Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Criminalise Bullying
Options
Comments
-
You are confusing a number of different concepts. Discrimination is unfavorably treating people based on the nine grounds set out in law. Harassment is the act of persistently putting someone in fear or distress. This would be the same as bullying and can include discrimination. I can't see what kind of bullying would not be covered under the legal definition of harassment.
OK crossed wires I'm afraid
From the first post aboveI would have thought the difficulty in proving harassment would be in proving that the offender knew of the effects of their actions. In the case of cyber bullying there is the additional obstacle of proving beyond reasonable doubt who it actually is behind the online profile.
In reply I referred to the existing laws where bullying type behaviour may sometime fall within the remit of harassment legislation.
one of these is :
The Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 place an
obligation on all employers to prevent harassment in the workplace. Under this law, you are entitled to bring a claim to the Equality Tribunaland your employer may be obliged to pay you compensation if you are harassed by reason of your:- Gender
- Civil status
- Family status, for example, as a parent of a child
- Sexual orientation
- Age
- Disability
- Race
- Religious belief
- Membership of the Traveler community
So if some harasses you and you have reason to believe this is because you are a Sun worshiping Vesuvian with one leg then you might have a case.
Any other harassment real or perceived outside these grounds will not be enforceableWhat medical evidence? How can an autopsy tell you that a person killed them self because they were called fat or ugly? The only evidence you could possibly have would be a note left blaming someone. That in itself poses a problem in that it is something the accused would be fundamentally unable to argue. And how can it be considered reliable if it was written by someone who was clearly in an emotional, illogical and unreasonable frame of mind.
No - I refer to medical evidence as presented by the individuals GP or specialist - But in the case of a living person this can be made available in a court of law as well.Read the story of Megan Meier. All evidence pointed at a classmate as the bully. It was actually the classmates mother. And it was only discovered because she blabbed.
Yes I am aware of this story. Every case will have to be judged on its own merits. There are many cases of mistrials for murder etc. As unfortunate as this is - it does not amount to a case against good legislation0 -
Bullying to some people may be banter to others ..0
-
Bullying to some people may be banter to others ..
No Bullying is currently well defined
It is repeated, deliberate and inappropriate behaviour that causes actual harm whether physical or pyschological
Bullying is not defined by any singular incident or behaviour and under current guidelines must form a pattern of such behaviour
Sertus provided a full definition
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82384566&postcount=176
This definition is currently used in the courts in personal injury cases0 -
Oh okNo Bullying is currently well defined
It is repeated, deliberate and inappropriate behaviour that causes actual harm whether physical or pyschological
Bullying is not defined by any singular incident or behaviour and under current guidelines must form a pattern of such behaviour
Sertus provided a full definition
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82384566&postcount=176
This definition is currently used in the courts in personal injury cases0 -
Except that the words 'deliberate', 'inappropriate' and 'causes psychological harm' parts of that definition are completely subjective and wide open to interpretation.
Btw, if anyone is keeping score, gozunda has refused to take another opportunity to qualify himself or back up his claims by just repeating his opinion for the 7645th time.0 -
Advertisement
-
For the purposes of clarity
The current HSA definition is this. The Dept of Education definitions varies to some degree. All are fairly clearFrom the The Health and Safety Authority Website
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Bullying_at_Work/#WhatisBullying
"What is Bullying?
Bullying in the workplace has been described in various ways. The Health and Safety Authority’s definition is that it is:
"repeated inappropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual‘s right to dignity at work."
An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work but as a once off incident is not considered to be bullying.
Detailed information is given in the Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work 2007"
For anyone further interested in the issue of bullying or to understand bullying behaviour the following is an excellent website relative to the issues here
http://www.abc.tcd.ie0 -
Posted that already. About 17 times. And that's not qualifying your statements with hard research. AND aren't you calling for further legislation because workplace bullying laws are currently too lax? So obviously the definition you're giving currently doesn't suffice, in your view? Or else it'd work, no? You can't have it both ways...0
-
why doesn't section 10 harassment (non fatal offences against the person act) cover what the OP considers to be bullying?0
-
why doesn't section 10 harassment (non fatal offences against the person act) cover what the OP considers to be bullying?
I believe that is the area that Alan Shatter is currently looking into. As I said the definition given is currently used in HSA guidelines but is also used in in the Employment Appeals Tribunal etc
This is an area that will need to be further defined in law
Not to repeat this but There are alredy a number of links posted relative to this on the thread.0 -
Would it be an offense to pat someone on the back repeatedly? People often do this to patronise someone as being of lower worth. Where do you draw the line?0
-
Advertisement
-
I believe that is the area that Alan Shatter is currently looking into. As I said the definition given is currently used in HSA guidelines but is also used in in the Employment Appeals Tribunal etc
This is an area that will need to be further defined in law
Not to repeat this but There are alredy a number of links posted relative to this on the thread.
But you havent addressed the question: why does section 10 harrassment not cover the type of bullying that you hope that new legislation will cover?0 -
The area that the Minister of Justice has asked the law reform commission to look into is the following:
Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997
Section 10 deals with a specific form of harassment10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—
(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and
(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.
(3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person shall not, for such period as the court may specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the terms of an order under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) If on the evidence the court is not satisfied that the person should be convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may nevertheless make an order under subsection (3) upon an application to it in that behalf if, having regard to the evidence, the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice so to do.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.
The act referred to appears relies on a person that "harasses" another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence."
That is sufficient for a stranger or individual not normally in regular contact with the person they are harassing
However in the case of a child subject to bullying / psycholoical abuse in a home environment or an employee under the direction of a manager who directly bullies that employee in their place of work AND where that abuse is inherent in the environment - section 10 fails to cover such bullying or psychological abuse
Section 10 would indeed appear to be useful especially in there case of electronic harassment however where bullying / psychological abuse is not continous I believe that currently there would be problems as indicated by the Minister of Justice
Psychological Abuse / bullying may not only involve the use of words, communication or physical acts but may rely on situational harassment including isolation, unfair treatment, and the emotional abuse of the individual whether a child or adult. This form of psychological assault is often present in some forms of child abuse, employee bullying and elder abuse etc.0 -
But you havent addressed the question: why does section 10 harrassment not cover the type of bullying that you hope that new legislation will cover?
Is that directed at me? Well - that Legislation has been highlighted in the first instance by Mr Shatter and not myself. This is to be examined by the Law Reform Commision - perhaps you could take a look at the relevant section. I have posted it above and added my thoughts.
BTW The links gave some detail on those difficulties (See below) - specifically What are your thoughts on this legislation can I ask?Mr Shatter told the Dáil bullying was a form of harassment and, as such, fell within the provision of the non-fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. However, he had been made aware of difficulties in bringing successful prosecutions, especially relating to the need to demonstrate persistence in the harassment.
“I have asked the Law Reform Commission to examine this difficulty,” he said. “I understand that the issue has already been examined elsewhere, including in Scotland and Australia, and I hope that we can learn from other jurisdictions.”0 -
section 10 makes no distinction between someone in regular or irregular contact with their victim.That is sufficient for a stranger or individual not normally in regular contact with the person they are harassing
Why do you say that? It seems clear to me that these circumstances are covered by section 10.However in the case of a child subject to bullying / psycholoical abuse in a home environment or an employee under the direction of a manager who directly bullies that employee in their place of work AND where that abuse is inherent in the environment - section 10 fails to cover such bullying or psychological abuse
Why? Section 10 doesnt refer to 'continuous'. It refers to 'persistently' which is quite different.Section 10 would indeed appear to be useful especially in there case of electronic harassment however where bullying / psychological abuse is not continous I believe it would be nearly impossible to take a case under that section as indicated.Psychological Abuse / bullying may not only involve the use of words, communication or physical acts but may rely on situational harassment including isolation, unfair treatment, and the emotional abuse of the individual whether a child or adult. This form of psychological assault is often present in some forms of child abuse, employee bullying and elder abuse etc.
I dont see why unfair treatment is not capable of falling within section 10. And most forms of 'emotional abuse' would also fall within section 10. As for social isolation, thats an interesting one; first, criminalising the isolation of a person by another is a dangerous road, but in any case, it may even fall under section 10 (via 'besetting').0 -
However in the case of a child subject to bullying / psycholoical abuse in a home environment or an employee under the direction of a manager who directly bullies that employee in their place of work AND where that abuse is inherent in the environment - section 10 fails to cover such bullying or psychological abuse
Section 10 would indeed appear to be useful especially in there case of electronic harassment however where bullying / psychological abuse is not continous I believe that currently there would be problems as indicated by the Minister of Justice
Psychological Abuse / bullying may not only involve the use of words, communication or physical acts but may rely on situational harassment including isolation, unfair treatment, and the emotional abuse of the individual whether a child or adult. This form of psychological assault is often present in some forms of child abuse, employee bullying and elder abuse etc.
Section 10 is more than enough to cover bullying. Things like isolation and unfair treatment would not be covered but why should they be? I mean can you imagine a person complaining of being bullied because someone won't be their friend. You have to be able to draw a line between deliberate and intentionally harmful acts and normal social dynamics.0 -
section 10 makes no distinction between someone in regular or irregular contact with their victim.
The clue is the word persistant - that is what I refered to.Why do you say that? It seems clear to me that these circumstances are covered by section 10....telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.
following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating - I believe this section was primarily designed to deal with stranger / stalking type behaviour.
If a victim is in a work situation or in the home or school the bully would often by necessity be in direct contact with the victim. They may in contact etc with the victim on a daily basis .
Also relevant to the section stating:where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person shall not, for such period as the court may specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person.Why? Section 10 doesnt refer to 'continuous'. It refers to 'persistently' which is quite different.
change it to persistant(ly) if that suits betterI dont see why unfair treatment is not capable of falling within section 10. And most forms of 'emotional abuse' would also fall within section 10. As for social isolation, thats an interesting one; first, criminalising the isolation of a person by another is a dangerous road, but in any case, it may even fall under section 10 (via 'besetting').
Unfair treatment through employment practices or school settings etc again are not covered here. Isolation is a well known bullying technique and it is also an area where i believe this legislation is lacking. There are other forms of emotional abuse - (not necessarily linked with direct forms of communication with the victim) that may be carried out without the victim being present but that will lead to the bullying of the victim - I have abstracted a number of bullying behaviors from The anti Bullying Center in TCD. These behaviors are more often than not used with other forms of bullying behavior and should not taken out of that context.
Public humiliations in any form
Constant criticism of trivial matters
Repeatedly accusing of errors which have
not been made
Deliberately interfering with post and
other communiques
Spreading unfounded malicious rumours
Encouraging other staff to disregard
another staff member's orders
Ignoring/ cutting out an individual at
meetings, giving deliberately ambiguous instructions, then setting
objectives with impossible deadlines.
Inflicting menial tasks
Taking credit for another's ideas
Refusing reasonable requests for leave
Blocking a persons promotion
Whatever the issues here - this legislation is now being examined by the Law Reform Commission. The findings should be of interest.0 -
Section 10 is more than enough to cover bullying. Things like isolation and unfair treatment would not be covered but why should they be? I mean can you imagine a person complaining of being bullied because someone won't be their friend. You have to be able to draw a line between deliberate and intentionally harmful acts and normal social dynamics.
Well if you think that - thats fine but as you know this legislation is being examined by the LRC in the most recent development to help protect victims from continued cyber bullying. Isolation is just not 'being someones friend'. A student may be completely isolated in their school - this has happened. An employee may be left without communication or any designated work - physically isolated - this has happened. Again we need to go back to the defining of what Bullying is. Such bullying behavior can be proven to have taken place where required through direct testimony, work records, documentation and other evidence - such evidence as is currently submitted to independent investigations, Employment Appeals Tribunals and personal injury cases.0 -
Exclusion, more than isolation, is a valid and widely used bullying technique. The massive problem with legislating for it is that it's near-impossible to prove, unless you were to have someone else involved come forward and admit that they were a party to it, or encouraged to do so. Again, extremely unlikely, so a much better way is to look at how we tackle the problem as a whole rather than make more ineffective laws.0
-
Why do you believe that? Just a hunch?following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating - I believe this section was primarily designed to deal with stranger / stalking type behaviour.
and in any case, the intention of the legislature is but one tool of statutory interpretation and only ever comes into play when the literal reading is ambiguous - which in this case, it is not.
So? That act of bullying is still within section 10 harassment.If a victim is in a work situation or in the home or school the bully would often by necessity be in direct contact with the victim. They may in contact etc with the victim on a daily basis .
Which is a different thing to continuous; and persistently is in the act so if the behaviour is persistent, it will be within section 10.change it to persistant(ly) if that suits better
You say that; but that is not worth much; many types of unfair treatment are clearly within the literal reading of section 10.Unfair treatment through employment practices or school settings etc again are not covered here.
You believe it; but thats not worth much. Isolaton (in certain circumstances) come within the literal wording of section 10.Isolation is a well known bullying technique and it is also an area where i believe this legislation is lacking.
To criminalise those behaviours would be very dangerous indeed. They may not be nice types of behaviour, but to criminalise most of them would be wholly inappropriate. there are many behaviours we do not like, many that we should discourage; but the criminal justice system is not there to tell us what types of behaviour are 'not nice'.There are other forms of emotional abuse - (not necessarily linked with direct forms of communication with the victim) that may be carried out without the victim being present but that will lead to the bullying of the victim - I have abstracted some possible behaviours from The anti Bullying Centre in TCD
The LRC are examining a very small aspect of this legislation. Your hopes for wholescale change to this process are wide of the mark.Whatever the issues here - this legislation is now being examined by the Law Reform Commission. The findings should be of interest.0 -
Why do you believe that? J...
So? ...
Which is a different...
You say that...
You believe it...
....
.
Grand so - we could possibly discuss respective interpretations all night as we await the direction of the LRC. Remember that this review is looking at pursuing Cyber Bullying perpetrators under criminal law
Obviously you have your own interpretation. As previously said there is currently no comphrenesive criminal legislation currently dealing with pursuing perpetrators of bullying . The findings on section 10 and other possible changes should help to begin to correct this deficit in the legal system. This is at least a move in the right direction.
.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement