Last week, DoLE chief Rosalinda Baldoz announced that they have agreed with the Lebanese govt. and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) stipulating provisions that will provide protection to deployed Filipino domestic workers in its bid to lift the ban imposed by the PH govt.

Simultaneously, with the signing of a bilateral agreement with the Lebanese, the Philippine and Saudi governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that is expected to end the ban hiring Filipino domestic workers that was imposed by the Saudi govt. last year.

‘We came to know specific to PH-Saudi agreement on hiring Filipino domestic workers that the host govt. acceded on the minimum wage of $400/month, a weekly day-off, holiday time totaling to 30 days, and free ticket for the OFW upon completion of her contract,” Monterona noted.

Though, Monterona welcomed the above stipulated provisions of the PH-Saudi agreement, he said ‘the many cases of abuses and rampant labor malpractices were never thoroughly given much attention and serious consideration.’

“The effectiveness of these agreements with the Saudi and Lebanese governments hosting thousands of Filipino domestic workers cannot be determined in the absence of mechanisms of enforcement of what were stipulated in the agreements or MoU,” Monterona opined.

Monterona added the passage and ratification of legislation or local laws in adherence to international labor standards providing protection to migrant workers, including domestic workers, accompanied by specific implementing rules and regulations by the host governments are still desired.

“Protection of Filipino migrant workers is not simply a matter of signing off a MoU between the PH and the host governments; it is more of how to seriously implement the stipulated agreements care of the host governments by passing local laws that would guarantee migrant rights and their protection,” Monterona ended. # # #

Written:

John Leonard Monterona

Migrante-Middle East regional coordinator

Minister Nahas’ “revolutionary” declarations came during a conference organized by Insan Association at La Sagesse University in Beirut on “Empowerment and Social Inclusion of Migrant Domestic Workers in Lebanon”, while sitting in between the Spanish Ambassador to Lebanon and the Dean of the Faculty of Law in La Sagesse. This is a major shift in policy with previous ministers of labor and came as a surprise to all conference participants.

Minister Nahas explained “so-called system of the sponsorship or guarantor (kafala) does not exist in Lebanese law.” He clarified that the term was imported from Arab countries where the practice is common, and brought into practice in Lebanon by the Lebanese General Security.

Today, Nahas reiterated via his Twitter account his refusal of a bill specific to foreign domestic workers. “Any labor law that takes into account the nationality of the worker is tantamount to racial discrimination,” he wrote in Arabic.

Earlier in 2011, UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of Slavery, Ms. Gulnara Shahinian, refrained from suggesting to abolish the sponsorship system in Lebanon because, as Ms. Shahinian has said, she did not have time to explore the alternatives to the sponsorship system, and she did not view labor laws as a viable alternative. Equally, minister Nahas is going against the current global legislative trend which separates domestic work from normal labor as embodied in the recent work towards a Convention on Decent Work for Domestic Workers.

Minister Nahas’ overarching policy in the ministry of labor is to favor Lebanese over foreign workers. This has recently led to a significantly higher rate of denial of work permits to foreigners requested by Lebanese employers. In the words of minister Nahas, “we cannot keep exporting our youth and importing foreign workers”.

The indefinite detention of illegal migrants dispossesses asylum seekers from their basic rights, including the right to trial as well as to timely deportation. The law only requires a review of detention within seven days, and once again every three years. Any crime committed by migrant workers – from graffiti to weapons possession – is grounds for detainment. This default criminalization of migrants and the terms of their detention contradict several international treaties. Mandated periodic reviews that are years apart fail to mitigate these abuses.

The amendment adds to the growing body of legislation targeting migrants, which includes a five to fifteen year prison sentence for individuals aiding or sheltering illegal migrants. The brute response to migrants is entangled in Israel’s ambiguous, ad-hoc refugee process which broadly condemns assylum seekers as economic profiteers; to date, less than 200 asylum seekers have been granted refuge status. Israel has failed to uphold its obligations as a signatory to the Convention on the Status of Refugees, which requires nations to implement substantive assylum law.

The Knesset’s heavy-handed approach to migration is driven by, and itself perpetuates, this misperception of migrant; statements by the Knesset members and citizens alike manufacture a disasterous image of Israel’s future if refugee migration is sustained, stoking fears in the hopes of justifying draconian and discriminatory laws.

The debate over asylum seekers is particularly intense in Israel as many of its own citizens are refugees from Europe. Israeli communities and international organizations have strongly voiced their discontent with the law; a homegrown initiative called STOP the Infiltration Prevention Law Campaign produced an awareness video featured on Care2.com’s politic’s cause page. See the video and responses from other Israeli NGOs here. Amnesty international also condemned the law in a public statement here.

Earlier articles spotlighted GAMCA’s overly stringent and unfair TB policies, characteristics which appear to extend to many more of GAMCA’s medical requirements. StopGAMCA.org, initiated by a concerned citizen, highlights the absurd policies and the undue distress they cause applicants.The site lists several of the most extraneous disqualifications, many of which are not only non-infectious but also non-medical; physical disabilities that pose zero threat to Gulf societies, including vertigo, colorblindness, and deafness, render migrants ‘unfit’ by GAMCA standards.

StopGAMCA.org also hosts a petition urging the GCC countries to alter their guidelines. Among the signatories include migrants directly affected by the discriminatory regulations. Opponents recognize that while nations must protect themselves from disease, GAMCA’s current policies are erroneous and overly intrusive measures of health.

The UAE deports individuals with active, new, or old pulmonary TB scars. Health officials claim to only deport newcomers, and not long-term residents. But this overzealous practice still disrupts the livelihoods of prospective employees and resident migrants.

Yanita is one of countless individuals unfairly affected by the GCC’s dated TB laws. Accepted to work for Qatar airlines, the 27-year old Bulgarian submitted to regulatory medical tests to obtain her visa. She then underwent a second set of tests in Qatar, where they found a small scar on her lung. She was deported after endless testing, but doctors withheld the findings of her exams:

Nothing was given to me [in the form of] medical documentation. The explanation was – “it’s [a] government secret.”

She returned to Bulgaria, fearing she had an incurable illness of some kind. But back home, doctors amusedly informed her that the scar was only the remnant of an old, healed TB infection. She was given preventative medication for six months and then accepted a job in the UAE, eager to join her Arab-born fiance. Yet, despite being medically fit and healthy, her visa was rejected.

But…even treatment and medical reports saying that I am medically fit, I cannot join my husband or even work. The…worst is that if I try to apply for [a] visa (non-tourist), they will reject me as unfit and banned me for life.

In cases involving healed TB infections such as Yanita’s, officials claim that deportation is necessary because old scars can be easily reactivated. However, the threat of old TB infections is contestable; relapse occurs in only 5 percent of cases. The law appears extreme in comparison to the minimal risk factor, rendering it an inefficient preventative measure. According to a study performed in the US, the practice of deportation may actually increase the spread of TB; the legal stigmatism discourages residents and illegals from reporting symptoms immediately, many citing fear of deportation as their rationale. This delay in treatment increase the opportunity for infection to spread.

Dr. Golub, a TB research specialist, performed the above-mentioned study evidencing the policy’s counter-effective repercussions. Golub and colleagues advised a different approach to treating and handling cases of TB, one which would encourage individuals to come forward and receive treatment before their condition worsens or their infection spreads. Doctors noted that Dubai’s large foreign work force renders the nation uniquely situated to affect total TB rates, adding that medication to cure the disease is inexpensive.

In 2010, the Ministry of Health intended to review the deportation law, but the practice, and the susceptibility to increased infection rates, remains. Yanita, along with other deportees, is pressuring rights organizations and GCC governments to reccaliberate their laws with the reality of TB.

In response to their outdated fears, Yanita asks policy makers: “Which century are TB doctors living in…?”

Shahinian is the first independent UN expert to evaluate government responsiveness to contemporary slavery in Lebanon. But she is not the first to admonish Lebanese oversight failures; HRW documented cases of abuse in a report last year. They found that the regulatory system was ineffective and failed to reprehend or punish employers who abused their workers. This judicial void where migrants are concerned limits the ability to redress exploitation and further normalizes abuse into society. (Click here to see the full report).

But a coherent, robust rule of law needs to be created before it can be enforced. A bill that would reinvigorate migrant law has dawdled in the legislature for over three years. With, on average, at least one domestic worker dying every week in Lebanon (due to work-related dangers, employer abuse, and suicide), the government’s lackadaisical attitude directly endangers migrant well-being.

Shahinian advised the Lebanese government to implement legislation that would ensure all sides act fairly; this would include regulations for employers and recruitment agencies, as well as guarantees for migrants such as “freedom of movement,” and modification of the visa/sponsorship laws that foster conditions leading to domestic servitude. Shahinian emphasized that there are benefits to both parties; the over 200,000 domestic workers themselves would feel secure, and in return for ensuring a positive, safe environment, Lebanon wold continue to attract the work force that it so heavily depends upon. Read more about Shahinian’s experiences and proposals here and here.

Shahinian hopes her reports, backed by the weight of the UN, will encourage Lebanon to reposition its stance towards migrant conditions promptly and assertively.

The government established the Indian Workers Resource Centre (IWRC), a helpline at its UAE embassy, in November 2010. The hotline is heavily utilized by Indian migrants, who have placed over 15,000 calls to the Centre since its debut. Most callers seek legal assistance, in order to overcome the language barriers and other general impediments to foreigners in the UAE’s legal system. India recently announced intentions to expand the Centre’s services to include rehabilitation, in addition to extending its geographical reach across the Gulf.

India is also in the early stages of establishing a return program for migrants to ensure their economic comfort upon retirement from foreign work. The Economic Times of India suggests that India wants to express its appreciation for its migrant-citizens, whose remittances contribute significantly to the economy, by securing certain privileges for them. These benefits thus far include “resettlement expenses, insurance cover, and pensions.” See the full article here.

India’s efforts reflect increasingly stronger responses to migrant conditions across the board. These particular measures attempt to balance obligations to India’s citizens with host-government relations; the call center provides migrants with some shade of support while minimizing the need to pressure host governments directly, thereby circumventing potential conflict. Though these current practices are imperfect, the promise of their expansion signifies forthcoming advancements to migrant welfare and oversight.

Currently, the MoI grants temporary protection under the Refugee Convention to nationals of certain countries, such as Eritrea and Sudan, provided that they can prove their identity.

The African Refugee Development Center (ARDC), based in Tel Aviv, has encountered numerous cases being dismissed out of hand by the MoI due to the difficulties in doing so. In the case of Eritreans, problems arise when there are discrepancies in identity between Eritreans and Ethiopians. Unlike Eritreans, Ethiopians are not eligible for temporary protection in Israel. As in the case referred to above, the MoI commonly rejects an applicant’s claim by asserting that they are not Eritrean but rather Ethiopian.

The long and complex history of Eritrean and Ethiopian relations has resulted in a state of confusion regarding national identity for several thousands of people. Individuals seen as traitors, such as those who voluntarily qualified to vote for Eritrean independence in 1993 or those who were involved in Eritrean Community Associations, were denied Ethiopian citizenship. At this time the Eritrean administration was only a “provisional” government and thus not capable of issuing legal documents such as passports, only identity cards. Therefore many of these cases fell under the definition of “stateless”, that is, they were not formally recognized as either nationality. However, Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality. In 1996 both countries signed a formal agreement stating that acquiring Eritrean identity under the 1993 referendum does not deny individuals from Ethiopian nationality. Both Eritrea and Ethiopia then began issuing dual citizenship.

After Eritrea’s attack on Ethiopia in May of 1998, individuals of Eritrean ties residing in Ethiopia were issued with yellow “alien” identification booklets. These individuals were again denied their Ethiopian citizenship and were not issued with legal Eritrean documents, as they were seen as enemies of the state. This resulted in tens of thousands of cases of denationalized citizens. To add to the confusion, those Eritrean nationals who left Ethiopia were issued with an Ethiopian alien passport which did not show evidence of Eritrean origins. There are three common problems when attempting to prove Eritrean identity

Firstly, in the case of mixed marriages between Eritreans and Ethiopians, one spouse may be granted protection in Israel whilst the other is not, The spouse not granted protection may even face deportation. These situations are also particularly difficult if the couple wish to relocate. Furthermore, there are many difficulties for children born out of these mixed marriages in terms of citizenship which can result in the denial of a temporary protection visa. Due to the current political climate in both Eritrea and Ethiopia, mixed marriages and the resulting children are not accepted by either country and often face discrimination if they are returned. Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. The complexity of Eritrean-Ethiopian identity and nationality therefore results in several situations in which the principle of family unity is in danger.

Secondly, adult individuals of mixed heritage who gained dual citizenship (such as in the aforementioned court case) are often are dismissed as being purely Ethiopian and thus not eligible for temporary protection. However, these individuals are faced with the same discrimination and persecution as all other Eritrean nationals, such as forced military service.

Finally, identity cases are often brought forward by individuals having previously lived abroad for many years or in exile from their country of origin. In these cases, the claimant may not speak the native language of their birth place. For example, Eritreans exiled from Eritrea to Ethiopia may speak Amharic rather than Tigrinya or Arabic, the two most common languages in Eritrea. Similar language issues are found for those clients from Sudan, who do not speak tribal languages such as Fur. Language and identity often go hand-in-hand for the MoI is commonly used to dismiss temporary protection claims.

This court case was a step-forward in asylum rights and we must continue to advocate for fairer trials and a multi-dimensional understanding of identity.

by Zoe Peck

Al-Afasy also said that Kuwait opposes to two important points, one regarding specifying working hours for house maids and the other regarding respecting the maids’ freedom to have off days outside their sponsors’ houses. Al-Afasy says Kuwait and the GCC countries are “a special case” since the majority of maids are women and of course, he says, a maid going to a place unknown for her sponsor, does not suit the habits and traditions of Kuwait and its public ethics.

Such arguments about preserving tradition and modesty of maids have been used throughout the region (not just in the GCC, for example in Lebanon as well) to restrict the domestic workers’ freedom of movement, which is a basic human right.