CCJ Dismisses Gay Activist case due to lack of evidence .

Well the long awaited judgement on the immigration action brought against the state of Belize and Trinidad has come to hand. I was not hopeful as it was clear to myself and others as we watched the proceedings via live stream at the time when the fundamentals were being pursued by the prosecuting attorney for Trinidad.

Questions were asked of the claimant Tomlinson as to whether he actually declared he was gay at the point of entry and if the immigration team refused him such at the time as he was attending an event to which he said no.

The Caribbean Court of Justice, CCJ has dismissed the case filed against Belize and Trinidad and Tobago by Jamaican Gay activist Maurice Tomlinson.

Mr. Tomlinson had brought a case regarding circumstances concerning his entry into both countries.

Tomlinson is an attorney at law.

He had alleged that he has been prejudiced in the enjoyment of his right as a CARICOM national to enter Belize and Trinidad and Tobago without hassle.

Tomlinson conceded that he was never refused entry into Belize or Trinidad and Tobago.

But he contended that the Immigration Acts in both countries, which purportedly include homosexuals as a class of persons prohibited from entering these territories – should be rejected by the CCJ.

Tomlinson argued that the mere existence of the statutory provisions prevented him from entering both countries since, in so doing, he would be breaking their domestic laws. Commendable in principle but to bring a case without definitive proof and expect to win on mere principle is not the way to go I contend.

He told the CCJ that his rights as a CARICOM national would be prejudiced in contravention of his right to free movement under Article 45 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.

The CCJ statement/release also read in part:

In the case of Belize, the Court, agreed with the State’s view that homosexuals (and others) are prohibited from entering the country only where they are seeking financial gain either by offering sexual services themselves or by profiting from those performed by others. As such, the provision would not be applicable to Mr. Tomlinson. 

Critically, the Court indicated, this interpretation is bolstered by the practice of the Immigration authorities of Belize who apply the legislation in a manner consistent with this interpretation. 

see the summary judgement HERE

The Court agreed with Trinidad & Tobago that their Immigration Act differs from the Belizean statute in that it appears to view “homosexuals”, as a category of prohibited persons, although the Court suggested that a more liberal interpretation of the Act was possible. It was shown, however, that Trinidad and Tobago’s Immigration Department does not apply this prohibition to homosexual CARICOM nationals. Therefore, the State argued, 

Mr Tomlinson should have no fear that he would be prejudiced in enjoying his right of entry. 

The Court agreed with this view, noting that Trinidad and Tobago’s practice of admitting homosexuals of other CARICOM Member States is not a matter of discretion (something they could choose to do or not to do) but a legal requirement based on Article 9 of the RTC. Similarly, Mr. Tomlinson, as a university graduate and Community national under Article 46 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, is entitled to a right to seek employment in, and thus to enter, CARICOM Member States and that these rights have been incorporated into the domestic laws of Trinidad and Tobago through the Caribbean Community Act, 2005 and the Immigration (Caribbean Community Skilled Nations) Act 1996. 

The Court concluded that (a) homosexual CARICOM nationals have a right to freedom of movement essentially on the same terms as any other CARICOM national and (b) the State practice of both Belize and Trinidad and Tobago is in keeping with that right. Nevertheless, the Court cautioned that Member States should strive to ensure that national laws and administrative practices are consistent with the right of free movement of all CARICOM nationals, and that this is a necessary component of the rule of law which is the basic notion underlying the Caribbean Community. The Court also emphasized that continuing inconsistency between administrative practices and the apparent meaning of legislation is an undesirable situation as the rule of law requires clarity and certainty, particularly for nationals of other Member States who are to be guided by such legislation and practice. 

The Court ultimately dismissed Mr. Tomlinson’s claims against Belize and Trinidad and Tobago and refused the requested remedies. 

Also see

CCJ Reserves Judgement In Maurice Tomlinson Immigration Case ....... No restrictions on Caricom gays, TT officials say

See the latest video of the actual proceedings HERE, HERE and HERE from the CCJ website.

Peace & tolerance

H

Tenofovir Vaginal Ring Provides Protection Against HIV in Women

An intravaginal ring loaded with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF, Viread) provided mucosal tenofovir concentrations high enough to protect against ex vivo HIV challenge in a 14-day placebo-controlled trial that enrolled healthy women. Product-related adverse events were all grade 1.

TDF with or without emtricitabine has proved effective as oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in women and men. The high tissue and cell penetration of TDF and its long intracellular half-life make it a good candidate for intravaginal ring administration, which could promote better adherence than daily or as-needed oral or gel TDF. Also, TDF retains anti-HIV activity in the presence of seminal plasma. A TDF intravaginal ring completely protected macaques from 16 weeks of intravaginal simian SIV challenge.

U.S. academic researchers recruited 30 healthy, sexually abstinent women 18 to 45 years old and randomized them after cessation of menses in a 1:1 ratio to insert a polyurethane reservoir intravaginal ring bearing TDF or to insert a placebo ring. Participants gave blood and vaginal swab samples on study days one, three, seven and 14, and they removed rings on day 14. They provided additional samples two to four and seven days after ring removal. Researchers also collected an ectocervical biopsy on day 14 for pharmacokinetic analysis and rectal swabs on days seven and 14.

Age averaged about 29 years in study participants and body mass index about 25 kg/m2. One woman withdrew from the study. Rings remained in place for 14 days in all other women, all of whom reported it was very easy or somewhat easy to wear.

Researchers recorded 29 adverse events in 12 women randomized to the TDF ring and 14 adverse events in seven women randomized to placebo. Eight events judged to be product related occurred in six women randomized to TDF and in one randomized to placebo. All product-related events involved cervical or vaginal discharge and were grade 1. There were two nonproduct-related grade 2 adverse events and no grade 3 or 4 or serious adverse events.

The TDF ring provided high tenofovir disoproxil (TFV-DP) and tenofovir concentrations in cervicovaginal fluid (CVF) from the vagina, ectocervix and introitus within one day of insertion, and concentrations remained high through day 14. After ring removal, median initial tenofovir half-life in CVF from the vagina, ectocervix and introitus stood respectively at 14, 12 and 11 hours. Median tenofovir concentrations remained above 1000 ng/mL two to four days after ring removal, a finding suggesting that the ring could protect women who remove the device before sex.

Median tenofovir and TFV-DP concentrations in ectocervical biopsies collected on day 14 were respectively 5.4 ng/mg and 120 fmol/mg. Rectal tenofovir could be measured in five of five participants who agreed to anoscopy on day seven and in four of five on day 14. Median CVF vaginal-to-rectal fluid ratio was 104 on day seven and 240 on day 14.

An ex vivo model using T cells challenged with HIV-1 in the presence of CVF collected from the cervix indicated 29% median inhibitory activity at enrollment, 96% inhibitory activity on day seven and 94% inhibitory activity on day 14.

The researchers conclude that the TDF ring "is safe, well tolerated, and results in mucosal tenofovir concentrations that exceed those associated with HIV protection." On the basis of their results, the authors "anticipate that the ring will continue to deliver ~5-6 mg/day of TDF for 30-45 days and will result in very rapid steady state tissue TFV-DP concentrations that exceed those achieved following oral TDF PrEP in adherent women, but with significantly lower systemic concentrations, thus avoiding potential toxicities."

Making a valid will ......

The content of your will is just as important. Your first duty is to think it through carefully, that is, what you want to say from the grave about your estate and then write it down. Yes, write down all that you own and then decide who should be the beneficiaries, your executors, your witnesses and who should keep your will.

You must first decide what is your name. This is not always easy. Funny, but true. Look at your birth certificate or passport. You may also consider in what name you own some of the things you own. So, your correct name is John Joe Brown, but you are also called Joe Brown and some of your land titles are in name Joe Brown and, in later years, you sign as J. Joe Brown, to the extent that your name on the last two Benz cars and the vacation home in Montego Bay is J. Joe Brown. In light of the above, your name in the will could be John Joe Brown, also known as Joe Brown, also known as J. Joe Brown.

EXECUTOR

Your next big decision is to determine who should be appointed as executor to gather and administer your estate as at the date of death. You may appoint more than one executors. Good friends, beneficiaries and family members are excellent choices. You should be careful to think about someone who is likely to have the energy and drive to instruct lawyers and accountants. The executor must also be able to deal with matters in court, if required to do so.

You can say who you wish to make arrangement for your funeral. For instance, you can direct, in your will, if you wish to be buried or cremated or what exactly what should happen to your remains.

If you have certificate of titles for your properties, you should make them available for the drafting of your will as this is necessary to ensure accuracy in the description of your property. The same thing would apply for your insurance policies, motor vehicles, bank accounts, among other things.

PERSONAL ITEMS

Should you have books, jewellery, watches, paintings and other personal items to be given to your beneficiaries, you should provide a list with a description of each item and the person who should receive these items.

In your will, you can make provision for your church or charity organisation or even for persons who you do not wish to name personally by saying, for instance: "The sum of $10,000,000 to Andrew Graham from my savings account at NCB to distribute in accordance with my instructions".

You may direct your executors to sell any property and share the proceeds amongst beneficiaries or direct that the beneficiaries take the items or properties for their own use absolutely or that they take in equal share, or you could divide the shares by way of percentage.

Another important decision is to decide on the two persons who should witness your will. At least one of the two witnesses should be around to sign documents to have your will probated. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the person is not nomadic, but can be easily found.

Now that your will is drafted and signed by you [testator] in the presence of the two attesting witnesses, it is important to think about how this important document will be stored and kept safely and in good condition until your passing. For the purpose of safe keeping, you may consider using the attorney-at-law who drafted the will, a justice of the peace, one of the executors, or you may even keep it yourself. What is important is that a few people know who has the will in safe keeping.

Pope Francis reveals new church law to deal with paedophile priests

Move to remove Catholic bishops from office if they fail to sack known child abusers is response to demand by victims

Source: Guardian

Catholic bishops who fail to sack paedophile priests can be removed from office under new church laws announced by Pope Francis.

The move, announced by the pope on Saturday, answers a long-running demand by victims of abuse to make bishops responsible if they fail to stop clergy sexually abusing parishioners.

Is the pope serious about confronting child abuse?
Paul Vallely

Many have long accused bishops of simply moving priests accused of abuse to another parish, rather than report them to police or church authorities.

While acknowledging that church laws already allowed for a bishop to be removed for negligence, Francis said he wanted the “grave reasons” more precisely defined. However, doubts remain about the Vatican’s commitment to tackling the issue.

The move comes shortly after the pontiff moved to defend a French cardinal accused of covering up abuse. Philippe Barbarin, the archbishop of Lyon, is facing criticism for his handling of allegations made against Bernard Preynat, a priest in the diocese who has been charged with sexually abusing boys.

Investigators have not yet decided whether to bring charges against Barbarin, who travelled to the Vatican on 20 May for a private meeting with Francis and has denied any wrongdoing. The pope has said it would be “imprudent” to call for the cardinal’s resignation while the case continued, arguing if he did so it “would amount to an admission of guilt”.

“Based on the information that I have, I believe that Cardinal Barbarin in Lyon took the necessary measures and that he has matters under control. He is courageous, creative, a missionary. We now need to await the outcome of the civil judicial proceedings,” Francis told Catholic newspaper La Croix last month.

Closer to home, the pope faces a key test next week in choosing whether to hold onto his financial chief, Cardinal George Pell, who has been accused of covering up historical abuse in Australia. Pell appeared in February before the country’s royal commission into institutional responses to abuse, during which he denied knowledge of priests abusing children as he rose through the ranks of the Catholic church.

The cardinal was appointed head of the secretariat for the economy in 2014 and reaches the official retirement age of 75 on Wednesday. While the date marks an opportunity for Francis to appoint a successor, the pope is expected to reject Pell’s customary resignation and request he continue as the Vatican’s financial tsar.

Juan Barros was appointed a bishop in Chile in March 2015. He had been accused of ignoring reports of abuse by Father Fernando Karadima, a Chilean priest who was found guilty of molestation by the Vatican in 2011. Victims claimed Barros not only helped cover up the crimes, but in some instances observed the abuse. Barros has denied the allegations and the Vatican said he had the church’s support.

Peter Saunders, a British abuse survivor who sits on a papal commission to protect children, said Francis had been vocal about the abuse scandals. However, he criticised the church’s handling of another case in Missouri, where bishop Robert Finn has remained in power even after being convicted of failing to report clerical child sex abuse.

A former Vatican ambassador, Józef Wesołowski, died before he was due to go on trial at the Vatican for possessing child pornography.

During his visit to the US last September, the pontiff met victims of Catholic church sex abuse and vowed that those responsible would face justice. It was the first time Francis had met abuse victims outside of Rome, where he had done so once before. The pope had already apologised for the church’s inadequate response to the US abuse crisis.

The scandal has severely tarnished the church’s reputation and cost $3bn (£2bn) in settlements in the US.

HIV Long-Term Survivors Day

Every year people join together to celebrate and honor the Long-Term Survivors of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Please join with us in raising awareness about the needs, issues and journeys of HIV Long-Term Survivors (HLTS) as we mark two significant milestones – it has been 35 years since HIV was identified on June 5, 1981. It is 20 years since Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) was introduced.

There are a few definitions of Long-Term Survivor (LTS)

• Pre-HAART LTS — Longest-term survivors are individuals who acquired HIV in the 1980s and 1990s, before the advent of highly effective antiretroviral therapy (pre-HAART) when having HIV was considered a death sentence. Those living longest with HIV have physical and psychosocial implications that are vastly different from those who acquired HIV later in the epidemic.

• Post-HAART LTS — those who tested past 1996 and living with HIV for over 10 years.

There are long-term survivors of a different stripe that are often left out of the discourse. They are the survivors who remain HIV-negative. They were lovers, caretakers and frontline healthcare workers. They were lesbians who stepped in to take care of people with HIV and AIDS. They too suffered enormous losses.

It has been over thirty years since the Denver Principles began the self-empowerment movement for people living with HIV but long-term survivors now find our voices muted. Our issues are sidelined by the agencies we helped to form. Conferences devoted to HIV are focused on newer topics while relegating long-term survivors to the sidelines and affinity sessions off the main stage.

The theme for 2016 is “Moving Forward Together”. It celebrates those who have defied the odds by living with HIV for decades. Our focus is on ensuring that HIV Long-Term Survivors and Older Adults Living with HIV are not invisible and forgotten in the current HIV dialogue. We want to change the narrative from surviving to thriving. Achieving that goal requires older adults with HIV to be equipped for healthy aging. Long-term survival, once an almost unimaginable concept is now the norm.

With courage and compassion, we survived the darkest days of the plague. Without access to effective treatments, we were forced to rely on each other and ourselves. As individuals and a community, we exhibited strength we didn’t know we had. Now we’re face the conundrums of aging. Celebrating our lives is what the day is all about.

Today over half of all people living with HIV in the US are over 50. By 2020 that will increase to 70 percent. The mew face of HIV is aging. However, HIV and Aging is not a monolith. A case can be made that Pre-HAART survivors and Post-HAART survivors are separate cohorts with overlapping but different medical and psychosocial needs. Longest term survivors, those who acquired HIV before 1996, face different medical issues and decades of planning to is having an impact on our lives now.

We now find ourselves confronting the realities of aging— something that was unimaginable before 1996. We’re the generation who were told to plan to die young. By the end of that year, in the U.S. we witnessed the deaths of 362,004 of our loved ones and community. 6.4 million people had died form AIDS worldwide.

We chose June 5 to commemorate the day the CDC first announced the mysterious illness that was killing young gay men. It was the beginning of HIV/AIDS awareness before it was known as HIV/AIDS.

There’s a meme that “we lost an entire generation.” While we did a lot of our generation their are by recent estimates, 26% of Longest-Term Survivors alive now. Let’s celebrate, honor and appreciate that they still have years go and it is all our job to help them become the elders of our tribe.

The Challenges

Long-term survivors face a myriad of interconnected psychosocial, practical, and medical challenges rooted in HIV-stigma, aging, ageism, and economic distress that impacts functional health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues.

Psychosocial

The AIDS epidemic has been a series of complex traumatic events. Long-term stress like that experienced by long-term survivors, is unique and we now know that survival itself can also have trauma-related implications. The legacy of our past is having an effect on our lives now, and too many survivors are unaware of what is happening to them.

The effects of ongoing trauma now present in combinations of depression, anxiety, emotional numbness, anger, survivor guilt, insomnia, nightmares, hypervigilance, hopelessness, sometimes substance abuse and or sexual risk-taking. It also includes emotional numbness, low-self esteem, avoidance, social withdrawal and isolation, a lack of future orientation and loss of self-regulation that occurs when survival dominates how a person thinks, feels, and behaves in every area of his or her life. It is that sense of feeling lost or “not myself”. It often includes an exaggerated and persistent negative outlook about one’s identity that breeds a sense of hopelessness and despair.

It is a natural response to the sort of complex posttraumatic stress that often occurs years after the the immediate danger is over. We do not think a perfectly human response should be stigmatized by calling it a disorder. But in psychological terms ASS id s version of Complex PTSD. Another name sometimes used to is Disorders of Extreme Stress Not Otherwise Specified (DESNOS). 

Here is the thing, surviving AIDS for decades is unique. The DSM-5 paints PTSD with a broad brush and ignores the nuances of something this unique. The bible of therapy is the recently revised DSM-5. It only hints at symptoms of complex PTSD, but in the end has left them out of the manual and lumps posttraumatic stress under PTSD. We deserve something that better describes what many of are living with.

More HERE