Exploitation of employee or blackmail of employer? (Khobragade case) - Page 19

Created

Last reply

Replies

402

Views

21.9k

Users

25

Likes

242

Frequent Posters

441597 thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Richards is facing arrest in India when she lands there. Her passport was cancelled, which means she should've been returned to India straightaway. I apologize, I meant the US should have "deported" Richards to India when she was charged. My bad. The grounds for charging her:

1. Signed an Employment Contract in India to work in return of for Rs. 30,000 in India, $500 in the US, an Official Indian Passport plus other benefits like place to stay in Manhattan, free food, free health insurance, Sunday off and others. But once in the US demanded more including an ordinary passport and a Green Card.
2. Did not return to India when her OFFICIAL Passport was revoked.


@Underlined: Why are the Richards under continued presence when they had nothing to do with being trafficked?

Also, its known that individuals undergoing trial in a court cannot leave the country without the court's permission.


Edited by krystal_watz - 11 years ago
441597 thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago
While we're at it, why is the Indian Government being criticised again? Especially when not a word was uttered when USA did the same and more for Davies who wasn't even a diplomat? RTH, help me here.
BrownRevo thumbnail
12th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Farticles%2F2013%2F12%2F19%2Fhusain-haqqani-on-america-s-diplomat-shame.html&ei=VDi7UsrcDIrGrAfNq4AI&usg=AFQjCNFctMvGEMytA-BUx_8XwDz4ye8Fcw&bvm=bv.58187178,d.bmk
Husain Haqqani on America's Diplomat Shame.
The arrest and mistreatment of an Indian consul in New York is particularly galling considering how frequently America's own emissaries benefit from diplomatic immunity.

The recent diplomatic tiff over mistreatment of an Indian diplomat by U.S. law enforcement authorities is neither about rule of law nor about diplomatic immunity. It involves the issue of courtesy for representatives of foreign governments, which is essential for the conduct of international relations.


Americans are often the most significant beneficiaries of courtesies, over and above the immunities guaranteed by the letter of law that governments extend to each other.

India's Deputy Consul-General in New York, Devyani Khobragade, was arrested on charges of visa fraud for allegedly paying her maid less than the amount that formed the basis of the maid's employment visa. U.S. marshals arrested Khobragade outside her kids' school, publicly handcuffed her and subjected her to strip and cavity searches before detaining her with common criminals.

The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, has defended Khobragade's arrest on grounds of the crime she allegedly committed against her poor helpless maid. Secretary of State John Kerry has apologized to India over the manner of Khobragade's arrest while defending the need to implement American laws.

The Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Immunities provide different levels of immunity for diplomats and consular representatives. Consular officials are protected against arrest only for acts committed in the course of their duties.

The U.S. position is that as a consul, Khobragade was not immune from arrest for allegedly under-paying her maid. But even if that were the case, Bharara's decision to treat her without regard for her status as a representative of a foreign, friendly government reflected the prosecutor's over-exuberance straight out of an episode of Law and Order.

Khobragade's guilt or the nature of her immunity is a matter for a court to decide. Treating her courteously was necessary to ensure that American diplomats and consular representatives are protected and treated kindly abroad.

As Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, I found myself at the center of a similar but much worse row in January 2011 when Raymond Davis killed two men in a crowded street in the city of Lahore.

The U.S. claimed that Davis carried a diplomatic passport and therefore enjoyed diplomatic immunity. Pakistan's Foreign Office found that Davis' name had been included on the list of diplomats serving in Pakistan only after he had committed the murders, which did not extend him immunity under the Vienna Convention.




As Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, I found myself at the center of a similar but much worse row in January 2011 when Raymond Davis killed two men in a crowded street in the city of Lahore.

His job description, as an adviser at the U.S. consulate in Lahore, also entitled him to consular and not full diplomatic immunity.

Pakistan's government could not free a killer without due process. But once he had been identified as a U.S. government functionary, our government ensured that Davis was treated with courtesy. American officials were immediately provided access to Davis and he was not subjected to a strip search. Once The Guardian revealed that he was, in fact, a CIA contractor, special arrangements were made for his security in prison in case other inmates might attempt to hurt him.

The Pakistani government avoided embarrassing President Obama, who had been misled into publicly insisting on Davis' diplomatic status.

Eventually, Davis was set free by a Pakistani court after his lawyers reached a financial settlement with the victims' families under Pakistan's Islamic blood money' law. Kerry, then Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, travelled to Pakistan to convey America's regret over the loss of life caused by Davis, which tempered the public anger over the prospect of an accused murderer being set free.

We treated the Raymond Davis affair as a matter affecting relations between Pakistan and the United States, and not merely as the crime it was. I was as outraged as anyone else over the fact that a hot-headed individual had killed two people in a crowded market without any identifiable threat to his life. But Davis was entitled to due process of law and until all legal options were exhausted his treatment could affect U.S.-Pakistan relations.

The U.S. prosecutor and marshals involved in arresting Khobragade and the State Department officials who signed off on her arrest, failed in being sensitive to the international dimension of an alleged domestic crime.

The ends of justice would not have been compromised if Khobragade had been treated with courtesies similar to those extended by Pakistan to Davis. American diplomats are extended considerations over and beyond the law in most countries.

Almost every U.S. diplomatic facility abroad is surrounded by barriers often erected on public property that violate municipal ordinances. American diplomats are allowed to board flights and exit airports through different exits than other passengers. These facilities protect U.S. government representatives in an era of terrorist threats.

American law enforcers need to be mindful of these global realities before setting off another storm while arresting a foreign diplomat or consular agent.
Edited by iluvrevolution - 11 years ago
_Angie_ thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago
The Khobragade case gets more interesting!
- It now turns out, that Ms Khobragade , the diplomat was accredited as an advisor to the Permanent Mission of India to the UN, (for the period betn 26th Aug to 31st Dec 2013) allowing her full immunity from personal arrest or detention, when she was picked up from her children's school by US authorities in early December.
Reference- The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN Article 4 Section 11A specifies "immunities from personal arrest or detention and from the seizure of their personal baggage" of all representatives of members to the United Nations.

Section 16 of the same Article specifies that the expression "Representative" shall be deemed to include all delegates, deputy delegates, advisors, technical experts and secretaries of delegations.
- It is also now being asserted that $4500 may be nothing more than a figure mentioned on Sangeeta's visa application form (DS-160) in the box asking for salary of the employer (Khobragade). According to Indian authorities, there is no justification for the US authorities to state that Khobragade had agreed to pay that amount to her maid.
This could weaken Bhara's case against Ms Khobragade and she could in turn sue for damages!
To the question , how much was Sangeeta actually being paid and did Khobragade fulfill her November 11 contract for around $1560, according to government sources, Khobragade fulfilled all her commitments in the form of $560 (or Rs 30,000 transferred to Sangeeta's bank account in India every month), another $375 as deducted from the salary to pay for her chargeable utilities like telephone usage, cable TV, non-work related conveyance, expenses and another $625 given in cash, occasionally with signed receipts. As there were several months where the weekly hours fell well below 40 working hours, the cash payment was apparently adjusted accordingly.

Some signed receipts for salary payments are said to be in the possession of Khobragade. According to Indian authorities, Sangeeta also purchased many gifts to send back to her family in India, and there is witness testimony of at least four separate persons, who travelled to India from New York, that they carried gifts, cash and goods on behalf of Sangeeta to deliver to her children in India.

Excerpts from her hand written diary and the letters she wrote to Devyani's sister reveal that she was well satisfied and happy with the treatment by her employers . She had a two room area to herself, a TV, I pad, telephone, metro cards, could eat what she liked, could travel around on her own, mostly had her way. She couldnt have been overworked as she had expressed desire to work elsewhere during her Sunday off. This was when Devyani said that she could not work elsewhere because of the restrictions of her passport and visa restrictions. She was told that she would have to return back to India and get new visas and passport to be legally able to do that. This is wwhen trouble started brewing as possibly Sangeeta Richards had no plans to return to India.
441597 thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago
^^Fantastic. Now let's wait for Mr. K's take on this. 😆 In his own words used elsewhere, "there goes all the manufactured passion out of the window".
K.Universe. thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago
Krystal and Angie, if you guys believe those Indian authorities, I've got a bridge to sell you!

At times, I may manufacture passion to raise the ratings but I sincerely believe those Indian authorities manufacture accreditations, documents, witnesses and evidence on demand. I have zero trust in their integrity.

In any case, it remains to be seen if this "adviser" status (retro adjusted?) assuredly gives her immunity or not. Claiming that it does is not the same as saying yes it does in legal parlance.

I have a feeling she may get off scot-free which is not what I want.

I also have a feeling that US is not going to apologize, which is not what you want.

So, the moral of the story is we won't always get what we want in life. Too bad, this is not my universe:)

See you later in another thread.

_Angie_ thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Krystal and Angie, if you guys believe those Indian authorities, I've got a bridge to sell you!

At times, I may manufacture passion to raise the ratings but I sincerely believe those Indian authorities manufacture accreditations, documents, witnesses and evidence on demand. I have zero trust in their integrity.

K, manufactured passions unlike genuine ones , do not last long . The widespread outrage that erupted in India could not have been manufactured by the IFS or the govt authorities . We shall see about the trust in integrity status awarded to the US !


In any case, it remains to be seen if this "adviser" status (retro adjusted?) assuredly gives her immunity or not. Claiming that it does is not the same as saying yes it does in legal parlance.
Well, well...retroadjusted!? I would expect the UN office to have copies of correspondence or a list of such representiatives (for security reasons) which could be used to verify such a claim!

I have a feeling she may get off scot-free which is not what I want.

Scot free from what, K? What wrong did Devyani do in this case? Did she mistreat her maid? Did the maid not have enough money? Was Sangeeta's quality of life (the goal while fixing a minimum wage) being compromised in any way? What about Sangeeta getting away scot free? Is she being seen as a victim simply because of the stereotyped "weaker" person being the traumatised victim always! This is what is often pressumed in accident cases of pedestrian /smaller vehicle vs larger, woman vs man in assault cases, poor vs rich etc but not necessarily true always! The pedestrian could be at fault and the woman considered a weaker gender could very well be lying.

I also have a feeling that US is not going to apologize, which is not what you want.

A forced, unfelt apology anyway has no meaning IMHO. US can keep its apology and nanny and give India Devyani 😆

So, the moral of the story is we won't always get what we want in life. Too bad, this is not my universe:)

See you later in another thread.

The moral of the story is we form opinions based on pre conceived notions. Information could add to it though thoughts continue to be largely shaped by our belief system and past experiences.

_Angie_ thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Let us see if some information could affect our belief systems or is it to remain unchanged. 🤔

Since there had been so much said about US policy of equality , fairness and liberty for "all" and following standard procedures let us have a look at some cases of US diplomats who got away with worse crimes than Ms Khobragade had been accused of. After going through these cases one would have to re define "equality, fairness and liberty " that the US purportedly represents to the world.

- In 2011, an Ethiopian national, Jan Doe, filed a case against American state department employee Linda Howard accusing her of forced labour, involuntary servitude and human trafficking.

Linda Howard had hired Doe as her housekeeper and moved to Japan on a contract of $300 a month, time off each week, health insurance and a safe place to live and work. However, in Japan, Doe was forced to work more than 80 hours a week for less than a dollar an hour. The minimum hourly wage at the time of Jane Doe's employment was $6.55. Doe was even raped and forced to engage in sexual acts with Linda Howards's husband, Russell Howard, who threatened to deport her. When she finally escaped and complained, Linda Howard was removed from her post in the US embassy in Tokyo but returned to the US and continued to work for the state department.

By the time the Virginia court found the Howards guilty and awarded Doe over $3 million in damages in November last year, the Howards had fled the country. No effort seems to have been made by the US to track down the Howards who committed felony on federal property.

- In July 2006, Harold Countryman, a former state department agent, and his wife, Kimberly Countryman, a realtor in northern Virginia, were found guilty of abetting visa fraud, forced labour and underpaying a Cambodian woman they had hired during their posting in South Korea and brought to the US.

Kimberly Countryman admitted that she withheld a portion of the woman's pay, took possession of her passport and physically assaulted her. Though they had to pay the Cambodian woman $50,000 in restitution, Harold Countryman, the diplomat, only received probation. Visa fraud carries a statutory maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000. The maximum sentence for involuntary servitude is a 40-year jail sentence.

- In a much older case, in 1993, a US diplomat Thurmond Borden and his Filipino wife hired a domestic help from Manila offering to pay $300 to her to work for them in Japan. To comply with Japanese immigration regulations, they made a contract stating that they would pay her $1,500 to work six days a week for eight hours a day with overtime pay of 125%. The contract was submitted to both the US embassy and the Japanese immigration bureau.

Lucia found that she was forced to work from 6 am to 10 pm and not allowed to take a break even on Christmas or New Year. When she complained, her air ticket and alien registration certificate were confiscated. Lucia managed to escape after complaining to the Japanese police. When she tried to sue the Bordens, the State Dept of US claimed diplomatic immunity for them and the Japanese legal system was forced to drop the case. Borden is now consul general Jakarta where among others tasks he will also be responsible for issuing maid visas to domestic help for US diplomats headed for the US.

Many such cases have been put together on a blog, The Dissenter, by Peter Van Buren. Van Buren is a former US foreign service employee who turned whistle blower with his book criticizing American reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

Edited by _Angie_ - 11 years ago
441597 thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago
K.Universe: So you pretty much have nothing to say here. 😛 Too bad, go and get information on the $4500 from "reliable" sources then. 😆 That figure was stated right from the beginning of this case by US authorities. The debate was about whether any offence was commited by the consular official or not, not on what we or you would "like to happen".
Whether the US apologises or not is immaterial, fact remains that Devyani broke no rules and the US and Bharara stand to have egg on their faces. Debate khatam.
Edited by krystal_watz - 11 years ago
LovelyPlanet thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I'm confused about the details of this case. Many things don't add up. The minimum wage in USA is $7.25/hr. I don't know where the $9.75/hr is coming from. New York minimum wage is $9.00/hr which still isn't $9.75/hr. Indian reports are calculating that to be $4500.00/mo claiming the diplomat makes only $4120/mo. $7.25/hr comes to $1260/mo and $9.75 comes to $1690/mo based on a 40 hour work week barring overtime. Even with overtime it wouldn't come to more than $2,000 a month. $4500/mo is $26.00/hr which is a sweet salary. You will have a throng of people begging to be your servant if you paid that rate. So there is more to the case than meets the eye. The reports are grossly inaccurate.

Paying anything less than the Federal minimum wage in USA is a huge atrocity. Especially considering the fact that the minimum wage is also deemed too low by many. If someone actually paid less than $5.00 it would be considered bondage or slavery of some sort.

Diplomats do have diplomatic immunity and as such a diplomat should not have been arrested. However, exceptions are made in serious cases. I don't know if authorities saw this as an instance of slavery. There may have been issues with the legal status of the maid too. Details are sketchy on all sides.

Apparently Devyani had misundertood the salary question on the form she was asked to fill in and happened to mention her own salary $4500.

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".