Boss assaults four women, gets unconditional discharge

54 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Boss assaults four women, gets unconditional discharge

A tiny glimpse into our criminal "justice" system.

Unionist

It was the opening paragraph that got my attention:

Quote:
A Quebec Court judge described four women as courageous Wednesday after their former boss pleaded guilty to assaulting them and received an unconditional discharge.

Pardon me??

Quote:
"In our society, things have to be done when they need to be done," said Judge Collette Perron, who heard the women's testimony at the preliminary hearing in September.

That sounded really nice. But who is she talking about?

Quote:

But her words were little comfort to the women, whose boss, Dennis Brazolot, 43, was initially charged in February 2009 with three counts of sexual assault, but had the charges reduced through a plea bargain.

Usually the Crown plea bargains where it thinks it would be hard to get a conviction on the initial charges - no? Isn't that we learn from TV? In this case, however, there were four (4) witnesses who said their boss had sexually assaulted them. So why would the Crown bargain?

Quote:
Although Brazolot didn't speak in court, his lawyer, Catherine Haccoun, said he's done "a lot of soul-searching" and regrets everything that has happened. He's also worked hard at improving his behaviour toward the staff of his immigration consulting business, Willis Brazolot & Co., located in Hudson, west of Montreal, she said.

Ah, ok, that's a bit clearer. The boss is working hard at resisting the urge to sexually assault the rest of his staff. Well, that's progress, isn't it?

Quote:

The Crown and defence agreed on a sentence of an unconditional discharge, meaning Brazolot will have no criminal record and is deemed not to be convicted. Brazolot also made a $4,000 donation to the Marie Vincent Foundation, an organization that helps women who have been sexually assaulted.

So let me get this straight. He commits crimes against four women. He pleads guilty. But the record shows that he did nothing wrong, ever. And he pays some paltry sum to help his future victims!

Quote:
"After much reflection, Mr. Dennis Brazolot has chosen to take responsibility for the regrettable events which occurred concerning former employees," Haccoun said in a statement.

I read that statement carefully. It took him two years of reflection to "take responsibility". But more: it doesn't actually say that he regrets his actions. It just says the events were regrettable.

Sorry for the lengthy rant. A news story like this can have no effect but to discourage any victim of workplace sexual harassment and assault from coming forward. This is how our anti-woman "justice" system turns a conviction into a warning to women to STFU.

[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Boss+groped+staff+pleads+guilty/4916... full article.[/url]

Bacchus

Not defending this of course, but plea bargains are now done (and have been for a long long time) to save the time and expense of a trial, not just for a potentially weak case. You can plea bargain and always get a reduced sentence. In fact just pleading guilty gets you a lesser sentences than being found guilty (except in case for there is a proscribed sentence)

Fidel

He must be well connected.  In this country it's not what you know, it's who you know. 

This is not very encouraging for women who might be considering blowing the whistle on abuse. What in hell was the judge thinking? 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Well I hope the women who got abused by this judge get themselves a good lawyer and sue this asshole into bankruptcy.  If money talks then shut this misogynist up by taking his.

Bacchus

I cannot see why they could not sue this fucker into oblivion. And lose his license to practise as well

 

I wish them the best of luck with that and recovery

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

This is simply disgusting. 

Why would this guy get such a complete break?  What made him so special?

Snert Snert's picture

Pardon me for being provocative, but the left is generally not in favour of mandatory minimum sentences, insisting that justices need to be able to "go with their gut".  Isn't a sentence with which you disagree pretty much the inevitable cost of that?

And does it really make much sense to go all "tough on crime" a few times a year when that happens?

 

Quote:
Why would this guy get such a complete break?  What made him so special?

 

I think the answer is that we don't know, because we didn't hear all the testimony, so we should trust the justice that heard the case.

 

Sineed

I recall responding to being groped by hauling the offender off his chair, gripping his arms from behind, and booting him in the ass out the door.  If he had decided to lay assault charges against me (he did not and in fact was apologetic and contrite), would I have received an unconditional discharge?

I'm really beginning to believe that the most effective way to respond to this crap is for women to fight back at the time of the assault, even in an office setting.  If guys know that they might get scratch marks across their faces or a knee to the groin, maybe they'll learn to control themselves.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Snert wrote:

Pardon me for being provocative, but the left is generally not in favour of mandatory minimum sentences, insisting that justices need to be able to "go with their gut".  Isn't a sentence with which you disagree pretty much the inevitable cost of that?

Why should we pardon you for being "provocative"  sounds a lot like the definition of baiting to me.

FOOD 

Kiss

Snert Snert's picture

I should think that "baiting" would refer to saying something you don't believe, solely to provoke a reaction.

I'm just acknowledging ahead of time that some people probably aren't going to like hearing what I said.  But I think it's true.  If we want to make sure that justices can choose any sentence they wish, I think we need to be prepared for them to choose sentences we disagree with.  It's hardly plausible to say "You know best, but just make sure you choose what we'd choose".

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

At least you are being consistent with your defence of the INDIVIDUAL right of a boss to sexually assault multiple women in the workplace and not even have to endure a criminal record.

 

I've said nothing at all about the sentence or the crime. I wish I could say this smear is beneath you.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Snert wrote:

 but the left is generally not in favour of mandatory minimum sentences, insisting that justices need to be able to "go with their gut".  Isn't a sentence with which you disagree pretty much the inevitable cost of that?

And does it really make much sense to go all "tough on crime" a few times a year when that happens?

You use a generic term that could fit the majority of the posters on this board and then you impute to that "left" an EXTREMELY HIGH level of naivety and simple minded thinking on justice issues. That to me is baiting. 

There is systemic discrimination in our criminal justice model. Sophisticated people when looking at our justice system look at the victims and the perverts and when the boss wins it seems to highlight a deep and disturbing systemic abuse not just the personal abuse these women suffered. 

Demanding an fair and equitable justice system is not going all tough on crime.

At least you are being consistent with your defence of the INDIVIDUAL right of a boss to sexually assault multiple women in the workplace and not even have to endure a criminal record.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Snert wrote:

I've said nothing at all about the sentence or the crime. I wish I could say this smear is beneath you.

I agree all you did was a drive by smear of your favourite hobby horse the "left."  No comment on anything about the case only an attack against other posters.  As someone who self describes as "left" I find your attempts to attribute straw men positions to the "left" one of your normal and consistent practices.  If you want to generically insult a good part of the board on an regular basis why are you surprised at a little push back? 

FOOD

Kiss

Snert Snert's picture

Is "FOOD" some kind of inside joke?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Snert wrote:

Is "FOOD" some kind of inside joke?

Yup. I'll let your rabid imagination make up your own version of what it means.

Snert Snert's picture

Ah, very well.  Anyway, my smiley thanks your smiley.

 

[img]http://www.htmlgens.com/smileys/kissass.jpg[/img]

Bacchus

Snert he has been wanred against statements like "fuck you" to other babblers so he uses food instead

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

(post removed by poster since previous post seems to have explained things).

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I can't spell either.

Kiss

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Oh, and Snert, your argument is beneath even you.  There's no contradiction between opposing mandatory minimums and, at the same time, opposing an unjustly lenient sentence for an obviously guilty person.  It's not as if the choice is between defending mandatory minimums as an absolute necessity OR granting judges the equivalent of papal infallibility.

Why are you setting up a false absolute on this?

Maysie Maysie's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Why would this guy get such a complete break?  What made him so special?

For this type of crime (and for more severe crimes of violence against women), statistically, this guy isn't special.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Granted.  What I meant was...what did this asshole do to deserve getting let totally off the hook?  It's like we're back in the maedeval era and they're absolving him in exchange for the purchase of an indulgence.

Bacchus

Northern Shoveler wrote:

I can't spell either.

Kiss

 

And your mother dresses you funnyLaughing

Bacchus

Ken Burch wrote:

Granted.  What I meant was...what did this asshole do to deserve getting let totally off the hook?  It's like we're back in the maedeval era and they're absolving him in exchange for the purchase of an indulgence.

Racism, Sexism, lack of use of a weapon, first offense, pleading guilty, lack of violence.

 

This is not  a defense of the asshole, just the various reasons that combined to get him off the hook

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Northern Shoveler, you are getting a day off for your despicable smear of Snert and flouting of a moderator's request that you cease telling people to fuck off. I'm not sure why you remain unable to restrain yourself in these situations, but you should follow Ken Burch's example at post 20, or contact a mod if you think a babbler is violating policy. Instead, your approach makes it difficult for Rebecca or I to do anything.

Snert, you've been warned about displaying contempt for leftist politics through your baiting before. I think you know what's wrong with post 7 and you're smart enough to be more precise in your smearing off the left, this board and it's politics. Be more judicious in the future.

Tommy_Paine

"For this type of crime (and for more severe crimes of violence against women), statistically, this guy isn't special."

Do you have a data base on that, May? I read this thread when Unionist posted the story, but I didn't comment because I just had too may unanswered questions-- starting off with what is the going sentence for crimes of this nature?   It could well be that the judge opted for the status quo, which changes the discussion from one venting at the judge in question, to one about the system in general.

I think it's safe to say that "groping" isn't taken seriously as an assault not just by society but by those in a position to change this.  I tend to think that is what is at work here.   But it also strikes me that as an immigration consultant, this person would inevitably made poltiical contacts over his career, and this could also be a factor and grist for discussion. 

But, without knowing if he got some special lenient sentence or not, it's hard to explore.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Since this is about assault, yes I have the statistics.

Quote:

Each year, over 40,000 arrests result from domestic violence—that’s about 12% of all violent crime in Canada. 3 Since only 22% of all incidents are reported to the police, the real number is much higher.

Quote:

Half of all women in Canada have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16.

And just for the record, since this was an ongoing experience of violence by this man against many women in the workplace:

Quote:

The cost of violence against women in Canada for health care, criminal justice, social services, and lost wages and productivity has been calculated at $4.2 billion per year.

Canadian Women's Foundation: Commonly Asked Questions about Violence Against Women

 

There also might be some stats about actual conviction rates in the report linked below. I will say that since conviction rates are abysmal, grassroots and frontline folks working in VAW have not looked there for solutions to the issue.

Measuring Violence Against Women: Statistical Trends 2006

And to be clear, lest someone accuse me of being in favour of the law-and-order agenda of longer and more severe sentences, I am not saying that. But getting to a conviction rate similar to, let's say, car theft, would be nice. Sentencing is a whole other can of crap.

 

Tommy_Paine

Well, rightly or wrongly, we do look to our courts for validation.  As you point out, it's a supreme insult to for crimes against property to be a higher legal priority than crime against the less empowered.

I'm not as inhibited when it comes to being identified as being in favour of a "law and order" agenda.   While property crimes and crimes that can be fixed with money should focus on restitution and not incarceration, crimes of violence, particularly violence that produces long term trauma, should be greated with a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" attitude. While I doubt that serves as any deterent, I just don't want that type of person walking around with me and you, and they don't deserve to be-- whether it's the former co-worker who repeatedly assaulted his wife, and unlawfully confinded her in the basement, or the cop who breaks someone's arm for shits and giggles.  

Of course, the populist idea of the "law and order agenda" doesn't include much justice, but a lot of outlet for sadism by proxy. I can see why no one in their right mind would want to be identified with that brand.   But, there's people who should be put away, all the same.

 

writer writer's picture

"We"? As someone who has been sexually assaulted since before I mastered language, I don't.

As for the beautiful simplicity of law-and-order punishment, it often guarantees that the abuse will continue without a break. A kid is told that daddy will go away for a long, long time, the family will lose its housing, and mommy will hate him/her forever, so the secret has to be kept. And all of this could well be true.

It sure would be nice to live in a time when those who have lived through the trauma are listened to, and policy is developed with real needs in mind, rather than having the current cartoon tragedy imposed by outsiders, re-enacted in our names time and time again.

Law and order gave us what we have today. Little reporting. Few charges. Rare court cases. Occassional sentencing. No healing. No justice. And a culture that ensures this shit just keeps on happening, because the underlying causes are not recognized. The institutionalized power imbalance continues. And violent professional male hockey teams are national news, night after night, for months.

There is a connection. Believe it.

Tommy_Paine

As usual, you give me lots to think about and re-examine.

milo204

an aversion to mandatory minimums is because we disagree with things like getting a year in jail for selling pot to someone when it really shouldn't even be a crime.  and since mandatory minimums are used to imprison people for non violent stuff like drugs, yet cap the mandatory sentence for "luring children on the internet" to something like 45 days, we can see right through the BS that it's about being "tough on crime"....

i really don't think that makes disagreeing with this ruling, in which the sentence was a small fine for multiple sexual assaults (a very serious crime) questionable in any way from the perspective of being against mandatory minimums.

To me it makes perfect sense.  since the most severe crimes are not the focus of mandatory minimums, and crimes like sexual assault don't involve anywhere near the jail time you'd get for selling your buddy your joint within however many blocks of a school zone, to me that perfectly describes what's wrong with the whole conservative approach to dealing with crime.

Unionist

milo204 wrote:

i really don't think that makes disagreeing with this ruling, in which the sentence was a small fine for multiple sexual assaults (a very serious crime) questionable in any way from the perspective of being against mandatory minimums.

Just a reality check. There was no "sentence" - not according to the story in the Gazette. And there was certainly no "fine", which is money paid to the state. There was a deal, rubber-stamped by the judge, part of which involved a contribution to a private organization. That's not a "fine". Oh, and even though he pleaded guilty, the result of the entire court proceeding is that he is not guilty of any crime.

I'm not sure how this thread got around to minimum sentences. It certainly wasn't my intent in opening the thread. I thought babblers would be interested to see how an employer who sexually assaults female employees, proclaims his innocence for more than two years and through a preliminary hearing, then finally gets his lawyer to make a ludicrous deal with the Crown whereby he says "I'm guilty" but the record shows that he is not guilty of any crime - and the judge makes some disgusting comments to the effect that justice was done and oh how brave the victims were.

I'm with writer on this one. What the hell kind of society is this.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
I'm not sure how this thread got around to minimum sentences.

Someone decided to toy with the general progressive sentiment against mandatory minimum sentence provisions so favoured by the right and its apologists.  In essence, a serious matter involving male violence against women, the detrimental long term effects, and the systemic downplaying of consequences was treated with superficial frivolity.  That's how.

Tommy_Paine

There's a lot of things absent from the picture, and hard to say what is at work here.  We only read about cases that make the papers, so we really don't know what the usual sentence would be for crimes like these.  Travesty though it may be to us, from my memory of similar outrages, it doesn't seem all that out of line.  

You know, even before I came to Babble and put a finer point on my philosophies, or had one put there, touching or "groping" was always in my mind a sexual assault.  But it's still not in most people's minds, I am guessing.  We are different here, remember.  Should we look to the courts to set an example?  To send someone to jail, or even penitentiary in a case like this to send a message that this is serious?

Writer makes a good point about the damage that also causes to people, and how in the end it may not help.  I am still thinking about that.  And, while I think society in general looks to the courts to set a standard of behavior and justice through it's decisions, looking to that crooked system for validation, as writer points out is maybe looking in the worst possible place for such a thing. But people do, and sometimes perception is reality.

We live in a society that celebrates the powerfull victimizing the weak.  The sociopaths are in control of our politics, of our financial system, and our legal system.   I suspect very deeply that this guy, and many like him, get such favourable treatment because most Crown Attourney's, most Judges have worked in, or turned a blind eye to, much the same work environment as what spawned these charges in the first place.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Catchfire 

As an abuse survivor and one who refuses to be silenced in my real life when I hear apologists for sexual assault all I can say is goodbye have a nice life.

I am not capable of playing nasty little games like Snert. Its your board you get to set the rules. Yo have clearly said that left baiting is not only allowed but encouraged when it is done in a precise judicious manner.  I don't have the intestinal fortitude for that kind of back biting asshole behaviour.  

 

A Moderator wrote:

Snert, you've been warned about displaying contempt for leftist politics through your baiting before. I think you know what's wrong with post 7 and you're smart enough to be more precise in your smearing off the left, this board and it's politics. Be more judicious in the future.

ETA:

On reflection your aside to Snert about how to bait is akin to telling him don't grab a breast it will get you in trouble but a pat on the ass is okay as long as you make any pretence that it was not intentional. 

Slumberjack

The court's reach is far indeed if this thread is any indication.

MegB

Northern Shoveler wrote:

I am not capable of playing nasty little games like Snert. Its your board you get to set the rules. Yo have clearly said that left baiting is not only allowed but encouraged when it is done in a precise judicious manner.  I don't have the intestinal fortitude for that kind of back biting asshole behaviour.  

Actually, it's your board too, and we all agree to the rules when we sign on. Personal attacks - whether they are in code are not - are not permitted.  You know this, we know this, and it isn't up for debate.

 

Northern Shoveler wrote:

ETA:

On reflection your aside to Snert about how to bait is akin to telling him don't grab a breast it will get you in trouble but a pat on the ass is okay as long as you make any pretence that it was not intentional. 

It is not akin to any such thing.  Even so, you clearly missed the sarcasm in Catchfire's remark.

There are, and have been over the years, many survivors of sexual assault and abuse who contribute to babble.  It is an extraordinarily difficult issue to discuss, especially for survivors.  Sometimes we need to step back long enough to come to terms with our anger before we can contribute our experience and knowledge to the discussion in a healthy way.

Unionist

1. If Northern Shoveler is still looking at this thread, I just wanted to ask him to please reconsider and stay and/or come back soon. I was never a big fan of banning or suspending allies, even if they don't heed one or two warnings. More importantly, his contributions here are thoughtful and progressive and vital - we need him. NS, are you listening? Hope so.

2. Some babblers have said they don't know all the facts. Here is some more background from last year:

[url=http://www.westislandgazette.com/news/13523]Five women fight back[/url]

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Snert wrote:

Pardon me for being provocative, but the left is generally not in favour of mandatory minimum sentences, insisting that justices need to be able to "go with their gut".  Isn't a sentence with which you disagree pretty much the inevitable cost of that?

And does it really make much sense to go all "tough on crime" a few times a year when that happens?

Catchfire wrote:

Snert, you've been warned about displaying contempt for leftist politics through your baiting before. I think you know what's wrong with post 7 and you're smart enough to be more precise in your smearing off the left, this board and it's politics. Be more judicious in the future.

Rebecca West wrote:

Actually, it's your board too, and we all agree to the rules when we sign on. Personal attacks - whether they are in code are not - are not permitted.  You know this, we know this, and it isn't up for debate.

I know that personal attacks are not allowed. I also know that baiting is not allowed.  In post #7 Snert was clearly baiting.  Yes he pissed me off.  I get angry when I hear men making jokes and dismissive comments about sexual assault.

Can I tell Snert to fuck off if I apologize for my breaking of the  rules in advance of doing it anyways?  That is what he does.  "Pardon me for being provocative " = " Pardon me for baiting"  

So if I say, "Pardon me for being personal but you are an asshole for baiting," is that okay.  Does the apology first change it or is baiting just less of a concern to you than personal insults in response to clear baiting?

What I understand from the moderators protection of Snert's right to be provocative about sexual assault in the feminist forum is that a potty mouth is far worse in their eyes than the insidious misogyny inherent in treating this subject as an opportunity to poke fun at and score points against "lefties."

Thank you Unionist and others for PM's.

 

Snert Snert's picture

Uh, as I see it, baiting, like trolling, would entail saying something I don't actually believe, in order to get a reaction.

I'm not against mandatory minimums, and I feel that they might help prevent inappropriate sentences for violent crime.  And yes, I do think some people have a short-sighted reaction to them, insofar as they seem to want some kind of preventative for inappropriate sentences when they happen, but don't seem to want this preventative to be mandatory.  I'm not really sure how that would work.

Ironically, I added "pardon me for being provocative" because I thought that if I didn't, it would be assumed I'm baiting!  But how, then, to say something unpopular, without being accused of baiting?

milo204

the problem is snert that the mandatory minimums aren't focusing on violent crime. perhaps if they did, less people would be opposed to them.

They don't even deal with the majority of crimes that are violent, and the ones they do  the minimums are less (by a large margin) than those for non violent offenses.  The correlation is then made, correctly,  with the US policies that served to simply target minority communities and lock up a whole lot of people who aren't even criminals, and ultimately making our lives far less safe and ruining the lives of tens of thousands of young people while leaving the worst of the worst out on the streets.

i think we need to distinguish between the "idea" of mandatory minimums (like, say, at least 15 years for a murder or something) and the "reality" (doing a year or more in jail for having marijuana, or a paltry 45 days for trying to sexually abuse children...)

i think anyone taking an objective look at these things can see that they don't make any sense, leave the worst crimes out of it and aren't going to make anyone safer and have been proven in the US to do the opposite while running up HUGE bills that we have to pay with billions in debt at a time when we obviously have bigger priorities we could use the money for.

remind remind's picture

Focus men, on what this thread is about, what the implications are, and what can be done, as opposed to your tender egos and having a pissing match on whose is hurt worse.

If ya'll want to overlook the other fact filled postings of maysie's, at least pay attention to this one below.

Maysie wrote:
The cost of violence against women in Canada for health care, criminal justice, social services, and lost wages and productivity has been calculated at $4.2 billion per year.

4.2 billion is nothing to sneeze at economically. So...even if serious attention this these crimes is based on dollar amounts, it would help on many levels.

 

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

remind is right. This thread is about women and sexual assault and won't be derailed because of a pissing match. Northern Shoveler, if you have something you'd like to discuss, you can PM me. I would be happy to have that conversation with you, in fact.

But this thread is about a specific crime and its fallout or more broadly, about sexual assault and the criminal justice system. Please end the drift here.

Stargazer

This thread was derailed by Snert, who appears to enjoy baiting/provoking others and seems to do so in threads like this, where the issue is very personal to many of us, especially women.

 

When the mods allow his BS "playing the other side" this simply re-enforces his original stance - that he can drop little nuggets of non-wisdom in a thread that is highly emotionally charged for women, and get away with it. And he gets way with it, all the time.

 

I will never ever forget Snert's reaction to my rape post quite some time ago. Nothing has changed since then.

 

I rarely if ever post here anymore. Snert is one reason why. I know that matters naught to anyone on this board but allowing snert to make drive by posts that disrupt, over and over again, is chasing the women off the board.

 

What is even more clear, to me anyways, is the kids gloves he continues to get, while the women are chased away.

Slumberjack

Stargazer wrote:
I rarely if ever post here anymore.

Frown bout that.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Stargazer wrote:
 I rarely if ever post here anymore. Snert is one reason why. I know that matters naught to anyone on this board  

It matters to me.

Caissa

And me.

remind remind's picture

Stargazer wrote:
This thread was derailed by Snert, who appears to enjoy baiting/provoking others and seems to do so in threads like this, where the issue is very personal to many of us, especially women.

When the mods allow his BS "playing the other side" this simply re-enforces his original stance - that he can drop little nuggets of non-wisdom in a thread that is highly emotionally charged for women, and get away with it. And he gets way with it, all the time.

I will never ever forget Snert's reaction to my rape post quite some time ago. Nothing has changed since then.

I rarely if ever post here anymore. Snert is one reason why. I know that matters naught to anyone on this board but allowing snert to make drive by posts that disrupt, over and over again, is chasing the women off the board.

What is even more clear, to me anyways, is the kids gloves he continues to get, while the women are chased away.

Well I have missed and looked for your voice often. Thank you for speaking oution this thread as the sexist abuse being heaped upon us women in it is significant.

I was not going to post in this thread at all, because it is so disgusting, but decided that the serious nature of what is happening to women again in the work place and here needed to be addressed.

My daughter just walked away from a job she needed and had just started, because her employer's brother grabbed her at work and tried shoving his tongue down her throat. And apparently this is not the first time for him trying to do so. The local employment agency has had many complaints but no one will follow through as they know they will be black listed amongst all employers here.

Another woman I know was just fired last week for demanding her overtime for working 10 days straight.

 

under the anti-worker  tryanny of the BC Liberals and now the CONservatives, the plight of women is obviously getting worse.

 

MegB

Okay, given the ratio of contribution to baiting, you lose.  You're banned Snert.

writer writer's picture

Thank you, Rebecca West. I hope to see more of Stargazer and Northern Shoveler on this board.

Quote:

Q. Who is responsible for workplace violence and harassment?

A. The abuser is responsible for the violence and abuse. Placing the blame on the victim perpetuates the cycle of violence and legitimizes violent behavior.   

There are systemic and legal changes that can be made to protect workers. Enforcing labour laws and health and safety regulations, educating workers about their rights, providing greater access to support services, and amending immigration regulations so they do not put migrant workers in precarious situations would all make workplaces safer places for women.

Defining Workplace Violence and Harassment, Ontario Women's Justice Network

Pages