How time flies when you're having a breakdown!
In the blink of a weary eye, almost 3 months have passed since I last felt brave enough to tentatively dip my toe into the blogosphere. I've acquired a niece, lost an uncle, been bored to tears by a wedding and existed almost entirely in what can only be referred to as a lawless parallel universe whilst having a bit of a nervous breakdown and debating the social acceptance of swearing.
My time in the lawless place has become increasingly surreal, going from sublime to ridiculous, with allegations of abuse, victimisation and harassment, countered by further allegations of the same. Good old-fashioned summary justice meted out at every opportunity with such gusto that the accused is not informed until the sentence is handed down and no right of appeal exists.
Cracking stuff!
So, the legal bit...
A respected organisation, lacking robust policies and procedures and failing to appropriately apply those it does have, considers it good form to fail entirely to make the 'accused' aware of any case against them and proceed to issue judgment (who knows on what exactly) and enforce sentence with no true right of appeal. Accused suffers damage in a number of ways, including tarnished personal and professional reputation and ill health.
In the meantime there are allegations of harassment against said organisation and others which are apparently investigated (though not a soul is spoken to about it) and "no case to answer" is agreed...by those who are...err...accused. No true right of appeal on this one either. Hmm...Fair? I think not.
At one point in the parallel universe a comment was made which, I think, sums up the problem pretty well. " little actual relevance in the real world" [whilst discussing law and natural justice]. The intention was to point out that whilst the law and the rules of natural justice may be all well and good, they really don't apply 'in-house'. In the light of some pretty serious allegations such a position is surely untenable and, to be blunt, downright stupid.
The law is very clear as far as I can tell and where there is clear evidence of harassment of an individual [by an individual] and that harassment is then supported and furthered, by the actions of an organisation, that organisation can become liable under the law for the same offence. Do these people care? It seems not or, perhaps, they simply don't understand the implications.
Harassment of an individual can take many forms. In all forms it is distressing for the 'victim'. It is something which is often not treated with the appropriate level of seriousness - particularly it would seem, within bodies connected to higher education. I guess the rationale is that intelligent people just aren't victims and that lawyers are tough as old boots so can take what is thrown at them - not true! Discriminatory? Potentially.
Lawyers can be just as vulnerable as anyone else. Yes, we are argumentative, often forthright, have little time for irrelevancies and like to get straight to the point (and deal with it). This doesn't prevent us from also being human and needing to be treated as such - both legally and morally speaking - by those who are in positions of relative authority over us and in whom we place our trust.
The saga in the parallel universe is ongoing. Question is, will commonsense prevail? Will parallel universe organisation ask someone to interpret legal issues for it and will the victim have their faith restored without the need to seek legal recourse?
She bloody well hopes so!
Harassment is serious. It has killed. The law prohibits it. We should all play our part to ensure that it stops.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment