Shift & Calgary Police Services

Negative public attitudes and discrimination against sex workers creates a culture where we see them as disposable members of society, putting them at higher risk for acts of violence. Shift is proud to have supported the Calgary Police in protecting sex workers’ right to safety. Shift believes that everyone has the right to be safe and that this right to safety is not waived if a person is involved in risky activities.

Sex Trade Workers Robbed At Knifepoint

Over the past few months, sex trade workers downtown have been reporting that a man has approached them for sex and later robbed them at knifepoint. Thanks to valuable information from community partners such as the SHIFT program at the AIDS Calgary Awareness Association, we have made an arrest.

Tyson Edward Brown , 21-years-old, has been arrested and charged with two counts of assault with a weapon, robbery and uttering threats.

Our investigation continues as we gather information on similar incidents and remind both sex trade workers and clients that this is a dangerous and high-risk lifestyle. It is believed that a distinctive red sports car with right hand drive was involved in one incident, but we have not been able to contact the victim.

Anyone with information on this type of incident is asked to call Cst. Cowick of the District 1 Operations Team at 403-567-6100 or Crime Stoppers anonymously using any of the following methods:

TALK: 1-800-222-8477

TYPE: tttTIPS.com

TEXT: tttTIPS to 274637

***Retrieved from CPS Official Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/CalgaryPolice/posts/10151269720339530

Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies HIV Non-disclosure and Canadian Criminal Law

The following article was written by AIDS Calgary’s Community Engagement Coordinator.

On October 5th, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released a judgment regarding the criminality of HIV non-disclosure to sexual partners. Since its 1998 ruling in the Henry Gerard Cuerrier case, the onus has been on persons living with HIV to disclose their HIV+ status to sexual partners where there was a ‘significant risk of bodily harm’. The charge most often pursued when a complainant came forward was that of either sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault under the Criminal Code of Canada. These are extremely serious charges and can lead to life in prison. The legal test of whether or not sexual relations between people posed a ‘significant risk of bodily harm’ had become interpreted and applied differently in each of over 130 cases prosecuted before Canadian courts. The result was significant differences of opinion between lawyers, judges, doctors, and those living with HIV about what constituted a ‘significant risk of bodily harm’. Some of the prosecutions ended in guilty verdicts while others saw verdicts of not guilty being delivered.

During the 14 years since Cuerrier science and medicine have revolutionized the treatment for HIV to such an extent that a person can have a ‘low’ or even ‘undetectable’ viral load. Although the HIV is still in the body, the amount of the virus is tremendously diminished, which logically implies that so too is the significant risk of transmission. The HIV is still present, but can be so in a much reduced amount if anti-retroviral treatment is ongoing. The SCC’s ruling has taken into consideration this advancement of science and medicine.

The Supreme Court of Canada concluded in its decision:

…………”that the Cuerrier requirement of ‘significant risk of serious bodily harm’ should be read as requiring disclosure of HIV status if there is a ‘realistic possibility of transmission of HIV.’ If there is no realistic possibility of transmission of HIV, failure to disclose that one has HIV will not constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations under [Criminal Code of Canada] s.265(3)(c).”

The highest Court in the land goes on to state that “a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if: (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low, AND (author’s emphasis) (ii) condom protection was used.” This decision has inspired many to weigh in with their opinion. Some are not supportive (Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network) and some are supportive, as is the community member’s opinion that follows:

Contrary to many people’s disagreeing responses, I happen to like the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling. First, the Court has recognized that the ‘significant risk of bodily harm’ cannot mean any risk, however small. Second, the values of autonomy and equality enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms support respecting the interest of a person to choose whether to consent to sex with a particular person or not. Third, I believe the decision will encourage citizens to seek testing for HIV. I am convinced that prior to this ruling, people intentionally did not get an HIV test fearing it would be positive and they would be legally compelled to disclose their HIV+ status to sexual partners. Now, I believe more people will get HIV testing and if a positive result ensues, then they will seriously discuss with their doctor whether or not to begin medications. Regular medical check-ups will monitor viral load which, with medications, can be ‘low’ and likely ‘undetectable’. Someone who knows their status, their viral load is low, and uses condoms consistently will know that the law’s view is clear: there is no ‘realistic possibility of transmission of HIV.’ I see the decision helping all persons living with HIV in Canada feel equal before the law, despite what others might think.

Care & Treatment: HIV as a Chronic Condition

This article was written by AIDS Calgary’s Support Services Team Lead


There have been many developments in HIV/AIDS over the last 30 years. The changes have made us reframe and rethink the way we see and understand HIV. In a very short time, receiving an HIV diagnosis has been altered from a death sentence to a chronic condition. At the International AIDS Conference in Washington DC in July 2012, there was an interesting session on what it means to see HIV through the lens of a chronic condition. A clear message was delivered that both HIV and other non-communicable diseases (NCD) that are chronic conditions can learn a lot from each other and can they can influence the way care and treatment is provided.

First, there are similarities between HIV and NCD that need to be understood. NCD such as diabetes and heart disease are massive issues in society both by the number of people impacted and the impact they have on financial, social and medical systems. Both, as well, have a long term impact on people’s lives. HIV & NCD are episodic which means people affected can experience periods of illness and periods of wellness throughout their lifetimes. Both, however, involve a high loss of life at a younger age. They also have a similar impact on persons’ lives involving multiple layers of medical care, appointments, medical regime and influence major life areas such as employment, social and mental health. Lower & middle income populations are over represented in both HIV and NCD.

HIV, of course, is also unique. There are differences between HIV and NCD that influence the care and treatment of HIV. In good news, HIV has a falling mortality rate unlike some NCD. On the other side, HIV carries a stigma like no other illness. There are also different key populations that are at an increased rate of HIV such as people who use drugs, men who have sex with men and sex workers who unique needs need to be addressed when looking at care and treatment.

Keeping the similarities and differences in mind, HIV can and has taught us a lot about care and treatment of chronic conditions. HIV/AIDS has been a pathfinder in navigating chronic health care. When looking at the rapid changes in HIV treatment, UNAIDS reports that HIV has become the first illness to provide support for chronic care in multiple and diverse settings. HIV care has also been multifaceted in its approach-medical assistance, social support, education, awareness and advocacy have all played a big role in care and treatment. As well, one of the most unique aspects of HIV is that the voices of those affected have been prominent as people living with HIV (PHA) have driven the development of prevention, support and care of HIV.

What does this all mean? When addressing chronic illnesses, we know that we need to have simplified, affordable and accessible treatment and care for all those living with the condition. Those living with chronic conditions also need support across the lifespan that adapts and changes to a variety of needs throughout the lifecycle. Addressing chronic conditions also means offering support and care to those affected - the family, friends, employers and caregivers, as examples, of people living with a chronic condition. Challenges, of course, of lumping HIV with other chronic illness is that we don’t address the uniqueness needs of those living with HIV, such stigma or the uniqueness needs of the key populations affected.

For more information
AIDS 2012 Care and Treatment for People with Chronic Conditions: What Can We Learn from the HIV Experience? A Health Systems Perspective abstract http://pag.aids2012.org/session.aspx?s=111

noncommunicable diseases
UNAIDS Report: Chronic care of HIV and non-communicable disease shttp://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/unaidspublication/2011/20110526_JC2145_Chronic_care_of_HIV.pdf

Ontario Court of Appeals Ruling: Charter Challenge on Canada's Prostitution Laws

This article was written by AIDS Calgary’s SHIFT Team Lead. Retrieved from the Shift Calgary Blog on Thursday, March 29, 2012. http://shiftcalgary.blogspot.ca/

On March 26, 2012 the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) announced a ruling that could change Canada’s current prostitution laws. Although prostitution, the exchange of sexual services for money or other goods, is legal in Canada there are elements of the criminal code that surround sex work that are illegal. The OCA ruled on three of those provisions. The OCA ruled that provision restricting “common bawdy houses” be struck down so that sex workers could work indoors and in groups to increase safety. Secondly, the OCA found that the provision restricting “living on the avails” of prostitution criminalizes non-exploitive relationships, and held that this provision should only apply where there are “circumstances of exploitation.” Lastly, the OCA upheld the provision criminalizing communicating for the purpose of prostitution, holding that the purpose of the provision, reducing nuisance and harm to communities, is legitimate and must be weighed against the harms it causes. Although these changes in the prostitution laws will only apply in Ontario, the persistent has been set for across the country. It is also widely speculated the matter will continue on to the Supreme Court of Canada within the next year.

There are many positive steps forward with the changes in the prostitution laws. When it comes to change in the common bawdy house provision, sex workers will be able work in locations that they are familiar with, such as their homes or other safe locations. Sex workers will also be able to work in groups to increase their safety. The change in the living off the avails allows for those involved in the sex industry to increase their safety by being able to hire staff to act as security, drivers or receptionists.

The victory, however, was only partial. Upholding the law against communicating for the purpose of prostitution decreases a sex worker’s ability to communicate for his or her own safety. This provision particularly impacts the most marginalized and vulnerable. It is most often street based sex workers who are charged with communication for the purpose of prostitution. With the change in the bawdy house law, some argue that isn’t as much of a concern as people can work indoors. Although simply moving indoors seems like an easy alternative, it is not always that simple. Moving indoors means that the sex worker needs to have a safe space indoors to work in, which may not always be the case. Moving indoors could also mean the need to acquire an escort license, which takes a fee and a criminal record check that can be a barrier. For those sex workers who work on the street, their chance of being charged increases. Being criminalized can open up a whole lot of challenges from fines, a criminal record, and involvement in the justice system to name a few. Criminalization creates barriers to staying safe and in fact exiting sex work.

Regardless of whether a sex worker is working outdoors or indoors, safety is not present without the ability to communicate. Communication enables the sex worker to screen potential clients and clearly address services, fees, and locations without fear of being charged. Preventing communication takes away sex workers’ voices and their ability to manage their own personal safety.

Laws that prohibit prostitution do not end people’s involvement in sex work just as decriminalizing prostitution does not encourage people to enter into the sex industry. There will always be people involved in sex work, what is essential is to support those who want to leave sex work in doing so and to ensure safety for those individuals who are not exiting the sex industry.

AIDS Calgary supports the decriminalization of sex work and is pleased to see steps in this direction. For more information on AIDS Calgary’s position statement in support of decriminalization, please see: http://www.shiftcalgary.org/Past_Events.html

International Sex Workers Rights Day

March 3rd, 2011 will mark the 10th annual International Sex Workers Rights Day. This event originally began in India when thousands of sex workers gathered at a sex worker festival. At the time, the members of this group wanted people to realize that sex workers in third world countries are no different from ones in first world nations. Sex workers in this group wanted their voices to be heard and their rights to be respected. Since that event, sex worker groups around the world began to mark that day, naming it the International Sex Workers Rights Day. The Shift program understands the importance of sex workers rights, and utilizes a human rights based approach when working with people in the sex trade. When the Shift program first developed in 2007, Shift has annually observed March 3rd as a way to honour the rights of sex workers everywhere.

In preparation for this year’s International Sex Workers Rights Day, Shift has put together a committee comprised of community members and sex workers. The committee’s intent for this year’s event is to bring awareness to community members about the rights of local sex workers. The committee has hired Antyx, (formerly known as All Nations Theatre) to perform short, interactive scenes that will examine the common stereotypes, misconceptions, and human rights violations that sex workers are constantly faced with. The performance will be used as a means to begin a dialogue amongst community members and provide a platform for deeper discussions about this often misconceived topic. The committee hopes that the interactive theatre will raise community awareness, as well as inspire a shift in perception around stigmas attached to sex work.

The event will be held on Friday March 4th from 7pm-9pm at the Eau Clare Market community space-202, 200 Barclay Parade SW
Calgary, AB T2P 4R5.

If you would like more information contact Shift: (403) 237-8171.

This article was submitted by an AIDS Calgary Practicum Student.

Now More Than Ever – What do Human Rights have to do with HIV/AIDS?

The International AIDS Conference is a biennial event which provides professionals and people living with HIV from around the world with a platform to share knowledge, discuss experiences, and promote best practices. The 2010 International AIDS Conference, which wrapped up on July 23rd, focused on the future of the global response to HIV/AIDS under the theme “Rights Here, Rights Now."

Significant challenges persist in both the treatment and prevention of HIV in Africa and Eastern Europe. Why are we failing? Human rights issues are repeatedly cited as the most significant barrier to successful prevention and treatment but have largely gone unnoticed. In 2006, world leaders committed to achieving a goal of universal access to HIV medications and prevention programs by 2010. While there have been marked improvements in medication access in some areas of the world, the rate of new infections continues to exceed the number of people accessing antiretroviral therapy. All over the world, those most in need of HIV support and services still remain the least likely to receive them. Who are we failing? These are our women, children, and criminalised populations.

Women and girls face widespread discrimination and violence. Many countries do not recognise domestic abuse or rape within a marriage. Women are oppressed by laws restricting their rights to own property, even following a divorce or death. A lack of economic power leads to a lack of power to negotiate condom use or refuse sex. Women often have unequal access to education, health information, and services. Additionally, women often face discrimination and judgement from health care professionals, whether in accessing safer sex supplies or seeking antiretroviral drugs during pregnancy. Less than 10 percent of women in the developing world have access to medication to prevent HIV transmission to their babies (something rarely seen in the developed world), and paediatric formulations of HIV medications are in very short supply.

Youth aged 15-24 account for over half of new HIV infections worldwide. Children and youth frequently lack access to HIV information, practical sexual education, and safer sex supplies. Sexual messaging towards youth is often filled with messages promoting abstinence and sexual morality rather than condom use. Children orphaned by AIDS in Africa are denied basic rights to social protection and routinely experience abuse, exploitation, and discrimination from the adults around them.

Criminalised populations are regularly deterred from HIV services because of discrimination and violence. These populations include men who have sex with men, sex workers, and people who use drugs. The police are often perpetrators of this violence, reinforced by the laws against sodomy (and homosexuality), narcotics, and sex work that exist in many countries. Prisoners in many parts of the world lack access to basic health services, including HIV testing and treatment. Prisoners living with HIV and aware of their status are often subject to discrimination and segregation within the prison population. Failure to take effective action against rape and a lack of safer sex, injection, and tattooing equipment worsen the impact of HIV/AIDS in these institutions.

In spite of significant increases for global HIV funding, there has been little investment in human rights initiatives. With a global economic crisis and a staggering estimate for universal treatment costs, the future of this funding is uncertain. AIDS is not in recession; to protect public health we must protect human rights. Without acknowledging this central piece we will continue to fall short of our goals.

If you would like to learn more about human rights and HIV, or support the “Now More Than Ever” campaign, visit: hivhumanrightsnow.org


Source
Human Rights and HIV/AIDS, Now More Than Ever. 10 Reasons Why Human Rights Should Occupy the Centre of the Global AIDS Struggle. Accessed August 5, 2010. http://www.hivhumanrightsnow.org/eng/Reasons/view/1

Intro to Harm Reduction

It seems today that outreach programs go hand in hand with the principles of harm reduction. Broadly speaking, harm reduction involves preventative practices to reduce the chance of harmful consequences resulting from high risk activities. Harm reduction is about meeting the needs of those it is trying to reach out to.

The World Health Organization strongly endorses harm reduction as an evidence-based approach to HIV prevention, and in the treatment and care of drug users. Safe injection sites for intravenous drug users are an example of harm reduction in action and clearly illustrate its main goal: it is not exclusively the elimination of risky behaviors, but rather reducing the risks and harms associated with such behaviors.

One could argue that harm reduction is only a band-aid solution and that the only way to address the social and personal costs of risky behaviors is to make abstinence the goal. In an ideal world, this certainly makes sense, however real life experience with abstinence programs has shown us that abstinence goals are often not realistic. On the other hand, studies have clearly shown that harm reduction programs have greatly reduced HIV transmission and death from overdoses. 1, 2

Since its inception, harm reduction has met with resistance. For many harm reduction opponents the idea of, say, facilitating drug use is illogical. These opponents know that what drug addicts need is to just stop using. The difference found in harm reduction lies in providing people with services they can, and will, access rather than what we think they need.

Harm reduction continues to be a controversial topic. What do you think? Is there a place for harm reduction in our service approaches? What do you see as the pros and cons?


Harm reduction programs available at AIDS Calgary:

1. AIDS Calgary provides safer sex supplies, such as condoms and lube, that help reduce the harm associated with sexual activity and to reduce the spread of HIV and other STI’s.
2. AIDS Calgary provides needle exchange equipment and safer inhalation equipment through our partnership with Safeworks.
3. AIDS Calgary’s street outreach connects with people where they are at.
4. AIDS Calgary counseling is non-judgmental and harm reduction based.
5. AIDS Calgary’s Shift program works from a harm reduction philosophy to provide support, outreach, education, advocacy, referrals, and counseling to individuals involved in, or those who have been involved in, the sex trade.

References:
1. Amundsen EJ. Measuring effectiveness of needle and syringe exchange programmes for prevention of HIV among injecting drug users. Addiction 2006;101:911-2.
2. Langendam MW, van Brussel GH, Coutinho RA, van Ameijden EJ. The impact of harm-reduction-based methadone treatment on mortality among heroin users. Am J Public Health 2001;91:774-80.

This article was submitted by guest blogger, Anna Lam.

Gay Rights/Human Rights

Human rights law took a step in the right direction today with Lindsay Blackett’s proposed Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act. If passed, Alberta would be one of the last Canadian provinces to protect gay rights in its human rights code.

In 1994, a gay rights activist named Delwin Vriend took the Alberta government to court. Vriend was fired from his job for being gay and, at the time, the Alberta Human Rights Commission would not investigate the case because discrimination based on sexual orientation was not covered by the Alberta Human Rights Act.

While Vriend’s successful ruling from the Supreme Court does offer protection to Alberta residents it is only now, 11 years after that ruling, that the Alberta government is making a move to cement that Supreme Court decision into provincial legislation.

11 years.

So, what took us so long?

As a society, one would hope that we would have learned some lessons from history. A little something called the women’s rights movement springs to mind. Can you imagine what it must have been like to have no rights? To fight for the right to not be considered property? To fight for the right to be an equal member of society?

Our grandmothers fought the fight that no one should have to. Gay rights activists like Delwin Vriend are fighting another fight like that right now. When can the fighting stop?

Just like women should never have had to fight for the right to their own bodies, homosexuals shouldn’t have to fight for the right to not be discriminated against. A homosexual’s right to equality is not distasteful, offensive or ridiculous. It is simply a human being’s right.

On the whole, this can be viewed as a positive piece of legislation even though parents retain the ability to pull their child from teaching that conflicts with religious beliefs or sexuality. This allows for parents to exclude their children from any teachings around same sex relationships or the human rights of homosexuals. That being said, Minister Blackett’s proposed amendments are a step in the right direction. A step towards a society of equals.

But in 2009, in a first-world country, in one of the UN’s top 5 countries in the world to live in…why do these steps come so slow? How slowly do they have to come before we question, are we really making any headway?

Why are we not faster, better, stronger at stepping up and showing other countries the way to go? Canada, nay Alberta, why follow when we could lead? Where is our Spirit to Achieve?

Drug Use and Human Rights

Human rights and people who use illegal drugs. It is uncommon for many people to link human rights and people who use drugs together in the same sentence. We live in a world that has a poor history of identifying that people who do drugs also deserve to have their basic human rights recognized, respected, and restored.

To better understand the context of human rights in the life of a person who uses drugs, consider the process of undergoing surgery at your local hospital. The surgery is an invasive and painful procedure. You are given the same amount of pain management medication as the person next to you, who has never used drugs in their life. Unfortunately, what works for a person who has never used drugs before is not the same as what works for a person who has been using drugs for 20 years. This situation is an unfortunate example of a human rights violation that happens all the time.

Do we find it acceptable to say that a person can handle the pain? Or that a person won’t mind the pain? Or even that a person might deserve the pain? Human beings generally respond negatively to pain and a person who has gone through an experience such as this one would be extremely hesitant to access necessary health care services in the future.

Most of us take advantage of our basic human right to quality health care. And that’s the way it should be. We should be able to just assume that we will always have access to essential and high quality health care. We shouldn’t be afraid to go into a doctor’s office or a clinic or a hospital. We shouldn’t worry that the standards of our health care might be different than the standards for the person in the next bed over.

Standards of health care are a complex subject under a great deal of ongoing debate in Canada. This is a specific example provided to illustrate a very simple point.

Above all else, we should be recognizing that people who use drugs are just that, people. People who deserve their basic human rights as much as you or I.