Foreign Diplomats Do Not Commit Crimes-Diplomatic Immunity In Canada

Although it is obvious and commonly known that foreign diplomats do not enter hosting countries with the intent of committing a crime -and most of them do not commit crimes - diplomatic immunity is still a highly controversial issue. This is understandable, considering the principles and beliefs most countries are sacrificing by letting a foreign government officials get away with petty and sometimes murderous crimes. The Rule of Law, the protection of citizens, and international justice, all very important aspects of government, are all things being put on the line for the sake of dipolmatic immunity. It is not worth sacrificing such foundational things for something so trivial.

In Canada and many other established countries, the Rule of
Law is the foundation for all of its decisions, and is often referred to in court cases. It is a fundamental set of priciples that play a very important role in our justice system. The Rule of Law clearly states that "the governement is subject to law"(1) and that "no one is above the law"(2). However, giving a government official diplomatic immunity allows that official to declair him or herself "immune" to being criminally prosecuted in their host country, no matter how severe a crime he or she committs. In other words, the diplomat can declair him or herself above the host countries law. This clearly violates the Rule of Law, underminding a principle on which Canada and any other countries opperate, and robs its people of a promise of equality.

Another promise made to the people by the government is that of justice.
When someone is killed in Canada, that persons loved ones expect justice to be served to the person responsible for that death. This is an idea that Canadians are garunteed and expect. If the person who killed the citizen in question was a foreign diplomat, however, the killer could immediately claim diplomatic immunity and free him or herself of prosecution and civil liability. This was the case on January 22nd of the year 2000, when a Russian diplomat veered his car onto an Ottawa sidewalk, killing Catherine McLean and seriously injuring her friend. Although the police reported that "the suspect was so impaired he could barely walk or speak,"(3) the diplomat was able to claim diplomatic immunity to avoid paying for his crime. Janice Payne, a Canadian citizen and a friend of McLean, expressed her disgust and dissapointment in the lack of justice in this short statement:"It seems incredible to me that diplomats can come to another country and behave essentially with complete immunity from the most horrendous conduct." No Canadian wants to be robbed of a promise from their government, or of justice in their
country.
Diplomatic immunity is also causing problems on an international level. If a diplomat that has been charged with a crime by his or her host country, and claims dipolmatic immunity, it is not uncommon for the diplomats home country to expel him or her from the host country.
It is also often asked, and even expected, that when the diplomat gets home he or she should be tried according to the home countries laws. However, this expectation is often not satified, and guilty diplomats simply walk away. A good example of such a case happened on April 17th, 1984 in London, England outside of the Libyan embassy. Durring a demonstration against Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan leader at the time, shots were fired from inside the embassy. One of the shots hit and killed policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, starting a stand-off between the diplomats and the police. Diplomatic ties were soon severed, and on April 27th, 10 days later, the 30 diplomats were seen getting in to vans with their luggage and driving away. They were escorted onto a plane back to Libya. BBC News reports say that shortly after police "...had to accept that whoever shot WPC Fletcher will escape justice by claiming diplomatic immunity."(4) If a criminal diplomats home country cannot be trusted to prosecute that diplomat fairly, there is no justice in diplomatic immunity, and that does not reflect well on the international
community.
In conclusion, diplomatic immunity is not fair for the citizens of a host country that has been taken advantage of, to the citizens hurt personally by a diplomat, or to the international community. It does not provide justice for the host country hurt by the diplomats bad decisions. The Rule of Law, one of the most imporatant foundations of today's law, is very much voilated by diplomatic immunity. No one is above the law, and that is the way it should be.

(1)(2)"The Supreme Court of America." History Learning Site, October 2005, (15 Jan 2006)
(3)"Russian ambassador defends use of diplomatic immunity." CBC News, 31 January 2001, (15 Jan 2006)
(4)"1984: Libyan embassy siege ends." BBC News, 27 April 1984, (15 Jan 2006)