US: Kentucky bill making it a felony to expose police officers to bodily fluids goes to full House for consideration after being approved by House Committee

KENTUCKY (2/15/18) — A bill that would make it a felony to intentionally expose a law enforcement officer to bodily fluids or bodily waste was approved yesterday by the House Judiciary Committee.

Kentucky jailers and some other officials are protected against someone intentionally causing them to come into contact with bodily fluids and waste, but that “there’s a gap in the law that doesn’t protect our police officers,” said Rep. Stan Lee, R-Lexington, the sponsor of House Bill 193.

The legislation would carry stiffer penalties if the bodily fluids or waste carry—or could carry—a communicable disease, including hepatitis C virus or HIV. Both crimes would be considered felony assault under the proposal.

Fraternal Order of Police Bluegrass Lodge # 4 President Jason Rothermund told the committee creating a crime for intentionally forcing bodily fluids or waste onto a police or other law enforcement officer, with the increased penalty for communicable disease, will help prosecution of such acts. Current statutes for disorderly conduct and wanton endangerment are not adequate for prosecution, he said.

“We don’t want them (the officers) to have to go find some obscure charge,” said Rothermund, but instead want behavior specifically addressed in law.

Lee said he would be willing to consider floor amendments that would ratchet down some of the bill’s penalties to misdemeanors after some lawmakers, including Rep. Jason Nemes, R-Louisville, expressed concern with the felony provisions.

Nemes, who has a brother who is a peace officer, said he believes more protection is needed but that he believes the penalties proposed in HB 193 are too harsh.

Rep. McKenzie Cantrell, D-Louisville, had concerns that the scope of the bill is wider than it needs to be.

“Because there’s not a definition of what a communicable disease is and there’s no nexus between the exposure to the fluids and actual transmission of the disease, I’m going to have to vote no today,” she said.

Among those voting for the bill was Rep. Robert Benvenuti, R-Lexington, who said the risk of transmitting communicable disease through bodily fluids and waste is real and carries consequences.

“Clearly there should be a consequence to putting that officer in harm’s way and making that officer go through a battery of testing and unknown situations with their spouse, etc.,” he said.

HB 193 now goes to the full House for consideration.

Published in SurfKY News on February 15, 2018

Zimbabwe: Country's laws on deliberate transmission are too broad and should be reviewed

PREGNANT HIV-positive mothers who do not take precaution to prevent transmission of the virus to their unborn babies are liable for prosecution and face up to 20 years in prison under the country’s laws, a lawyer has noted.

Anyone living with the virus who has sexual intercourse with an HIV-negative partner using protection without disclosing their status may also be legally liable, even when transmission has not occurred, Mr Lizwe Jamela of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) said.

In an interview on the sidelines of the just-ended International Conference of Aids and STIs in Africa (Icasa) in Abidjan, Ivory Coast Mr Jamela, who heads ZLHR in Matabeleland and Midlands provinces said the country’s laws on deliberate transmission of HIV were too broad and should be reviewed.

He said the broadness of the laws made almost everyone who is sexually active liable for prosecution, and thus called for the repealing of the legislation.

Under section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act chapter 9:23 deliberate transmission of HIV is a criminal offence which attracts a sentence of not more than 20 years.

“On the face of it the law talks about deliberate transmission of HIV but when you analyse it further you observe that almost everyone can face prosecution,” he said.

Section 79 (b) states that “Any person, realising that there is a real risk or possibility that he or she is infected with HIV; intentionally does anything or permits the doing of anything which he or she knows will infect, which he or she realises involves a real risk or possibility of infecting another person with HIV, shall be guilty of deliberate transmission of HIV, whether or not he or she is married to that other person, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years”.

Mr Jamela said, “Anyone can fall into that category. There is just too much conjecture in that law.

“If a pregnant woman who is HIV-positive fails to undergo the Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission (PMTCT) programme she is liable for prosecution.

“Anyone who is HIV positive who has intercourse with someone who is negative and uses protection can still be prosecuted under this law because that person would have done something which involves a real risk of possibility of infecting another person with HIV.

“The fact that one used protection can only be used as mitigation but not to absolve anyone.”

He added, “So under this law, the criminal offence is not only about deliberate transmission but even exposure to risk of transmission, which in my view is very wide and broad.”

Mr Jamela said the law should either be amended to deal specifically with cases of deliberate transmission or be totally repealed.

“We don’t need a law that criminalises HIV. Instead we should be reinforcing the human rights response to HIV intervention by increasing issues of education and advocacy.

“We could limit the law to genuine cases of deliberate transmission,” he said.

Mr Jamela further argued that it was also humanly impossible to prove in a court of law who would have infected who between complainant and defendant in cases of deliberate transmission of HIV.

“Judiciary can’t deal with who infected who. There is no technology to generate evidence to prove that. So in most cases the person who would report first becomes the complainant. But what if the complainant is the one who infected defendant, how do you prove that?

“For a criminal conviction to happen someone should be guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but we have people being convicted of deliberate infection when that threshold has not been passed,” he said.

Head of the HIV and TB unit in the Ministry of Health and Child Care Dr Owen Mugurungi described the enactment of the law as “a moment of madness”.

He said the law was counterproductive in the fight against stigma around HIV.

“It was a moment of madness. This is what happens when decisions are made based on emotions.

“The law attacks the basic rights of people living with HIV. It’s counter-productive to our interventions and defeats everything we are trying to do to fight the virus.

“That law causes people to go underground, it scares away people from getting tested because it stigmatises HIV,” he said.

Dr Mugurungi added that there was engagement between the National Aids Council and legislators to look into possible ways of repealing or amending the law so that it does not criminalise HIV.

Zimbabwe Network of People Living with HIV (ZNPP+) national chairperson Sebastian Chinhaire said the law countered the country’s efforts to end Aids by 2030 and should be done away with immediately.

“We should do away with that law. We will not end Aids by 2030 if we still have that law. All the gains recorded in the fight against HIV are being reversed by this law. It should go,” he said.

Published in Bulawayo 24 on Dec 17, 2017

Malawi: Human Rights Activists celebrate adoption of amended HIV Law that removes rights-infringing provisions (Press Release)

PRESS RELEASE 28 November 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS CELEBRATE MALAWI’S ADOPTION OF AMENDED HIV LAW THAT REMOVES RIGHTS-INFRINGING PROVISIONS

Lilongwe – On Tuesday, 28 November, Malawi Members of Parliament voted to reject coercive and criminalising provisions that threatened human rights in a long-deliberated HIV (Prevention and Management) Bill.

Activists and people living with and affected by HIV celebrated outside Parliament after having protested for months against rights-infringing provisions in the HIV Bill, tabled earlier this year. The Bill, which had its origins in a 2008 Law Commission Report, included provisions to make HIV testing and treatment mandatory for select populations on a discriminatory basis, and provisions that would criminalise HIV exposure and transmission, amongst others.

Civil society and activists argued that these provisions would violate the Malawi Constitution, be at odds with international best practice, and compromise the country’s efforts to advance HIV treatment and prevention.

On Tuesday, Members of Parliament debated amendments to the Bill advanced by Members and its HIV Committee. Minister of Health, Hon. Atupele Muluzi, urged Members to endorse these amendments when adopting the Bill, emphasizing that criminalising HIV had negative public health implications. Parliament voted to support all the amendments proposed by the HIV Committee and, in addition, voted to delete a contentious provision relating to “deliberate infection” with HIV. After a second reading, the Bill was passed subject to these amendments.

Activists celebrate the passing of the amended HIV/AIDS Bill today in Lilongwe. — Activists celebrate the passing of the amended HIV Bill today in Lilongwe. (Source SALC)

“It is thanks to women activists who fought to have their voices heard that Parliament has recognised that abandoning human rights protections will only drive vulnerability to HIV,” said Sarai-Chisala Tempelhoff of the Women Lawyers Association (WLA Malawi). “When the evidence tells us women and girls should be at the forefront of our response to HIV, it is important to understand the criminalisation would only increase the risk of violence and abuse that Malawian women face; strengthen prevailing gendered inequalities in healthcare and family settings; and further drive stigma, fear and discrimination around HIV.”

“Mandatory testing and treatment and criminalization of HIV transmission and exposure are counter-productive to reaching the goals of the HIV response in Malawi. We are glad our voices have been heard through the work of organisations like ICW Malawi, the Coalition of Women Living with HIV/AIDS (COWLHA), the Female Sex Workers Association, the Women Farmers Coalition and others. Human rights have prevailed today in Malawi.” said Clara Banya of the International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW) Malawi.

“We are elated that Parliament has chosen to endorse a law based on evidence and reason and not on stigma and fear. It is people who are most marginalized in our society who would suffer most under coercive and criminalising laws – these are people who need society’s support, not punishment.” said Victor Mhango, Executive Director of the Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance (CHREAA).

Gift Trapence, Executive Director of the Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP), agreed, “While we urgently need to embrace key populations to advance human rights and the HIV response in Malawi, the Bill was proposing to create further barriers. While the amended version adopted by Parliament does not speak to key populations directly, we must celebrate that at least it hasn’t added to the legal barriers as initially proposed.”

MacDonald Sembereka, Executive Director of the Mango Key Populations Network said, “As actors in the sector we urge for the prompt assent and implementation of the Act as it is long overdue.”

“We commend and support the incredible advocacy of Malawian civil society and women activists in particular who have refused to be silenced into accepting compromises on punitive laws and policies,” said Michaela Clayton, Director of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA). “The role of human rights in an effective HIV response is as important now as it has always been.”

“While some provisions remain that are perplexing and of which we should remain wary (such as those placing duties on people living with HIV to adhere to treatment), Parliament’s acceptance of the amendments in the Act is a victory for citizens and supporters of human rights in Malawi who resisted efforts to enact the Bill in its original form at all costs,” said Annabel Raw, health rights lawyer at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC).

Laurel Sprague, Executive Director of Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) said, “GNP+ applauds the remarkable community effort that focused on education, current science and best practices. Women living with HIV, sex workers, and women lawyers led the way in explaining why punitive laws harm the HIV response and ensuring that a human rights approach is at the centre of Malawi’s HIV response.”

Statement by:

The AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA)

The Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP)

The Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance (CHREAA)

The Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+)

The International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW) Malawi

The MANGO Key Populations Network

The Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)

Women Lawyers Association, Malawi

ENDS

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Lesley Odendal (Communications Lead, AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa) Email: communications@arasa.info; Tel: + 27 72 960 8991.

Annabel Raw (Health Rights Lawyer, Southern Africa Litigation Centre) Email: AnnabelR@salc.org.za; Tel: +27 10 596 8538.

UK: Professor Matthew Weait reflects on the first convictions for intentional HIV transmission in England & Wales

Daryll Rowe guilty – but is criminal law the right way to stop the spread of HIV?

Daryll Rowe infected five male sexual partners with HIV, and tried unsuccessfully to infect a further five. Yesterday, he was convicted in the Crown Court at Lewes on ten counts of causing, and attempting to cause, grievous bodily harm. He will be sentenced in January.

This is the first case in the UK in which a person has been convicted of intentionally harming, or attempting to harm, others with HIV – prior to this, all UK convictions have been for reckless transmission. It is a uniquely harrowing and distressing case, and the impact of Rowe’s actions on the complainants cannot be underestimated.

Unsurprisingly, the trial has provoked much media comment, and his behaviour widespread condemnation – the details of Rowe’s actions, after all, are particularly shocking.

But whatever judgement we might pass on Rowe’s behaviour from a moral or ethical perspective, the criminalisation of HIV transmission and exposure more generally raises a number of important questions, not least regarding its impact on HIV-related stigma and efforts to reduce, and ultimately eradicate, the virus.

Ever since its discovery as the causative agent of AIDS in 1983, countries across the world have used the criminal law, both to censure those who have exposed others to the risk of infection or have in fact infected others, to control the spread of the virus.

The first of these rationales, a retributive one, reflected the fact that, until the mid-1990s, HIV was untreatable and almost inevitably led to death. It is therefore not surprising that states should have treated HIV as a weapon, and its effects as serious bodily harm.

The second rationale, a deterrent one, assumes that punishment will deter the accused – and others – from engaging in risky activity. It therefore has a supposed legitimacy from a public health perspective.

Both of these justifications are problematic.

The false path

Regarding retribution, criminal law requires that the defendant manifest a high degree of fault at the time – typically, that he acted intentionally, as Rowe did, or recklessly. As to intention, this can be established in English law and many other jurisdictions if (a) it is proven that it was the defendant’s purpose to infect, or (b) it may (but need not) be inferred if infection was virtually certain to occur, and the defendant foresaw that consequence as virtually certain.

Proving purposive intention is extremely difficult – a deliberate intention to engage in sexual activity which carries with it the risk of onward transmission is not the same as intending to transmit. It is also very difficult, in the case of HIV, to establish intention in the alternative way because, as has been confirmed in a number of clinical consensus statements, from Canada, Australia, and Sweden, the probability of transmission in any one incident of sexual intercourse is extremely low.

What’s more, where a deliberate (but unsuccessful) attempt to transmit HIV during sex is prosecuted, is it legitimate to punish someone for failing to achieve a consequence which is, statistically speaking, extremely unlikely to materialise? Critically, in the case of HIV, the accused is unable, as a matter of fact, to exercise agency over the outcome. (There is arguably a difference between swinging a bat at someone’s knee and missing, and having sex during which a virus may, but on any one occasion probably won’t, infect a partner.)

Recklessness (the conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk), however, is a lesser form of culpability. It is easier to prove, and a far more common basis for criminalisation. Until now, reckless transmission has been the basis for all UK convictions.

Rowe was found guilty of intentionally harming, or attempting to harm, others with HIV. But criminalising reckless transmission is particularly problematic. From a retributive perspective, this amounts to punishing people living with HIV who have sex during which HIV is transmitted, not because they had any desire that this should happen but because they were aware that it might. This places the entire burden of minimising the risk on them (even in cases where a partner is in fact aware of the risks), and is even more problematic where reckless exposure (as opposed to transmission) is criminalised.

This is not just because no physical harm has been caused, but because there is an absence of clarity as to what degree of risk is acceptable. In Canada, for example, there needs to be a “significant risk”, though what this means is contentious. It is now widely accepted that when a person diagnosed with HIV is on effective treatment and has an undetectable viral load, transmission is all but impossible. In the words of a current, high-profile, campaign to encourage testing and treatment, Undetectable = Untransmittable, or U=U.

A deterrent?

Criminalisation can also create obstacles to delivering beneficial public health outcomes.

First, because a person living with HIV can only be convicted for transmission, attempt, or exposure if he knew his HIV positive status at the relevant time, those who are in fact positive but don’t know can’t, by definition, be deterred by the prospect of punishment.

Second, and critically, criminalisation contributes to the stigma associated with HIV infection. Sensationalist press coverage, focusing on exceptional “newsworthy” cases, does little if anything to normalise HIV infection or to inform the general public about the fact that the vast majority of people living with HIV take every precaution against putting partners at risk. Instead, it fuels ignorance and misunderstanding.

Indeed, the print media in the UK and elsewhere has a long tradition of sensationalising HIV transmission and exposure cases, often at the expense of accurate reporting – whether about the trials themselves, or about the characteristics of those convicted.

This may make people wary of disclosing their status to partners, adhering to treatment, or getting tested in the first place.

Indeed, there is now near universal consensus among expert bodies, including UNAIDS and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, that the use of the criminal law, where it is used at all, should be limited to the most egregious of cases and that exposure and reckless transmission should be decriminalised. Where states do use criminal law against those who deliberately and maliciously harm others, the highest standards of forensic evidence should be deployed.

Any moral judgement we pass on defendants in particular cases (who, it is worth remembering, were themselves infected by someone else) should not deflect attention from what must be our main priority: the total eradication of HIV.

We know definitively that regular testing and early treatment can significantly reduce the number of new infections, and we know that stigma, fuelled by criminalisation and press coverage, impedes this.

Rowe’s behaviour was found to be criminal. But we should reflect on whether criminal law – in general – does more harm than good, and ensure wherever, and whenever, possible that HIV is understood and treated as a public health priority rather than as an opportunity for blame and punishment.

Mexico: The Network against the Criminalisation of HIV report that 30 out of 32 states criminalise "exposure to infection" in Mexico

In Mexico 30 states criminalize HIV as “a crime of exposure to infection” (Google translation. For article in Spanish, please scroll down)

The Network against the Criminalisation of HIV, a coalition formed by 29 associations in favour of human rights in Mexico, reported that 30 of the 32 states that make up the Mexican Republic include in their Penal Codes the category “Crime of exposure to infection”, which punishes people who transmit or can transmit a “non-curable disease” to another person.

“The aim of the network is not to start a witch hunt, because it was surprising that in the last two years this law has been discussed in three different state congresses,” he explained to Leonardo Bastida, member of the association, Letra S.

According to the organisations, this legal statute endangers people with HIV, as it criminalizes and undermines strategies aimed at combating the epidemic. Specifically, laws sanction the possibility of transmitting an illness, even if it happens involuntarily.

According to Bastida, since the year 200 have registered 39 criminal proceedings for this cause, of which 15 are located in Veracruz, nine in Sonora, five in Tamaulipas, five more in the State of Mexico, three in Chihuahua, one in Mexico City and one more in Nuevo León.

According to the activists, these criminalizing laws emerged in the first half of the 20th century and focused mainly on penalizing the “contagion” of syphilis, but over the years they were modified and included various diseases.

Only Aguascalientes and San Luis Potosí do not have this legalstatute in their penal codes, while in Sonora the law could be toughened, since there is currently a proposal that is being analyzed to establish sentences of up to 15 years in prison. Activists and the State Human Rights Commission seek to repeal Article 113 of the Criminal Code, which includes this criminal category.

The network detailed that in the case of Veracruz, legislators approved in 2015 an amendment to the local penal code to add to the “crime of contagion” the term “sexually transmitted infections. In addition, with the amendment of article 158, sentences of 6 months to 5 years in prison were established.

Faced with this situation, a group of social organizations presented an appeal of unconstitutionality to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The activists trust that the SCJN will rule in favor of the lawsuit.

Members of the Network against Criminalization warned that these types of laws do not help to combat the increase in HIV cases and only contribute to stigmatization and make it difficult for strategies focused on combating HIV transmission to meet their goals.

With information from EFE.

—————————————————-

En México 30 estados criminalizan el VIH como “delito de peligro de contagio”

La Red contra la Criminalización del VIH, una coalición conformada por 29 asociaciones a favor de los derechos humanos en México, informaron que 30 de los 32 estados que conforman la república mexicana contemplan en sus Códigos Penales la categoría “Delito de peligro de contagio”, la cual castiga a las personas que transmitan o puedan transmitir una “enfermedad no curable” a otra persona.

“El objetivo de la red es que no empiece una cacería de brujas, porque fue sorprendente que en los últimos dos años se haya discutido en tres congresos estatales diferentes esta ley”, explicó a Leonardo Bastida, integrante de la asociación, Letra S.

De acuerdo con las organizaciones, dicha figura penal pone en peligro a las personas con VIH, ya que las criminaliza y resta fuerza a las estrategias enfocadas a combatir la epidemia. Específicamente, las leyes sancionan la posibilidad de transmitir alguna enfermedad, aunque suceda de forma involuntaria.

De acuerdo con Bastida, desde el año 200 se han registrado 39 procesos penales por esta causa, de los cuales 15 se ubican en Veracruz, nueve en Sonora, cinco en Tamaulipas, cinco más en el Estado de México, tres en Chihuahua, uno en la Ciudad de México y uno más en Nuevo León.

Según explicaron los activistas, estas leyes criminalizadoras surgieron en la primera mitad del siglo XX y se enfocaban principalmente a penalizar el “contagio” de la sífilis, pero con el pasar de los años se fueron modificando e incluyeron diversas enfermedades.

Sólo Aguascalientes y San Luis Potosí no cuentan con esta figura en sus códigos penales, mientras que en Sonora se podría endurecer la ley, ya que actualmente existe una propuesta que está siendo analizada para establecer penas con hasta 15 años de prisión. Los activistas y la Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Estado buscan derogar el artículo 113 del Código Penal, el cual incluye esta categoría penal.

La red detalló que en el caso de Veracruz, los legisladores aprobaron en 2015 modificar el código penal local para agregar al “delito del contagio” el término “infecciones de transmisión sexual. Además con la modificación del artículo 158 se establecieron penas de 6 meses a 5 años de cárcel.

Ante este panorama, un grupo de organizaciones sociales presentaron un recurso de inconstitucionalidad a la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación. Los activistas confían en que la SCJN falle a favor de la demanda.

Los integrantes de la Red contra la Criminalización alertaron que este tipo de leyes no ayudan a combatir el aumento de casos de VIH y sólo contribuyen a la estigmatización y dificultan que las estrategias enfocadas a combatir la transmisión del VIH cumplan sus metas.

Con información de EFE.

Malawi: Human right groups condemn new HIV bill as discriminatory, paternalistic and harmful to the HIV response

Malawi rights bodies defy criminalising the transmission of HIV: Bill deeply flawed

Stakeholders have described the new HIV and AIDS Bill as ‘a bad law’ and a disaster to happen as it is discriminatory and will impede the fight against AIDS.

The bill includes mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women and their partners, and allows medical providers to disclose a patient’s HIV status to others. The bill also criminalizes HIV transmission, attempted transmission, and behavior that might result in transmission by those who know their HIV status.

Human rights groups and activists who converged in Lilongwe recently for the media advocacy meeting on HIV and Aids Bill described the new bill on HIV and AIDS as a debauched law in the offing.

Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance (CHREAA) organised the meeting.

Mandatory HIV testing and the disclosure of medical information without consent are contrary to international best practices and violate fundamental human rights, the rights activists said. The criminalization of HIV transmission, attempted transmission, and behavior that might result in transmission by those who know their HIV status is overly broad, and difficult to enforce.

Female Sex workers Association executive member, Zinenani Majawa, speaking on behalf of sex workers in in Malawi said: “This Bill targets us because men will always be saying this sex worker infected me with the disease.”

Majawa vehemently quashed the bill, saying it does not give any hope towards the HIV positive response.

The sex workers representative argued that Section 43 and 44 will also be difficult to apply with due adherence to fair trial rights including the right to be presumed innocent, adding that it is not correlating on the obligation for the state to prove criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

“This is because in most circumstances, there is no scientific means to prove the direction of HIV transmission beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Majawa.

During the meeting the stakeholders nudged holes on the new bill, saying, for example section 43 that targets deliberate transmission was seen to be similarly overboard.

“Phylogenetic analysis is expensive it requires the use of complex computational tools to estimate how closely related the samples of HIV taken from complainants and defendants are in comparison to other samples,” argued some stakeholders.

‘Vilification of women’

Making a presentation on the new Bill, Women Lawyers Association (WLA) President Sarai Chisala said, in its current format, despite the many admirable aspects of the HIV Bill, the provisions that create criminal measures to enforce various HIV management efforts have the effect of infantilizing, criminalizing, stigmatizing and potentially victimizing women – particularly women who are already living with HIV.

Said Chisala: “Rather than being protective and preventive, the law is paternalistic, positing women as both victims and vectors of HIV. Yet in reality women living with HIV rarely describe themselves as “victims” when relaying how they became infected, and the language of vectors is especially harmful for those most marginalised members of society such as female sex workers.”

Chisala further explained that the HIV Bill both demonizes and infantilizes women, they are painted as carriers of the disease but also as potentially careless and callous mothers; and women of loose morals.

“In a country where more than half of the women are married before the age of 18, and it is within these relationships – and oftentimes violent relationships, a product of harmful cultural practices – that they either become infected or learn of their infection, in this manner, lives that are already filled with violence are suddenly even more fraught with danger, Chisala said.

Sarai added that there are clear public health implications to a pandemic such as HIV and AIDS and the role that the government opts to play in the management of the pandemic has a severe impact on the course of the disease.

According to the WLA president: “legislation can be used to set out the manner in which issues such as voluntary counselling and testing; partner notification; medical care and treatment of AIDS related illnesses; and, epidemiological surveillance, amongst other things, are handled,” adding; “The UNAIDS Handbook for Legislators on HIV/AIDS, Law and Human Rights (the Handbook) suggests that laws should require specific informed consent before HIV testing is done for fear of risking violation of a person’s right to both privacy and personal liberty, the Handbook also goes on to stress that targeting specific groups for compulsory testing is in violation of the non-discrimination principle under international human rights law.”

The WLA leader also noted with consternation that the overly punitive crafting of many of the provisions in the HIV Bill, that were intended to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS, are instead more likely to lead to disproportionate demonization and vilification of women living with HIV.

Some of the organizations which have openly challenged the newly introduced bill includes, female sex workers, Child Rights Information and Documentation Centre, Coalition of Women Living with HIV, AIDS Rights Alliance, Mango Network, Southern Africa Litigation Centre, Centre for Development of People, CHREAA, Youth Watch Society just to mention a few.

Published in the Nyasa Times on Nov 2, 2017

US: Ohio Supreme Court rules to to uphold its HIV criminalisation laws

Ohio Supreme Court Rules to Uphold Outdated and Unscientific HIV Criminalization Policies

COLUMBUS, OH—Today the Ohio Supreme Court ruled to continue the criminalization of individuals living with HIV. The ACLU of Ohio, The Center for HIV Law and Policy (“CHLP”), and nine other LGBTQ, HIV, medical and legal defense organizations, with assistance from the law firm Gibbons, P.C. and attorney Jeff Gamso, were amici in State of Ohio v. Batista, a case challenging Ohio Revised Code 2903.11(B)(1). Under this law, it is felonious assault – a second-degree felony – for a person who knows they are HIV positive to have sex without first disclosing their status to their sex partner.

“It makes no sense – medically or legally – to single out HIV for criminalization,” said Elizabeth Bonham, staff attorney at the ACLU of Ohio. “This law allows the state of Ohio to enter someone’s most intimate space, and control their bodies and their self-expression, based on who they are. What’s more, evidence shows us that laws like these do more damage to our communities—they don’t protect anyone.”

Laws that criminalize HIV are outdated, and ignore the scientific advances that have transformed the disease and those who are diagnosed. “We cannot allow the fears and confusion of the past to guide our current policy on HIV,” added Bonham. Ohio also has other HIV criminalization laws that attach harsher criminal penalties to some acts that carry no risk of transmitting HIV.

“This law, like all those that criminalize HIV, does not consider the actual risks of HIV transmission, how transmission occurs, or whether a person intends to transmit the virus,” said Mayo Schreiber, Deputy Director of the CHLP. Schreiber further noted “These laws do nothing to reduce HIV transmission. They neither foster behavior that mitigates the risk of transmission nor promote healthy sexual practices.”

“This decision by the Ohio Supreme Court furthers a stigma that should be relegated to history books. We will continue to work with people living with HIV and AIDS to end laws like these,” concluded Bonham.

UK: The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill proposes mandatory HIV testing following an alleged spitting/biting assault on frontline staff

Stabbed, Spat At, Punched: Emergency Workers Tell HuffPost UK Why New Law Is Needed To Protect Them: Now PM backs Bill to protect 999 staff from assault

A new law to protect emergency workers from assaults has won the personal backing of Theresa May after police, paramedics and nurses lobbied MPs for tougher sentences.

A private members’ bill to specifically target abuse against 999 staff has secured the Prime Minister’s approval, HuffPost UK has been told.

The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill, tabled by Labour MP Chris Bryant, is due to have its Second Reading in the Commons on Friday and is now expected to get enough Parliamentary time to get on the statute book.

Dubbed the ‘Protect The Protectors Law’, the bill follows a rising number of incidents where NHS, firefighters and police staff have been abused, attacked or spat at in the line of duty.

The legislation will for the first time deem assaults on emergency staff as “aggravated”, and subject to heavier sentences. It will also force suspects to provide samples of saliva or blood to ensure rapid testing of HIV and other illnesses.

Asked if the PM was giving her personal support to the bill, a No.10 spokesman told HuffPost UK: “That’s one the Government is backing, so you can take that as a ‘yes’.”

The Ministry of Justice and Home Office are expected to signal on Friday their support for the new legislation.

Backed by trade unions and staff bodies such as the Police Federation, an alliance of emergency workers held a ‘drop-in’ lobby of MPs in the Commons on Wednesday.

Bryant told HuffPost UK: “I’m really encouraged by how many MPs have come along, listened to emergency workers and said they’ll support the Bill.

“It’s not over until the votes are counted though and I’m not counting my chickens yet. All sorts of things could still go awry.”

Alan Lofthouse, national ambulance officer for the Unison trade union, said: “It’s only right that the full force of the law is used against anyone who attacks those trying to save lives and protect the public. This bill will help the courts to bring offenders to justice.”

HuffPost UK talked to five emergency workers, each with their own stories of why a new law was needed.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-backs-new-law-protecting-emergency-workers-from-assaults-in-line-of-duty-five-case-studies_uk_59e7b1cce4b00905bdae7e17

Belarus: More than 50 cases of criminal prosecution of HIV in Belarus in the first 6 months of 2017

Belarusian legislation discriminates against HIV-positive people (Google translation – Article in russian below)

In the six months of 2017, the number of cases of criminal prosecution of HIV-positive people in Article 53 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus (Infection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus) has significantly increased in all regions of Belarus, especially in the Gomel region.

If in the period from 2012 to 2016, 38 cases were registered, then for 6 months in 2017 – more than 50 people were convicted, many of them are serving sentences in places of deprivation of liberty.

“The Belarusian community of PLWH” notes that at a time when calls for testing and self-testing for HIV are sounding throughout the country, campaigns are underway to create a tolerant attitude, people with identified HIV status are being prosecuted. The topic of HIV infection is actively discussed in the Belarusian press and abroad, thereby creating a negative, negative impression about people living with HIV, creating a new wave of enmity, stigma and discrimination in society.

Article 157 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus was approved in 1999, when HIV infection was considered an incurable disease. Since then, about 20 years have passed, mankind has stepped into a new age, medical approaches have changed, highly effective treatment has appeared, HIV is no longer a deadly disease, and has become chronic, well controlled by antiretroviral treatment. In HIV-positive people taking ARV therapy, with an undetectable viral load, the risk of HIV transmission during sexual intercourse is reduced to almost zero.

Article 157 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus consists of three parts:

Knowingly placing another person at risk of contracting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) – is punishable by a fine, or by arrest, or by imprisonment for up to three years.
Infection of another person by frivolity or with the indirect intent of HIV by a person who knew about his having this disease is punishable by imprisonment for a term of two to seven years.
The action provided for in paragraph 2 of this article, committed against two or more persons, either knowingly underage, or with direct intent, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of five to thirteen years.

In the first and second parts of this article, criminal cases are instituted against people who live in legal marriages or couples where one partner is HIV-positive even if he has informed his partner about HIV-carrier, even if the fact of one from family members is taken completely consciously and voluntarily.

In accordance with the requirements of Art. 157 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, discordant marriages in general are under the ban and under penalty of criminal responsibility, as well as one-time voluntary sexual contacts between people of different HIV status.

In Belarus there are presumably more than 500 discordant couples. They live and work, multiplying the welfare of their country, are good taxpayers. Practically every family has children who risk being left in single-parent families, without parental care, because of the absurdity and inhumanity of law enforcement practice.

Russia also provides for criminal liability for posing a risk of contracting HIV infection under art. 122 of the Criminal Code. Thanks to the active efforts of the Russian community of PLHIV, an important note was added to the article in 2003, on the basis of which the person who put the partner at risk of infection or who infected him with HIV infection is released from criminal liability “if another person put at risk of infection, or was infected with HIV infection, was warned in a timely manner about the presence of the first of this disease and voluntarily agreed to perform actions that created the danger of infection. ” Such an addition in Article 122 of the Criminal Code released HIV-positive Russians with established HIV status from criminal prosecution.

“Belarusian community of PLWH” believes that Article 157 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus contradicts international and national legal norms. Under current legislation, an HIV-positive person can not feel a full-fledged citizen of their country. Such a practice with respect to people living with HIV is discriminatory and requires an early resolution at the legislative level of Belarus!

As of September 1, 2017, there were 18,438 HIV-positive people registered in Belarus.

Published in ECU on Oct 6, 2017

—————————————–

Белорусское законодательство дискриминирует ВИЧ-позитивных людей

За шесть месяцев 2017 года во всех регионах Беларуси, особенно в Гомельской области, значительно увеличилось количество случаев уголовного преследования ВИЧ-положительных людей по статье 157 Уголовного Кодекса Республики Беларусь (Заражение вирусом иммунодефицита человека).

Если в период с 2012 по 2016 годы было зарегистрировано 38 случаев, то за 6 месяцев 2017 года — более 50-ти человек были осуждены, многие из них отбывают срок наказания в местах лишения свободы.

«Белорусское сообщество ЛЖВ» отмечает, что в то время, когда по всей стране звучат призывы к тестированию и самотестированию на ВИЧ, проходят кампании по формированию толерантного отношения, люди с выявленным ВИЧ-статусом подвергаются уголовному преследованию. Тема о заражении ВИЧ активно муссируется в белорусской прессе и за ее пределами, тем самым формируя отрицательное, негативное впечатление о людях, живущих с ВИЧ, порождая новую волну вражды, стигмы и дискриминации в обществе.

Статья 157 Уголовного Кодекса Республики Беларусь была утверждена в 1999 году, когда ВИЧ-инфекция считалась неизлечимым заболеванием. С тех пор прошло около 20 лет, человечество перешагнуло в новый век, поменялись медицинские подходы, появилось высокоэффективное лечение, ВИЧ больше не является смертельно опасным заболеванием, и перешел в разряд хронических, хорошо контролируется антиретровирусным лечением. У ВИЧ-положительных людей, принимающих АРВ-терапию, при неопределяемой вирусной нагрузке риск передачи ВИЧ при половых контактах снижается практически до нуля.

Статья 157 УК РБ состоит из трех частей:

Заведомое поставление другого лица в опасность заражения вирусом иммунодефицита человека (ВИЧ) – наказывается штрафом, или арестом, или лишением свободы на срок до трех лет.
Заражение другого лица по легкомыслию или с косвенным умыслом ВИЧ лицом, знавшим о наличии у него этого заболевания – наказывается лишением свободы на срок от двух до семи лет.
Действие, предусмотренное частью 2 настоящей статьи, совершенное в отношении двух или более лиц, либо заведомо несовершеннолетнего, либо с прямым умыслом, – наказывается лишением свободы на срок от пяти до тринадцати лет.

По 1 и 2-ой части данной статьи возбуждаются уголовные дела по отношению к людям, которые живут в законных браках или парах, где один из партнеров является ВИЧ-положительным, даже если он проинформировал своего партнера о ВИЧ-носительстве, даже если факт заболевания одного из членов семьи принят совершенно осознанно и добровольно.

В соответствии с требованиями ст. 157 УК РБ дискордантные браки вообще находятся под запретом и под страхом уголовной ответственности, равно как и разовые добровольные половые контакты между разными по ВИЧ-статусу людьми.

В Беларуси предположительно насчитывается более 500 дискордантных пар. Они живут и трудятся, преумножая благосостояние своей страны, являются добропорядочными налогоплательщиками. Практически в каждой семье есть дети, которые рискуют остаться в неполных семьях, без попечения родителей, по причине абсурдности и антигуманности правоприменительной практики.

В России также предусмотрена уголовная ответственность за поставление в опасность заражения ВИЧ-инфекцией по ст. 122 УК РФ. Благодаря активным действиям российского сообщества ЛЖВ, в 2003 году в статью было внесено важное примечание, на основании которого человек, поставивший партнера в опасность заражения, либо заразивший его ВИЧ-инфекцией, освобождается от уголовной ответственности, «если другое лицо, поставленное в опасность заражения, либо зараженное ВИЧ-инфекцией, было своевременно предупреждено о наличии у первого этой болезни и добровольно согласилось совершить действия, создавшие опасность заражения». Такое дополнение в ст.122 УК РФ освободило ВИЧ-положительных россиян с установленным ВИЧ-статусом от уголовного преследования.

«Белорусское сообщество ЛЖВ» считает, что статья 157 УК РБ противоречит международным и национальным правовым нормам. При существующем законодательстве ВИЧ-положительный человек не может чувствовать себя полноправным гражданином своей страны. Подобная практика по отношению к людям, живущим с ВИЧ является дискриминационной, и требует скорейшего разрешения на законодательном уровне Беларуси!

По состоянию на 1 сентября 2017 года в Беларуси зарегистрировано 18 438 ВИЧ-положительных людей.

Australia: Amendment to New South Wales Public Health Act, with its punitive focus on STIs transmission, risks undermining the Act intent

Is one person to blame if another gets a sexually transmissible infection (STI)? In most Australian states, if you have certain STIs, you have a legal responsibility to notify your potential sexual partners.

The NSW government last week passed an amendment to the state’s Public Health Act that increased the associated penalties by doubling the maximum fines and adding potential jail time.

Section 79 (1) of the Act now reads:

A person who knows that he or she has a notifiable disease, or a scheduled medical condition, that is sexually transmissible is required to take reasonable precautions against spreading the disease or condition.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

In addition to increasing potential penalties, the amendment removed an earlier provision mandating disclosure of STI status, replacing it instead with the need for “reasonable precautions”.

This is a positive change for the law that reflects the best available research on STIs and transmission. Yet its coupling with increased penalties has sent a mixed message about sexual health in the state.

Further, the idea that punishing STI exposure or transmission will decrease rates of infection is not supported by global research on HIV, and there is no reason to believe this would be any different for other STIs.

Laws across Australia

Health law is pretty complex and mainly left up to each state and territory. Generally speaking, across Australia you risk some kind of punishment for knowingly infecting another person with what are often referred to as “notifiable diseases”. This list covers a range of infections but STIs include chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis, HIV, shigella, donovanosis, and hepatitis a, b and c.

In some states, notably New South Wales, Tasmania and Queensland, it’s an offence just to knowingly expose someone to an infection, even if they don’t actually become infected. While in other states, like Victoria and South Australia, health acts do not specify penalties for exposure or transmission, referring instead to the respective crime acts. For the most part, curable STIs do not rank as serious enough for criminal prosecution.

What is unique about NSW is that it uses the Public Health Act to single out STIs and describe specific punishments above and beyond other infections.

Although laws in NSW seem unusually fixated on STIs, the move away from mandated disclosure in favour of “reasonable precautions” is a positive step. While disclosure may seem sensible on the surface, it’s not the most effective at preventing transmission. This is because disclosure requires that someone be aware of an infection and many people with an STI don’t realise they are infected. For example, it’s estimated nearly three quarters of chlamydia infections in young people in Australia go undiagnosed every year. Relying on disclosure can, therefore, give people a false sense of security.

There are other more effective strategies than disclosure for protecting someone from infection. With HIV, for example, successful treatment means the risks of transmitting the virus to another person are virtually nonexistent. Under the amended NSW law, treatment could quite rightly be considered a reasonable precaution to avoid transmitting HIV.

But the state’s Public Health Act is relevant to all STIs, not just HIV. For other infections, it’s less clear what precautions might be seen as reasonable. Condoms can offer protection from some infections, but not all, and they are rarely used for oral sex. Given more and more chlamydia and gonorrhoea cases are identified in the throat, this is potentially problematic.

Punishment doesn’t help

Every year, there are over 100,000 STI diagnoses across Australia, the vast majority of which can be cured using antibiotics. Ultimately, public health initiatives aim to reduce new cases and lower the overall amount of infection.

It’s been suggested by public health experts that criminalising transmission can undermine public health efforts by reinforcing stigma and causing people to delay accessing testing, treatment and care.

And in a review of legal conditions around the world, researchers found that there was no link between laws criminalising HIV transmission and lower infection rates. The review also found such laws disproportionately impacted those who may experience marginalisation, such as young people and women.

In reality, situations where an individual recklessly or wilfully places another at risk of an STI are incredibly rare and health officials have many options besides punishment.

As part of their core work, doctors and clinics counsel on and work with people to prevent onward transmission, and in some cases public health orders can be used to compel people to, among other actions, attend counselling and refrain from activities that might spread an infection. In the most extreme situations, criminal charges can be brought on the basis of grievous bodily harm.

Overall, a special and punitive focus to STIs risks further entrenching stigma and undermining the Act’s intent, which is to manage and reduce infection. If there is any hope of reducing STIs in Australia, laws must aim to foster an environment where people feel comfortable, able and willing to get tested and engaged with their sexual health.

While it seems unlikely a rush to prosecute those who expose others to STIs will spring up from this amendment, the law as it is currently written leaves open that rather serious possibility. In NSW and across Australia, health law consistently places the burden of prevention on one partner. In an ideal world, all parties to a sexual encounter take “reasonable precautions” to protect themselves and each other from infection.