The Criminalization of HIV Non-Disclosure & Exposure: Impacts of Legal Violence on the Lives of People Living with HIV /
This presentation prepared for the 2017 Annual Conference for the Canadian Association of HIV/AIDS Research elaborates some initial findings from an ongoing qualitative research project examining the lived experiences of people who have been criminally charged, prosecuted or threatened with charges in relation to HIV non-disclosure and/or exposure in Canada, a country well known for being a global hot spot for this application of the law.
I am situated in the fields of critical socio-legal studies, surveillance studies and feminist ethnography. Aligned within the historical trajectory of critical social science research attention is paid to systems of oppression, and the resulting suffering of social actors, with the aim of making people contend with that suffering as an act supporting efforts toward forms of emancipation.
In very general terms, research on the issue of HIV criminalization has often used the HIV response and public health imperatives as the frame of analysis. Such as, elaborating that punitive laws cause a chilling effect in healthcare interactions or can deter HIV testing and therefore there is a negative public health impact. This research is very valuable and has been helpful for advocacy, but has been organized in ways which misses the perspectives of those who had faced criminalization first-hand and their suffering under punitive laws.
My project shifts the frame of analysis to the experiences of people with lived experience of punitive criminal and public health laws. I have been working to understand what the experience of being labeled a criminal and risk to public safety means for those who live it.
An outcome of this shift in orientation is that attention becomes focused toward the suffering of people labeled ‘criminal’, the criminal justice system itself, and the role of punishment in Canadian society.
Methodologically, my work is aligned with feminist forms of ethnographic sociological research. I approach my work using a qualitative inquiry that allows for a interactive process in the development of knowledge on people’s lives.
Here the frame of analysis is the daily lives of people who are criminalized, and the role of the researcher is to centrally place people’s lived experiences first-hand in the research.
I engaged in a wide range of field work, working with multiple people, multiple times over the course of a year. I trust people with their own stories and to be experts on their lives.
With this approach I am resisting forms of research that turn people's lives into a "cases" to be studied (a common approach with research on legal and criminal phenomenon). I resist approaches where living subjects with agency are turned into an object of analysis on paper. Where a person's experiences are made into a knowledge commodity from which researchers build forms of exclusive expertise and capital. Or, which can force us to frame complex nuanced phenomenon into abstracted ways that are disconnected from the social world. My work tries to resist these forms of abstraction and reduction.
To elaborate my approach, I wanted to share these two pictures that one of the people in my study shared with me. This was his daily lived reality for over four years. This is what he saw and the space he inhabited. We often do not often see inside prisons. Inside this one, the man who gave these photos to me was witness to multiple violent beatings. He was routinely denied access to healthcare as a form of punishment by guards. This is where he was when he missed important life events in his family on the outside. Sharing these pictures is part of helping to shift the frame of how we see this issue towards the perspectives of people and their everyday lives.
Privacy is extremely important for criminological research. It is doubly important for people who have had their trust broken many times, who have repeatedly had their HIV status and charges outted by police and media, or they have had their privacy breached by their doctors and nurses (people they assumed protected their confidentiality).
This is the first project of it's kind focused on qualitatively interviewing solely people with lived experience of criminalization related to HIV in Canada, and as a result, I had to do a whole range of research on the privacy implications of my work. I then designed a detailed protocol around protection of privacy, which is very similar to that of an investigative journalist. One of the contributions of this project is the attention to processes around confidentiality.
The process I have undertaken explicitly aims to protect against the potential breach due to a subpoena– as the outcome could very negatively impact the participant’s lives. There was a complex and rigorous ethics review process which I hinged on the protection of privacy of participants in the study.
Outside of methodological privacy concerns, many of the people in my study are highly socially marginalized and do not have access to privacy in their daily lives. Tim Horton’s should have been one of my sponsors – you’d be surprised how many of my interviews were done next to those fake Tim Horton’s fireplaces.
Also with privacy, when shifting the frame of analysis to the lives of people who have lived criminalization, some common things we do when talking about this issue can become questionable. For example, using the last name of people to refer to precedent setting or common cases- a normal practice that goes often unquestioned (something I have done regularly when talking about the 2012 Supreme Court decisions). But once you talk to the people whose names are reproduced over and over again it becomes apparent that this can be an unjust practice as it is repeatedly disclosing someone’s HIV status and criminal charge without their consent. The practice goes unquestioned as people with histories of criminalization are denied eligibility to have autonomy over their own life information is so many ways. And while this one might seem small, understanding these small practices, which can do injustice can help us to see things from the perspectives of those who have lived it.
To give people a sense of the project’s scope, I’ve included some insights. My study uses a purposive sample, meaning I aimed to target a specific group of people – those with experiences of being charged with in relation to HIV exposure and non-disclosure. We know of around 184 people with this experience in Canada. The available sample of people to interview is constrained as it is widely diverse, and is not easy to find, or are in one discreet location or sub-culture. Some of these people are not possible to interview as as they are incarcerated and Corrections Service Canada regulations about which prisoners can be eligible to participate in research projects, other people have been deported, and some have died or been killed.
I have not yet interviewed people who are incarcerated (some are accessible, others are not depending on treatment in institution). I have interviewed people with histories of incarceration.
I was in touch with twenty-four different people, but for a range of reasons, including incarceration they have not been eligible to connect with me due to bureaucratic barriers. Due to how racialized this situation is, it is important to note that a majority of those not eligible people were black men charged and/or prosecuted in relation to heterosexual sex. Some were in the process of a case and it was decided by their lawyers that they should not participate. Although, being in a ongoing trial did not automatically exclude someone, as I did also speak to a number of people who were in the middle of various court proceedings.
I conducted twenty-seven interviews with fourteen people, interviews were around one-hour long.
My work also has a strong empirical grounding in archival research on case files, media stories and other historical documents.
Because this study is unique, some people have been interested in these types of enumerable data. So I am making them available in a limited fashion. But I need to caution that my research resists processes that reduce unique and complex life experiences into variables that allow people to generalize. This research project is not about producing generalizable findings that can be widely applied.
And, for a range of reasons, as I indicated in the previous slide, is it not possible to garner a sample of participants that is exactly representative of what we understand the demographics of these cases to be. This could be due to where people are, my own social position, bureaucratic barriers, people’s own stigma and fear, and the fact that due to forms of violence while incarcerated, or due to their natural life course, people have died.
But ultimately elaborating my research in this way in numbers helps provide one sliver of an insight, but may do a disservice, and misses a more complex and nuanced understanding how people’s lives and experiences will be further elaborated in subsequent research findings that I will develop.
To explore suffering I engage with the notion of legal violence. This is a concept that helps elaborate the relationship between law and violence, and the consequences faced by people labeled as criminals. Here we can understand violence not always as a direct physical blow from one person to another, but rather violence as the outcome of a system, or inaction and failure of a system.
People can be subject to forms of legal violence when they are placed in a negative relation to the law. People living with HIV today in Canada often live in a negative relation to the law just due to the fact that they are HIV-positive. We can very easily be placed in a tenuous relationship with our legally regarded personhood. As are many marginalized people, this form of violence is a colonial violence, a racialized violence, homophobic and misogynistic violence. People who also are institutionally marked as criminals exist in a negative relation to the law, they can be people who are rendered civilly and socially dead under legal regimes. I draw on this notion of living in a negative relation to the law through the work of Colin Dayan.
Living in a negative relation to the law means that one is rendered less of a person with codified rights, less of a person who is in need of protection from the law, and is rather regarded as an object of risk, one that legally constituted persons are to be protected from– protected from through forms of control, coercion and incapacitation.
Removing someone’s autonomy, limiting their right to liberty, marking them a a risk to the safety of others, as people who are to be under heightened surveillance. These are forms of violence that comprise the unmaking of a person through law, and these forms of violence come to organize the lives of people who are criminalized in relation to HIV non-disclosure and exposure. These forms of legal violence then make possible a whole array of other forms of violence.
Two other big word concepts that are also important for this work are inter-institutionality and interlegality (think intersectionality, but with laws and institutions). These concepts became important as a way to explain the systems of oppression which organize people’s lives when threatened with charges, charged or prosecuted. This complex array of institutions includes public health, criminal justice, healthcare etc. They may have different governing logics, jurisdictions and rationalities (sometimes complementary, or contradictory), which can have, in their integrated effects, outcomes that would not be possible through one of the legal systems, or institutions working alone.
These concepts help to explain how interconnected systems are and that this issue of HIV criminalization is not just a discreet criminal law issue or, or an issue that can be solved via public health laws. Explicating the complexity of systems of oppression helps to understand how to respond, and also challenges the assumption that public health institutions, policing, community-based organizations, and criminal law institutions act distinctly from one another, and that they operate using different forms of distinct knowledge. Because it is much more complex and intertwined than that.
The consequences of legal violence and all these laws and institutions working simultaneously is that people can be punished more harshly, and in diverse, far-reaching ways that extend beyond just their official sentence, if they are prosecuted. Penality is just another word referring to the punishment of people.
All people who are labeled criminal in Canada are subject and vulnerable to violence. But people who are labeled as criminal in relation to HIV non-disclosure and/or exposure face a environment of amplified punishment.
This amplification of punishment begins as soon as the charges are threatened or applied and does not relate to a guilty verdict.
Twelve of the people I spoke with were charged with aggravated sexual assault – which is one of the most serious charges in the criminal code. Two of the people were threatened with charges by police, but charges were never laid. Seven of the people are now registered sex offenders. As a result of being on the registries they cannot get the jobs they had previous experience doing, which means their economic security is constantly threatened far after serving a sentence.
I have tried to explicate a typology to help analyze the punishment that people face.
Some forms of punishment are formal and sanctioned and can include forms of surveillance and regulation that are institutionally enacted into people. Punishment here is focused on reducing of capacities and risks. It is organized around forms of containment, regulation, and compromising personal autonomy security and safety. An example from this project would be people being housed in administrative segregation (which is 23.5 hours a day in a cell alone) often stated as an extension of protective custody and a way to protect the person from the violence of other incarcerated people.
Informal forms of punishment are interpersonal, causal and daily forms of stigma, discrimination, abuse and violence that are enabled after someone is institutionally marked as a criminal in relation to HIV specific crime. Building on the example of administrative segregation, an informal punishment would be corrections guards leaking information about a person’s HIV status and sexual assault charges to other prisoners, thus putting a that person in a context where they will be regularly and severely beaten due to having HIV and a rape charge. Beatings which ultimately then lead to that person formally being put into administrative segregation.
So you can see that these two forms of penality, formal and informal, rely on each other and are intertwined in different ways.
And it is important to note that police, prison guard and prisoner beatings were indicated numerous times by the people I spoke with.
This text message to me from one person involved in the project elaborates how penality extends into the everyday life of people and how it circumscribes the life chances of people – in the case of this man, the charges were ultimately dropped. But due to being in the media he is regularly denied housing and jobs due to having an easily Google-able history of being charged with aggravated sexual assault and having HIV.
As a result of the ongoing stigma related to their cases, those who have served time, or had their charges stayed or dropped still state that the past case impacts their lives. People have been denied jobs and housing because when their names are Googled information about them being a rapist with HIV comes up. Their economic security continues to be threatened long after they have served their time, or charges were dropped.
While people are under heightened policing, surveillance and scrutiny, they are simultaneously under protected and under supported. People describe many instances of severe lack of knowledge on behalf of police officers, corrections officers, lawyers and judges related to HIV. Often out-dated, or blatant misinformation was communicated by people making decisions about people's lives.
This meant that those charged were placed in a position where they had to educate the people who were tasked with arresting and punishment them, or just be faced with decisions being made based on fear and ignorance. A few examples: A judge not allowing a witness in one case for fear that their HIV status would contaminate the courtroom, a corrections officer holding a man down on the ground with his boot saying he would never touch someone who had HIV for fear of infection, instances of officers wearing gloves and face masks, and instances of lawyers counseling people to plead guilty when the person had an undetectable viral load and no transmission occurred. In these instances, the plea was taken out of fear and for family.
As a result of their experiences, every person I spoke with told me they had tired to commit suicide, or had long periods of regular suicidal ideation. All of them also now have a complex and strained relationship with society. Many are very angry at society, a society, which took their personhood away and has treated them as less than human. All of this violence enacted towards them because of a crime that is entirely non-violent, and in which the notion of harm is an ideological one rooted in HIV stigma and AIDS-phobia. In many instances people indicated to me that they were working to take care of their health and others, which is associated with preventing transmission. But still they were harshly punished due to how the law is currently applied.
To close, I would like to reflect on the notion of bearing witness. I mobilize this concept linking it to a critical approach. Bearing witness to suffering is what I understand to be an ethical approach to research and action in a unjust world.
Bearing witness, as a notion, acknowledges my role as an active observer with ethical obligations. To take care in how I handle the complexity of the information I am collecting.
The people I have been working with engaged in the project as they wanted others to bear witness to what has happened to them as a form of healing and justice.
This project is about revealing these forms of legal violence, ones that are simultaneously institutional and interpersonal. Violence that is often obscured through bureaucracy, or obscured because the people onto whom this violence is enacted have been deemed unworthy of living as safeguarded persons.
Through this work I hope we will be better positioned to deem those situation unacceptable, and to contribute towards critiques challenging the administration of punishment in our society. To bear witness so that we must contend with these experiences and call for action.
Pleased to see the launch of the new book Mobilizing Metaphor Art, Culture, and Disability Activism in Canada edited by Dr. Christine Kelly & Dr. Michael Orsini. Jessica Whitbread and I have a chapter in the book looking at 4 years of our work on the PosterVirus activist/art affinity group of AIDS ACTION NOW! In the chapter, we engage with a series of the posters from over the years and discuss how those works have acted to stake claims forour sexual autonomy as people living with HIV - in a world organized around regulating and controlling our bodies.
HIV criminalization “describes the unjust application of the criminal law to people living with HIV based on their HIV status – either via HIV-specific criminal statutes, or by applying general criminal laws exclusively or disproportionately against people with HIV”. Human rights advocates and organizations have tracked hundreds of cases worldwide, identifying the relationship between systemic forms of discrimination and HIV criminalization.
This panel discussion explores the social justice implications of HIV criminalization. It will feature the world premiere of the 2016 documentary film, HIV Is Not A Crime. See the trailer here!
This event is primarily in English. The room is accessible via elevator. There are no steps to get into the building.
Edwin Bernard, Global Co-ordinator, HIV Justice Network
The Global Picture: Surveying the State of HIV Criminalisation:
This presentation will introduce audience members to HIV criminalisation from a global perspective, and why it is problematic for public health as well as human rights. It will highlight countries that have HIV-specific criminal statutes, as well as jurisdictions, such as Canada, which, in spite of not having HIV-specific criminal laws on the books, have vigorously prosecuted people living with HIV.
Alexander McClelland, Concordia University
Criminal Charges for HIV Non-disclosure, Transmission and/or Exposure: Impacts on the Lives of People Living with HIV in Canada
This presentation will elaborate some initial findings from an ongoing research project that is examining the lived experiences of people who have been criminally charged in Canada in relation to HIV non-disclosure, transmission and/or exposure. Canada is well-known as a country with high rates of criminalization towards people living with HIV. Through a series of qualitative interviews this project seeks to understand the material outcomes for HIV-positive people who live their lives in a negative relation to the law due to being institutionally marked as a ‘criminal’ and a ‘risk to public safety’ through the process of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure, transmission and/or exposure.
Laurel Sprague, Research Fellow in HIV, Gender, and Justice, HIV Justice Network
Your Sentence is Not My Freedom: Feminism, HIV Criminalization and Systems of Stigma
HIV criminalisation takes different form in different legal contexts, yet always arises from social hierarchies, and related stigmatising attitudes, based on gender, sexual orientation, class, and other forms of marginalized minority status. Examining the Canadian Context, in which prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure have relied primarily on the use of sexual assault laws, provides important insights into the ways in which HIV-related stigma creates an interlocking web of discrimination for people living with and most vulnerable to HIV. This presentation explores ways in which gender is used both to justify HIV criminalisation and to prosecute people who are seen to violate gendered norms of behaviour, then discusses ways in which Canadian feminists have led the critical response to the use of sexual assault laws in HIV non-disclosure prosecutions.
Andrew Spieldenner, Hofstra University
The Cost of Acceptable Losses: Exploring Intersectionality, Meaningful Involvement of People with HIV, and HIV Criminalization
Intersectionality is a vital part of engaging in social justice coalition work. In HIV criminalization efforts, intersectionality means understanding how place, position and power get enacted and acted on. I will explore how intersectionality functions in the lives of PLHIV, and in particular how the meaningful involvement of people with HIV requires a complex engagement with intersectionality. Organizing around HIV criminalization requires an intersectional understanding rooted in the notion that none of us are acceptable losses. I will utilize two case studies in the American context: California and Colorado.
Introduced by Liz Lacharpagne, COCQ-SIDA and Martin French, Concordia University
Public projection and spectacle collaboration between Mikiki & Alexander McClelland
****This is not a trigger warning, this is our lives: presentation contains graphic discussions of various forms of violence****
As a collaboration between artist Mikiki and doctoral student Alexander McClelland this work pieces together media reports and juridical documents so as to understand how people’s lives are discursively constructed into cases, cases where individual people with HIV are transformed and come only to be known as ‘risks’ in need of care, control, regulation, surveillance, and incapacitation. In such cases, legal documents and media reports construct histories, histories in the service of an institutional logic that this at odds with the lives of people living with HIV. Rather than engaging in the normative debates presenting ‘innocent’ subjects in contrast to the ‘guilty’ mark of institutions, this collaborative work aims to understand the materiality of being marked as a ‘criminal’ and a ‘risk’ to public safety, and how hypervisibility is a tool used by state and private sector institutions to govern and create a public panic around HIV.
As a growing phenomenon in Canada – one that is disproportionate in scope to other countries– the expansion of legal governance of HIV is part of a fast growing trend in Canada, where there have been upwards of 185 criminal law cases since 1989 related to exposure or non-disclosure of HIV. Cases are on the rise, with high rates of prosecution for aggravated sexual assault charges that with a mandatory registration as a sex offender and sentence of up to life in prison. In these cases people’s photographs are plastered across media outlets with sensationalized headlines condemning the person with HIV as a criminal, vector of disease and dangerous, reckless and irresponsible person.
Read more here!
In May of 2015, I gave a keynote presentation on my research to the annual Healthy Sexuality and Harm Reduction Conference for the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. Here is the abstract for the presentation:
Globally, Canada is considered a ‘hot-spot’ for criminalizing the non-disclosure and exposure of HIV. With over 155 prosecutions and more cases on the rise, Canada is known for imposing harsh and punitive penalties against people living with HIV who do not tell sex partners their HIV status, or potentially expose others to infection. A majority of those are charged with aggravated sexual assault, one of the most severe charges in the Criminal Code. Social scientists have documented that the law related to HIV non-disclosure and exposure has been applied asymmetrically, leading to a sense of uncertainty among people living with HIV. Criminal cases related to HIV non- disclosure in Canada are strongly patterned by gender, race, and sexual orientation. But how did we get here? Why is Canada so exceptional in how the criminal justice system has responded to HIV? If we look back throughout history, we can see that in the early days of the Canadian settler-colonial state those infected with diseases of “vice” such as syphilis and gonorrhea were subject to similar legal measures and labeled social outcasts worthy of incarceration. Through a historical examination of a number of cases from the past and present, this presentation will examine the Canadian context of criminalization of HIV and other STIs. We will examine the role of public health in supporting or impeding this increasing practice of criminalizing diseases that are sexually transmitted. We will discuss strategies to end stigma, discrimination and start to work towards the decriminalization of HIV exposure and non-disclosure and the decarceration of people living with HIV.
Last month I presented at the Canadian Law and Society Association annual mid-winter meeting held in Montreal. For the presentation, I addressed what some perceive as an over-reliance on the criminal law to address the HIV non-disclosure in Canada. There have been calls from social scientists and activists to advance the use of public health legislation, regarded as a more ‘benevolent’ instrument of the state to manage people who have not told their HIV-positive status to sex partners. Using examples from two HIV non-disclosure cases in Ontario, I argued that public health legislation is one component of a diverse assemblage of technological formations of legal governance – comprised of public health law and criminal law, as well as civil law and other extra-legal practices – which have come to order the lives of certain classified people with HIV.
Examining the use of public health orders under Section 22 of the Ontario Health Promotion and Protection Act (HPPA), I discussed that these orders act as the first point of entry into a broader heterogeneous assemblage of legal actors, institutions, mechanisms and practices that act in concert to enable forms of surveillance and governance, constituting something altogether different than the stated benevolent intentions of public health. In the discussion I argued furthermore that public health legislation cannot be understood as easily divorced from this assemblage, or understood as a form of jurisprudence that can be applied in a silo. My analysis is grounded in a detailed examination of how public health orders are taken up in media reports, as evidence to inform court judgements, and in the context of psychiatric testimony by experts to classify ‘offenders’ as future risks to ‘public safety’. With a critical inquiry attuned to the social and historical constitution of the legal, I also discussed how these orders are underpinned by logic of risk mitigation, a logic aimed to protect the ‘public’ through governing the biologically and juridically marked viral underclass: the person with HIV who has come to be known as ‘unwilling’ or ‘unable’ to take the precautions to protect others from HIV transmission.