Discussions

This policy at Brandon University is wrong on so many levels. It victimizes the victim.  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/brandon-university-behavioural-contract-1.3520568  
 
How is it possible in Canadian society in 2016, inside a public educational facility no less, that the perpetrator in a criminal act is protected by a policy that takes away the voice of the victim.  
 
In my opinion, the administration of Brandon University needs to correct this situation immediately, and the people responsible need to be held accountable.

As an Alumni of BU - and having taken the Educator and the Law course there - I was taught that the Charter of Rights & Freedoms reigns supreme over all other documents issued/created in Canada. I would strongly suggest that the Victims would reiterate the fact - that the Charter of Rights & Freedoms is a Federal constitutional right that all Canadians are inclusive of - therefore if they find themselves to become a Victim in any way - to follow the Federal Charter guidelines - and do not become encumbered to follow any minutia document someone tries to throw at them.  
 
Please review the Federal Charter of Rights & Freedoms - and clearly the Brandon University is in need of updating their policies.  
 
Edited by whatthewhat, 2016-04-05 09:04:42

It sucks that the girl signed it. I would of walked out of the office. Now she really can't do anything at all without jeopardizing her future, and she's the victim.

actually she can do something - clearly it depends on when she signed it. Did she sign it after the event occurred??? So really, we need more info on this - do all students have to sign it to Register???

If she was forced into signing it (being threatened by expulsion or suspensory action or anything else if she had not signed) the contract would be null and void. You can't coerce someone into signing a contract.

I think that the university, coercing an impressionable young person who's the victim of a traumatic crime into signing a gag order on condition of serious academic penalties, could certainly be sued. The university has an obligation to provide as safe a place for students and employees to conduct their education. What a terrible thing to do to a young person in a time of stress and trauma! It looks as though the actions of the university were intended not to provide healing and support to a victim of trauma but to protect the alleged assailant from ANY consequences. I heard on the radio that going to police was one avenue offered to the victim (as though the university has any right to offer or deny our public justice system to any person!), but that there was no information on whether any charges had been laid.  
I'd like to comment that even in cases where a sexual assault has been reported to police, it's not all that often that charges are laid, and even less often that such cases go to trial, and again only a small percentage of those ever result in conviction due to the usual privacy of the events and the burden of proof being on the crown to prove very difficult cases.

for a contract to be legally valid it has to provide an EQUAL benefit to both parties. If one party benefits more from a contract, then it can be disputed.  
If you sign a work contract to provide 40 hours of work for X amount of dollars, then the employer says you have to work overtime, but you will not be paid for anything over 40 hours of work, then the contract is invalid and can be disputed.

If your assulted contact the police and go directly to the hospital. Everything needs to be assessed and documented. The location of a crime doesn't change the law.

From my perspective whether a policy such as this is legal or not is not the question. The question is whether the policy serves the institutions mandate and lines up with the ethics of the people charged with developing and overseeing these policies.  
 
As a parent, it certainly make me wonder whether I would send my young son or daughter to live in residence a university or college that seems much more concerned with protecting it's reputation than ensuring the safety and well-being of it's students and staff.

As far as I can tell the contact is not valid as there is no consideration. Both parties must gain something they do not already have and this condition is not met. But my limited exposure to contract law comes only from one college law course and my experience as a business person so I would recommend the victims to retain legal counsel and see what a lawyer advises.

What about the rights of the "alleged" offender?  
 
The gag order in place isn't to silence the victim it is to protect the rights of the person that is being accused. Until it is proven in a court of law the "assault" has just allegedly happen.  
 
Would you like to be labeled a sex offender if some person just accused you? And you did nothing wrong? I sure know I wouldn't. Look at what happened to Jian Ghomeshi, proved innocent but everyone has labelled him guilty

SparkyJones said "the idea of this type of assault is horrific and im not taking away from the seriousness of it. But, I can print and post a document like this on my own computer. Is this document even real?     Regardless of my personal thoughts on this no post secondary institution has the right to curtail the law prohibiting anyone from going to the police for any reason. "

https://webelievesurvivors.wordpress.com/behavioral-contract/  
 

I can see both sides to this. The victim needs the full support of the university to get the counselling, medical and legal action needed.  
 
As Garret put it, the "alleged" offender also needs their identity protected, until proven guilty in a court of law.  
 
The gag order should only be for the victim to not name the "alleged" offender, other than with select professionals in dealing with this offence. If the offender is proven guilty in court, then the gag order is null and void.

No one is proven innocent in court, they are only not found guilty. And if someone does something wrong to me, I have every right to say so, regardless of whether or not I decide to go to the police. If someone punches me in the face, don't I have a right to say so, even if I don't decide to report to police? And since we don't know that the alleged assaulter had the same conditions, what's to keep HIM from saying things about this young woman?? No. This policy is a crock and revictimizes traumatized people. Students in dorms are vulnerable people and educational institutions should take a greater duty of care to ensure a safe environment and a culture that helps to eliminate this kind of thing.

If a person is charged with a crime, they in fact CAN be named. There is no prohibition in normal proceedings to protect the identity of an alleged assailant, only to protect the identity of victims. In this case, the victim was in fact a minor child (17 years old), and so I feel not only was the University negligent and punitive towards a legitimate complaint, but all professionals have a duty to report child sexual abuse, which this technically could be considered.  
 
The policy creates a chilling effect on free speech, which is a charter right as well. Telling victims of assault that they can be suspended or expelled if they tell their experience is ridiculous! There was some talk about it being a Manitoba workplace policy but students are not in that category.

Tater said "No one is proven innocent in court, they are only not found guilty. And if someone does something wrong to me, I have every right to say so, regardless of whether or not I decide to go to the police. If someone punches me in the face, don't I have a right to say so, even if I don't decide to report to police? And since we don't know that the alleged assaulter had the same conditions, what's to keep HIM from saying things about this young woman?? No. This policy is a crock and revictimizes traumatized people. Students in dorms are vulnerable people and educational institutions should take a greater duty of care to ensure a safe environment and a culture that helps to eliminate this kind of thing. "

What does that accomplish? If you got punched in the face did any actions of yours provoke the attack? If so would you mention that in your stories. My ex many years ago accused me of assaulting her. Do you think it is right for her to spread my name all over town as a woman beater? Then when the truth comes out she was assaulting me and I only pushed her away to get her off and away from me. Who now is the victim? I guess she still is as everyone would be brain washed to believe her right?  
 
Not saying this is every case but there are always three sides to a story.

Fishin Guy- Why on earth would your first reaction to the idea that someone is assaulted be that it was their fault for provoking it?? Gross. You're sick. Sorry you have a crazy ex, so do I, so does everyone.

while i dont agree fully with the contract according to the article the victim, and alleged perpetrator are under a similar gag order under provincial law  
 
i understand having such a gag order while under investigation but provincial laws prohibit discussing the incident indefinably

Wow....that was just....wow....Someone is getting fired as soon as they figure out who to scapegoat.

Garret said "What about the rights of the "alleged" offender?     The gag order in place isn't to silence the victim it is to protect the rights of the person that is being accused. Until it is proven in a court of law the "assault" has just allegedly happen.     Would you like to be labeled a sex offender if some person just accused you? And you did nothing wrong? I sure know I wouldn't. Look at what happened to Jian Ghomeshi, proved innocent but everyone has labelled him guilty "

Thats the problem, while I want to believe the victim I'd rather believe evidence and a judge's decision. If the name of the accused gets released, it's always a big witch hunt. Jian Ghomeshi, Duke Lacrosse case, and the Psi Alpha case prove that a small majority do it for attention or political statements.  
 
While this contract is not the way to go I think that there should be a contract to not release the accused name for the sole reason of the severity of the charge and the massive backlash from the media and social media. I believe in the law and what it stands for.  
 
Innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.  
 
Then again, I'm a male and an equalist. I disliked brandon university because I saw consent posters everywhere (how is that going to stop rape at all,they know what they're doing is wrong and just don't care.) and all the social classes were filled with feminists. (teachers as well)

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/manitoba/brandon-university-sexual-assault-policy-1.3521898

Updated story from CBC, which is currently running on their national front page. Includes details from this afternoon, including an admittance that it was not appropriate to require behavioural contracts as well as stopping the requirement that those contracts be signed:  
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/brandon-university-sexual-assault-policy-1.3521898

myhandleistrain said "Any man, any real man, in the circumstance you eluded to would take the licks from a woman and walk away. Sorry dude, you are a loser. "

With what you're saying, reversing the situation, a woman should just take her licks from a man and walk away too?  
 
Neither a man nor a woman should hit a man or a woman. PERIOD! Just because Fishin Guy is male and was on the receiving end of physical abuse from his ex does NOT make it right or acceptable!

Pretty sure you are allowed to defend yourself, if women want equal rights then be prepared if you assault someone.  
 
Doesn't matter the size of the woman vs the man if it comes to blows you are allowed to defend yourself

This, I think, is a key passage in the original article:  
 
[i]"Workplace health and safety regulations that govern all employers — not just universities, but all employers — prohibit the disclosure of the name of the complainant or alleged harasser or any circumstances relating to a complaint, except in very limited circumstances such as seeking legal advice or counselling advice."[/i]  
 
I'm not a legal expert, but to me, this prohibits [b]employees[/b] from disclosing any information. Requiring the [b]victim[/b] to sign a gag order is, in no way, a requirement of Provincial law. Interpreting it like that is probably one of the most asinine things I've ever heard of...

1) I don't know if she is telling the truth or not.  
2)In a sense I don't care.  
3)The "Behavioural Contract" is wrong - as written.  
 
I'll explain.  
 
1) I wasn't there. I don't know. This isn't meant as a cop out but as a fact. I don't believe either he nor her.  
 
2) It doesn't matter who is or isn't at fault. Either way if both names get released both are subject to a lifetime of, "Oh, so you're the one."  
 
3) As I've seen the contract, as written, it prohibits discussing things with friends, family, lawyers, police, doctors, clergy, media.  
 
I agree that discussing with media should be barred. Other than that I see no reason why a "survivor" or "alleged survivor" shouldn't be allowed his/her normal support system.  
 
Nor do I see why they should be denied the standard legal protections promised everyone in Manitoba.  
 
E

It would appear that this young person was taken advantage of whilst in a vulnerable state and coerced into signing something that was very lopsided in favour of protecting the school.  
 
This is not the intended use of these contracts.

I must have missed something, some posters are talking about her maybe hitting him first. I never read that anywhere in the papers or otherwise.  
 
I though the whole discussion was about the gag order that the BU made her, cooerced or other wise talked her into.  
 
think we all think that "gag orer is wrong including the current president.  
 
in this day an age of so called intelligent people, we should know who on the BU staff wrote that standard policy and the paper, and who approved it, then fire the lot of them that were involved.  
 
there was never any time in history where that was legal.  
 
it looks like a thinly veiled threat to avoid embarressment to the BU, don't tell anyone as it will hurt our reputation at the BU, if you talk about it, you will be expelled and you'll never get into another university in canada.  
 
hope the newsoutlets follow this up.

Tater said "If a person is charged with a crime, they in fact CAN be named. There is no prohibition in normal proceedings to protect the identity of an alleged assailant, only to protect the identity of victims. In this case, the victim was in fact a minor child (17 years old), and so I feel not only was the University negligent and punitive towards a legitimate complaint, but all professionals have a duty to report child sexual abuse, which this technically could be considered.     The policy creates a chilling effect on free speech, which is a charter right as well. Telling victims of assault that they can be suspended or expelled if they tell their experience is ridiculous! There was some talk about it being a Manitoba workplace policy but students are not in that category. "

You put it down precisely how I am thinking as well. This Victim can in fact go for punitive damages against the University now. What a very unprofessional shadow this is casting over our University. However, their media coverage yesterday - where they apologized, did show they were taking responsibility and admitted to making her sign this - under duress I must add.  
 
Also, it seems the Brandon Police had been informed, and they found this case to be "Inconclusive" - now that too is concerning!  
 
And lastly - reading some of these comments, [Be a man! Take the lick! Be a REAL man!] are also very concerning to me. Men need to get with the program, they do NOT need to take abuse either. There is no excuse to be smacking, hitting, bashing anyone, anywhere, anytime!!! Period.  
 
Also, with the new Bill 15 - about the Domestic Violence issue - it does pertain to BOTH Male and Female Victims. So guys, stop your red neck behavior/thinking, and get on base with the new laws, mindset.  
 
Edited by whatthewhat, 2016-04-06 09:33:17