In the last day or so someone reported to the media that Brandon University, in Manitoba Canada, has a “behavioural contract” that victims of sexual assault, and the accused, must sign. It is essentially a non-disclosure agreement in which the vicitm cannot tell anyone outside of the university - even an outside councellor, under threat of suspension or expulsion.
Link to a CTV report here:
The RC church was similar, though I don’t know if it would be accurate to say they still are. Several years ago a group of us were talking about a local version of Catholic clerical abuse, in Cornwall, Ontario, and people were asking things like “what can people do about this” etc. My response was, “call the cops!” Everyone just looked stunned and confused and asked what I meant, and I just repeated the same thing.
FFS, it’s not rocket science. If a major multi-national had the same abuse scandal going on, police and legal action would be taken. If a woman was sexually abused in some business, the business wouldn’t ask her to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
How does this even work and why do people even think that this is acceptable? I’m no lawyer but isn’t the university at risk of legally concealing a crime?
If one student vandalized another student’s car I don’t even think that this would be a consideration.
It reads more like a bad attempt to act as a mediator between the two parties. If you read the document is says “you are still developing as a young adult”.
A better question would be to ask would be why is the university involved in an assault case at all? I suppose it’s tied back to the assault being reported to have happened in residence.
That sounds pretty bad. What happens if a student just refuses to sign it? I understand that the institutional pressure brought to bear on a student may be remarkably high but I assume that some people won’t sign it – especially now that rape victims will know that they will be pressured to do so and may steel themselves against that pressure in advance.
Agreed. I’m consistently baffled when I read things about Columbia University. This is a matter for the criminal justice system. The University doesn’t get a vote. If you are a rape suspect, you deserve to be in jail rather than in a University court/tribunal/whatever. If you are victim and you didn’t report it to the police, you have no right to complain that the University didn’t resolve the situation to your liking. They aren’t a court, they aren’t equipped to investigate criminal complaints, and they should have no business in it one way or another.
Same thing for the Catholic Church. I see stories in the news about how a certain priest was transferred as a disciplinary measure. (Or, more likely, just to get him away from the kiddies he victimized.) I’m like, why the hell is he not in jail? This isn’t a matter for your internal discipline department, this is a matter for the courts.
You nailed it, but somehow there is acceptance of this in these institutions and their apologists.
Several years ago, when memos by the previous pope, written when he was a cardinal (if I recall correctly) cause a huge stir in the news. I remember telling someone my solution:
[ul]
[li][LIST]the UN send in a force and cordon off the Vatican and then send in local law enforcement agencies to conduct a thorough search for evidence. If there’s resistence then have Rome cut off all utilities and services[/li][li]take similar action, to the greatest extent practicable, with all Catholic property internationally[/li][li]hand every piece of evidence over to the appropriate legal authorities.[/li][/ul]
People were shocked when I suggested this with a “you can’t do that, it’s the church!” response. WTF? If it was a major multinational this would be expected. I truly don’t get it.
And universities? I don’t even understand how they can conceive of such a stupid policy.
That probably wouldn’t be valid.
Simply put, as a crime MUST be reported to the police, the victim can’t be in trouble for it. To make them in trouble (expulsion, etc) for reporting a crime would itself be a crime … witness intimidation… “attempting to pervert the course of justice”.
The more realistic reason that “you can’t do that” is that the Vatican is a separate country. It would violate many international norms for one country to send it’s police forces into another country like this.
The reasoning is that these are young people, barely-legal adults, and often with not well-developed social skills. The schools feel that a lot of these situations are somewhat ambiguous (was it rape, or a consent now regretted), and the frequent consumption of alcohol or other drugs by participants makes it more nebulous. And since the legal consequences can be so life-changing, they feel their obligation in loco parentis is to offer counseling, etc., and keep most cases out of the legal arena.
It’s arguable if that is good reasoning, but it is/was understandable.
UN forces have allegedly carried out widespread sexual assaults over the last twenty years, often against children, with little accountability or attention paid.
“The more realistic reason that “you can’t do that” is that the Vatican is a separate country.”
Yes, hence the UN (or someone global).
“UN forces have allegedly carried out widespread sexual assaults over the last twenty years, often against children, with little accountability or attention paid.”
True enough. My point is that the Vatican, by virtue of being the RC Church, shouldn’t be excempt and that it’s time that the church be dealt with as the organization it is - a large multinational - no more, no less. To reiturate the gist of my OP, why do some institutions get a pass on the law and why is that accepted or even considered?
I don’t know about your jurisdiction, but in most places, no, there is NO LEGAL DUTY to report a crime to the police.
Now, there are certain people (mandatory reporters) who are obligated to report certain crimes – in my jurisdiction that means that teachers, doctors, and some other professionals are obligated to report child abuse and child molestation, and doctors are required to report bullet wounds. Also, the public health rules mandate reporting dead bodies. However, there is no general obligation to report a crime.
That said, witness intimidation is a separate crime, yes, and trying to prevent someone from reporting a crime may (MAY!) fall under that law, depending on circumstances.
The UN is not a police force. NOr is the Holy See a member of the UN. Since it has not signed on to the Charter, which is about international security, the UN has no lawful authority to invade the Vatican City.
True, and as I said upthread: “To reiturate the gist of my OP, why do some institutions get a pass on the law and why is that accepted or even considered?”
The purpose of my thread isn’t to discuss the technicalities of international laws etc.
The problem with international law is that it is law made by those for whom it is of benefit, and adhered to only when it suits. The only enforcement of such law is by arms. Which tends not to happen. Want to thumb your nose at it, go ahead. The chance of actually being called to account is very low. There is no enforcer other than arms. If the Vatican has not signed up to be covered by such laws, then they are, by definition, exempt. It is an opt-in system, with what amounts to little more than voluntary adherence to laws. Just about every country on the planet has current outstanding violations of international law. It isn’t exactly a great situation, but when when you are putting national sovereignty up against legal obligations between nations, sovereignty will win every time. And countries attempting to enforce international law are always mindful that they too will almost certainly be the subject of attempts to enforce such laws, and tend to avoid pushing things too hard, in case the precedent comes to bite them in the future.
The difficulty with cooperate entities is that you can’t easily send them to gaol. Proving criminal action by the entity is hard at best. Then all you do is fine them. And criminal action by an employee is difficult to prosecute in isolation. This is, and sadly will probably remain, a significant problem. You might get some of them for something like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. But even then, only when the victim decides to go to the police, and the university follows through with the punishment.
OTOH, recent times should suggest to anyone in control of such institutions that an attempt to create such agreements is going to be a career limiting move at best.
Bottom, line is really that such institutions don’t get a pass. They are subject to the laws, and if they break them things can get very very bad. The RC church in various countries is indeed in significant hot water. The damage to them here in Oz is something to behold. Whether any of those in control at the time actually get charged with a crime is difficult to know however. Defining the crime is difficult. The actual abusers are mostly either now dead or in gaol. The Holy See, as a sovereign nation is, in effect, only subject to those laws that it is willing to sign up to be subject to. Unless it agrees to be subject to the UN, it isn’t. About the only exception to this is genocide.
Francis, I completely agree with what you say, but why was it ever even a consideration?
In the news there are three or four Canadian universities implicated in this kind of thing.
In my theoretical world (IANAL btw) someone, be it the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) or the provincial police for the provinces that have provincial police, or the provincial solicitor general, or someone or some organization of that ilk with the authority, should be telling universities and colleges “look fuckie! You’re not special. Any student of yours has a sexual assault complaint, then call the cops. Don’t bury it, don’t do your own BS investigation with your counselling service etc etc. Just call the cops”
It seems to me that not every sexual assault complaint in a university rises to the level of a criminal matter. So I expect that the police would prefer that the school deal with the minor cases and only involve the police when appropriate.
To convict someone of a crime, the prosecution must prove every element of that crime to the finder of fact beyond a reasonable doubt, using evidence that is admissible under the law.
So it may well be that there is enough evidence to give rise to some concern, but nowhere near enough admissible evidence to convict.
From what I heard on CBC (My first reaction was “WTF??” too) the agreement appeared to be one of these sort of coexistence disciplinary agreements “you two agree to stop fighting and stay out each other’s way, don’t involve others, don’t broadcast your version to the rest of the world, etc.” …under threat of expulsion. It’s more the sort of agreement that would be presented to two guys who have trouble not coming to blows when they run into each other, it’s sort of like a peace bond.
What grade A MORON thought this was the sort of thing to present to someone who’d been sexually assaulted… who knows? Theoretically university people are smart, but often they prove it not to be the case. the kindest interpretation is that the person hearing the complaint mistook it for a sort of bad break-up / stalking problem. “You two stay away from each other and stop bringing this up.”
The more likely interpretation is that someone saw the non-disclosure as a good way to put a lid on bad publicity and stop a problem from growing. (Kinda backfired. It’s international news, now…)
And that’s the problem with other groups, like the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts and Penn State and so on. The urge to sweep things under the rug, to no air dirty laundry, to not create a scandal - that’s universal. The bigger, more respected (more connected) institutions just have better opportunities to hide things. In some situations, the authorities were complicit in church cover-ups. In others, the hierarchy desperately wanted to believe a predator’s con that they were sorry, they had a momentary lapse, it was never going to happen again, etc.
You would be surprised at the things the US Federal and US State government opt themselves out of when it comes to employment law. Universities some being state institutions may be extensions of this.
Though I realize, criminal law is different and the OP refers to Canada, still it surprises people, when I discuss employment law and tell them they have different protections because they work for the government.
When I was in the Canadian Forces, we used to refer to the “Globe and Mail” test, or, “how would this look in the media?” Not the best of motives, I know, but these days any action or policy etc stands a very good chance of being exposed to the media. And rightly or wrongly, when any decision is being contemplated, decision-makers should (in addition to questioning the rightness or wrongness of something) be asking how it would look in the media and can it be successfully explained.
There are stereotypes about universities not functioning in “the real world” and maybe there’s some truth to that in these cases.
