Another example of your “syntactically specious but semantically meaningless collection of words”, Lou? (I quote myself there because I think the description is damned good, even if I say so myself.)

Though, on reflection, just as before, what may appear at first to be one of your nonsensical utterances seems also to convey a “subliminal smear” (to use Bock’s expression).

I refer here to your choice of the word “crusade”.

Ah yes, the Crusaders. Now we’re talking harassment big time – religious harassment, of course.

Or maybe it’s all just my imagination.

On a general note I think the rights of the accused are given short shrift in Equality Authority’s Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment at Work.

It seems to take little account of the natural justice rule, “Hear both sides” in ruling out any consideration of the intent of the alleged harasser.

I don’t understand why the Code should be different in this respect from, say, the law concerning stalking outside of the workplace, which, as far as I am aware, does allow for such consideration.

The “Hear both sides” (audi alteram partem) rule “states that a decision cannot stand unless the person directly affected by it was given a fair opportunity both to state his case and to know and answer the other side’s case”. (Oxford Dictionary of Law)

Since the right to natural justice is enshrined in the Irish Constitution as a fundamental personal right, I wonder if the Code has ever been tested as to its constitutionality.

The Code seems also seriously flawed in its statement on unwelcome behaviour as follows:

“The fact that an individual has previously agreed to the behaviour does not stop him/her from deciding that it has now become unwelcome.”

That seems very unreasonable. In a situation where a certain kind of behaviour was previously accepted surely there should be a requirement for the alleged “offendee” to inform the alleged offender that that behaviour is no longer welcome; and it is only a further instance of the behaviour after that message is conveyed that should be the subject of a formal complaint.

Insofar as the Code as it now stands seems to endorse capricious, irrational and possibly misleading behaviour on the part of the alleged offendee it seems unacceptable and oppressive.

It seems unacceptable and oppressive for another reason also – for the same reason that retroactive legislation is unacceptable and oppressive, which is that people should not be punished for behaviour not previously deemed wrong.

I recall an incident six or seven years ago when the authorities in Trinity banned alcohol from a dinner for fear it would offend the Muslim guests in attendance. Tail wagging dog.

My point of view is strongly influenced by an interest in the mechanisms to protect a particular risk group who are vulnerable to both harassment and to accusations of harassment, because of poor social skills. From my perspective "accommodate" and "recognise" would be equivalent, although plainly they are not.

I suppose a workplace should always recognise when feelings have been hurt, because the consequences of not recognising hurt can be worse, and because hurt impacts on productivity. I agree with you that the workplace should not "accommodate" in terms of always permitting the hurt to have precedence, definitely not.

I feel obliged to clarify exactly why this is relevant and comparable. My colleague's research was on the effect of pornography on safe sex behaviour, much like that of Cindy Patton (SFU) on the public health impact of "The Cumshot" on gay men's behaviour. It was publicly funded, conducted in a university and published in appropriate peer-reviewed journals. The research and materials had a clear potential for offence. To my knowledge there was only ever one complaint from a senior faculty member and university governor who declared the work sinful, immoral and contrary to the university's ethos. That faculty member was over-ruled in a faculty hearing (this was pre-1998 legislation) on the grounds that the perceived offensiveness, whatever its moral validity, was inappropriate in the setting and an obstruction to academic research.

The purpose of the policy is not to outlaw things that may offend, or to stifle academic freedom, or protect the innocent from exposure to the realities of life, or punish people who are perceived to be offensive. The purpose of the policy is to recognise that people may feel hurt, to accommodate that hurt and restore a positive working environment because that is the most productive outcome for the employer.

What exactly do you think I'm making a mockery of? What's "all that is held sanctimonious" in your opinion, with this case? What ridiculous posturing.

I thought English was his first language, but evidently not. If anyone was being sanctimonious, it was Cat Stephens.

But we digress.

You should apologise. You should not apologise.. Which is it Lou? No need to answer.
From Lou:
"You do not have to agree with your colleague’s position, or validate the offence. Explicitly or implicitly, the acknowledgement or apology is a commitment not to repeat the same offence in similar circumstances with the same colleague."

From Lou:
"You should acknowledge an expression of offence, but you need neither accept the validity of the colleague’s complaint nor apologise for your actions. "
Yet, you are insistent that Mr.Evans should have apologised.

By the way, your quote.. "are a mockery to all that is held sanctimonious" might be appropriate ironically. I take it you know what sanctimonious means.