Posted on 03/04/2010 4:43:54 AM PST by IbJensen
(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to decide whether senior United Nations officials should be exempt from prosecution, after a lower court this week upheld immunity in a case involving allegations of sexual harassment and vindictive conduct by top U.N. figures.
Two U.N. employees – a U.S. citizen and a dual French-Egyptian national – want to end what their lawyer describes as “impunity” exercised by senior officials in the world body.
Cynthia Brzak, the American, claims that Ruud Lubbers, then the U.N. high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR), touched her inappropriately as she left a business meeting in his Geneva office in 2003.
After she filed an internal complaint, both she and colleague Nasr Ishak, who as chairman of UNHCR Staff Council had counseled her to speak out, claim they were targeted for retaliation and workplace harassment.
(Although an internal U.N. inquiry upheld Brzak’s claims, then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said there was insufficient evidence to take further action. Lubbers, a former Dutch prime minister who denied wrongdoing throughout, resigned at UNHCR in 2005 after continuing media coverage of the allegations. Annan accepted the resignation reluctantly, stressing that the decision should not be interpreted as a finding of guilt.)
Brzak and Ishak in 2006 filed actions in both the U.S. Supreme Court and a federal District Court in New York against the U.N., Annan, Lubbers and others, claiming retaliation and other illegal action under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In 2007, the District Court ruled that the U.N. had immunity under the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPIUN).
Brzak and Ishak appealed that decision but lost their bid on Tuesday. The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the U.N. officials enjoyed diplomatic immunity and as a result could not be sued for the constitutional violations alleged by the applicants.
Edward Flaherty, the Geneva-based American lawyer acting for the two, said afterwards his clients would now take their case to the Supreme Court, adding that the retaliation they have experienced “continues unabated through the present date.”
“Their aim is to end the impunity exercised by U.N. officials everywhere who are placed beyond the reach of national laws by the U.N.’s outdated immunity, both in their own case, and on behalf of the many U.N. staff who have suffered and continue to suffer illegal and/or criminal acts in the workplace, as they have.”
Flaherty later said from Geneva he was confident that the Supreme Court would take the case and that it would “accept our arguments that the immunity afforded the United Nations, which is not a sovereign state nor its officials real diplomats, violates the constitutional and other rights of Cynthia and Nasr, and must be struck down.”
Under the CPIUN, U.N. officials enjoy immunity “from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and all acts performed by them in their official capacity.”
The CPIUN does state that the immunity is granted “in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves.” It further says that the secretary-general has the right and the duty to waive immunity in a case where he believes it would “impede the course of justice.” In a case involving the secretary-general himself, the U.N. Security Council has the right to waive immunity.
In the case involving Lubbers, Annan did not waive immunity.
‘Neurotic attention-seeker’
In 2007, Francis Montil, the former deputy head of investigations at the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) – the internal investigation unit whose inquiry into Lubbers found in favor of Brzak’s allegations – told an Australian newspaper that Annan’s office had tried to play down and “whitewash” the complaint.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan briefs reporters outside the Security Council chamber in New York on December 27, 2006. (UN Photo by Paulo Filgueiras) Montil told the Sydney Morning Herald that a senior member of Annan’s staff had called the OIOS investigators to relay the impression “that the complainant was an American woman, and therefore a neurotic attention-seeker who was no doubt exaggerating the incident.”
“Montil says the relationship between Annan’s office and the Americans had been frosty even before the refusal of the U.N. to back the war against Iraq, which began nine months earlier,” the newspaper reported.
Montil said that the investigation had not only confirmed Brzak’s claim, but uncovered complaints by four other women about alleged sexual harassment by Lubbers. Annan decided not to act on the OIOS recommendation that “appropriate action be taken against Mr. Lubbers for misconduct” and for “interfering with the investigation.”
Days after a British newspaper in 2005 published a leaked copy of the confidential OIOS report, Lubbers resigned.
The U.N. on Wednesday marked various events around International Women’s Day. During a press briefing, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman, Martin Nesirky, was asked whether Ban – in the light of the focus on women – would be willing to waive immunity in the Brzak case.
The spokesman said he had “no comment” on the matter.
After she filed an internal complaint, both she and colleague Nasr Ishak, who as chairman of UNHCR Staff Council had counseled her to speak out, claim they were targeted for retaliation and workplace harassment.
Whatever happened to the slap to the face followed by a loud "Stop groping me, you pervert!" loud enough for everyone present to hear? IMHO it would reduce repeat performances more so than a note of complaint at a later time.
If a dog craps on your carpet, you reprimand him right then and there so that it becomes a teaching moment. You don't discuss it with him days later. Same for humans acting like animals.
>>>To be considered a diplomat shouldn’t you represent a real nation with real people?
A question apparently already asked and answered.
“The U.N. had immunity under the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPIUN).”
This case is going nowhere.
Ah - since when does the Supreme Court (or any US Court for that matter) have jurisdiction over a sexual harassment which occured outside the US?
Is anyone surprised that if someone lays down with the dogs of the UN, they not only get up with fleas, but gets their leg hunched in the process?
The bottom line is that the UN is a disreputable place, it is not under US law, and those ambitious individuals foolish enough to work there, voluntarily, should not be surprised when they are both violated, and nobody cares.
But fair is fair. Since it is a place without laws or justice, then the only recourse is violence against the perpetrators. Had, for example, this woman responded to groping by kicking the groper squarely in the crotch, with enough force to make him sing falsetto, then what could the UN do about it? Likely the worst they could do would be to fire her, but there would be no criminal sanctions against her.
““that the complainant was an American woman, and therefore a neurotic attention-seeker who was no doubt exaggerating the incident.” “
Riiigghhhttt. Because being an American precludes that you are a “neurotic attention-seeker.”
I personally wish more people would employ this method. Shame is a useful teaching tool.
That's rude and crude Ruud. Who do you think you are, Bill Clinton?
UNaccountable bureaucrats should be smacked down or incarcerated whenever possible. Defund/dismantle UNaccountable collectives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.