|
Marc2b -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/7/2011 8:03:55 AM)
|
quote:
The full language of the insert is: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian....”
Glenn says that the new legislation does not allow bullying based on religious beliefs or values. “It does no such thing,” Glenn said in response to a series of email questions from Michigan Messenger. “The religious free speech protections included in the bill, consistent with the First Amendment, simply ensure that students won’t be bullied or punished — as occurred last year at a high school in Howell — for daring to say they believe a certain behavior is wrong as a matter of sincerely held religious or moral conviction. The First Amendment and other free speech protections do just that, protect free speech, not bullying. And students, like all other Americans, are free to verbally express their opinions — including religious and moral views — without fear of government repression or persecution, including under anti-bullying or harrassment laws.”
http://www.americanindependent.com/202799/michigan-gop-led-senate-passes-bill-that-many-think-will-encourage-bullying
Democrats want a more detailed measure that specifically outlines reasons students can't be bullied such as sexual orientation, race and weight. The Republican-passed bill doesn't include such a detailed list, often called "enumeration." Sen. Glenn Anderson, D-Westland, said an anti-bullying law should include enumeration so schools can be on the lookout for bias-based harassment. Without it, Anderson said, the legislation "cannot claim" to protect students. But some Republicans said listing specific motivations for bullying in the state law could exclude some students from protection. "A policy that does not enumerate is the only one that protects everybody," said Sen. Tory Rocca, R-Sterling Heights.
http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/11/02/news/politics/doc4eb1ee9f61316415147605.txt?viewmode=2
This is what I thought the situation might be… protection of beliefs from prosecution. Whether this bill actually succeeds in that goal or not, well, time will tell. The problem lies in the definitions of bullying. When it comes to physical bullying there is (or shouldn’t be) any debate but what constitutes verbal bullying? Where are the lines between bullying and free expression?
One obvious line would be hostility. As I noted earlier there is a difference between stating one’s belief that homosexuality is wrong and screaming “DIE FAG, DIE” at someone (or spray painting it on their locker or posting it on their facebook page). Any language that constitutes threats would obviously fall under the term “bullying.”
I think repetition would be another factor. If little Gary Godboy tells little Gerry Gayboy that he is going to burn in hell and that he should repent and beg Jesus for forgiveness (“oh, and here are some tracts that explain it all”), that is not harassment. If Gary continues to voice his views to little Gerry repeatedly, particularly if Gerry has told him “thanks but no thanks, I don’t want to hear it anymore,” then we are moving into harassment and it should be dealt with accordingly but I’m still not sure if it constitutes bullying absent the hostile intent.
Bullying is an attempt to marginalize a person by inflicting physical and/or emotional pain on another and it is such actions that must be targeted and disallowed. Any anti-bullying law must focus on actions (including verbal actions), not on motivations. This is exactly why I am opposed to the concept of hate crimes. Such notions come to close to the concept of thought crime. Examining beliefs (motivations) is okay when investigating a crime but motivations should have no place in the punishment of a crime. It should be the act that is punished, not the motivation behind it.
Well, that's my two cents on the matter.
|
|
|
|
