“Third Damage During Investigation” … Full Story of Sexual Harassment at the New Zealand Embassy

A view of the Korean National Human Rights Commission in Jung-gu, Seoul. [JTBC 캡처]

In 2017, in connection with the incident that a high-ranking diplomat, Mr. A, improperly communicated with the body of a local employee at the Korean Embassy in New Zealand in 2017, the victim informed the embassy of the first and second damage, and then the third damage occurred again at the time of the investigation. Confirmed that it happened.

According to the decision of the Discrimination Correction Committee of the National Human Rights Commission, obtained by JoongAng Ilbo on the 11th, the New Zealand embassy initially responded by meeting between internal employees without a manual at the time of the incident.

As such a response continued, victim B complained about the damage for almost two years and eventually the diplomatic issue between the two countries broke out.

The Human Rights Commission recommended that Mr. A pay 12 million won for being responsible for the sexual harassment and ordered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prepare a manual for sexual harassment cases of diplomatic missions abroad. However, the victim is in a position to demand punishment from those involved other than Mr A, including the New Zealand ambassador at the time of the incident.

View of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Doryeom-dong, Seoul. [뉴스1]

According to the decision of the Human Rights Commission, in November 2017, Mr. A touched Mr. B’s buttocks while helping him with computer work in his office. As he got off the embassy elevator, he touched the belt, the belly and important parts. In early December of that year, Mr. B briefed Mr. C, in charge of staff management at the embassy, ​​and Mr. A informally apologized to Mr. B.

However, about three weeks later, on December 21, Mr. B raised an issue with Mr. A stuttering in his heart during the conversation.

After the first incident occurred and the embassy was informed of the physical contact, he and A continued to work without being separated from space, and the third incident is said to have occurred again.

According to an investigation by the Human Rights Commission, Mr. A gave Mr. B orders over the phone even during the investigation of the case at the embassy.

In addition, the embassy was responsible for investigating Mr. A’s case by insiders, including two mission officials. The subordinates of Mr. A, a high-ranking councilor, have to decide on the discipline of Mr. A.

Through an internal meeting, the New Zealand embassy issued an “ ambassador’s warning ” to Mr. A in January 2018, and Mr. A was sent as an Asian mission in February 2018 to leave the country.

Subsequently, Mr. B raised the same issue in a local audit at the Foreign Office headquarters level in October of the same year, and in July of the following year, he reported to the New Zealand Police and began to actively raise concerns. in the media. At the same time, the Korean National Human Rights Commission also filed a complaint.

Local media coverage in New Zealand related to the 2017 incident at the Korean Embassy in New Zealand. [뉴스허브 캡처]

From the decision of the human rights committee, it seems difficult to avoid pointing out that the Foreign Ministry and the New Zealand embassy have mistakenly raised the case on the first button.

The Commission on Human Rights considered that Mr. A’s contact with Mr. B’s hips, chest and abdomen was “sexual harassment, since Mr. B’s statements were consistent and that Mr. A also accepted physical contact. ”

The Human Rights Commission said: “The person involved in the sexual harassment must not necessarily be of the opposite sex, and if Ms B feels sexual humiliation or disgust with the same-sex relationship, sexual harassment is established.” The belly is also a sexually sensitive part for men and goes beyond expressing a feeling of encouragement or intimacy in the workplace. ”

However, there is insufficient evidence for the “ contact with key areas ” recently declared to the embassy after Mr. B reported to the New Zealand police (around July 2019) after receiving the result of a disciplinary action (one month’s salary reduction) at the headquarters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I did not admit it.

The Human Rights Commission also found that “it is difficult to admit that there was a procedural problem in the process of processing the case” in relation to the steps taken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs after receiving the petitioner’s complaint.

An email sent to the Blue House last month by a victim from New Zealand. [중앙포토]

Mr. B is known to complain of mental pain to this day.

He affirmed to the Human Rights Commission that “at the time of the incident, we did not receive adequate support from the embassy, ​​such as separation from the aggressor, vacation treatment and medical expenses, and from that moment we have suffered mental trauma.”

In April this year, around NZ $ 70,000 (about KK 55 million) were presented. Mr. B is said to have been on long-term sick leave since July of last year.

The decision of the human rights commission also contained relatively detailed arguments from diplomat A, who had not been known in detail.

Mr. A admitted that he had contacted Mr. B’s body at the end of 2017, but insisted that “it was not a sexual intention.” With regard to the apology to Mr. B, Mr. A is in the position that he said he regretted the recovery of the relationship.

Mr. A said: “I was afraid of Mr. B, who distorted the fact that he hit his chest, and writing an email acknowledging the behavior in the low tone of Mr. B’s claims at the beginning of the case became in a tremendous lock “. .

The Foreign Ministry said: “In addition to disciplining Mr. A at headquarters, he guided Mr. B to the aid system of the Ministry of Employment and Labor and the Korean National Human Rights Commission, and allowed him to take vacations and full sick leave “.

On the fact that the internal disciplinary decision process of the Korean Embassy in New Zealand was deficient at the beginning of the incident, he refuted saying: “In the internal meeting, not only Mr. A’s subordinates, but also the ambassador who is a senior participant participate in the internal meeting.

Reporters Jung Hyo-sik and Lee Yoo-jeong [email protected]