Angry in the Great White North

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.