Survivors of severe domestic violence and sexual abuse abroad now have a greater chance of receiving asylum in the United States, according to a recent article published in the New York Times.

A brief issued by the Obama administration allows immigration courts to consider victims of domestic abuse as a persecuted group under the law. In addition to standard requirements, victims must prove extreme abuse, that there is a widespread belief in their culture that domestic violence is acceptable, and that the government does not adequately provide protection to victims.

This is a landmark decision that highlights the intersection between gender, culture, violence, and gun control. The case that helped initiate this policy involves a Mexican woman who was raped at gunpoint, held captive, and set on fire by her common-law husband.

Her story is not confined to Latin America. Women in Nepal face similar abuse in their homes, due to widespread tolerance of violence against women, easy access to conventional weapons, and an increasing market for illegal guns.

And although the government recently passed a domestic violence law providing justice to victims of abuse, women may still be reluctant to come forward. According to a 2008 study by Saferworld, only 53 percent of women in Nepal would feel comfortable reporting family violence to the police. This makes determining the scope of a problem, like the use of arms in domestic violence, difficult.

The campaign to disarm domestic violence is aimed at strengthening institutions within home countries, rather than compelling victims to seek foreign assistance or asylum elsewhere. The U.S.’s commitment to help survivors of domestic violence is certainly laudable, but it emphasizes the need for international governments to address this issue on their own soil. Victims should not be forced to leave their own country in order to find protection from abuse.

My last blog talks a little about the domestic violence law that recently passed in Nepal. Since writing that post, I have obtained a copy of the law in English. Here are the main points:

1. - The term domestic violence encompasses more than physical abuse. The law defines it as physical, mental, sexual, emotional, and economic abuse in any familial relationship.

1. - The law does not only apply to violence against women. Abusive acts directed towards any person who does, or at some point has, lived under the same roof as the perpetrator and is related in some way can be punished under the law. In my last post, I mentioned that a woman must prove her marriage in order to file a claim. I will look further into whether this was prior to the new law or if this is a loophole that still exists.

1. - The court has the power to offer protection, if needed, to a victim during the investigation of a complaint. It can also mandate that compensation is provided, or basic needs are met, during the trial.

1. - Attempting to commit an act of domestic violence or inciting someone else to commit one can also be punished under the law.

1. - Repeat offenders are subject to double the punishment the second time they commit an offense.

1. - Public officials are subject to ten percent longer punishments.

1. - The statute of limitation is 90 days after the crime.

On one hand, I find the law to be very strict and for good reason. A 2008 study by Saathi found that 93 percent of women in Nepal are exposed to mental and emotional torture, 82 percent are beaten, 30 percent are raped, and 28 percent are forced into prostitution**. These numbers clearly show a strong domestic violence law-one that takes into account more than just physical abuse-is needed.

Domestic abuse takes many forms. Depriving a woman of economic opportunities, for example, can lead to situations that foster domestic violence. Countless women in Nepal were displaced during the conflict; many of them, lacking sufficient job skills, have turned to sex work. It is important that the law takes into consideration contributing factors.

On the other hand, I find the law too wide-ranging to be effective. Any family relationship and almost any form of mistreatment can be prosecuted. Just attempting to commit an act defined as domestic violence or provoking someone else to do so is punishable. The law also does not reference specific types of physical violence or establish appropriate penalties. For example, there is no mention of weapons. Theoretically, a perpetrator could receive the same sentence for verbally abusing his wife as he could for shooting her.

I am curious to see how claims filed under this law will play out in court.

What are your thoughts on the first domestic violence law in Nepal? How do you feel about some of the more interesting provisions, such as mandating a ten percent longer punishment for public servants? Please share your comments below.

**Gender Action for Peace and Security (2009). Global monitoring checklist of women, peace, and security. Available at http://www.peacewomen.org/resources/1325/GAPS_MonitoringChecklist.pdf

Creating and enforcing laws in a newly formed democracy is a seemingly impossible task. A new government, not yet trusted, is expected to create a framework for enforcing order in a country still in a state of disarray. In Nepal, the result is laws that provide protection to marginalized groups in theory, but that are often times not implemented.

This is most evident in laws that affect women, including those regarding cases of domestic violence. Three weeks ago, the first law specific to domestic violence was passed in parliament. It is not yet published in English so I haven’t been able to look over it myself, but I have heard it is a huge success for women’s rights groups. Until then, there were laws that provided protection to victims of domestic violence. However, these provisions existed under separate laws regarding criminal activity. They are now consolidated into one domestic violence law.

The new law, however, does not include protection for women who have been victims of marital rape. This law, enacted after a Supreme Court decision, falls under a separate law. The Forum for Women’s Law and Development, an organization I met with this past week, represented the plaintiff in the deciding case that made marital rape illegal. Bimala Khadka, an advocate at the organization, estimates that 70 percent of all criminal cases in Nepal have to do with domestic violence. She said that violence against women in Nepal is “easily taken,” but that the government is trying to set up resources that will help victims. The new budget, which passed recently, includes funding to create women’s shelters for victims of domestic violence in every single district in Nepal. Currently, a few shelters run by NGOs exist.

Bimala Khadka, an advocate for FWLD in Kathmandu, Nepal

Bimala Khadka, an advocate for FWLD in Kathmandu, Nepal

There is one loophole in the law: women can only file a case against their husbands. In other words, a boyfriend, lover, or any other man in her life is protected from prosecution. It also means that in order to file charges against her husband, she must prove the marriage by means of a legal document. This is a challenge that Uma K.C., a woman I interviewed on Friday, is currently facing. Her story is extremely sad and I will be posting my interview with her in a few days. But her story, like many others in Nepal, show that the law and order system can be corrupt, making bribes to drop charges or to suggest a defendant has “disappeared” commonplace.

The new domestic violence law has penalties of at least six months, with a maximum sentence of ten years, for men who beat their wives. Marital rape carries a sentence of two to three years in jail.

Bimala said most cases of abuse do not involve guns, but domestic weapons including a traditional Nepali knife, kukri. She said obtaining a licensed gun in Nepal is extremely difficult. I have yet to learn if the domestic violence law mentions specific weapons, including small arms.

Please see some highlights from my interview with her below.

It has been a while since my last update and I’ll be filling in the blanks soon. In the meantime, please take a look at this video showcasing the bicycle rally and SAP-Nepal’s campaign launch to “Disarm Domestic Violence.”

This is my first experience shooting and editing video. I plan to do a lot more for this issue in the near future, including profiles, so I would appreciate any feedback that you might have. How can I use video to highlight the connection between domestic violence and gun control in Nepal? What would be useful to you in learning about this issue? What do you think would be helpful to policy makers?

I would love to hear your thoughts on using new media in advocacy.

It should come as no surprise that women are disproportionately affected by domestic violence. Even less surprising, they are often the victims when domestic abuse escalates to death.

In fact, women are three times more likely to die violently due to one factor alone: if a gun is present in the house. In many cases, the crime is committed by a spouse or partner-someone with a prior history of domestic abuse. Gun control laws and domestic violence laws are rarely harmonized, creating a loophole that allows people with a history of domestic abuse to purchase firearms or maintain licenses for those that they already own.

Preventing situations like this, and increasing awareness of this issue, are the main goals of IANSA’s “Disarming Domestic Violence” campaign, which I will be working on for the remainder of the summer.

"Disarming Domestic Violence" campaign launch

In the first international campaign of its kind, IANSA and 85 partner organizations around the world, including SAP-Nepal, are making the connection between gun control and domestic violence. Out of nearly 900 million small arms in the world today, more than 75 percent are in the hands of private individuals-most of them men-putting women in these households at a significant risk.

Last Friday was the launch date for the campaign here in Nepal. SAP-Nepal, collaborating with SASA Net Nepal and Yatra, organized a bicycle rally to launch the campaign. More than 61 people (including myself!) participated in the rally, biking between four major political party offices and delivering a memorandum of policy suggestions to top party officials.

The party representatives who took the memorandum with appreciation and signed a commitment to “disarm domestic violence” included: Mr. Narayan Prasad Daha, Central Committee Member and CA Member of the UCPN-Maoist party; Mr. Nanda Kishore Yadav, Office Secretary of the Madhesee Youth Forum – Nepal (MJF); Mr. Ram Krishna Tamrakar, former minister and Center Committee Member of the Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) party; and Mr. Ishwore Pokhrel, former minister and General Secretary of Nepali Congress (NC).

They agreed to bring up the issue, and the policy suggestions, at a future legislative meeting.

Supporters present policy recommendations to a Maoist party official

Supporters present policy recommendations to a Maoist party official

Mr. Ram Krishna Tamrakar, former minister and Center Committee Member of the Unified Marxist Leninist party signs the commitment to "disarm domestic violence"

Mr. Ram Krishna Tamrakar, former minister and Center Committee Member of the Unified Marxist Leninist party signs the commitment to "disarm domestic violence"

More photos from the event can be viewed here. Also, look forward some of my video footage in the coming week!

I was recently introduced to a Hebrew phrase that explains, in the most concise way, why I am drawn to social justice.

“Tikkun Olam.” More or less, the world is in great need of repair.

It is perhaps this challenge that interests me: we live in a world that has more problems than we will ever have solutions. For every moment of triumph, we encounter a new and increasingly more complex issue. But I find it takes more than a good challenge to travel halfway around the world to a nation recently divided by civil war. It takes a desire to truly comprehend real suffering-an attempt to witness firsthand the sorest of shoes-to understand that civil and human rights as I know them are not universal.

We, as human beings, have a social responsibility to help.

Two weeks from today I will be on a flight to Kathmandu, Nepal in an effort to understand the relationship between women’s rights, domestic violence, and international security. I will be working for the South-Asia Partnership, a regional office affiliated with the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), on its “Disarming Domestic Violence” campaign. To be completely honest, I know very little about Nepal. What knowledge I do have consists of geographic landmarks, basic demographic information, and a barebones understanding of its recent history. Currently the youngest republic in the world, I will be traveling to a very unique place during an exceptionally important time.

I have no idea what to expect. One thing I did not expect-and recently discovered-is that it will be monsoon season. But I am prepared to encounter far more surprises. I hope to merge this experience with others that I have had for a more comprehensive idea of global issues. I have never been to Nepal, but I have been to less developed countries. I am eager to explore a new place and provide an international context to domestic violence and gun control.

I hope that you will share this journey with me over the next two and a half months by continuing to follow this blog. My next post will likely be from Doha, Qatar, during a 15 hour layover. In the meantime, please explore the websites of IANSA and the South-Asia Partnership to learn more about the organizations that I will be working with this summer.

Map of Nepal