View Topic

Title
1. This shall be titled the Criminalization of Sexual Harassment Act.

Amendments
2. The Code of Criminal Laws shall be amended to include section 6.1.6 which shall read:

6.1.6 Committing an act, or acts, of Sexual Harassment against Wintreath Residents, Ambassadors, or any other person.

3. The Code of Criminal Laws shall be amended to include section 9.3 which shall read:

Sexual Harassment shall be defined as: harassment involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks, especially after the displaying, whether implicitly or explicitly, the desire for them to not occur. This may also be valid in the case where deceit was used and caused the advances to be allowed, and knowledge of the truth would have made them unwanted.

Basically a little something to add Sexual Harasment to the CoCL

I shall introduce it into the Underhusen as soon as I get onto a desktop!

I thank you for recognizing the need to address sexual harassment more seriously. This will be addressed by the Underhusen promptly.

I support this.  I think anything that threatens the safety, security, and well-being of a citizen/member in such a manner really should be treated as a high crime.

And since the law really has no procedure for this type of crime, I think it needs to be added.

The question I have is, how would trials of accused sexual harassers take place without the people they're accused of harassing coming forward, preferably with evidence of exact cases?

That would have to be discussed in a JOA amendment thread

Surely the question should be considered before we open up the court system to sexual harassment cases at all. It's kind of important, given the sensitive nature of the act itself.

True, however that would require a lot of debate as well, as there are several ways we could do it. Allowing the judges to see evidence that has been modified to hide the identities of the involved, allowing a person to act on the victim's behalf to testify, the possibilities are somewhat large...

There's really not a lot we can do to protect identities. I'd say immediate banning is the way to go. Especially as we don't want a sexual harasser prowling around here while a trial continues.

I just think it should also be reported to some sort of international internet crime-fighting group as well.

Surely the question should be considered before we open up the court system to sexual harassment cases at all. It's kind of important, given the sensitive nature of the act itself.

I do agree with this as well.  This goes back to our discussion that this is a highly sensitive issue.  Releasing any kind of evidence without the okay of the victims is purely disrespectful to them and completely invades their privacy and destroys any kind of confidentiality in the matter.

I do think that before we very quickly put this through the UH to a vote, we need to figure out the way this can be written up and dealt with so as not to cause additional harm to the victims.

I agree with Pengu...if it's even a good idea at all, it's more important that it be done right than that it be done fast.

The main reason why I posted this piece is to help send a VERY clear message that we do not condone Sexual Harassment, at any level. Along with that this also allows us to have Court cases should we wish, while also having administrative action.

However it's enforcement is an interesting question.

I agree with Pengu and Wintermoot. We can still send out a very clear warning that sexual harassment absolutely will not be tolerated without involving the courts into something that deeply invades people's privacy and identity.

I'm all for adding in additional avenues for people to pursue sexual harassers...however, if it's not done in such a way that protects the identities of the victims, who may very well also be the accusers, I'm not sure it's an avenue that people are going to use over going to administration. Any response to something so sensitive has to be in a way that protects their dignity as a person and a member of the community.

There are ways to hold Courts without revealing identities and protecting them, further this also allows us to have a more public and visible way to point to our stance as well.