In Swaziland, helping some by hurting others

In Swaziland, one in four adults are living with HIV, and since 2007, 10,000 people have died from the disease.

As this problem fails to dissipate, suggested solutions have become more drastic.

In 2009, parliamentary official Timothy Myeni proposed that country-wide HIV tests be made mandatory, and that those who test positive be permanently branded on the buttocks with a warning symbol.

The measure would aim to prevent further spread of the HIV virus by making it
almost unavoidable to sleep with an HIV positive person unknowingly.

“Before having sex with anyone, people will have to check their partners’ buttocks before proceeding,” Myeni said.

Disease carriers would be marked with a warning label similar to cigarette packages.

Initial thoughts? Sounds similar to a cross between The Scarlet Letter and that scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Some might argue that, although the proposal appears draconian, it is the next necessary step in an increasingly futile fight against an epidemic disease.

But I believe that resorting to this procedure shows a waning sense of humanity in the face of terror, where many innocent people would be marginalized for the perceived greater good. I also don’t think the idea would be all that effective.

Although the proposal is designed to curb the spread of HIV, it will unavoidably turn the carriers into villains. How could a government-sponsored branding of HIV carriers be misconstrued as anything but punishment?

HIV and AIDS are already heavily stigmatized in Africa, and this measure would only add fuel to the fire.

Furthermore, there could certainly be cases where an individual, after recognizing the symbol on a branded partner, might choose to abstain from engaging in consensual sexual activity.

But not all sex is consensual. 

In March of this year, 121 rape incidents had already been reported in Swaziland.

Of those, 80 were children. In South Africa, Swaziland’s neighbor, most of the child-bearing age population is now infected with HIV-AIDS because of the rape epidemic.  

Brand or no brand, a rapist will rape. Is it worth stigmatizing this entire group of people if the ones who rape will be unaffected?

I realize that such an insurmountable crisis can inspire radical solutions, but the Swazi government cannot fall into that trap.

In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an order that allowed the military to intern Japanese-Americans in designated camps. This was done to
prevent espionage.

I suppose the reasoning was that if all potential enemies are being guarded and quarantined, then they cannot do any harm. But with no evidence of any wrongdoing (or due process for that matter), this measure was inhumane and the government has since apologized for it.

The HIV branding in Swaziland is comparable, because it uses similar logic to justify its inhumane tactics.

The government has no way of knowing which HIV carriers will mislead a sexual partner and infect them with the disease. They’re nuking a city in order to destroy a couple of houses.

This measure should not be enacted because it oversimplifies the problem. It further stigmatizes an already damaged group of people and it aims to help some by hurting most.


E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu