Canada: HIV "murderer" Aziga now also a "dangerous offender", locked up for life

Johnson Aziga, 55, an African migrant living with HIV, is a now officially a "dangerous offender" according to Canadian criminal law.

Mr Aziga is already considered a "murderer" two times over. He was convicted in 2009 of two counts of first-degree murder, ten counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault, because he had unprotected sex with eleven women without telling them he had HIV. Seven of the women subsequently tested HIV-positive, and two died of AIDS-related cancers within a couple of years of having had sex with Mr Aziga.

[A number of articles and blog posts on Mr Aziga's trial – and the media's reaction to it – can be found on my blog.]

Being a "dangerous offender" means he will likely remain in prison for the rest of his life – even in the unlikely event that his life sentence without the possibility of parole for 25 years for the murder convictions is overturned on appeal. [The whole "dangerous offender" process is considered by some legal experts to be discriminatory and "dangerous" because "putting the onus on criminals makes it too easy for the court system to declare people dangerous offenders.]

Johnson Aziga would have been at least 78 years old if he had been able to be considered for release after 25 years. And yet, somehow, the Canadian legal system considers that at this age, Mr Aziga's libido would be so voracious, his appeal so alluring to Canada's heterosexual female population, that he must be locked up for life.

Mr. Aziga's sex drive “is head and shoulders above” the average man's and “knowing his need for sex is not going to be satisfied” could deter him from disclosing his HIV status to potential partners, [Crown attorney Karen Shea argued]. “He didn't abstain from sex knowing what he knew (about having HIV), he didn't discuss his HIV status knowing what he knew and he didn't wear a condom knowing what he knew,” she told the court.

I am the only person that sees this as absurd - as both racist and HIV-phobic?

The legal characterisation of men of African origin with HIV as 'monstrously' hypersexual is not new. Back in 1993, Canada tried to convict Charles Ssenyonga of similar 'crimes' (His 'victims', like Aziga's, were all white women; his virus, like Aziga's, a "rare African strain".) Ssenyonga died before the trial concluded. The prosecution (and media's) focus on his hypersexual Africanness was explored in a fabulous 2005 article by James Miller, 'African Immigrant Damnation Syndrome: The Case of Charles Ssenyonga' published as part of a special issue of the social science journal, Sexuality Research & Social Policy called 'Reckless Vectors: The Infecting “Other” in HIV/AIDS Law.'

In the introduction by the journal's editors Heather Worth, Cindy Patton, and Diane Goldstein, they highlight the issue of racism in HIV criminal cases.

...the fact that the accused is African is used to indicate a priori an excessive and lethal sexuality and to position Africa itself as a deviant and viral continent and as the source and cause of AIDS. This prejudice extends to successive generations of African immigrants, as can be seen in the case of Nushawn Williams, an African American man from upstate New York. The same focus on Williams’ Black, eroticized body is evident in the numerous media accounts of the case.

Interestingly, Nushawn Williams is currently going through exactly the same process as Mr Aziga, having already served the maximum sentence of 12 years for the 'crimes' he pleaded guilty to back in 1998. Back in May 2010, a New York State Supreme Court judge ruled that Mr Williams "poses a danger to society and as a result, must remain behind bars even though his sentence is complete." He is now awaiting the outcome of his civil confinement hearing that has been delayed for almost a year.

Mr Aziga and Mr Williams are being punished twice over. The idea that society is protected from HIV by keeping them in prison indefinitely is erroneous and outrageous. In the past men used to "lock up their daughters" when a man of purported huge sexual prowess came sniffing around, as if their female offspring did not have a sexuality or a choice in whether or not to have sex with their suitor.

Now, society locks up "HIV monsters" because it thinks female members of society need protecting from them, as if they did not have a sexuality or a choice in whether or not to have sex with their suitor.

But the real problem is that focusing on Black or African HIV (in the guise of Aziga or Williams) creates a false sense of security because all sex comes with risks of HIV infection (and these risks are usually much higher from someone with HIV who is undiagnosed, and therefore unable to disclose).

Wouldn't it be better – and more cost-effective – to spend some money on HIV prevention education for the general public, so that white heterosexual women, and others who think that they are not at risk for HIV because they haven't been targeted with HIV prevention information (usually aimed at 'key populations' like gay men and Black or African communities) can learn how to protect themselves from HIV rather than foolishly relying on the criminal law to protect them after the fact?

US: Michigan bite man charged under anti-terrorism laws gets 11 months probation in plea deal (update-4)

Update: Dec 8th 2010
Macomb County Circuit Court Judge Peter Maceroni today sentenced the 46 year-old Michigan man once charged under terrorism laws for allegedly biting his neighbour to eleven months on probation after pleading guilty to a single assault charge. 

"This was nothing more than gay-bashing," attorney James L. Galen Jr. told Fox 2.  "The only reason my client took a plea deal was because of his health, and one of the witnesses didn't show up for the defense."

Mlive.com's headline, 'All bark, small bite: Probation for Clinton Twp man with HIV once charged with bioterrorism' can only hint at the ridiculousness of the charges and the pain and financial cost suffered by this man.  In the end, probation is still too much of a penalty, and it is far too late to repair the damaged reputations of both the man accused and HIV itself.

Update: Nov 5th 2010
Todd A Heywood of the Michigan Messenger, who has been following the case of the 46-year-old Michigan man who was charged with terrorism after biting his neighbour in October 2009, reports that the man has reached a plea deal on the two felony charges that remained following the rejection of the bioterrorism charges in June 2010.

Daniel Allen was originally charged with one count of bioterrorism, one count of assault with intent to maim and one count of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. Macomb County Circuit Court Judge Peter Maceroni rejected the bioterrorism charges in June, leaving Allen facing the two, ten-year felonies.

The charges stem from an October 2009 altercation between Allen and his neighbor Winfred Fernandis, Jr. Fernandis alleges that Allen attacked him without provocation, while Allen says the incident was part of a long running series of anti-gay harassment by Fernandis and his family. Fernandis says Allen bit his lip during the fight.

Under the plea deal, Allen has agreed to plead no contest to assault with intent to maim. Under the deal, if Allen successfully concludes a probation period, the charge will be changed to a misdemeanor of aggravated assault and the second charge, assault with intent to maim would be dismissed.

But Fernadis, the victim, told the Daily that he might back out of the agreement. He specifically told the newspaper he would be OK with the deal if Allen moved from the home he owns in Clinton Township.

Allen faces a sentencing hearing in front of Maceroni Dec. 8.

Update: Nov 20th 2009
Journalist Todd A Heywood reports in another Michigan Messenger article that

HIV activists from the group Michigan Positive Action Coalition have issued a press statement encouraging people with infectious diseases, including H1N1, HIV or the common cold, to call the Macomb County prosecutor and “voluntarily turn themselves in” to be charged with terrorism. In the statement issued by Mark Peterson, a director for the group, activists called the charges leveled against 44-year-old Clinton Township resident Daniel Allen “ridiculous.”

Update: Nov 18th
Journalist Todd A Heywood has published a second article in the Michigan Messenger that includes an interview with the man's lawyer, James Galen Jr.

The story has also been picked up by Michael Carter at aidsmap.com.

Original post: Nov 10th
Last week I reported on the case of an HIV-positive gay man in Michigan whose HIV status was revealed in a TV interview and who is now facing serious criminal charges for biting his neighbour during a fight.

Todd A Heywood of the Michigan Messenger has followed up on this story and discovered that one of the charges the man faces is a Kafkaesque terrorism charge - possession or use of a harmful device - that would create a legal precedent in Michigan if the charges actually stick.

The piece also includes an interview with a Republican State Rep. Rick Jones, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, and who believes that spitting should remain criminalised.

Jones said during an interview that if someone with HIV spits at a police officer while screaming ‘I hope you get AIDS,’ that that person should be charged with a crime, because that shows an intent, even if the mode of possible transmission via spitting “would be a very difficult way to transmit” the virus. He said the intent to spread the disease is the issue, not necessarily the mode.

The entire article is posted below, with Todd's permission.

State lawmakers question terrorism charges for HIV-positive man
Bite during fight called use of a 'harmful device' under anti-terror law

By Todd A Heywood, Michigan Messenger

An HIV-positive Macomb County man is facing charges created under Michigan’s 2004 terrorism laws for biting another man in a neighborhood scuffle. That, HIV advocates, state lawmakers and legal experts say is “cowardly” and “nonsense” and increases ignorance and stigma surrounding the virus.

State Rep. Mark Meadows, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee said in an interview he does not believe the legislature had the neighborhood fight situation in mind when it drafted the terrorism laws. The Democrat from East Lansing also said he thought the prosecution was “silly.”

“Is this a dangerous instrumentality? It’s like saying that because I breathed on you and I have tuberculosis and we are fighting, that somehow because I have this disease it suddenly becomes more than just that I have this disease,” said Meadows, a former assistant attorney general. “The other charges are more than sufficient to deal with the issues involved.”

In the end, Meadows believes that the circuit court judge will toss out the terrorism charge, which he said was “a stretch.”

A fight among neighbors

The case arose out of an Oct. 18 fight between 44-year-old Daniel Allen and his neighbor Winfred Fernandis Jr. What happened that day is disputed.

According to a report from Clinton Township Police Department, Fernandis said Allen jumped him without provocation when he went to retrieve a football neighborhood kids accidentally threw onto Allen’s yard. Fernandis, according to the police report, said Allen “hugged up” to him and began to bite him. Fernandis suffered a bite wound on the lip so severe, police say, it went all the way through the lip. Fernandis sought medical treatment and the wound was sewn shut.

Allen, however, alleges that Fernandis, his wife Denise and Fernandis’ father assaulted him, and he does not recall biting the younger Fernandis. He too sustained injuries during the incident, and his lawyer during a Nov. 2 hearing presented 37 photographs of injuries, including bite marks to Allen’s body. Allen and his attorney maintain Allen was the victim of a hate crime because Allen is gay. Since the incident, Allen has filed a personal protection order against the Fernadis family and a criminal complaint with the township police.

Following the incident, police were called in and after a brief investigation, placed Allen under arrest and charged him with two crimes: aggravated assault, a misdemeanor charge which carries a punishment of up to one year in jail and/or $1,000 fine and assault with intent to maim, a 10-year felony.

Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith refused to return multiple messages left for him. Allen’s attorney, James Gallen, did not return calls.

HIV Becomes the Feature of the Story

The story, a man severely biting another man, drew the attention of the Detroit-area media, and Fox 2 News soon had Allen on video admitting he was HIV-positive.

That admission lead Smith, a Democrat, to say he would seek additional charges. On Nov. 2, Smith’s office amended its complaint to add a charge of possession or use of a harmful device. That law is a 25-year felony and was part of a 2004 package of terrorism laws created by the legislature in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The law makes it a crime to have a harmful device, which is defined as either biological, chemical, electronic or radioactive. Smith’s office is arguing that Allen being infected with HIV was “a device designed or intended to release a harmful biological substance,” and that his bite was thus an attempt to spread HIV.

Smith’s office is relying on a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in a case of an HIV-positive, and hepatitis B infected prisoner who spit at prison guards during an altercation in the prison. In that case, People v. Antoine Deshaw Odom, the three judge panel found:

We therefore conclude that HIV infected blood is a ‘harmful biological substance,’ as defined by Michigan statute, because it is a substance produced by a human organism that contains a virus that can spread or cause disease in humans.

The three judge panel was silent on whether the hepatitis infection weighed in as a factor as a harmful biological substance. As a result of this finding, the court upheld a stricter sentencing score for Odom. In 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on the matter, upholding the Appeals Court decision.

On Nov. 2, District Court Judge Linda Davis concurred with Smith’s office and bound Allen over to Macomb Circuit Court to face the three charges.

According to The Macomb Daily, the judge said:

“[Allen] knew he was HIV-positive, and he bit the guy,” Davis said from the bench. “That on its own shows intent.”

Criminalizing HIV with traditional, non-HIV specific laws not new

HIV experts say it is a near impossibility to spread HIV through a human bite.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta said it has one case on record where it believes HIV was transmitted through a human bite. But the case, out of South Carolina, is of an older man who claims to have had no other risk factors except being bit by a sex worker who was infected with HIV. That sex worker claims the man refused to pay for her sexual services, and she bit him in an attempt to get her money.

But, even allowing for that case, experts say there are other factors to consider. In 2003, the most recent year available for statistics on the CDC website, about 1 million people in the United States were living with HIV/AIDS, putting the prevalence of HIV transmission via biting at .000000001 percent. In contrast, an online search of news reports finds hundreds of media reports of biting incidents involving HIV-positive people.

“Even if you accepted that as a transmission case,” said Catherine Hanssens, executive director of the New York City-based Center for HIV Law and Policy. The charges against Allen, she said, simply aren’t warranted. “It’s just nonsense. It’s cowardly. It’s the kind of thing that keeps kids [with HIV] out of day care and camps and allows kids [with HIV] to be kicked out of karate case.”

She said cases like Allen’s are proof that the nation is failing to address the epidemic with common sense. “It’s continuing the boogey-man characterization of people with HIV,” she said.

“This troubles me very much,” says Lambda Legal HIV Project Director Bebe Anderson. “I think it is a very dangerous thing for prosecution to proceed with a charge or an enhanced charge based on a person’s HIV status. Typically these prosecutions are based on ignorance about HIV transmission. These prosecutions add to ignorance in the general public about HIV transmission, and they certainly add to the stigmatization of people living with HIV.”

The move to charge Allen with terrorism-related charges, Anderson said, was deeply troubling.

“Its a very dangerous notion that somebody who has a physical condition such as H1N1 or HIV or some other virus, that, that person then can then be charged with having a harmful biological substance and then if they are out there in contact with other people and they are putting other people at risk it is troubling.” said Anderson. “That’s not something that is legitimately criminalized and these prosecutions start us in that direction in a very dangerous way, I think.”

Anderson said to her knowledge this is the first time she has seen a terrorism law used in connection with an HIV-infected persons prosecution. She said she believes the terrorism law is being misapplied, and that Allen’s defense is going to have to make basic information about HIV and its transmission clear to the courts.

“I think it is very important to try to get in front of the judges and the prosecution accurate information about HIV,” Anderson said. “I think what happens is that these prosecutions are fueled by ignorance, then unfortunately that ignorance gets compounded because the judge makes a ruling or the jury makes a ruling based on fear and myths of HIV and not the actual risk posed by particular conduct.”

Hanssens and Anderson said that the trend of charging HIV-positive people with charges based on their HIV status is nothing new, but both say there has been an increase in cases in recent years.

“What seems new is there seems to be a sudden uptick in the number of these type of cases in the last year or so,” Anderson said.

HIV activist Mark Peterson, from Michigan POZ Action said he is also concerned about this case. In an email statement to Michigan Messenger, Peterson said:
“This sort of conflict is sad anytime it happens. At the same time, charging a person with possession or use of a harmful device simply because they have an infection, especially where the is NO scientific evidence of HIV ever being spread this way, is just another example of how our laws are based on fear and ignorance and not science…Its interesting to see how the impact of stigma and homophobia that still surrounds HIV shows up in our legal system.”

And Meadows is not the only legislator sounding off on the case.

State Sen. Hansen Clarke, a Detroit Democrat and a vocal advocate on behalf of people living with HIV/AIDS, said in an interview that the charges are out of proportion.

“I think we need to put this in perspective in light of the tragic events at Fort Hood,” Clarke said. “That should be investigated as terrorism. The magnitude of the instances is not even similar.”

He said the impact of such a prosecution was “harmful” to addressing HIV stigma in the state.

“I don’t think our legal system should treat everyone that has a disease that could be communicated to some one else differently,” Clarke said.

State Rep. Rick Jones, a Republican from Grand Ledge who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said the terrorism charge was likely not appropriate.

“If it was a fight and people were biting each other I would not think that is an appropriate charge,” said Jones, a former Eaton County sheriff. “I think you should able to be charged with attempt to transfer HIV if it can be shown in a court of law you made a genuine attempt to transfer [it].”

Changes in law deemed necessary

While the use of non-specific HIV laws to criminalize those infected is not a new trend, neither are the laws to criminalize HIV. Michigan passed a law in 1988 which makes it a felony for a person who knows he or she is infected with HIV to engage in sexual penetration, however slight, without disclosing that status first.

In April, Michigan Messenger highlighted the story of Michael Holder who spent eight years in a Michigan prison for allegedly failing to disclose his HIV-status to his partner. The Iowa Independent, Michigan Messenger’s sibling site, has closely followed the criminal prosecution and conviction of Nick Rhoades, who was convicted of failing to disclose his HIV status and sentenced to 25 years in prison. He was released in September and is serving a five-year stint on probation after a judge reconsidered his harsh sentence.

Federal law mandated all states to certify each had a law in place to criminally prosecute people with HIV who did not disclose that to people before engaging in behavior which might spread the virus. That mandate was made in 1990 and by 2000 all 50 states had certified.

But two decades into the epidemic, with science getting a better understanding of HIV and how it is spread, lawmakers are beginning to say the current laws need to be revisited.

Jones said during an interview that if someone with HIV spits at a police officer while screaming ‘I hope you get AIDS,’ that that person should be charged with a crime, because that shows an intent, even if the mode of possible transmission via spitting “would be a very difficult way to transmit” the virus. He said the intent to spread the disease is the issue, not necessarily the mode.

Jones, who also once served as a jail administrator, was tasked with knowing universal precaution rules inside and out. He also added that the law should be expanded to include other diseases, such as tuberculous and hepatitis.

Jones discussed Michigan’s 20-year-old disclosure law which makes it a crime for an HIV-positive person to engage in sexual penetration, however slight, without first disclosing their HIV infection. He was surprised to learn the law did not address sharing needles, but including activities that cannot spread HIV, such as sex toys. Asked if he believed it was time to revisit the disclosure law, he said: “Yes. Yes, I would agree with that. But I might add things like needle sharing, and I might subtract things to make more of an intent crime.”

Texas: Another 'deadly weapon' HIV exposure conviction: 15 years for one-off sexual encounter

A 26 year-old man from the small Texan town of Copperas Cove has been sentenced to 15 years in prison with an additional $3000 fine after pleading guilty to charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

The aggravated assault? Having one-time consensual unprotected sex with a 16 year-old male after the two met on Grindr.  The deadly weapon?  HIV, of course.

The details of the man's arrest, including a link to a photocopy of the affadavit of charges, were first published last November on the website of a local TV news station. 

The victim learned through another "Grinder" user that [the man] claimed to be HIV-positive. Police say [he] admitted that he was HIV positive during an interview with investigators. According to the affidavit, [he] did not inform his victim that he was HIV-positive.

Yesterday the local TV news station reported on the 15 year sentence handed down by the 52nd District Court noting that the man had previously pleaded guilty as charged in June.

In March 2010, similar charges were laid against another HIV-positive man in another part of Texas for sex with a 15 year-old male under similar circumstances.  The rather balanced Houston Chronicle article reporting these charges also referred to this case and pitches prosecutor David Castillo against Catherine Hanssens, executive director of the New York-based Center for HIV Law and Policy.

Prosecutors in Gatesville are trying the same tactic after similar allegations against another man surfaced last year. Coryell County District Attorney David Castillo plans to prosecute [name of man] in May. [The man], 26, is accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old boy he met on the Internet last year. Castillo said he believes [the man] has HIV and plans to prosecute him, regardless of whether the boy contracted it. “You can fire a gun at someone and miss, and it's still aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,” Castillo said.

The analogy is a poor one, said Catherine Hanssens, executive director of the New York-based Center for HIV Law and Policy, because it overestimates how easily HIV is spread and stigmatizes those with the virus. “HIV should not be an aggravating factor unless there's some evidence that he intended to do some harm and did some harm,” Hanssens said. “Criminal law in every state is adequate to deal with it. But to treat it as evidence of guilt and a deadly weapon wasn't appropriate in 1985, and it isn't appropriate now.”

In more than 20 years of advocacy, Hanssens said she had seen dozens of charges involving defendants with HIV, some arising from charges involving biting and spitting. Hanssens said charges alleging a “deadly weapon” arise from an infected person's knowledge that they have the virus. She blasted prosecutors and public officials for not considering the deeper ramifications of calling HIV a deadly weapon.

“To refer to HIV as a deadly weapon in 2010 speaks of just unforgivable ignorance,” Hanssens said.

Contrast Ms Hanssen's point of view with a blog posting by Houston criminal defence lawyer John Floyd, who discusses both cases and opinions in the above article, in a post entitled, Is HIV a Deadly Weapon?

HIV infected individuals who knowing have unprotected sex with sex partners without informing them of their infection are potential “serial killers.” It is impossible for the infected individual to know who or how many of their sex partners will contract HIV and die as a result of the exposure. No one should be exposed to such potentially fatal risks simply because someone is not responsible enough to fully disclose that he/she has a potentially contagious disease.

With defence lawyers like him, who needs prosecutors?
  
Of note, the age of consent in Texas is 17, and yet charges of "statutory rape" were not laid, even though the same outcome could have been obtained (Sex with a minor is a second degree felony, punishable by two to twenty years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.00) without these ridiculous and stigmatising 'deadly weapon' charges. 

Last November in Michigan – a state not known for its enlightened treatment of people with HIV given the (now dropped) terrorism charges against an HIV-positive man who allegedly bit a neighbour in self-defence – a 21-year-old man who pleaded guilty under the state's HIV disclosure law to having unprotected sex during a one-night stand with a 16 year-old girl without first disclosing that he was HIV-positive was  jailed for nine months. The age of consent in Michigan is 16, so this was not statutory rape.

US: Media, police, judge conspire in 'hate crime' against gay HIV-positive man in biting case

I am so mad I could spit and bite! I've seen a lot of bad reporting and bad legal decisions during my time blogging, but never before have I seen the media conspire with the criminal justice system in such a calculated, prejudiced, stigmatising, and ultimately harmful way.

A gay man from a small city in Michigan who has been harrassed and beaten up by neighbours for years, has been charged with "assault with intent to maim, assault with intent to commit great bodily harm and possession or use of a harmful device" after the latest assault resulted in biting his neighbour the lip whilst he was defending himself.

The story first appeared on October 30th in the Detroit News.

Although police allege [the accused] was the lone attacker -- biting neighbor Winfred Fernandis Jr., 28, on the lip following the Oct. 18 confrontation -- [the acccused] says he's long been the target of bigotry on his street, and Fernandis, along with several of Fernandis' family members, took turns beating him.

"I have no memory of biting him," said [the accused], who is due in 41-B District Court for a preliminary hearing Monday. He divulged his HIV status after questioning from the media. "This person has been threatening me for years. The hatred needs to stop."

"He divulged his HIV status after questioning from the media."

How did that happen? Well, Fox News did some 'investigating' and discovered he was HIV-positive. They asked him to confirm it on camera - he did. They then told the bitten neighbour on camera. That's when it got ugly.

Here's the Fox News report.


Since HIV is involved, Clinton Township District Court Judge Linda Davis said during a preliminary hearing on November 2nd that just knowing he was HIV-positive and biting the neighbour is enough to sustain these very serious charges, reports a second story in the Detroit News.

"He knew he was HIV-positive, and he bit the guy," Davis said. "That on its own shows intent."

No it doesn't, Judge Davis, because saliva from a bite does not expose someone to HIV. Now she is implicated, along with the police and the complainant (and his wife), in a hate crime.

"I am still maintaining my client is the victim of a hate crime," [the man's attorney, James L. Galen Jr.] said. "He will be exonerated. This is the very first battle in what I think is going to be a long war."

A pretrial and arraignment will take place on November 16th.

Ireland, UK, US: Spitting and biting cases highlight police ignorance

Whether its Fort Mill, South Carolina; Jacksonville, Florida; Rutland, Vermont; or Wimbledon in the UK, the police and media have been over-estimating the risk of HIV transmission from biting or spitting over the past two weeks with devastating consequences for all concerned.

South Carolina: Where biting is attempted murder
In Fort Mill, a man who bit his neighbour in a fight had his charges upgraded from simple assault to assault and battery with attempt to kill once police learned of the man's HIV status, according to a report in The Herald.

Assault and battery with intent to kill is a felony that carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years upon conviction, Fort Mill Police Capt. Bryan Zachary said. “Upon review of the facts of the case,” Zachary said, the solicitor's office “confirmed because of the malicious intent involved that the charge of assault and battery with intent to kill was warranted.

And yet, according to local TV station WSOC the bite did not break the skin.

London: Policeman's unnecessary agony
There may be no attempted murder charges for biting under English law, but in Wimbledon, according to This is Local London, "a policeman bitten by an HIV-positive drug addict [during his arrest] faces an anxious wait to see whether he has contracted the virus."

And during his wait he will, according to the report, "need at least seven months of anti-viral medication." Yet Post Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV exposure lasts just 28 days and is not actually warranted for a bite.

Vermont: Where post-spit anxiety lasts a year
A policeman in Rutland faces totally unnecessary anxiety after being spit on by an HIV-positive man who had been trying to commit suicide.

The Times Argus reports:

A man diagnosed with the virus that causes AIDS is charged with a felony for spitting into the face of a Rutland police officer who must now undergo a year's worth of testing to discover whether he was infected with HIV. [...]

It was while doctors in the emergency room were treating [the man] that he allegedly cocked his head back and spit into the face, eyes and mouth of city police Sgt. David Schauwecker, who was trying to control [his] head, according to the affidavit. [The man], who was arrested more than a week later after his release from the hospital, has no prior criminal record.

But the charge he faces now is tantamount to a life-threatening assault, according to Rutland County Deputy State's Attorney Kathryn Smith. "The nature of this offense is extremely concerning," Smith said. "He knows he has a deadly disease and yet he exposed another human being to that disease. … This case before us is an actual act of violence."

"Everything in my life is basically put on hold for a year," said Schauwecker, who will be tested every three months to look for signs of HIV. "I went there that night trying to save someone and now I'm looking at a life sentence."

Today, the Rutland Herald ran a letter from AIDS NGO, Vermont Cares, entitled 'Clearing up HIV myths'. They wrote:

Enforcing the myth that HIV is spread through saliva... protects the health of no one. In fact, unfounded fears about HIV transmission and misunderstanding of risk can endanger people with HIV.

To be clear, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers no demonstrated cases of saliva ever transmitting HIV. Transmittable HIV is present in four bodily fluids only: blood, semen, vaginal fluids, and breast milk.

Having someone spit in your eye or mouth is definitely frightening and may transmit other pathogens from influenza to tuberculosis. However, HIV is a highly unlikely risk in this instance.

Enforcing fear and misinformation about HIV, and promoting the belief that HIV testing is a variable enough science to postpone relationships and life, would be a terrible consequence of this incident. HIV testing, by CDC recommendations, is nearly 100 percent accurate at six or even three months.

Florida: Where attempted spitting is now a felony
In late July, Jacksonville police charged a 29 year-old HIV-positive man with aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony after he attempted to spit on a police officer following his arrest for shoplifting.

The arresting officer said that on the drive to jail, [the man] started coughing and trying to spit on the officer from the back seat of the patrol car in an "effort to transmit his HIV disease." The officer had to put a "spit mask" on [the man]'s face before taking him to jail.

The short piece on firstcoastnews.com included the man's name and photo. There are now seven pages of readers comments that range from the homo- and trans-phobic to pure HIV hatred. One reader even found and published the man's previous (minor) criminal record. I genuinely fear for the man's safety in- or out of jail.

Ireland: Judge concerned about police's lack of education of HIV transmission risks of biting and spitting
The Irish Times reports that a High Court Judge, Ms Justice Mary Irvine, recently brought in a medical expert to testify over the risk faced by police of occupational exposure to HIV and other blood-borne diseases "as a result of the high number of Garda [Irish police] compensation claims involving fear of transmission of such diseases coming before the court."

The judge awarded a policeman €8000 compensation after hearing testimony that "he had been “petrified” and suffered nightmares and sleeplessness after having been bitten during the arrest of a known drug user".

Colm Bergin, a consultant in infectious diseases, told the court that in 10 years’ practice he had never come across a case of transmission of HIV or Hepatitis C through saliva.

The court also heard that:

• the risk of contracting HIV or Hepatitis C from saliva can be as low as one in 100,000; and
• that transmission of such diseases through contact with blood was also negligible.

[The judge] had expressed concern as to how well [police] were educated about risks to members contracting saliva and blood transmitted diseases through bites, spittle or needle stick injuries. “Such attacks are happening on a daily basis and there are huge numbers of compensation cases coming before the court,” the judge said. She has asked for reports on the risks involved and what is being done to reassure [police] injured in assaults as to the low level of risk.

Canada: Alberta judge, police believe that spitting transmits HIV

An Edmonton, Alberta man who claimed he was HIV-positive and then spat in the eye of a police officer has been sent to prison for five months for assaulting a peace officer, with the policeman's fear of infection being an aggravating factor in sentencing. The man was later (mandatorily?) tested and found not to be HIV-positive.

According to the Edmonton Sun, Judge Michael Stevens-Guille requires some HIV transmission training like his Ontario counterpart Jon-Jo Douglas.

"Spitting is disgusting," said Judge Michael Stevens-Guille, pointing out that, years ago, expectorating on someone was not considered to be worse than punching the person in the nose. However, as a result of the dangers of transmitting communicable diseases, it is now considered far more dangerous and there is a need to protect people like the police from such perils, said Stevens-Guille. The judge also noted it was aggravating that the police officer involved was "very frightened' by the potential he might have contracted the HIV virus and had to go through the worry of waiting for blood test results.

I agree with Judge Stevens-Guille on just one point: spitting is disgusting. However, although being spat upon is unpleasant, and may be a symbolic assault, it is not a way to transmit HIV.

Read this fascinating blog entry from Sally's Trove on what can be transmitted by spitting, and the history and legacy of US spitting laws.

US: New HIV as a 'deadly weapon' case in North Carolina (updated)

Another US jurisdiction has classified a person living with HIV as a walking deadly weapon. North Carolina police yesterday charged a 45 year-old HIV-positive man with "assault inflicting serious bodily injury and assault with a deadly weapon" after he resisted arrest in Durham.

According to a brief report in The News & Observer, the police report says that the man

knowing he is HIV-positive, twice tried to expose the officer to his blood, once by cutting the officer's thumb and also by head-butting him and biting his ear.

This prompted one local citizen to write in the comments section

This was a vicious act. If the officer had escalated the continuum of force level to shooting and killing this person he wwould [sic] have been justified. We don't know how this individual acquired HIV and that doesn't matter in that a decent human being would not knowingly have exposed another to the disease.

Another wrote

This event should lead to a charge of attempted murder because that is what it is. This act by this infected man is willful and intentional. May God be with the officer and find him or her free and clear of this dreadful disease.

The man, who was also charged with "injury to real property and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle," will appear in court on June 29th.

Update: June 23rd

The man actually appeared in court yesterday. The hearing was filmed by local TV station, News14.

It is now patently clear to me, from the details revealed, that the risk of HIV transmission from the acccused to the police officers was so slim as to be negligable.The facts are that he cut a police officer's right thumb while he was bleeding (interestingly, it doesn't say how he got to be bleeding) while that officer was trying to arrest him (and it doesn't say that he intentionally did so). He also didn't actually bite the other policeman's ear, but only "tried to bite that officer's ear".

And yet, Judge William Marsh III tells the court

"If Mr. Perry is engaged in the behaviour described, knowing that he has a potentially fatal condition with the ability to infect others, I consider that a serious offence, and could very well have potential to be increased to something more serious."

This still suggests that when someone who is HIV-positive resists arrest, they can be seen as being 'deadly weapons' in the absence of any real possibility of transmitting the virus. This surely is a prime example of HIV-related discrimination based on ignorance and stigma.

Ireland: Court agrees 'HIV' spit was provocation to kill

Brendan O'Connor, 25, who killed 50 year-old father of four Edward Clancy, "by stamping on his head with his full body weight" did so because he spat at him and he thought the man was HIV-positive.

His plea of manslaughter was accepted by Ireland's Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) "on the grounds that the spitting... constituted provocation."

The case, an egregious example of institutionalised HIV stigma reported in today's Irish Times, has got me spitting mad!

Deirdre Murphy, prosecuting, said the men exchanged words outside a pub in the town in the early hours of that day. Mr Clancy spat at O’Connor before crossing the road and moving away.

Det Sgt Fergal Patwell quoted from witness statements that O’Connor caught up with Mr Clancy and grabbed him.

“Brendan O’Connor began punching Edward Joseph Clancy, knocked him to the ground and stamped on his head,” he said. He said there was no evidence that Mr Clancy resisted.

Ms Murphy said a postmortem found the base of Mr Clancy’s skull was completely fractured and there was extensive bruising to his head and face.

She said the pathologist described it as a targeted attack to the head, and Mr Clancy was pronounced dead at Tralee hospital within an hour.

Det Sgt Patwell also told the court:

it was widely believed Mr Clancy had HIV and that gardaí [police] took precautions when dealing with him. “It appears there was no fact to it,” he added.

O'Connor's lawyer said that:

his client deeply regretted the killing and expressed genuine remorse. He said HIV could be transmitted by spitting. “In my submission, the provocation was sufficient to cause this particularly violent reaction,” he said.

Until we remove the widespread ignorance about how HIV is transmitted (and it is NOT transmitted via spit or saliva) and the institutionalised HIV stigma across the entire criminal justice system, people actually living with HIV don't have a chance in hell of justice in court.

Italy: Condom use within marriage now grounds for divorce, even if one partner is HIV-positive

Slightly off-topic, but according to reports from admittedly rather suspect sources, Italy's highest court has ruled that a previous decision by the Vatican Court – to nullify an 18-year marriage because the husband had used condoms to prevent passing on a chronic illness that can be transmitted via sex – can stand, and that a marriage without the purpose of children is not legal, even if there are health concerns over unprotected sex.

The ruling means that husbands and wives would risk divorce if they refused unprotected sex - even if their partner suffered from HIV.

If this is, indeed, true, then this is a perfect example of how combining an illogical belief system with the law is a dangerous combination.

Story, from the Austrian Times, also picked up and published in The Daily Star.

Safe sex in marriage illegal says Italian court

Austrian Times
21. 01. 09.
Italy's highest court has ruled that having sex with a condom is grounds to end a marriage.

The country's Supreme Court has confirmed a decision by the Vatican Court to nullify a couple's 18-year marriage because they had practised safe sex.

The husband, who was identified only as Fabio N for legal reasons, suffers from a crippling rheumatic condition called Reiter Syndrome which is transmitted through sex. His wife, identified only as Elisabetta T for legal reasons, began religious divorce proceedings in 2003.

Italy's highest court ruled that a marriage without the purpose of children is not legal, even if there are health concerns over unprotected sex.

The ruling means that husbands and wives would risk divorce if they refused unprotected sex - even if their partner suffered from HIV.

Canada: Ontario judge 'humbled' after revealing HIV ignorance

An Ontario judge whose ignorance of how HIV is transmitted got him into hot water last January has

"acknowledged that his behaviour was inappropriate" and taken steps to address the concerns raised by his conduct during trial, including seeking information about HIV from a local group...

Although extreme, the judge's behaviour highlights how the judicial system can be prejudiced against people with HIV. But if you're a regular reader of this blog, you don't need me to tell you that.

Update: Although the story from The Vancouver Sun (below) appeared to be the end of the matter, an article in the January 26th issue of Xtra questions whether it is possible for the judge to overcome his prejudice in one day.

In reply to the complainants the [Ontario Justice Commission] wrote that Douglas has admitted that his actions were wrong and has been educated about HIV by visiting the AIDS hospice Casey House one day last summer.

“Staff who work with the patients daily provided judge Douglas with a better understanding of the science, of the disease and of the people affected by the disease,” wrote OJC registrar Marilyn King.

The visit to Casey House was conducted in secret. It only came to light after media outlets received a copy of the reply King sent to a complainant.

Brian Finch, an HIV-positive activist, says he doesn’t think one visit is sufficient.

“Such ignorance in this day and age, I don’t think one day is enough,” he says. “I don’t know what is enough but it does seem kind of like going through the motions. How is someone like that going to deal fairly with HIV criminalization? Somehow when it comes to HIV the presumption of innocence in our justice system is reversed.”

Later in the article, Richard Elliot, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network notes:

“I would hope at a minimum it would include basic information about HIV and how it’s transmitted and how it’s not transmitted,” he says. “It should include information about the risk of infection associated with various sexual acts, which is also sometimes at play in some cases that come before judges.”

Elliott says judges also need to learn about the realities of HIV transmission in other circumstances.

“There’s an often-inflated sense of what the risks are,” he says. “We certainly see that when talking about occupational risk for police, paramedics, firefighters which can lead to compulsory HIV testing.”

Education should also include more information about the communities most affected by HIV, says Elliott.

“It needs to try to get judges more conscious of the context in which their decisions take place,” he says. “There should be one or more people living with HIV or people from the particular communities most affected by HIV.”

Education is badly needed, says Elliott, but some judges may not be willing to learn.

“To a great extent it depends on the individual judges,” he says. “There will probably be some who are less open to it. But it’s fairly urgent. It’s past due, but better late than never. We don’t control the timing.”

Ont. judge rebuked for HIV comments
By Megan O'Toole, National Post
January 9, 2009

TORONTO — An Ontario judge who asked a witness with HIV to wear a mask while testifying has been humbled by an Ontario Judicial Council decision that includes a recommendation to better educate judges about the disease.

Justice Jon-Jo Douglas has "acknowledged that his behaviour was inappropriate" and taken steps to address the concerns raised by his conduct during trial, including seeking information about HIV from a local group, according to the council's finding.

Ontario's Chief Justice also suggested that material on HIV/AIDS should be included in future educational sessions for judges.

AIDS groups on Friday lauded the findings.

"The bigger picture here is making sure that judges do have appropriate information and they don't approach their jobs with misinformation about HIV," said Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

"There is no place for such misinformation and prejudice anywhere, especially in the justice system," added Ryan Peck, executive director of the Ontario HIV and AIDS Legal Clinic. "People living with HIV deserve equal, respectful treatment."

Douglas sparked outrage among the two AIDS groups in December 2007 after telling a Crown attorney he would hear no further evidence until a witness who had HIV and hepatitis C was either masked or moved into a separate courtroom to testify.

When Crown attorney Karen McCleave told the court she was not aware of any health concerns that would arise with the presence of the witness, the judge responded: "The HIV virus will live in a dried state for year after year after year and only needs moisture to reactivate itself," transcripts said.

McCleave also produced an affidavit from an expert in infectious disease who said there was no risk of transmission without direct exposure to blood, semen or vaginal fluid.

An application to have Douglas removed from the case was denied by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, but he later removed himself voluntarily.

As a result of a complaint launched by the two AIDS groups, the judicial council launched a probe into the judge's behaviour.

US: Spitting as a deadly weapon: analysis

I have just written a news feature for aidsmap.com analysing the recent conviction of an HIV-positive man in Texas to 35 years in prison for spitting at a policeman.

The first few paragraphs are below, but to read the article in full, click this link.

Texas jury concludes saliva of HIV-positive man a ‘deadly weapon’, sentenced to 35 yrs jail

Edwin J. Bernard, Friday, May 16, 2008

A 42 year-old HIV-positive man from Texas who spat at a police officer during his 2006 arrest for being drunk and disorderly has been sentenced to 35 years in prison by a Dallas court and must serve at least half of his sentence before being eligible for parole because the jury found that his saliva was a deadly weapon.

The case, which was reported by more than 175 news outlets yesterday, has outraged UK HIV organisations, particularly since only three reports – from The New York Times, USA Today and the Mississippi Clarion-Ledger – actually mention that HIV cannot be transmitted via spitting.

'It is shocking that in the same country which has some of the most advanced research into HIV and its treatments, there can be such ignorance within the legal system as to how HIV is transmitted,” said Deborah Jack, Executive Director of the National AIDS Trust. “This is not justice but a victory for fear, myth and prejudice. Such a verdict - contradicted by all the science - must constitute a breach of Mr Campbell's right to a fair trial.”

Lisa Power, Head of Policy at Terrence Higgins Trust, added: "The saliva of someone with HIV is not a deadly weapon. Putting someone with HIV in a situation where they cannot access condoms, treatment is poor and they may have little choice about sexual activity is a far more dangerous thing to do, and US clinicians need to tell the Texas legal system so."

Canada: Ontario judge investigated for misconduct due to HIV ignorance

This story, from today's Toronto Star requires no comment from me!

Judge’s ignorance of AIDS draws fire
Witness with HIV forced to wear a mask in court, groups complain
January 30, 2008
Tracey Tyler
Legal Affairs Reporter

The HIV virus will live in a dried state for year after year after year and only needs moisture to reactivate itself’ Justice Jon-Jo Douglas said, according to a transcript of a Nov. 23 trial.

An Ontario judge is at the centre of a misconduct investigation after insisting a witness who is HIV-positive and has Hepatitis C don a mask while testifying in his courtroom.

Three groups have complained to the Ontario Judicial Council about the conduct of Barrie judge Justice Jon-Jo Douglas, who later moved the case to a bigger courtroom in order to create more distance between the witness and the bench.

The judge refused to accept Crown counsel Karen McCleave's entreaties there was no need for such measures.

"The HIV virus will live in a dried state for year after year after year and only needs moisture to reactivate itself," Douglas insisted, according to a transcript of the Nov. 23 trial proceedings.

"This is outlandish," Bluma Brenner, an assistant professor at the McGill AIDS Clinic at McGill University in Montreal, said yesterday. A drop of human immunodeficiency virus drying on the floor "would be inactivated within 20 minutes," Brenner said in an interview.

But Douglas, a former Crown attorney appointed to the Ontario Court of Justice 10 years ago, was not prepared to continue the trial until he was satisfied "the safety and integrity of this courtroom" was protected.

"I mean, he speaks within two feet of me with two serious infectious diseases," Douglas told McCleave. "Either you mask your witness and/or move us to another courtroom or we do not proceed."

At one point, court staff returned after a recess wearing rubber gloves and placed documents touched by the witness in plastic bags.

Douglas, who continues to preside in Barrie, declined to speak with the Star yesterday.

In their Jan. 17 letter of complaint, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the HIV and AIDS Legal Clinic (Ontario) say Douglas's response to the witness, a complainant in a sexual assault case, reveals "shockingly discriminatory thinking" and is a "particularly extreme example of unacceptable conduct by a judicial officer."

The organizations say the case also raises questions about the extent to which judges are informed about HIV/AIDS and related human rights issues.

Their complaints target not only Douglas, but two courts – his own and the Superior Court of Justice, for failing to clearly condemn the behaviour.

The Crown applied to the Superior Court of Justice to have Douglas removed from the case for creating an appearance of bias. But Justice Margaret Eberhard declined, saying while his approach may have been wrong, Douglas had jurisdiction to take the steps he felt necessary to ensure courtroom safety.

Ontario's Criminal Lawyers Association has also lodged a complaint with the judicial council. The lawyers' group contends Douglas did not bring a judicial temperament to trial proceedings and treated a witness differently on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics. Contacted yesterday, association president Frank Addario declined to discuss the allegations. The complaints are being investigated by a judicial council subcommittee, which will determine if a public inquiry into Douglas's fitness to remain on the bench is warranted.

Meanwhile, Douglas hastily resigned from the board of Stevenson Memorial Hospital in Alliston on Jan. 14, just over a month after he was appointed.

The controversy surrounding the witness began on Nov. 23, during the trial of a man charged with sexually assaulting a fellow inmate at the provincial jail in Penetanguishene.

The alleged victim testified he was HIV-positive and had Hepatitis C, but didn't inform his alleged attacker because he was traumatized. "I could be ... shanked," said the man, whose identity is shielded by a publication ban.

According to a trial transcript, during the lunch break, Douglas bumped into defence lawyer Angela McLeod and voiced concern the witness had been allowed to testify without the court being informed of his health status.

When court resumed, Douglas raised the issue with McCleave, the Crown attorney as well. "I am frankly shocked that in this day and age we were not advised," he said.

McCleave replied she knew of no issues arising from the witness being in the courtroom or touching "a couple of pieces of paper" that were introduced as evidence.

That's when Douglas offered his view that HIV will live "for year after year after year" in a dried state.

McCleave explained that she wasn't prepared to ask the witness to wear a mask in court when he faces no such requirement in the community. There were also practical problems with the judge's request, she suggested – the court reporter might not be able to accurately record his testimony.

Douglas refused the Crown's request to grant a mistrial, declined to recuse himself from the case and refused to consider granting bail to the accused, Lee Wilde, when it became clear the trial would have to be adjourned until the judge's concerns were addressed.

A new trial will begin Feb. 14.

An official with the National Judicial Institute in Ottawa, which has developed educational programs for judges, said while the curriculum addresses "emerging social issues," there's no course specifically addressing HIV/AIDS – though one is being planned. It should be up and running within "a couple of years," she said.

Australia: Brisbane man jailed 12 months for biting a policeman

A senior Brisbane judge has sent an HIV-positive man to prison for 12 months as a "genuine deterrent" to prevent others from spitting or biting police because he believes "there are now diseases in the community which are spread like this."

Judge Gilbert Trafford-Walker requires a lesson in HIV transmission: there is zero risk from biting or spitting. In this case, the bite had not even broken the skin.

The full article from the Brisbane Courier-Mail is below:

HIV man jailed for biting police officer
By Mark Oberhardt
January 17, 2008 12:00pm

AN HIV-positive man who bit a plainclothes constable was jailed yesterday as a deterrent to others tempted to attack police. Lucas James Bullingham was jailed for 12 months with a parole release date after three months.

His counsel, James Godbolt, had argued any sentence should be wholly suspended because the bite had not broken the skin and there were other mitigating factors.

But Senior Judge Gilbert Trafford-Walker told the District Court in Brisbane that spitting and biting police had become all too common in Brisbane.

"When I first became a judge, many years ago, it was unheard of for anyone to bite or spit on a police officer," he said. "But in recent years I have had to deal with many, many cases.

"At the same time there are now diseases in the community which are spread like this.

"The courts have to impose sentences which will be genuine deterrents."

Judge Trafford-Walker said the police officer had a wife and young child and the risk of contracting HIV had been devastating for him.

Bullingham, 28, pleaded guilty to serious assault on November 29, 2006.

Prosecutor Dana Balic detailed how Bullingham had been arrested for public drunkenness at New Farm and taken to the Valley police station.

He was being placed in a van for transport to the watchhouse when he bit the officer during a struggle.

Mr Godbolt said while Bullingham was HIV-positive there had been little chance of passing on the disease because the skin was not broken.

Australia: Judge slams 'inadequate' sentences for 'reckless' HIV transmission

Penalty for reckless HIV sex 'inadequate'

The Australian | Natasha Robinson | December 04, 2007

A MAGISTRATE has criticised the inadequate punishment of HIV-positive offenders whose reckless sexual behaviour contributes to the spread of the disease.

Magistrate Greg Connellan said yesterday the maximum five-year jail term set down by the Victorian parliament for the crime of reckless conduct endangering serious injury was inadequate for HIV cases.

The magistrate's comments came as Sudanese migrant Lam Kuoth, 28, appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates Court yesterday and admitted having unsafe sex with a woman in defiance of public health orders that required him to use a condom.

Kuoth pleaded guilty to two charges of reckless conduct that put his victim at risk of contracting HIV.

The offence occurred on April 22, almost three weeks after Kuoth was placed on an order under Victoria's Health Act to practice safe sex and advise others of his HIV status.

A police summary tendered to the court revealed that a psychologist had warned Victoria's Department of Human Services that Kuoth was at "high risk of infecting others with HIV" 11 days before he committed the offence. Kuoth was detained and placed in isolation in a psychiatric hospital on April 27.

Mr Connellan told the court during yesterday's hearing that exposing a sexual partner to the risk of contracting HIV was "an altogether much more serious matter" than the maximum five-year penalty for the charge of reckless conduct endangering serious injury would indicate.

"In my view, the five-year maximum penalty applicable to that offence is not really an adequate reflection of the seriousness of that offending," Mr Connellan said. "The anguish caused to the complainant over a significant period of time is one important indication of the seriousness of these matters. The nature of the offending goes to the heart of significant public health protection issues."

The case comes eight months after Victoria's former chief health officer Robert Hall was sacked after failing to isolate a man accused of spreading HIV to multiple victims.

Kuoth will face the Victorian County Court on February 21.