Criminalise Bullying

gozunda

This is an extract from the IT on this issue that gives some more detail

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.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1108/1224326308706.html


It is of note that the application of such laws in other jurisdictions are also being examined and looked at.

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

This is an extract from the IT on this issue that gives some more detail




http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1108/1224326308706.html


It is of note that the application of such laws in other jurisdictions are also being examined and looked at.

I 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.

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

I 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.

Harassment relating to emploment is a very specific legal area and is covered under 9 listed grounds including age, race, sexual orientation etc

http://www.basis.ie/home/home.jsp?pcategory=13887&ecategory=13890&doclistid=17594&sectionpage=10339&language=EN&page=&link=link001&doc=11969&logname=The%209%20Grounds%20on%20which%20Discrimination%20is%20Unlawful%20are&urlcode=

Some forms of cyber bullying can be dealth with under the Act that deals with stalking etc but only when the individual is not in regular contact with the person undertaking such behaviour and must be proved to be persistent

Unfortunately that leaves Bullying itself as an form of assault that is not dealt currently with under any direct legal provision

I believe this is where Alan Shatter is referring to the non fatal offences against the person act

However if it is proved that a person took their own live as an direct or even indirect result of bullying I am unsure how this would apply

The mechanics of digital forensics are I believe already quite advanced. There was a fairly recent case of cyber bullying where the perpetrator was tracked back to an Internet cafe.

Lone Stone

Lone Stone wrote: »

so basically what this wold be used for is arresting people for posting their opinions on a politicians facebook page.

Well, yeah.

Does them being a politician change the rules?

If I oppose something boards.ie is doing, does that mean I can post shedloads of shyte about it here?

Why is being a politician different?

What if it's a politician you support who's getting the same treatment from people who oppose him/her? Is it fair game or is it different rule depending on whether you agree with the posts being written?

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

Harassment relating to emploment is a very specific legal area and is covered under 9 listed grounds including age, race, sexual orientation etc

http://www.basis.ie/home/home.jsp?pcategory=13887&ecategory=13890&doclistid=17594&sectionpage=10339&language=EN&page=&link=link001&doc=11969&logname=The%209%20Grounds%20on%20which%20Discrimination%20is%20Unlawful%20are&urlcode=

That doesn't cover harassment. It covers discrimination. And while discrimination can form part of harassment it may not be present in workplace harassment at all. Discrimination legislation should not be considered anti bullying legislation.

gozunda wrote: »

Some forms of cyber bullying can be dealth with under the Act that deals with stalking etc but only when the individual is not in regular contact with the person undertaking such behaviour and must be proved to be persistent

gozunda wrote: »

Unfortunately that leaves Bullying itself as an form of assault that is not dealt currently with under any direct legal provision

I believe this is where Alan Shatter is referring to the non fatal offences against the person act

I suppose it depends on your definition of bullyin bit I can't see why the legal definition of harassment would not cover a bullying situation.

gozunda wrote: »

However if it is proved that a person took their own live as an direct or even indirect result of bullying I am unsure how this would apply

I'm not sure how you think such a causal link could be proven. It couldnt be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

gozunda wrote: »

The mechanics of digital forensics are I believe already quite advanced. There was a fairly recent case of cyber bullying where the perpetrator was tracked back to an Internet cafe.

You can trace it to an internet cafe but how do you tell who was actually at the keyboard. What if three people were using a computer together or it is registered to a family home. How do you prove who was actually using it?

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

That doesn't cover harassment. It covers discrimination. And while discrimination can form part of harassment it may not be present in workplace harassment at all. Discrimination legislation should not be considered anti bullying legislation.

No it is is referred to harassment based on those grounds

See also


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/harassment_at_work.html?set_language=en

I suppose it depends on your definition of bullyin bit I can't see why the legal definition of harassment would not cover a bullying situation.

There is a standard definition of bullying used for example in the HSA guidelines that has been used in personal injury cases.


There are many instances of bullying that don't fit with the nine reasons given

I'm not sure how you think such a causal link could be proven. It couldnt be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

As per Normal evidence criteria - witnesses, evidence and testimony
But yes it is an area that is not directly dealt with - medical evidence would be perhaps sought

You can trace it to an internet cafe but how do you tell who was actually at the keyboard. What if three people were using a computer together or it is registered to a family home. How do you prove who was actually using it?

There was several link backs including staff, CCTV and account registration . Quite straightforward in this instance.

Obviously every case will be different

leggo

gozunda wrote: »

As per Normal evidence criteria - witnesses, evidence and testimony

There is no 'normal' evidence criteria though: very few bullying cases that aren't physical (in which case it would fall under the law for assault) are straightforward enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt. That's why this would be a pointless law...most cases would have to be struck out because of the nuances involved.

You cannot legally prove the difference between slagging (having a laugh) and bullying, because it all rests with how the victim takes the abuse themselves. I asked you to do so and you couldn't without throwing your generic, catch-all definition back at me. And you can't hold the accused responsible for their victim's sensitivity level. That's not to say that they aren't bullying them or that it's the victim's fault, they quite possibly are getting bullied, but it's impossible to prove and completely subjective when put down on paper (one witness could say the bully was doing it; the next could see the exact same events and say the victim was being too sensitive etc). The bully will have completely plausible deniability, which is enough to get someone off the hook in court.

It's why the problem is so difficult to tackle. This is what I'm trying to explain to you and what you're failing to grasp.

gozunda

leggo wrote: »

There is no 'normal' evidence criteria though: very few bullying cases that aren't physical (in which case it would fall under the law for assault) are straightforward enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt. That's why this would be a pointless law...most cases would have to be struck out because of the nuances involved.

Lego - this is an open forum. I have refrained from replying to some of your earlier unhelpful and misdirected posts as I really do not wish to enter into useless argument. I know your opinion on this issue and it would appear that no matter what is said you will disregard it. I take it you have not changed your methodology. However for the benefit of clarity I will attempt once more to explain again.

Such evidence is used regularly in personal injury cases with regard to bullying and findings based on that evidence is both used an accepted by the courts. There is no 'pointless law' as you have pointed out - the laws have yet to be enacted. They will be as useful to the victims of bullying as they will provide for recourse to victims to stop bullying behavior by those you use such methods ito destroy others lives. There are no 'nuances' as you refer to them that will stop bullies facing charges under such legislation where such legislation is enacted correctly

Yes there will be a burden of proof on the prosecution that is how it works. I would not advocate for change to this tbh. - that is how such cases work.

You cannot legally prove the difference between slagging (having a laugh) and bullying, because it all rests with how the victim takes the abuse themselves. I asked you to do so and you couldn't without throwing your generic, catch-all definition back at me. And you can't hold the accused responsible for their victim's sensitivity level. That's not to say that they aren't bullying them or that it's the victim's fault, they quite possibly are getting bullied, but it's impossible to prove and completely subjective when put down on paper (one witness could say the bully was doing it; the next could see the exact same events and say the victim was being too sensitive etc). The bully will have completely plausible deniability, which is enough to get someone off the hook in court.

This has already been explained. It is possible to prove.
Such laws have already been enacted elsewhere
Bullying is Repeated, deliberate and Inappropriate behaviour that causes actual attested harm whether physical or psychological to the individual. The definition of bullying used in legal cases and guidelines is quite clear. what is not bullying is also quite clear. It already has been quoted here several times - I refer you again to this.
The evidence of witnesses is often contradictory - that is as is.
Bullying behavior is already provable by independent investigation, EAT and personal injury cases. This is not going to change just because you don't believe it.

The law does not presume the victim is responsible or contributed for an offense committed against them. In the case of rape or assault offenders could try and claim that the victim let then do it and couldn't stand up to them. your opinion on this fails at the first hurdle

It's why the problem is so difficult to tackle. This is what I'm trying to explain to you and what you're failing to grasp.

lego - I have already explained I have been involved with this area for some time and have extensive experiences of bullying and its impacts.
I will accept you have different opinions which I do not agree with. I will not "grasp" them because my experience and knowledge of the issues at hand.

If and when such legislation does provide protection for those subjected to bullying behavior by others will you continue to deny that it will be of use to those individuals?

tbh I find your intransigence in this whole issue disturbing tbh - you appear to have little wish to provide legal protection for individuals against such behavior.

As I said education will have its part to play - but bullying where it does happen must be stopped and addressed for what it is - an offense against the person. I am at least in agreement with the Minister for Justice if not yourself on this.

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

No it is is referred to harassment based on those grounds

See also


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/harassment_at_work.html?set_language=en





There is a standard definition of bullying used for example in the HSA guidelines that has been used in personal injury cases.


There are many instances of bullying that don't fit with the nine reasons given

You are confusing a number of different concepts. Discrimination is unfavourably 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.

gozunda wrote: »

As per Normal evidence criteria - witnesses, evidence and testimony
But yes it is an area that is not directly dealt with - medical evidence would be perhaps sought

What medical evidence? How can an autopsy tell you that a person killed themself 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.

gozunda wrote: »

There was several link backs including staff, CCTV and account registration . Quite straightforward in this instance.

Obviously every case will be different

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.

leggo

gozunda wrote: »

I have already explained I have been involved with this area for some time and have extensive experiences of bullying and its impacts.

BS. Absolute BS. You've been offered numerous opportunities to qualify yourself, if not by name or position then by backing up anything you've claimed with verifiable fact, and have refused to do so time and again. You've also displayed a horrible, black-and-white misunderstanding of the issue that even an inexperienced school teacher would be able to see through. Go on, I'll give you one more chance to qualify anything you've said. Anything...

You've also started referring to yourself as if you were a minister or lawmaker now, "I would ensure that this would be carried out..." etc. Unless you're Alan Shatter himself, then the fact you'd say something like that is laughable.

I really am starting to believe we're being trolled...

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

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 above

MagicSean wrote: »

I 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 enforceable

What 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 legislation

wadacrack

Bullying to some people may be banter to others ..

gozunda

wadacrack wrote: »

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 cases

wadacrack

gozunda wrote: »

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 cases

Oh ok

leggo

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.

gozunda

For the purposes of clarity

The current HSA definition is this. The Dept of Education definitions varies to some degree. All are fairly clear

From 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.ie

leggo

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...

drkpower

why doesn't section 10 harassment (non fatal offences against the person act) cover what the OP considers to be bullying?

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

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.

Scanlas The 2nd

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?

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

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?

gozunda

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 harassment

10.—(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.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

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.”

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

That is sufficient for a stranger or individual not normally in regular contact with the person they are harassing

section 10 makes no distinction between someone in regular or irregular contact with their victim.

gozunda wrote: »

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 do you say that? It seems clear to me that these circumstances are covered by section 10.

gozunda wrote: »

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.

Why? Section 10 doesnt refer to 'continuous'. It refers to 'persistently' which is quite different.

gozunda wrote: »

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').

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

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.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

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.

drkpower wrote: »

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.

drkpower wrote: »

Why? Section 10 doesnt refer to 'continuous'. It refers to 'persistently' which is quite different.

change it to persistant(ly) if that suits better

drkpower wrote: »

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').

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.

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

leggo

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.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating - I believe this section was primarily designed to deal with stranger / stalking type behaviour.

Why do you believe that? Just a hunch?
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.

gozunda wrote: »

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 .

So? That act of bullying is still within section 10 harassment.

gozunda wrote: »

change it to persistant(ly) if that suits better

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.

gozunda wrote: »

Unfair treatment through employment practices or school settings etc again are not covered here.

You say that; but that is not worth much; many types of unfair treatment are clearly within the literal reading of section 10.

gozunda wrote: »

Isolation is a well known bullying technique and it is also an area where i believe this legislation is lacking.

You believe it; but thats not worth much. Isolaton (in certain circumstances) come within the literal wording of section 10.

gozunda wrote: »

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

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'.

gozunda wrote: »

Whatever the issues here - this legislation is now being examined by the Law Reform Commission. The findings should be of interest.

The LRC are examining a very small aspect of this legislation. Your hopes for wholescale change to this process are wide of the mark.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

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.
.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

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
.

Do you know what the lrc are looking at?