The justification given by the Embassy Admin Section for mandatory retirement of locally engaged staff is that it is a Chinese practice to require women to retire at 55 and men at 60. There is no Chinese law requiring this in fact, only internal procedures in the state sector that are full of loopholes. In fact most Chinese women continue working past 55 and most Chinese men continue past 60. And anyway there is nothing that requires the Government of Canada to follow Chinese labour practices at our Embassy in China. China is not an exemplar of progressive human resources practices after all. Anyway we do not apply these to the Canadian diplomatic staff as a courtesy to our host nation. That would definitely not go over well with PAFSO.
The bottom line appears to be that the Embassy prefers younger more attractive and more energetic Chinese people in our employ. Until a few years ago my employer, Brock University would have forced me to retire at age 65, but thanks to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms this is no longer the case for me. I expect my future more wrinkly self to be able to enjoy the dignity of work until I decide myself that it is time for me to hand over my courses on Chinese Politics and International Human Rights to some fresh-faced newly minted Ph.D. Canada has determined that this is my human right.
The Embassy's discriminatory mandatory retirement requirment for Chinese staff only is simply morally wrong. The crux of them matter is: are we prepared to treat the people under our authority with the same dignity as we treat our fellow Canadians? Respect for universal entitlement to human rights is a principle that expresses in things great and small. If we flaunt human rights in the small stuff of personnel management in China, what does it say for the much more serious and challenging and complicated issues of human rights in our treatment of people under our authority in Afghanistan?
2 comments:
If we flaunt human rights in the small stuff of personnel management in China, what does it say for the much more serious and challenging and complicated issues of human rights in our treatment of people under our authority in Afghanistan?
It says that our representatives overseas seem to consistently abandon our human rights codes and their own personal humanity when they're outside of Canadian borders. The director of foreign intelligence at CSIS testified before a parliamentary committee recently that Canadians would accept information derived from torture if it could potentially save Canadian lives. He would, obviously, but I hope he's wrong about the rest us. What does he think about torturing Canadians if it would save CSIS lives? Equally worrisome is the consistency of human rights violations in recent years by the RCMP and CSIS, and then the stonewalling encountered by journalists investigating reports of abuse through access to information requests. How long will it continue? How long has it been going on? Are there other types like Richard Colvin who have a story to tell?
"Are we prepared to treat the people under our authority with the same dignity as we treat our fellow Canadians?"
One would hope that this would be required. Unfortunately, it is not surprising given, amongst other things, the Government’s perceived lack of concern for our own citizens abroad. (Re: Nathalie Morin, William Sampson, Omar Khadr.)
Post a Comment