Kenya: UN expert urges durable solutions for internally displaced persons

Kenya has experienced several waves of internal displacement in recent years, including an estimated 600,000 people that were uprooted by the violence that followed the disputed 2007 presidential elections.

The Special Rapporteur on the human rights of IDPs said that any strategy must include the adoption of a policy and legislative framework, consistent with international and regional standards. It must also include capacity building, including in technical aspects such as registration, profiling, and assistance and protection programme management; prevention and mitigation of internal displacement; and durable solutions.

Kenya’s government authorities need to step up and address this disaster that is taking control over its people. They also need to join forces with the international community to collect more reliable sources to be able to give more attention to vulnerable groups, such as children.

How can the International Community Curb Anti-Gay Laws in Cameroon?

This use of criminal law to punish private sexual activity between consenting adults contravenes international human rights laws that Cameroon has signed and ratified,” said Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

In the last six months, the Cameroon Government has violated the human rights of its homosexual community: “Discriminatory laws that target individuals on the basis of their real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity create a climate of fear for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) individuals,” said Parfait Behen, the president of Alternatives Cameroun.

According to an Amnesty International article, at least ten individuals have been arrested under law that discriminates based upon sexual orientation. Once detained, the supposed homosexuals tortured and treated very poorly while in custody:

“These laws allow police and other actors to target individuals for harassment or violence with impunity, said Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of IGLHRC.

Fortunately, five human rights groups - Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), L’Association pour la Défense des Droits des Homosexuel(le)s (ADEFHO), and Alternatives Cameroun - joined the fight to urge the Cameroon Government to release all individuals detained under discriminatory law. Despite pressure from these groups, Cameroon's discriminatory practices are not likely to fade all that quickly; resulting in increasing torture and ill-treatment of the homosexual community.

What can be done, if anything, to pressure the Cameroon Government to stop these discriminatory practices? Does the burden fall on developed nations, such as the United States, to pressure the Cameroon Government? Or, is the solution to help homosexuals in Cameroon attain formal "refugee" status; and help them re-locate? What should be done?

UN Announces New Parties to Conventions on Statelessness

This report from the United Nations highlights the encouraging news that three new countries - Croatia, Nigeria, and the Philippines - have signed onto the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, two agreements that are rarely talked about, but which are essential to the recognition of the problem of statelessness, and to finding potential solutions to it at the international level.

What is somewhat discouraging, however, is that the number of current signatories is relatively small (40 and 68 countries respectively). And why is that? Do states fear that they don't have the resources to help the international community deal with the flow of stateless persons?

These new signatories seem to suggest otherwise, as Croatia, Nigeria, and the Philippines have not demonstrated extraordinary ability or influence. Perhaps their willingness to join with the more developed world in helping stateless persons will serve as a signal to other nations that they too can help - and that perhaps it is in their best interest - regardless of their international status. We'll have to wait and see, but for now let's appreciate the steps being taken by Croatia, Nigeria, and the Philippines to make the world a better place for those who lack the basic protection of citizenship.

Australian immigration policies

An interesting and disturbing report on changing Australian immigration policies.
"Australia's resumed push to swap asylum-seekers arriving by boat with refugees from Malaysia is the government's most recent policy response to an issue that has preoccupied officials and the public for years.

Under the so-called "Malaysia Solution", Australia would exchange the next 800 refugees to arrive by boat for 4,000 mostly Burmese, in Malaysia. On 31 August, the High Court ruled against it, declaring the proposal invalid, a decision welcomed by rights groups such as the Refugee Council of Australia." To read more, follow the link above.
Is this a viable solution? An ethical one? Should the U.S. adopt something similar with Canada?

Accepting Asylum Seekers from an Ally?

"I felt totally defenseless. Over there (in Chihuahua), the authorities provide no support," the former financial executive said, adding that she was "more afraid of Mexican authorities than of the organized crime groups." -Monica Hernandez

A woman, Monica Hernandez, the daughter-in-law of a slain Mexican activist, was recently granted political asylum In the US after fleeing to El Paso, Texas. From reading the article linked below, it is clear that Mrs. Hernandez certainly has a legitimate fear of persecution, and her grant of asylum on those grounds does not surprise me. What does is that she was fleeing from Mexico, and a US court recognized openly the failures of Mexican law enforcement to protect its citizens. Mexico is a strong US ally, and cooperation has been intensified lately in the form of millions in aid for the war on drugs. (See second article below) It is surprising to me to see the US acknowledge the fact that a major ally, and a major recipient of aid (law enforcment aid no less) is still unstable or dangerous enough to have its citizens, under certain circumstances, to qualify for asylum.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/09/14/us-grants-asylum-to-slain-mexican-activists-daughter-in-law/#ixzz1YLFWhnDC

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124731385

A Life-Threatening Skin Condition

This article discusses how albinos in Africa often face the prospect of being murdered and cut to pieces by witch doctors, who think that albinos are imbued with special powers. This superstition has led to the death of hundreds of albinos throughout the continent. Two things I though interesting in this article: First, that Israel granted asylum on the basis of albinism, and secondly, that the non-albino parents were also granted asylum based solely on their child's risk of suffering violence. I'm unsure how US asylum law would apply to parents and children according if a similar situation occurred here.

I just thought it was an interesting situation and I am very glad that Israel did indeed grant this family asylum :)

Swapping Refugees?

There are many people protesting in Australia against the Australian government’s plan to swap refugees with Malaysia. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been receiving a lot of criticism for her proposed controversial plan to where she wants to send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia in exchange for accepting 4,000 of its refugees. The high court has blocked this proposal and ruled this ‘deal’ not adequate because it does not provide proper protections for those seeking refuge. They stated, “The ‘boatpeople’ cannot be sent to a country (Malaysia) without necessary rights and agreements.”

Protesters and refugee activist have been continually heckling the Immigration minister and the parliament members to follow the high court ruling. They feel that through this type of ‘offshore dumping’ Australia is abandoning it’s responsibilities to those who are seeking refuge and essentially denying them their rights by sending them to Malaysia.

The Immigration minister and Gillard argue that Malaysia has agreed to treat the refugees with dignity and respect and will cater to their human rights protections. The public is not convinced.

While the intentions behind this proposal may have been good, and for the benefit of the refugees and the Australian people, it brings a fascinating question to the issue of asylum seeking. Should countries be able to ‘swap’ amongst each other?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/protesters-chase-immigration-minister-20110917-1keu4.html

A Never-ending road of bloodshed and tears

When will the Syrian government finally believe that they are doing something wrong?

In the beginning of 2011, the people of Syria decided to take a stance against the government of Syria and demanded an end to the injustice, poverty, and corruption that has been plaguing Syria under the presidency of Bashar al-Assad. Since then,

"Human rights groups say more than 2,000 people have been killed in the government's crackdown on protests. The regime has unleashed tanks, snipers, and pro-regime gunmen in an attempt to stamp out the uprising." - USA Today

Along with the 2,000 plus people that have been killed, over 10,000 people have been arrested and even more people have merely disappeared. The Human Rights Council along with the United States, the United Nations and more than 30 members of the Human Rights Commission have formed an international Commission of Inquiry in order to look into the violations of international human rights law being committed by the Syrian government. President Obama has taken it one step further by not allowing American Citizens to engage in any transactions with the Syrian government in hopes of getting President Basha al-Assad to step down.

The current condition in Syria is dangerous for anyone there and a civil war is imminent unless something drastic is done to save the Syrian people.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/more-protest-video-from-syria/

In the above webpage, you can see 4 short clips of the protests in Syria. All the protests have been peaceful in the sense that the protesters did not use violence rather they marched through the streets; however, the Syrian government thought it was necessary to call in tanks on the protesters and open fire.

- Cosima

Immigration Law: Pre and Post 9/11

In fifty years, how will we think of post 9/11 immigration law?

The events of 9/11 drastically changed U.S. immigration policy. Prior to 9/11, in the 1950s through the 1980s, very few laws were strictly enforced. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was purposelly written in very vague terms. Its vagueness allowed very little enforcement of immigration laws, and even condoned employers hiring illegal immigrants. Clinton and Bush viewed lax immigration laws as a great boost to the economy - motivated foreigners searching for a better life produced more than a complacent American. In these times, many illegal immigrants lived and worked in the United States, and still many continued to cross the border without check.

However, 9/11 drastically changed immigration law. President Bush enforced laws that greatly tightened security measures. For example, the INS became part of the DHS and was given much more enforcement powers. In addition, Bush passed the Anti - terrorism Act, the Patriot Act, and the Enhanced Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (EBSVERA). Such laws gave the government extreme powers that gave them the ability to crack down on illegal immigration. Such policies pushed immigrant apprehensions to a 40-year low and immigrant removals to an all-time high; the illegal immigrant population shrunk by a staggering 1 million people.

Some argue that it is time for immigration policy changes. Such people vouch for a "Comprehensive Immigration Reform " bill (CIR), which calls for more immigrants being granted the chance to earn "legalized" status. They argue that in years down the road, we will think of the CIR bills similarly to how we now think of laws prior to the Civil-Rights movement - as ignorant and cruel to other humans.

I, however, do not know if not passing Civil Rights Laws in the 1960s can be compared to not passing the CIR bill. Clearly, times in post 9/11 call for greater security and enforcement of immigration laws. There is certainly a greater threat of terrorist attack, than threat of someone with a different skin color of gender attending one's school.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting thought to consider - in years down the road, will we look back at the post 9/11 immigration laws as warranted, or de-humanizing and cruel?

Double standard in Libya?

“Alleged Libyan rape victim deported from Qatar back to Libya”

-June 02, 2011 By Nic Robertson, CNN

"Secret diplomatic moves were under way to enable Col Muammar Gaddafi to leave Libya and seek temporary asylum in a sympathetic country."

-The Telegraph 9/6/2011

A double standard?

The situation in Libya has deteriorated considerably over the last few months. Civil war has made life uncertain for a large portion of the population and two drastically different asylum cases bring up a serious issue of double standard.

Last March Eman al-Obeidy grabbed the worlds attention by marching into a Tripoli hotel filled with international reporters claiming she had been kidnapped and raped by 15 members of Gadhafi’s security forces over the course of two days. After telling her story she was forced to flee Libya and made her way to Qatar where, with the help of the UNHCR, she tried to start a new life. This, however, was not to be, as Qatari authorities deported her back to Libya despite the pleas of the UNHCR and others.

We often see asylum as a tool for those who have no other option to seek a better life. It is a way for people to escape persecution when they fear living in their own country. A person like Eman al-Obeidy is exactly who asylum is supposed to protect.

But what happens when it is the persecutor who all of a sudden has what might be considered a "well founded fear of persecution". Colonnel Gaddafi is certainly living in fear at the moment, as rebels take control of more and more of the country. In the U.S. we have provisions preventing persecutors from being granted asylum but when it comes to a person like Gaddafi it seem the international community is more concerned with protecting him than bringing him to justice.

“Talks have been taking place over a deal to ensure the deposed dictator escapes a final reckoning with the rebels, so sparing Libya any further bloodshed.” –The Telegraph

There is no doubt that Libya has seen enough bloodshed, but does that mean that we have to grant asylum to the man who is the reason for all of the fighting in the first place? Is there no room for a middle ground where justice can be served? Why should Gaddafi be allowed to walk away and start a new life when Eman al-Obeidy cannot?

Much of what this blog and the class that accompanies it are about is fighting tooth and nail for the rights of the persecuted to seek safety and live a better life. It is, therefore, frustrating to see so much political will to come up with a place that will grant Gaddafi asylum, but at the same time a victim of brutal rape is returned to the place of her persecution.

Articles:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8745707/Libya-asylum-talks-begin-as-Gaddafi-loyalists-flee-across-border.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-02/world/libya.rape.case_1_qatari-authorities-refugees-moammar-gadhafi?_s=PM:WORLD