North America & Oceania

Human Rights Groups See Opportunity In Upcoming Obama Trip

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — With only a days remaining until President Barack Obama embarks on a historic trip to Southeast Asia, human rights organizations hope rights abuses in the countries he will visit do not go unnoticed.

Human rights groups hope President Obama will call for an end to longstanding rights abuses during his upcoming historic visit to Southeast Asia. (Photo Courtesy of Reuters)

On Saturday, the President leaves for visits to Thailand, Cambodia, and Myanmar, also known as Burma, as part of the 21st Association of Southeast Asian Nations Summit.  Obama’s visits to Cambodia and Myanmar will be the first to either country by a U.S. President.

The White House said Obama is going ahead with the visits despite some rights groups’ criticism of the trip being premature because the countries have yet to institute reforms after decades of military rule.

But New York-based Human Rights Watch said the upcoming trip was an opportunity.

“We’re calling on President Obama to really strongly and publicly raise these human rights concerns, to press for accountability, and to insist that it can’t be business as usual with the Cambodian government, given the gravity of these human rights violations,” said Human Rights Watch deputy Asia director Phil Robertson in an interview with Voice of America.

The rights group released a report this week showing more than 300 people have been killed in the last 20 years in Cambodia under the rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen.  The group criticized the Cambodian government for ignoring the problem rather than investigating it, adding that some of those believed to be responsible have even been promoted.

“The moral strain on this trip is Cambodia,” an anonymous activist told Reuters after a meeting with U.S. government leaders in Washington.  The White House met with international human rights activists on Tuesday.

Officials reportedly told the rights groups that “Obama would take a tough approach with Cambodian Prime Minister Sen in private,” according to the Reuters report.

Another group calling on Obama to take action was the Committee to Protect Journalists.  On Thursday, it issued an open letter to the President on its website, asking that he stay committed protecting the right of free expression worldwide.

Specifically, the committee asked that Obama “exercise U.S. influence and seek the redress of press freedom violations in Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand,” where the committee said press freedoms are worsening.

The committee noted that Burma does not have a free press, despite improvements in recent years.  It also noted that Cambodian Prime Minister Sen continues to suppress criticism of his government, and that Thailand has laws that can send some journalists to jail for comments posted on their websites.

For further information, please see:

Committee to Protect Journalists — Obama Should Address Media Rights in Southeast Asia — 14 November 2012

Reuters — Rights Groups Press Obama Aides on Myanmar, Cambodia — 13 November 2012

The Washington Post — Human Rights Group Urges Obama to Address Cambodian Abuses — 13 November 2012

Voice of America — Rights Group Urges Obama to Address Human Rights Abuses in Cambodia — 13 November 2012

Former Tim Hortons Employees from Mexico File Human Rights Complaint Against Former Franchise Owner

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada — Four former employees of the Canadian restaurant chain Tim Hortons launched a human rights complaint against their former boss on Friday, saying the franchise owner was racist.

Four former Tim Hortons employees from Mexico accuse their former boss of coercion and racial discrimination. (Photo Courtesy of The Vancouver Sun)

The employees, who were from Mexico, worked at two Dawson Creek, British Columbia locations, owned by Tony Van Den Bosch.  They came to Canada earlier this year as part of the country’s temporary foreign workers program.

Eugene Kung, an attorney with the BC Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said the four workers were required to share rooms in one of two homes owned by Van Den Bosch, where up to 10 people lived at one time.

“They had no privacy in the house,” Kung said.  “The owner would come in and out as he pleased and would enter people’s rooms.”

Kung also said the workers had to pay a $200 “tip” in addition to their $200 monthly rent for the double-bunked rooms.  Kung said Van Den Bosch earned $4,000 a month in rent by doubling up the rooms and doubling the rents.

“When Tim Hortons advertises the double-double, I don’t believe this is what most Canadians had in mind,” Kung said.  “The complainants felt extremely vulnerable having their employer as their landlord.  This placed them in a position of relative powerlessness right from the start of their stay in Dawson Creek.”

Kung added that Van Den Bosch subjected the workers to discrimination.

“Derogatory, racist comments included ‘[expletive] Mexican workers are lazy’ and ‘Mexican idiots,’ while the employer described himself as the owner of their lives,” Kung said.

He also accused Van Den Bosch of regularly withholding the workers’ Mexican passports for periods of time.

“Two of them were fired and sent back to Mexico after raising concerns about their working and living conditions,” Kung added.  “Two of them actually fled in the middle of the night one night because they were so afraid.”

When confronted, Van Den Bosch denied the allegations.

“It’s a bunch of crap.  Bunch of crap totally, you know what I mean?” he said.  “[Whether] you believe it or not, I can’t help what people believe.  They like to believe the negative.    People enjoy that sort of stuff.  You know what I mean?”

Tim Hortons released a statement to the media, saying in part, “Tim Hortons restaurant owners hire their own staff, and when they have difficulty filling restaurant positions with local workers, they turn to the temporary foreign workers program to appropriately staff their restaurants.”

The company also confirmed that Van Den Bosch no longer owns the franchises in question and has not been with the chain since July 2012.

For further information, please see:

CBC News — Tim Hortons Workers File Double-Double Rights Complaint — 9 November 2012

CJDC – 890 AM — Temporary Foreign Workers File Complaint Against Former Tim Hortons Owner — 9 November 2012

CTV News — Mexican Workers File Human Rights Complaint Against Tim Hortons Boss — 9 November 2012

The Vancouver Sun — Former Tim Hortons Employees from Mexico Accuse Dawson Creek Franchise Owner of Abuse — 9 November 2012

Maori Pledge Defeated in New Zealand Parliament

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

WELLINGTON, New Zealand — New Zealand lawmakers this week voted down a bill to add a pledge to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi when new members of parliament swear the oath of allegiance.

New Zealand’s Parliament defeated a bill by MP Te Ururoa Flavell to allow anyone taking a statutory oath to also pledge to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi. (Photo Courtesy of The New Zealand Herald)

The bill from the Maori Party was defeated in a 69 to 52 vote Wednesday, but even before the vote, political observers expected the measure to fail.  The New Zealand First party had said the bill was unsupportable because it was a “separatist” proposal, and the National Party had called the bill “unnecessary.”

“It seems like a simple idea, but it’s much broader than that,” said National MP Louise Upston.  “It’s about the position of the treaty in our constitution.”

Some opponents worried the inclusion of the pledge would require all new members of parliament to swear to the pledge.  Others said this would be an issue to consider later down the road.

“There is an appropriate place for a conversation about national identity, and that is the constitutional review that we are holding,” Upston said.

But Maori MP Te Ururoa Flavell, who drafted the bill, said critics’ concerns were unfounded.

“There’s no compulsion [for every member of parliament to take the oath],” Flavell said.  “It’s entirely up to each individual, and it’s about giving a choice to honor the treaty.”

The Treaty of Waitangi was signed by the British government and more than 500 Maori chiefs in 1840.  It gave British monarchs the right to rule over New Zealand, but allowed Maori chiefs to keep their land and chieftainships, as well as gave Maori the same rights as British citizens.  Since then, interpretation of the Treaty has been controversial, and New Zealand established a Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 to help settle disputes.

“The principle is that the treaty is the nation’s founding document and the government is committed to fulfilling its obligations to the treaty,” Flavell said.

After the vote, the Maori Party quickly criticized Prime Minister John Key and his National Party for deteriorating Treaty relationships.

“Why are they afraid of the treaty?” Flavell asked, calling their vote against the oath “disturbing.”

“Fortunately, many more New Zealanders can see the value the Treaty can add to building unity in a diverse nation, helping us to acknowledge our shared past and move forward together, as seen in our role in government,” he added.

The bill called for adding “I will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi” to the current swearing-in oath, which reads: “I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God.”

Also opposing the bill were the ACT and United Future parties.  The Labour, Green, and Mana parties also supported the bill.

For further information, please see:

Radio New Zealand — Treaty Oath Bill Dismissal Contrary to True Partnership: Maori Party — 8 November 2012

NZCity News — Treaty Oath Bill Defeated — 7 November 2012

The New Zealand Herald — Labour Considering Support for Swearing Oath to Treaty — 6 November 2012

TangataWhenua.com — National Retreating on Treaty Relationships — 6 November 2012

New Zealand Tourism — Treaty of Waitangi

 

 

Guatemala Wants Answers in Texas Trooper Shooting That Left Two Immigrants Dead

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — A Guatemalan diplomat this week questioned the actions of Texas Rangers who fired gunshots from a helicopter on a pickup truck of undocumented immigrants hiding in the bed.

Civil rights activists hold a vigil and protest for two undocumented immigrants from Guatemala killed by Texas Rangers. (Photo Courtesy of The Brownsville Herald)

The incident, which happened near the U.S.-Mexico border on Oct. 25, killed two people and injured one.

“I have a lot of questions,” said Alba Caceres, the Guatemalan consul in McAllen, a border city about 15 miles east of where the incident took place.

The Department of Public Safety, which is in charge of the elite squad of Texas Rangers, said troopers suspected the truck was smuggling drugs because of the covered pickup bed.  Instead, six men lay under that cover, along with three men in the pickup cab, a driver, and a human smuggler.

“Why aren’t the narco-traficos pursued this way?” Caceres asked, referencing drug smugglers.  “Maybe if the officer explained why they made the determination to shoot them, we would understand.  Right now, I am very confused.”

The Los Angeles Times reported that troopers have authority to fire from helicopters to stop a driver, defend themselves or someone at risk, or make an arrest.

The Times also reported that the immigrants, all field workers, each paid $5,000 to be smuggled through Mexico and into Texas.  They had spent nearly three weeks traveling from their hometown of San Martin Jilotepeque, about an hour outside the Guatemalan capital of Guatemala City.

In a statement, the Texas Department of Public Safety said troopers believed the driver’s recklessness was a threat to public safety, considering elementary and middle schools were located less than three miles away from the scene of the incident.

“Although it is very tragic that two lives were lost, had the vehicle continued recklessly speeding through the school zone, any number of innocent bystanders or young lives could have been lost or suffered serious bodily injury,” said DPS Director Steve McCraw.

The trooper involved in the shooting returned to work on Thursday after being placed on administrative leave.  He has been assigned administrative duties pending the outcome of an internal investigation.

The victims were identified as Jose Leonardo Coj Cumar, 32, and Marcos Antonio Castro Estrada, 29.  Coj left behind three children and his pregnant wife in order to earn money for a surgical procedure one of his sons needed.  Caceres said Coj did not want to travel illegally but had to for his son.

“We have expressed our outrage at this incident, and we will pursue all the measures necessary to ensure that this is not forgotten or filed away,” she said.

Caceres also said she was awaiting death certificates to allow the bodies to be returned to Guatemala.  The surviving Guatemalans were in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

For further information, please see:

The Brownsville Herald — ACLU Voices Concerns of DPS Shooting — 2 November 2012

The Huffington Post — Miguel Avila, Texas Trooper in Chopper Shooting of Two Undocumented Immigrants, Returns to Work — 2 November 2012

The Los Angeles Times — Guatemala Seeks Answers in Texas’ Fatal Shooting of Migrants — 31 October 2012

The Dallas Morning News — Guatemalan Diplomat: Texas Agents Who Fired on Pickup Should’ve Seen It Held People, Not Drugs — 30 October 2012

Australian Asylum-Seekers Unhappy, Start Hunger Strike

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

CANBERRA, Australia — Nearly half of the asylum-seekers being held in an Australian detention center on the Pacific island of Nauru began a hunger strike on Thursday, protesting the conditions at the facility.

Asylum-seekers at an Australian immigration center on Nauru Island have begun a hunger strike to protest the conditions at the detention facility. (Photo Courtesy of the Sydney Morning Herald)

Of the nearly 400 people held at the center, the Australian Department of Immigration said at least 170 have stopped eating their meals and refused their water.

“This is a clear message that we are not happy here,” the protesters wrote in a statement addressed to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the Nauru government, human rights commissions, and the international community.

“We want to go back from this hell to Australia, and we request to the Australian government to start our processing,” the statement continued.

Australian immigration authorities embraced tough new offshore processing policies earlier this year, including the reopening of the Nauru detention center.  The policies have sparked criticism and concern from Australian and international human rights organizations about the treatment of people seeking asylum.

Earlier this week, the Australian government approved increasing the capacity at the Nauru facility to 1,500 people.  Current detainees are kept in tents, and advocates have reported conditions there as hot and unbearable.

Asylum-seekers claimed their Internet access was cut off on Thursday as a way of censoring their access to human rights supporters and the media.  But authorities said that was untrue.

“It is well known that on Nauru, there are Internet service problems,” an Immigration Department spokesperson told the Sydney Morning Herald.

But the Australian Human Rights Commission said there was reason for the public to be concerned about the detainees’ health and well-being.

“Asylum-seekers have been left with no idea when their claims will be processed and what will be their ultimate fate,” said Ian Rintoul, a refugee advocate.  “They have no choice but to protest.”

Yet while the uncertainty caused some asylum-seekers to begin a hunger strike, it prompted others to, at least temporarily, give up on their immigration hopes.  Six detainees chose to leave the Nauru detention center and return to their home country this week.  They marked the first Iraqi and Iranian nationals to voluntarily give up their asylum claims.  More than 80 people have chosen to return to their home country since the new Australian immigration policies took effect in August.

But that has not caused Australia to reverse course regarding new immigrants.

“People arrive by boat will be sent to Nauru and Papua-New Guinea,” an immigration spokesperson said.

For further information, please see:

ABC Radio Australia — Australian Human Rights Commission Concern for Nauru Hunger Strikers — 2 November 2012

The Sydney Morning Herald — Asylum Seekers on Hunger Strike — 2 November 2012

The Sydney Morning Herald — ‘Unhappy’ Asylum Seekers on Hunger Strike — 2 November 2012

Fraser Coast Chronicle — Asylum Seekers Voluntarily Leave Nauru to Go Home — 1 November 2012

Green Left — Refugees Tell Gillard Nauru Is ‘The Worst Condition of Our Lives’ — 1 November 2012