Next on Fox, when diplomats attack!
Diplomats caught behaving badly in Canada are protected by diplomatic immunity. As a result, they sometimes get away with their crimes.
Good thing, too.
The Ottawa Sun has an interesting article on diplomats in Canada behaving badly:
Some incidents of alleged crime and misconduct by diplomats posted in Canada in the 15 months prior to March 15, 2007:
- A diplomat and an embassy staffer were arrested after being caught allegedly trolling for hookers during a police sweep in Ottawa.
- Police were called after a diplomat's son admitted to knowingly passing counterfeit cash.
- An embassy service staffer lodged a complaint of assault, sexual abuse and a history of maltreatment by her employers. The federal Protocol office offered support services, but the victim did not wish to pursue criminal charges
- An honourary consul was stopped by police after he was driving in a "suspicious" manner. Crack cocaine was discovered in his vehicle and he was belligerent toward the officer. No roadside test was available to determine drug intoxication, but he was issued a 24-hour driving suspension.
- A member of the administrative and technical staff at an embassy was suspected of producing child pornography. A waiver of immunity was granted by the home country.
- Three members of the service staff working at an official residence of an ambassador complained about maltreatment and abuse by the ambassador's spouse, and asked the department for assistance in claiming refugee status in Canada.
- A first secretary at a High Commission departed Canada after a third brush with police after causing a public disturbance while intoxicated at a restaurant. The diplomat had previously been charged with impaired driving.
- A diplomat was charged by his home government for bribery and conspiracy related to his work as Consul while in Canada.
Diplomatic immunity comes in degrees. Essentially, the more important the role, upwards to the job of ambassador, the more immunity you enjoy. Lower level employees might not be immune from being compelled to respond to a subpoena, for example. But staff with official diplomatic duties, and their families, are entirely immune.
People often scoff at that immunity. It's OK for parking tickets, but surely a diplomat caught committing murder or molesting children ought to immediately be prosecuted, regardless of the protestations of the home country.
Diplomatic immunity, as weird as it sounds, is designed to protect a diplomat precisely from the most vile charges imaginable.
And that's a good thing.
Why? First of all, understand that diplomats are especially vulnerable. Keepers of secrets, they are targetted by inteligence services in any foreign country in which they work. Imagine that they could be arrested instead of merely watched. A diplomat driving down the road would find himself in an "accident". Dazed from the impact of being hit by that car that seemed to come out of nowhere, the diplomat might not notice local police taking instructions from some strange man in a suit. After a brief discussion, the diplomat would be "arrested", tossed into a dark sedan, and then disappear, never arriving at the police station, and posibly never being seen again.
That never happens because local police forces know that once the diplomat claims immunity, he can't be touched (or at worst, he is gingerly brought to the station to confirm his status if he lacks the documentation on the spot required to prove his claim).
OK, that sounds fine, you say, but what about the diplomat who is molesting children? Surely special circumstances like that would result in an automatic suspension of diplomatic immunity?
Absolutely not, and here's why. Intelligence services would simply swap out the car accident scenario and replace it with the molestation one. In some countries, that might mean internet stings designed to draw the diplomat out and thus into the hands of interrogators. Intelligence agencies in other countries, however, would not be averse to actually using children or teens as bait, endangering them, maybe even allowing the crime to progress (especially if the hypothetical exception only covers actual physical abuse), before swooping in.
Yes, Russia, I'm looking at you.
If you bring a particular crime out from under the blanket of diplomatic immunity, you make it likely that the crime will be committed, not by the diplomat, of course, but by those who operate in the shadows on behalf of host governments.
That means our Canadian diplomats are at risk. Indeed, I would like to think that Canadian diplomats at are higher risk of being victimized than foreign diplomats working in Canada are of being targetted by our intelligence agencies.
But this would never happen. All sides understand that diplomatic immunity must be absolute and universal.
And don't forget that diplomats are usually prosecuted in their home countries for serious crimes committed abroad while in their official capacity, so diplomats already have reason not to commit crimes. Depending on the home country, the punishment might be worse than what would be suffered in the host country. By the way, a diplomat cannot waive his own immunity.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
diplomatic immunity Canada
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
...it must be a bugger being a cop in Ottawa.
Posted by: tomax7 at July 4, 2007 08:12 AM
Like, is anyone REALLY surprised? Don't forget all the willys they have to puff on, for these cushy, crony jobs. Take a look at the CRIMINAL RECORDS of our MPs....
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at July 4, 2007 08:51 AM
"...might not notice local police taking instructions from some strange man in a suit. After a brief discussion, the diplomat would be "arrested", tossed into a dark sedan, and then disappear...
Hasn't that been happening with some regularity of late (not with diplomats, of course)? I believe it's called extraordinary rendition, and is now in practice and commonplace by/for the United States.
Posted by: Twolane at July 4, 2007 09:47 AM
As long as they are sent home quickly but,...
There was the russian who killed a woman in Ottawa while driving drunk a few years ago.
We don't do much to criminals any way why should diplomats be different?
Posted by: DrWright at July 4, 2007 10:47 AM
As I understand it, one of the first steps would be to ask the embassy to waive immunity for the individual accused, in order to facilitate local prosecution of the offense. This may or may not be granted, depending on whether the foreign country believes the charges are warranted, trusts the justice system in the host country, or finds other compelling reasons to grant or deny such a request.
And again, if I understand correctly, a final course of action would be to return the individual's diplomatic credentials, forcing the accused to leave the country. Many other countries would likely decline to accept such an individual as a diplomat in their own land, effectively leaving their country of origin to deal with the problem as they choose.
So at best, the wheels of justice can be granted permission to proceed as they normally would, and at worst Canada would be rid of such an individual (without the cost of incarceration).
Posted by: Paul O at July 4, 2007 12:39 PM
Steve,
I think you are missing the point on this. Let's stick with your example of a diplomat who molests children. Every molested child deserves justice, and any good person's morality should demand it. It is not enough to say that the criminal may be punished in his home country (but will probably be let free) and it is certainly not enough to declare them persona non grata. Child molsting scumbags deserve to be put in solitary for the rest of their life (or better yet, have a date with old sparky!).
Steve's rationale that restrictions on diplomatic immunity woud result in diplomats being put on sham trials just to pump them for information simply doesn't hold water. No civilized country would do that becuase they all understand the importance of having trusted diplomats. I mean can you really imagine our ambassador to the US, UK or Japan getting treated like that? Furthermore, if a country does behave like that then Canada could reserve the right to hold that country's diplomat, citizens or assets hostage. It works both ways.
The idea that a child molester should get free just becuase they hold a piece of paper from some third world hell-hole is insulting and goes against the very values this country stands for. Justice, equity and the rule of law, it is cruel and unusual punishment to the victim and their family and such wanton disregard for the basic dignity of an innocent person should never, I repeat NEVER go unpunished.
To send such scum back is not enough unless they are in a body bag.
Posted by: Andrew Smith at July 4, 2007 01:15 PM
You're right, Steve. Andrew, you're wrong.
I believe it was the Opposition Leader of Malaysia who was prosecuted on sham child molestation charges to keep him in prison. Substitute him with a Canadian diplomat and you have Steve's point. Most of our diplomats are NOT in "civilized" countries. They live and work in countries were police are easily bribed and justice is not easily achieved. Demanding justice is a very Canadian and Western concept. Getting justice means getting it within the rules. The same rules that protect guilty diplomats from abroad protects innocent Canadian diplomats while out of the country. You can't have diplomacy without diplomats. This is the price we pay.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at July 5, 2007 11:39 AM
Yes, and, SO WHAT. Before cross-border BDS sets in, recall that extraordinary rendition was developed by the CIA during the Clinton administration. Everyone's 'hero' authorized it's use during his second term. And, individuals disappeared. Now more are doing so. That was then, pre-9/11, this is now. I won't worry so much about large sedans equipped with nails detonating and killing me, my family or my friends. On topic, I understand Angry's point with diplomats but consistent, sustained pressure goes a long way to ensure they operate within the laws of their host country. Some of the worst miscreants come from the countries with questionable rule of law or human rights records. They need to know that the host country takes a dim view of poor behavior.
Posted by: iowavette at July 5, 2007 01:06 PM
Vienna Convention of 1961
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf
Cheers
Posted by: J.M. Heinrichs at July 8, 2007 04:41 PM
 
|
|
