenged in court. The petitioners: Kenya Legal and Ethical Issues Network (Kelin), Children of God Relief Institute (Nyumbani) and two other parties, are apprehensive that compiling such a list violates the law and stigmatises the people living with HIV. High Court judge Mumbi Ngugi certified the matter as urgent and directed that the parties file and serve the relevant documents before the matter is heard tomorrow. The directive issued by the President on February 23 requires county commissioners and the ministries of Health, Education and Interior to collect up to date data and prepare a report on all school children living with HIV and information on their guardians. The directive further calls for information on expectant women and breastfeeding mothers who are HIV-positive. The petitioners stated that the Government agencies had proceeded to implement the directive without consulting people living with the virus, which they say contradicts Article 10 of the Constitution. See also: Leaders dismiss claims of ‘Kiambu-mafia’ machinations “The method of data collection under the said directive is prejudicial to the rights of the people living with HIV,” said Allan Maleche, the executive director at Kelin. He also said the National Aids Control Council (NACC) are holding the names illegally while implementing the president’s directive. Achesa stated in a sworn affidavit that the ministries had continued implementing the directive despite numerous advisory notes from his organisation, constitutional commissions and networks of people living with HIV. He added that a letter sent to the President on March 11 and a follow-up letter two weeks later were yet to be responded to. They now want the court to declare the directive unconstitutional and a violation of people’s rights. They also want the ministries and NACC to be compelled to destroy or codify all data in their possession collected as a result of the directive.

Nigeria: Senate passes law criminalising HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission with vague and overly broad statutes in the Sexual Offences Bill

Yesterday, Wednesday, June 3, the Sexual Offences Bill, sponsored by Senator Christiana Anyanwu, (pictured above) was passed by the Nigerian Senate.

The new law contains a number of problematic provisions relating to “HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease(s)” that were added between the 2012 draft and the 2013 draft that became law yesterday, notably:

Section 24 (Deliberate transmission of HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease) and
Section 39 (Intentional and unlawful acts)

Section 39 is actually much more of a concern, as it essentially frames non-disclosure of HIV (or any other ‘life-threatening STI, including, potentially, ebola) as sexual assault, because it is seen as fraud vitiating consent to otherwise consensual sex.

39. (1) An act is intentional and unlawful if it is committed. b) under false pretences or by fraudulent means.

(3) False pretences or fraudulent means, referred to in sub-section (1) (b), include circumstances where a person

(c) intentionally fails to disclose to the person in respect of whom an act which causes penetration is being committed, that he or she is infected by HIV or any other life-threatening sexual transmissible disease.

This is similar to – but much worse than – the current legal framework in Canada but without any defence relating to the risk of exposure, such as type of sexual act, condom use, or use of treatment as prevention.

One might argue that Section 24 (Deliberate transmission of HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease) isn’t as problematic, because it appears, at first glance, to only criminalise “intentionally, knowingly and willfully” transmitting HIV, which is in accordance with UNAIDS guidance.

However, similar to many other overly broad HIV criminalisation statutes across sub-Saharan Africa, under 24. (1) no transmission is necessary (or at least doesn’t need to be proven); it includes some very vague states of mind (“which he or she knows or ought to reasonably know“); and it is unclear what, if any, defences are allowed.

24. (1) Any person who, having actual knowledge that he or she is infected with HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease intentionally, knowingly and willfully does anything or permits the doing of anything which he or she knows or ought to reasonably know

(a) will infect another person with HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease;

(b) is likely to lead to another person being infected with HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease;

(c) will infect another person with any other sexually transmitted disease,

shall be guilty of an offence, whether or not he or she is married to that other person, and shall be liable, upon conviction, to imprisonment for a term of not less than twenty years but which may be enhanced to imprisonment for life.

In addition, under 24 (7) anyone accused or convicted of any of the offences covered in the Act (rape, sexual assault, indecent acts, child-related offences, exploitation of prostitution, incest, indecent exposure, sexual harassment, administering a substance with intent) will be tested for HIV (or other life-threatening STIs) and if found to be positive – whether or not they were aware of their infection – will have have their prison sentence enhanced to 15 years to life.

(7) Where a person is convicted of any offence under this Act and it is proved that at the time of the commission of the offence, the convicted person was infected with HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease whether or not he or she was aware of his or her infection, not withstanding any other sentence in this Act, he or she shall be liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years but which may be enhanced to imprisonment for life.

Two states in Nigeria – Enugu and Lagos – currently have overly broad HIV-specific criminal laws. It is not, however, clear whether this new law will override these laws and be binding on all 36 states in the Nigerian federation.

Research undertaken by the Network of People Living with HIV and AIDS in Nigeria (NEPWHAN) in 2010 found no known documented arrests or prosecutions at that time.

In 2013, when sentencing a 21 year-old teacher with HIV who was prosecuted for eloping with, impregnating and allegedly infecting, a 15 year-old former pupil, a Masaka High Court (in Nasarawa state) judge noted during sentencing that it is “common for people with HIV to maliciously infect others”.

In 2013, NEPWHAN and other civil society advocates successfully argued against the inclusion of a paragraph on “willful and deliberate spread of HIV” in the draft Anti HIV Discrimination Bill.

The HIV/AIDS Anti-Discrimination Act 2014 was finally passed earlier this year, and praised by UNAIDS and advocates for people living with HIV in Nigeria with the expectation that it would “create a more supportive environment, allowing people living with HIV to carry on their lives as normally as possible.”

However, the inclusion of the problematic provisions of the Sexual Offences Bill appears to have happened under the radar. Since the 2012 draft contained none of these provisions, they were likely added in 2013, when the draft Anti HIV Discrimination Bill was being discussed.

In one fell swoop 13% of all people living with HIV in the world are now potentially unjustly criminalised.

The full text of the law – one of 46 laws passed in 10 minutes yesterday according to media reports – is below.

Nigeria: Sexual Offences Bill 2015

US: Texas 'HIV criminalization bill' defeated

Despite some last-minute legal wrangling, the Texas legislature failed to pass several anti-gay measures as of the May 27 final deadline for passing any bills that lawmakers wish to see enacted into law. This year’s legislative session ends on June 1….

The legislature also failed to approve an HIV criminalization bill, which would have allowed prosecutors to subpoena the medical records and HIV test results of defendants living with HIV if prosecutors believe that they intended to intentionally infect people. The measure would have protected anybody who releases or discloses a test result in response to a subpoena from any liability, either civil or criminal, or any professionally disciplinary action.

According to LGBT and HIV/AIDS advocates, the bill was unnecessary, as Texas law already allows law enforcement and public safety officials to conduct HIV testing on individuals when appropriate, but there are privacy measures to keep the tests confidential. The advocates claimed the bill would have allowed an HIV-positive test result to be subpoenaed and used in any criminal proceeding against a person who happens to live with HIV, and was subjective, based on the personal whims and discretion of individual prosecutors.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s top LGBT rights organization, worked with Legacy Community Health of Houston to oppose the HIV criminalization measure, saying revealing the results of an HIV test could potentially bias criminal proceedings, lead to enhanced privacy, and could discourage other people from getting tested for HIV for fear that a positive result would not be kept private and could be used against them.

“The defeat of SB 779 ensures that Texans living with HIV are not further stigmatized and penalized for their positive status,” Januari Leo, the director of public affairs with Legacy Community Health, said in a statement. “HIV is a public health issue that must be addressed through testing, treatment and prevention methods, not criminal prosecutions. HIV is neither a crime nor a death sentence.”

Australia: Victoria’s HIV-specific criminal law, Section 19A, finally repealed today

In a joint media release, Living Positive Victoria and the Victorian AIDS Council have welcomed the passage of the Crimes Amendment (Repeal of Section 19A) Act 2015 by the Victorian Parliament. The Act repeals Australia’s only HIV-specific law criminalising the intentional transmission of HIV, section 19A of the Crimes Act 1958, which has been criticised for unfairly targeting and stigmatising people with HIV.

View the story “19A Repeal – Live Tweets from @paulkidd” on Storify

Live Tweets from Victoria’s Parliament today. To find out more about the five year campaign to repeal the law, read this blog post written for the HIV Justice Network by Paul Kidd, Chair of the HIV Legal Working Group.

The two organisations had called for the repeal of section 19A in the lead-up to the 2014 International AIDS Conference, held in Melbourne, as part of an advocacy effort designed to reduce the incidence of HIV-related criminal prosecutions in Victoria.

“Victoria has the unfortunate distinction of having had more HIV-related prosecutions than any other state, and until today had the only HIV-specific criminal law,” said Simon Ruth, Chief Executive Officer, Victorian AIDS Council. “Our organisations strongly believe that HIV should be treated as a health issue, and that criminal prosecutions should only be used in cases where transmission occurs and there is evidence the alleged perpetrator acted with intent.”

The use of the criminal law to control HIV has been roundly criticised by legal theorists, HIV experts and international agencies. The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS has called for HIV-specific criminal laws, like section 19A, to be repealed.

“Today we can be proud that Victoria has repealed its HIV-specific criminal law, and in doing so, reaffirmed its commitment to treating HIV as a public health issue and not a criminal justice issue. Government, community and industry need to work together if we are to meet our goal of eliminating HIV transmissions by 2020, and the multi-party support for repealing section 19A shows our legislators are listening and prepared to enact evidence-based policies,” said Brent Allan, Chief Executive Officer, Living Positive Victoria.

The repeal of section 19A will not legalise the intentional transmission of HIV, but will ensure that any allegation of intentional transmission is dealt with under general laws, the same as for other forms of injury. The campaign to repeal the laws highlighted the stigmatising effect of HIV criminalisation.

“Criminalising HIV transmission and exposure isn’t just ineffective as a method of prevention, it is actually counterproductive to our efforts because it perpetuates stigma,” said Paul Kidd, Chair of the HIV Legal Working Group. “We know the stigma around HIV is one of the biggest barriers to increasing testing and treatment, and enabling voluntary disclosure of HIV. Section 19A sent a false message that people with HIV are a danger to the community, and todays repeal shows the Parliament accepts that we are not.

“This is a law that was never needed, and should never have been enacted. It has not made Victorians safer, and in fact may have led to an increase in the number of people living with HIV. The whole Victorian community should be happy to see it go.”

The HIV Legal Working Group has been the recipient of GLOBE, VAC and Living Positive Victoria awards for its work on the repeal of section 19A. A community celebration of the repeal of section 19A is being planned and will be announced shortly.

In a blog post written exclusively for the HIV Justice Network, Paul Kidd highlights that although this battle has been won, the work against unjust prosecutions in Victoria is yet not over.

“Now that section 19A is gone, our work continues, he writes. “We still need to address the unacceptably high number of prosecutions for ‘HIV endangerment’ that occur in Victoria. We strongly believe we have a model that will deliver the right public health outcomes while safeguarding the public, without the use of expensive, ineffective and highly stigmatising criminal prosecutions. With the repeal of section 19A, our state government has recommitted itself to a health-based response to HIV, and we believe that gives us the best possible platform to continue our campaign for prosecutorial guidelines.”

Repealing Section 19A: How we got there, by Paul Kidd, Chair of the HIV Legal Working Group

Australia’s only HIV-specific criminal law, section 19A of the Crimes Act in the state of Victoria, has now been repealed. This is an exciting step forward for those of us working to turn around Victoria’s poor record on criminalisation of HIV. This blog entry outlines the process we used to achieve this historic reform.

This story starts just before the 2010 International AIDS Conference in Vienna, at the first-ever HIV criminalisation pre-conference meeting, co-organised by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) and NAM (who host the HIV Justice Network). Attending this meeting and hearing about the incredible work being done in this area was the inspiration for starting a joint advocacy project to address the issue here in Victoria. The partners in that project are the two largest HIV organisations in our state, Living Positive Victoria and the Victorian AIDS Council.

Our objectives were to achieve a set of prosecutorial guidelines, on a similar model to those adopted by the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales, and the repeal of s 19A. Although our initial focus was on the guidelines, with the announcement that Melbourne would host the 2014 International AIDS Conference, we decided to shift our focus to the repeal of s 19A. We felt that by focusing on a law that was manifestly out of step with best practice, we could use the conference to embarrass our legislators into action. With a state election due three months after AIDS 2014, we felt confident we could make political headway with the issue.

Section 19A makes it a criminal offence to intentionally transmit a ‘very serious disease’, which is defined to mean only HIV. It carries a maximum 25-year prison sentence, making it one of the most serious crimes on the Victorian statute book. It was enacted in 1993, following a high-profile case in which a prison officer in NSW was stabbed with a hypodermic syringe, and a number of cases in which blood-filled syringes were used in armed robberies.

Although the law was passed, supposedly, to deal with this kind of ‘syringe bandit’ assault, in practice it has been applied exclusively against people accused of sexual transmission of HIV. Although only a handful of cases have ever been prosecuted (and none successfully), s 19A has often been charged, or used as a threat against people accused of reckless transmission or endangerment. Its presence on the statute book has sent an unwelcome and false signal that people with HIV are a danger to public safety.

Additionally, we were armed with a solid evidence base – particularly the reports of UNAIDS and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, which specifically criticise HIV-specific laws like s 19A.

We made a point of telegraphing our intentions to the government and opposition political parties well ahead of the conference. We developed a policy brief setting out the case for repeal of the section, and sought dialogue with both parties in the months before the conference. We wanted to give them every opportunity, at a time when the eyes of the world would be on us, to take action that would generate international attention and goodwill.

Our approach to the government was initially rebuffed, with a curt reply that they had no intention of changing the law. The Labor opposition, which had opposed the law in 1993, was more welcoming and we were able to explain our position at a number of meetings leading up to the conference. We were unable to get a commitment for action, but we were confident that both sides knew what we were asking for.

We gathered together a strong coalition of supporting organisations who agreed to back our call. As well as the HIV sector, we had support from the broader civil sector (organisations focused on human rights, mental health, gay and lesbian rights) and from the legal sector, particularly the criminal bar. We had the backing of the AIDS 2014 chairs. We spent a good deal of time before the conference drafting talking points that enabled us to get our media messaging clear, and thinking about ways to get our message out to conference delegates already being showered with slogans, messages and leaflets.

As the conference approached, however, we had no commitment from either party. We were taken by surprise when the health minister used a speech opening the ‘Beyond Blame’ HIV criminalisation pre-conference to make a commitment to ‘amend section 19A to make it non-discriminatory.’ Given the blunt ‘not interested’ we had received a couple of months earlier, this was a stunning turnaround, but still fell short of what we wanted – full repeal of section 19A. Worse, the way the announcement was phrased suggested the scope of the law could in fact be widened to include other diseases like hepatitis C – the last thing we wanted.

As the conference week progressed, we continued to press our case and to highlight the need for repeal. We garnered positive press coverage following a media conference held on the opening day (even the tabloid press gave us a sympathetic hearing). The sight of thousands of protesters marching through the streets of Melbourne with signs reading ‘#REPEAL19A’ made the evening news. We publicly called on the government to clarify why they were saying ‘amend’ rather than ‘repeal’. Behind the scenes, we used every social event and reception to buttonhole politicians and push our case, highlighting the goodwill that an announcement would generate for them on the international stage. It was an exhausting week, but with each passing day we knew our opportunities were diminishing.

Finally, on the last full day of the conference, the opposition Labor Party committed to full repeal of section 19A, within one year, if they won the election in November. The word came though via text message while I was sitting in a conference session on criminalisation advocacy, and I felt close to tears as I told the room what had happened. We now had commitments from both major parties, meaning reform of the law was almost assured.

Following the conference, we continued to push the government to explain how they intended to ‘amend’ section 19A and pressed our case for full repeal further. We never got an answer to our question, because the government didn’t bring the legislation forward before the expiry of the parliamentary term, then at the election there was a change of government.

The Labor Party, which had unambiguously promised to repeal s 19A, was now in government, and one of the most pleasing things about the last five months has been seeing them stick to their guns around 19A. Seeing government ministers on gay pride day carrying a banner saying ‘repeal section 19A’ was amazing.

I think the key message from our experience is that if you have an opportunity and you plan well, you can make tremendous use of it. I realise most activists won’t have the luxury of having the international AIDS conference come to their city, but hopefully other opportunities exist where local and global attention can be used to highlight inequities in the law. Building collaborations and learning from what has worked elsewhere is vital, but develop a strategy that suits your local needs and capacities.

Don’t be deterred if others disagree with your strategy – I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told that criminalisation isn’t a first-order issue, or that by advocating for change we risk ‘making things worse’, or that by advocating too hard we risk getting nothing in return and pushing the issue off the agenda.

Now that s 19A is gone, our work continues. We still need to address the unacceptably high number of prosecutions for ‘HIV endangerment’ that occur in Victoria. We strongly believe we have a model that will deliver the right public health outcomes while safeguarding the public, without the use of expensive, ineffective and highly stigmatising criminal prosecutions. With the repeal of section 19A, our state government has recommitted itself to a health-based response to HIV, and we believe that gives us the best possible platform to continue our campaign for prosecutorial guidelines.

Paul Kidd (@paulkidd) chairs the Victorian HIV Legal Working Group.

US: [Update] Texas HIV criminalisation bill defeated (link does not reflect this updated news)

The Texas State House is considering SB 779, a bill that would allow any HIV test results to be used in any criminal proceedings against a person with HIV in Texas. This bill is unnecessary – Texas law already allows law enforcement and public safety officials to conduct HIV testing on individuals when appropriate, but there are privacy measures to keep these tests confidential. This bill goes much further – HIV tests could be subpoenaed and used in any criminal proceeding.

HRC opposes this legislation because stigma against people with HIV may bias criminal proceedings, this may unfairly result in enhanced penalties, and of course, because it undermines medical privacy.

From a public health perspective, it is inadvisable and dangerous to create obstacles that might prevent people from seeking or receiving HIV tests. If this bill passes, having a positive HIV test result may be used to enhance penalties or foster bias in criminal proceedings, which creates an incentive for the public to avoid testing. Everyone deserves medical privacy.

SB 779 has already passed the Texas Senate, so this is our last chance to stop this bill from becoming law. Please, if you live in Texas, reach out to your state representative and urge them to oppose SB 779. HRC is also coordinating with state and local advocates to oppose this measure, which compromises the privacy of people living with HIV and public confidence in HIV testing.

Malawi: High Court rules that mandatory HIV testing is unconstitutional

By Anneke Meerkotter, Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) and Ian Southey-Swartz, Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA)

In 2009, a group of women, presumed to be sex workers, was as part of a police sweeping exercise in Mwanza, Malawi. The women were taken to the Mwanza District Hospital where they were tested for HIV without their knowledge or consent, and in contravention of Malawi’s HIV policy. The women were then taken to the Mwanza Magistrates’ Court where some were charged with and convicted of “spreading venereal disease (HIV)”.

In 2011, eleven of these women filed an application in the Blantyre High Court challenging their subjection to mandatory HIV tests and the public disclosure of their HIV status in open court. The women argued that these actions by government officials violated their constitutional rights. Justice Dorothy nyaKaunda Kamanga handed down judgment on 20 May 2015.

Reading her judgment in court, Justice nyaKaunda Kamanga, said that forced HIV testing amounted to a violation of the applicants’ constitutional rights, including their right to privacy; their right to non-discrimination; their right to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; and their right to dignity. Justice Kamanga went a step further and requested a copy of the criminal court records in order to review the sentence the magistrate imposed on the applicants.

The case is illustrative of how the criminal justice system often impedes on accused persons’ rights to dignity, a fair trial and access to justice. In the present case, the matter was repeatedly delayed, including due to high caseloads and industrial action by judiciary personnel.

The judgment comes in the context of other important developments in Malawi. Civil society activists have increasingly voiced their concerns about the manner in which sex workers are treated by the police. Police often arbitrarily arrest women presumed to be sex workers during sweeping exercises and misguidedly and unlawfully charge them with offences such as being a rogue and vagabond or living off the earnings of prostitution, when there is no evidence of such offences having been committed. Such arrests inevitably involve a range of human rights violations.

The attitudes displayed by police towards alleged sex workers also extend to how some policy-makers view sex workers in Malawi. The HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Management) Bill of 2013, currently prohibits compulsory HIV testing, but allows forced HIV testing for specific groups of people, including commercial sex workers. In contrast, this case highlights the human rights violations caused by mandatory HIV testing and the importance of having legislation which prohibits this. This is an important message at a time when the Malawi government engages in final deliberations on the proposed Bill.

The case shows that it is possible for vulnerable groups to hold the government accountable when their rights have been violated. It is hoped that the judgment, once available, will be used as a resource by other marginalized groups to assert their rights and will contribute to improving constitutional jurisprudence in the region.

US: Alabama lawmaker's proposal to increase 'knowing' HIV/STI transmission to a felony likely to resurface in 2016

People with sexually transmitted diseases who knowingly spread infection to their partners could face prison time, if a bill now in the Legislature becomes law.

Proposed by Rep. Juandalynn Givan, D-Birmingham, the bill would make knowingly transmitting an STD a Class C felony if passed; it’s currently a misdemeanor. Some advocates worry, though, that the bill might have unintended consequences that make it harder to fight the spread of disease.

Givan said her goal was to target those who intentionally put the lives of others at risk. The bill was inspired by calls Givan received following a case involving Montgomery pastor Juan McFarland. “This gentleman knew he had HIV and decided to engage in sexual relationships with multiple women, which could lead to their deaths,” she said.

Some of those women were reluctant to speak out because the charge McFarland could have faced was only a misdemeanor, she said.

“They said ‘I might want to come forward, but there’s not enough strength in the current law. I would have made myself a public spectacle for no reason,’” Givan said the women told her.

AIDS Alabama policy chief Lauren Banks worries that the proposed law could do more harm than good, though.

“By and large this law is not helpful. It stigmatizes HIV or a person with an (sexually transmitted infection) even more,” Banks said. “It would police the bedroom.”

Under current law, those convicted of the misdemeanor offense would face no more than 90 days in jail, Givan said. Offenders might get out on time served.

“That’s absolutely ridiculous,” said Givan.

Banks, who has worked with Givan to modify the bill, worries that the original version does not specify which STDs would be included in the law. Some infections, she noted, can be spread even when using condoms, such as human papilloma virus and herpes.

“So even safe sex could be criminalized,” Banks said.

Banks also said if the bill passes it could cause fewer people to get tested for STDs.

“Other states that have enacted these laws have seen negative fallout because once you know your status, you are culpable. But we want people to know their status. We don’t want people to be afraid of what could happen to them.”

Banks suggested another way to counteract rising STD rates.

“If anything, we should focus on creating sexual health education curricula for our schools that is age-appropriate and medically accurate,” she said. “Let’s be preventative and not punitive.”

Eric Guster, a Birmingham attorney who frequently comments on criminal issues, said the consequences of tougher sentencing should be considered.

“If a person is found guilty, a first-time offender would receive a possible sentence of a year and day to 10 years in prison,” he said.

Guster said he’d want the bill to specify the diseases mentioned. He pointed out several problems with enforcing the law.

“The misdemeanor is rarely used because people don’t want to put their sexual history on display,” he said. “When you’re speaking of STDs, people go to the doctor, get treated and then move on with their lives.”

Also, the burden of proof would be steep.

“The affected person has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that partner gave them the disease and that’s the only sexual partner they’ve had who could’ve done it,” he said.

Making knowingly transmitting an STD a felony without creating stiffer penalties for certain types of diseases also raised concerns for Guster.

“When you have cases where younger people have a disease that is easily transferable, that puts a lot of students at risk for felonies for just doing things teenagers do,” Guster said.

Givan said she has received calls of support from colleagues on both sides of the aisle. She and Banks also discussed possible changes to the bill.

“Juandalynn tried to meet us halfway with amendments such as transmission has to occur, and a disclaimer that if you tell your partner you have HIV, you would be exempt from prosecution if they were infected,” said Banks.

The bill, however, has not moved since the beginning of the legislative session in March, and appears to be running out of time for passage this year.

Givan said she changed the bill late last week and expected it to be the first one “in the hopper to go out for sponsorship next year.”

“I want safeguards in place,” she said. “I think it’s a piece of legislation that is needed. I just want to be sure we do it the right way.”

US: HIV Criminalization Task Force being set up to challenge Florida's HIV-specific criminal law

On April 3, 2015, SFGN interviewed Tami Haught, Sero Project Criminalization Conference Coordinator to discuss the HIV Criminalization Task Force in Florida.

Could you define “HIV criminalization” for the readers of SFGN?

“HIV criminalization” is the wrongful use of HIV status in a criminal prosecution, even when transmission was unlikely or impossible (a condom was used, the PLWHA had an undetectable viral load, or the behavior posed no risk of transmission, such as in biting, scratching, or spitting).

In discussions of HIV criminalization, “intent” has a similar importance to “consent” in discussions of sexual behavior. Could you explain how important “intent” is in this discussion?

The lack of intent is much easier to prove than intentional transmission. The lack of intent can be proven if you are doing everything right, like so many people living with HIV are. You’re taking your medication, you’re virally suppressed, or you’re using protection. Those defenses show that you are not intentionally trying to transmit HIV, because you are protecting yourself and your partner by taking your medications and using protection. Any of this would indicate an interest in not transmitting the virus, but under current HIV criminalization law, using a condom, or adhering to a medication regimen are irrelevant.

These laws appear to be based on a “protectionist” model of sexuality rather than an empowerment model. Could you discuss how the “protectionist” model has the potential to harm the very people it’s supposed to benefit?

When people think of sexual protection, generally it’s women being protected from men. Women, however, go to the doctor more often, and are more likely to take the HIV test than men are. These laws only target people who have taken the test and gotten their results.

Men have used the threat of these laws to keep HIV positive women from leaving them. After a break up, people have filed complaints based on these laws as revenge.

Could you discuss how HIV criminalization has worked in Florida?

There have been 250 charges filed in Florida and 153 convictions in Florida from 1998 to 2012. So far, the project has not been able to get breakdowns by race, gender, or sexuality. Lambda Legal and the ACLU are involved in this project.

You’re in Florida to set up an HIV Criminalization Task Force. Can you describe what you hope that Task Force will do?

The task force should include diverse people willing to advocate but also to reach out to legislators in Tallahassee for the reform of these laws. Floridians need to decide on how you want your laws to be modernized and what your political reality is. There will come a time when Floridians have to determine what is the minimal change that you will accept.

We have to reach out to faith based communities, everyone. It is not an easy conversation to have. It often takes more than one conversation. We’re going to have to be ready for the long haul, be persistent, and never give up. Because it can be done, but it’s definitely not easy.

Is there anything else you would like to say to the readers of SFGN?

We need your voices. We need your stories. Not just to legislators but also to other community members. It is by touching people’s hearts that we can make a difference to change the law.

If people wanted to find out more about the Florida HIV Criminalization Task Force, how could they?

To get involved with the Florida HIV Criminalization Task Force, people can email me at tami.haught@seroproject.com and I can get you added to the google group.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Vacates HIV Aggravated Assault and Reckless Endangerment charges in Case of LTC Kenneth Pinkela (Press Release)

Press Release from The Sero Project

Ken Pinkela serves as a member of Sero’s Advisory Board.

New York, NY April 24, 2015:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) has vacated HIV-related Aggravated Assault and Reckless Endangerment charges in a U.S. Army case involving LTC Kenneth Pinkela.

In the official CAAF announcement released on April 22, 2015, the high court said:

That said petition is hereby granted on the following

issue:

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO FIND BEYOND

A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT COMMITTED AGGRAVATED

ASSAULT AND RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES

128 AND 134, UCMJ, BY ENGAGING IN UNPROTECTED SEX WHILE

HIV-POSITIVE.

That the decision of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals is

vacated and the record of trial is returned to the Judge

Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for

reconsideration in light of United States v. Gutierrez, 74

M.J. 61 (C.A.A.F. 2015)

In February of this year, the CAAF ruled that Air Force Technical Sergeant David Gutierrez, who was accused of not disclosing his HIV positive status to sexual partners, was not guilty of Aggravated Assault and reduced charges against him to Assault and Battery. At the time of the alleged sexual contacts, Gutierrez was on antiretroviral medication, had an undetectable viral load and was not accused of transmitting HIV.

The Sero Project, a national network of people living with HIV, applauds the CAAF for its rulings in both the Gutierrez case as well as the more recent ruling in the Pinkela case, but noted the military still is out of step with contemporary science and other arms of the U.S. government.

“While the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. Congress, the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies categorize HIV as a chronic manageable illness, military lawyers and military court decisions still explicitly label HIV as a ‘death sentence.’ They can’t have it both ways. While we applaud CAAF’s recent decisions, it is time for the entire Department of Defense to address HIV for the reality it is today, based on science not stigma,” said Sean Strub, Sero’s executive director.

The Sero Project called on the U.S. Army to re-evaluate its prosecution against Pinkela, who also serves as the volunteer director of Sero’s Military Policy Project. “There’s no rational basis for continuing to prosecute Ken,” said Strub.

Pinkela’s military legal counsel has accused the Army of inadequately investigating the charges against Pinkela and of refusing to allow critical evidence to be presented at trial. Pinkela has volunteered to undergo phylogenetic testing, which could prove the complaining witness acquired HIV from another party, but the prosecutors declined to order such a test.

In the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2014, Congress included specific direction to the Secretary of Defense to review and report back to Congress on all HIV- related personnel and disciplinary policies and procedures, to make sure they are consistent with contemporary science. That report has not yet been released.

H.R. 1586: Repeal Existing Policies that Encourage and Allow Legal HIV Discrimination Act of 2015, introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D–Cal.) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R–Fla.), seeks to help end the criminalization of HIV by providing guidance to the states and military to modernize their statutes to make them reflect contemporary science and not unduly stigmatize people with HIV.

The Sero Project is a network of people with HIV and allies fighting for freedom from stigma and injustice. Founded in 2012, Sero raises awareness, conducts research and mobilizes grassroots communities, policy leaders and advocates to address HIV criminalization.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Vacates HIV Aggravated Assault and Reckless Endangerment charges…