Sexual harassment: People lack awareness of its adverse effect
Sexual harassment is not a crime. Not in Malaysia, not in the UK, not in most jurisdictions in the world.
Crimes, like murder, theft and rape, need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, in order to secure conviction. A crucial element of most crimes is mens rea – the intention – of committing a crime – and this needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The definition of sexual harassment does not follow the conventional criminal philosophy.
I will take the UK definition:
“Sexual harassment is unwanted behaviour of a sexual nature which:
– violates your dignity
– makes you feel intimidated, degraded or humiliated
– creates a hostile or offensive environment
You do not need to have previously objected to someone’s behaviour for it to be considered unwanted.
What’s the effect or intention behind the behaviour?
Sexual harassment is a form of unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The law says it is sexual harassment if the behaviour is either meant to, or has the effect of:
– violating your dignity, or
– creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or – offensive environment”
A person need not have intended to sexually harass for it to be sexual harassment. It is enough that a person feels their dignity is violated or feels intimidated, etc.
This is why jurisdictions are grappling with the question – should sexual harassment be a crime? And with crime, comes punishment. And remember the maxim – a person is innocent until proven guilty – which by the way – applies to crimes (not civil or employee related suits). The maxim stems from the concern hundreds of years ago that innocent people could be sent to the gallows – hence better to “set 10 guilty men free than send an innocent man to the gallows”.
My view? And it may shock some of you. Sexual harassment should NOT be a crime. The more serious forms – like sexual assault and rape are already crimes. Sexual harassment is their “lesser cousin” if you like – but that does not take away the impact it can have on the victim. I have met people who were sexually harassed and described what had happened (and in my mind, I’d think, that’s not too bad) but once they described how this affected them – anxiety attacks, quitting their jobs – even industries – that a once ambitious talented person lost all their confidence and instead led a life that felt safer but meant they could no longer become an amazing actor, expert or leader.
Some women told me about their depression, PTSD, feeling suicidal. When you listen to victims of harassment (and this includes men) – you realise how awful and life debilitating sexual harassment really is.
It needs to be treated differently. Of course, we need laws on sexual harassment – but not as a crime. Rather, we need to make spaces safe from sexual harassment – workplaces, schools, public transport, hospitals and public spaces. How? By putting victims and potential victims first – the most vulnerable are women, children, people with special needs and LGBT people.
Of course, men get sexually harassed, but not as much as these categories.
Can we prioritise on making places safe? If we are informed that someone has sexually harassed – then the owner/operator/employer of that space – reasonably enquire (and in formal settings like workplaces, universities and hospitals – this would take the form of investigations with proper safeguarding protocols in place) and act to remove the threat of sexual harassment.
If the harassment is minor (for example non serial sexual banter), it would be enough to counsel the harasser and not necessary to remove him or her. But if the conduct is serious and harms people in that space, then the person needs to be removed.
This is typical in employment. There are quite a lot of sexual harassment (and harassment – bullying) cases that appear before employment tribunals – where a person dismissed for harassment claims unfair dismissal, or an employee who feels unsafe because the employer failed to act on harassment. Unfortunately, due to cost, time-bar issues, lack of awareness, victims too scared to testify etc- courts do not always focus on the sexual harassment issue itself.
We do need far more training – of lawyers and judges.
If a person is known to have sexually harassed and we want to consider redemption, inviting them back into the workplace or public spaces, we need to ask some questions:
1. Has the harasser acknowledged his or her actions? Understood that what they did was harassment and hurt people.
2. Has the harasser apologised to his or her victims? Not a non-apology, but a real apology which shows awareness of their actions, a deep regret for the pain they caused and a statement that they won’t do it again.
3. What do the victims feel about their harasser’s presence or participation in a space. Are they feeling unsafe, trauma? How are they supported?
4. What support do we provide the harasser – a mix of counselling and education to ensure they are mindful of how their behaviour can cause hurt.
Then there are the harassers who do not see what they did was wrong. If this is the case, they may continue harassing – and people around them will feel unsafe, even traumatised.
I know people are going to ask me – what of false accusations, what of the harasser’s rights?
First of all, false accusations are rare. Patti Perez, who presented at the KL It’s Not OK Conference back in October with me, has investigated several hundred investigations into sexual harassment and bullying. She has found (and this validates my own, much smaller investigative experience) that the he said-she said cases centre around interpretation. The harasser did not intend to harass or was unaware of what they did was harassment. Now remember the definition? The test is in the impact of the harassment, not the intention.
If a person did not intend to harass – at least there is a possibility for learning and they can be more mindful moving forward. But if a person is dismissive – “oh these people are too sensitive,” etc – it shows a disregard for people around them, especially of those who are more vulnerable. If they refuse to learn, well then, they don’t deserve to be part of spaces where there are women, children, people with special needs and LGBT people – or men who have less power than they do.
It is a basic societal rule. To be part of and accepted by society, do not harm others.
If you operate a space or an event and would like to invite a person who is reputed to have sexually harassed (reputed – whether proven or not), ask yourself – do my people and the people I invite into my space feel safe with this person? If you know for certain that they will be and they come, knowing full well that the person is present – then that’s fine. But if you do not know, once you take the safety of people in your space into account… well you know what to do.
Animah Kosai is the founder of NGO, Speak Up at Work