exclusion

AFGHANISTAN: ‘Open-source monitoring reveals both the clampdown on women’s rights and the impact on their lives’
CIVICUS speaks about the situation of human rights and women’s rights in Afghanistan with Anouk Theunissen and Humaira Rahbin, researchers with Afghan Witness, and Meetra Qutb, Afghan Witness’s communications specialist.

Afghan Witness is a project run by the UK-based Centre for Information Resilience, aimed at independently collecting, verifying and preserving information on human rights in Afghanistan. It seeks to provide reliable data to international organisations, governments, the media and civil society and to create awareness about the realities of everyday life in Afghanistan. Its team includes people on the ground as well as international researchers, analysts, journalists and experts. Most of its team members’ identities are kept confidential for safety reasons.
AFGHANISTAN: ‘The risks posed by Taliban rule are too grave for the international community to ignore’
CIVICUS speaks about the situation of human rights and women’s rights in Afghanistan with Ehsan Shayegan, founder and president of the Porsesh Policy Research Institute (PR).

Initially founded in 2015, and re-established in the USA in 2022, PR is an independent, nonprofit policy research think tank focusing on excluded communities and human rights and working to counter disinformation, misinformation and lack of systematic information. Formerly based in Afghanistan, it was forced to leave the country after the 2021 Taliban takeover and is now based in the USA.

What’s the current human rights situation in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan’s human rights situation is extremely concerning. Recent reports indicate a return to traditional Taliban practices, including public executions in stadiums. These executions have occurred in various regions such as Ghazni in southern Afghanistan and Sheberghan in the northern region. Additionally, there have been reports of numerous members of former government forces being killed or disappearing at the hands of the Taliban.

Arbitrary arrests are rampant, with widespread surveillance through social media and Taliban local intelligence networks. Freedom of speech and expression are not protected under Taliban rule, leading to the imprisonment or silencing of activists advocating for democracy and human rights.

It is exceedingly challenging to conduct human rights work in Afghanistan. The Taliban persecutes people who oppose their ideology and interests, regardless of the legitimacy of their activism. The level of restrictions and surveillance imposed on activists, journalists and researchers is staggering.

The situation is particularly dire for women. Misogyny is systemic and women’s access to education and healthcare is severely restricted. The Taliban’s hostility and brutality towards women exacerbate existing patriarchal social structures. Harassment and rapes perpetrated by the Taliban often go unreported due to threats and stigma.

This is a disturbing reality that the global community should be aware of. It is essential for the international community to take action to address these atrocities.

How is PR working to address these issues?

PR originated in the challenging environment of 2015 Kabul, and was established to address the pervasive issues of misinformation, disinformation and the lack of systematic information regarding Afghanistan’s excluded ethnic groups and communities.

Throughout Afghan history, critical decisions and policies were often based on inaccurate or biased data, serving the interests of political elites. The government and its affiliated institutions exerted significant control over information and lacked genuine commitment to principles of democracy and fairness. As a result, civil society voices, particularly those of minorities, were deliberately excluded across various realms, including education, history, literature and policymaking.

PR aimed to provide an impartial, community-driven perspective within Afghanistan’s highly politicised information landscape. Despite evolving and expanding our strategic focus areas and geographical coverage, PR remains steadfastly committed to prioritising community needs. In an era marked by rapid advancements in information technologies, PR recognises the importance of maintaining a human-centred and community-centred approach to information.

Traditional research institutions often focus solely on decision-making centres, but PR believes that in the age of democracy and information, data and research must be shared with the public and decision-makers alike. By using virtual public spaces, PR aims to facilitate the generation and dissemination of information, ultimately fostering a more democratic and informed society.

As civil society, it is our responsibility to produce and share evidence-based studies of the realities on the ground in Afghanistan and advocate for Afghan people, particularly those most vulnerable under Taliban rule.

What’s it like to have to work from so far away?

Working on Afghanistan from a distant location presents significant challenges, primarily because there’s a constant risk of overlooking crucial local perspectives. However, we are fortunate to maintain strong connections with communities in Afghanistan and rely on our local researchers, who we consider the unsung heroes of our work. They assist us in coordinating data collection efforts on the ground. In instances where the safety of our local collaborators is at risk, we use secure virtual means to reach research participants.

We closely monitor developments in Afghanistan through various channels, including mass and social media, along with insights from our local informants. We rely extensively on our local researchers and informants to gain insights into realities on the ground and verify facts. We maintain daily communication with them to stay updated on unfolding events.

However, it’s important to note that the Taliban takeover significantly disrupted the flow of information. It requires a deep understanding of Afghanistan’s social dynamics to navigate restrictions and risks. Fear makes it challenging for people to share information freely, so effective data collection requires the establishment of trustful relationships within communities. Overall, working on Afghanistan remotely demands a nuanced approach and a thorough understanding of the risks involved.

What should be done to keep the attention of the international community on Afghanistan?

While there has been a noticeable decline in international interest, particularly amid ongoing crises in the Middle East and Ukraine, it’s challenging to imagine Afghanistan fading from global consciousness. The plight of roughly 40 million people subjected to one of the most brutal tyrannies on the planet cannot simply be overlooked.

The international community is also partly responsible for Afghanistan finding itself in such dire circumstances in the first place. The collapse of Afghanistan represents a failure of collective action. As someone born in Afghanistan and engaging with it professionally, I firmly believe that if it’s left unattended, its problems will continue to haunt the international community indefinitely.

The risks posed by Taliban rule – ranging from radicalisation to the flourishing opium trade, human rights violations and geopolitical alliances with radical authoritarian governments – are too grave to ignore.

It’s crucial for the international community to recognise the stark misalignment between Taliban ideology and human rights values. This is often overlooked. Following the US-Taliban Doha agreement in 2020, some believed that a second Taliban rule would be more moderate on issues concerning women’s rights and civil society. But many local activists and researchers remained sceptical, viewing such optimism as based on a misleading, politically motivated narrative.

The current reality demonstrates they were right. The Taliban continue to hold the entire country hostage, with minimal acceptance of genuine civil society presence or meaningful human rights activism. The international community must listen to authentic local voices and ensure they are included in discussions and decision-making.

Civic space in Afghanistan is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with the Porsesh Policy Research Institute through itswebsite orFacebook page,and follow it on Instagram andTwitter.
JAPAN: ‘Links between politics and the religious right have impeded progress on LGBTQI+ rights’
CIVICUS speaks with Akira Nishiyama, executive officer of the Japan Alliance for Legislation to Remove Social Barriers based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Japan Alliance for LGBT Legislation, J-ALL).

J-ALL was founded in 2015 to advocate for legislation to remove the barriers LGBTQI+ people experience due to their sexual orientation or gender identity in Japan. It focuses on raising awareness among the public, producing research and convening consultations, developing policy proposals and lobbying with government officials and legislators.

What is the situation of LGBTQI+ people in Japan?

LGBTQI+ people are estimated to make up between three and 10 per cent of Japan’s population. Many are closeted for fear of discrimination and prejudice. According to recent research, over half of teenagers who identify as LGBTQI+ have been bullied, and only about 10 per cent of LGBTQI+ people are able to come out at their workplace. The rate of LGBTQI+ people who have considered suicide is about twice as high as among their heterosexual counterparts and the rate of those who attempt suicide is six times higher – and 10 times higher among transgender people.

Such a vulnerable status is caused by the absence of a law at the national level that prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and raises awareness of LGBTQI+ and SOGI issues. We believe that an anti-discrimination law would enable us to solve social problems such as bullying and SOGI-based discrimination due to prejudice or misunderstanding and effectively deter and remedy human rights violations. It would force governmental agencies, educational institutions and private companies to prepare preventive schemes so that SOGI-related human rights violations would not take place, and make consultation services available.

Additionally, Japan’s Act on Special Cases in Handling Gender Status of Persons with Gender Identity Disorder sets strict conditions to change one’s legal gender status. Under this law, a person with a so-called ‘gender identity disorder’ must be diagnosed by two or more psychiatrists and must fulfil five conditions to request the family court to make a ruling towards change of their gender status, which is still thought of in binary terms: they must be above 18 years of age, not be married at the time of the gender change, have no children who are still minors, have no reproductive glands, or only reproductive glands that have permanently lost their function, and have body parts that appear to resemble the genitals of the other gender.

These conditions are considered too strict compared to those of other countries. In 2015, 12 United Nations organisations issued a joint statement asking the Japanese government to ensure the legal recognition of the gender identity of transgender people without such abusive requirements, but the Japanese government has not yet made any moves in that direction.

What work does J-ALL do?

J-ALL was established in April 2015 in response to a call from politicians and the LGBTQI+ community to reach a consensus and make effective policy recommendations. For the previous decade or so, civil society organisations (CSOs) in Japan had been lobbying separately on LGBTQI+ and SOGI-related issues.

J-ALL is an umbrella organisation with 96 member CSOs from throughout Japan. It is run by directors who are leaders of CSOs in various regions. Its secretariat is managed by executive officers who specialise in lobbying, public relations and international affairs, as well as student interns.

Our lobbying activities have succeeded in pushing forward several SOGI-related laws. For instance, in October 2018 the Tokyo Metropolitan Government adopted an ordinance that protects LGBTQI+ people from SOGI-based discrimination in line with the Olympic Charter. This ordinance clearly stipulates anti-discrimination based on SOGI and was the first ordinance of its kind at the prefectural level.

In addition, in May 2019 the Japanese government amended the law on harassment. The amended version requires private entities and municipal governments to set guidelines to prohibit harassment and outing based on SOGI in the workplace.

As the only CSO aimed at proposing SOGI-related bills, J-ALL is pushing politicians and governmental officers at both national and municipal levels by working together with Rengo – the Japanese Trade Union Confederation and a member of the International Trade Union Confederation – eminent scholars and researchers of labour law and international human rights law, and activists fighting to eliminate all kinds of discrimination, including discrimination against women. In recent years, around 40 companies have signed a statement to support the LGBT Equality Law, which would ban anti-LGBTQI+ discrimination. Economic federations have also declared the necessity for legislation on SOGI.

Have you faced any anti-rights backlash?

As the social movement to promote the rights of LGBTQI+ people has grown, backlash by religious right-wing groups, ultra-conservative politicians and trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERF) groups has also grown. For instance, several politicians gave discriminatory speeches against LGBTQI+ people in response to discussions regarding the anti-discrimination bill agreed on by LGBT Giren, a nonpartisan political caucus set up to discuss SOGI-related human rights violations in 2021. Bashing against transgender women and LGBTQI+ people based on heteronormativity, conventional understandings of the family and stereotypical images of women are prevalent in both the real world and the internet.

Japan has not made much progress on gender inequality, let alone LGBTQI+ rights and SOGI-related issues. This is because the Japanese government is closely connected with religious right-wing groups based on the values of male chauvinism and a patriarchal view of the family. Because of these close ties, ruling politicians have long ignored the existence of people with diverse sexualities and gender identities and have sustained a social system that lacks SOGI-related education and allows for SOGI-based human rights violations. As a result, LGBTQI+ people face wide-ranging challenges such as prejudice, bullying and harassment, and victims of SOGI-related human rights violations are not protected by the law.

We believe that Japanese civil society needs to recognise this connection between mainstream politics and the religious right in order to tackle human rights issues in earnest. It is also important to learn about which groups of people are marginalised by the current social systems built by the majority and what kind of human rights violations they face, and to take actions such as electoral participation and making public comments based on these concerns.

How is civil society working to achieve marriage equality, and what was the significance of the recent verdicts of the Sapporo and Osaka district courts?

There is a CSO, Marriage For ALL Japan, that has been working actively and specifically to achieve the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Japan. In 2019 this organisation filed lawsuits in five districts – Fukuoka, Nagoya, Osaka, Sapporo and Tokyo – and has been conducting awareness-raising activities across the nation.

In March 2021, the Sapporo District Court ruled that not allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. After a careful scrutiny of the scientific and medical arguments currently used to deny legal benefits to same-sex couples, the Sapporo District Court reasoned that the failure to allow ‘even a certain degree’ of legal benefits to same-sex couples based on their sexual orientation is against Article 14 of the Constitution, which stipulates equality under the law. Although the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for compensation, its verdict was viewed as a step that would surely accelerate the movement to legalise same-sex marriage in Japan.

But then in June 2022, the Osaka District Court concluded that not allowing same-sex marriages does not violate Article 14, given that the legal disadvantages faced by same-sex couples can be compensated by wills or other means. In addition, the court emphasised that the gap between the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual and same-sex couples has been minimised by the recognition of same-sex partnerships at the municipal level. This, however, overlooks the fact that the municipal system of partnership recognition is not legally binding.

The Osaka District Court also claimed that the ‘true’ elimination of discrimination and prejudice should be achieved by constructing a social system through the democratic process of free discussion by the people. This was criticised by civil society as an abdication of the judiciary’s crucial role as the bastion of human rights. Also under fire is the court’s claim that marriage is purely for the purpose of reproduction.

How can the international community support LGBTQI+ people fighting for their rights in Japan?

Since 2020 J-ALL has been running a global campaign, Equality Act Japan (EAJ), alongside Human Rights Watch and other global human rights organisations. We would like you to sign the petition found in our website to ask the Japanese government to enact the LGBT Equality Act.

If you are a private company, we will appreciate your cooperation in adhering to the Declaration of Business Support for LGBT Equality in Japan, which we promote as a part of the EAJ campaign.

Last but not least, we would be happy if you could join us by checking out the current situation in Japan, follow our activities through our website or social media, and support us through a one-time or a monthly donation.

Civic space in Japan is rated as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with J-ALL through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@lgbthourengokai on Twitter.
JAPAN: ‘The vulnerability of the homeless is the result of contemporary society’s built-in social exclusion’
CIVICUS speaks to Tsubasa Yuki ofMoyai Support Centre for Independent Living about the situation of homeless people amid the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Founded in 2001, the Moyai Support Centre supports homeless people by creating a community space and providing advice and rent guarantees for those seeking housing.

In Japan it is illegal to beg on the streets and there is little sympathy for homeless people, who are commonly stereotyped as running away from gambling debts. Tokyo’s preparations for the Olympic Games, originally planned for 2020 and now postponed to 2021, prompted the removal of homeless tents around railway stations and parks. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Moyai Support Centre started an online petition to request permission from the Tokyo Olympic organisers and the city government to use the Olympic Village as a homeless shelter.

Can you tell us about the work of the Moyai Support Centre for Independent Living?

Our programmes for supporting homeless people are threefold, and most of them are not exclusive for people in homelessness. Firstly, we have a consultation service, Seikatsu-Soudan. Every Tuesday, around 20 people visit our office asking for immediate help. In most cases, they are seriously impoverished and need public assistance. In those cases, we provide them with accurate information about social welfare services and support their application processes.

Secondly, we provide rent guarantees for homeless people seeking secure housing. After applying for public assistance, people are usually allocated to shelters and then start searching for apartments, and this is where we come in. We have provided rent guarantees for more than 2,000 people in total. However, insurance issued by private companies has recently become more common. So we advise our visitors to use those private companies if they can, and often our representative provides his phone number as an emergency contact when they apply for private insurance.

Thirdly, we have a community space. It is often the case that even after getting secure housing, formerly homeless people do not have any place to be when they go out. So we have a café, Salon de Café Komorebi, which opens every Saturday. This café is managed by our staff alongside many volunteers, including formerly homeless people. Unfortunately, the café is currently closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

What was the situation of homeless people in Japan before the pandemic?

Some general trends can be identified. In Tokyo, and probably in other Japanese cities, there are at least 1,000 rough sleepers, most of whom are male and relatively old, with an average age around the mid-50s. They usually combine multiple strategies for survival: they are day labourers, seek other informal jobs, scavenge and eat at soup kitchens. In the case of Tokyo, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) has a public employment programme through which rough sleepers can gain a monthly cash income of around 20,000 yen (approx. US$190). Rough sleepers are mostly single males, but many of them form some kind of community in which they share useful information and, less frequently, jobs.

In addition to rough sleepers, at least 4,000 people use cyber cafés and other facilities to spend the night in. Most of them are employed in the most insecure part of the labour market – they are cleaning staff, security officers, construction workers, or have transportation jobs. While they may seem to have relatively more secure housing than rough sleepers, the truth is that cyber cafés are segregated into compartments and as a result, these people usually don’t have any communities they belong to.

What specific challenges have homeless people faced during the pandemic?

The most striking point is that many community-based and faith-based organisations and other groups suspended soup kitchens due to fear of spreading the virus. This has made it really hard for rough sleepers to get enough food and vital information about the virus and the public services available to them.

In addition, public employment services stopped in April 2020 and as a result, rough sleepers have lost their major source of cash income. Cash incomes from the informal economy, including scavenging, also declined because of the lockdown and stay-at-home policies.

In April, the TMG requested that many enterprises in the service economy suspend their business. Cyber cafés and similar facilities were also requested to stop operating. Although this was not mandated by law, many enterprises followed the policy. As a result, people living in cyber cafés lost their places to sleep. Many of them also lost their jobs and incomes due to economic decline prompted by the lockdown policy.

How have the Moyai Support Centre and other civil society organisations (CSOs) responded to the situation?

Many CSOs have had to stop their activities as well. We closed our café in April 2020. But at the same time, we extended our consultation services. Currently, in addition to the Tuesday consultation service, we have set up a soup kitchen and provide consultation services in front of the TMG office, together with another civil society group, Shinjuku Gohan Plus. In April alone, we distributed more than 600 packages of food and provided consultation services to more than 150 people.

As well as providing direct services to people in need, we have started a petition so we can use the Olympic Village set up for the 2021 Tokyo Olympics as a shelter during the COVID-19 pandemic. So far, the petition has collected more than 50,000 signatures.

Under the pandemic, the TMG made 2,000 hotel rooms available as shelter for those expelled from cyber cafés, and more than 800 people have been using them. But it is not clear whether this policy will be extended after the state of emergency ends. The Olympic Village can be the next place to accommodate them.

In July and August 2020, we will have elections for the TMG. We are trying to tackle the shortage of decent shelters for people facing homelessness by making the issue one of the major topics in the coming election for Tokyo’s governor. As it is connected both to issues of the Olympics and COVID-19, it is now attracting a great deal of attention from people inside and outside Tokyo. So we are now planning to submit a petition and deliver an open questionnaire letter to candidates in the election. They will be obliged to express their stance and opinions on the issue of homelessness in Tokyo.

But we understand these are only temporary solutions. Be it at hotels or the Olympic Village, these are only temporary shelters at best. The next step for us is to support homeless people to find secure housing, that is, get their own apartment. This is challenging even for people who have successfully applied for and received public assistance. We are trying to reach them in shelters and support them in finding apartments.

But this cannot be done solely by CSOs like us. This mass transition from shelters to apartments can only be successfully accomplished with the help of willing and conscientious owners and landlords. The next goal for both CSOs and public entities should be to gain their support.

What lessons have you learned so far around the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on homeless people?

The current situation reveals that soup kitchens and other voluntary activities played a vital role as an information centre for homeless people, and especially for rough sleepers. People in that situation have scarce access to important information about COVID-19 and related policies and services. Some of them gain information from radio and newspapers but these media are not available to all rough sleepers. Thus, for many of them, voluntary activities are almost the only source of accurate information.

Further, while it might be common knowledge that homeless people are particularly vulnerable to disasters, it is worth noting that homeless people and those working in insecure jobs have been the first to be affected by the pandemic, and the hardest hit. Stay-at-home policies might be one of the most effective strategies against the pandemic, but they presuppose that people have secure housing and a certain amount of savings. For those people with no secure housing, employment status and savings, it is almost impossible to follow the policy. In addition, homeless people are not eligible for any of the compensation or temporary income support that is available to other people. The vulnerability of the homeless is the result of contemporary Japanese society’s built-in social exclusion.

Civic space inJapan is rated as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the Moyai Support Centre for Independent Living through itswebsite.
JAPON : « La vulnérabilité des sans-abri est le résultat de l’exclusion, une réalité ancrée dans la société contemporaine »
CIVICUS s’entretient avec Tsubasa Yuki, duCentre de soutien à la vie indépendante de Moyai, sur la situation des personnes sans domicile pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 au Japon. Fondé en 2001, le Centre Moyai soutient les sans-abri en créant un espace communautaire et en fournissant des conseils et des garanties de loyer pour ceux qui cherchent un logement.

Au Japon, il est illégal de faire la manche dans la rue et les sans-abri suscitent peu de sympathie, car ils sont souvent considérés comme des personnes fuyant les dettes qu’ils ont contractées en jouant à des jeux de hasard. À Tokyo, les préparatifs des Jeux olympiques, initialement prévus pour 2020 mais désormais reportés à 2021, ont entraîné le démantèlement de tentes pour sans-abri situées près des gares et des parcs. Dans le contexte de la pandémie de COVID-19, le Centre Moyai a lancé une pétition en ligne pour demander aux organisateurs des Jeux olympiques de Tokyo et au gouvernement de la ville l’autorisation d’utiliser le village olympique comme refuge pour les sans-abri.

Pouvez-vous nous parler du travail du Centre de soutien à la vie indépendante de Moyai ?

Nous avons trois types de programmes d’aide aux personnes sans domicile, dont la plupart ne leur sont pas exclusivement destinés. Premièrement, nous avons un service de conseil, nommé Seikatsu-Soudan. Chaque mardi, une vingtaine de personnes se rendent dans nos bureaux à la recherche d’un soutien immédiat. Dans de nombreux cas, il s’agit de personnes complètement démunies qui ont besoin d’une aide publique. Nous leur donnons alors des informations précises sur les services d’aide sociale et les aidons à préparer leurs demandes d’aide.

Deuxièmement, nous donnons des garanties de loyer aux sans-abri qui cherchent un logement. Après avoir demandé l’aide publique, ces personnes sont souvent envoyées dans des refuges, avant de commencer à chercher des appartements, et c’est là que nous intervenons. En tout, nous avons fourni des garanties de loyer à plus de 2 000 personnes. Récemment, cependant, les assurances émises par des sociétés privées sont devenues plus courantes. Nous recommandons donc aux personnes qui sollicitent notre aide d’utiliser ces assurances si elles le peuvent, et il arrive souvent que nos représentants laissent leur numéro de téléphone comme contact d’urgence lorsqu’elles font une demande d’assurance privée.

Troisièmement, nous avons un espace communautaire. Bien souvent, même après avoir obtenu un logement, les personnes qui auparavant étaient sans-abri n’ont nulle part où aller lorsqu’elles veulent sortir. C’est pourquoi nous avons créé un café, le Café Komorebi, qui est ouvert tous les samedis. Il est géré par notre personnel et de nombreux bénévoles, parmi lesquels des anciens sans abri. Malheureusement, le café est actuellement fermé en raison de la pandémie de COVID-19.

Quelle était la situation des sans-abri au Japon avant la pandémie ?

Certaines tendances se dégagent. À Tokyo, et probablement dans d’autres villes japonaises, on compte au moins 1 000 personnes qui dorment dans la rue, dont la plupart sont des hommes relativement âgés, de 55 ans en moyenne. Elles survivent en combinant généralement plusieurs stratégies d’adaptation : elles trouvent des petits boulots ou d’autres occupations informelles, font les poubelles pour trouver de la nourriture ou mangent à la soupe populaire. Dans la capitale, le gouvernement métropolitain de Tokyo (GMT) dispose d’un programme d’emploi public dans le cadre duquel les personnes qui dorment dans la rue peuvent gagner un revenu mensuel en espèces de 20 000 yens (environ 190 dollars américains). Ces personnes sont pour la plupart des hommes seuls, mais beaucoup d’entre elles font partie d’une sorte de communauté dans laquelle elles partagent des informations utiles et, plus rarement, des opportunités d’emploi.

Outre les personnes qui dorment dans la rue, au moins 4 000 autres passent la nuit dans des cybercafés et autres espaces clos. Beaucoup d’entre eux travaillent dans les secteurs les plus précaires, généralement en tant que personnel d’entretien ou de sécurité, ouvriers du bâtiment ou employés des transports. Même si leur situation semble plus sûre que celle des personnes qui dorment dans la rue, la vérité est tout autre : les cybercafés sont compartimentés et les isolent donc des autres, si bien qu’elles n’ont généralement pas de communauté d’appartenance.

Quels défis particuliers doivent relever les sans-abri pendant la pandémie ?

Le défi le plus évident résulte du fait que de nombreuses organisations confessionnelles et communautaires ainsi que d’autres groupes ont suspendu les soupes populaires par crainte de propager le virus. Une telle décision a nui à la capacité des personnes qui dorment dans la rue à se nourrir suffisamment et à obtenir les informations nécessaires sur le virus et les services publics à leur disposition.

En outre, les services publics de l’emploi ont été supprimés en avril 2020. Par conséquent, les personnes qui dorment dans la rue ont perdu leur principale source de revenus. Les revenus en espèces provenant du secteur informel de l’économie, notamment de la collecte et du tri des déchets, ont diminué en raison des mesures de confinement.

En avril, le GMT a demandé aux entreprises du secteur des services de suspendre leurs activités. Les cybercafés et autres établissements similaires ont également été priés de cesser leurs activités. Bien qu’elles ne soient pas légalement tenues de le faire, de nombreuses entreprises ont décidé d’appliquer ces mesures. Ainsi, les personnes qui dormaient dans les cybercafés ont perdu leur abri. Nombre d’entre elles ont également perdu leur emploi et leurs revenus en raison du déclin économique provoqué par les politiques de quarantaine.

Comment le Centre Moyai et les autres organisations de la société civile (OSC) ont réagi à la situation ?

De nombreuses OSC ont également dû suspendre leurs activités. Nous avons fermé notre café en avril 2020, mais dans le même temps, nous avons étendu notre service de conseil. Actuellement, en plus de poursuivre notre service de conseil du mardi avec l’aide d’une autre OSC, nommée Shinjuku Gohan Plus, nous avons créé une soupe populaire. Rien qu’en avril, nous avons distribué plus de 600 repas et conseillé plus de 150 personnes.

En plus de fournir des services directement aux personnes dans le besoin, nous avons lancé une pétition pour être autorisés à utiliser le village olympique préparé pour les Jeux olympiques de Tokyo de 2021 comme abri pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. À ce jour, la pétition a recueilli plus de 50 000 signatures.

Pendant la pandémie, le GMT a mis 2 000 chambres d’hôtel à la disposition des personnes qui avaient été chassées des cybercafés, dont plus de 800 personnes ont profité. Mais nous ignorons encore si cette politique sera prolongée au-delà de l’état d’urgence. Le village olympique pourrait potentiellement loger ces personnes dans le futur.

En juillet et août 2020, il y aura des élections pour le GMT. Nous tentons de remédier à la pénurie d’abris décents pour les personnes sans domicile en plaçant cette question en tête de l’ordre du jour de la prochaine élection du gouverneur de Tokyo. Cette question est en lien avec les Jeux olympiques et la COVID-19 et retient donc l’attention de nombreuses personnes à Tokyo et ailleurs. Nous avons donc l’intention de soumettre une pétition et une lettre ouverte aux candidats à cette élection. Ils seront ensuite obligés d’exprimer leur opinion sur la question des sans-abri à Tokyo.

Toutefois, nous avons conscience du fait que toutes ces solutions ne sont que temporaires. Les hôtels et le village olympique seraient au mieux des abris temporaires. La prochaine étape pour nous est d’aider les sans-abri à obtenir un logement, c’est-à-dire un appartement bien à eux. Il s’agit-là d’un défi, même pour ceux qui ont réussi à demander et à recevoir une aide publique. Nous essayons de les contacter et de les soutenir dans leur recherche d’appartement.

Mais les OSC ne peuvent y parvenir seules. La transition de ces personnes des abris vers des appartements ne peut se faire avec succès qu’avec la collaboration de propriétaires et de gestionnaires consciencieux et volontaires. Le prochain objectif des OSC et des entités publiques doit donc être de gagner leur soutien.

Quels enseignements avez-vous tirés jusqu’à présent de la pandémie de COVID-19 et de son incidence sur les sans-abri ?

La situation actuelle a montré que les soupes populaires et autres activités bénévoles jouent un rôle essentiel en tant que centres d’information pour les personnes sans domicile, et surtout pour celles qui dorment dans la rue. Ces personnes ont peu d’accès aux informations essentielles sur la COVID-19 et sur les politiques et les services liés à la pandémie. Certaines se tiennent informées grâce à la radio ou aux journaux, mais les personnes qui dorment dans la rue n’y ont pas toujours accès. Par conséquent, les activités bénévoles représentent pratiquement la seule source d’informations fiables à laquelle bon nombre d’entre elles ont accès.

En outre, s’il peut sembler évident que les sans-abri sont particulièrement vulnérables lors de catastrophes, il convient de noter que ces personnes, ainsi que celles qui occupent des emplois précaires, ont été les premières et les plus durement touchées par la pandémie. Les mesures de quarantaine sont peut-être les stratégies les plus efficaces contre la pandémie, mais elles impliquent que les gens disposent d’un logement sûr et d’une certaine somme d’argent mise de côté. Pour ceux qui ne disposent ni d’économies, ni d’un logement ou d’un emploi sûr, il est presque impossible de se conformer aux mesures. En outre, les sans-abri ne peuvent prétendre à aucune des formes d’indemnisation ou de revenu complémentaire temporaire dont bénéficient les autres personnes. La vulnérabilité des personnes sans domicile est le résultat de l’exclusion, qui est ancrée dans la société japonaise contemporaine.

L’espace civique au Japon est classé comme « rétréci » par leCIVICUS Monitor.
Contactez le Centre Moyai via sonsite web.
JAPÓN: ‘La vulnerabilidad de las personas en situación de calle es el resultado de la exclusión incorporada en la sociedad contemporánea’
CIVICUS conversa con CIVICUS Tsubasa Yuki, del Centro de Apoyo Moyai para la Vida Independiente (Moyai Support Centre for Independent Living) sobre la situación de las personas en situación de calle durante la pandemia del COVID19 en Japón. Fundado en 2001, el Centro de Apoyo Moyai apoya a personas en situación de calle creando un espacio comunitario y proporcionando asesoramiento y garantías de alquiler para quienes buscan vivienda.

En Japón es ilegal pedir dinero en la calle y hay poca simpatía hacia las personas sin hogar, que a menudo son vistas en forma estereotipada, como personas que huyen de deudas de juego. En Tokio, los preparativos para los juegos Olímpicos, originalmente planeados para 2020 pero ahora postergados para 2021, resultaron en el desmantelamiento de las carpas de personas en situación de calle ubicadas cerca de estaciones de trenes y parques. En el contexto de la pandemia del COVID-19, el Centro de Apoyo Moyai lanzó un petitorio en línea para pedir autorización a los organizadores de las Olimpíadas de Tokio y al gobierno de la ciudad para usar la Villa Olímpica como refugio para personas en situación de calle.
UK: ‘The government continues to scapegoat migrants and fuel racist rhetoric to cover its policy failures’
CIVICUS speaks with Aria Danaparamita, Advocacy Director of theJoint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI),about the UK’s new migration treaty with Rwanda, aimed at sending asylum seekers arriving unlawfully in the UK to Rwanda for processing.

The JCWI has been challenging policies that lead to discrimination, destitution and the denial of rights in the UK for more than 50 years. It provides legal and advice services to immigrants and asylum-seekers.

How different is the new treaty that the UK signed with Rwanda from its predecessor?

The new agreement is different from the previous one because it’s a treaty between the governments of the UK and Rwanda, while the previous one was only a memorandum of understanding. A treaty is legally binding under international law and requires scrutiny by the UK parliament, while the previous agreement was simply signed by the UK Home Secretary.

The new treaty is accompanied by draft ‘emergency legislation’ seeking to provide the legal basis for maintaining that Rwanda is a safe country, which is a prerequisite for the treaty to be implemented without the UK breaching its international obligations towards asylum seekers.

The treaty includes provisions aimed at addressing the concerns raised by the UK Supreme Court about the systemic risks of human rights violations if people were to be sent to Rwanda. However, these provisions – which are at this point just words on paper – will be wholly inadequate. The Supreme Court was unanimous and unequivocal in its evidence-based finding that Rwanda is not a safe country, and the risks are systemic and cannot be improved in a matter of months, despite the government’s wishes. Because of this, the treaty and the provisions in the Rwanda Bill are nothing more than an attempt to legislate the fiction that Rwanda is safe, despite overwhelming evidence on the contrary.

Many people across the UK and across civil society are united in their strong rejection of the Rwanda plan. We have told the government ever since the first Rwanda flight was planned that this is a cruel and inhumane plan, and that it risks breaching the UK’s obligations under international law as well as our moral duty to protect people in search of safety. We continue to resist the government’s failed and inhumane Rwanda plan because we should not be sending people to places where their lives are at risk – whether Rwanda or anywhere else.

Do you view this as part of a wider trend?

We are seeing more and more policies that are hostile towards people on the move, particularly in western, former colonial countries. It is both ironic and unjust that the countries that have historically benefited, and continue to benefit, most from migration are now turning people away at their borders, often with high levels of violence. Across European lands and seas, we have seen lives taken away by cruel border regimes that do not value migrants as people. We urge the UK government to stop making policies driven by hate and hostility, and instead protect the rights of everyone to move, work and live freely.

Migration is a fact of life. We as humans have always moved, whether to the next town or to another country across the world. In fact, the most recent immigration statistics show that the UK urgently needs migrant workers to increase its labour force.

But instead of recognising the genuine need to welcome migrants in this country, or acknowledging the ways people contribute to our communities, the government continues to scapegoat migrants and fuel racist rhetoric to cover its policy failures – to address the deepening cost-of-living crisis, to reform our crippled healthcare sector, or to provide adequate public services after years of austerity.

What would the impact if the Rwanda plan were to be implemented?

The Rwanda plan has always been cruel, inhumane and, as the Supreme Court’s judgement unequivocally shows, unlawful. We cannot send people away to places where their lives might be at risk. It is against international law, our domestic law and our moral compass as a society.

If the Rwanda Bill is passed, it will almost certainly breach international law. The Home Secretary himself has acknowledged that he cannot guarantee it will comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. It will also stand to breach numerous conventions, from the Refugee Convention to the Convention against Torture.

The human cost of this bill will be catastrophic. Even before it has passed, we have seen the prospect of being sent to Rwanda drive the people we support into extreme anxiety and mental distress, and we continue to see alarming rates of self-harm and suicides. We cannot let this bill pass or be implemented. By implementing it, the government will be forcing people to face certain and irreversible harm.

How is UK civil society, and your organisation in particular, working to help migrants?

JCWI support migrants in various ways, including by providing legal representation and high-quality legal advice. We also campaign alongside migrants and grassroots communities for migrant justice.

For doing this work, in recent years we have faced increasingly hostile and racist rhetoric led by those in power and enabled by the media. However, we will not let this stop us. We know that most people are kind and compassionate and believe that we all have the right to live safe, thriving lives regardless of where we are from. Together we can build the world we want to live in, free from harm and border violence.

Civic space in the UK is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with the JCWI through itswebpage orFacebook page, and follow @JCWI_UK onTwitter andInstagram.
UK: ‘The Rwanda plan sets a worrying precedent for the future of migration and human rights’

CIVICUS speaks with Julia Tinsley-Kent, Policy and Strategic Communications Manager of the Migrants’ Rights Network, about the UK’s new migration treaty with Rwanda, aimed at sending asylum seekers arriving unlawfully in the UK to Rwanda for processing.

The Migrants’ Rights Network is a UK charity that stands in solidarity with migrants in their fight for rights and justice.

How different is the new treaty that the UK signed with Rwanda from its predecessor? Do you think it will be implemented?

The Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling that the UK government’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda was unlawful on the basis that the country is unsafe and that there was a risk of refoulement – the forcible return of migrants to a country where they are likely to face persecution.

However, the UK government has not been deterred and has pressed ahead with new legislation that would declare Rwanda a safe country. The new Bill would give the government the power to disapply elements of the Human Rights Act 1998 and ignore European Court of Human Rights injunctions against deportation flights. It also puts a legal obligation on the courts to consider Rwanda a safe country when considering removal decisions, and to not entertain any claim based on the UK’s Human Rights Act or international law obligations.

The UK government has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to outsourcing its protection obligations to other countries like Rwanda. Regardless of whether this policy is eventually implemented, it has already caused harm to migrant communities in Britain and demonstrated what lengths the government is prepared to go in deterring people from seeking safety and a new life in the UK.

What is concerning about the plan is the worrying precedent it sets for the future of migration and human rights. It shows the UK government is prepared to overhaul the judicial system to push through regressive and cruel policies.

Do you view this as part of a wider regional or global restrictive trend?

The Rwanda plan is one component of the UK’s increasingly hostile environment for migrants. This is reflective of a wider global trend. Across the world, but particularly in Europe and the USA, governments are pouring money into tightening already highly militarised borders.

In times of crisis or economic instability, governments will scapegoat excluded groups and migrants to distract from their own failings. It is the oldest trick in the book. At a time where the UK is in the midst of a chronic cost of living crisis where growing numbers of people are struggling to feed their families or pay their bills, the government is shifting the blame and attention on to migrants.

Contemporary attitudes and policies on migration draw on decades of restrictive racist immigration policies, aimed at keeping out particular groups of migrants. We must acknowledge the disparities between who is constructed as welcome in the west and who is not. For example, hostile borders and immigration policies have not been imposed on white people from Ukraine nor wealthy, western expats. Instead, it is people of colour and those from majority-Muslim countries who withstand the worst of them.

How does UK civil society and your organisation in particular work to help migrants?

At the Migrants’ Rights Network, we stand in solidarity with migrants in their fights for rights and justice. We are a charity mostly led by migrants and migratised people – people assumed to be migrants – that campaigns for transformational change to tackle oppression at its source. We are not a formal network but we work to establish and strengthen connections because we believe it is through building bonds between people that we have the greatest opportunity to achieve transformational change. We are led by the opinions, views and experiences of migrants and grassroots organisations and are willing to be challenged. In particular, we look at how racism, Islamophobia, homophobia and other systems of oppression shape immigration systems and how migrants are constructed in prevalent narratives.

Our work takes many forms. Among these, we use our platform to raise awareness of pressing issues amongst politicians and policy makers, and in the media; work with people and organisations to build campaigns and links with legal experts to pursue strategic litigation; build an evidence base for change by co-curating with affected migrants to better understand the issues and inform our work and the work of others; promote partnership and collaboration between different causes and campaigns, to enable information and resource sharing; inform migrant communities on their rights through our tailored resources and training; and develop alternative narratives to counter harmful rhetoric and narratives around migration through informative and creative campaigns.

British migration charities should focus on delivering much-needed support and campaigning for liberation, but must also ensure that they are held to account by migrants. Recommendations are often based on assumptions rather than experience, so we must ensure we remain accountable to those who have moved across borders.

Civic space in the UK is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Migrants’ Rights Network through itswebpage orFacebook page and follow @migrants_rights_network onTwitter andInstagram.

The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.