In video: Sherat Hempetim, Ayelet Shaked at the Jerusalem Post conference (Walla system!)
During my tenure, I approved positive recommendations forwarded to me by the Refugee Advisory Committee in a variety of cases, starting with people who were persecuted on religious grounds in Eritrea, and ending with a former child soldier who was recruited to fight in Sierra Leone.
Contrary to this, I recently refused to approve a recommendation to grant refugee status to a woman in her thirties, also from Sierra Leone, on the grounds that she would be forced to pass a word.
I will make it clear at the outset that I reached this decision primarily based on the individual circumstances of the case.
It is important to understand that although this is undoubtedly a very obscene custom, in Sierra Leone it is carried out by women, within a women's association, when the rate of support among women is much higher than that of men and among women who have already gone through the procedure, the support is particularly broad.
Equally important, similar to the situation in other countries, the ceremony is performed on girls and young women with the support of relatives, with an emphasis on their mothers and grandmothers.
Therefore, the figure on the high number of women who went through the procedure, which was the basis of the Refugee Committee's recommendation, somewhat absurdly includes not only women who support the custom, but also those who perform it themselves.
Therefore, it is clear that the essential point to be examined is whether a woman who opposes undergoing the procedure will be able to refuse it, or will be forced to undergo it.
After examining the available information in depth, based on the research and the latest data, the answer to this is negative, certainly when it comes to an adult and married woman like that illegal immigrant.
More in Walla!
The committee recommended granting asylum to a woman who was about to undergo forced labor - Shaked rejected the request
"I came to the decision first and foremost based on the individual circumstances of the case", Shaked (Photo: Reuven Castro)
Although this could have been enough, as the Minister of the Interior I saw great importance in presenting an orderly and reasoned position on the principled issue of the Refugee Convention in general, and on the complex issue of women's rights in particular.
In a democracy, the elected echelon is the one that should shape the policy on these issues, in accordance with the express authority granted to me by law, and this should not be left to the clerical echelon or let the courts fill the void in the absence of policy.
As far as I know, this is the first time such a position has been presented by any interior minister.
As we know, the Refugee Convention was formulated after the events of World War II, but its drafters never thought of imposing on the countries that signed it an obligation to respond to all types of hardships and difficulties that harm or adversely affect hundreds of millions of people in developing countries.
Not only would such an almost unlimited expansion be illogical, but it could even generate disdain for the concept of refugee, certainly against the background of the horrors of the Holocaust that led to the drafting of the treaty.
This is a question of principle that underlies the legal and moral rationale of the convention, even if there were no practical concern that the inclusion of hundreds of millions of potential immigrants under this definition would lead to the overflow of the asylum system, and this is not the case.
The many years of experience from the country and the world actually prove that in this issue, a trickle always turns into a flow if clear boundaries are not set in advance.
In this context, it is important to reiterate that the drafters of the treaty made it clear time and time again that in accordance with the basic principles of international law, the authority to determine which foreigners will receive status in their territory rests with the countries themselves, in accordance with their internal laws.
The convention was never intended to be a bypass of immigration policy, but only to provide basic and life-saving protection for people whose lives or bodies are in serious danger.
Demonstration against the performance of women's mala in Kenya (Photo: AP)
In complete contrast to these principles, in recent years the Refugee Convention has been hijacked for the purpose of promoting radical agendas and attempts to apply it to cultural, economic or even "climatic" phenomena.
So, for example, the Istanbul Convention, to which I stopped at the last minute the intention to annex Israel, requires recognizing even phenomena such as domestic violence, including "economic violence", as grounds for deportation.
While there is no doubt that these are very serious phenomena, one does not need to be a great expert in international law to understand the far-reaching implications of such an approach.
It is unlikely that states will be required to take responsibility for phenomena such as domestic violence in African countries, certainly when they hardly manage to eradicate them within their own domain.
Worse than that, it is unthinkable, and there is even more than a hint of prejudice in this, to see all the women in a certain country as being comprehensively persecuted by their mothers, to such an extent that even Western countries need to save them from them.
Moreover, when it comes to cultural customs, accepting immigration often only transfers them to the domain of the receiving country and nothing has been achieved.
A man holding a tool to perform a women's song in Ethiopia (Photo: Walla! NEWS system, UNICEF)
At the same time and in combination with the same trend, in recent years there have been more and more initiatives in Europe to prohibit Jews from performing the mitzvot of circumcision, in the name of the inappropriate comparison to the barbaric custom of sewing up the genitalia of women or cutting off whole parts of it.
As Israel's Minister of the Interior, I am not only responsible for implementing a responsible immigration policy, but must also take into account the concern for the right of Jewish communities abroad to preserve Jewish tradition. Therefore, I felt an obligation to make a clear and unambiguous distinction between the issues, and base it on Based on factual, reasoned and weighty differences that can stand the test of time against claims that seek to undermine it.
In accordance with all that has been said, I have defined the important guidelines for the issue.
Only a fear of serious harm, such as those specific types of word that include severe and irreversible harm to the genital organ, after it has been convincingly proven on an individual and factual basis that it cannot be avoided in the country of origin, can justify refugee status.
This way it will be possible to protect real refugees, maintain the sovereignty and identity of the State of Israel and ensure that Jews can maintain the Jewish tradition abroad as well.
news
opinions and interpretations
Tags
Ayelet Shaked
refugees
