OTTAWA – Every person who has faced a serious incident of bullying knows what put a stop to it. Either the victim stood up to the bully; or the victim found a champion, who stood up to the bully; or the victim and bully were physically separated, denying the bully access.
These are the remedies that work. These are the remedies that have always worked.
Parents who have dealt with the problem understand this. Police officers, guidance counsellors, coaches and front-line educators understand it. And children, regardless of age, understand it intuitively.
Why, then, are MPs suddenly falling over themselves to discuss the problem of bullying? To propose that something should be studied presupposes that one doesn’t have a remedy. Yet when it comes to bullying, we know the remedies.
The tragic suicide of B.C. teenager Amanda Todd, and her heart-rending video of suffering endured at the hands of an as-yet-unknown tormentor or tormentors, has of course sparked this discussion. The discussion is healthy and good: Amanda’s story is horrifying and indescribably sad.
It would be helpful, though, if the “experts” stopped pretending that bullying is an intractable, mysterious and ineffable social problem without obvious solutions. There are solutions. They’re not complicated.
The first mistake we make, societally, is to set all incidents of childhood violence on the same moral plane. In other words, the child who strikes back after being struck is as guilty as the instigator who struck first. Victims are urged to never “fight back” physically. If they do, they receive punishment equal to that of the aggressor. Rather than punch the bully in the nose, the victim is urged to rely on moral suasion, or speak to a teacher.
Some bullies are verbal only. In these cases moral suasion can work. Humour and wit can work. A confident bearing can work. Building alliances with other children can work. Any good anti-bullying coach teaches these techniques as a first line of defence. And sympathetic teachers can certainly help.
The reality, though, is that some bullies are physically violent. They threaten, strike, push, confine or otherwise physically torment their targets, beyond the reach of teachers. In these cases, a victim has an inherent right to self-defence, enshrined in Section 34 of the Criminal Code: “Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.”
Yet the official line is “zero-tolerance”: No violence, even in self-defence, is ever justified. This is plainly a double standard. It does not apply to adults, or to nations. This is why most parents of bullied kids quietly ignore the official line, and tell their children: If he pushes you again, push back. That will put a stop to it. And often it does.
The trouble is that sometimes, pushing back either doesn’t work, or the victim simply isn’t able to do it. Or the bullying is a matter of ostracism and insult rather than physical threat. Or the most egregious abuse happens, as in the case of Amanda Todd, online. What then? Cue the helpless shrugs, or the impassioned demands that “something must be done.” Let’s strike a committee. Let’s author a law.
Question: Does the Criminal Code not already prohibit assault, harassment, uttering threats, and stalking? Why, yes. And is defamation, which now occurs so routinely online that it barely draws mention, not proscribed? Why, yes. So we have the necessary laws. The failing is elsewhere.
As a first step, educators should set aside the psychologically damaging and morally reprehensible equivalency between perpetrator and victim. A child who pushes back after being pushed is only doing what any reasonable person would do.
Second, administrators should punish bullies by expelling them from school for lengthy periods. In cases of physical injury, police and child welfare authorities should automatically be called. Parents of bullies are sometimes loath to face the truth of their child’s behaviour. They should be required to do so.
Third, “cyber-bullying” should be treated for what it is: Criminal harassment. The obvious investigative cudgel here is that anything online leaves a trail.
Fourth, online anonymity should be sharply curtailed, or banned. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and the comment sections of news sites can prevent most anonymous posting, if they wish to. Of course, anyone truly dedicated to hiding their tracks will find a way. But the practice of Internet trolls routinely hiding behind a “handle” while spewing their venom, would be curbed. These are obvious measures, not necessarily easy. Is there the will, societal and political, to introduce them? Or is it easier to talk, talk, talk?
Talk is cheap. Solutions exist. What’s missing, it seems to me, is the will to implement them.
Twitter.com/mdentandt
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Calendar
