HIV Harassment Investigation

posted: 08/12/2009

Public bodies in England, Scotland and Wales face an inquiry into how they deal with disability-related harassment by the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, the watchdog announced.
 

The commission promises that bodies that do not adequately uphold the rights of people with disabilities, including everyone living with HIV, could face legal action.

Public bodies have a legal duty to take steps to eliminate disability-related harassment – part of their disability equality duties.
 

The inquiry, which will publish its final report in early 2011, follows the inquest into the deaths of Fiona Pilkington and her disabled daughter Francesca. Their deaths followed years of harassment and exposed weak public responses to tackling this.
 

EHRC commissioner Mike Smith said: "Disabled people experiencing harassment can become conditioned to hostile treatment, or are sometimes told to ignore it by those around them - including by public authorities. They may also go to enormous lengths to avoid putting themselves at risk which can limit their freedom and opportunities. These are unacceptable outcomes for anyone in our society."
 

Evidence exists
The commission said it already had evidence that harassment of disabled people was widespread throughout Britain and that people with learning disabilities and mental health problems were at a particularly high risk. People living with HIV similarly may experience significant harassment and violence because of stigma.
 

What are Councils and Health Bodies actually doing?
The Inquiry will look at what public bodies are doing to end disability-related harassment and to deal with its causes, including prejudice and negative attitudes; and how public authorities have involved people with disabilities in eliminating harassment and its causes – for example by effective joined-up reporting procedures.
 

Ruth Scott, director of policy and campaigns at disability Scope, said: "We would like to see the inquiry focus on how public authorities are raising awareness of disability related harassment among disabled people, to increase their confidence in reporting such cases, and supporting and training frontline staff across public authorities to ensure they respond appropriately and promptly."
A document outlining the terms of reference will be published shortly for consultation and the terms will be finalised early next year. The whole review will be completed within the year.
 

Have you evidence?

The Inquiry will collect evidence from people with HIV and other disabilities and from people affected by disability-related harassment (such as HIV negative partners and family) and from public authorities on what they are doing to tackle the issue.
 

George House Trust will work with other HIV bodies to collect and submit evidence of HIV harassment. Few cases are ever reported, mainly because of HIV stigma and the belief that complaining won’t change things for the better. This investigation, linked to the use (or not) of public powers to deal with HIV stigma, is the best opportunity to make councils, police and health bodies take real action to cut HIV harassment in society.

If people have information on HIV harassment in NW England please contact HIV Policy worker Chris at George House Trust.
 

The investigation follows the recent publication of the UK HIV Stigma Index - information in our recent report and also here. 
 

Good practice too
The Inquiry may also aim to identify examples of good practice in eliminating disability related harassment and addressing its causes.
 

The Commission will consider how public authorities have complied with their obligations in relation to the Disability Equality Duty set out in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Human Rights Act, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
 

Useful Information and Guidance

Public Bodies Duties Guidance 
ECHR report – Promoting the safety and security of disabled people 

Sources          The ECHR press release              Community Care 
 

Hospital Detention for HIV

posted: 07/09/2009

How many people now remember that 24 years ago a Manchester gay man with HIV was locked up for 10 days in the  hospital by order of the city's Magistrates, just because he had AIDS?

It has never happened since in this country, but HIV lock-ups often happen in Sweden, and might even happen once again in this country, if Parliament allows the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency to get their way.

The government is consulting on changing the infectious diseases regulations which could allow it to force people into hospital isolation wards and more, if they have infectious diseases. The deadline for comments on the proposed rules is at the end of this month.

We are campaigning to make sure people living with HIV cannot be touched by any updated public health law and regulations.

What happened almost 25 years ago in Manchester?
There is a very brief mention in our history page for 1985,  but it was an event that rocketed Manchester and HIV onto the front page of the papers locally and nationally. Manchester AIDS-line, which became George House Trust, was closely involved and (now Councillor) Paul Fairweather, a gay rights worker at the former Gay Centre in Bloom Street, was in the thick of the campaigning. There were pickets outside the Town Hall and the old Monsall Isolation Hospital, and a national demonstration was held here. We’ve never forgotten it, and at Secrets and Lives, Cllr Paul Fairweather reminded our audience about it.

Old files and papers

We've dusted off old files and the papers to find out exactly what happened and tell the story again here. We’ll be reminding the government that they didn’t get away with discriminating against people with HIV in 1985, and shouldn’t even be thinking of making laws and regulations that would allow this again today.

What was it like in 1985?
It’s a bygone age in UK HIV history. For a start no-one talked about HIV - if people ever talked about the virus, they called it HTLV3. There were no tests available at clinics for it in Manchester, only in London.

There were only two people known to have AIDS in the city, and both gay men were ill in Monsall Hospital. In the whole of the UK there were only 100 people, gay men and haemophiliacs, with AIDS at the start of 1985. Now there are over 70,000 with HIV.

We knew the virus was sexually transmitted but not how exactly - so oral sex was thought to be high risk, as well as anal and vaginal sex. The connection between the virus and AIDS wasn’t properly understood. Gay men were struggling to get to grips with the idea of using condoms.

Hysteria and Panic

It was at the height of AIDS hysteria, but the first public campaign - the tombstone and leaflet campaign warning Don’t Die of AIDS - didn’t start until the following year, 1986.

In the UK press, AIDS was in the headlines and caused alarm. In most newspapers such as the Sun and Manchester Evening News, and on radio stations (Piccadilly Radio - now Key 103 and Magic), the prejudice was obvious.

Haemophiliacs were "innocent victims," whereas gay men and injecting drug-users brought it upon themselves. Firemen banned the kiss of life, and holiday makers cut short cruises on the QE2 for fear of getting AIDS from a passenger. A 9-year old haemophiliac was allowed to go to school, but some parents kept kids away. Actor Rock Hudson died of AIDS in the first days of October. He was the first major public figure known to die of AIDS. Almost as much of a shock to most people was to discover such a butch film star was gay.

Swirling in a cesspit of our own making - Manchester Chief Constable

And the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, James Anderton, preached that gay men were "swirling about in a human cesspit of their own making". Gay papers, like Capital Gay and Mancunian Gay, provided the most accurate news and information.
 

Can I go home please, just for the weekend?

One of the two men in Monsall Hospital decided in the middle of September 1985 that he wanted a weekend break from hospital, to go to his home in South Manchester, where he would be looked after by his friends and family, and then he’d go back in the hospital. He asked his doctor if he could do this one Saturday morning. The doctor refused. In fact the doctor couldn’t stop him leaving the hospital and knew this, but didn’t tell the man.

Whirlwind of events that Saturday

A whirlwind of events followed that Saturday. We don’t know why, but the doctor panicked. He called the Council’s medical officer and asked her to stop him leaving the hospital. She called the Chair of the Environmental Services Committee, who authorised the making of an emergency application to the Magistrates Court.

The City Solicitor was called in and a special sitting of the Magistrates was held. The Magistrates, in open court, granted an Order for 3 weeks detention in the hospital, named him and said it was to protect the public from AIDS.

The hostile local press and independent radio were tipped off and his name and the details were broadcast and published - including in the national press.

The man has no idea any of this is going on behind his back, until he was presented with the Court Order.

10 days detained by Court Order

He spent the next 10 days in compulsory detention at hospital before he and his friends could get a solicitor and the Crown Court could review the decision. No doubt the stress added to his health problems.

Outrage and Uproar

Meanwhile absolute uproar broke out in the city’s gay community. The Council had already promised to do what it could to dampen down AIDS hysteria. But here was the council using the courts in a way which just poured petrol on the flames of that hysteria. The Public Health (infectious Diseases) Act had been rushed through Parliament only in the summer of the year before (1984) and in February of 1985, AIDS was quickly added to the official list of infectious diseases. Now the Council was using that panic list and law to detain a gay man who posed no health threat to anyone.

There were demonstrations and pickets outside the hospital and Town Hall.

Crown Court frees man

The Crown Court decided to approve the application by the man's solicitor for the order to be withdrawn 'by consent.' The man was spared the rest of the 11 days of forcible detention.

Withdrawal ‘by consent’ means the Council didn't attempt to defend its application, and it could not have produced a shred of evidence to justify the man's continued detention, because legally it was indefensible - he was no health risk to anyone.

A city behaving badly - but then it promises: never again
The city’s gay men’s consultative committee demanded the city council promise never to use the law again, and to campaign for its repeal. The vote was tight, but it agreed not to use the law again.

All involved - hospital doctor, city health officer, chair of social services, city solicitor, magistrates clerk, magistrates, the radio and press, all behaved badly. They had no legal power to act as they did in the circumstances and all were swept up in the panic and power-rush of taking emergency action. Nobody stopped to think and ask questions. No-one told the man in Monsall. He had no solicitor to say the law doesn’t allow you to do this to me.

Why are we concerned now?
In Sweden a man with HIV was ordered to be detained and isolated under their public health laws for an incredible seven years. Detention and isolation happens to quite a number of people with HIV in Sweden. Fortunately the European Court of Human Rights said in 2005 that this is illegal and breaches people's human rights under Article 5.

They ruled that detention for HIV always has to be a last resort, after everything else has been tried and has failed to prevent the person from passing it on. We don't think that judgement goes far enough - after all the criminal law can be used against reckless sexual transmission of HIV and that's more than enough protection for public health. But at least the European Court has drawn a useful line in the sand to protect people with HIV from unreasonable detention on health grounds.

There are some infectious diseases that are passed on easily by day to day contact. If they are serious - for example multiple drug-resistant TB - then there is a case for using the law to prevent its spread and protect the public, but only if the person doesn’t agree to temporary isolation for treatment, until they are no longer a risk to others.

Why are Sexually Transmitted Infections even on the list of infectious diseases?

Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) are not public health hazards like drug-resistant TB. HIV and other sexually transmitted infections aren’t passed on by touching, sneezing and the like. People need to have sex with the person and even then the risk of HIV transmission is pretty low. We think there is no case at all for any STI to be included in public health powers in the 21st century in the UK.

HIV - we take action and we fight back

The government seems not to have learnt anything from Manchester's shameful behaviour in 1985 - you mess with people with HIV at your peril. We won’t stand for it again. We take action and we fight back. And we hope Manchester City Council will now do as it was asked 24 years ago and campaign to remove any possibility of this happening again under public health laws and regulations. 

Here’s a full transcript of the 1985 reports in Mancunian Gay - written by the campaigners in the thick of the action. You can see this for yourself, along with other papers in the local history collection, in Manchester central library, St Peter’s Square.

The European Court of Human Rights judgment Enhorn v Sweden 2005

A useful article on the Enhorn v Sweden and its application to UK Public Health law and the detention of people living with HIV 

[Medical Law Review 2006 14(1):132-143; doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwi038
© The Author [2005]. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
The online version of this article is published under open access. Users are entitled to disseminate etc. this article for non-commercial purposes provided that: the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal and Oxford University Press are attributed as the original place of publication with the correct citation details given.]
 

Council HIV Grant Threat

posted: 11/08/2009

Almost one in three councils would reduce their social care spending on people with HIV if the Department of Health (DH) removed ring-fencing from AIDS Support Grant, the National Aids Trust (NAT) has revealed. Ring-fencing is to make sure the money can only be spent on HIV. AIDS Support Grant pays for services such as counseling, peer support, staff training, support for carers and respite care and is a key part of the funding of HIV organisations. 

A quarter of councils did not know what they would do without the ring-fence restriction, while 35% said they would continue to provide the same funding. Shockingly 4 councils (4%) said they would no longer fund any HIV services. NAT's survey of Aids Support Grant (ASG) received responses from 106 out of the 150 councils that provide social services.

Voluntary sector funding fears

Only 8% of 30 voluntary sector organisations responding felt services would be funded at the same level if the grant was not protected, while half thought services would continue, but they would be cut.

Although the ring-fence is agreed until at least 2010/11, the NAT pointed out that there had been a “clear move away” from specific ring-fenced grants by government.

The ASG is worth £21.8m in 2009/10 and the DH said it would allocate a “similar amount” in 2010/11. In 2008/09 the size of the Grant given to local authorities ranged from £2,000 (rural Rutland in the East Midlands) to £860,000 (Lambeth in London).

Four out of five authorities were happy with the formula used to allocate the grant – 70% of which is based on the number of people living with HIV in an area, and 30% according to the number of women and children.

Additional costs to fund services for black Africans

However, one London borough said there were additional costs associated with providing services for black Africans because they were “hard to engage with”, and councils should receive more money if many people from these communities lived in their area.

Unspent grant

14% of councils had not spent all the grant, and one had not used the grant because it had no one to commission (buy) any services.

Where are the HIV Needs Assessments?

The NAT called for all authorities to carry out assessments of needs in their area before planning and commissioning social care services for those with HIV, after finding that almost half of the councils had no HIV Needs Assessment.
 

HIV social work jobs at risk

The report found almost three in five local authorities used the grant to fund HIV-specific social workers, but anecdotal evidence suggests these jobs were “disappearing as services are mainstreamed”.

Among other findings, the NAT found that:-

• 82% of authorities had evaluated services funded by the ASG
• 43% had a public monitoring, or a scrutiny process
• 24% were making direct payments to people living with HIV (direct payments allow people to buy the services they need from whoever they choose)
• 32% said the social care needs of people living with HIV were included in their Local Area Agreements
• 45% asked people with HIV to go through a fair access to care assessment (FACS), using standard eligibility criteria, while 55% used different eligibility thresholds to FACS for ASG-funded services
• In some cases where standard eligibility criteria were used for statutory services, voluntary sector services funded by the ASG were open to everyone with an HIV diagnosis

Could do better

The review found some things needing improvement. Half of the local authorities had not carried out any form of needs assessment before deciding how to use their grant. In addition, there is a need for more transparency and public accountability for how the Grant is spent.

AIDS Support Grant - making the difference - NAT's report

Source and NAT's press release

Vote for HIV at Elections

posted: 01/06/2009

The election matters because the tide of public anger with politicians is high, and most people don't normally vote in either county council or European elections. This time abstentions and protest votes for smaller parties like UKIP and BNP, are likely to be far higher than last time.

The risk is serious that parties and candidates will be elected who are hostile to people living with HIV, especially people who are migrants. George House Trust urges everyone to use their vote.

Some migrants with HIV have no right to vote and many others have not registered. This makes it more important that the rest of us do vote, and vote thoughtfully.
 

Who can vote?
It is too late now to register for this election because you have to register at least 11 working days before an election. Find out here who can register to vote and how to do this in time for the general election which is due before early June 2010 - simply click here or scroll down this page to the line across the page, for the full details and the weblinks.

One or Two Elections?

There are two elections, but most people in the region will only be able to vote in the European one. The council elections are only for County Councils - in the Northwest that means people living in the Lancashire County Council and Cumbria County Council areas. There are no elections this year for unitary councils, like those in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Blackburn with Darwen, and the two new unitary councils in Cheshire.
 

European Election Candidates and Parties in Northwest England
The EU Parliament and Commission has some useful powers affecting people living with HIV and it has some influence over migration. That is why voting in the European election is important.
We are a charity and, by law, cannot be party political – we can't tell you who to vote for, or campaign for a party. But we can provide information to help you decide how to use your vote.

In the European elections all of Northwest England is one constituency. Proportional Representation decides which candidates get elected to the 8 seats in the EU Parliament for the NW region.

The UK voting system for the European elections is proportional representation - a regional closed list. This means that political parties put forward names of candidates for each region, in the order they want them elected. You have one vote and put a cross in the box next to the party you want. You can't vote for any individual candidates, except for an independent candidate who is not in a party. (There is one independent standing in the Northwest.)
 

Who's Standing?

You can check here the full lists of candidates for each party (and the 2004 election results) here
 

In 2004, 

• Conservatives won 4 seats,
• Labour won 3 seats,
• Liberal Democrats won 1 seat,
• UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) won 1 seat.

This year the number of seats has been cut across Europe, so the Northwest will have 8 MEPs, not 9 as now.
 

Please do use your vote
George House Trust asks you to vote in the election on Thursday 4 June, taking into account the impact the party you choose to put a cross next to may have on everyone living with HIV, not just in the UK, but the rest of Europe too, and for the influence the EU can exert in the rest of the world on HIV.

County Council elections in Lancashire and Cumbria
If you have a vote in these elections we urge you to use it - the BNP won seats on Burnley Council at the last election and now hope to win seats on Lancashire County Council.

Who can vote and how do I register?
 

You can register now to vote for the coming general election, which has to take place by early June 2010, if you are:
• 16 years old or over (but you won't be able to vote until your 18th birthday), AND
• a British citizen, OR
• an Irish, EU, or qualifying Commonwealth citizens.
“Qualifying Commonwealth citizens are those who have leave to enter or remain in the UK, or do not require such leave.”
 

At the European elections, but not at Council or Parliamentary elections, EU citizens can also vote.
 

Registering to Vote
You can register to vote online – but you have to print, sign and post the application form to your local council's Electoral Registration Office.

The application form is here. If you enter your postcode in the box (top right) it will tell you the address of your local Electoral Registration Office.

Nationality Question

One question you must answer on the form is about your nationality – simply write in Zimbabwean, or whatever your nationality is – this must be UK, Irish, a Commonwealth country, or another EU country, for you to vote.
 

The electoral registration form has a simple declaration you must sign which says
“As far as I know, the details on this form are true and accurate. I understand that to provide false information on this form is an offence, punishable on conviction of up to 6 months and/or a fine.
I confirm that I am a British, Irish, European Union or qualifying Commonweath citizen.
Qualifying Commonwealth citizens have leave to enter or remain in the UK, or do not require such leave.”
Normally if you sign this, it is simply accepted. You are not normally asked to show any documents to prove your nationality and leave status.

Am I a 'qualifying Commonwealth Citizen'?
Section B 6 in the Guidance for Electoral Registration Officers explains who can register.
Unfortunately it doesn't explain this in plain English – it refers to the law which is section 4(6) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and suggests you could check with the Home Office.
 

The Guidance for Electoral Registration Officers says
Commonwealth citizens - Entitlement to vote
6.14 Qualifying Commonwealth citizens are entitled to register as Parliamentary and as local government electors provided that they also fulfil the age and residence requirements for such registration and are not subject to any other legal incapacity.
Meaning of ‘qualifying Commonwealth citizen’
6.15 A person who is a Commonwealth citizen is a qualifying Commonwealth citizen for registration purposes if they do not require leave to remain in the UK or they do require leave to remain in the UK but have been granted such leave or are treated as having been granted such leave.
6.16 Any type of leave to remain is acceptable, whether indefinite, time limited or conditional.
6.17 Qualifying citizens of the following countries meet the nationality criteria to register in respect of all elections.

Commonwealth countries
Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji Islands, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nigeria, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
 

Asylum

The Guidance says this about asylum:
6.18 The fact that an applicant or elector has claimed asylum has no connection to their right to be registered as an elector ….. The Electoral Registration Officer can only make enquiries as to nationality and whether a person has any type of leave to remain in the UK.

The Representation of the People Act 1983, Section 4(6) is no real help in deciding who is a qualifying commonwealth citizen.
 

The George House Trust guide on who can register to vote

This is our understanding of the rules:
If you are a citizen of one of the Commonwealth countries listed above, what matters is
do you

• require leave to enter, or
• have you been granted leave to remain, or
• are you treated as having leave to enter, or
• are you treated as having leave to remain.

If your honest belief, after checking the information below, is that you can truthfully sign the application to register for a vote which states As far as I know, the details on this form are true and accurate, you can apply for a vote.
 

Leave to enter
Commonwealth citizens always require leave to enter, unless they have the right of abode.
- see Immigration rule 7:
Most Commonwealth citizens with right of abode in the United Kingdom can simply check their passport – a UK stamp in the passport will state if you have the right of abode in the United Kingdom; or you will have a UK certificate of entitlement certifying the right of abode. Official Guidance on Right of Abode
Some other Commonwealth citizens will have the right of abode, even if they don't have this stamp in their passport, or a certificate of entitlement. It is unlikely recent migrants from the Commonwealth will have this. This right of abode depends on your birth, or marriage. South Africans and Pakistani citizens won't be able to claim this. Check the link above for the birth and marriage requirements for this.
 

Leave to remain
Who has leave to remain is complicated, but people with leave to remain will either have a current, valid stamp in their passport saying you have leave to remain, or will have some other Home Office / Borders and Immigration Agency official document or letter saying this.
The rules about leave to remain are here, and depend on your reason for being here.
 

Treated as having leave to enter
Commonwealth citizens who have made a valid claim for asylum, or for humanitarian protection, who have not had a final refusal, are treated as having leave to enter.
 

Treated as having leave to remain
Commonwealth citizens whose claim for asylum or humanitarian protection has been approved, are treated as having leave to remain. Others are also be treated as having leave to remain, for example refused asylum seekers who are receiving ‘section 4 support’. 

If you think you should also be treated as having leave to remain, you could check with a Citizens Advice Bureau, or your immigration adviser. We suggest you print this information and take it to them, with your passport, and any official letters, or papers about your immigration / asylum situation.

No right to vote
Other Commonwealth citizens, including people whose

• claims for asylum or humanitarian protection have had a final refusal, or
• who have overstayed their visa, or
• who entered the UK irregularly,

have no right to vote.

You cannot have the right to vote if you are not a citizen of a Commonwealth country, or of an EU country. This means, for example, citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, USA, Brazil, etc. can't ever vote in UK elections, unless they become British, or become a citizen of another EU country.

Register to vote
You can register to vote online – but you have to print, sign and post the application form to the local council's Electoral Registration Office.

The application form is here. If you enter your postcode in the box (top right) it will tell you the address of your local Electoral Registration Office.
 

George House Trust provides this information in good faith but the responsibility is yours to check you have a right to register. If you are in doubt you could ask your local Citizen's Advice Bureau  , or your immigration / asylum adviser.
 

We suggest you print this information and take it to them, with your passport and any official letters or papers about your immigration or asylum situation.

Section 21 Support Guidance

posted: 21/11/2008

NAT and Hackney Community Law Centre have produced a briefing for those working with HIV-positive asylum seekers to explain the impact of the House of Lords ruling in the case M v Slough Borough Council. 

It gives guidance on how best to help affected people.

Section 21 briefing after House of Lords in M v Slough, August 2008