#chasson

Chasson Randle to sign with Warriors

Chasson Randle’s journey back to the NBA has taken some twists and turns, but is nearing a close. Per a report from ESPN’s Jonathan Givony, Randle is signing a contract with the Golden State Warriors.

At this point, it’s unknown if Randle is signing a 10 Day contract or a rest of the season deal. Givony had reported last week that Randle had been blocked by the Chinese Basketball Association…

Sophie Chiasson was an intern with the International Refugee Rights Initiative in Kampala, Uganda during the summer of 2015 and is currently a Juris Doctor candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Canada.

Although Zambia has a long tradition of hosting refugees and has been recognised as a generous and hospitable host, current legislation and policies impede the rights of refugees to freedom of movement, which, as IRRI has previously argued, is a “critically important refugee right.” A policy of refugee encampment, which isolates refugees in camps and settlements, hinders integration with local communities and impedes long-term solutions to displacement problems.

In 2015, UNHCR advertised that its programmes in Zambia would “focus on durable solutions,” one of which is local integration. However, of the 51,611 refugees registered in Zambia today, the majority remain in settlements, unable to leave and secluded from local communities, opportunities and services. Although Zambia has taken some positive steps in regard to integration in the last few years, its insistence on the policy of encampment and denial of the right to freedom of movement are undermining this progress. Given that most rights are contingent upon freedom movement and because, as IRRI advocates, encampment is a significant obstacle to durable solutions, the government of Zambia needs to relax its encampment policy, a step which would be in line with UNHCR’s Alternatives to Camps policy.

In the past five years, the government of Zambia has taken some positive steps towards facilitating local integration for select groups of refugees. In 2010 Zambia pledged to offer residence permits to 10,000 Angolan refugees and in 2013 agreed to facilitate naturalisation for 4,000 former refugees from Rwanda. Although a number of Angolans have successfully received permanent residence, as IRRI has written, the latter process has encountered significant problems. In addition, while some have been able to access permanent residence, such status remains out of reach for the majority of refugees in the country who are instead forced to reside in either the Meheba or Mayukwayukwa settlements. Problematically, both the Constitution of Zambia, Article 6(1)(b), and the Citizenship Act of Zambia, Section 16(2)(b), require that an individual is an “ordinary resident” in the country for 10 years before applying for citizenship. However, as UNHCR points out, Zambian law does not view refugees as “ordinary residents” in the country, therefore significantly limiting their access to naturalisation procedures. Further, refugee children are not granted citizenship by birth but must assume the nationality of their parents.

Zambia is a state party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention) and its 1967 Protocol, which affirms the right to freedom of movement. However, Zambia has maintained a number of significant reservations to the 1951 Convention that inhibit the rights of refugees to freedom of movement, education, and employment. For example, while Article 26 of the 1951 Convention states that contracting states shall allow refugees the right to choose their place of residence and move freely within the territory, in its Reservations and declarations to the 1951 Refugee Convention (1951 Reservations) Zambia declares “it reserves the right to designate a place or places of residence for refugees.” Zambia also makes it clear in the reservations that the country does not accept any obligation to grant refugees rights to elementary education or to wage-earning employment.

Zambia’s current refugee legislation, the Refugees (Control) Act, 1970 (Refugees Act 1970), which grants the responsible Minister broad powers over refugees, reflects the country’s reservations to the 1951 Convention and institutionalises a policy of refugee encampment. Similar to Tanzania’s refugee legislation, refugees in Zambia are required to reside in one of the country’s designated settlements, a provision that officials strictly enforce, unless an individual refugee qualifies for an urban residency permit or has written permission from an authorised officer for an internal travel document. If a refugee is found outside a designated settlement without the required permit, she or he risks arrest and detention by immigration authorities and of being found guilty an offence against the act. Further, to even exit a settlement, camp-based refugees must have a gate pass issued by a Refugee Officer. Pursuant to Section 16 of the Refugees Act 1970, an authorised officer may “arrest without warrant any refugee reasonably suspected of having committed or attempted to commit an offence [against the Refugees Act].” Upon conviction, a refugee may be imprisoned for no more than three months. Refugee legislation in Zambia therefore works to control the movement and activities of refugees and to restrict their ability to integrate into Zambian society.

To challenge the restrictions on their movement, refugees must apply to the Sub-Committee on Urban Residency, which reviews and adjudicates applications for urban residency permits. The Sub-Committee is comprised of officials from, inter alia, the Immigration Department and Ministry of Labour and Social Services. To qualify for an exemption to encampment, a refugee must meet at least one of the following five criteria, agreed upon by the government and UNHCR: (1) have a permit for employment, self-employment, or study issued by the Department of Immigration; (2) require medical care not accessible in the settlements; (3) show an established family connection with a refugee already in an urban area; (4) face a specific security problem; or (5) be awaiting resettlement to a third country. If approved, a refugee is given an urban residency permit – a bar-coded electronic identification document – valid for one to three years. As of 2010, 4,407 refugees were registered in urban areas as being, or having been, in possession of an urban residence permit.

Problematically, because the Immigration and Deportation Act of 2010 does not make special provisions for refugees, they must, like other foreigners, obtain a permit to engage in employment or to study at an educational institution. However, a refugee must first obtain a job before applying for a permit, which is a lengthy and complex process and involves documenting that no Zambian is qualified for the job. The employment permit costs USD 500. A study permit costs USD 100 and also requires a letter of acceptance from an institution recognised by the Ministry of Education. For refugees to be legally self-employed, pursuant to the Immigration Act, they must show a substantial amount of investment (USD 25,000 in assets).

Although it is difficult to calculate how many refugees live without the required permit in urban areas today, in 2013 the Zambian Red Cross Urban Refugees Project estimated that as many as 15,000 unregistered refugees may live in Lusaka alone. Without proper documentation, refugees are at risk of arrest, deportation, and exploitation. The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and extreme poverty, Ms. Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, has found that because unregistered urban refugees in Lusaka face impediments to employability in the formal sector, many resort to work in informal markets where they are more likely to be exposed to exploitative working conditions and abuse. In addition to strict legislation, social discrimination also makes it difficult for undocumented urban refugees to obtain employment and access a host of services, including health-care and education. In 2007, UNHCR reportedly instructed the Zambian Red Cross to serve only those with urban residency cards, buttressing the country’s encampment policy and prohibiting others from accessing important services. These factors make undocumented urban refugees vulnerable to extreme poverty.

By Sophie Chiasson, a volunteer with the International Refugee Rights Initiative (IRRI)

Freedom of movement is not only an internationally recognised right of refugees, it is also critical to their day-to-day lives and to their ability to enjoy other human rights. In October 2014, IRRI launched a campaign to promote the enjoyment by refugees of this fundamental human right. As part of that effort, IRRI is beginning to explore the particular challenges to refugee freedom of movement by looking at individual country situations with a view to being able to address them. This article looks at what extent refugees in Tanzania are able to access their internationally recognised right to freedom of movement and what impact it has on their ability to access other rights.

Tanzania is considered one of the world’s major refugee-receiving states. According to UNHCR, there are currently 253,190 refugees in the country, with Burundian and Congolese refugees comprising the majority. Additionally, the current instability in Burundi has increased the number of individuals seeking refuge in the country. As of 24 May 2015, international aid organisations have estimated that anywhere between 47,000 and 70,000 new Burundian refugees have arrived in Tanzania since the inception of the recent political crisis in the country. Tanzania has only one permanent refugee camp – known as Nyarugusu – and with more Burundians entering each day, the camp is estimated to be at 200% of its original capacity.

In Tanzania, policy discourse distinguishes between “settlements” mainly set up to house refugees who arrived in the 1970s and “camps” primarily set up to house those that arrived in the 1990s. Settlements are distinguished from camps in that refugees in settlements typically had access to larger plots of land. However, in both cases refugees’ rights to freedom of movement are similarly restricted.

The development of refugee policy in Tanzania

In the period immediately following its independence in 1961, Tanzania had what was considered an “open door” policy for refugees, which drew on then-President Nyerere’s pan-African vision. Nevertheless, the law retained restrictions on the containment of refugees inasmuch as the majority were confined to settlements.

In 1998 Tanzania enacted new legislation, the Refugees Act, 1998 (the 1998 Act), which replaced older laws and sought to conform with the country’s obligations pursuant to the signing of the OAU Convention Governing Specific Aspects of Refugees Problems in Africa of 1969 (the OAU Convention). In addition to seeking conformity with the country’s continental commitments, a secondary objective of the 1998 Act, Dr. Khoti Kamanga, of the University of Dar es Salaam, argues was “to signal disengagement from the Open Door policy of the [previous] Nyerere administration, with a view to making Tanzania a less attractive destination for asylum seekers, and sending a deterrent message to authorities in refugee-generating countries.” Government policy also encouraged repatriation as the preferred solution. On a practical level, the new legislation intensified restrictions on the rights of refugees in the country and controls on the movement of encamped refugees increased. As Dr. Lucy Hovil, a senior researcher for IRRI, explains in Going home or staying home? “although [refugees] had long required permission to leave their settlements, these controls became stricter over time, and eventually their movements were restricted to a four-kilometre radius from the centre of the camps.”

Tanzania’s current legislation and policy

The 1998 Act makes no specific mention of the right of freedom of movement for refugees, however, pursuant to sections 16 and 17, authorities have the power to require any asylum seeker or refugee to reside within a “designated area” (DA) – a euphemism for a refugee camp or settlement. According to UNHCR, however, “[i]n practice, all refugees are required to reside in camps or settlements.” Further, Tanzania’s 2003 National Refugee Policy (2003 Policy), which is not codified law but frames the general direction the government intends to pursue for refugee matters, affirms in paragraph 28 that “refugees will be hosted in designated areas whereby the international community will be obliged to provide material assistance.”

The government of Tanzania vigorously enforces restrictions on the movement of refugees once they reside within a DA. For instance, if a refugee is caught attempting to leave their designated camp without permission, officials may detain the individual for up to three days in a camp jail and issue a fine of up to five thousand shillings (just over USD 2). In order to leave their DA, pursuant to section 17(5)(a) of the 1998 Act, a refugee must obtain a temporary movement permit from an official who then determines the specific “terms and conditions” of the permit. A movement permit can only be issued for up to 14 days unless the Director of Refugee Services has specifically allowed a permit for a longer period of time. If the individual fails to comply with the terms and conditions of their permit, they may be guilty of an offence against the Act, and if convicted, can be imprisoned for up to six months or fined fifty thousand shillings (about USD 23), or both. Refugees and asylum seekers found outside camps without proper authorisation have also been prosecuted for unlawful presence in Tanzania under the Immigration Act, 1995 and could be imprisoned for two years followed by deportation from Tanzania. However according to the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, “[a]uthorities typically sentence them to only community service.”

Although not codified in the 1998 Act, a practice has developed which prohibits refugees from moving outside a four-kilometre radius of their camp. This is intended to allow refugees to move outside their DA in order to collect amenities, such as firewood. However, because there is no clear demarcation to where the DA ends, refugees may cross the four-kilometre boundary line without knowing it and can be subject to penalties.

The 1998 Act also made it a formal offence for a refugee to live outside a DA without obtaining a permit. Asylum Access explains “[s]uch permits are difficult to obtain and are only granted for exceptional cases involving almost exclusively medical needs, religious work and higher education.” For camp-based refugees seeking to pursue higher education, significant tuition fees act as a barrier to enrolment and thus receiving a permit. In the case of a work permit, if a refugee is found working outside a DA without one, they face a fine of just under USD 100 or imprisonment up to three years, or both. There are no available statistics on how many individuals are currently living outside of DAs without authorisation but if found by authorities they face expulsion from Tanzania.

Freedom of movement: legal, ethical and practical implications

As a result, Tanzania’s legislation violates international legal statutes, which protect the rights of refugees to freedom of movement. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the foundation document of international human rights law, states that “everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within borders of each state.” Further, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its Related Protocol (the Refugee Convention) – of which Tanzania is a signatory – also affords refugees the right to freedom of movement, however, it does state that these rights may be subject to regulations imposed by the host state.

Beyond respecting international legal obligations, recognising the rights of refugees to freedom of movement is, as IRRI’s Themba Lewis writes, “crucially important” to the extent that “nearly all other [rights] are contingent upon it” including the rights to employment, education and naturalisation. Further, the authors of Refugee Rights point out how freedom of movement is closely tied with human dignity and that “refugees who are not allowed freedom of movement are, effectively, locked-up members of society.” UNHCR’s recent Policy on Alternatives to Camps (UNHCR policy) also acknowledges that camps, by definition, place limitations on the rights and freedoms of refugees, and maintains that is therefore essential to pursue alternatives to camps wherever possible.

Not only is it in contravention of international law, by prohibiting refugees from leaving camps, Tanzania’s current legislation also prevents refugees from building sustainable, independent livelihoods. For instance, refugees are not entitled to pursue employment opportunities other than by engaging in small income-generating activities within the confines of the camps. Further, because refugees are prevented from travelling more than four kilometres outside of a DA, economic activity between refugees and local populations is stunted. For one Congolese refugee who has been in the camp for the past 18 years, this means he is able to sometimes earn USD 0.90 a day by cutting hair or doing odd jobs. However, the 26 year old says he “needs a job” and “want[s] to do something for [his] life.” While some may claim that refugees will take employment opportunities away from citizens if they are allowed access to local markets, the opposite is true according to UNHCR policy; instead “camps may distort local economies and…the presence of refugees in communities can actually stimulate local economies and development.”

Refugees who choose to leave the camps or avoid going there in the first place are drawn to urban centres including Kigoma, Mwanza and Dar es Salam with hopes for better livelihoods. These refugees cite reasons which touch on the effective hindering of their ability to achieve self-reliance; including, as Asylum Access notes, “generalized insecurity, outbreak of diseases, insufficient support and services and lack of employment.” However, refugees who remain outside DAs without a permit have no way to access formal humanitarian assistance, support or legal protection and are instead at risk of prison and/or deportation as undocumented immigrants. UNHCR’s office in Dar es Salaam does not offer protection or assistance to urban refugees unless they are camp-based refugees referred to Dar es Salaam for medical reasons. Refugees who may be forced to leave the camp because of a specific security reason, but cannot obtain a permit, are therefore forced to live without formal assistance. Further, because of the high cost of obtaining a work permit, as described above, Asylum Access has found that “many non-encamped refugees are forced to seek work in the informal economy to support themselves and their families” and are effectively delegated to the shadows of society. The precarious situation of urban refugees is made worse due to the constant threat of arrest and deportation. Dr. Hovil notes that with the inception of Tanzania’s 1998 Act, “unrecognised or self-settled refugees also felt the impact of tightening restrictions, becoming increasingly vulnerable to arbitrary arrest and refoulement.”

Conclusion

As most people are aware, in the Orthodox community before a young man and woman are to be married, they have to be taught the halachos of taharas ha’mishpacha - which could be understood in the non Jewish world as Sex Ed.

The classes are so much more than that - there’s hashkafah, halacha, mikva instruction, a bit of biology, and ultimately what it takes to keep the husband and wife both satisfied as partners in their marriage (not just sexually). 

But I gotta’ tell you, it is super freakin’ weird when your younger sister, who used to be so pure, starts discussing with you how so many things that she thought were off limits are actually ok as long as they’re done right. Like “quickies” in a closet, or blowjobs. 

I mean, seriously. 

My little sister is discussing these things so openly with me. 

#awkward

It’s also understood that the chassan and kallah don’t touch each other (let alone have sex) before their wedding night, so it’s almost expected that that’s what’s going to happen after the wedding. 

One of my more outrageous friends was having a private conversation with me about family stuff and then all of a sudden went, “have you ever thought about the fact that your sister’s about to have sex?” As shocking as that revelation was, my initial response was, “obviously, that’s what happens after marriage, but I would definitely prefer not to think about my sister’s sex life.” But she kept going, “but it’s weird though, right? like, right after the wedding, they’ll totally rush out of there because neither one of them can keep their hands off each other and they’ll go back to their place and just do it.” At that I rolled my eyes, the international signal for “I hear you. You’re ridiculous. Let’s move on.” And then she said, “In 9 months, she could be a mommy.”

And that one sort of stings. For two reasons:

The first is that I know something she doesn’t know. I know that my sister and her chasson don’t have a lot of money and that in order to prevent financial stress and shalom bayis issues, their rav is having them use birth control for at least the first 6 months. So, no - in 9 months, she won’t be pregnant yet. But it’s that kind of thinking, those expectations, that are so uncomfortable. 

The second is that it’s painful to me. There’s nothing that I want more in life than to have children of my own. And while I was always voted by my family “most likely to succeed”, it hurts that my sister, who is my junior by 5 years, is getting married first. No matter what I say contrary to that and how big my smile is when I say it, it hurts. It hurts that she’s getting married first, it hurts that even if it’s not right now, she’ll probably have kids first, and it hurts that the way my life is going right now, I just don’t know if any of that is in my own future. It just hurts. 

But of course, nobody knows that. And nobody knows that because why should I detract from someone else’s deserved simcha?

The Talk(s):

Talk 1

My sister and I sat up talking everything over until close to 4am. She cried about how she felt she was letting everyone down and I reminded her that it's better to let everyone down than to be stuck in a loveless, frustrating marriage to a dishonest person. 

I also reminded her of the meltdown she had the day of the vort and how I told her, even back then, that if she needed more time to get to know Y.M. she should tell them. And that it's never too late to break it off if it's wrong. 

Her response to that was assent, and then she told me something I didn't know - that meltdown was the first of three that she had over the course of the engagement. The second was with E.S. and the third was with my mom. 

She also cried about how she was so embarrassed. Since more than one person had gone to E.S. to mention that they thought something was wrong with the shidduch, and E.S. had serious concerns, and the Rabbi had his own reservations... to her it seemed like the whole world knew that this was wrong, yet nobody said anything to her until a week before the wedding. 

But nobody wants to be the one to break two people apart and be the seed of doubt. It's an awful position to be in. 

I reminded her that I've been here every step of the way and that I've been an advocate for her, not the shidduch. I've talked her through other situations, and I would be here for this one too. 

The next big talk would be to tell my parents. 

Talk 2

The problem with telling my parents is that my dad can't keep a secret and my mom is over dramatic and has anxiety.

We had a bris to go to that morning and had to be up early for it, but my mom leaves for work earlier than that, so I asked my sister how she wanted to handle it - tell my mom before she goes to work, which would let her ruminate on it all day and overthink everything or tell her when she gets home from work, which would be about 15 hours later, meaning my sister would have to sit on that information and not talk to anyone about it for that long.

She decided on the former rather than the latter and napped on the couch until my mom came downstairs two hours later. I stayed with her to help her talk it through.

Just as suspected, my mom over reacted and we thought she was having a heart attack. But she realized that neither one of us was upset or freaking out and she calmed down much faster than I ever would have guessed she would. Once she heard the whole story, she told my sister that she was really proud of her strong decision and gave her a big hug before leaving for work. 

Less than an hour later, the rest of the family was dressed and out the door for the bris. 

Talk 3

When we told my dad, he thought we were joking. Clearly we weren't. He didn't ask too many questions, just claimed that he wasn't Y.M.'s biggest fan from the beginning and started listing all his own grievances with the guy. That just made my sister extremely annoyed.

Talk 4

Next came the talk with the Rav, which I was asked to sit in on. The Rav mentioned how my sister seemed much more at peace than she had the night before. Much more clear minded and not angry anymore. 

My sister mentioned how she didn't feel angry at Y.M. or the situation anymore. She felt like a weight had been lifted off her shoulders and she was anxious to just move past everything. 

But there was one more talk she had to have before the moving on process could really kick into high gear: The talk with Y.M. 

Lies and Confusion

My sister came in one day with a weird look on her face, so I asked her what was up. She looked at me and said, “Um. He was engaged.”

I was like, “What? What are you talking about?”

So she told me - one of her close friends (let’s call her Ahava) had been friends with Y.M.’s family for years. Ahava and my sister were having a conversation about the event that they went to where my sister met Y.M.’s mother and aunt (the event that got this whole ball rolling in the first place), and Ahava said, “Wait, was that while he was still engaged?”

And my sister made one of these faces: (O.o)

Ahava said, “What's wrong?" My sister replied, "He was engaged?" And Ahava said, "I totally told you about that.” But my sister did not recall that bit of information. At all. So Ahava asked, “Wait, he didn’t tell you about it?” Apparently he had skipped that piece of information as well.

So my sister called Y.M. and asked him about the previous engagement to which he replied something along the lines of, “She was too needy and controlling, she was bad at decision making, it wasn’t a good shidduch, everyone told me she wasn't right for me but I wouldn't listen and I was relieved when it was over.” I don’t think my sister was at ease with his response, but she sort of dropped the subject.

But still. Engaged to two people within a year of each other is kind of strange. And to avoid that topic in conversation with your betrothed just seems so wrong.