Categories
Join Us At:
|
Chipping Away at Diplomatic Immunity as a Defense Against Trafficking ClaimsFor years advocates have been trying to vindicate the rights of domestic workers who have been enslaved by foreign diplomats in the U.S. Virtually every time a domestic worker has brought charges of abuse and exploitation against her diplomat employer, the courts have ruled that the diplomat could not be held accountable for his actions because of diplomatic immunity. But not yesterday. Yesterday a court denied a former Philippine ambassador to the U.N. the ability to duck responsibility for violating his domestic worker's human, civil, and labor rights simply by asserting that he was a diplomat at the time. Marichu Baoanan, who was held captive and forced to work as a domestic worker for the ambassador, and is represented by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, can proceed with her case against her former employer. Few women in her situation can say the same.
Marichu's mistreatment is no isolated incident. As documented by Human Rights Watch nearly a decade ago, and further quantified by the Government Accountability Office and the ACLU, domestic workers employed by diplomats are particularly susceptible to abuse and exploitation because of their employers' status as diplomats. The ACLU represents Kumari Sabbithi, Joaquina Quadros, and Tina Fernandes in a similar case arising out of their enslavement by a Kuwait diplomat in the Washington, D.C. area. Though groundbreaking, yesterday's decision does not empower all abused, exploited, or even enslaved domestic workers to bring diplomat employers before a court to answer for rights violations. Yesterday, the court only concluded that former diplomats could be held accountable, declining to determine whether a diplomat still in that position should be shielded by diplomatic immunity from charges of human trafficking. In order to fully vindicate the human rights of domestic workers, no form of immunity should protect diplomats who abuse, exploit, and enslave their employees. To learn more about the ACLU's efforts to protect the rights of domestic workers, visit www.aclu.org/domesticworkers. NOTE: This blog post as been amended to include a link to the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund website.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 1 Response to "Chipping Away at Diplomatic Immunity as a Defense Against Trafficking Claims" |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Jun 18th, 2009 at 5:39pm
I myself was a victim of a diplomat who hired me as a babysiiter for $250/month i agreed with this salary in a condition that she will let me work part time jobs during weekends and night time. But i ended up working 24/7 in suburb area of NJ. I was forced to work with high fever, shoveled snow, not allowed to use phone, verbally abused, and one time she threw dirty laundry on my face.
We may agreed to a cheap labor in order to support our poor family in the Philippines. But we have the right as human beings to be treated fairly. And we shouldn't expect the abused from a fellow Filipino diplomat who supposed to be the advocate of human right abuse. I met several Filipina domestic workers who are working with diplomats, and their story were almost the same or much worst than Marichu Baoanan. This is the time to end this pandemic. It's time to stand up and speak out!