Seeing red about Canada’s inadequate AIDS policy

Reading Time: 4 minutes

By Suzanne Hindmarch
University of New Brunswick
and Michael Orsini
University of Ottawa

We’re seeing red.

This month, as World AIDS Day came around, we found ourselves getting angry.

The red ribbon has long been a potent symbol of HIV/AIDS activism, signifying anger at the bureaucratic red tape that, in the 1980s, delayed release of life-saving treatments to people living with HIV/AIDS. Treatment access and effectiveness have since improved for some living with HIV/AIDS (at least in Canada – the global majority still have unconscionably limited access to HIV/AIDS medications).

So why are we still seeing red? Why are we angry today?

Suzanne Hindmarch

We’re angry because HIV still disproportionately affects marginalized communities in Canada. Social inequity, stigma and the HIV vulnerability that they produce have not magically disappeared. The HIV response continues to be characterized as much by policy failure as by limited, incremental improvements.

Yes, there has been policy progress. The 2015 federal election halted Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s hard-right turn in many HIV-related policy fields, including the long-standing war on supervised injection sites, which have been clearly shown to prevent HIV transmission. We applaud the shift by the current Liberal government towards evidence-based rather than ideologically-driven drug consumption policies.

But we’re still angry. We’re angered by the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure. Canada is exceptionally aggressive in prosecuting people for not disclosing their HIV status prior to consensual sex. Persons living with HIV/AIDS have been charged at alarming rates using sexual assault law, normally reserved for crimes of sexual violence, even where no HIV transmission occurred.

Michael Orsini

Racialized and Indigenous people have been the disproportionate victims of these laws, which fail to recognize the dangers some people (particularly women) may face when disclosing their HIV status, nor the science demonstrating that HIV transmission is vanishingly unlikely when people are on treatment, with what has been called an undetectable amount of the virus in their bloodstream.

While encouraged by recent mobilization to challenge the criminalization of non-disclosure, we’re disappointed by Canada’s slow progress in revising these regressive, outdated laws.

Above all, we’re angry that HIV/AIDS rates continue to be far higher among Indigenous, racialized and LGBTQ+ people. It’s no coincidence that these are also populations more likely to face intersecting forms of marginalization and discrimination, including poverty, colonization, racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia – forces collectively referred to as the structural drivers of HIV.

The causal links between structural drivers and HIV vulnerability are complex. But the evidence, in the form of HIV/AIDS statistics, is overwhelmingly clear: poverty-related risk, plus stigma and exclusion, equal vastly higher HIV rates among structurally marginalized groups.

For example, HIV rates are at least 2.7 times higher in Indigenous populations than in the Canadian population as a whole. This reflects much larger policy and political failures on the part of the Canadian state. Indigenous scholars have long called for strengths-based approaches to Indigenous health, and for the state to cede real control of health and other programming to Indigenous communities. But from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls to pipelines to health services, Canada is still failing to engage with Indigenous communities on an equal, nation-to-nation basis.

Indigenous sovereignty may seem far removed from HIV/AIDS policy, but this is precisely the point. HIV transmission via shared needles can be reduced in part through the relatively simple policy fix of supervised injection sites, particularly where these are part of a more comprehensive harm reduction strategy; and the prosecution of HIV non-disclosure can be addressed through specific changes to criminal law. To address the structural drivers that produce higher rates of HIV among Indigenous (and racialized and LGBTQ+) populations, there’s no single, simple policy change; more fundamental and far-reaching change is required.

To make real progress in addressing HIV/AIDS, we need bold, creative policy interventions focused not on vulnerable individuals but on the discriminatory social and economic environments that produce this vulnerability. These policies might include guaranteed basic income for people living in poverty, mandatory school-based supports for LGBTQ+ youth (who are under attack by Alberta’s United Conservative Party leader, Jason Kenney, for example), and significant new funding for strengths-based, culturally-grounded programs led by and for Indigenous persons living with HIV/AIDS, to suggest only a few.

We need more courageous policy action at all levels of government to address the structural drivers of HIV/AIDS.

Seeing red remains crucial if we’re to confront this epidemic in ways that reflect a deep commitment to progressive social policies and social change.

Suzanne Hindmarch is an assistant professor of Political Science at the University of New Brunswick. Michael Orsini is a professor in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. With Marilou Gagnon, they are co-editors of Seeing Red: HIV /AIDS and Public Policy in Canada, which will be released by the University of Toronto Press in March 2018.

Suzanne and Michael are Troy Media Thought Leaders. Why aren’t you?

© Troy Media

aids policy

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

By Suzanne Hindmarch

Suzanne Hindmarch's research sits at the intersection of international relations, critical security studies, and global public health. She is primarily interested in the processes through which health, disease and other social policy problems come to be seen in security terms, and the consequences that this has for health, security, and implicated populations and regions. She is additionally interested in the position of the global South (especially Africa) in international relations theory and practice.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.