Your first statement is wrong. Your second statement begs the question (and prosecutions are not convictions).It is a standard and it can be measured. Prosecutions have occurred for workplace bullying.
Noting that you are talking about workplace bullying, the bullying issue goes far wider than that. Who "decides" is irrelevant to the argument. A kangaroo court can also "decide". You miss the point entirely. The point being abuse of power.Generally in the case of workplace bullying/victimisation/vilification, the Fair Work Commission, Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission or WorkSafe will decide.
The point which clearly went over your head is that an objective definition of bullying exists, regardless of what your thoughts on the matter are.That's not an objective definition. It's subjective based on the legislation/rulings/precedents of the above bodies, which again, is subjective. Bullying is not defined objectively, neither is shaming.
Again. I don't think you understand what objective is.
I'm unsure why you're bringing workplace bullying into this thread. Caro wasn't a victim of workplace bullying.
It's not wrong. Just because you disagree doesn't make it wrong. There are definitions and tests for what constitutes bullying and cases have been run and won based on those definitions.Your first statement is wrong. Your second statement begs the question (and prosecutions are not convictions).
I don't think you understand the legal concepts and tests on this topic. It is not like, say, a speeding offence.
DemonTim's comments above nailed it.
Again it doesn't. It requires judgement from a governing body.The point which clearly went Iverson your head is that an objective definition of bullying exists, regardless of what your thoughts on the matter are.
How is it irrelevant? You asked who decides, I told you. That's not irrelevant, it's an answer to your question.Noting that you are talking about workplace bullying, the bullying issue goes far wider than that. Who "decides" is irrelevant to the argument.
they're still subjective definitions. They require a person to argue to a body why something fits the definition. The body must then make a decision if they feel it fits the criteriaIt's not wrong. Just because you disagree doesn't make it wrong. There are definitions and tests for what constitutes bullying and cases have been run and won based on those definitions.
It's completely relevant to the situation. The actions of McGuire, Newman and to a lesser extent Brayshaw over the years amount to repeated unreasonable behaviour which fits the definition of bullying.Again it doesn't. It requires judgement from a governing body.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.
if you're gonna condescend at least make sure you're right (and that your post is correct)
You're using definitions of "workplace" bullying. This doesn't constitute that since they don't have a shared workplace. So your 'definition' is invalidIt's completely relevant to the situation. The actions of McGuire, Newman and to a lesser extent Brayshaw over the years amount to repeated unreasonable behaviour which fits the definition of bullying.
It doesn't just apply to workplaces. Repeated unreasonable behaviour. Repeated aggressive behavior with hostile intent. Whatever the wording the meaning remains the same.You're using definitions of "workplace" bullying. This doesn't constitute that since they don't have a shared workplace. So your 'definition' is invalid
Which again, is subjective, not objective. I think you'll find there is many cases where one person considers it bullying while another doesn't.It doesn't just apply to workplaces. Repeated unreasonable behaviour. Repeated aggressive behavior with hostile intent. Whatever the wording the meaning remains the same.
Well no, no they are not. It's the entire reason the legal system is set up the way it is. Now if you want to argue that in each case a judge is objectively defining a crime, you could. Although it doesn't really allow for precedents changing rulings etc.That may work in your under-grad philosophy arts class but in the real world things are far more clear cut.
It's the definition of the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.Which again, is subjective, not objective. I think you'll find there is many cases where one person considers it bullying while another doesn't.
Also, your 'definition' is worksafe Australia's description of bullying. So yes. That 'definition' is only applicable in workplaces. bullying at work is regarded as repeated unreasonable behaviour, where the behaviours create a risk to health and safety
It is not who decides, but how the decision is made by reference to the process I outlined.How is it irrelevant? You asked who decides, I told you. That's not irrelevant, it's an answer to your question.
The rest of your post is just irrelevant waffle.
No evidence has been provided to YOU. Please don't speak in absolutes when it's just yourself that has an issueIt's the definition of the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.
This is all really irrelevant though and a distraction from the issue in discussion which was the fact that someone tried to justify McGuires comments by alleging Wilson had shamed and slandered McGuire and Brayshaw in her articles when no evidence has been provided in support of this.
You have raised a lot of issues here, but it is a case of focusing more on the forest and less on the trees.I'm not sure how people think an objective decision can be made on something without forming some sort of criteria. Objectivity is fact based, not feelings based or based on an interpretation. For a start interpretation only needs to be done if a criteria is vague.
Take workplace bullying for example. One of the criteria is a reasonable person would find a behaviour humiliating or belittling. Now it isn't the wording that makes you have to interpret this, it's the objectivity of the reasonable person.
Given a person can't decide on what is humiliating or belittling without using their own experiences or a definition (read criteria) of what those words mean, I really can't see how an objective opinion, free of interpretation, free of legal standing can be achieved.
It almost feels like we all have different brains, all have our own supposedly objective opinions based on experiences (and subconsciously yes ... emotions relating to an issue). Real objectivity seems impossible to achieve.
I just had a conversation about Nick Kyrgios at home, relating to his recent match where a chair umpire he clashed with last year was appointed to his match, lectured him like he was a child before the match and gave him a code violation for saying 'bullshit' which is something that would generally be let go in most situations. I'm no fan of Kyrgios at all but believe a process need to be followed based on an accumulation of behaviour if they are trying to get him out of tennis. He needs to be treated according to the same reasonable person test as everybody else and not incited to misbehave.
The person I was speaking to said they have no sympathy for him at all, he's an idiot etc etc, brings it on himself. My objectivity radar kicked in big time and I defended Kyrgios in this situation as he had not solicited this treatment in this instance. That is taking facts and emotion out of a situation.
Now I don't believe you can suggest that Eddie was set up. He instigated the discussion. His history was taken into account, and I believe that is fair in this situation. If Kyrgios instigated a clash with this chair umpire, his history should be taken into account.
If people want to dismiss workplace bullying as something that has to happen between persons working for the same employer, where would you draw the line? An employee in Perth discussing an employee in Brisbane over social media outside of work hours can be workplace bullying and the same employer has the provision to action it.
What about two workers who have other jobs. They both work for A, but one also works for B while the other works for C. If in the capacity of working for B, one exhibits bullying behaviour to the other while they were working for C, does A have any stake in this?
Remember that McGuire, Brayshaw and Wilson all work for Channel 9. Both have objected to her work with the Age. Both have objected to her work with Channel 9 whilst commenting on Triple M. Sam Newman as an employee as 9 has attacked her full body of work, including comments she made as an employee of 9.
There is a lot more to this than dismissing workplace bullying definitions as having no relevance and falling back on objective opinion.
My objective opinion is that persons with a dislike for someone, talked and laughed about that person in a manner that was belittling, especially in light of the final remarks indicating that she deserved it because of something she does that they don't like. Those using Wilson's history or body of work to justify the comments have straight away failed the objective test because they are bringing an emotional argument into it.
Everybody else fails because they have to interpret what is humiliating or belitting and then have to place themselves into the position of the receiver which elicits an emotional argument. Objective arguments aren't the be all and end all in many areas but that is not to say those areas can't be covered because an objective argument can't be used.
Do you speak the same way you post? It's hard work to have to keep re-reading your posts to determine where you are trying to say.You have raised a lot of issues here, but it is a case of focusing more on the forest and less on the trees.
Re the bolded - opinions are subjective, by definition. And emotion has no place in the law (some might argue that neither has justice, but that is a different topic). The variables you mention are subjected to a legal template, as I mentioned above. Once you (I mean "you" generally and not personally) grasp the concept and the logic of that template then you can apply the fact situation - whatever it may be. Otherwise the discussion consists of an endless series of vignettes, which by themselves may be of some personal interest, but in resolution terms are merely the ingredients in a cake yet to be baked.
Re your bolded hypo, if by "stake" you mean "legal liability" - the answer depends on the legal relationship between the parties, and the contractual employment terms. For example, are they employees or are they independent contractors? Your fact situation raises, among others, potential vicarious liability issues - but without knowing the legal and contractual relationships it is impossible to answer.
PS I suspect you may wish to hold A liable. But wishes never paid the rent.
PPS I fully agree with you on Kyrgios - I don't like his style but what I like is irrelevant.
It's a public forum. Expect to debate the points you make, instead of making cheap personal shots.Do you speak the same way you post? It's hard work to have to keep re-reading your posts to determine where you are trying to say.
I mean, I get the dismissive superiority schtick. Maybe a passive aggressive thing going on. I am still happy to hold the conversation but some weeks after this event and with other things to concentrate on, let's pretend we are having a casual chat over coffee and not in a classroom.
Failing that, I will watch some footy and the election at the same time and interpret your post a little later.
Oh please, spare me the indignation.It's a public forum. Expect to debate the points you make, instead of making cheap personal shots.
But if you want to deal at that level then spare me the supermarket tabloid psychobabble - and I guess when it comes to dismissive superiority, you clearly win on that score.