Australia: “Coercive responses like forced testing and detention should only ever be a last resort”, if at all

Forced testing a last resort

With the COVID-19 pandemic persisting for much longer than expected, particularly in Victoria where rolling lockdowns have affected us all, it’s understandable that there might be calls for legislative reform. But I was saddened to read a call for implementation of widespread coercive testing under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (PHW Act) (“Flattening the curve – Why the law should allow for compulsory testing in a pandemic”, LIJ October 2020).

Threats to public health do sometimes require drastic measures, but where human rights are impacted, the legal profession should be the first to question whether such measures are proportional and justified. Existing provisions within the PHW Act allow for testing orders in strictly limited circumstances – as is appropriate given the extreme intrusion into human rights
that those orders can represent. The history of the response to HIV in Australia has frequently seen calls for curtailment of individual rights in the pursuit of the public good, and the current PHW Act was developed in part through consultation with the HIV-affected community. Notwithstanding that, there are powers to detain and test people in the Act and, while rarely used, they can be highly coercive.

The case of Lam Kuoth is an example. Accused of placing a woman at risk of HIV, Mr Kuoth, a young Sudanese man, was placed in public health detention for almost 16 months before his trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeal accepted that that period “amount[ed] to a term of imprisonment”1 in a matter where, ultimately, only a community- based order was imposed.

There is a well-developed international discourse about the most effective ways to protect the health of communities while also safeguarding rights. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion is globally recognised as a foundational document.2 The Charter sets out a framework of developing healthy public policy, creating supportive environments, and empowering and educating individuals, as the foundation to effective public health responses.

Victorians have been tested in huge numbers (more than 2.8 million tests). Our second wave wasn’t due to low testing, but emerged from outbreaks in workplaces – aged-care homes, abattoirs, and quarantine hotels – where low-paid workers, often with limited education and training, have been on the frontline of the pandemic. Better safeguards for their health and employment would have limited or prevented those outbreaks without the need for forced testing. Coercive responses like forced testing and detention should only ever be a last resort, if they are used at all. 

Paul Kidd, director, HIV Justice Network (Amsterdam), lawyer, Fitzroy Legal Service.

1. Kuoth v TheQueen[2010]VSCA103.
2. World Health Organisation,The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (21 November 1986) http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/ conferences/previous/ottawa/en/.

Uzbekistan: While people with HIV are still criminalised, there is hope for change with the the country’s entry into the UN Human Rights Council

Punishment for illness: why HIV is still a crime in Uzbekistan

Google translation. For article in Russian, please go to: https://uz.sputniknews.ru/analytics/20201028/15275804/Nakazanie-za-bolezn-pochemu-VICh-v-Uzbekistane-do-sikh-por-prestuplenie.html

Unfortunately, people living with HIV in Uzbekistan are victims of a discriminatory legal system. But there is hope that with the country’s entry into the UN Human Rights Council, the situation with obsolete norms will begin to change.

 

TASHKENT, October 28 – Sputnik, Anna Zhelikhovskaya. Shortly before the introduction of quarantine in Tashkent, an investigation began on the case of 52-year-old Natalya (name has been changed. – Editor’s note), a single mother who works as a hairdresser and colourist. The woman is a professional master all-rounder with over 20 years of experience in this field. She was charged under article 113, part 4 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan “The spread of a venereal disease or HIV infection / AIDS” – knowingly endangering or getting infected with HIV / AIDS.  

Positive result

In 2014, the List of professional activities prohibited for persons infected with the human immunodeficiency virus was updated. It included, in particular, the profession of a hairdresser associated with cutting and shaving. Natalya’s story began in 2017, when the director of the beauty salon where she worked sent employees to undergo, as it turned out, mandatory HIV testing.   

“My test turned out to be positive. I realised that it was impossible, and retaken the analysis. I don’t know how I got through these days of waiting … The answer was again yes. The first thing I experienced was shock. Before that, I did not know anything about this disease I never came across him. Of course, the doctors talked to me, I registered at the Tashkent City AIDS Center, leaving all my data there, “the woman recalls.

She immediately started taking antiretroviral therapy (ART). This specific treatment helps patients block the virus, which means they do not put others at risk, live a full life, have a family and healthy children. For the next two years, she continued to work in the service industry, realising every day that management should know about her illness. Natalya explained the lack of a certificate to the director by the fact that she could not pay for the test at the moment.

“With the best of intentions, of course, he called the SES and asked if I could still not take the test, since I’m not a beautician, I don’t do tattoos and make-up, neither do manicure. I work with paints and cut my hair, mainly with a machine. replied that in this case, the test can not be taken, “- says the woman.

According to her, she did not report the test results to the director because she was afraid of losing her job. Raising a teenage child alone, a woman treasured her only source of income. In addition, Natalia had already learned enough about her illness and understood that with an undetectable viral load (the amount of virus in the blood), she was safe for others.

“Of course, I do not justify myself in any way. I had to report everything to the management and leave the profession. But I was scared, I was lost and did not understand what to do next, how to live now …”

In March 2020, a few days before quarantine, police officers came to the beauty salon with a purposeful check. According to the woman, one of them took her into a separate room and said that with such a diagnosis she was not allowed to work as a hairdresser. It was explained to Natalia’s colleagues and her management that the problem was in the medical book. At the same time, according to her, one of them reassured her, assuring her that there would be no trial, and she would limit herself only to a fine. However, an investigation soon began and the first court hearing was scheduled. Before the trial began, none of her colleagues and the director knew about the real reason for the audit.

“In a conversation with an operative, a doctor in the AIDS center, in the makhalla committee indirectly, not directly, but it was felt that I was suspected of indecent behaviour. To say that I was mentally and psychologically crushed is to say nothing. I am a believer, I walk to the church. For the trial, even my positive characteristics were provided from there, “recalls Natalya.

Today in the minds of people there is still a deep conviction that this is a disease of the marginalised. And if a woman has it revealed, then she will certainly receive the stigma of the fallen. Antiquated HIV legislation also hinders the fight against this stigma.

A new look at old laws

Uzbekistan’s Criminal Code was approved in 1994, and article 113 has its roots in the 1980s. Then the diagnosis was really a sentence, there was no treatment or diagnosis, and criminal prosecution was considered almost the only type of prevention. Several years ago, the World Health Organization officially recognised HIV as a chronic, not fatal, disease. People who regularly take therapy live long and healthy lives. Therefore, the list of permitted professions and the justice system for positive ones should be revised.

“To date, not only has the status of the disease changed, but there is also a lot of data that make it possible to unequivocally assert that criminal prosecution does not prevent the spread of the virus in any way. The existence of criminal liability for endangering and transmitting HIV, on the contrary, leads to the fact that people who practice risky behaviour, avoid testing. After all, while they do not know about their status, they are not subject to responsibility, “says lawyer Timur Abdullaev.

Natalia’s public defender at the trial was Evgenia Korotkova, coordinator of the Positive Women program “Ishonch va hayot”. She says that they monitored the list of prohibited professions for people with HIV in the CIS countries, and nowhere is the profession of a hairdresser.

“At the very first court session, we petitioned for the appointment of a forensic medical examination with the involvement of an experienced infectious disease expert working with HIV. The investigation established that the accused had zero viral load. danger. The indictment states that in order to prevent infection of third parties, she did not work with cutting tools, but used a typewriter. That is, by her actions, she tried to protect clients from HIV transmission, “says Evgenia.

In world medicine, the thesis “Undetectable = Untransmittable” (the principle “U = U”) has been finally proved. Experts and legislators of Uzbekistan have more than 10 years of their own observations and statistics, confirming international data. This already allows us to revise the list of prohibited professions for people with HIV, the relevant law and decriminalise Article 113.

You can already start by looking at the list of prohibited occupations that people with HIV can do.

“Amendments to this list can be achieved if the convict in question does not stop and continues to defend her rights up to the Constitutional Court and the UN Human Rights Committee,” the lawyer said.

According to him, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health and representatives of other structures of the organisation spoke about the harm of HIV criminalisation, as well as the fact that it violates a number of rights enshrined in international pacts ratified by Uzbekistan. However, so far no action has been taken in this direction.

According to human rights activists, there is a serious flaw in Article 113, which is found in almost all the criminal codes of the Central Asian countries: it contains the word “knowingly”.

“What is” knowingly “and how it relates to intent, the Code itself does not explain. As a result, such a” trifle “becomes a secondary circumstance. Whether intent or not can affect only the severity of punishment, but responsibility does not cancel out. depending on whether a person wanted to infect someone with HIV or not, the article “shines” in any case, “Timur Abdullaev explained.

Usually such inaccuracies in the legislation are eliminated either by bylaws or by Resolutions of the Plenum. But with regard to Art. 113 there is neither one nor the other. There are only Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes, and everything else is at the discretion of the court. If the judge does not understand what HIV is and how it is transmitted, then the defendant will have a difficult time.

Moreover, even among scientists there is no consensus on whether the presence of intent is mandatory for the onset of responsibility. If so, what should this intent be? After all, it can be direct – “malicious” or indirect.

We need to talk about it

Evgenia also talks about the low level of awareness of representatives of law enforcement agencies and the judiciary about HIV transmission and treatment. She is convinced that to a greater extent this is what influences the sentencing. In her opinion, the application of modern scientific evidence in criminal cases can limit unfair prosecutions and acts of justice.

“When making a diagnosis, doctors do not tell patients about the ‘N = N’ strategy, but take a receipt of criminal responsibility for infecting others with them. Also, activists have difficulty access to the accused, and most lawyers have a prejudiced attitude towards such clients,” the human rights activist adds …

According to the law of Uzbekistan “On the protection of the health of citizens”, the patient has the right not only to keep confidential information about the diagnosis, but also to choose the persons to whom information about the patient’s health can be transferred in the interests of the patient.

Natalia and HIV activists ask themselves: where did the law enforcement agencies get the information about her diagnosis and why did they come to work, inflicting severe moral and psychological damage on the woman? Thus exposing her to the risk of disclosing the diagnosis. At the request of the editorial office, this question was answered at the Republican AIDS Center. We publish the text in full.

The Republican Council for the Coordination of Citizens’ Self-Government, the Committee on Religious Affairs and the Youth Union of Uzbekistan, the Tashkent AIDS Center provided information to the Criminal Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on February 10, 2020 at the request of citizens who are diagnosed with HIV and who work in salons of personal services. At the same time, the center’s specialists ensure the confidentiality of information about people living with HIV and medical secrets in accordance with Article 45 of the Law “On the Protection of Citizens’ Health” dated August 29, 1996, “the letter says. It was not possible to drop the charges against Natalia. But she escaped real imprisonment and received a two-year suspended sentence.

“A large role in our case was played by the competence and interest in the details of the case, as well as in the topic of HIV and the ways of its transmission on the part of the judge and the prosecutor. But this is more a special case than a rule. The judge gave recommendations to lobby for a revision of the list of prohibited professions for HIV – positive, to exclude the position of a hairdresser from it, “says Evgenia Korotkova.

The media should also participate in the formation of a competent public opinion about HIV, but today this topic is almost never raised in the press, and specialised structures do not interact well with journalists. 

Now Natalia has no official job. Several times the makhalla provided her with material assistance, both in connection with the pandemic and with her current situation. But there is no regular, even minimal, earnings.

On October 15, 2020, Uzbekistan adopted a law “On the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” It lists the basic principles that ensure their rights and protection against discrimination on health grounds. People living with HIV should have similar guarantees. Uzbekistan recently joined the UN Human Rights Council. Perhaps this status will speed up the revision of Article 113 of the Criminal Code. Lawyers are convinced that the punishment should follow exclusively for willful malicious infection or its attempt. Reforms in this area will significantly strengthen the position of the republic in the field of human rights protection.

Jordan: Health professionals mandated to report individual’s HIV status to the government

Foreigners Living with HIV in Jordan Face an Impossible Choice

Government Mandates Reporting HIV Status, Deports People Living with HIV

In Jordan, medical professionals and health facilities are mandated to report an individual’s HIV status to the government. Foreign nationals found to be HIV-positive are summarily deported regardless of the consequences to their health and safety and banned for life from returning.

Earlier this year, an Iraqi gay man living with HIV fled to Jordan to escape persecution he faced at home for being gay, yet he could not access HIV treatment without being immediately deported. When his health rapidly deteriorated, he could not seek medical attention for fear of being deported. Whatever decision he made would threaten his life.

Jordan also obliges nationals to undergo HIV testing when seeking employment in the public sector and for non-nationals obtaining work permits, and denies them jobs if they are HIV-positive. It also requires testing for non-nationals renewing residency permits. For LGBT people living with HIV, the stigma and discrimination by medical professionals and employers often bars them from accessing basic rights, without any legal recourse.

Abdallah Hanatleh, executive director of “Sawaed,” an Amman-based organization that facilitates access to HIV treatment, told Human Rights Watch that his organization documents dozens of deportations based on HIV status annually.

Jordan is not alone in this abusive practice. Gulf states including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also deport people found to be HIV-positive without any provision for continuity of care. Worse yet, in Jordan, as in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, HIV-positive foreign nationals in the criminal justice system are denied adequate access to treatment in prison. “They are placed in solitary confinement, further isolating and stigmatizing them,” Hanatleh said.

International law prohibits deportations based solely on HIV status. Jordan should explicitly ban discrimination based on HIV status and stop deporting HIV-positive individuals under the principle of non-refoulement. This principle applies to asylum seekers and refugees, and for people with HIV, it means that governments are prohibited from returning them — depending on how advanced the disease — to places where they do not have adequate access to medical care and social support, or where they risk being subjected to persecution or degrading treatment on account of their HIV status.

Jordan should not mandate reporting of HIV status and employers should not be requiring HIV testing in the first place. People living with HIV should never be forced to forego lifesaving treatment in order to avoid deportation to danger.

Uruguay: Feminist organisation opposes amendment to penal code that would imprison citizens who do not comply with health measures

MYSU (Women and Health in Uruguay) opposes a project that raises imprisonment for those who violate health provisions in the face of the coronavirus

Google translation, for original article in Spanish please scroll down. 

MYSU (Women and Health in Uruguay) opposes a project that raises imprisonment for those who violate health provisions in the face of the coronavirus

A delegation of Women and Health in Uruguay (MYSU) participated in the Senate Constitution and Legislation Commission to express their opposition to the bill that penalizes those who violate health provisions in the face of the coronavirus, presented in March by two deputies of the National Party . The feminist organization, whose mission is the promotion and defense of sexual and reproductive rights, has a field of practice specifically associated with identifying advances, obstacles and gaps in laws and public policies.

The delegation that appeared in Parliament was made up of Lilián Abracinskas, director of MYSU, Santiago Puyol, head of the Organization’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Policy Observatory, and Bárbara Strauss, head of communication, who presented their position against the amendment of article 224 of the Penal Code. The new wording proposes that “whoever, through violation of sanitary provisions issued and published by the competent authority in order to avoid the introduction into the country or the spread of an epidemic or contagious disease of any nature, puts human or animal health in actual danger, will be punished with three to twenty-four months in prison.The application of the maximum of the aforementioned penalty will be especially justified when the fact is a health emergency declared by the competent authorities ”.

Abracinskas said that although this project has the approval of the Chamber of Deputies, the proposal “did not have a treatment in which organized citizenship could be issued.”

Part of her argumentation was based on the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights (UNESCO 2005), which provides a universal framework of principles and procedures that serve as a guide for states in the formulation of legislation, policies and other instruments in the field of bioethics. She particularly pointed out Article 27, which warns that “if limitations must be imposed with laws relating to public security and the rights and freedoms of others must be safeguarded, said law must be compatible with international human rights law.” She added that Uruguayan legislation includes these principles in Law 18,335 on the rights and obligations of patients and users.

For Abracinskas, the current wording of article 224 is already a regulatory framework that allows health authorities to act in the face of the pandemic. “The proposal to modify article 224, which aims to prevent the violation of sanitary provisions in order to prevent the introduction or spread in the country of epidemic or contagious diseases, in its modification of 2001 stipulates the crime of harm, in order to make it applicable. Insisting on modifying the crime of harm, again, for that of danger, generates uncertainties and a feeling of vulnerability, ”he said.

“What would be the legal asset that seeks to protect itself with this modification proposal?” She asked. And she added: “It would not seem to be the health of the person or the guarantees of their rights the center of concern, since people could be accused of committing a crime in the face of sanitary provisions that could become arbitrary or based on other interests that are not there to preserve the health of the population. Or, even from good intentions, to charge crimes without knowing exactly what the affected legal interest is ”.

For MYSU, the situation of the pandemic “has plunged us into profound perplexity”, but “our country is going through the situation without having the adverse impacts of neighbouring countries or other regions.” Although they welcomed the treatment of the pandemic by the authorities, they explained that they appeared before the Commission to “draw attention” since, “in the face of a temporary situation, modifying the Penal Code to apply a prison sentence for non-compliance with measures related to health care exceeds the context and exposes us to a multiplicity of situations that can violate human rights ”.

According to Puyol, “Uruguay has undergone a transition in recent decades towards a health model focused on promotion and prevention, with people as the focus.” For this reason, they consider “contradictory to run the axis of people’s health to pass to a sentence in case of not obeying health decrees”. “The State must guarantee the conditions for the prevention of contagions instead of criminalizing its citizens if they do not comply with the measures,” he said.

For Puyol, this measure could have an impact on different areas of public health. He gave as an example the treatment of gender violence. “What consequences would the implementation of this reformed article have in the face of the declaration of national emergency for gender-based violence that was carried out in December of last year? Has it been considered how this modification would be articulated with the non-compliance with the precautionary measures that protect the victims?

He also questioned the scope of this measure on other issues, such as sexually transmitted infections: “What happens in situations that happen in privacy, such as refusing to use preventive methods, which can generate sexually transmitted infections, including HIV ? Will people be penalized for not using a barrier method to prevent the transmission of a virus that is a global pandemic?

According to data from the observatory that Puyol directs, 33% of men (one in three) are willing not to use a condom in a sexual relationship with someone who does not want to use it. However, 63% never had an HIV test. “What would be done in these cases?” He asked.

The other example he gave was associated with the prevention of dengue: “Will people who have containers with stagnant water in their houses go to jail?”

He also pointed out that the government contradicts itself, since the explanation given by Luis Lacalle Pou, President of the Republic, for not declaring the mandatory quarantine in the face of the pandemic was “not to force what is not going to be fulfilled” and “not to become a Police state ”. “We are struck by the fact that, given the orientation of government policy, in whose measures none makes reference to criminal sanction, the Legislature and its own political force go in the opposite direction,” he explained.

For Strauss, “Uruguay has been an example for the countries of the region both in the way in which the spread of the virus has been contained and in its approach, based on what President Lacalle Pou has called” responsible freedom.

He pointed out that “the model that seems to demonstrate its efficiency and effectiveness has been able to combine respect for individual freedoms with care measures that made it possible to control the circulation of the virus and reduce the impacts of the pandemic.” He stressed that, “as an Argentine resident in Uruguay,” the neighboring country looks closely at the steps followed on this side of the river.

“The reason why legislators who make up the government coalition decide to opt for the modification of the Penal Code with a punitive approach is not understood then. The Executive Power has promoted, in public interviews given to international media, an approach that prioritizes freedom and appeals to citizen responsibility. Decisions that go in the opposite direction to this bill and, particularly, the grounds contained in its explanatory memorandum ”, he expressed.

In this sense, “and without ignoring the legitimacy and autonomy of the Legislative Power in its initiatives,” he said that “it is striking that the same coalition emits contradictory messages.” “We are concerned as an organization that this generates confusion among citizens and undesirable collateral effects,” he added.

He expressed concern that “the amendment of the Penal Code is used, imprisoning those who do not comply with the measures due to the health emergency” and also that “the arguments are not supported by scientific evidence.” “This has been the pillar of the government’s action based on the recommendations of the Honorary Scientific Committee, which has intervened to ensure the prevention of the circulation of the virus,” he said.

For the closing, Abracinskas returned to take the floor and resumed her concern about “these contradictory positions.”

She also emphasized “two substantive issues.” On the one hand, she stressed that modifying the Penal Code is “a long-term solution to a circumstantial problem by definition. “This type of legislative changes with lasting effect cannot be subject to the contingencies of a health emergency with particular characteristics,” she explained.

On the other hand, she questioned: “If it is not guaranteed that the population has sufficient and quality information to comply with the measures imposed on it for the prevention of any epidemic or any health emergency, how will it be ensured that the rights of the citizens are not violated by these decisions? How to ensure that different authorities can issue relevant sanitary measures? Will broad impact dissemination campaigns be carried out to ensure that the measures to be complied with are effectively known? Will this punitive amendment be widely publicized if approved? Who would make it public?

According to the director of MYSU, “it is necessary that the institutions of the State, both the Executive Power and the Parliament, issue clear signals and messages to the population, based on arguments and evidence that reassure and provide security.” She said that, “otherwise, it is fertile ground for worrying reactions to emerge.” In this sense, “we must avoid the proliferation of conspiracy theories and the circulation of false news that, taking advantage of the general confusion, achieve a destabilization of our democratic society.”

She conveyed the concern of the organization she represents, since they verified “the presence in the region of groups that support this type of theories and communicational forms that contribute to the general confusion”. “Given the risk that this presupposes, it is necessary to have clear minds, security in decision-makers, confidence in the measures, personal freedom and the promotion of an awareness of collective well-being. We do not need confusion, irrationality, perplexity or fear, but guaranteeing messages and joining efforts to reassure the population and allow the critical capacity to identify differences ”, he expressed.

That no final sanction be given

MYSU does not have an alternative text to contribute to the change to Article 224. Their suggestion is that the Senate not give it the final sanction it needs to be law. “What we recommend is that, in the event of an exacerbation of the pandemic, a permanent link be maintained with the Executive to provide the regulations that can be resolved by other means, other than the modification of the Penal Code.” For the organization, actions that “give security to the entire population, promoting awareness and not incarceration” should be promoted.

MYSU se opone al proyecto que plantea encarcelamiento para quienes violen las disposiciones sanitarias ante el coronavirus

Una delegación de Mujer y Salud en Uruguay (MYSU) participó en la Comisión de Constitución y Legislación del Senado para manifestar su oposición al proyecto de ley que penaliza a quienes violen las disposiciones sanitarias ante el coronavirus, presentado en marzo por dos diputados del Partido Nacional. La organización feminista, cuya misión es la promoción y defensa de los derechos sexuales y reproductivos, tiene un campo de práctica asociado específicamente a identificar avances, obstáculos y vacíos en leyes y políticas públicas.

La delegación que compareció en el Parlamento estuvo integrada por Lilián Abracinskas, directora de MYSU, Santiago Puyol, responsable del Observatorio de Políticas en Salud Sexual y Reproductiva de la organización, y Bárbara Strauss, responsable de comunicación, quienes expusieron su posicionamiento contrario a la modificación del artículo 224 del Código Penal. La nueva redacción propone que “el que mediante violación de disposiciones sanitarias dictadas y publicadas por la autoridad competente en aras de evitar la introducción al país o propagación de una enfermedad epidémica o contagiosa de cualquier naturaleza, pusiere en peligro efectivo la salud humana o animal, será castigado con tres a veinticuatro meses de prisión. La aplicación del máximo de la pena referida anteriormente estará especialmente justificada cuando el hecho se suscitare declarada una emergencia sanitaria por las autoridades competentes”.

Abracinskas manifestó que si bien este proyecto cuenta con la media sanción de la Cámara de Diputados, la propuesta “no tuvo un tratamiento en el que la ciudadanía organizada pudiese expedirse”.

Parte de su argumentación estuvo basada en la Declaración Universal de Bioética y Derechos Humanos (UNESCO 2005), que proporciona un marco universal de principios y procedimientos que sirven de guía a los estados en la formulación de legislaciones, políticas y otros instrumentos en el ámbito de la bioética. Señaló particularmente el artículo 27, que advierte que “si hay que imponer limitaciones con leyes relativas a la seguridad pública y salvaguardar los derechos y libertades de los demás, dicha ley deberá ser compatible con el derecho internacional relativo a los derechos humanos”. Agregó que la legislación uruguaya recoge estos principios en la Ley 18.335 sobre los derechos y obligaciones de pacientes y usuarios.

Para Abracinskas, la redacción actual del artículo 224 ya es un marco normativo que permite a las autoridades sanitarias actuar ante la pandemia. “La propuesta de modificar el artículo 224, que apunta a evitar que se violen disposiciones sanitarias con el fin de impedir la introducción o la propagación en el país de enfermedades epidémicas o contagiosas, en su modificación de 2001 estipula el delito de daño, para poder hacerlo aplicable. Insistir con modificar el delito de daño, nuevamente, por el de peligro, genera incertidumbres y sensación de desprotección”, señaló.

“¿Cuál sería el bien jurídico que busca protegerse con esta propuesta de modificación?”, se preguntó. Y agregó: “No parecería ser la salud de la persona ni las garantías de sus derechos el centro de la preocupación, dado que las personas podrían ser acusadas de cometer delito ante disposiciones sanitarias que podrían llegar a ser arbitrarias o basadas en otros intereses que no fuese preservar la salud de la población. O, aún desde buenas intenciones, imputar delitos sin saber exactamente cuál es el bien jurídico afectado”.

Para MYSU, la situación de la pandemia “nos ha sumido en una profunda perplejidad”, pero “nuestro país transita por la situación sin tener los impactos adversos de países vecinos o de otras regiones”. Si bien saludaron el tratamiento de la pandemia por parte de las autoridades, explicaron que comparecían ante la Comisión para “llamar la atención” ya que, “frente a una situación coyuntural, modificar el Código Penal para aplicar pena de cárcel ante el incumplimiento de medidas sanitarias excede el contexto y nos expone a multiplicidad de situaciones que pueden vulnerar los derechos humanos”.

Según Puyol, “Uruguay ha atravesado en las últimas décadas una transición hacia un modelo de salud centrado en la promoción y prevención, con las personas como foco”. Por esto consideran “contradictorio correr el eje de la salud de las personas para pasar a una condena en caso de no obedecer decretos sanitarios”. “El Estado debe garantizar las condiciones para la prevención de los contagios en lugar de criminalizar a su ciudadanía si no cumple con las medidas”, expresó.

Para Puyol esta medida podría tener impacto en distintos ámbitos de la salud de la ciudadanía. Puso como ejemplo el tratamiento de la violencia de género. “¿Qué consecuencias tendría la implementación de este artículo reformado frente a la declaración de emergencia nacional por violencia basada en género que se realizó en diciembre del año pasado? ¿Se ha considerado cómo se articularía esta modificación con el no cumplimento de las medidas cautelares que protegen a las víctimas?”.

También cuestionó el alcance de esta medida en otras cuestiones, como las infecciones de transmisión sexual: “¿Qué pasa frente a situaciones que suceden en la intimidad, como negarse a utilizar métodos preventivos, lo que puede generar infecciones de transmisión sexual, incluyendo el VIH? ¿Se penalizará a las personas por no usar un método de barrera para evitar la transmisión de un virus que es pandemia mundial?”.

Según los datos del observatorio que Puyol dirige, 33% de varones (uno de cada tres) está dispuesto a no utilizar el preservativo en una relación sexual con alguien que no quiere usarlo. Sin embargo, 63% nunca se realizó el test de VIH. “¿Qué se haría en estos casos?”, preguntó.

El otro ejemplo que puso estuvo asociado a la prevención del dengue: “¿Irán presas personas que tengan recipientes con agua estancada en sus casas?”.

Señaló también que el gobierno se contradice, ya que la explicación que dio Luis Lacalle Pou, presidente de la República, para no declarar la cuarentena obligatoria ante la pandemia fue “no obligar aquello que no se va a cumplir” y “no convertirse en un Estado policial”. “Nos llama la atención que frente a la orientación de la política de gobierno, en cuyas medidas ninguna hace referencia a la sanción penal, el Legislativo y su propia fuerza política vayan en sentido contrario”, explicó.

Para Strauss, “Uruguay ha resultado ejemplo para los países de la región tanto por la forma en que se ha logrado contener el avance del virus como por su enfoque, basado en lo que el presidente Lacalle Pou ha denominado la “libertad responsable”.

Señaló que “el modelo que parece demostrar su eficiencia y eficacia ha podido conjugar el respeto a las libertades individuales con medidas de cuidado que permitieron controlar la circulación del virus y reducir los impactos de la pandemia”. Resaltó que, “como argentina residente en Uruguay”, el vecino país mira con atención los pasos seguidos de este lado del río.

“No se entiende entonces la razón por la cual legisladores que integran la coalición de gobierno deciden optar por la modificación del Código Penal con un enfoque punitivista. El Poder Ejecutivo ha promovido, en entrevistas públicas brindadas a medios internacionales, un abordaje que prioriza la libertad y apela a la responsabilidad ciudadana. Decisiones que van en sentido opuesto a este proyecto de ley y, particularmente, los fundamentos que contiene su exposición de motivos”, expresó.

En este sentido, “y sin desconocer la legitimidad y autonomía del Poder Legislativo en sus iniciativas”, dijo que “resulta llamativo que la misma coalición emita mensajes contradictorios”. “Nos preocupa como organización que esto genere confusión en la ciudadanía y efectos colaterales indeseables”, agregó.

Manifestó preocupación por que “se recurra a la modificación del Código Penal encarcelando a quien no cumpla con las medidas por la emergencia sanitaria” y también por que “los argumentos no se sostengan en evidencia científica”. “Este ha sido el pilar de la actuación del gobierno en base a las recomendaciones del Comité Científico Honorario, que ha intervenido para asegurar la prevención de la circulación del virus”, señaló.

Para el cierre, Abracinskas volvió a tomar la palabra y retomó la inquietud sobre “estas posturas contradictorias”.

Hizo énfasis además en “dos cuestiones sustantivas”. Por un lado, destacó que modificar el Código Penal supone “una solución de largo plazo para un problema circunstancial por definición”. “Este tipo de cambios legislativos con efecto duradero no pueden estar sujetos a las contingencias de una emergencia sanitaria con características particulares”, explicó.

Por otro lado, cuestionó: “Si no se garantiza que la población cuente con información suficiente y de calidad para cumplir con las medidas que se le imponen para la prevención de cualquier epidemia o cualquier emergencia sanitaria, ¿cómo se asegurará que los derechos de la ciudadanía no sean violentados por estas decisiones? ¿Cómo asegurar que distintas autoridades puedan emitir medidas sanitarias pertinentes? ¿Se realizarán campañas de difusión de amplio impacto para asegurar que se conozcan efectivamente las medidas que se deben cumplir? ¿Se difundirá ampliamente esta modificación punitiva en caso de ser aprobada? ¿Quién lo haría público?”.

Según señaló la directora de MYSU, “es necesario que las instituciones del Estado, tanto del Poder Ejecutivo como del Parlamento, emitan señales y mensajes claros a la población, basados en argumentos y evidencias que tranquilicen y den seguridad”. Dijo que, “de lo contrario, es tierra fértil para que surjan reacciones preocupantes”. En este sentido, “debemos evitar la proliferación de teorías conspirativas y la circulación de noticias falsas que, aprovechando la confusión general, logren una desestabilización de nuestra sociedad democrática”.

Transmitió la preocupación de la organización a la que representa, ya que constataron “la presencia en la región de grupos que sustentan este tipo de teorías y formas comunicacionales que aportan a la confusión general”. “Ante el riesgo que esto presupone, se necesita tener mentes claras, seguridad en los decisores, confianza en las medidas, libertad personal y promoción de una conciencia de bienestar colectivo. No necesitamos confusión, irracionalidad, perplejidades ni miedos, sino mensajes garantizadores y aunar los esfuerzos para tranquilizar a la población y permitir la capacidad crítica para identificar las diferencias”, expresó.

Que no se dé sanción final

MYSU no tiene un texto alternativo para aportar al cambio del artículo 224. Su sugerencia es que el Senado no le dé la sanción final que necesita para ser ley. “Lo que recomendamos es que, en caso de agudización de la pandemia, se mantenga un vínculo permanente con el Ejecutivo para aportar la normativa que pueda resolver por otras vías, que no sea la modificación del Código Penal”. Para la organización, se deben promover acciones que “den seguridad a toda la población, promoviendo conciencia y no encarcelamientos”.

Russia: Names of released prisoners suffering from certain diseases to be passed to authorities of regions where they live

FSIN ordered to report the release of dangerously ill prisoners
Source: Pravo – Translated automatically by Deepl.com. For original article in Russian, please scroll down. 

The exact list of diseases to be reported will be determined by the government.
On 20 July, President Vladimir Putin signed a law obliging prison administration staff to inform about the diseases of released prisoners. The relevant information will have to be passed by the FSIN bodies to the authorities of the region where the prisoner lives.

The author of the initiative was the Cabinet of Ministers. The State Duma adopted the document in its final reading on 7 July, and the Council of Ministers approved it on 15 July. The law will come into force only in six months.

Control over the provision of medical care to prisoners who have served their sentence is necessary due to lack of understanding of the gravity of the disease, “low educational and cultural level, mental disorders and asocial behavior,” as follows from the explanatory note to the bill.

At the same time, the exact list of diseases to be informed about has yet to be determined by the government. According to the authors of the initiative, in the case of newly released prisoners, different types of hepatitis, tuberculosis and HIV pose the greatest danger. Tens of thousands of people are released each year with these diseases, the explanatory note says.

ФСИН обязали сообщать об освобождении опасно больных заключенных
Точный список заболеваний, о которых нужно будет информировать, определит правительство.
Президент Владимир Путин 20 июля подписал закон, обязывающий сотрудников администрации исправительных учреждений информировать о заболеваниях вышедших на свободу заключённых. Соответствующую информацию органы ФСИН должны будут передавать властям региона, в котором проживает отбывший наказание.

Автором инициативы выступил кабмин. Госдума приняла документ в окончательном чтении 7 июля, Совфед одобрил его 15 июля. В силу закон вступит только через полгода.

Контроль за оказанием медицинской помощи заключённым, отбывшим наказание, необходим из-за непонимания ими тяжести заболевания, «низкого образовательного и культурного уровня, психических расстройств и асоциального поведения», следует из пояснительной записки к законопроекту.

При этом точный список заболеваний, о которых нужно будет информировать, еще только предстоит определить правительству. По мнению авторов инициативы, в случае только что освободившихся заключённых наибольшую опасность представляют разные типы гепатита, туберкулёз и ВИЧ. С этими заболеваниями ежегодно выходят на свободу десятки тысяч человек, говорится в пояснительной записке.

 

Watch all the videos of Beyond Blame @HIV2020 – our “perfectly executed…deftly curated, deeply informative” webshow

Earlier this month, advocates from all over the world came together for two hours to discuss the successes and challenges of the global movement to end HIV criminalisation.

All of the recordings of Beyond Blame: Challenging HIV Criminalisation for HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE are now available on the HIV Justice Network’s YouTube Channel.

“HUGE pleasure 2B at #BeyondBlame2020 conference – deftly curated, deeply informative; speakers were great; the passion & commitment to #HIVjustice was palpable. Much progress yet a sober reminder that the work is far from over.”

Kene Esom, Policy Specialist: Human Rights, Law and Gender, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

 

The full-length director’s cut version – with enhanced audio and video – is now available in English as well as with the audio track of the recorded simultaneous translation in French, Spanish, Russian, and Portuguese.

The English version is also available as a YouTube playlist in ‘bite-size’ chunks, with each segment of the webshow available as standalone videos.  This means, for example, if you just want to watch (or share) the segment on ‘women challenging HIV criminalisation in Africa‘, or on ‘bringing science to justice, and justice to science‘, it’s now possible.

“That webinar was perfectly executed. Great sound, engaging transitions (they actually played people on and off!), and multiple speakers in various collections. Having ALL OF THEM back at the end showed the breadth of this technical accomplishment and the depth of the speakers’ field of expertise. Not everyone may notice these things but boy, I sure do, and it was totally pro. I’ve seen big name conferences who couldn’t get this right… Congratulations all around, and especially to [director] Nicholas Feustel.

Mark S King, My Fabulous Disease

 

We have also made available for the first time the standalone recording of Edwin Cameron’s closing speech, which inspired so many.  The transcript is included in full below.

“We have been being battling this fight for many years. Since the start of the HIV epidemic we as gay men, as gay women, as queers, as transgender people, as sex workers, as people using drugs, have been persecuted by the criminal law. And I’m here to say, “Enough! Enough!

We have achieved a great deal with our movement, with the HIV Justice Network. We have achieved a great deal in conscientizing law makers, law givers and the public. It is now time for us to join in unison to demand the end of these stigmatising, retrograde, unproductive, hurtful, harmful laws.

It is a long struggle we’ve engaged in. And it’s one that has hurt many of us. Some of us here today, some of us listening in, some of us who have spoken, have felt the most brutal brush of the law. They have been imprisoned, unjustly prosecuted, unjustly convicted, and unjustly sent away.

HIV is not a crime. But there is more to it. Criminalising HIV, criminalising the transmission or exposure of HIV, as many countries on my own beautiful continent Africa do, is not just stupid and retrograde. It impedes the most important message of the HIV epidemic now, which is that this epidemic is manageable. I’ve been on antiretroviral treatment now for very nearly 23 years. My viral load has been undetectable for more than 20.

We can beat this, but we have to approach this issue as public health issue. We have to approach it rationally and sensibly, and without stigma, and without targeting people, and without seeking to hurt and marginalise people.We’ve made calamitous mistakes with the misapplication of the criminal law over the last hundred years, in the so-called ‘war on drugs’. We continue to make a calamitous mistake in Africa and elsewhere by misusing the criminal law against queer people like myself. We make a huge mistake by misusing the criminal law against people with HIV.

Let us rise today and say, “Enough!”

 

Criminalization laws impact public health and perpetuate discrimination

HIV and LGBTQ Criminalization Laws are Both Human Rights and Public Health Issues, Experts Say

A panel at the 23rd International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2020, gone virtual this year due to COVID-19) discussed the growing right-wing populist movements around the world that threaten advances made by activists toward ending criminalization of people living with HIV and LGBTQ people.

Poland just re-elected President Andrzej Duda, whose party, PiS, declared “The LGBT and gender movement threatens our Polish identity, the nation, and the state.” PiS wants to “protect children from the LGBT ideology,” defines marriage in strictly heterosexual terms, and aims to outlaw adoptions by LGBTQ people. Around 100 localities in the country have declared themselves to be “LGBT-free zones.”

Botswana goes even further, reported Tebogo Gareitsanye of BONELA, a legal and advocacy organization in that country. Consensual sex between same-sex partners is illegal and prosecuted as “unnatural offenses” and “indecent practices.” That statute originally applied only to men who have sex with men. Sex between women was not outlawed until 1998.

Botswana law distinguishes between sexual orientation per se—which is, in fact, a protected category under employment discrimination law—and acting on one’s orientation, which is illegal. After a campaign by BONELA and others, the country’s High Court recently decriminalized private, consensual sex acts. However, Botswana’s government has appealed that decision, and a final ruling is still pending.

Beyond human rights implications, such laws also impact public health, since LGBTQ people will not seek health services for fear of being prosecuted, Gareitsanye noted. Similarly, laws that criminalize certain acts if someone is living with HIV impede public health, said Edwin J. Bernard of the HIV Justice Network. “Communicable diseases are public health issues, not criminal issues.”

HIV criminalization laws generally require the person in question to know their status. They therefore discourage people from being tested. Sean Strub of the Sero Project summed this up in a video shared by Bernard at the conference: “Take the test and risk arrest.” Another interviewee in that video, Patrick O’Byrne, Ph.D., RN-EC, of the University of Ottawa, reported that participants in their study were unable to distinguish between the public health department and the police. “That’s problematic,” O’Byrne commented.

In California, for example, people living with HIV (PLWH) can be prosecuted for four HIV-specific “offenses,” explained Ayako Miyashita Ochoa, J.D., of the University of California Los Angeles: solicitation while seropositive, exposure with intent to transmit HIV, exposure to a communicable disease, and an enhanced sentence for forced sex, if the rapist lives with HIV. Sex workers account for 95% of HIV-related prosecutions in the state, Ochoa reported.

Exposure to a communicable disease could, of course, be applied to many different viruses—including SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. So far, there are no reports of people refusing to wear masks being prosecuted under that law. Nonetheless, in many countries, human rights have taken a backseat to the pandemic response, noted Thokozile Phiri Nkhoma of Facilitators of Community Transformation in Malawi. Civil society must address criminalization as well as rights and resource issues in the wake of the pandemic, Nkhoma demanded.

Beyond their effect on individual persons prosecuted under them, criminal laws perpetuate structural inequalities, discrimination, and xenophobia, argued Susana T. Fried of CREA, an international feminist organization based in India. To counter such effects, we need to strengthen solidarity between and with affected people. We also must be aware of the unintended effects some laws meant to protect vulnerable communities might have. For example, raising the age of marriage can protect young girls. However, it can also be used to outlaw consensual sex between young people, if it ties age of consent to age of marriage.

The consequences of these and other laws regulating sex and sexuality are quite intentional, concluded Marco Castro-Bojorquez of HIV Racial Justice Now: “The systems of oppression that we have created specifically to oppress certain communities were working very well in the criminalization of PLWH.”

Australia: Proposed mandatory HIV testing in New South Wales is neither necessary nor useful

HIV testing people who spit at police or health workers won’t actually protect them

People who expose a police officer or emergency worker to body fluids would be compelled to have their blood tested for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C, under a proposed law in NSW.

But this law isn’t needed to protect first responders. We already have evidence-based protocols that are working well to protect them from blood-borne infections.

Rather, the proposed law is a political reaction to a problem that doesn’t need fixing. It is also not supported by scientific evidence or Australian government policy on HIV testing.

What is NSW proposing?

In November last year, the NSW government proposed legislation which gives authorities the power to test a person for HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C if they have deliberately exposed a front-line worker to their body fluids (saliva or blood).

Examples might be if a person bites a police officer restraining them during an arrest or protest; someone biting or scratching a youth justice or corrections officer; or a person behaving unpredictably, exposing ambulance officers to their body fluids.

The mandatory testing order would come from senior officers within the worker’s own agency. If the person does not comply, they can be forced to do so. They have 48 hours to appeal to the NSW chief health officer. Anyone who refuses a mandatory testing order will be committing an offence, with a maximum 12 months prison term or an A$11,000 fine, or both.

Is this happening elsewhere?

Five states have legislation that allows mandatory testing, according to a report by the National Association of People Living with HIV.

The proposed NSW model is closest to the one Western Australiaintroduced in 2014, where police can order testing. This resulted in 377 testing orders in the first four years.

In contrast, in Victoria the chief health officer has the power to order a test or issue a public health order to enforce it if necessary. In those same four years, not a single person was ordered to be tested.

What’s the risk of transmission anyway?

Outside of sexual transmission, HIV is transmitted through blood. Police and corrections officers are far less likely to be exposed to a blood-borne virus than hospital workers. When exposure does occur, it tends to be less serious.

There does not appear to be any recorded case of an Australian police officer being infected with HIV in the course of their duties.

Rates of HIV infection in the community are dropping anyway. Around 0.1% of the Australian population is living with HIV. The vast majority are on effective treatment which reduces transmission to zero. By 2022, Australia’s aiming for virtual elimination.

As hepatitis C and HIV are blood-borne viruses, saliva alone cannot transmit them. Sometimes, the mouth can be contaminated with blood, particularly if there has been traumatic injury. But contact between bloody saliva and intact skin does not transmit hepatitis C or HIV.

A 2018 study bringing together more than 30 years of studies in HIV transmission concluded:

There is no risk of transmitting HIV through spitting, and the risk through biting is negligible.

A similar 2018 study looked at the risk of hepatitis C transmission and concluded the risk “appears to be very low”.

Of the blood-borne viruses, hepatitis B, the most transmissible of these viruses, is completely preventable through a vaccine all front-line workers receive.

What’s happening now?

In NSW and nationally, if someone is exposed to another person’s body fluids at work, they are assessed by health care workers in their agency.

The nature of the exposure, the possibility the other person could have a blood-borne virus (or if known, whether they are infected) and the resulting risk are considered when evaluating both the injury and the need for testing. If needed, they are tested according to policies informed by scientific evidence.

But the overwhelming majority of injuries, including bites, do not carry a risk of transmision.

In the rare scenario, where the risk of HIV infection cannot be ruled out, the worker may be offered medications to prevent infection, and follow-up blood tests. These medicationsdramatically reduce risk of transmission but must be taken within 72 hours of the exposure.

Workers potentially exposed to hepatitis C can be monitored for infection, and given medications with near 100% cure rate if required.

So current measures are more than adequate to deal with all situations a police officer or other front-line worker will confront, and have been so since these issues were first addressed in the early 1990s.

Compulsory testing could cause harm

Front-line workers deserve our support and protection. But if these workers feel anxiety or distress related to their risk of contracting blood-borne viruses then their health services must more adequately reassure them.

New measures won’t help reduce their already low risk of transmission and therefore don’t provide any additional reassurance. Focussing on getting the other person tested might increase their anxiety when the risk is negligible, irrespective of the person’s status.

In the rare higher risk situations, perhaps an ambulance officer injured while at a car accident where there is massive blood loss, the risk of a blood-borne infection needs to be assessed and preventive medicine offered. Delaying this assessment while waiting for the results of compulsory testing has the real potential to harm the worker.

The proposed legislation also stigmatises people living with blood-borne viruses, incorrectly depicting them as dangerous, creating unnecessary fear, leading to discrimination.

We are working with the board of the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine (the peak body representing HIV, viral hepatitis and sexual health workers) and oppose mandatory testing measures as neither necessary nor useful.

When considering the criminalisation of COVID-19, lessons from HIV should be retained

Marginalised communities will not get justice from criminalising Covid-19 transmission

The criminalisation of the virus would create greater barriers to accessing healthcare systems already preventing many people from getting treatment.

After it was announced that no further action would be taken by police regarding the death of Belly Mujinga, a railway worker who contracted coronavirus after reportedly being spat on, there was national outcry. Her name has been plastered on placards at Black Lives Matter protests, while the public has pointed out that a man in Scotland who spat on a police officer while “joking” about coronavirus in April has been jailed for a year. But while this outrage is valid in the face of a government who continues to show their blatant disregard for black lives, criminalisation of diseases has been proven to be an ineffective tool for justice.

Over the past few months, parallels have been drawn between the Covid-19 pandemic and the HIV epidemic. Both viruses are communicable (they can be passed between people); both have been racialised, leading to racist and xenophobic attacks and stereotyping; community mobilisation has demanded adequate government public health responses for both health emergencies; and the impact of both viruses has highlighted the need for a global health approach which transcends borders. 

When the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared Covid-19 a pandemic, many HIV organisations and activists advocated that the transmission of the novel coronavirus should not be criminalised. As public fear of Covid-19 grew, HIV advocates predicted the negative impact on public health and possibility of human rights violations, similar to those seen for people living with HIV. 

“Despite the evolving scientific knowledge, criminalisation laws have been written and implemented across the world faster than the development of the general understanding of the virus itself”

This strain of coronavirus is new and scientists are developing their understanding of it. In the past few weeks, there has been confusion about the probability of asymptomatic transmission (transmitting the virus when a person does not have Covid-19-like symptoms), as the WHO had previously commented that it was “very rare” and later stated that this wording had misled people. Despite the evolving scientific knowledge, criminalisation laws have been written and implemented across the world faster than the development of the general understanding of the virus itself. Globally, countries have implemented or have proposed laws against Covid-19 transmission and even exposure, without transmission, including Canada, France, India, and South Africa.

Often, the aim of criminalisation is to facilitate a tool for prevention and deterrence (to discourage people from passing on a virus) or as punishment for those who have or may have passed on a virus. HIV advocacy has illustrated over the years that the criminalisation of transmission or exposure is ineffective, and disproportionately impacts marginalised communities and negatively impacts public health.

In their Statement on Covid-19 Criminalisation, published in March, the HIV Justice Worldwide Steering Committee wrote that hastily drafted laws, as well as law enforcement, driven by fear and panic, are unlikely to be guided by the best available scientific and medical evidence – especially where such science is unclear, complex and evolving. “Given the context of a virus that can easily be transmitted by casual contact and where proof of actual exposure or transmission is not possible, we believe that the criminal justice system is unlikely to uphold principles of legal and judicial fairness, including the key criminal law principles of legality, foreseeability, intent, causality, proportionality and proof.”  

Since that statement was issued, internationally coronavirus laws have been weaponised against the most marginalised within society, as is the case with HIV criminalisation laws. The Ugandan government, for example, has used coronavirus laws to target marginalised LGBTQI+ groups, and in the UK, people of colour are fined more than the white population under coronavirus laws, in some cases leading to unlawful charges. In some cases people were even charged under the wrong law (e.g. enforcing Welsh law in England).

The director of legal services at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the public agency that conducts criminal prosecutions in England and Wales, found that 24% of cases reviewed had been charged incorrectly. In May a CPS press statement cited the speed and pressure to implement the laws as the cause of the wrongful charges. Across the Global North, it has been well documented that racialised communities are disproportionately impacted by Covid-19 and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation anticipates that LGBTQI communities will be disproportionately impacted by the virus. This is due to a myriad of reasons underpinned by systemic discrimination.

“Criminalisation of transmission or exposure is ineffective, and disproportionately impacts marginalised communities and negatively impacts public health”

HIV research has shown little evidence that criminalisation laws prevent transmission, in fact, it’s evidenced that such laws are bad for public health and fuel reluctance to get tested and treated. In the UK, testing and treatment of Covid-19 is free, as is the case with many other communicable diseases to remove the barrier to testing and treatment. Free testing and treatment access, irrespective of immigration status, is important, however, a briefing paper from Medact, Migrants Organise and New Economics Foundation (NEF), has shown that migrant communities blocked from healthcare because of the hostile environment, that “the coronavirus ‘exemption’ from charging and immigration checks is not working” and people have been asked to show their passports, and that people face additional obstacles such as language barrier and digital exclusion from emergency services. 

Criminalisation exacerbates public health issues: in a Channel 4 report, Migrants Organise spoke of a man who died at home for fear of being reported to immigration authorities if he accessed healthcare. The threat of immigration enforcement disproportionately impacts those in precarious work and those with precarious migration status, all of whom are more likely to come from racialised groups and in some cases groups which are hyper-surveilled and criminalised.

The role of healthcare and access to it needs to be reimagined, where people are viewed as patients not passports and healthcare professionals are not the extended arm of the Home Office. Governments must implement better employment rights, so that employers are held to account and do not put staff such as Belly Mujinga, in harmful positions. Governments must provide better statutory sick pay so those in precarious work do not have to choose between their health and putting food on the table. We need to overhaul systemically discriminatory processes that don’t look after the most vulnerable, rather than implementing laws – such as criminalisation – that will systematically punish them.

You can select your preferred language from the 'Select Language' menu at the top of the page.

Continue