Indonesian plan to track HIV carriers with microchip implants violates human rights Commentary
Indonesian plan to track HIV carriers with microchip implants violates human rights
Edited by:

Craig McClure [Executive Director, International AIDS Society]: "The International AIDS Society strongly urges the government of Papua, Indonesia to discard its proposed plans to insert microchips into "sexually aggressive" HIV-positive people in the province. Passing such a law into practice would be an infringement of basic human rights, and will in fact increase the rate of new infections within the province.

Any law that treats people living with HIV as criminals encourages the uncontrolled growth of stigma and discrimination. This in turn causes fear and shame amongst the population, and people become more inclined not to be tested for HIV or admit their positive status, and so avoid seeking treatment and care. As a result, HIV is spread amongst the population at a far more rapid rate than under normal circumstances.

Rather, we encourage the Papua government to seek evidence-based solutions to controlling and managing its HIV epidemic. There is no public health rationale to treating HIV-positive people little better than animals."

THIS DAY @ LAW

Anti-apartheid activist Stephen Biko died in police custody

On September 12, 1977, South African anti-apartheid activist Stephen Biko died in police custody after having suffered a massive head injury during interrogation following his arrest. The story of journalist Donald Woods' investigation into the circumstances of Biko's death was the basis of the 1987 film Cry Freedom.

Read an address on Stephen Biko delivered by then-South African President Nelson Mandela on the 20th anniversary of Biko's death in 1997.

Supreme Court unanimously rejects state challenge Brown v. Board of Education

On September 12, 1958, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a state government challenge to Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, which had overturned segregation. In Cooper vs. Aaron, the State Government of Arkansas challenged the authority of the Court to implement desegregation. The Court responded by forcefully re-asserting its authority and the authority of the federal government over the states.