|
|
|
July 7, 2002
They are not slaves
Zafrullah Khan draws attention to the plight of domestic workers who are not provided adequate protection by the law
Throughout the world domestic workers are generally afforded inadequate protection by the law as far as minimum wages or conditions are concerned, and some categories of domestic workers are subjected to slavery, particularly children and immigrants who work and live in the same house as their employer and are paid little or nothing for their work. Both are particularly vulnerable, being cut off both from their own families and from local society and the possible protection which social contacts or local institutions might provide. Cases of enslaved domestic workers continue to be reported in developed countries — where servants are brought in from other countries, either legally or illegally, and then treated like slaves.
In many cases, domestic workers receive low wages or no wages at all, on the grounds that they receive food and lodging, but there is no attempt to ensure that this payment ‘in kind’ is worth as much as the monetary wages which workers would be paid for similar long hours in any other comparable sector. Their living conditions, as well as conditions of work, are often extremely harsh, but are virtually never inspected by any independent authority.
Before both the Conventions against Slavery were adopted, there were discussions about whether the definition of slavery should explicitly prohibit domestic slavery or define the circumstances in which domestic work amounted to slavery. The conclusion, however, was that the general definition of slavery adopted in the 1926 Slavery Convention (‘any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership’) covered domestic workers along with all others.
Forced labour
‘Forced labour’ is not an alternative term for slavery, although confusion is sometimes created by implying that slavery is simply a category of forced labour. International standards adopted soon after the 1926 Slavery Convention prohibited the use of forced labour other than by the state, but recognized that the state was entitled to oblige people to undertake work of certain types and in some particular circumstances. Although the circumstances in which individual citizens can be obliged to perform forced labour are now clearly circumscribed, international standards recognize that states may make convicted prisoners perform forced labour and also allow states to require some or all of their citizens to perform compulsory military service. In reality, political authorities, both government forces and other political movements, which exercise powers of coercion, are able to force individuals to work without payment, often in harsh or dangerous condition. Such cases have been reported recently mainly in countries affected by war or civil conflict, where forced labour is reported both in areas of fighting and elsewhere, with the typical image of a column of civilian porters carrying heavy loads of military equipment towards the battlefront, surrounded by armed men in uniform who threaten to shoot anyone who drops their load.
Those enslaved in this way are often the weak or defenceless — refugees, members of ethnic groups and in the worst cases, they have been used as ‘human mine detectors’ or arbitrarily killed by soldiers after working for them.
International standards limit the use of forced labour very strictly and urge its total elimination. An International Labour Office (ILO) convention adopted 65 years ago obliged each state ratifying the convention to “suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period”.
In the meantime, its use was to be limited for “public purposes only and as an exceptional measure”. It meant that only government officials could order forced labour, and only in emergencies. A further Convention on the Abolition of Forced Labour prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour in some specific circumstances, notably its use for political education or as a punishment for political views, for economic development in general, or as a means of discrimination. Most recently, the same ban on forced or compulsory labour has also been reiterated in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966.
Slavery for ritual or religious purposes
The fundamental right to freedom of religious belief, guaranteed by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, makes it sensitive to criticize any practices prescribed by religion or carried out in a religious context as violation of human rights. However, just as ritual killings have invariably been the subject of prohibition, so certain forms of servitude occur in a religious context, which constitute forms of slavery.
Some such cases also occur as a form of sacrifice: in an effort to atone for an act interpreted as a sin or offence against holy law, families offer one of their members to work unpaid for a religious institution. In several parts of the world, for example, girls or women are obliged to live and work in religious institutions and to provide sexual services to priests on the pretext that such women are ‘married’ to a deity. In many cases, they perform other unpaid services. They are not free to change their place of residence or work, and often remain in servitude for many years and retain a distinct status for the rest of their lives.
In other cases, the students or followers of a religious teacher or leader work effectively in servitude, either forwarding all their earnings to their master, or working unpaid for long periods in return for religious instruction in an exploitative situation.
Excerpted with permission from
Human rights
By Zafrullah Khan
Pakistan Law House, GPO 90, Pakistan Chowk, Karachi-74200. Tel: 021-221 2455
Email:
pak_law_house@hotmail.com
334pp. Rs400
|
|
|
|
