Global Campus of Human Rights Migration, gender and violence: a global challenge Prof. Francois Crépeau McGill University Thank you very much for being with us today. We are here with Prof. Francois Crépeau, who is, full professor in Public International Law at the Faculty of Law at McGill University. Between 2011 and 2017 Prof. Crépeau was also United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants. Our conversation with him will focus on the root causes and typologies of Gender-Based Violence in the context of migration. So welcome and thank you for being with us today. Thank you for inviting met I wanted to start with a general question more on the root causes. We know that GBV can be a key factor throughout the migration process. It can be a determinant for causes and consequences of migration, but also a key element in human rights violations. So in your experience, what are the main root causes and typologies of GBV throughout migration processes? Root causes is a concept that was primarily discussed in the field of refugee issues and it has been a conversation that has existed for now 30 years. Itis a conversation on why do people move, why do people move forcibly (in the case of refugees) and why do people move in the case of migrants (not so forcibly). Identifying root causes implies that people move because they have no other choice and they find that mobility is a better solution than staying put. Root causes has been identified as generally being composed in two terms, violence and deprivation, destitution, lack of economic opportunities. In the violence context, we know that sexual violence is endemic in any type of armed conflict, but we also have it in societies that are not inthe contextof armed conflict. We also have sexual violence in all countries of the world, in some countries it is better repressed than in others, but in some countries itis not at all repressed, itis part of the daily life of men and women of those countries. There has been a push by civil society, international organizations, to recognize that GBV in the absence of State action is actuallyto be considered a human rights violation sufficient to be called persecution in the sense of refugee law. And therefore women in particular, who are victim of violence, and the police doesn't do anything or laughs or tell them to go back to their husbands, would be in the position to ask for a refugee status. Now this for example is something that Jeff Sessions in the Unites States last week denounced as not being persecution and they adopted as it seemed a regulation yesterday that prohibited providing refugee status based onGBV. So there is a push back against this more liberal approach to refugee status determination encompassing human rights violations that were not envisaged as part of the prosecution when the Convention was adopted in 1951. What is now being also more and more recognized is that GBV is part of the whole migration cycle, itis part of the reasons why people leave, either because of violence or because of deprivation; itisGlobal Campus of Human Rights part of the journey through a number of transit countries. We know for examples that women from Mali, Niger, the West coast of Africa andthe East coast of Africa are taking contraception before leaving, knowing fully well that this is going to happen and repeatedly, and therefore taking precautions. And this is sociological account: they do that because they know that. They are well informed and they “accept (in quotation marks) that this will be part of the journey, this would be part of the price to pay to get the objective which they wish, being it to escapethe situation, to set foot in a country where they are protected and in a country where themselves and their children can establish roots, new roots, and create a future for themselves. And so, we know that, and we also know that upon arrival in the host country GBV can continue. They can find themselves ina community where GBV is rife, and the police hasn't had time yet to figure out what is going on. Or they can find themselves in trafficking rings, very often vulnerability through the migration process makes them prey to trafficking rings. t's a small number as compared to number of migrants, but it is a definite possibility. And also the fact that many of them will find themselves with a very precarious status in the country of destination, either because they will be undocumented, or because they will have a very precarious legal status, if they have for example a one year permit renewable for a single employer who has to be determined in advance, what we call a sponsorship mechanism, the Kafala system, in the Middles East. If they are fired, they lose the residence permit and the work permit and they have to go back home, The investment they've made, psychologically, physically, monetary wise and the fact that their family is counting on them is so huge that they won't do anything to put at risk the migration project, and this means that if there is sexual harassment or sexual violence against them (let's think about domestic workers for example, who live in the house of their employer), they might not, denounce it, because that would threaten the migration project. They might not fight, they might just say, "you know, this is part of winning a future, of gaining a future for myself and my children and | just live with that”. Until they can’t accept it anymore, and then very often they are sent packing and they lose everything they have accumulated because very often they don't have to go to the bank etc. and they go back home empty handed with lots of debts to repay. And this is the kind of scenario: precariousness, the constructed precariousness in which migrants are often placed, put them at risk and we, destination States, are not protecting these people. I wanted to follow up on a point that you mentioned, about the failure to report, like the decision not to report that somebody has been subject to GBV, because this also doesn't help Us to identify the magnitude of GBV. | was wondering if you have knowledge of examples of good practices, first of all to detect when GBV has happened and second, good examples of protection for survivors of GBV. Yes, it depends on the State, on the State authorities, the social networks in the country you're in. In many countries of transit, Libya being probably the worst at present, there's very little one can do because the social networks are not there, the authorities are part of the problem rather than solution. In European countries there is a lot more that can be done, and so in the host countries a lot more can be done. There are very good initiatives, for example, for fighting trafficking in persons especially for sexual purposes but also for labour purposes. Inthe Netherlands and Denmark etc., several countries have established mechanisms for providing a longer term visa for victims of trafficking: one-year visas, renewable visas, certain countries have tried to make that conditional upon collaborating with the authorities at the prosecution of the traffickers. Most countries have recognized that the conditionality actually doesn’t work and that itis creating another precariousness which is not necessary. These women have to rebuild their lives inside themselvesGlobal Campus of Human Rights and in relation to the outside world and they need time, and they need services, they need care, they need to be able to get back on their feet and think about their future. ‘And there are plenty of examples where NGOs have been enlisted, psychiatrists, psychological care specialists...s0 this exists. it costs something, it needs an organization, and States are a bit reluctant to provide such things because they always fear, and itis always the answer we hear, that all this is a pull factor because more women will come because we treat them well, we need to reduce those service. So we have this counterproductive narrative that is often used, but there are quite good examples of NGOs in the field who are able to shelter women, give them time to think, give them time to build trust, tell their stories. But this is what is most missing in migration policies. Generally, what is necessary is individualized analysis of the situation of that person, specific care to respond to that specific situation and solutions that are specially tailored to those persons. That's what we do is social work. Social workers are trying to create a life plan: help people with their budget, if they're not happy, if they can’t deal with the budget; help them school their children, help them educated their children. Depending on what the problem is, social workers would bring types of solutions that are very different, establishing life plans, this is what we should do with migrants, we should not say “all irregular migrants should go back home”, no! We should say “ok, what is the problem with Maria, with Juan?", and try to find for each of them the appropriate solution and for people who've been victim of GBV it means counseling, it means communicating with their family, helping them tell their stories, helping them re-build, but that has to be individualized. And most hostcountries don’t want to do that for people that they have not selected abroad, they don’t want to do that because they fear this would be a pull factor. Now, for countries who have programs to select refugees abroad in refugee camps or in conflict situations and select them to give them some form of permanent residence (and this would be Australia, Canada, New Zealand, US) then often there are programmes, because these people will be resident, therefore will become citizens, and you want to provide them with appropriate care, etc. But for people who came undocumented, who were discovered by the police, arrested, detained...the needs are the same, the services should be the same, but States are often saying “we don’t want this person to stay, she can be rebuilding her life as much as she want but not here”. Providing services is a way for her to create roots and nobody wants that. And so thisis part of the difficulties, we have several narratives that are conflicting: the human rights narrative that says we should protect people but the anti immigration narrative that says we should send them back home. Thank you for reminding us that migrants are not numbers: they are Juan, they are Maria, they need to have our support and protection on an individual basis as individual human beings. Is there any final message that you would like to give to our audience? Well, | just wanted to say that we consider normal that people in one of our city who doesn't find a job in that city, moves to another city. Europe has made ita rule that if you can't find a job in your country you can move to another country within Europe, and in the Schengen zone in particular there is a much freer movement. Why do you do that? Because you find that people are the best place to find by themselves the place where they will survive, the place where they will find an employer, where they will find a partner, where they will be able to put their children to school, to university. People do these decisions very well by themselves. We would be surprised if the government came and said “No, no you need to move to this city because your children would be schooled better over there’. We won't accept that. | don't see why it would be different in terms of international migration. Of course we cannot open the borders from one day to the next, but | think